Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/September 2011

September 2011

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 18:52, 20 September 2011 [1].

---

S&M (song)

Nominator(s): Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 13:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I really want this article to be an FA. It is one of Rihanna's most well known songs for a variety of reasons, such as it's controversial lyrics and music video, the remix with Britney Spears and the backlash the music video and live performances have created. I think this makes for a very good FAC as it isn't just a standard article listing the same normal facts. It has content which not very many other articles have. Also, could reviewers please look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive2 before they comment, so that they do not write any points to address which may conflict with what has already been raised in the previous two FACs. Thank you. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 13:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Transcluded at this timestamp: Ucucha (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

At least two Opposes are found in the talk page. Moved by Ucucha prior trasclusion. --Efe (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. I'm deliberately ignoring everything on the talk page and in prior reviews, and am focusing only on what is currently present in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Not purely a sourcing point, but make sure quotes flow as well as possible when embedded in sentences and are clear. For example, "A 25-second sample of the song featuring Rihanna singing the provocative and suggestive lyrics, which was noted by Chris Ryan of MTV as being "Dirty, naughty, illicit bedroom activities"." - did Ryan note this about the sample, the song, or the lyrics? Also, should insert "about" immediately before the quote

  It's just what a reviewer said about the song, not the audio file in particular, though all of the song is sexually suggestive. And I don't get what you mean about putting "about" before the quote, because: ...as being about "dirty..." doesn't make sense to read. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

  But saying the song is "bedroom activities" also doesn't make sense - the song is about "dirty, naughty, illicit bedroom activities". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

  Cool. Check for other examples. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  Quotation issues still occurring, for example in the caption of the first song sample (and for some reason the quote is duplicated in article text?), and in the second paragraph of Critical reception. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 02:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods

  Where? That's like looking for a needle in a hay stack! Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

  Ctrl+F .. if you have a PC, there's probably a similar function on Macs. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  I did that, but simply double spacing in the search box doesn't return anything. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

  Which would make sense, because you're looking for doubled periods. If that search turns up nothing, you're doing something wrong, because you should be getting false positives on ellipses. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  I can't be doing it wrong. I am putting a double space into the Ctrl+F search bar and nothing is being matched. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 23:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  You need periods, not spaces. There is a double period in ref. 61. Ucucha (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  I thought a period in American English was the same as what a space is in British English? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 23:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  Ah, sorry for the confusion in that case. A period is called a full stop in British English, I believe. Ucucha (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  Ohhh that's what you mean't. Done. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 23:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Check formatting of quotes (and song titles) within quotes

  Where have I done that? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

  Multiple places. When you have quotation marks inside quotation marks, the ones inside should be single - ie. "The song 'S&M' is..." instead of "The song "S&M" is..." Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  I can't see any instances of this. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 23:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  Searching "" will get the worst examples. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 22:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether newspaper/magazine publishers appear in parentheses or not

  Only the printed sources use the cite news template, causing the publisher to be in brackets. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

  No, Daily news for example is a printed source and its publisher is not in parentheses. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 23:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in what is and is not italicized. Do not italicize publishers, do italicize publications (generally speaking)

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

  Not done. Check for consistency throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  Done. I saw I had linked Rolling Stone and Werner Media twice in the references. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 23:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  Except we're looking at italicization for this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

  I haven't italicised any publishers, i've looked through every one. I can't see anything outstanding. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 23:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

  Further examples: News Corporation is italicized and shouldn't be, The Music Magazine is not italicized and probably should be if Digital Spy is, some networks are italicized and others aren't, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 02:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• FN 9: typo?

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• Be consistent in whether website citations use base URL, website name or publisher name, and if the first how these are formatted, and if the second whether these are italicized (rechecked 02:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC), not done)

  I don't understand what you mean by being consistent with "base URL, website name or publisher name." Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 02:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Music Week or MusicWeek? Check for naming consistency

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• Be consistent in what is wikilinked when

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

  Not done, please recheck. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC) (still not done 02:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC). Example: refs 88 and 89)

  They are two different articles for two different charts, hence both are linked. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 02:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This?

  I removed the first and third, but the second is merely commenting on what happens on the Billboard charts. And it's published by Yahoo! Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

  Doesn't make it reliable - it's a blog. Does Yahoo! have an editorial policy on blogs? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  I'll just removed it. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• Can we use the original source for this?

  What do you mean? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

  That's an online convenience copy of an actual court document. Can we cite the court document directly instead? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think so, no. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• FN 88: are these notes paginated? Is an album/catalog number available? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  I can get the Amazon Standard Identification Number? I don't have a physical copy of Loud, or any album actually, I download from iTunes. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  That would probably work. Does iTunes not use any kind of ID number, or include it in product listings? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  (comment) The ASIN should not be confused for a catalogue number; it is a simple serial code the site uses for each product, and is not placed by the album publishers. Do you know anyone who has access to the LP who can give you the catalog number? Ask for the page numbers too. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  Calvin, any response to my and Penguin's questions? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

  I don't know about an album/catalogue number because I don't own a hard copy nor do I know anyone that does. Who buys physical CDs still? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 02:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Regretful Oppose. --Efe (talk) 04

47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Prose.

• The lead is not well unorganized. The idea doesn't flow well; its seems like the sentences are arranged based on the sequence of the sections, making the paragraphs choppy. --Efe (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It's no different to any other lead. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

Are you referring to FA-quality song articles that have the same lead structure? --Efe (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• The article is not well written. Examples include but not limited to: "The song is a Eurodance song..."; "digital sales pushed the song to the top of the chart for one week" you mean the digital sales was intended to push the song to top the chart for one week? --Efe (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Re-worded the genre sentence. And no, digital sales did push the song to #1. It's a fact. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• "Rihanna spoke about how she is interested in bondage and other BDSM activities" This is something that most artists don't express publicly. Maybe you mean about her "view" of such sexual activities. --Efe (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Just because most wouldn't say that publically, doesn't mean that none do. It's well known that Rihanna is into that sort of thing, she has been photographed buying things of that nature in sex shops, plus the video for song kinda gives it away too. And it clearly is her "view" for her to say it in a magazine. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

That constitutes Original research. --Efe (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• WP:Original Research.

• The following is an unsupported and personal interpretation of the video: "presents Rihanna's opinions of the media, by punishing the ones who have written negatively about her or personally hurt her". --Efe (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No it's not, it's explained in the synopsis. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

Synopsis? Most of them are even original research. Please provide portions of the article which directly say that "unsupported" interpretation. --Efe (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• "the song follows a chord progression of E♭3–A♭2–C♭3–D♭3" While the other info about the song's structure are as well as unreadable (choppy), this chord progression stuff is an original research. Aside from that a sheet music sheet is a primarily source, a chord progression is not how it is written. --Efe (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• Neutral point of view

• "while others called it a stand-out track from Loud" I can't see it explicitly said by the reviewers. --Efe (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Synopsis of video. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

Are you referring to the subsection called synopsis? Can't find it. --Efe (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Compliance to the Manual of Style.

• Delink common terms such as music critics. Even that should have been critics only because this is about a song and by context, those who reviewed it are music critics. --Efe (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been told to link them before. People need to make their minds up. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

You necessarily don't have to believe in them. Music critics need not linking. Its a very understandable common term. --Efe (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• "healing process," commas go outside the quotation marks especially on this case. See guide for reference. --Efe (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• "if her next single WASN'T about her sexual desires" a [sic] must be put after that all caps

Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• Media. Fair use especially on the compliance to WP:NFCC#8.

• File:Rihanna - S&M.ogg the caption reads about the song's lyrics. Why use an audio file which is supposed to support discussions about the music? --Efe (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

The captions did not cut it. You use audio files to help your illustrating / explaining the aural characteristics of a song, not of its lyrical content. --Efe (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• File:Paulus.jpg This one is redundant. The screenshot of Rihanna's video would suffice the discussion about the alleged copyright infringement. --Efe (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's needed to show the extreme similarity between them. Readers shouldn't have to look to see why Rihanna was sued, but I removed it anyway. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Still, the article has a lot of issues other than that. Yet this is the third nomination. Previous comments / critique might help. --Efe (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Calvin999, your excessive use of bolding is making this FAC harder to read; it's not necessary to bold your responses. Bolding is typically reserved at FAC for Supports and Opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 18:52, 20 September 2011 [2].

---

Ecology

Nominator(s): Thompsma (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all the WP:WIAFA. The article is comprehensive and well sourced. Only minor edits have been made recently. The article was trimmed by moving text to other sub-articles, including human ecology, food web, and history of ecology. Looking forward to the feedback. Thanks.Thompsma (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - a major topic to tackle, but unfortunately I disagree that it meets the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:

• The lead is too long, per WP:LEAD, and contains too many citations - 'Fixed. Removed citations and reduced the text down to four paragraphs. There is a list in the lead - which is unique. This was discussed in the GAR last year and we decided it was okay for ecology. This subject is so broad that this kind of approach seemed appropriate.'Thompsma (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• WP:OVERLINK - don't link very common terms, and don't link the same term multiple times. For example, natural history is linked three times in the lead alone - 'Actually it was linked twice, one linked to natural science - the duplicate links are removed from the lead. I'll start going through the main article.'Thompsma (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• No, it's still linked twice in the lead, and there's still too much linking in general. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Way too many See also links - some are already or could be integrated into article text, while others could be removed altogether - 'Hmmm...what to do about this? I'm not sure I agree. This is ecology and it is a VERY diverse science. The see also links are placed at the lead of each sub-section and this was one of the only ways to appropriately break the article down. Given the nature of this topic - I wonder if this might be justified? Isn't this just a matter of style preference? Do you have an alternate suggestion?'Thompsma (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm referring to the "See also" section, not the section hatnotes. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Reduced.Thompsma (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• File:Vegetation.png needs more information on the source, as there are several "blank world maps" on Commons - 'I have removed it for now. I'm doing a search for a new image. Any suggestions?Thompsma (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I added new images to the panel that are all sourced and modified the text to accommodate the changes.Thompsma (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Source links for File:Mosaic_fire_burn.jpg and File:Lodgepole_pine_cone_after_fire.jpg appear to be broken

Could you please elaborate? When I click on the images they appear to be in order. Both seem to be sourced into the public domain and the links work when I click.Thompsma (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This link times out, and this one returns a 404 error. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed the broken links.Thompsma (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• WP:ENGVAR: be consistent in whether you use British or American spellings

I'll do my best to track down any inconsistencies.Thompsma (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Some citations use harvlinks, but there is no bibliographic section for them to link to, and thus they are incomplete

Question: When I put in the original citations I used a consistent template, yet I've noticed that some bots and other editors come in and change them with harvlinks. What is going on here? I'm very thorough when I cite material - I do my best to track down the doi (if one is available), to add a pdf link to the article if one is available, and to include complete information in all the fields. Should I add "ref = harv" to each citation??Thompsma (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No, not unless you're using shortened citations. Consider current footnote 239 (Clements 1905): where is the full bibliographic info for this citation? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the Clements citation and will start working on fixing other citations, reducing the number.Thompsma (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• See here for internal and here for external problematic links

Worked through lots of these and updated the links. Still needs a bit of work.Thompsma (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Organization needs work: the table of contents is quite large, the article include some one-paragraph subsections, and the current order of sections seems odd - for example, why is History so late?

History position is simply a matter of style. Other articles position history late in articles.Thompsma (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I caved and put it at the top. It could be a good thing to give the article a bit of a "shake-up" in organization.Thompsma (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Some problems with captions - for example, the use of figure numbers or bolded terms
• Read through carefully, or have someone else do so, to look for typographical or grammatical errors - for example, "This the Gaia hypothesis"
• Some issues with adherence to the manual of style - "%" should be spelled out in article text, blockquotes should not be used for quotes of less than four lines, etc
• Some facts lack citations, for example "Newer technologies opened a wave of genetic analysis into organisms once difficult to study from an ecological or evolutionary standpoint"
• Book sources need specific page numbers for each citation
• There are some inconsistencies in citation formatting that need to be addressed. For example, be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations for books
• FN 69: template appears broken
• FN 124: formatting. In general, don't mix templated and untemplated citations, as this causes formatting inconsistencies
• Incomplete citations, for example FN 163, should be completed. Don't include bare URLs as citations, as you do for FN 174
• Formatting used for Further reading should match that used for citations, and Further reading entries should include full bibliographic information but no harvlinks parameter
• External links should be consistently formatted and could stand to be culled. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Nikkimaria - I will take a look at the concerns you list here. I was hoping that these kinds of issues could be raised and addressed during the review process? I read through the WP:WIAFA and didn't see any major barriers that wouldn't qualify this article for a review, but this is my first time aiming for a featured article status. I've worked on other featured articles and feel that ecology is of comparable or superior quality (c.f., evolution, which is in terrible shape and should not be featured). There are some notable errors as you have correctly pointed out, but I don't think that they are insurmountable nor would the problems you have listed here take very long to fix. Most are minor formatting errors that can be rapidly repaired. The lead looks long, but it is actually just broken into chunks and has fewer words than History of evolutionary thought, which has 470 words compared to 455 in ecology - but I agree that it can be tightened up and citations removed. The organization of the article is a very difficult task when you begin to comprehend and appreciate the scope of ecology and this has been a work in progress and discussion for a number of years. Given the nature of this topic I would expect a bit of an open mind and understanding that such an article requires a unique approach to tackle the kind of organization design that this article would need. I would hope that this is the kind of issue that could be addressed in an external review process. I see no problem with the history of ecology section being placed at the end of the article. For example, RNA interference (another featured article) has its history and discovery section placed toward the end - this is a matter of preference and style, not a point for rejection. Your point about facts lacking citations is fishing for criticism beyond the norm of the article and the example you have supplied qualifies as common knowledge that does not require a citation; I went ahead and changed the format of that part to cite Avise's book on Molecular Markers, which is where that information came from. The rest of the article is very well cited and I think you would be hard pressed to find strong examples of un-sourced material. I'll put a note in the discussion page for editors to watch the citation formatting and to see if we can get some consistency in that regard. I've noticed that the formatting is being regularly changed despite the time and effort I originally spent to remain consistent according to citation templates. I will spend the next week tweaking the mistakes you have identified here and hopefully can have a review process approved to get this article up to par. Thanks again!Thompsma (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment All credit for tackling this immense topic, but I agree that you need to give it a thorough ce. A quick glance at the reference sections showed that most External links were not formatted correctly, and in the refs there were errors such as binomials in Roman, not italic, initials with and without full stops. Evolution was passed six years ago, when standards were very different, so that doesn't really help you. If you can sort the issues identified by Nikkimaria, I'll do a proper review, but I'd like to see some thorough checking and fixing done first Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jimfbleak - I'll definitely take you up on your offer. I'm reading through on the proper citation methods. I understand that standards have changed since evolution was approved and I have started the process to put that article up for another review and suspect that it will lose its FA status. I'm very appreciative of your offer to help here and I will go through the list that Nikkimaria has provided above to see if I can get approval. Thanks!!Thompsma (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thompsma, bold font is typically reserved at FAC for Supports and Opposes-- it's not necessary to emphasize your responses, and doing so only makes the FAC harder to read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 18:52, 20 September 2011 [3].

---

1st Filipino Infantry Regiment

Nominator(s): RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has been peer reviewed, passed GAR, and passed MILHIST Class A Review. It has been checked by others and using MS Word for prose, it is as comprehensive as can be given the research that can be found. To the best of my abilities it has been written in a way that it neither praises the unit that is the subject or makes negative statements regarding how it was utilized; it is also stable. Lead, structure, and citation style was checked in MILHIST Class A Review, as was the media. Also the background, and legacy sections are not the majority of the article. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
• Don't italicize publishers
• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for publishers, and if so what information is included and how it is formatted (for example, "New York, New York" vs "New York, NY" vs "New York")
• Check formatting of quotes within quotes, and don't include consecutive double-quotation marks
• this link doesn't appear to be going where you want it to be
• FN 4: are you citing page 591 or the whole book? If the former, use "p." ("pp." is for multiple pages); if the latter, please specify a page or small range. Check for other uses of "pp." where "p." is intended
• Retrieval dates aren't required for convenience links to print-based sources like Google Books
• Check for small inconsistencies in reference formatting like doubled periods
• Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
• Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or unhyphenated
• Provide page numbers for multi-page sources, for example FN 17
• FN 28: need full bibliographic details of sources being cited
• Fn 63: is this one author or two? Check formatting
• Use a consistent formatting for multi-author citations
• Be consistent in whether web sources are cited using website names, base URLs or publishers
• Be consistent in how editors are notated
• FN 51: "London, UK" or simply "London" is preferred to "London, England". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I am beginning the process of improving the references above. As for the everyculture.com reference it is written by a Professor of History from San Jose State University, H. Brett Melendy. The professor got the material from a book written in 1982 that the professor reviewed. Thus I have instead replaced the reference with that book. See the change here.

As for the esubject source, the page since first accessed appears to have become a WP:DEADLINK; however, the book itself is still accessible in print. Should I remove the URL to the now inaccessible dead link?

Unfortunately, due to real life, it will take me sometime to make the changes requested. Please be patient with me, and I will post changes and responses as they come. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments. I wonder if the MILHIST A-class reviewers actually read the article when I come across prose problems like these:

• "By August 1945, operations came to a close".
• "Soldiers of the Regiment that had been detached to the Alamo Scouts ...". Using "that" rather than "who" makes that sentence ambiguous. Was it individual soldiers or a Regiment that had been detached? Was it the soldiers or the Regiment subsequently reassigned? Why "detached" rather than "attached"?
• "Others married women under to the War Brides Act".
• "Many younger soldiers connected to a culture to which they had previously only had a distant relationship". What does "connected to a culture" mean?
• "Soldiers of the Regiment who did either not qualify to return to the U.S ...".
• "Filipinos were allowed to immigrate freely to the United States as U.S. nationals." You don't immigrate to.
• "The Regiment was made up of three battalions". I find the capitalisation of "Regiment" throughout the article a little strange, but I can see no logic for capitalising "Regiment" yet not "battalion". Malleus Fatuorum 16:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • That seems OK to me - the article is about the Regiment, so the capitialisation is OK (though perhaps not necessary). Regiments comprise several battalions, and there's no need to capitalise them unless they're being specifically named. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't think I'll be buying that I'm afraid. Malleus Fatuorum 15:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 18:52, 20 September 2011 [4].

---

Background of the Spanish Civil War

Nominator(s): Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is the natural progression for an article that passed both a GAN and has passed an ACR in all but name – I should point out that the ACR (here) has the required support and is well past the usual 28 day period and I have requested that it be closed. Owing to personal circumstances I have around a month until to go away and will start editing less, hence the nomination now. As far as the sources are concerned, I have Beevor (2006) still in my possession and will shortly have Preston (2006) and Thomas (1961). I thus await any comments you may have. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments. Copied from the A-class review:

• "The background of the Spanish Civil War included a series of events leading up to Spain's civil war": The lead should be tighter than this, particularly the first sentence of the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 04:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Personally, I like the dense style of for instance the first paragraph, but many readers will want this to be a little less dense, with more explanation and context. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • We had real trouble cutting it down enough to be a reasonable length which providing enough of the information to be a meaningful summary. As regards to the first sentence, I agree it's not perfect and would welcome any thoughts on changing it because a better alternative does not spring to mind. Perhaps if the phrase "background of the Spanish Civil War" was dropped, then there might be an alternative? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• [Anyone have suggestions now that we're at FAC?] - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Another similarly named article uses "covers" after the title of the page, in place of "included" (and altered as necessary to make sense). An improvement, perhaps, but possibly short of a solution. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

How about "The background of the Spanish Civil War dates back to the end of the nineteenth century, when the owners of large estates, called latifundia, held most of the power in a land-based oligarchy." --Dianna (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Good flow, but it doesn't seem to give an opportunity to link the Spanish Civil War article itself (until, I suppose, the last sentence of the lead). For an article that's a sort of "child" article, I don't know if that's optimal. Happy to go with it, though, if it's not seen as a problem. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Try to come up with an excuse to link to that article somewhere in the first paragraph rather than the first sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Taken on, might need tweaking. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm more comfortable with the rest of the writing (i.e. below the lead) ... I get what it's saying and it's well-organized, but it would help if someone would run through looking for ways to make things clearer and tighter. For instance:
• "The country had undergone several civil wars and revolts. .... political power." You don't see news stories that say "A gunman killed a shopowner yesterday, and he also stole a comb and argued with the man." A "revolt" can last an hour and express disgruntlement, and politics is a given; civil war is in a different category. If the revolts are important to this sentence because they led to civil wars, then say that: "Several revolts [you don't need to mention "the country"; we know what country it is] led [or had led, depending on the rest of the paragraph] to civil wars ...". If what you're trying to do here is write a topic sentence or topic paragraph, and it's important to mention revolts and politics so the reader will understand the context of what follows, will understand where things are headed, then the structure should be something more like: the unresolved political struggles between [whomever] in [year] became a rash of revolts in [year], which set the stage [but don't say something that trite :) ] for a civil war ... (followed by a quick description of the war). [It probably won't work to handle multiple civil wars in one sentence, war is by definition a big deal.] That's all for now. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I couldn't quite follow that exactly but have reformulated the paragraph to limited the "topic sentence" to just the first sentence and to remove the civil war/revolt dichotomy (in favour of a statement about coups d'états, given that the civil wars are mentioned in the following sentences and paragraphs). What do you think? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Much better. - Dank (push to talk) 15:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Also ... sorry about that, what was unclear, the gunman analogy? - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

All the bits with the square brackets and round brackets were a bit hard to parse, but I did get it. Hard to put a general scheme for the sentence in one's head: neither a specific wording nor just what was wrong. But it worked out, I think :) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Note 6: why is the bibliographic info here rather than in Sources?
• Note 3: formatting
• FN 55: is this one author or two? If the former, why include first name? If the latter, need first names in source listing. Also, date is inconsistent: 2008 or 2009?
• University of Wisconsin Press is a publisher, and as such should not be italicized. Check formatting of Payne. Also, it would appear that this is a book source reprinted online, not a journal? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Points 2 and 3 on your list I believe I have dealt with (I think the missing full stop was what you meant in #2 - is that the case?). On point #1 I've standardised it, but it doesn't have a page number. Is this a problem? There's one other viable source for those statistics, this report to the Council of Europe. Would welcome your thoughts. On point 4, yes. But I don't have the book, so I cannot guarentee that it's faithful to the print version. What template do you suggest? Would it be better placed under "Books" anyway? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Montero Monero entry is fine, although check the edition formatting for consistency. As to Carroll, how did you access this source? The report would also be a viable source. As to point 4, definitely place under Books, and you can probably use {{cite book}} if you indicate that the source consulted was the online version (probably using the format or edition parameter). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I will sort out #4. Carroll isn't my addition, that's partly why I don't have the page number. There are two options: make a couple of adjustments but leave as it is now, or take it across to the Council of Europe report completely. I don't know which would be better. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

After finding Carroll was published after the edition he was quoting (and thus, I suspect really and earlier edition) I've gone with the Council of Europe report. Found it quite hard to cite, any necessary changes can be made. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - very briefly, I was wondering why the article is named 'Background of' instead of 'Origins of'? You can see the pages on Wikipedia with those names here (Background of) and here (Origins of). Several war articles have corresponding 'origins of' articles (including WWI, WWII and the US Civil War), and several have 'background of' articles. Is there a difference or not, and if there is a difference, is this article intended to be broader than a 'origins' article, or is it just an 'origins' article under a different name? Carcharoth (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe so. I raised it at MILHIST and found there was no common term (if you take out the redirects, particularly). It's "Background to the Vietnam War", "Events leading to the Falklands War", there's five other "background of" (4 of which are wars) and 6-or-7 war articles using "Origins of". With no common term, I picked one I thought was most appropriate. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 07:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment / Source review. I own Beevor and did some spotchecks on citations to his book. They're fine and don't misrepresent the material, nor are they straight quotes.

Two passages that stuck out, though. "Poverty was particularly acute in Catalonia; there were acts of terrorism and actions by agents provocateurs in Barcelona." This is cited to Preston, but... it doesn't sound right. Poverty was acute everywhere in Spain, but I thought Barcelona and Catalonia in general did quite well with the industrial revolution and flourished from 1880 - 1920 or so, so poverty was less bad there? I mean, sure, there's all the classic Dickensian in-your-face poverty of kids working in mills and beggars who lost an arm in an industrial accident in the street, but this is better than masses of peasants in backbreaking farm labor that doesn't even make any money, which is what Old Castile ends up as. I'd be interested if other sources back this up. I'm going off memories of a museum on Barcelona / Catalan history in Barcelona, and it could be they were just self-hyping, of course, but Beevor also notes on p.10 that investment money went into Catalonia's industry, and that "in Catalonia especially, huge fortunes were made."

Secondly: "The elections of 1936 were narrowly won by the Popular Front, with vastly smaller resources than the political right, who followed Nazi propaganda techniques." Also cited to Preston. Whoa! The Nazis hated the Socialists so something very weird was going on here. Does Preston just think they had a similar style, mass rallies, unified will of the people, etc.? Or were Spanish socialists actually saying "That Hitler fellow had some good ideas on how to get elected, let's use 'em?" I'd like to see more citations behind a shocking claim like this, if possible, or else rephrased as "According to historian Preston, the techniques the Popular Front used were similar to those used by the Nazi party." SnowFire (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. When I find the time, I'll pull the source for the first point, as I do understand the logic there. In the second, it's just a simple misunderstanding: it's the political right who followed Nazi propaganda techniques. I'll have a think if that can be clarified, it probably can. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've altered the wording of that sentence (first point) to better reflect the source and hopefully clarify the logic. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 18:52, 20 September 2011 [5].

---

Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895)

Nominator(s): Buggie111 (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Back again, back again. Here I am to nominate Sevastopol, a rather boring Pacific Fleet battleship, for FA. I've been working on this since January of 2010, with a GAN, two ACRs, a PR, failed FAC and DYK in this article's past. I have also adressed nearly all comments from the previous FAC. Buggie111 (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Check for small inconsistencies in references like doubled periods
  • Well, couldn't find any double periods, but I have to check some more.
    • Done. Buggie111 (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
• Use hyphens for ISBNs, not dashes
  • As far as I remember, I'm using hyphens
    • Removed entirely. Buggie111 (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Why "New York" in Citations but "New York, New York" in References? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Buggie111 (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Misspelled Watt's first name.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. Buggie111 (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
    • No, it isn't. If you don't actually have access to the book to verify the spelling, click on the ISBN number and then on "find this book" on Worldcat.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
      • My gut told me somthing was wrong. NOW it's fixed. Buggie111 (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments -- this looks pretty good to me. Referencing, structure, detail and supporting materials seem fine. Made a few changes to prose; one outstanding point:

• ...several instruments measured higher speed and power than in her sister ships. It turned out to be a flaw in one of the mechanisms, as it read the same measurements on both the Poltava and Petropavlosk, while other instruments read normally for each of the ships. The problem was presumably fixed. -- I think I get the gist of this, but it's a bit confusing as expressed, and I wonder if it's even that important. I certainly don't think we can keep "presumably fixed", which sounds like editorialising on your part even if it's not -- how exactly does the source describe it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll remove it, I agree about the non-importance. Buggie111 (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 18:52, 20 September 2011 [6].

---

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Nominator(s): Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... This article discusses a landmark US Supreme Court case on birthright citizenship. It has been significantly worked on since it became a GA last January. It covers the topic clearly and comprehensively, and after two peer reviews, I believe it is in suitable condition to be recognized as an FA. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Citations are rarely needed in the lead - check your use of them with reference to WP:LEAD
• Be consistent in whether website names are linked
• Check quotation formatting re: MOS:ITALICS, MOS:ELLIPSIS, MOS:QUOTE, etc
• Do you have reference/ID numbers for the documents from NARA? Also, check for consistency in how these citations are formatted
• Convenience links to print-based sources (ie. Google Books) don't need retrieval dates
• FN 20: page(s)?
• FN 26: which Kansas City?
• Check for small inconsistencies in reference formatting like doubled periods
• Where is Thousand Oaks? Provide states for ambiguous or lesser-known locations
• Don't mix templated and untemplated citations, as this causes formatting inconsistencies. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• • No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Acknowledged. I'll start working on the above issues and get back to you within the next day or two. Richwales (talk · contribs) 14:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There appear to be a couple of bugs in the {{Cite court}} template. As best I can tell, the template insists on putting a period after quoted text from the case. I tried the postscript= kludge that works around this problem in {{Cite journal}}, but this doesn't seem to have any effect for {{Cite court}}. The {{Cite court}} template also puts quoted text in parens (in contrast to what {{Cite journal}} does), and it attaches the external web link to the word "Text" instead of doing something more reasonable such as linking to the case name. Do the FA review people have any abilities (beyond those of mere mortals) to light a fire under the template people and get these issues addressed? If not, do you know of any workarounds I can use? Or are these formatting nits sufficiently vexing that the FA review might need to be put on hold pending a nicer-looking solution? Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but templates and coding do not fall within my area of competency, and I have no particular clout with the template people. I think we can live with its issues if necessary, but it would be great if someone could chime in with a workaround. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not currently have any reference/ID numbers for the immigration files I viewed at the NARA office in 2005. I agree that this info would be highly desirable—and if absolutely necessary, I am prepared to take another trip to the NARA office (it is within reasonable driving distance of where I live) and try to look at the files again. Alternatively, I could simply remove these sources, along with the portions of the article that depend on them; this would be unfortunate, because I believe the material in question is relevant and helpful, but the article should be OK without these bits, and I can add them back later if/when I have more complete sourcing details. What would you suggest? Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Do they have an online database or listing that would allow you to find this information without going back? I would advocate against removing these sources if possible, but you would know best what affect that would have on the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Another bug or misfeature in the {{Cite court}} template is that it doesn't support the accessdate= parameter. My peer-reviewer for this article recommended I include the access dates for court cases—possibly even if this meant working around the bug in the template—but what you said regarding not needing retrieval dates for "convenience links to print-based sources" leads me to think that maybe I don't need to worry about this after all in the case of US Supreme Court cases (or other court cases that are printed in well-known case reporter series). What should I do? Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that retrieval dates in such cases are unnecessary, but law references are not my area of expertise. Did your peer reviewer present his/her reasoning for including access dates? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The peer reviewer seemed to feel that, just on principle, any source with a URL link should probably show an access date, by any means necessary, in order to be assured of passing FA review. I don't think he would argue with you, though, if you feel this is overkill (as you did, for example, with books.google.com links for print books). It sounds like I might as well go ahead and remove the (currently ignored) accessdate= parameters from my {{Cite court}} templates, just in case someone does eventually "fix" the template. And will it be sufficient to see if anyone else comments here on a possible workaround for the template problems? Or should I bring this question up somewhere else where more FA-involved people are likely to see it? (Some of these issues have already been raised, BTW, at Template talk:Cite court, but no one seems to be actively dealing with problem reports there these days.)

I take that back; someone did just comment at Template talk:Cite court, apologizing for the delay and suggesting the issue will be addressed after all. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have sandboxed an update to {{cite court}} that makes it compliant with Citation Style 1 (cite book, journal, web, etc.). Please review and comment. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've temporarily changed all the {{cite court}} templates in the article to {{cite court/sandbox}}. Most of the case references look better than they did w/r/t the placement of the link and the extraneous parens and extra period. I am concerned, however, that people who deal with legal topics are going to complain that these cites no longer conform to accepted US legal citation norms. For example, reference #1 currently shows as "United States v. Wong Kim Ark. 1898. 169 U.S. 649, p. 715." — but my understanding is that every lawyer, law clerk, and law student in the US will tell you that this must be written as "United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 715 (1898)", with the year in parens at the end of the cite, and without a "p." abbreviation before the page number within the case. I also see a problem with reference #14 — the litigants info (In re Wong Kim Ark) is missing, and there are two periods after the court name; it "should" read "In re Wong Kim Ark, 71 Fed. 382, 392 (N.D.Cal. 1896)". Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• The original template checks to see if an article exists that matches the litigants and automatically adds the link. I included this feature and it is causing the missing litigants, but only for that text. I have disabled it while I troubleshoot. This is now fixed
• The p. is not added by the template, but by markup like |pinpoint=p. 715.
• The extra period is a perennial issue, as it is the core separator and cannot be disabled per field. The easy fix is to eliminate a trailing period in the field.
• As to the format: The template does not give any reference for the format and no one else appears to watching the discussion. We are not locked to outside styles— the key is to present all the information in an understandable format for a reader to locate the source.
• Given the above statement, I do have an issue with the court format. As an encyclopedia, we should not expect a read to understand that N.D.Cal. means United States District Court for the Northern District of California— my first thought was North Dakota. Especially with a worldwide audience. This is probably something that needs to be discussed elsewhere and should not affect the status of the article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've taken out the "p." in all the pinpoints; I've removed the final period from "N.D.Cal."; and I've wikilinked this abbreviation to the article on the district court. I still disagree regarding the placement of the year of a decision, but I'm willing to punt this issue for the time being (though I will probably bring it up eventually with the Law and/or U.S. Supreme Court Cases wikiprojects). For anyone who is interested, see Bluebook for more about US legal citation style. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

We should take this to the template talk page. This minor style issue should not impact the FA status for this article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Let me know when the fixed template is in production, and I'll go back in and take out the "/sandbox" modifications I made to the article. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have abandoned this because "Any attempt to convert other citations from book to court or from book to Bluebook etc., simply because Bluebook citations were used, will likely be reverted on sight." ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

My own feeling regarding access dates for law references is that they're generally unnecessary, at least for US federal or state cases, because anyone who knows anything at all about legal research can easily take the cite for a case (e.g., "169 U.S. 649") and find the case (either in print in a law library, or online in a zillion places). So there's no real danger of a link going bad and no one being able to find the case or prove it ever really existed to begin with. Older, lower-level court rulings might be a bit harder to find online from scratch (e.g., the In re Wong Kim Ark district court case, which is source #14 in the article as it currently stands), so I could possibly see an argument for showing an access date for that one, even if not for the Supreme Court cases.

I tried checking the archival search feature on NARA's web site, but I couldn't find anything for Wong Kim Ark or his family. I'll try again. The effect of taking out these sources would be that the evident ambiguity regarding Wong Kim Ark's birth year would not be sufficiently documented, and the "Subsequent developments" paragraph about Wong Kim Ark's sons would no longer be substantiated. While these items are not central to the article, I think they help flesh it out (especially the info about Wong's sons, which gives some insight into Wong Kim Ark the man, as opposed to Wong Kim Ark the court case). And although this might not be a good rationale for research methods in general, Wong Kim Ark is sufficiently well known to researchers in this subject area that anyone could just walk into the NARA office in San Bruno, CA, go to the Chinese immigration desk, and ask to see whatever they have about Wong Kim Ark. (Go read the 1998 SF Weekly story, for instance — current source #9.) Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I was the peer reviewer. Out of habit, I add access dates to refs with URLs. I personally prefer citing print sources, if available, because they are not subject to link rot. If access dates are not required for convenience URLs, I'm fine with that. Finetooth (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

For what it may be worth, I've added another source to the "subsequent developments" section: a 1926 letter to Wong Kim Ark from his eldest son (Wong Yoke Fun — the one whom US officials had accused of being a "paper son" and refused to let into the country), informing his father that Wong Yook Jim (the youngest son, and the one mentioned in another source as still being alive in 1998 and living in California) was about to board a ship to come to the US. I'm going to do another search for the photocopies I made in 2005 of various stuff from the family's immigration files, so that I can solidify this section further and avoid any possible suggestions of WP:SYNTH. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I found the photocopies I made in 2005. My project for this evening is to scan the most relevant pages, upload them to Commons, and then incorporate them as sources into the article. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've updated the National Archives sources, and I think I now have acceptable sourcing for the ambiguous birth year and the paragraph about Wong's sons. I assume there may still be things left to do here; please let me know what you'd like me to work on next. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I created and populated a "Wong Kim Ark" category on Commons, and I put a {{Commons category}} template in the "External links" section. I note there is a {{wikisource-inline}} in the external links, but the only thing there on Wikisource is a copy of the Supreme Court case. It seems to me that if a link to the Wikisource material should exist in the article at all, it should be incorporated into the {{caselaw source}} template already there. What do people think? Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't use a proper short form citation for cases already cited. It's not proper to keep repeating the whole case citation over and over again. An example of a proper short form: Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 713. If the template doesn't provide for this, then just don't use the template in those instances; its only purpose really is to provide a convenience link to the opinion text, which only needs to be done once in the article.

Finetooth, re: print sources, a citation to a case reporter is always a print source (the United States Reports in this case), so any URL is just an online copy of that source and verification isn't dependent upon or specific to that URL. Access dates are therefore not helpful or necessary.

And please let's fix the template back so we're not using the pretend case cite format (United States v. Wong Kim Ark. 1898. 169 U.S. 649.). It gives me a headache just seeing that. postdlf (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll be more than happy to use short-form citations where appropriate. I agree they would make the list of references more readable.

Regarding the case citation format, the reason the issue originally came up was that {{Cite court}} had some obvious flaws involving things like unnecessarily parenthesizing quotations, adding extraneous periods after quotation text that already ended with a period, and attaching the external link to a superfluous word "Text". The current {{Cite court/sandbox}} represented a serious effort to fix the template — which, however, got stalled on (I believe) the question of where to place the year (and whether to put parens around the year), as well as the overall issues which you've seen raised on the template's talk page.

Actually, with respect to the case cite format, I'm halfway wondering if it might be better for me to change the Supreme Court case cites to use {{ussc}} instead of {{Cite court}} — with the case name (litigants) and any quoted text appearing outside the template. Any thoughts on this? Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Quotes from opinions are either given within the body of a sentence, followed by the case citation, or it is placed within parentheses following the citation. I commonly use the post-cite quote-in-parentheses form in non-legal citations too. postdlf (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, the first thing I'll do here is to go back to the production {{Cite court}}} templates (since the "sandbox" version has reportedly now been abandoned), and then convert cites into a proper short form where appropriate. We can take it from there regarding what to do if the remaining case cites are unsightly in some way. Richwales (talk · contribs) 00:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I've finished converting the Supreme Court case cites into short-form cites (written by hand, without using any template). I also redid the In re Wong Kim Ark federal district court cite totally by hand. So, at this point, the article is no longer using the {{Cite court}} template (either production or sandbox version). At the moment, the two court case cites (currently references #2 and #14) which include quotes from an opinion are not using parens, for uniformity with quotes from all the other sources. If the consensus is that quotations in court case cites should use parens (per accepted Bluebook-like conventions), the parens can of course be added back manually. Please feel free to take another look at the article now, and let me know what you feel needs to be done next. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The short-form cites are used only for successive citations to the same case; you still need to use the full citation the first time you cite to a case. postdlf (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Should I do that even when a given case has been cited (using {{ussc}}) in the body of the article? I.e., write a full cite to each case in the first footnote that mentions that case, and then use the short form in subsequent footnotes? Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Assuming the answer to the above is "yes" (or, at least, "why not?"), I've redone the first footnote cite to each court case to be a full cite using {{ussc}}, with the case name wikilinked to the case's Wikipedia article. I did some other work as well. I hope this looks better. Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether journals include publisher and location
• FNs 11, 54, 71 don't match formatting of other refs. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Break arbitraire

• Oppose Totally missing procedural history section. (What happened in the district and circuit courts?) Treatment of the impact of the case is somewhat random. How does this fit into the bigger picture? The article should be built around law review articles, but it's not. Are those the only two SCOTUS cases that have cited it? Has it been cited by circuit courts? How? (I'm not going to do costly Westlaw searches, but I'm confident that it has been cited a lot. For you to sort out what all these citations mean would be original synthesis, but this is what looking to law reviews would do for you.) Right now there's coverage of a popular controversy but not how this fits into jurisprudence. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe the article already gives the complete procedural history — the customs people rejected Wong's claim of US citizenship, a federal district judge disagreed and ruled Wong was a citizen, and the government appealed the district court ruling directly to the Supreme Court. As for your other points, I'm certainly willing to work on expanding the treatment of the case even beyond what is already there; does anyone else out there have any thoughts on this? Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that I missed that sentence. But really I would expect a fuller treatment. What was the reasoning of the district court? It reached the same conclusion, but what facts and legal principles did it rely upon? Was its reasoning the same as or different from the Supreme Court's? Also, you should explain how this got appealed directly from the district court to the supreme court, because this is no longer possible (that's why I assumed the circuit court information was missing). Here's an article with some background: [7]. I assume something on wikipedia must cover this too. Another somewhat related weakness of the article is its failure to consider related caselaw in the background section. What similar cases preceded this one? Had other lower courts addressed this issue? (If you can find out, why did the court take this case? Was there a circuit split it was resolving?) Essentially this article should primarily rely on law reviews and legal treatises, which would explain these things, but barely any law reviews or legal treatises are cited. (Except for a somewhat puzzling emphasis on some article by John C. Eastman, who--judging by his lack of an article--is not a prominent legal mind.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to go do some more work on the article, and I'll let you know when you can take another look. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added more detail regarding the background of the Wong Kim Ark case in the federal district court. I've also added more detail regarding Supreme Court cases that have cited Wong Kim Ark. It turns out, BTW, that John C. Eastman does have his own Wikipedia article, and I've wikilinked him accordingly. I'm not sure I agree that this article must detail exactly how and why the district court ruling was appealed directly to the Supreme Court; it clearly says at the start of the Supreme Court opinion that this is what happened, and in order to keep the article focussed on the case (and not digressing too much into details of legal procedure), I would submit that this is good enough. Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

And I've also added cites from two more law review articles. I'm going to continue looking for more material, but anyone who wants to take another look at the article may certainly do so now. Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what was added with the law review articles, but the section on the impact of this case takes the entirely wrong approach in listing supreme court cases that cite this one--which is simply not useful. The impact of the case needs to be put into context by legal writers in secondary sources (typically in law review articles and treatises), and this will basically have to be rewritten from the ground up, starting with an examination of what sources are available out there. Are you researching using Westlaw or Lexis? With these tools, you can look at every legal secondary source that has ever cited the case. This should be the starting point for the writing of the article, rather than listing or trying to synthesize primary sources. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I do have LEXIS/NEXIS access, and I've shepardized Wong Kim Ark, and I'll do some more work on the article later today in an effort to address your concerns. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Random break

Oppose: Support - My objections have been dealt with.

• There is no mention of the Burlingame Treaty with regard to the Chinese Exclusion Act.
• I'm wondering why the justices who dissented are listed, but not the 6 who agreed with the majority in "Opinion of the Court"?
• Weedin v. Chin Bow - the phrasing "who tried to claim" sounds like he was unsuccessful or that he was somehow deceiving. The rest of the text implies neither. Better to just use "claimed".
• Copyediting - removed "who was alleged".
• The criticism focuses on recent criticism. I would think there would have been some criticism when the case was decided. Even if none of the papers survived, I'd be surprised if no historian has looked into it and not found evidence of any public criticism at the time.
• Given the first and last point, I think it fails 1b and possibly 1c.陣内_Jinnai 23:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I've made some changes to address the above concerns.

• Added material and cites from several law journal articles which I found and read via a LEXIS/NEXIS search — in addition to the articles, books, and primary case cites already included.
• Added the names of the Supreme Court justices involved with the majority opinion. (I suppose the article could either name all the justices, or not name any of them; FWIW, they're listed in the infobox.)
• Added mention of the Burlingame Treaty.
• Various copyedits.

I'm still searching for a source discussing contemporary reactions to the Wong Kim Ark decision. And although the article cites numerous law review articles, I'm still looking for a single article somewhere which could be used as the basis for the entire "impact" section. There are already sources here which substantiate the claim that the Supreme Court has never seriously questioned Wong Kim Ark in subsequent cases, so I could see the possibility of taking out the entire list of subsequent cases (or perhaps just leaving the footnote cites) except for Plyler v. Doe (the case about illegal immigration and public education). Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if all the justices should be mentioned, but I just found it curious that not even the lead judge for the majority wasn't mentioned.

Although now that I think about it, the opinion was 6-2 so that's 8 justices. There's no mention why there wasn't 9. Was there only 8 at the time or did one of them recuse themselves? That kind of info I'd also expect in the court's opinion section. It is mentioned in the lead that the 9th justice took no part, but not why; also if he recused himself, if there is a reason known that should be listed.陣内_Jinnai 03:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the reason Justice McKenna didn't participate in the case was because he had been confirmed to the Supreme Court only very shortly before the case was argued. I'll add this to the article as soon as I can verify the details via a source. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

169 U.S. at 732: "MR. JUSTICE McKENNA, not having been a member of the court when this case was argued, took no part in the decision." I'll look for a secondary source that talks about this, but otherwise I would propose this should suffice. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph to "Subsequent developments" describing a reaction to the Wong Kim Ark ruling by a legal writer in 1898. I also added a bit more to the "Habeas corpus petition" section explaining (with a source cite to the same 1898 article) how the fundamental question was one of common-law vs. international-law interpretation of jurisdiction in the Citizenship Clause. See here for the diff. I'll continue to look for more early commentary on the case, but I'd be grateful for another comment from each of you as to how many of your concerns have been dealt with and what you feel would still need to be done. As I said last night, I'm open to the idea of taking out most of the list of subsequent Supreme Court cases (perhaps just leaving the footnote cites), if you feel this info is extraneous and unhelpful — though I do feel it's appropriate to keep the information about Plyler v. Doe, since that is very relevant to the current debate over birthright citizenship and people's preferred interpretation of the subject to the jurisdiction thereof clause. Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

My two biggest concerns are the lack of early commentary (being addressed atm) and if possible finding a secondary source about why McKenna didn't serve there. The latter is fine if there is no secondary source though. Also, the lead should be updated to reflect the additional immediate commentary and criticism.陣内_Jinnai 19:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding McKenna, the batch of edits I reported an hour ago included adding a footnote cite to the "6-2 decision" in which Woodworth (author of the 1898 American Law Review article) repeats the case's own statement that McKenna didn't participate because he wasn't a member of the court when the arguments took place. I'll continue to look for more early commentary, and I'll also review the lead. Thanks for the feedback. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Calliopejen1, is there anything special I need to do in LEXIS-NEXIS to get older law review articles referencing Wong Kim Ark? I can't seem to find cites to any articles earlier than 1973 (even when I specify "all available dates" in the search). I already have (and, as you've seen, have already been using) one article from an 1898 journal (which I found in a Google search), but that's the only "old" article I've been able to find so far that discusses Wong Kim Ark in any detail. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I found (and have incorporated into the article) an 1898 San Francisco Chronicle editorial which expresses alarm at the prospect that not only Chinese, but also Japanese, and even American Indians were likely to get US citizenship, and even eventually the right to vote, as a result of the Wong Kim Ark ruling. Obviously, few if any people would dare talk like this today, but as I said, this was 1898. I also found (and have cited) an 1898 Washington Post article reporting the decision but not commenting on it. The work continues. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, I found an 1896 law review article (written by the same author who wrote the 1898 article I already had), which noted that the common-law-vs.-international-law question which was recognized as key in the initial federal district court case had not previously been considered by the Supreme Court. Jinnai, do you have any remaining concerns? Are you still opposed to this article's promotion to FA? If you do still see problems, please let me know what they are so I can continue improving the article. Thanks. Richwales (talk · contribs) 22:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll check it over tomorrow. I'm too busy with RL today.陣内_Jinnai 01:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

JSTOR just released public domain content so I might wait a few days and see if google scholar might pick something more up since you seem to be having difficulty searching old archives.陣内_Jinnai 18:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I can assist with checking the lower-court history and the contemporary reaction to the decision, if no one else has already gotten to it. Please let me know if there are specific questions outstanding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Brad. Regarding the lower court history, I think there is a valid question as to why the case went directly from the federal district court to the Supreme Court. Numerous sources — including LEXIS-NEXIS, and perhaps most importantly, the Supreme Court case report itself — say this is what happened, but not why; and since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals existed in 1898, it's reasonable for someone (such as Calliopejen1) to want the history explained and to be skeptical of any claim that no sources discuss the apparent leapfrogging over the Ninth Circuit.

Similarly as to why the case went to the Supreme Court on appeal rather than via a request for certiorari. I can speculate that this might have been because the district court ruling was seen as invalidating a federal statute (the Chinese Exclusion Act), but that's WP:OR on my part and obviously can't be used in the article. At the same time, although I'd welcome more complete info on these points, I do not think the article should be overloaded with this sort of info, to the point that it would come to concentrate on details of legal procedure that really belong in other articles, rather than on the case at hand here.

Regarding contemporary reaction to the decision, I managed to find some additional info using ProQuest, including an 1898 San Francisco Chronicle editorial which expressed deep concern over the ruling (in language that would considered inexcusably bigoted today, but again, this was 1898 and attitudes were different). It would be nice to find a law review article or two from 1898 or shortly thereafter that discussed the case from a legal expert's perspective (preferably material both "pro" and "con"); if you can help with that, I think it would be good to find more analysis if possible from lawyers and legal scholars (as opposed to newspaper editors). The apparent dearth of this kind of material appears to be a major showstopper to Calliopejen1, based on what she's said up to this point. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I can certainly take a look at the procedural history in the next day or two, and will also try to check if there were any law review or similar commentaries on the case. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

NYB, please advise as soon as practical ... normally, with two Opposes and a very long review at this stage, it would be time to archive this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Calliopejen1, could you please take another look at the article now? A fair amount of work has been done since your last comments — including incorporation of the reasoning of the district court, contemporary reactions to and subsequent impact of the case, and additional material from law review articles. Are you still opposed to this article being promoted to FA? If so, what would you still need to see done that might eventually change your mind? Richwales (talk · contribs) 14:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Pinged: [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

With regard to the procedural issue of why this case was appealed directly from the District Court to the Supreme Court, the answer is that this was provided for by the procedural statutes at the time. As of 1898, the route of appeal was governed by the Evarts Act of 1891, which established the Circuit Courts of Appeals and governed the allocation of appeals between those courts of appeals and the Supreme Court. Our Evarts Act article contains a link to the text of the Act in the Statutes at Large, which is here. Section 5 of the Act provides "[t]hat appeals or writs of error may be taken from the district courts ... direct to the Supreme Court in the following cases: ... In any case that involves the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States. ¶ In any case in which the constitutionality of any law of the United States, or the validity or construction of any treaty made under its authority, is drawn in question." I can find a secondary source that summarizes the history of these jurisdictional provisions (The Business of the Supreme Court by Frankfurter and Landis will probably be the most accessible source discussing that general era), but Wong Kim Ark seems to fit both of these descriptions fairly clearly. More soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Now that we have an answer to this question, what should we do with it? I'm hesitant to add it here (in the Wong Kim Ark article) because it doesn't directly say this is what happened in this particular case and I don't want to violate WP:SYNTH. Regardless of whether this nugget of info can or can't be added directly to the Wong Kim Ark article, it looks like it would find a good home in the Judiciary Act of 1891 article — which is itself badly in need of work, with no source except a cite to Statutes at Large, but cleaning up that page can presumably wait till another day. Is there any consensus here, though, as to whether a detailed rationale for the direct appeal (bypassing the Ninth Circuit) really needs to be included in Wong Kim Ark in order for it (now or in the future) to become a Featured Article? Or is it enough to simply say that the district court's ruling was appealed directly to the Supreme Court, since there is (I believe) adequate evidence from secondary sources that this is in fact what happened (even though said sources don't explain why)? Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I will try to find a secondary source saying that this case was appealed from the District Court to the Supreme Court pursuant to section 5 of the Judiciary Act of 1891; the problem is that there may be no source explicitly saying that simply because it was obvious at the time, just as today, you would read "the case was brought from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, which granted cert.," not "the case was brought from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari pursuant to section 1254 of title 28." (The author of Wong Kim Ark would have particularly taken the appeal mechanism for granted, as Justice Gray was one of the leading proponents of the Evarts Act.) Worst case, though it might be considered original research, is that I could pull the briefs and record on appeal at the National Archives, which would cite the jurisdictional statute relied on. In any event, I can't see how this one sentence makes the difference between this article making FA or not. More soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, the correct citation of Judge Morrow's decision in the District Court is 71 Fed. 382. The citation to 1 Fed. 382 appears to be a typo in the Findlaw version of the opinion, not present in the Westlaw or book version. (And a case from 1 Fed. as opposed to 71 Fed. would date to approximately 1880 rather than 1896.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If no secondary source can be found, adding the info to [[Judiciary Act of 1891] article and adding a link to that article in a See also section at the bottom would be a good way of handling the situation so as not to provide any SYNTH violations and still give readers a way to figure out why it may have gone straight to the Supreme Court.陣内_Jinnai 04:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Jinnai: That sounds good to me, as long as people are not going to accuse us of citing Wikipedia as its own source. (And I have now added the material in question to Judiciary Act of 1891, and I've added a link to this article in the "See also" section of the Wong Kim Ark article. I've also tagged "Judiciary Act of 1891" as requiring more citations — all it has right now is a cite to the statute itself.) Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Newyorkbrad: I agree that "1 Fed. 382" is a typo, and I've fixed this in the article's infobox. As for how close to (or far from) FA this article currently is, my impression is that the only remaining substantive objection is over whether the article's foundation is sufficiently based on secondary sources from the legal profession. Calliopejen1 felt that the sections on the background (including the arguments originally raised in the district court) and the subsequent impact were not guided by analyses of the case in law reviews and were instead primarily my own original research. (If I'm misstating Calliopejen1 here, I trust she will set me straight.) Since these objections were raised, I've made major changes in the "Habeas corpus petition" and "Subsequent developments" sections, including quite a bit of material derived from law reviews. I do think it's possible, at this point, that all of the original objections may have been satisfactorily dealt with — though I assume it would be best for us to hear from the editors who raised those objections in the first place (Calliopejen1 and Jinnai) and hear what they have to say about the article now. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Google scholar search for the public domain stuff JSTOR is releasing. Some of them are still tagged atm. Some of them aren't relevant, but a few of them look promising for early opinions.陣内_Jinnai 15:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Many of these, unfortunately, appear to be of little use — just one-sentence restatements of the case. One of two of them could possibly be used as additional secondary-source substantiation of the already well-established claims in the text, but I think that would probably be overkill at this point. None of these sources, as best I can tell, constitute a comprehensive, in-depth, specific treatment of the Wong Kim Ark case — the sort of thing which I believe Calliopejen1 was hoping for / expecting / insisting on — though, as I said earlier, I believe the parts of the article which Jen was particularly concerned about have been reworked by now, based on the best secondary sources that seem to be available.

Jinnai, I would still like to know whether you believe any of the objections you originally raised against promoting this article to FA still stand — or whether they have all been dealt with and you would now support (or at least not oppose) its promotion. I would also hope that Calliopejen1 would address this same question w/r/t her objections — and also that other people who have been working with this article recently might speak up and give their opinions. I will accept at this point that if anything nontrivial still remains to be done, it may be best (as SandyGeorgia suggested) to archive this candidacy, and for me to come back again after a while in hopes that a second candidacy for this article could be quick and uncomplicated. But since this is my first venture into Featured Article territory, I'll defer on this point to people who have more experience. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Assuming none of those could be used as statements from a bit later on in the early 20th century. Specifically, about opinions that would help bolster either the quick adoption of the decision or continued opposition to it early on. If they cannot be used as such, then yes, I am satisfied.陣内_Jinnai 20:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I can include have now included mention of Regan v. King, a 1942 case in which the Native Sons of the Golden West challenged the US citizenship of a large group of US-born Japanese-Americans who had registered to vote in San Francisco. The plaintiffs' attorney said that Wong Kim Ark was "one of the most injurious and unfortunate decisions" ever handed down by the Supreme Court, and he hoped this new case would give the court "an opportunity to correct itself". However, the case was summarily dismissed by both the federal district court and the Ninth Circuit (each citing Wong Kim Ark as a controlling precedent), and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. Other than that, I really haven't seen any early stuff that discussed the Wong Kim Ark ruling in any detail, other than simply giving it a one-sentence or footnote cite — other than the material I've previously included. Richwales (talk · contribs) 22:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC) (including changes in bold)

And I've added a paragraph discussing Regan v. King in the "Criticisms" subsection near the end of the article — using two New York Times stories as secondary sources, and also citing the case (in district court, the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court's denial of cert) based on info in LEXIS-NEXIS. Richwales (talk · contribs) 22:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, so now that Jinnai has indicated that he supports promotion, we still have to clarify where Calliopejen1 stands. I left a note on her talk page about 29 hours ago, asking her to check the article again and come back here to tell us if her concerns have been satisfactorily dealt with. She hasn't edited on Wikipedia in a little over two days, but hopefully she'll be back soon. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Noted that Callipejen1 was pinged on the 14th. Pending additional input, my read of NYB's information is that the article is not failing comprehensiveness, even if a secondary source is not found because direct appeals to the Supreme Court were allowed at that time. However, the nomination has only one support at three weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I've offered to review this one, but now I notice the nominator has just started an RFA, and I've rarely seen an RFA candidate who had much attention left over for anything else; ping me in about 9 days please (you'll need at least a couple of days to recover however the RFA turns out :). - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Your discretion. I don't want to horribly overcommit my time, but at the same time, I don't want this FAC process to die. I've put a lot of effort into the article so far, and I'm prepared to see it through to completion. If people feel a few days' hiatus is necessary, though, I'll respect your judgment. Richwales (talk · contribs) 14:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Undecided. I have made a few changes that seemed easier to make there than explain here: clarifying status of parents in lead, clarifying that the dissent was not part of the opinion of the court, and explaining a key 1812 precedent. I'll try to do more later today.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• The "suggested" article structure here is simply wrong to place dissents under the heading "Opinion of the Court". Why should we follow this suggestion?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the article structure, I don't see that we really have any discretion here to depart from the current WP:SCOTUS consensus — until and unless said consensus gets changed. So the arguments should go to the WikiProject's talk page (which I see you've done). Now we need to see what other people say over there. I think you have a reasonable point, BTW. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The wlink that you point to says: "The following is the current suggested outline for Supreme Court case articles." If it is meant to be a binding policy, then hopefully I won't be criticized for attempting to change policy so as to advance my position in a dispute. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• The article refers in the lead to "the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.–born children of illegal immigrants". Again, later in the article, there is discussion of the "longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship via jus soli to U.S.–born children of illegal immigrants". When did this practice begin? Before or after this case was decided?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• As written, this Wikipedia article seems to suggest that Congress may have no power to regulate who is and is not a citizen at birth. But under United States nationality law, Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the Constitution does give Congress power to establish naturalization rules, which may affect whether citizenship is acquired at birth (e.g. for people not born on U.S. territory). Shouldn't the constitutional power of Congress be mentioned, especially since it was the purported basis for the legislation that the Court struck down in this case? I could give this a try, if you like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Wong Kim Ark majority opinion does discuss Congress' power w/r/t naturalization, but it doesn't discuss "naturalization" in the context of citizenship at birth except when talking about conferring US citizenship on foreign-born children of American parents — not the point at issue in the case, hence obiter dicta rather than part of the holding. While I'll agree that the Chinese Exclusion Act's prohibition on the naturalization of Chinese immigrants did play a key role in the arguments against Wong's claim to citizenship, my understanding is that they argued Wong was not a US citizen primarily because his parents were ineligible for US naturalization (and, by their interpretation of jurisdiction in the Citizenship Clause, this meant in their view that Wong wasn't covered). In any case, before elaborating on this issue in the article, you would really need to find one or more reliable secondary sources which make this argument — don't just make the observation yourself based on your own understanding (even if you think it's obvious). Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I'm not suggesting to insert unsourced material into the article. See, for example, this source: "Congress' power over naturalization is an exclusive power; no State [or person] has the power to constitute a foreign subject a citizen of the United States....The first sentence of Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contemplates two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization. 1143 This contemplation is given statutory expression in Sec. 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which itemizes those categories of persons who are citizens of the United States at birth; all other persons in order to become citizens must pass through the naturalization process. The first category merely tracks the language of the first sentence of Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment in declaring that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens by birth. But there are six other categories of citizens by birth....."Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've mentioned The Exchange.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Putting the new material about The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon in a separate subsection gives it, IMO, inordinate prominence. Also, without a secondary source (such as a law review article) discussing the relationship of this case to the Wong Kim Ark case, mentioning it (especially so prominently) is problematic. BTW, I almost made the mistake of saying that the Wong Kim Ark opinion doesn't even mention The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon at all — until I realized that two references to "The Exchange" were referring to this case. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Per your valid point about a separate subsection for The Exchange, I've just now removed the header so it's not in a separate subsection now. Reading the case (Wong Kim Ark), I was struck by the fact that The Exchange seemed to be the key precedent that was used to construe this clause of the 14th Amendment, but of course you're correct that secondary sourcing is needed, so I've just inserted two secondary sources. BTW, I'm on an iPhone today, so my edits, and spelling, and research, are not as wonderful as they would otherwise be. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You're on an iPhone, I'm doing an RfA. That makes us about even. :-) You've made a lot of suggestions and changes, and I'll give them the careful attention they deserve as soon as I can. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding the Patrick Glen quote in the lead, the full quote is as follows: "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Suoreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by the lower courts." I've modified the lead a little bit to more closely track the source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• The lead says: "Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress either to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through a new amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has succeeded." I'm going to edit as follows: "Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress either to restrict birthright citizenship, via statute, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through a new amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has succeeded." Two reasons: first, using the word "either" twice in rapid succession doesn't look good, and second, congressional sponsors who don't view Wong Kim Ark as applicable to illegal aliens (because Wong's parents were here legally) therefore don't see any need to redefine the word "jurisdiction", but rather they seek to implement and elaborate upon what they think is the original meaning of the 14th Amendment (in other words, the wording we use could be more neutral).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• I'm curious whether the Court in this case said (either in holding or dicta) that Congress cannot give other groups the same immunity that it already gives to foreign diplomats. If Congress can do that, then maybe the children of those other groups might not be entitled to automatic citizenship at birth. In any event, if it's unclear whether the Court in this case said that Congress cannot give other groups the same immunity that it already gives to foreign diplomats, then we need to be careful not to suggest in this Wikipedia article that the Court did so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• I've inserted the following material with a footnote: "According to law professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas, even if Wong Kim Ark settled the status of children of legal residents, it did not do so for children of illegal residents; Graglia asserts that the case weighs against automatic birthright for illegal immigrants because the Court denied such citizenship for an analogous group, namely 'children  of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation'."Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• I don't think it's necessary to include the title of the article in any of the headers, and so have modified the headers. I also inserted a subheader regarding illegal immigration, which should make it somewhat easier for readers to navigate the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 18:52, 20 September 2011 [9].

---

Hurricane Igor

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane Igor is regarded as the most destructive tropical cyclone to ever strike Newfoundland, causing roughly $200 million in damage. I can't think of anything catchy to put into this nomination but I do believe the article is ready for FAC. I've done thorough research on it over the past 11 months so content wise it should be up to date. As always, all thoughts and comments are welcome and encouraged. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you planning to transclude this nom? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it was an honest mistake. Transcluded for him, was easy enough to fix. Juliancolton (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Administrative note - Cyclonebiskit is going to be busy over the next few days preparing for Hurricane Irene. In his absence myself and other project members will keep an eye on this FAC.Jason Rees (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Storm's over and I can pay attention to what's going on here, thanks for taking over JR. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• FN 1, 39: page(s)?
  • Added Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• Newspaper names should be italicized
  • I think I got them all... Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• Notes should go before citations
  • Moved Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• FN 39: Government of Canada should not be italicized
  • Changed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The few repeated links are there for convenience. The first two links (Advisory Archive and Tropical Cyclone Report) are in every hurricane article. The repeated government paper is also for convenience and it would look rather strange just having the second one there by itself. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Copyscape searches have revealed duplicate text on this webpage.[10] Graham Colm (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  • CB says that source has copy and pasted bits from this article and not the other way around, as he wrote the majority of the article before March 18.Jason Rees (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

    • That's what I suspected. It's the dates that are critical. Thanks for following this up. Graham Colm (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments - The first thing I noticed right off the bat that there is nothing mentioned about the record its size set. Wasn't Igor the largest Atlantic hurricane since reliable record-keeping commenced in terms of gale diameter? ★ Auree _talk 03:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• • I think there was a problem finding a proper citation for that and im not sure it is correct since CB had so many problems interpreting the data.Jason Rees (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Yea, there was no reliable source to cite this "record" so I left it out of the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Ah, that's a shame. It was one of the things that made Igor stand out, other than the destruction in New Foundland. ★ Auree _talk 23:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• The article needs a good copyedit. There are a few spelling and grammar mistakes (not minor ones, but ones that actually stand). After this, I'll be willing to give a more in-depth review. ★ Auree _talk 23:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Media Review Everything checks out. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support I have read this article a couple times with no major issues, thus I support. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

• All in all it was a good read. The majority of the things below are minor textual things. Only two things may require a bit of time to research (the status on the 92 foot wave, and any more information on what the flood actually did). I'll be happy to support once this is done.
  • "it developed into a tropical depression on September 8 and a tropical storm shortly thereafter." - technically that isn't quite right. It developed into a tropical depression, sure, but a TD doesn't develop into a TS
  • "completing this phase within hours of striking southern Newfoundland" - was that before or after it hit Newfoundland? The wording could imply either.
  • You should have a note somewhere that indicates that the damage is 2010 USD.
  • The meteorological history reads really well, nice work.
  • "Although several hundred miles from the Leeward Islands, Igor produced large swells, averaging 9 to 13 ft (2.7 to 4.0 m) in height, in the region between September 16 and 21" - there are a few too many causes. I think the "in the region" part is redundant
  • Any reports on impact in Haiti? The current wording leaves me wanting to know more.
  • "The Bermudan government..." - the demonym of Bermuda is "Bermudian", per its article.
  • "sustained winds reached 91 mph (146 km/h) and gusts to 117 mph (188 km/h)" - that doesn't feel right grammatically
  • "A handful of emergency rescues had to be made" - what if my hand is bigger than yours? (the wording doesn't feel right)
  • "Along the New Jersey coastline, waves averaging between 6 and 9 ft (1.8 and 2.7 m) and dangerous rip currents affected the coastline" - the sentence is very front-heavy
  • Any reason for no hurricane warning in Canada?
  • "Throughout much of eastern Newfoundland, Hurricane Igor produced torrential rainfall, estimated over 10 in (250 mm) in Bonavista, resulting in widespread flooding" - there is one comma clause too many. Try reorganizing a bit
  • Any impact in Canada outside of Newfoundland? The HPC indicates 4mm in Nova Scotia
  • Also, the current wording indicates Igor is the 3rd wettest in Newfoundland, but the source says it's the 3rd wettest in all of Canada. That should be changed, since that's much more impressive.
  • Is there a reason the rainfall map indicates that Igor did not make landfall in Newfoundland?
  • Any update on that 92 foot wave?
  • "an estimated 5,000 trees were felled" - "were felled"? Weird :/
  • Is there any more information on what the storm flooding actually did? It feels a bit lacking in depth.
  • "In an email sent on September 21" - that should probably indicate 2010.

♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Quick note on the 92 foot wave: there has been no update on whether or not it was verified as of yet. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: the "felled" thing, I don't think that word should be used at all. It's mostly a forestry term used when a specimen was cut down for timber or clearing, not for natural downings. Juliancolton (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 18:52, 20 September 2011 [11].

---

Sphecius grandis

Nominator(s): Atomician (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been working on this for 2 weeks now and have been building it up and cross-checking to make sure it meets the FA criteria and I believe that with some feedback pointers this could become featured, thanks, Atomician (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ranges should consistently use endashes, not hyphens
  • Done.
• FN 11: format, spelling
  • Done.
• Need page numbers for this (if it's kept), this, and this
  • Done.
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? It seems to be aimed at youth
  • It's a higher education booklet, written to inform, what else should one turn to? Atomician (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Need more consistency in author Bibliography formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Could you be more specific? Atomician (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I've fixed up the names - so they are like "Smith, John" - they should all be formatted the same way. Some journals need formatting too like this. I'd do it myslef but have to run. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Done. Thank you both. Atomician (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• No issues were found by copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Ucucha. Nice to see an insect on FAC; that doesn't happen very often. I think the prose in this article is awkward in places; I've applied some edits myself and suggest a few more here. If I'm wrong, feel free to say so or revert.

• In the lead, you change from singular to plural and again: "S. grandis ... provides cicadas for their offspring. They are ... The wasp is". Please be consistent.
  • Done, but please check if there are more.
    • You still have "their offspring" (plural) there. Ucucha (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Done.
• In the second paragraph of the lead, it is unclear whether some of the information refers to this species or to the genus as a whole.
  • Done.
• You say it occurs in Central America and in the western U.S., but Mexico (where it also occurs) is not usually included in Central America.
  • I wasn't aware of that, thanks and done.
• "At first, the method to tell between S. grandis and S. convallis (the Pacific cicada killer wasp) was to compare the colour of the gastral tergites, S. grandis was originally thought to have yellow markings on five gastral tergites and S. convallis to have three markings, but this was found to be inadequate. A new method was recently devised which allowed identification through examination of the coloration of the tergite markings in the case of an anomaly in the placement of the marks." This doesn't read well to me, particularly the first sentence. It's a run-on sentence (there should probably be a period after "tergites", I think), and it doesn't really make clear to me what the new identification technique is. The body of the text does make clear what the diagnostic character is; I think the discussion in the lead should be rewritten.
  • Tell me if that's better?
    • I think you need to rewrite this more thoroughly. Perhaps: "S. grandis can be distinguished from S. convallis (the Pacific cicada killer wasp) by the colouration pattern of the gastral tergites. Formerly, the two species were distinguished on the basis of the number of tergites with yellow markings (five in S. grandis and three in S. convallis), but a more recent study showed that this character is insufficient to distinguish all individuals of the two species. However, they can be distinguished by the density of punctation on the first and second tergites." Ucucha (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Done.
• "The species was collected by Dylan Maddox on September 8, 1957, in Madera Canyon, Arizona and correctly identified by Charles W. Holliday."—why is this relevant?
  • It's information about the history of its classification, how is it irrelevant?
    • It's a widespread species, so I'm sure it's been collected and identified in many places; why do we need to be told that it was collected in this part of Arizona? Ucucha (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
      • First time collected and identified. Slight tweak.
        • If it was first described in 1824, how could it have been first collected in 1957?
          • I've removed it, as it seems illogical. Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 20:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• "Analysis of mitochondrial DNA showed that there were two divergent clades each within the western and Pacific cicada killers, and that one clade of each were closely related to each other."—this reads awkward to me. I suggest: Analysis of mitochondrial DNA showed that both the western and Pacific cicada killers contained two divergent clades, and that each clade was most closely related to a clade of the other species."
  • Done.
• How are males identified? The article only discusses identification of females.
  • Last sentence of Identification explains, research done on males revealed that the same method can be used for m.
• The description section is rather short and gives little information about anatomy. How many tergites are there in total, for example?
  • I haven't found that information in any of the sources (and I'm running out), if I'd known I would have added it.
    • Holiday and Coelho (2006) say that "the body is rufous to nearly black"—the first source I looked at. Also, that source says there are rufous patches on the first two tergites (which I don't see anywhere in this article). Ucucha (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Added both.
• "A study by Quincy University"—the paper has authors from three different universities (incidentally, the reference should list all those authors); why is this a study by that particular university?
  • The journal of Thermal Biology was released under Quincy, hence why its research is attributed to it.
    • I'm not quite sure what you mean there, but if Quincy published the journal, that does not mean a study published in the journal is a Quincy study. Ucucha (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
      • How so? Unless I'm missing something vital, if it's published by Quincy, it's a Quincy study (its prime author is even a Quincy attendee).
        • I suppose this is rather a trivial issue, but I still can't follow you. Scientific journals are published by all kinds of entities, but that does not mean the studies published in those journals are affiliated with those entities. I once published a study in the Journal of Mammalogy, but that does not make that study an American Society of Mammalogists study; it was in fact conducted at Naturalis. Ucucha (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Per the consensus, I've removed it. Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 20:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• Why doesn't this article use U.S. English?
  • Because I'm British. It's in one style and doesn't need to be changed.
    • But see WP:TIES, and this species has a large part of its range in the U.S. Ucucha (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
      • This article isn't a strong tie to the US, your link does not mean that I need to rewrite the entire article to be American. It's a wasp, found in America. There are articles about English topics written in American, once a style has been established it should be maintained.
        • Except when there is a strong tie to a particular English-speaking nation, and for an animal that tie can hardly be stronger than that it occurs in such a nation. But I'm happy to wait what other reviewers have to say on this topic. Ucucha (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Per MOS:RETAIN it is better to be consistent and keep the current established spelling convention than be pinickity. Seriously the effort required to change the spelling convention could be much better concentrated elsewhere. Polyamorph (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• "A successful defence increases the chances that they pass on their genes."—does that need to be mentioned? It seems rather obvious.
  • Removed.
• "The species is Nearctic, found from Central America to the Western United States, in New Mexico, California and every state east of the Rocky Mountains."—Central America is Neotropic, not Nearctic, and don't you mean west of the Rockies?
  • Neotropic is done, but the reference states it as being to the east of.
    • This one? I'd hardly consider that a high-quality reliable source (as required by the FA criteria), but it's clear that it is talking about cicada killers in general, not about this species specifically. Holiday and Coelho (2006) give a list of U.S. states where it has been found. Ucucha (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Changed to west.
        • Do the cited references still support the text? It might be better to name the states: it also occurs in Kansas and Nebraska, which are in fact east of the Rockies. Ucucha (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Done. Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 20:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• "also in Granada (Nicaragua)"—the link is wrong (it leads to the Spanish city), but do you mean Granada, Nicaragua or Granada Department?
  • Done.
• Why is "Interaction with humans" part of "Geographical distribution"?
  • Done.

Ucucha (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment on close paraphrasing Some of the paraphrasing might be too close to the source. This sentence "The timing of the emergence of females has evolved to correspond with the similar emergence of the cicada species of the area, Tibicen duryi and T. parallela, which they hunt for the provisioning of their nests", is very similar to the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Introduction of this article,[12] which reads, "The timing of female S. grandis emergence has apparently evolved to correspond with the emergence of the cicadas Tibicen duryi and T. parallela that they hunt for nest provisions". The nominator should ensure that the sources used are not too closely paraphrased. I know that there are limitations on how differently facts can be written, but every effort must be made. Graham Colm (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments As Ucucha said, nice to see an insect hereJimfbleak - talk to me? 06:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• I made these edits. Please check
• mainly provides cicadas for its offspring — add "to feed on"?
• punctation — unlinked and unexplained technical term
• Sizing — I don't know if this is acceptable in AE, but weird for a British reader perhaps "Ranging in size"?
• live for a long enough time to produce a brood in a year. — Does that mean that they live for a year, if not how long?
• A study by Quincy University — I agree with Ucucha, why not just "a study showed..." or a "a study by Coeho et al..."?
• What variety of English, colouration, but defense? Should be written exclusively in AE for a NAM endemic. I'm a Brit too, but my only NAm endemic FA is in AE
• Approximately 90% of its life is spent underground as a larva. They rarely... — "it" has changed to "they"

• I've implemented all of your suggested changes, apart from the rewording into American because there is a split decision, both myself and Polyamorph think it doesn't need to happen, but yourself and Ucucha do... so I'm torn. Perhaps some more discussion? Thanks for your comments! Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 20:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• OK, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments, yes, good to see some representatives of the small majority Shyamal (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• • "The species was first collected by Dylan Maddox" - sounds odd, it was obviously collected first by Thomas Say. Perhaps the emphasis on its first record from Arizona ? - PS- noted already by Ucucha
  • "wasp is capable of thermoregulation which enables them to hunt for cicadas during the day" - the implied rationale is unclear - a wintery day ? or is it perhaps an early start in the cooler hours of the day ? Or does it mean it can cool down and hunt during the hottest part of the day ?
  • "Based upon an experiment on stings to mice by Vincent H. Resh and Ring T. Cardé" - that encyclopaedia is a tertiary source and there must be a primary source for that experiment which was unlikely to have been done by the editors.
    • Done, thanks for your comments! Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 20:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Media Review all checks out. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Sasata (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• In general, the article is overcited. There is no need to cite consecutive sentence if they all come from the same source. In some cases, there's consecutive citations to the same source in the same sentence

• Done.

• I agree that WP:TIES overrides WP:RETAIN, and that the article should be in Am. Eng.

• I'll do that now then, since there's a consensus. Done. (Coloration just looks so bare without a "u" in it!) Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 00:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• how about a citation to the protolog (and link if available)?

• Which part are you referring to? The taxobox? Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 00:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• where was the type location?

• Madera Canyon. Done.

• make sure that short-form binomials have a non-breaking space to avoid unsightly line breaks

• Done.

• link rufous

• Done.

• "3 to 5 cm (1.18–2 in)" too many sig figs in the conversion output

• Done.

• "the males die within only a few days" within->in

• Done.

• link mg on first usage

• Done.

• link the other four New World species of Sphecidae (redlinks are ok)

• Done.

• "However, this was found to be insufficient because the positions of the markings can vary through different wasps of the same species." insufficient for what? also, maybe change "through" to "in"

• Done.

• link key; Tibicen duryi, Tibicen dealbata, T. parallela

• I think I've done what you've asked. Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 00:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• "…frequently under sidewalks,[21] and is always in full sunlight." isn't this contradictory?

• I've tweaked the sentence to make it not contradict itself, but tell me if you want more. Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 00:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Based upon an experiment on stings to mice, the western cicada killer has a pain rating of 1+, based on a scale between 0 and 4.4 (where 4.4 is highest), indicating a low pain in stings and a lethality of 46 LC measured by LC=μg⁄LD50 (LC="lethal capacity", μg="venom in the insect", LD50="μg⁄g of the venom", g="size of mammal receiving the dose" and LD="lethal dose"), where a lower rating indicated a higher lethality." Awkward, cumbersome sentence

• I couldn't really get rid of the equation indicators, but I've split it into two, is it better? Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 00:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• if New Mexico is linked, so should Kansas and Nebraska be

• Done.

• "S. grandis wasps frequently interact" don't start a new paragraph with an abbreviation

• Done.

• I doubt sidewalk needs to be linked

• Done.

• anything useful in these sources?

Hastings JM. (1989). "The influence of size, age, and residency status on territory defense in male western cicada killer wasps (Sphecius grandis, Hymenoptera, Sphecidae)" Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 62(3): 363-373

Hastings J. (1986) "Provisioning by female western cicada killer wasps, Sphecius grandis (Hymenoptera, Sphecidae) - influence of body size and emergence time on individual provisioning success" Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 59(2):262-268

• I found quite a lot of information from both of them, what did you find useless about them? Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 00:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm probably a smidgeon towards the simple side of human intelligence and might need an explanation of what you want me to do with the protolog comment, but other than that this has been very helpful and I think I've managed to sort out the vast majority of your suggestions. Cheers, Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 00:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 18:52, 20 September 2011 [13].

---

United States Bicentennial coinage

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. The Bicentennial coins may still be seen in circulation, mostly the quarter (although you might be tossed one if you are handed a half dollar at a casino). There is, as there often is, an interesting backstory of the Mint yielding to Congressional pressure for coins. Perhaps a little more modern than my usual coin stuff, and includes a shoutout to the subject of my last FA (he signed the bill to authorize the coins). Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't do extensive spotchecks, but one quote in particular caught my eye: in the article, "The theory in striking them was was to have enough available so as many Americans as possible would have an opportunity to have a coinage commemoration of the Bicentennial year. They're momentoes."; in the source, "The theory in striking them was to have enough available so as many Americans as possible would have a chance to obtain a coinage commemoration of the Bicentennial year. They're mementos". Does your version of the source differ from mine, or is this a transcription issue?

Typo on my part; I try to be careful. Thanks for the catch.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Check for small inconsistencies in formatting like doubled periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I'll go through it right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Support by Ruhrfisch. Read this and found it meets the criteria - I think I have a few quibbles, but am calling it a night and will add them tomorrow. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• In the caption The Eisenhower dollar, given the double date 1776–1976, given seems an odd word choice. Is this standard numismatic wording? Or could it be just "with" or perhaps "showing" instead of "given"?
• Every other place in the article uses "half dollar" but here A nationwide competition resulted in designs of a Colonial drummer for the quarter, Independence Hall for the half and the Liberty Bell superimposed against the moon for the dollar.

"half" or "halves" is accepted shorthand for "half dollar[s]". As there is only one, though, I will expand it to "half dollar'.

Thanks - I just searched for "halves" and there are two uses of that (each without a following "dollar"). Again, if this is standard numismatic terminology, I am OK with it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it is better to expand them. It's not like the half dollar is the sole subject of the article, and thus we're crying out for synonyms. I can work around it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Should there be a zero before the decimal point? Brooks deprecated the Hatfield proposal, stating that the coin would have to be .667 pure or less to avoid hoarding.[6]

No, fineness is represented without a 0.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Does this need a comma? (shown as [,]) Brooks testified again and[,] responding to criticism that only the two least popular denominations were to be changed, indicated her support for a Bicentennial quarter as well.
• Should this be split into two sentences? On June 13, a bill, S. 1141 which provided for a circulating Bicentennial quarter, half dollar and dollar, gave permission for coins to be struck at West Point and allowed for 40% silver clad versions of the new coins for collectors was reported favorably by the Senate Banking Committee.

I don't see that that would help. This is actually a very simple sentence, it just takes some time to tell.

Your call ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Seems like a fragment is stuck on here? Not all entries were for the quarter? Entries were to bear the legend "QUARTER DOLLAR", Treasury Secretary Shultz, advised by a panel of judges, would decide which design would be used for which denomination.

The sentence seems accurate to me. All the designs were submitted saying "QUARTER DOLLAR". On the successful designs which became the half dollar and dollar, the lettering was altered, but if you look at the designs as released to the public at the semifinal stage, you see the designs for the half and dollar, but saying "QUARTER DOLLAR".

OK, would it help to explictly say that legend was changed afterwards on the winning designs for the half dollar and dollar? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Would it help to add the year of the painting (presumably about 1876?) here According to numismatic historian Walter Breen, "both obviously derive from Archibald Willard's painting Spirit of '76", painted in YEAR.[10]

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the support, I will make the changes over the next day or two.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

All done, except as noted.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

All resolved, thanks for an interesting read, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I've made the additional suggested change, thanks for the review and glad you liked it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Media Review all good here. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That's good, thanks for the check.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I am curious; WP:IMGSIZE says "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so". What is the good reason for forcing 200px to the images? My76Strat (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I take it that's directed at Sven? I do not know. I am generally content to let the image people do whatever they want, within reason.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was asking Sven as he made the change. I am not criticizing mind you, but asking what is the good reason, so I may also know. My76Strat (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I left a note on his talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Normally, you're right, however in this case I did it because it was a column of five images with no break in between them. In cases like that, I tend to shrink them down a bit so that they don't cramp out the text for people with smaller screens. It's purely a courtesy for all those poor souls still using 800x600 screens. This way, the column takes up a quarter of the page rather than roughly 3/8ths, and that's actually a major difference visually. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for that. I thought perhaps it was a way to accentuate the detail in the image. I understand your rational, and thank you for sharing that insight. My76Strat (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• A comma would be nice in the lead after Mary Brooks.
• Competition: Should the comma after "Entries were to bear the legend 'QUARTER DOLLAR'" be a semi-colon or period instead?
• Preparation: Last sentence of the section's first paragraph has a double period.
• Production: Period needed after "Mint officials returned to Congress to seek amending legislation"?
• Note 7: "It was made legal for US citizens to own gold by Act dated August 14, 1974". Missing either the act name or something before "Act". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll deal with these shortly.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Those things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 18:52, 20 September 2011 [14].

---

Jennifer Connelly

Nominator(s): GDuwenTell me!, Gunt50 15:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

After a new peer review, the issues pointed out in the last FAC were fixed.GDuwenTell me! 15:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• No issues were revealed by copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Malleus Fatuorum

• In the Early 2000s section we're told that the film A Beautiful Mind has grossed more than $313 million worldwide since its release. Then we're told that this is equivalent to $388.4 million as of 2011, but without any hint as to how that figure has been arrived at; in addition it's misleadingly precise – converted amount should not offer more significant figures than its source. But worst of all, looking at the raw text I see {{Inflation|US|313|2001|r=1}}. In other words even though the figure of £313 million is the lifetime gross, the whole amount is considered to have been earned a year before the film went on general release.

I corrected the year to 2002, and sourced the inflation value.--GDuwenTell me! 19:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you haven't sourced the inflation value, as the $313 million wasn't all earned in 2002; it's given as the lifetime gross, i.e., earned between 2001 and 2011. Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now I replaced the worldwide lifetime gross by the domestic gross to May 24–27 of 2002.--GDuwenTell me! 20:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's still not right. The domestic earnings for May 24–27 were $144,430, not $170 million; you've used the total domestic earnings since 2001. Malleus Fatuorum 20:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave the total domestic gross between 2001 and 2002. Hope that solves the problem.--GDuwenTell me! 20:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what's going on here. So far all that's happened during this discussion is that you've removed the inflationary conversion (good), but also replaced the total worldwide gross with the total domestic gross for no obvious reason. Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, OK. Once again I got it wrong, I'll restore the total worldwide gross again.--GDuwenTell me! 23:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• From the same section: "Impressed by Connelly's charisma, she and the others auditioned alongside Russell Crowe". Doesn't make sense.

I replaced "Impressed by Connelly's charisma.." by "Connelly and the others auditioned alongside Russell Crowe".

• From the 2008–2011 Section: "... the remake featured Benson's in a troubled relationship with her stepson, portrayed by Jaden Smith".

Could you specify the problem with the sentence?--GDuwenTell me! 19:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

"Benson's". Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed.--GDuwenTell me! 20:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• "She was included in the ensemble cast of the 2009 romantic comedy He's Just Not That Into You". What's an "ensemble cast?

I removed "ensemble"--GDuwenTell me! 19:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Connelly has contributed to several charities." Who hasn't?

Not everyone contributes to charity, the sentence is used to introduce the reader to Connelly's charity contributions.--GDuwenTell me! 19:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Then let me put it this way; that she contributes to charity is in no way remarkable, as very many others do as well. Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. I removed the line.--GDuwenTell me! 20:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• "In 1990 Dennis Hopper directed The Hot Spot with Connelly cast as Gloria Harper". So he directed it with Connelly?

Corrected.--GDuwenTell me! 19:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Connelly has stated that she prefers life with her husband and children when she is not working ...". That sentence really makes no sense to me; what does she prefer when she is working? Sex, drugs, and rock and roll? Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum 18:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks better now?--GDuwenTell me! 01:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really. It now says "Connelly has stated that she prefers life with her husband and children". Prefers it over what? Being on welfare handouts? Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed the verb. You like it now, chief?--Gunt50 (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be going from bad to worse. The sentence now reads: "Connelly has stated that she enjoys the family life with her husband and children, in 2009 she cited her family, with whom she lives in TriBeCa, New York City, as the most important thing in her life." Malleus Fatuorum 17:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not just remove it, it doesn't seem to be adding much information... Atomician (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I just rephrased it. --Gunt50 (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Atomician (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Atomician As a sidenote (since Malleus looks to have this sorted), just taking a look through the refs, a lot of them are unreliable. If I made any mistakes, please cross them out. ref 5 is a user submitted site, is it reliable? Ref 12 Is TVGuide reliable? Ref 15 unreliable from allrovi. Ref 25 allrovi Ref 27 allrovi Ref 33 allrovi Ref 39. Questionable? Ref 52. Unreliable. Ref 57 allrovi Ref 66 allrovi Ref 86 allrovi. Ref 96 Unreliable Ref 98 Fansite = unreliable. Atomician (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC) The unreliable/questionable sources have been replaced.--GDuwenTell me! 21:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Other sources issues: As well as the above possible issues of reliability there are a few format problems that need attention:-

• You need to be consistent about using parentheses around publishers of printed media. See for example 3 versus 55. Also 63, 93. There are several other cases of missing parentheses.

I've been looking to the refs. I don't think it is actually a matter of inconsistency. The cite news template presents parentheses whereas the cite web doesn't. About printed sources note there are differences for example between cite journal and cite books templates. What you call inconsistency are the differences between them --Gunt50 (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• As you have chosen to give publisher details for all printed media, you need to add this to ref. 13 (as per ref. 1)

I don't see whats the problem. I assume it was fixed by GDuwen yesterday.--Gunt50 (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• There is a slight problem with the format of ref. 19

Fixed --Gunt50 (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 45: can you provide more identifying information for this DVD?

I've included all data available about it. Looking at the cite video template, I wouldn't really know what else should I add.--Gunt50 (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 70: Is the New York Times Company the publisher of the website "Boston.com"?

It is according to its homepage. --Gunt50 (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comments - hey people. The article is generally in very good shape. I made a few minor edits, but I prefer to give you a few comments so that you can address them yourselves:

• Lead: "who enjoyed a career as a child model" - I think enjoyed does not make much sense, I would change it to "started her career as a..."

Done.--Gunt50 (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• "after a friend of her parents suggested that she should audition" - I don't think it is very necessary in the lead.

I think it provides a context to the beginning of her career. Do you really think it should be removed?--Gunt50 (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not think so at all. "a friend of her parents" makes me like, "so what?" Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed.--GDuwenTell me! 04:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• I believe it is better to either mention all the directors in the lead or none; just be consistent. I, for one, cannot see why the director of Dark City is not mentioned while the director of Requiem for a Dream is.

Done

It is not done... Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed the names of all the directors.--GDuwenTell me! 04:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• "In 2002, Connelly won an Academy Award, a Golden Globe Award and a BAFTA award as a supporting actress for her portrayal of Alicia Nash in Ron Howard's biopic A Beautiful Mind." - first, I think the awards should not be linked to the category pages, but to the actual awards. Please capitalise the "award" of BAFTA. I'd also change it from "as a supporting actress for her portrayal" to "for her supporting role of".

Done.--GDuwenTell me! 04:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• "the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still" - if I see something like "a remake of..." I would expect to get a link to the original film on which the remake in question is based.

Done. --Gunt50 (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• "they have two children together and she has a child from a previous relationship." - omit "together". A previous relationship with whom? I think this must be mentioned. I would even mention it in a new sentence.

Done

• Shouldn't it be "the face of" and not "the face for"?

Done.--Gunt50 (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Life and career: If her entire life is presented under one certain heading level, then "Life and career" does not seem to be contributing anything. I find "birth" from "Birth and early life" to be quite redundant.

I removed the redundant "birth". Is that what you wanted me to do?--Gunt50 (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Connelly gained public recognition with her next picture, the 1986 fantasy film Labyrinth" - I would start the section with "In 1986". I don't think "next picture" adds much as it is a new section, though it's not critical. The NYT review of Labyrinth is a little long, so I think the last sentence of the quote (from "Since the film has only five") is better removed and the "The New York Times panned her portrayal" is changed to, "The New York Times, while noting the importance of her part, panned her portrayal".

Done. --Gunt50 (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Re Career Opportunities: "Criticized for exploiting Connelly's image, the complaints were caused by an ad that showed..." - this is very vague. Who was criticised? The complaints? :)

I rephrased a bit the phrase. is it better now?--GDuwenTell me! 04:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ref number 26 is a blog.

It is a journalistic one from the Southern Cali Public Radio. I'm not sure about this one being unreliable.--Gunt50 (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• "In 1995, Connelly demonstrated her ability to handle more mature roles" - seems to be a bit subjective, unless proper attribution is given.

removed.--GDuwenTell me! 04:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• "She subsequently began to appear in small budget but well-regarded films" - hmmm... a little problematic, the "but" seems to imply as though small budget film cannot be "well-regarded" which in itself is not a very clear kind of wording because the first question that pops up in my mind is "regarded by whom?". How about "small budget films which did well with critics"

I rephrased it.--Gunt50 (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• "her breakthrough film, Requiem for a Dream" - again, seems to be a personal opinion. Should be changed to something like, "she appeared in what was considered/described by critics to be her breakthrough film..."

Done.--Gunt50 (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Re A Beautiful Mind: "Other actresses who auditioned for the role included Rachel Weisz, Hilary Swank, Mira Sorvino and Frances O'Connor." - completely irrelevant. "Connelly and the others auditioned alongside Russell Crowe" - better as, "Connelly and Crowe auditioned along with other actors." As for "Howard and the producers noted the impressive chemistry between Crowe and Connelly and chose her for the part", they did not only choose her as Crowe auditioned too. How about, "Reportedly, Howard and the producers eventually chose them for their respective parts after being particularly impressed by their screen chemistry." Also, "The film was a critical and commercial success, grossing more than..., and earning Connelly" - As the sentence starts with describing the film's achievements first, I think it's better to mention the awards the film itself won at the Academy Awards. Then, a new sentence should start with: "For her portrayal, Connelly earned..."

I have rephrased the sentences.--GDuwenTell me! 03:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I think it's enough for now. Good luck to you and I'll post some other comments later. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Media Review All of the images were good on copyright. I've removed two of them, because there's no reason to have five portraits of the same person in an article. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• More comments - well-done so far, I've made a few minor changes here and there, but here we go:

• I would first like to pay your attention to the correct use of punctuation marks: Please remember that only quotations that follow and support an assertion should be set off by a colon (rather than a comma). As in, "One critic wrote: 'She is...'" is improper. There should not be a colon there but a comma. A colon should be used in a sentence like: "Critic X described her performance as her best to date: 'She delivers her best.'" Anyway, I think I've taken care of most such instances in the article.

I found two more. Check out my edits. I think the issue has been addressed.--Gunt50 (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It's mostly done, some you have changed but shouldn't have, :) like "New York Magazine praised her performance:" - there should be a comma because the quote supports this assertion. And it's not only about critics' reviews, there are also other instances when Connelly is quoted, and there's a colon instead of a comma. If you like, I'll do it tomorrow from A to Z. I'm a bit short of time now. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd certainly appreciate if you could do that. I corrected the one you mentioned.--GDuwenTell me! 01:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Please remember that if the year of a film's release is not mentioned in a sentence, then it should be presented in parentheses right after the link to the film. In the lead I see a sentence, "Other film credits include the Marvel superhero film Hulk, the thriller Dark Water, the drama Blood Diamond, the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still and the romantic comedy He's Just Not That Into You." - please mention the years. Also, "other film credits" is a bit vague. It should be changed to something like, "her later film credits include". I still find "remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still" a bit problematic. Maybe it's better to change it to "the science fiction The Day the Earth Stood Still"?

Done.--Gunt50 (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It is, but I would still suggest to present the years in parentheses, though it's not critical. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't use them to preserve the consistency since the rest of the years on the lead ain't presented in parentheses.--Gunt50 (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Early 2000s: re House of Sand and Fog, is "The struggles between Kathy and Behrani intensify throughout the story leading to a tragic end." really necessary? Additionally, "The film was well-received worldwide and was given critical acclaim" - is like repeating the same thing in two different versions. I think one of the two must be omitted; I would suggest, "The film was given worldwide critical acclaim."

I rephrased the sentence you mentioned. What is the thing you think is unnecessary? The plot part?--Gunt50 (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Particularly the "tragic end" part. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed the plot.--Gunt50 (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• 2005-2007: Is there a particular reason why she decided to take a two-year break from movies? If yes, then please mention it.

I think it was after giving birth to her second son in 2003, but no particular reason was described to the media. --Gunt50 (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? I mean, two years is no mean thing. I'm almost sure she did cite a reason, and it's very essential info. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I swear I couldn't found anything about that. All I can see is an empty spot on her filmography. The sources don't indicate any reason.--Gunt50 (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Re Dark Water: Just curious, why does the article use a Roger Ebert review referenced to a book source if a proper link is available on the net?

I'm loth to change it since the book won't be removed from the net as it could happen to the link. I could change it anyway if you're sure about this point.--Gunt50 (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind, I would cite the net link, but if you think the book is a better choice, then it's fine by me. :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'd like to add once again that ref 26 is a blog and would not quialify as a reliable source. I'm sure there are many other and better sources.

I replaced it with one of them.--Gunt50 (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Personal life: I'm a bit undecided on this one but I wonder how useful the following quote is: "...who, according to her statements, are the most important thing in her life" - I mean, it goes without saying that one's family and children are most important to them.

I think it is actually useful. It shows she's a family person. Those were her statements. However, I can remove it if you're completely sure about it.--Gunt50 (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeh I see your point. I would not want my personal opinions to be taken as firm assertions. I think it can be discussed, but one thing I'm sure about, this needs some polishing with a copy edit. I think it could be written just you wrote it here, that she describes herself as family-oriented and is devoted to her family. I'm sure there can be found some interviews to support the claim. What's your take? Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I found some references to her family-oriented personality in references 3 and 85, but I think it'd probably be better to remove the phrase if it is much of a big problem.--Gunt50 (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If you could add something like, "Connelly describes herself a very family-oriented person", that'd be good. Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the quote that her family is the most important thing to her is useful and should stay in the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a quite, I also think it's useful, but I think it could be reworded. Any suggestions? Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not go back and re-read the section - I thought it was a quote. Agree that the information should be in the article, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Connelly speaks Italian and French fluently" - first, it doesn't really flow well with the text. Secondly, shouldn't it be mentioned in the Early life section?

Why should I mention it up there? What has that to do with her early career?--Gunt50 (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Not early career, early life. :) After all, if she is fluent in other languages then she most probably have spoken them since childhood. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't found references supporting that she learned those during her childhood. I think it could probably be the case with Italian (I believe a part of her debut movie was shot in Italy), and I have no idea about French. The references only mention she speaks those languages.--GDuwenTell me! 01:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Okay then, I think it's enough for now. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I shall return tomorrow and take a final glance at the article. Thank you, Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Support by Ruhrfisch. I was involved in the two most recent peer reviews and have just re-read the article. It has improved greatly and I feel it meets the FA criteria now. It seems odd to remove photos of someone several reputable publications have named one of the most beautiful women in the world (there used to be two more free images of her). I made a few copyedits as I read - feel free to revert or tweak them if I made things worse. I still have two nit-picks which do not detract from my support.

• Jim Henson needs to be linked and better identified in connection with the film Labyrinth (he is in the NYT quote, but the MOS discourages links in direct quotations): Perhaps Mr. Henson gave too much attention to his puppets and not enough to developing a compelling performance in his lead actress.

I linked his name on the phrase Jim Henson's 1986 fantasy film Labyrinth.

• In the 2008-2011 section, should this be in past tense? The film is based on the self-help book of the same name.[74] i.e. "The film was based..."

Done.--Gunt50 (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments, inclined to support: This article is almost unrecognisable since I last saw it, and the work done on it has been tremendous. The prose is looking pretty good, and I have just one or two queries. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• "who started a career as a child model": A career sounds a little odd, in conjunction with started, making it sound like she just decided one day to have a go at being a child model! What about "began her career as a child model"?
• "After Connelly's frequent appearances as a model, her mother started to take her to acting auditions…" This phrasing suggests a connection between her modelling appearances and her mother taking her to auditions. If there is, it should be spelt out. If not, I would suggest cutting the phrase "After Connelly's frequent appearances as a model".
• "her mother started to take her to acting auditions[6] where she was selected for a supporting role as Deborah Gelly…" She went to lots of auditions for this part, or she was successful at one audition of many (I would assume she auditioned for lots of films)? If the latter, what about "…auditions; at one of these, she was selected…"
• "In a scene from the film, Connelly had to perform a ballet routine. During the audition for the role, and without any knowledge of the dance, she attempted to imitate a ballerina, which convinced the director to include her in the cast.": Not sure about this. Is it important or could it go? And it doesn't quite make sense to me; did he award the part because she was good or because she had the nerve to pretend to know ballet? Either way, I would suggest re-phrasing.
  • I still don't think it makes clear why he thought it was good; it now says "Her performance convinced the director to include her in the cast". Does this mean her ballet was so good, though she had never done it before, that he cast her? Or was it he admired her nerve? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• The second paragraph of 1980s-1990s is very short; could it be merged somewhere?
• "Hughes was criticized for exploiting Connelly's image, People magazine deplored an advertisement that showed…" This is a very long sentence, and I wonder if the comma should be a semi-colon? At the moment, the sentence reads like it is listing problems with the film. I'm assuming the two parts of the sentence are directly connected.
• "reportedly, Howard and the producers eventually chose them…" How reliable is "reportedly"? Who said so?
• "Publications such as Vanity Fair, Esquire, and the Los Angeles Times have included her in their rankings of the most beautiful women in the world." This seems a little tacked on, and the whole paragraph feels a little odd where it is, as it interrupts the flow of her films. Maybe move it to Personal life?
• A minor thing, but is the NYT used too much for reviews of her performances? It would be good to hear other opinions, but I appreciate they may not exist so don't feel that this is a problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I worked on the issues. As you pointed out NYT is used frequently for critics, but for her performances in some movies it's difficult to find something that focuses on her acting rather than in the movie. Just to mention, in "A Beautiful Mind", I just removed the word "Reportedly", the source mentions as a fact that Howard selected her for the Chimestry with Mr. Crowe.--GDuwenTell me! 01:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Support: I'm happy to support this now as I think it meets the criteria. No doubt there are bits of prose that could still be tidied up, but I think the overall effect is very good and I am impressed with the work and dedication that has gone into this article. There are two unstuck comments; the second one I do not expect anything to be done about and the first does not affect my support. One final minor nitpick is that the last paragraph is a bit choppy as it seems to fit in a bit of extra information, but I am not sure that much can be done about it and it is not a major issue. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Support - most of my comments and suggestions have been addressed. It was nice seeing this article progessing so well. The article is generally well-written, comprehensive, focused, and well sourced. It could be improved and a few copyedits would definitely make it better, but then, there's no such thing as 'complete' on Wikipedia. I support; well-done, friends. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Sorry but a distinct lack of research with books.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually there isn't a particular requirement for books as long as articles are properly cited with reliable sources. And the article does use several book sources. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. A featured article should be the best possible article on a given subject. If you blindly ignore a vast pool of potential sources the job isn't being done as good as it could be. Yes it is a well written article but the best articles are always those which are widely researched. The article writer/s might be surprised what they might find in google books which gives different perspectives on certain film and her roles. Of course many sources may be no more valuable than any of the newspaper sources but browsing through the sheer quantity of sources available in google books it does seem like this could be better researched and could be written from a more even balance of sources. If I was convinced that this current article is the best possible article we could write on her then I'd support it being promoted. But I strongly suspect if I did some research through all those books available I could considerably strengthen the current article. That's my point. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that the cited sources are enough. Taking as an example other FA's such as Maggie Gyllenhaal, Jake Gyllenhaal, Kirsten Dunst, Emma Watson, Eric Bana and Reese Witherspoon, just to name some, the sources of those are exact the same, (magazines, newspapers, bios from reliable sources). In most cases, books are not even used. Taking a look at Diane Keaton, the only book used is the biography of Woody Allen, and it's only under further reading, not used as a source for information.--GDuwenTell me! 17:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It comes down to laziness more than anything to get every bit of material from the newspapers on the web, especially biographical details. In the cases where a wealth of information and sources exists in books and magazines which can be accessed in google books it is a crime to simply ignore them. What about Clint Eastwood? I could have relied on newspapers solely to write that too. Woody Allen should have a similar number of book sources and Diane Keaton should most certainly have more book sources. Connelly has been around much longer than the likes of Maggie Gyllenhaal and Emma Watson, not in the league of Eastwood or Allen but google books shows there to be a large pool of potential resources even if not biographies like there are on Eastwood and Allen. You are obviously so keen to push this to FA having done so on your fourth attempt. I don't know how you could do so when you haven't even bothered to do full research and at least assure yourself it could not be improved further. Look I don't mean to imply you are lazy as you've spent a lot of time on this article, I just think you should have researched all sources at your disposal before posting for FA that's all. You clearly haven't even looked in google books and that is just not good enough at this level. Sorry, I'm sure you'll all disagree with me that it "is not neccessary to use google books" but in my view FAs should show evidence of wide reading and that time has been spent searching for them. If an article on an actor uses almost entirely newspapers then it looks like wider research hasn't been done and they simply lifted the nearest source they could find on the web. If you don't look through all sources which are presented to you on the Internet through google books in addition to your web paper sources then I do not know how you can stand here with confidence and say "this article is as good as it can possibly be". ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I checked several of the publications available on google books. It offers similar info in comparison to the online sources cited. First, I really respect your work on Clint Eastwood's. You might say JC has been around longer in comparison to other actresses mentioned, but you should consider Diane Keaton's article. It's a way longer career and only one book citation has been used, and it is still a FA. I don't see what's the problem when most of the things you can find on google books contain the same info that we included on the article, like film reviews or bio content (note source 22).--Gunt50 (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Just searching Jennifer Connelly Once Upon a Time in America for instance it turns up sources like [15] [16] [17] [18]. I'm not saying that it is always necessary to use them or even possible to be able to access them all or that they are of any use but unless you use google books as a tool for writing articles to at least make the decision whether to use the sources available or not you can't really be certain you are not missing anything of note. I just think you'd be amazed at what you can sometimes pick up with snippets in google books that's all. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

All of them are available for a snippet view (at least in my area). I can't do anything reading a few lines.--Gunt50 (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Snippets can usually be found doing a google search for the inaccesible ones. OK here's a better example of source you can actually access. Ebert's and Beradichelli's book. Quotes like "Meanwhile, Jennifer Connelly is luminous as Alicia". "Although the showier performance belongs to Crowe, it is Connelly's complex work, depicting a woman torn by love for and fear of the same man, that elevates the film to a higher level.". The latter to me would be a crucial quote and superior to most of the other reviews you've used of her performance. Especially coming from Ebert it would be an essential quote for me and very notable in discussing her acting. I could cite examples like this for practically every film she appeared in where some stronger material can be found on the subject. This is exactly what I mean, you really might miss something substantial of major importance either critically or biographically by ignoring google book research. What I would do is weigh up discussions/critical analysis in google book sources and view the standard review si the web newspapers and try to draw out the strongest and most effective material. Sometimes newspapers have better material on a subject, sometimes book do. An FA in my view should show evidence that a breadth of material has been weighed up and used to its full advantage to write the best possible material. Connely has appeared in some very notable pictures which are critically analysed in books which may be accessible and may offer different perspectives and insights into her portrayal and themes. Sorry I don't mean to "gatecrash" your FAC unfairly but this is how I feel about sourcing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose on references. Many are not using the proper template (Cite news, Cite web). Additionally, some un-reliable sources (IMDB?) and several inconsistencies with ref linking. Many similar sources are so differently formatted. Take #37 and 62. Also, whats with #98. The proper work would be The Boston Globe. These issues can easily be fixed with patience. I have watch-listed this page and would be happy to revisit once they are addressed.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

We haven't used IMDB. It is only mentioned as the publisher of Box Office Mojo. I corrected the ref 98 work. Could you give some examples of the inconsistencies you spotted or unproper templates. We haven't found any inconsistencies on theses aspects when checked the article before nominating.--Gunt50 (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. What makes #40 reliable? Why is IMDB listed, when Amazon is the publisher for BOM? #52 has some problematic formatting. #59 uses the wrong template, so does #63. Similar issues like like persist.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I checked the citations one by one, and replaced the wrong templates. I also completed some missing information and I assessed the rest of your concerns.--GDuwenTell me! 17:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should contact Petergriffin9901 on his talk page so he reviews the changes and reconsiders his stand. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

User GDuwen posted a message on his talk page some days ago, but still there ain't no answer.--Gunt50 (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support—I think this is a solid article that more than satisfies the FA criteria, so I'm lending it my support. The citations seem to be in decent shape now, so I had no concerns there. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment—I only found a pair of problem sentences, one of which I already rectified. The second is a sentence that seems to conflate two separate reviews: Time called her performance "luminous", Roger Ebert wrote, "...Jennifer Connelly is luminous as Alicia. .... Otherwise, I'm ready to support. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There two different reviews that call ms. Connelly's performance "luminous", but to avoid further confusion I removed the one from Time.--GDuwenTell me! 23:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn't see a need to go that far, so I took the liberty of restoring the content and modifying it slightly. I hope that meets with your approval. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That's OK, it's much better now.--GDuwenTell me! 18:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 18:52, 20 September 2011 [19].

---

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

Nominator(s): Tærkast (Discuss) 14:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it's possible to pass this time round. This article has gone through a substantial amount of edits towards improving it so that it can reach FAC status. Tærkast (Discuss) 14:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• FN 12: are we missing a title here? Also, compare formatting to FN 11
• FN 15, 37, 38: page(s)?
• Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for magazines
• This site's FAQ page seems to be down, so can you tell me about the author's and site's credentials?
• Check formatting of quotes within quotes
• Jump Cut should be italicized
• McFarland & Company or just McFarland? Greenwood Publishing Group or just Greenwood? Use consistent naming
• Don't include cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks, --Tærkast (Discuss) 12:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Done most of them. Again, per the last FAC, the author Christopher Null is a noted film critic, has written for numerous publications. Site is owned by AMC. Can remove if you want it. For the other refs, I don't really have access to them, so I doubt I'll be able to get pages. Apart from that, I think everything's taken care of.--Tærkast (Discuss) 12:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I dealt with it, only that newspaper one needs a page now, but if its unsatisfactory in its state, the ref can be removed.--Tærkast (Discuss) 13:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Media Review is all good. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I supported it before and I still believe that is FA material. GamerPro64 22:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I believe I supported the article in a couple of the most recent FACs. The article has continued to improve since then, which is the case with all articles (including already established FA articles). So, I still support the article for FA status.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support - well sourced and comprehensive, I would support this article being promoted. Well done. Coolug (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've asked User:Dweller and User:DCGeist, who had some concerns at the last FAC, to comment on this article. Ucucha (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Earlier this week, I did a top-to-bottom readthrough and copyedit of the article. Overall, it is in excellent shape—far, far better shape than it has been in previous FACs. However, in the course of this latest copyediting (I also provided copyediting services in the interim between the last FAC and this one), I was prompted to eyeball five sources. Among those five, I discovered problems relating to four—three sourcing errors (one misdating and mistitling, one entirely unsupported claim, one misquotation) and one case of inadvertent plagiarism. (I addressed all of them.) That may sound like an extraordinarily high ratio, and indeed, the primary issue I raised in previous FACs was with sourcing. On the other hand, in every case this time around, I was prompted to eyeball the source in question by some blatantly problematic expression or another in the article. There were few of those, and the ones that caught my eye have now all been corrected.

In sum, my guess is that this very informative, well-researched, competently written article is now good to go. But I do have a lingering concern about sourcing. I don't feel comfortable offering my support until a party who has not been substantially involved in the article's development does a sourcing spot-check. If it passes that vetting, I'll be more than happy to support.—DCGeist (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that is quite reasonable. And thanks for all your work on the article, too.--Tærkast (Discuss) 09:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As a Brit, I was interested in the film's UK ban. The article says "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre was banned on the authority of British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) Secretary James Ferman". I was quite shocked when I clicked on the source for this, which makes it clear that it was banned by Ferman's predecessor in March 1975, some months before Ferman took office. On top of DCGeist's comments, I am worried about the accuracy of the article/source. --Dweller (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe it can be sorted.--Tærkast (Discuss) 11:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Reworded it to a perhaps more accurate reflection of the sources. I hope it does pass this time round, I may not have time otherwise in the near future, and doubt anybody else will take it to FAC.--Tærkast (Discuss) 11:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

My objection on grounds of prose is removed. It's much improved. However, I'd like someone to thoroughly check the sourcing before it gets a star. --Dweller (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Erik (talk · contribs) to take a look at the aritcle, perhaps others could be recommended.--Tærkast (Discuss) 12:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre premiered on October 1, 1974, in Austin, Texas, almost a year after filming concluded. It screened nationally in the United States as a Saturday afternoon matinée and its false marketing as a "true story" helped it attract a broad audience.[3]" - AFAICS none of this information is in FN 3
• FN 29 requires subscription to access and should be notated as such
• FN 37: author's name is misspelled
• "as violent and brutal as its title suggests" is a bit close to "as violent and gruesome and blood-soaked as the title promises" - perhaps make this a direct quote?
• "the most purely horrifying horror film ever made" in article vs "The most purely horrifying horror movie ever made" is inappropriate, near-verbatim - should be quoted or rephrased
• "admired the film's style and atmosphere...one of the most influential horror films ever" vs "triumph of style and atmosphere...one of the most influential horror films of all time. " in source. Also, you credit this opinion to Ben Cobb in article text, but that name does not appear in the source or in the citation
• "set a new standard for slasher films" vs "set a new standard for the slasher genre"; "one of the most disturbing characters in horror" vs "one of the most disturbing characters in the horror genre" - check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will take care of them. I appreciate it.--Tærkast (Discuss) 14:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

For the Ben Cobb review, his name used to appear in an older online Channel 4 source, but it's disappeared. I'll just change it to Channel 4, as the Internet Archive is having trouble retrieving the original ref.--Tærkast (Discuss) 15:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I've taken care of most of those.--Tærkast (Discuss) 16:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Support and no issues were revealed by copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - very nicely researched article. Prose are pretty smooth. Hope sixth time is the charm!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment from Steve ^T • C. I don't have time for a full review, or even a full source check, but given the previous concerns over sourcing I decided to check out a few at random. What I found may or may not give subsequent reviewers pause. From the five passages/paragraphs I checked, two were fine. These are a little more problematic, in decreasing order of significance:
  • "Reviews for the release were largely positive with critics praising the sound and picture quality of the restoration." The source does not support the statement, either about the sound/picture quality, or that reviews were positive (this is just one review, and a capsule one at that).
  • "The Australian Classification Board first viewed the film in June 1975 and refused to classify the 83-minute print. The distributor appealed to the Review Board, which upheld the decision in August. The distributor prepared a 77-minute version, only to see it banned again in December. When the film was resubmitted to the censors five years later, it was banned again, and Greater Union Organization Film Distributors were refused registration for an 83-minute print in 1981. It was later submitted by Filmways Australia and approved for an "R" rating in 1984."—I'm a little uncomfortable at the use of primary sources to cite the majority of this passage, as those used [20], [21], [22] and [23] are only really useful for telling us the dates of the submissions and their running times, not some of the additional detail the author has extrapolated. Should a secondary source not be forthcoming, I think at best these sources can only really be used to support something more stripped down, along the lines of, "The Australian Classification Board refused to classify the 83-minute version of the film in June 1975; the board similarly refused classification of a 77-minute print in December that year. In 1981, an 83-minute version submitted by Greater Union Organization Film Distributor was again refused registration. It was later submitted by Filmways Australia and approved with an "R" rating in 1984."
  • I don't particularly like the placing of "Channel 4 proclaimed it to be 'one of the most influential horror films of all time'" so prominently at the beginning of the "Cultural impact" section; for a start, it isn't Channel 4 that made the claim, it was merely one of their Film4 web reviewers (i.e. it's not an editorial stance of the organisation)—and despite the channel's relatively good programming reputation, its website doesn't have any journalistic reputation, or history of film analysis, of note. So to give such prominence to a statement by one less-than-notable person on a website not given over to high-level analysis/reviews of popular culture items doesn't seem like it meets the high-quality of sourcing required. (That's not to say the site isn't reliable for other matters; I hope you see the distinction.) However, it is a subjective statement, so I would not be totally opposed to its inclusion with a few tweaks and with less prominent a role in imparting the film's significance to the reader (though I'm surprised you can't replace it with something better).
• None of these issues are huge, and again, this is just a sampling. I would merely urge reviewers to be comfortable in their own minds as to the proper representation of sources before declaring one way or the other. All the best, Steve ^T • C 22:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do.--Tærkast (Discuss) 09:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've taken care of those issues. Time is an important factor, and if this FAC goes on any longer, I won't have a lot of time to do anything.--Tærkast (Discuss) 09:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Given the number of issues with sourcing revealed by several independent checks, I'm hesitant to promote this article until a more comprehensive check of the sources is done and all issues that arise are addressed. Ucucha (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 21:51, 19 September 2011 [24].

---

Female genital mutilation

Nominator(s): SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This article recently underwent a rewrite, and I'd like to nominate it for FAC because I think it meets the standards. An enormous amount has been written about the subject, so this article can only present the key issues, but I think it does that, and I've tried to keep it at a readable length (currently 3,791 words). A note about the main image—it was uploaded and released under a cc-by in April 2010 by User:Buweosman (here Buweosman), who says on his Commons user page that he is the artist, but I've sent him an email just to get confirmation of that. The other images are unproblematic, so far as I can tell. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

As there has been a substantial objection here, and similar concerns on talk, I'd prefer to withdraw the nomination for now. I'll leave a note to that effect for one of the delegates. Many thanks to everyone for the input. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Book sources need ISBNs
• Where a source is included in References, don't include full bibliographic info in Notes
• Heger Boyle, Elizabeth or Boyle, Elizabeth Heger?
• Use a consistent citation format - for example, compare FNs 4 and 7. Both are books, yet are formatted differently
• FN 9, 56.2: page(s)?
• Format multi-author works consistently
• What is USAID? IRIN? Spell out or link acronyms
• FN 18: date?
• FN 20: italicization
• Be consistent in the use of vol vs volume
• Abdalla: italicization
• Missing publishers for many of the Literature sources
• Why such an extensive Further reading section? Also, don't include cited sources in Further reading. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

All fixed, I think, except for ISBNs, which I don't add. Also, when using books refs, I give a full citation on first reference in the footnotes, and a short ref thereafter, then I repeat the full citation in the References section. The FR is longish in part because I think people will use the article as a resource, and in part because many of the books and films were added by other editors, and I didn't want to remove them all; the section was quite a bit longer until recently. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Then why include a References section at all? And why no ISBNs? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I include the full ref once in the footnotes, because as a reader I find it helpful to have one full citation for each book in that section, so I'm not forced to jump back and forth; it's just a preference issue. As for ISBNs, I've never seen the point of directing readers to a specific edition of a book, which may not be the edition that's consistent with the page numbers in the refs. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I'm a little bit concerned by the lead image. I think it's fair to say that most readers would expect the lead image of an article to be illustrative and representative of the topic they are reading about. I don't think this image does that. It's too abstract and it pretty much requires the artist's thoughts in order to interpret it (you even suggested this to another reader on the talk page). I could make suggestions for images, or suggest no image in such a prominent position, but I suspect image choice might be controversial. So I don't offer arguments for another image, the censorship of certain types of images, or anything else. I just offer my concerns with this image. Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It's an image of a woman sitting with her legs closed, which is somewhat iconic of FGM Type III, as the women have their legs bound together for weeks so the raw sides of the vulva bond. The same artist has more explicit images that he might be willing to release, but I like this one because it's subtle, and the vivid colour certainly gives an impression of pain. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done, and I think the scope and size is adequate, (update: see talk 15:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)) but the following changes will help bring the citations in line with those expected in medical articles, and (some) per WP:MEDRS:

1. Sample only: WHO study cited for medical research. In such a case, the press release is not the preferred citation-- the actual Lancet article should be located and cited, and the laypress article could also be cited (I know cite journal templates aren't used in this article, but cite journal allows an option where the original journal article is cited and the laypress version is also included-- something mimicing that format can be done here. See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Female genital mutilation/archive1#Lay sources for a sample.)
2. Per Nikkimaria's suggestion above, I do believe ISBNs are helpful for the specific reason given for not using them-- to help make sure the page numbers go to the version used, and ISBN links give further resources (as someone taught me a while back, can't recall whom).

   Medical articles should also use PMID identifiers (which I will be glad to search for and provide if that will be helpful-- sample). The convention in medical articles is to not link to abstracts only in the general citation, as subscription required abstracts don't help the reader much, rather to link in the citation title only when full text is available, to link PMIDs on all medical journal articles (this allows the reader to determine if articles are review, primary research, etc, and allows reviewers to determine more easily if sources are used correctly), and automatically provides a link to the abstract. I suggest delinking in the article title when the link goes only to an abstract (rather than full text) and adding PMIDs on all medical journal articles, which links the abstract and gives info about the type of study-- I'll be glad to do this work if requested. It will be time consuming and difficult to determine if medical sources are used correctly without doing this work.

3. Page and year ranges could be shorted to last two digits only.

I can do a more thorough review if PMIDs are included. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sandy, if you could search for the PMIDS—or tell me how to do it, and I'll add them—that would be helpful. I just looked for one for this article, but couldn't find it.

Elchalal, Uriel; Ben-Ami, Barbara; Gillis, Rebecca; and Brzezinski, Amnon. "Ritualistic Female Genital Mutilation: Current Status and Future Outlook", Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey, vol 52, issue 10, October 1997, pp. 643–651.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I can work on them later, out the rest of the day. If you want to work on some of them yourself in the meantime, just go to one of the ones I already did, that will take you to PMID, and from there you can search... but the PMID search engine can be frustrating, so I'll be glad to fill them in later when I'm home. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I'll give it a try. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I've added all the PMIDs that I can find (a couple that I thought would have one appear not to). I also added a ref for the 2006 Lancet article, rather than just the WHO summary of it as you mentioned above; see diff. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• I can't support a featured article having "In fact..." in the lede. It has the same effect as someone saying "honestly"; it actually diminishes the perceived reliability of what follows. It isn't encyclopedic to use "in fact", "notably", "actually" and the like, except in direct quotations. I am sure this can be rewritten. I may have other comments. --John (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I re-wrote this passage as per your comments above, let me know if the current wording still does not meet with your approval. Vietminh (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's much better. --John (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I also support the usefulness of ISBNs. Also if I added available DOIs, using {{doi}}, to provide additional links to the journal papers would that be a problem (haven't checked how many have DOIs, probably most of them)? Rjwilmsi 18:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I wouldn't mind if you were to add DOIs. And thanks for checking first. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I am just coming out of retirement for a minute to say that I strongly support the nomination for featured article. I can't recall ever seeing a more worthy candidate, and I'm very impressed at what has been achieved. I congratulate everybody who has helped to transform this article into one that everyone on Wikipedia should be proud of. Especial thanks to SlimVirgin for her outstanding work. Thanks also to Johnuniq for the heads up about this nomination. Rubywine . talk 01:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

See FAC instructions; you should declare your involvement with the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't know that rule. Had I been able to take any credit for the article I would have mentioned my involvement, but I can't. I was very involved in discussion of the article for a couple of weeks, after answering a recent RfC. The article was deeply flawed at the time, and the talk page was locked in a longstanding controversy, which I tried to help move forward by discussing the issues and suggesting various changes. I made 9 edits to the actual article most of which were deletions. I added a small amount of content which now appears under '"History and cultural context" and "Health consequences". My contributions have since been edited, and I stopped editing the article before it was completely transformed into its current state. Although I was very invested in this article, and wanted it to be improved, I cannot take the smallest credit for the way it has turned out. Rubywine . talk 15:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose This is an important subject and Wikipedia, as the #1 Google link on the subject, should offer first class article. However, this article is not yet among our best work.

1. The degree of in-text attribution is rather overwhelming. No less than nineteen authors and five organisations are attributed in-text. There are several reasons for doing this such as citing opinions, quoting, close paraphrasing, or restricting a fact to mere personal observation. Many times I could see no good reason why our article should not express the words in original writing and with confidence. This is the biggest problem and I suspect a substantial rewrite is required to produce an article that contains sufficient original writing expressed with encyclopaedic confidence to be considered our very best work. One example: Alexia Lewnes is attributed for her view on the rationale behind the WHO use of the word "mutilation". Since we've just stated that the WHO recommended the term to the UN, why not use their rationale? It's in the sources. We could then say "WHO recommended its use to the United Nations because ...". Another: Anika Rahman and Nahid Toubia are attributed for saying certain local terms for FGM are "synonymous with purification". Are they or aren't they? If this is a fact, and the source is reliable and authoritative, then why not just state the fact and leave the attribution for the footnote citation? Another: the extensive quote from Momoh's book describing the procedure uses language at a medical textbook level. Wikilinking the hard words isn't enough per WP:NOT PAPERS. Rewriting this in our own words gives us the opportunity to improve readability, which surely we are compelled to do for such a subject.
2. The article isn't well structured. Why should "Background" be a sub-heading in any encyclopaedia article other than perhaps one covering an event in history? Why are "History and cultural context" combined? Why are "Classification and health consequences" combined? Why are "Prevalence and attempts to end the practice" combined? The subheading "Since the 1960s" makes me think the preceding and subsequent sections are chronological, or that the 1960s were pivotal. They aren't. They weren't. Some suggested headings might be (1) Classification [includes terminology]; (2) Health consequences; (3) Epidemiology; (4) History; (5) Social dynamics; (6) Human rights; (7) Legislation; (8) Preventative measures.
3. The article needs to decide where it stands wrt WP:NPOV. To quote the WHO, "FGM is recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of girls and women. It reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women. It is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children. The practice also violates a person's rights to health, security and physical integrity, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death."[25] It is considered child-abuse by the social services and is grounds for claiming asylum. It is a criminal act in many countries. Yet our lead contains the distant sentence "Opposition to FGM focuses on human rights violations, lack of informed consent, and health risks". Substitute "FGM" in that sentence with "rape" or "incest". Doesn't work. In contrast to that, we use the loaded term "female genital mutilation" as the article title. USAID make a good case for using the neutral term "female genital cutting"[26] (the rationale for which could be covered better by the article). I'm not suggesting the article title is changed, but pointing out that we can't call it "mutilation" and at the same time fall over backwards to avoid saying it is a violation of human rights. It would be interesting to explore what degree we could repeat the above WHO statements as fact.
4. The epidemiology is not comprehensive. There's more to the subject than just prevalence. The incidence per year is shocking. The trends over time not covered. Has legislation changed anything? The table of countries is dry and unhelpful: there's little to be learned here that isn't visible in the map or better handled by the daughter article. BTW, This UNICEF source looks useful.
5. The research behind the article could dig deeper to uncover either the studies behind the figures or professional publications that cite them. Sometimes I think in-text attribution is being used because the editors aren't confident that the figures are authoritative enough to be encyclopaedic. For example, the "66,000 women in England and Wales have experienced FGM" fact is in-text attributed to FORWARD and sourced to an article in The Times. The actual study is linked from here. There are professional secondary sources that refer to it. Therefore, it is considered a reliable source of information on the prevalence of FGM in E&W and we could use these sources to state it as an unattributed fact (though we need to say it is an estimate rather than a gathered fact).
6. Don't cite and attribute, to a newspaper, figures that if reliable and trustworthy would have been gathered by a formal study or official department and published and discussed by professional reliable sources. To begin with, we shouldn't write "The Times reported..." or "The Guardian writes that" for articles written by named journalists (as opposed to editorials or anonymous staff collaborations). An FA with "professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing" shouldn't be citing the lay press for such things. It's like an article on Jane Austin citing biographical facts to the Radio Times. The London Safeguarding Children Board Website looks a useful professional resource for how one major city with a sizeable immigrant population is dealing with the issue and is a better source on the summer holiday problem than The Guardian.

Colin°^Talk 23:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:35, 19 September 2011 [27].

---

Charles Boycott

Nominator(s): Quasihuman | Talk 11:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have been working on it on intermittently for over a year and I believe that it meets the FA criteria. Quasihuman | Talk 11:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ranges should consistently be notated using unspaced endashes
• ISBN for Collins?
• Check for small inconsistencies in reference formatting like spaced vs unspaced initials, spaced vs unspaced semicolons, etc
• Don't include retrieval dates for convenience links to print-based sources (Google Books)
• The NYT's correct name is The New York Times. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

All done, I think. Quasihuman | Talk 13:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Prose review Nicely written, I made one slight change but otherwise am happy with it. ϢereSpielChequers 16:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape check No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. There is some duplicated text here [28], which claims to be copyright© 2008, but the corresponding text in our article pre-dates this by at least two years. I conclude that the text in question has been copied without attribution from Wikipedia. Graham Colm (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Graham, WSC, and Nikkimaria, much appreciated. Quasihuman | Talk 18:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Media Review - Please add a full Template:Information template to File:Michael davitt.jpg. Everything else is fine. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do some digging to find the required information. I'll also ask the uploader if they remember the source & author info etc. The uploader isn't very active at the moment, so this may take a few days. Quasihuman | Talk 10:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that, I think the user listed just moved it to Commons, I'll have a look in the library for source info, according to Michael Davitt Museum, the photo was taken ~1878, but that does not give author information, which is crucial to the PD life of author + 70 years claim. Quasihuman | Talk 11:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

For what little it's worth, the original uploader was Hetch (talk · contribs), who hasn't edited for three years. Graham87 15:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

And the original upload text just said Michael Davitt, Irish Nationalist and Social campaigner.{{PD-old}}. I'm kinda surprised that the image has survived since February 2005. Graham87 15:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced with File:Michael Davitt (Napoleon Sarony).jpg for now, I hope that's better. Quasihuman | Talk 15:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That works. Also, take it from someone that's spend hundreds of hours in Wikipedia's file namespace, it's not at all a surprise that the other image has survived since 2005. There are several hundred thousand files hosted on English Wikipedia, and around two dozen people who spend a significant amount of time in the namespace. It's a massive mess, and we chip away at it one backlog at a time, but it's very much a losing battle. Best we can hope for is that when other users spot issues, they either fix the issues or list the files for deletion if they're unfixable. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:35, 19 September 2011 [29].

---

Rupert Downes

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Another Australian general of World War II: Rupert Downes. I first encountered him writing the article on Alan Vasey. Unusual in that the article references his biography and the biography refers to the Wikipedia:

Finally, as appropriate in an electronic age and as this book was going to press, a comprehensive short biography of Downes appeared in the on-line [sic] encyclopaedia, Wikipedia. The author, [Hawkeye7], a military historian in Canberra, had posted other biographies of eminent Australian military figures on Wikipedia. Thinking Downes had been neglected, he hoped the entry would draw attention to his achievements. The entry surprised but pleased Downes's family because apart from several easily corrected errors, it presented an accurate summary of his life and career. They were accordingly happy to reflect that his reputation seemed assured.

— Howie–Willis, Surgeon and General, p. 372

Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• No issues were revealed by copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Include both authors in shortened citations? If not, should find a way to fix the harvlink so it works
  • Sorry, not following ... all the bibliography entries have one author. - Dank (push to talk) 00:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
    • "Downes, Rupert M.; Anderson, A. V. M. (1942). Medical Ethics. Melbourne: W. Ramsay."?
      • Oops. What's the preferred short form? - Dank (push to talk) 01:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• Generally hyphenated last names use hyphens, not dashes
  • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 01:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• Link for FN 65 appears to be broken. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Repaired. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Please be consistent in whether you use cite or citation templates, as they generate different punctuation. Eisfbnore • talk 10:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments (HJ avoiding his own talk page!) Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 00:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• The Battle of Romani revealed the importance of transportation in an area with few roads leaves the reader scratching their head—it doesn't make a connection with Downes, and doesn't seem to connect with the sentences either side of it. Did the roads (or lack thereof) have soem significant effect on Downes or his work?
  • Yes. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• I'm sure you can find a better phrase than There was also the heat,—how hot was it? What effect did the heat have on the military or on Downes?
  • Added a bit.
• Diseases included cholera, typhus and bilharzia. We all know they're diseases, the reader wants to know how they're relevant to Downes. Was it that much of his work was dealing with outbreaks of these diseases?
  • DAdded a bit more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• The prose just doesn't flow well in First World War paragraph four (of which the above are examples). Try combining some of the sentences to make it less choppy, and better connected to the subject (and if parts aren't directly relevant to his biography, consider taking them out).
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Did Doris become pregnant on the visit, or was she already pregnant?
  • Added a bit. Don't forget that Valerie reads the Wikipedia Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Any more detail available on what Doris did with soldiers' families? If she was made an OBE, it must have been something of significance.
  • Do not know much. Added a tiny bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Do you know W. T. Swan's first name? It seems odd to give the two others their full names, but not Swan.
  • Howie-Willis and Downes refer to him only as Major-General W. T. Swan. I thought for a while that I would have to look him up in the British Army List at the War Memorial, but I found him in the "No. 31348". The London Gazette. 20 May 1919. p. 6263. as William Travers Swan of 80 Pall Mall, London SW1. Do you want him red-linked? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Go for it. I'll add him to my list. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Done. There has been criticism of Australian military historians, including myself, from British historians and journalists who say that we write about the Australian Army all the time, but neglect the British. But I have written four five articles on British generals: Humfrey Gale, Frederick Morgan, Jock Whiteley, Kenneth Strong and Boy Browning :) Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Returning to Australia, Downes became an honorary consulting surgeon at the Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne and Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, and honorary surgeon at Prince Henry's Hospital.—while still serving in the Army, or had he left, or was he a reservist? (Ah, I see this is mentioned further down, but could do with a mention further up, imo)
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• He "established himself as one of Melbourne's leading paediatric surgeons" requires attribution—'according to _ he established...' or '...paediatric surgeons according to _'.
  • Ian. Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• What does which he led for an Australian record period of 25 years mean?
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Second paragraph of "Interwar years" seems to just list various appointments—perhaps you could add details about his association with the various organisations?
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• At the same time, Doris became an Officer of the order—which order, and why? (and should order be capitalised if you're referring to a particular order)
  • The Venerable Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, which I was talking bout the whole paragraph. Re-worded. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• John succumbed to toxaemia and died.—a date, or at least a month would be nice. How long was he ill?
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• when they were separated from the Army—just the medical branch, or is that when the whole RAAF became a separate service (forgive my lack of knowledge of Australian history!)
  • No, the RAAF became a separate air force in 1921, making it the second oldest in the world. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Ian will be most disappointed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• a full-time post and the Army's most senior medical officer—Wait, what? Is he serving in the Army and RAAF simultaneously?
  • No, just administering the RAAF's medical services Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• An Army-wide recruiting campaign led by Major General Sir Thomas Blamey doubled the size of the Army from 35,000 in 1938 to 70,000 in 1939 after the Munich Crisis caused people to believe that another war was imminent—You're trying to cram too many facts into that sentence, and it doesn't make sense.
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Further elaboration on his "moderate success" in recruiting medical professionals would be nice.
  • Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Four of the six paragraphs in Interwar years start with "Downes"—try to vary it a little.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Is stand in tribute to his foresightedness not a touch POV? If it's a quote, quote marks and attribution should solve that.
  • Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

[End of HJ's comments]

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 02:35, 19 September 2011 [30].

---

The King's Speech

Nominator(s): Ktlynch (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

How did a story of "two grumpy men in a room" become a international pheonmeon? A little known relationship converted into a resonant, smartly made drama filled cinemas across the world and spent months collecting awards, especially for Colin Firth, who complained of "never being more nominated". Eight months after its general release in the UK, it has made hundreds of millions and collected the top Oscars and BAFTAs. The article still clocks up several thousand page views per day, I hope it is worthy of its subject ... Ktlynch (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The historical accuracy thing seems a bit toned down and buried. Do you think it best to lead in that section with a couple of paragraphs on how accurate they insisted on being, when the, well, liberties that they took with history are then given second place? From what I recall when the film came out as well as when it was nominated that there was more coverage about the inaccuracies than there were about how careful they were (and I will say it is a majestically-presented film, pun intended). I've written 2 FAs on Chamberlain so I know how far from the facts they are varying. George was a strident supporter of appeasement as was Mary and in fact, most of the Royal Family as long as it was convenient to be.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. There was a big brouhaha, but then opinion swung back to the reasoned centre, i.e. it's ok to change certain details to tell the story. Do you think that the factual differences should be more explicitly spelt out? I would be against any sort of enumeration of this. But am open to tinkering around with the structure of the section. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Btw, the two writers who take up the appeasement point aren't actually criticising the film for supporting that policy, merely that it doesn't do enough to criticise it. A lot of others pointed out that the film isn't really about war or Chamberlain anyway, those are just background events to the personal narrative. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to keep going on about this, but I think it's a worthwhile point. The first, defensive sounding sentence has been deleted, partly for NPOV, partly for sourcing. The present first paragraph of the "historical accuracy" section could be moved to "Development". --Ktlynch (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I need to look it over. I'll be back to you by the weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I still feel it is buried, and I suspect by your comment that your feeling expressed above about "reasoned centre" is reflected in the article. As I have no great desire to review this article in full, I will refrain from opposing, however, and will not stand in the way of promotion if others feel it is merited.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I moved the first paragraph which you weren't sure about. I hope this gets rid of the sense that material was being sandwiched so as to present it in a certain way. --Ktlynch (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Media Review

• File:Affiche Internationale juane The King's Speech.jpg does not meet NFCC #8. Non-free images cannot be used for beautification, they must add substantially to the articles they are in. The poster itself isn't mentioned in the article, and the French version of the film gets a mere one line of text in the article. The image has to go.

The poster is mentioned in this section, and the fact it is a foreign version demonstrates the international release of the film. Several main posters were used to visually identify TKS around the world --Ktlynch (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added another bit about it, as well as a comparison to the original. There is plenty of comment but some of the sources I am not sure about. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• File:Filming Colin and Helena.jpg and File:Tom Hooper directing The King's Speech.jpg are now licensed as CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0, not CC-BY 2.0. I'm not sure how to proceed here; I certainly haven't heard of the Flickr upload bot being fooled, but does the modified license (which is one we don't consider free) change anything?

I'll have a look, I remember it was freely licensed. --Ktlynch (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable, meaning that once it has been made and the image has been properly uploaded to the Commons under that license, any subsequent change in the original source's license is invalid and the images remain on the Commons under the original Creative Commons license. I've added the proper tag to the image description pages. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Regan. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've verified (i.e. asked zscout370 to verify) the OTRS tickets at File:GeoffreyRush08TIFF.jpg and File:TomHooperColinFirthJan11.jpg as valid. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ktlynch (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - a couple of minor nitpicks, shouldn't the fascist link direct to the British Union of Fascists? What was so rude about hand delivering a script to an actor? I think a brief explanation might help here as this part just left me a little confused. Lastly, the references from the directors commentary need times. Have a look at Over There (Fringe) as an example. Coolug (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I added a brief sub-clause explaining the correct way to offer a script. I pipe-linked the Union, since the posters in the film simply say "Fascism is practical patriotism". Unfortunately I do not have access to the DVD at the moment, so getting the times will be hard. It is definitely preferable, but all I can say is that the relevant comments are at their corresponding place in the chronology. ;) Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please not strike out my comment regarding the directors commentary times? This is because the times have not been added to the references. Coolug (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant to do just the linking and clarification. Undone now. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to User:DrKiernan for these eagle-eyed copyedits.--Ktlynch (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

spotchecks?

It's a polite way of saying "going though and comparing the the sources with the article prose to make sure there's no plagiarism or close paraphrasing. Everyone gets spotchecked at FAC, so it's not personal. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I didn't mean it in an accusatory sense, though I'm guessing that it means the verification of sources isn't finished yet. I've seen an alternative sometimes on the FAC page, but obviously I'm not up to speed with the lingo! Aller, conintue! Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide locations and publishers for newspapers

there were a few with them so I deleted them for consistency's sake. --Ktlynch (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you use website names or base URLs for web citations, and if you use URLs how they are formatted. Also, for newspaper websites be consistent in whether you use the newspaper name, the publisher name, or the base URL

Generally used urls with a clickable title. I hope the stray exceptions have now been all swept up.

• Sources that require subscription or registration should be noted as such

Just two, I added that in at the end of the ref

• This link returns an error message

Deleted this

• Dead links and tags need to be fixed

Cleared up - source was doubtful in any case

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This?

First deleted. Rotten tomatoes is widely used. It provides an aggregate of critical opinion. I think the later excerpts back up that analysis. The other is a film news website, it seems ok,not great, but I've been able to replace it with another.

• Web citations need retrieval dates and publishers

Yes

• Newspaper citations without weblinks need page numbers

Added a new secondary source which mentions the original article ( I suspect this was the real source. --Ktlynch (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• "For critiques of the film, see e.g., Hitchens and Chotiner (above). For historical sources substantiating Churchill's stance during the abdication crisis, see e.g., Roy Jenkins's biography of Churchill (2001) and Frances Donaldson's biography of Edward VIII (1976)." - need more details, and there is no Hitchens and Chotiner above

Made some changes here, what do you think now? I'm not sure the note is needed at all. --Ktlynch (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in what is wikilinked when, what is italicized and what isn't, etc

Ok, have tried to italicise and link newspaper names only

• FN 74: formatting

Fixed

• FN 75: need more publisher info than "UK"

fixed

• Don't include harv tags in Further reading, and Further reading formatting should match that used in citations.

removed it.

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this close survey, my referencing will be of a higher standard in the future!!--Ktlynch (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment I suppose that the "Cast" section must be like this 50.17.45.35 (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Look at this. Guy546^(Talk) 19:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Support - comprehensive, well-written and interesting. Some points and suggestions.

• Link check: DABs and ELs all OK.

• Currencies: check MOS:CURRENCY for reference, a consistant "main currency" should be used throughout the whole article. When a value is given in a different currency, i would atleast add the converted value in parentheses.
• Budget - box office value: especially for the casual reader comparing those values gives a first impression of the movie's "success". Omitting the converted value actually hinders reader's understanding of the article in that regard.
• Cast: the list doesn't fit in well, but a lot of people like a cast list that way, so no general objection here. Adding the main image from Firth's biographical article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Colin_Firth_2011.jpg may help to spice this section up a bit (Rush already has a solo image in the article).
• Production: "after he had completed it, he sent it to a few people for feedback." Vague and very short. The source has a lot more information. I realize, not every minor detail is needed, but maybe check the source, which information is most interesting or relevant for the feedback process and include that one as example.
• Box Office: "In Australia The King's Speech made more than AUD$6,281,686 in the first two weeks, according to figures collected by the Motion Picture Distributors Association of Australia." ==> Source? (i couldn't find those numbers in next source). Per MOS:CURRENCY the article's main currency should be used (or added in parentheses for readers unfamiliar with AUD$).
• Critical response: "Bradshaw said that Pearce's dispatch of the role "with some style" replaced the memory of Edward Fox playing the part.[74]" ==> Actually he said, the memory of Edward Fox play was "put to rest", not replaced - though he probably meant it that way. The mixture of quote and source interpretation is problematic. As Pearce's accomplishment is already covered in the previous sentence, maybe drop this sentence completely.GermanJoe (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to GermanJoe, thanks for these useful comments, I've implemented all suggestions.

i)I agree about the cast listing, especially in articles with infoboxes, but it's hard to get them out. Firth portrait adds a lot there now.

ii) For reference, here's the currency talk page discussion. GermanJoe, Erik, the MOS & I are in favour of parenthetical conversions. Escape Orbit continually reverted this and Ninja Dianna didn't think it necessary.

iii)The part in the production section was more for narrative, didn't want to include every single thing he did. I hope vagueness is gone now and the narrative remains.

iv)While the repeated mentions of Pearce's performance are of interest, I had already felt that it was slightly overstated. So I've removed the Bradshaw line as you suggest. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing those points. A source for the Australian box office statistic is still needed though. Ref 65 of Sydney Morning Herald doesn't cover that information (or i can't find it). All statistics should have the source, where the editor obtained them. GermanJoe (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ignore last comment, i am obviously blind (source is OK). Change to support. GermanJoe (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Procedural discussion moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• There is an inconsistency with some of the refs. For example, The Daily Telegraph is cited as Daily Telegraph in ref 5, but then its correct title in ref 76 (which is also over linked).

Fixed. TClapton (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• There are quite a few instances of overlink. Only link a work and publisher on its first appearance.

I deleted some, and am going through the article again to catch others. Normally i leave one in the lead, one link in the body and after that contract someone's name and not link it anymore.--Ktlynch (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Speaking of TDT, why do some refs have its UK location, but not others

Fixed--Ktlynch (talk) 21

49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• The Guardian in ref 48 should be in italics

Fixed. TClapton (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think ref 46 might be better off as a note

Not sure, this has been discussed above. It's a bibliographical reference rather than an expansionary note.--Ktlynch (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Refs 21, 35, 62, 70 and 72 are not correctly formatted

How so? There is no date in 21 in the source. The others can I cannot see a clear problem. --Ktlynch (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Why do some refs have works and publisher but others only works?

Usually the title of the publication suffices, in cases where there might be a doubt about reliability, such as certain websites, more information is included.--Ktlynch (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Avoid caps in titles such as ref 38

Fixed. TClapton (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 60: its Los Angeles Times, not The Los Angeles Times

Fixed. TClapton (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Instead of writing in italics about needing its subscription, why not put { subscription } in ref 11

Done--Ktlynch (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Crystal Clear x3 05:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Commments

• I think this article is inconsistently cited. I suggest always using {{cite web}} templates.

The references have been checked many times, we so many people working on the article things get changed, all some sources are missing information, such as the date from ref 21 (see above). For references the chosen style is: "authorlastname, firstname, (date), title, publication. Retrieved...."--Ktlynch (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Instead of curly quotation marks, use straight ones.

I'm not a typographic expert, but I ran a find and underline though the article and couldn't find any typographic quotation marks. Straight ones are preferred, but it's not absolutely neccessary. --Ktlynch (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

TClapton (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from nominator Thanks for all editors who have taken the time to check the reference formatting. Crucial for verifiability, but I'm surprised not to have more checks one what those sources say, and more substantive critiques of the article as a whole. Call me masochistic, but that's what I came here for!! Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose on references. Most of the sources are missing crucial publishers. Just because you have the work, does not mean you can skip another key point from the reference formula. I also question the reliability of sources #11, 12, 19. Why are #22 and 23 different? What about #24? I have several in question, and many are missing key parameters. I have this page watch-listed, so I'd be happy to come by and re-consider my oppose once certain issues have been met.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

  Nathan, when the work itself is well-known, then the publisher can be omitted. See the documentation at Template:Cite news. Most of the references are mainstream publications with their own blue links. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for explanation Erik, but there are further issues. #24 should be italics, why doesn't #62 use the cite news template? If you are not going to list publishers, than be consistent. Here he lists Fairfax Media. What makes #35 and 76 reliable?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

  I agree that the references should be consistent in formatting. You raise a good point about #35, but for #76, the publisher AlloCiné appears pretty official to me. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

replaced #11 & 12, #35

#76 is reliable, it is a database and has professional editing. Respected source in France.

#24 In general, publications not institutions are italicised, hence the difference.

Erik explains it quite well about the publishers. I removed the Fairfax Media, ironic that removing info improves the article. It would be silly to say that the Guardian is published by the Guardian Group for instance.

Regarding key parameters, all references include the author's name (where given), the date of publication (where marked), the title of the article, its url if online, the publication and the retrieval date. --Ktlynch (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I feel like it is awfully soon for this article to be a featured article candidate. Best Picture winners are pretty well-studied, and it seems premature to put this article in the running before the film is analyzed through an academic lens. For example, American Beauty (film) has a bibliography of references many of which were published years after the film was released. While the article appears to make the best use out of the information printed so far, I still get the impression that more is to come. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Erik, your point is right -- better sources appear over time. However the FA criteriion "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" make reference to avaliable literature. If, in the future, better material becomes avaliable and the article is not representative of it then it would be liable to be delisted. --Ktlynch (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The FA criteria does not mention available literature, just relevant literature. For this important work of fiction, I think that the relevant literature has yet to come. Obviously, we cannot wait until the end of time to survey all the relevant literature about the film, but in my experience, the ensuing years after a film's recognition will often result in analysis of the film. Without including that analysis, I just think that the article will come off as too contemporary when it could be even better with retrospective references. For example, 300 (film) became featured within a year of the film's release, and there are now numerous retrospective sources from 2009-2010 that aren't being used. I just find a certain reluctance with the delisting process. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It says "relevant literature": that can hardly include literature that does not exist. You can't really judge something on the hypothesis that other relevancies might exist hereforthwith. We should do the best we can now. Plenty of articles have been delisted, if you feel that process is lacking you should beef it up, not try and see the future here. Best wishes, --Ktlynch (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up: 300 doesn't use superior sources to here, some of the superhero websites cited there I think would be criticised here. There are sigificant discrepancies in formatting there too. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I am not opposing because I agree with you that the feature article criteria does not quite encapsulate my viewpoint. However, the criteria was designed to be applied to all subject matter—quite the feat. I'm just not sure if the criteria as written applies well to very new topics (especially compared to all the ones that are long relegated to history). The peak of coverage for this topic, judging from the references, was around last February and March—when it won all these awards. I'm suggesting that an article about this kind of film ought to have some semblance of retrospective, analytical coverage before it becomes featured. You want to work with what exists now, I understand. You don't want to make presumptions about what will be printed in the future, but in my experience researching different kinds of films, I am very confident that such coverage will exist for this Best Picture winner. Let me show you what I mean. The previous Best Picture winner was The Hurt Locker, which is still pretty recent, and we have a couple of sources here and here, not to mention Google Scholar Search results. Before that film was Slumdog Millionaire, which has sources like this and additional Google Scholar Search results. Before then was No Country for Old Men, well-studied especially since it's the Coens, and numerous results are here and here. That's why I suggest waiting because I don't think we need to be in a hurry. If you disagree, that is okay. :) I am just sharing my thoughts here for reviewers' considerations. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Erik, you're still making a massive leap in reading the criterion: it simply says "relevant" there's no way that can include hypothetical literature. A couple of examples of previous Oscar winners means nothing, so what in those cases? Academics don't decide on research themes on the basis of a flippant awards ceremony. I repeat that you'd be better off doing better sweeps of existing FA/A/GA articles to make sure everything's still up-to-date, that catches changing standards, erosion of quality through vandalism & other edits, and new avaliable information. Secondly, if you are suggesting there isn't strong sources I'd look again, there's a good lot of deep analysis in them, including, e.g., American Cinematographer (like American Beauty) not just awards fluff. Interesting debate, but it might be more suited to the talk page. Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Best Picture winners (and nominees) are studied because they are considered some of the best films of the given year. I gave you several recent examples of the recent winners alone, but I can do more with older winners and nominees old and new. There's a definite presence of retrospective analysis when it comes to these films. I'm not sure why such analysis should be dismissed and why there's a hurry to get Featured Article status so soon. This film will have its due, in which we can place this subject in context. That might be the featured article criterion it does not meet when the article does not look back on this film at all. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:35, 19 September 2011 [31].

---

Thomas Müller

Nominator(s): ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated this artlce before, and it failed largely due to the number of references from Müller's club, Bayern Munich. I've replaced most of these, and in addition the article has better images, plus expanded personal information. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This?

Trust me, transfermarkt is the most reliable source out there. 188.169.22.145 (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No offence, but I'm looking for a stronger rationale than "trust me". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

transfermarkt.de is a very reliable source. It belongs to the Axel Springer AG, one of the largest multimedia company worldwide. It is the biggest sports website in Germany, after Kicker. Per [32], transfermarkt supplies interviews with professional football players. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 15:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• FN 38, 78: publisher?
  • Fixed. 188.169.22.145 (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Use consistent italicization and naming (ex. Kicker vs Kicker sportmagazin)
  • Fixed. 188.169.22.145 (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
  • Examples please. 188.169.22.145 (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I've made it only so that each publisher is only linked on their first ref - I assume that's what you mean. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed. 188.169.22.145 (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment There are 2 dead links in the article. [33]. 188.169.22.145 (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I've fixed one link. 188.169.22.145 (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    • And I've fixed the other. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Media Review Everything checks out from caption and copyright standpoints. File:FIFA World Cup 2010 Argentina vs Germany - Thomas Müller opening goal.gif is an interesting idea, but is choppy and dosen't track the trajectory of the ball very well. I'm not saying "remove it", but... Sven Manguard Wha? 06:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree on removing that image. It slows down the page load time significantly. 188.169.22.145 (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment I think all non-English titles should be translated and written in trans_title of cite web template. 188.169.22.145 (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Only two concerns: "Raul scores, ones, Neuer stopps everything - Bayern knocked out", "Gomez and Müller a good partnership" - these translations are terrible. 188.169.22.145 (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: this IP has been blocked as a sockpuppet of the blocked User:Taro-Gabunia. Ucucha (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, changed. The first one was just a load of typos because I was adding so many; the second I couldn't find a useful translation for 'kongenial' (they don't mean friendly). ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"Gomez and Müller a symbiotic partnership" - this translation still doesn't make sense. 188.169.22.145 (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Any suggestions then? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't get the point of that sentence. Does it mean that Muller and Gomez fit each other well? (they play well when they are on the pitch together) 188.169.22.145 (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I take it to mean that they combined well in that particular match. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment What about adding assists statistic from ESPN? 188.169.22.145 (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Unlike say ice hockey, there's no defined method of counting assists, so such figures inevitably vary by source. As a result, the consensus within WikiProject Football is that assists should not be included in tables of statistics. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree, but I think ESPN is a quite reliable source. 188.169.22.145 (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Comment Not an easy one to review, as Müller has only really been active for two seasons. This doesn't make it any less eligible, but does (perhaps unavoidably) make it harder to feel a sense of depth when reading the article. Nevertheless, as a summary of his career so far, it does a good job.

• While it is mentioned in the Personal life section that Pähl is in Bavaria, the early career section could do with some wording making it clear that Bayern Munich are the nearest Bundesliga club to Müller's birthplace.
• Done. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Playing style section - its never an easy thing to source, but I always feel compelled to ask: What are the weaker areas of Müller's game? Perhaps Robben made criticisms during their spat?
  • I'd love seeing it but I think it's impossible to source. 188.169.22.145 (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    • It wasn't that kind of spat, but even if it was, would we put that weight behind something said in the heat of the moment? I've included a sentence about some of Müller's weaker areas. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• regular fixtures - not sure this one parses. A fixture, or a regular selection, but not both at the same *Noticing some passive tense in the article that could be reworded to sound more direct, e.g. Müller had scored four goals and made two assists during the competition.
  • Fixed the latter one. 188.169.22.145 (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    • And the former. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• He was philosophical about this dip in form, though - could do with a direct quote to support this.
  • The quote is in the ref, I don't think it can be fitted in neatly, and I feel this summary works best. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Müller's success in the World Cup was as part of a group of young players (Ozil, Khedira) that earned plaudits, so a sentence about how the team as a whole was viewed could be a useful addition. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments – *Breakthrough season: "Muller credits Van Gaal for having the biggest part to play in his rise to success - the coach had arrived...". Hyphen in the middle should be an en dash, for good formatting and consistency in the article.

• 2010–11 season: Keep an eye out for long, winding sentences like this: "He was philosophical about this dip in form, though, and after eight league games without a goal, he scored in a 4–1 win against Eintracht Frankfurt on 27 November, and again in consecutive league and cup wins against VfB Stuttgart three weeks later, talking (should be taking) his tally to eight goals in all competitions, including a spectacular goal to open the scoring in a 2–0 Champions League victory against Roma on 15 September." That could easily be three sentences, and it's all jammed into one overly long one.
• 2010 World Cup: Another en dash needed to replace a hyphen in "against Spain - Muller said that he felt far more nervous...".
• Should the last word in "as Germany won 3–2 to take the bronze medals" be the singular "medal"?
• References that are to newspapers and magazines should have the publisher italicized. I see a bunch of cites to Kicker and The Guardian, among others, that need such edits. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. 50.19.78.29 (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

'medals' is correct - it's a team game. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I think the article is very good, without suffering from recentism or unnecessary detail, which is true for a lot of football articles unfortunately . Some suggestions:

• The first two sentences of the second paragraph of the lead could be added to the very short first paragraph. I think it would fit better that way.
  • Done.
    • Actually what I meant was to keep two paragraphs, starting the second with "A product of Bayern's youth system...", but it's really not a big deal
• 'Golden Boot' should possibly be explained in the lead
  • Done.
• "30 mile journey " shouldn't this be given in metric units?
  • Done.
• Either British or American English. "Honours" in the infobox, but "Honors" as a section headline. The Talk Page claims the article only uses AE, but wouldn't he then be a soccer player, not a "footballer", also "centre of media attention" certainly is not AE. In general, British English seems like the much more logical choice for this article to be honest.
  • I don't know why it was tagged as American English, as I've written most of it and I'm from the UK. Obviously I'm not claiming ownership of it, but British English makes the most sense for European footballers.
• It could be mentioned that Klinsmann was Bayern coach during his debut appearances, because he is now of special interest to English language readers I suppose
  • Done.
• The length of his fist Bayern contract could be given
  • Done.
• What must be mentioned somewhere I think is van Gaal's well-know statement about him "Müller spielt immer" (Müller plays always), which was not true for some games in the first half of the 2010–11 season, during his "dip in form" [34]
  • Done.
• The 2010-11 section seems a bit short compared to the previous season's section. Some things which could be mentioned in more detail are the CL elimination by Inter, which was rather dramatic and he scored in that game. Also Bayern's problems, such as the much less effective van Gaal system, which was increasingly criticised as static and unimaginative in the media could be discussed.
  • Done. I'm wary of making it too long, though, as the article will obviously grow and grow as time goes on.
    • Maybe you could simply start a new paragraph after "reflect on "an almost unbelievable first year as a pro"" to give it the same number as paragraphs as the section above.
• I think it would be interesting to mention that members of the Bayern board publicly spoke out against Müller playing at the World Cup as late as March 2010 [35]
  • Done.
• "Despite suffering a scare ... only suffered superficial injuries" A lot of suffering, plus what does the scare have to do with the degree of his injuries?
  • Removed one instance of suffering. The point being that when he fell of his bike there was an initial worry that he'd get an injury that caused him to miss the WC
• The only two exact dates given in the entire text are those of Germany's squad announcements. What makes those so important? We don't even learn the month of the Champions League final, for example.
  • Gone.
• His goal against Australia was voted Germany's Goal of the Month for June 2010. [36]
  • Done.
• It could be mentioned that his second booking was for a hand ball. Also that he (and most of the German media) felt it was very harsh.
  • Done.
• I agree with a comment above that "bronze medal" (singular) would be better.
  • I'm sorry, I still disagree.
• Isn't the International goals table hidable usually?
  • Done.
• Personally, I would put the Playing style and Personal life sections above the two statistics sections. There is this huge gap in the prose and I almost didn't expected anything more below.
  • Done.

EnemyOfTheState_|talk 12:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've addressed these points. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

My concerns above have been addressed, I now Support this nomination,. EnemyOfTheState_|talk 16:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - The points made by Enemyofthestate and Oldelpaso seem to have been well addressed. It meets the standards set by FAs such as Thierry Henry and Gilberto Silva. Spiderone 16:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Have there been any spotchecks for copyvios or accurate representation of sources? Karanacs (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

For my comments above, I looked at a dozen sources or so, finding no misrepresentation. That counts as spotchecks of sources I suppose ? EnemyOfTheState_|talk 11:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I checked about a dozen sources too, but can only read a little German. A few comments:

• Reference 16 ("Fußballer des Monats (September 2009) [Footballer of the month (September 2009)]") is dead.
  • Fixed
• Can the #13 ref in the ("After the Haifa match,...every match[13]...") sentence be a little more specific than the career games played page? I understand that's a tough sentence to cite with one though and I might have to pick through a few links from that page.
  • Fixed with your suggested link
• The sentence "Müller again played in every game of the season and scored 19 goals (12 in the league)[36]" is reference by a career stats page. Would this one be better where it says all competitions on the same page: [37]
  • Ditto
• "Müller played in every match of the first half of the season, usually as a starter,[36]..." Maybe it's because I don't read German that well, but I can't tell if he was a starter from that page, unless I click many of the games. "These goals took his tally to eight goals in all competitions[36]" also links to that career page. I don't see a to-date goals tally after the games. But again, I don't know if it's possible for a single citation to do all of this.
  • "Eingewechselt" means "substituted on". If it's not there, the player started the game.

I see it now. Thanks for the clarification. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think the references in "plays ... on the right for Germany.[69][70]" just mention he played in the games and was a midfield, not which side or which midfielder.
  • Added a new ref
• In this sentence, "Müller has been praised for his pace, technique,[82][83] awareness and positioning.[38]" reference 82 speaks about his maturity and experience, how he's a superstar in the making and how he is a prodigy, but not about pace and/or technique. Reference 83 mentions both pace and technique though.
  • Reworded

Other than that, everything looked well represented. Is that what spotchecks means? Strafpeloton2 (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

How about this reference for games started and goals scored: [38]? (If it doesn't go straight there, click appearances and then the season.) It looks like 2010-11 he had seven total goals after the two Stuttgart games. It also looks like he was subbed on once after the Haifa game and started the rest. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I've sorted these. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. But I have another question. Now I can't find where in the reference it says he plays in the center for Bayern when I use Google translator ("He can play in any of the attacking midfield roles but usually plays in the center for Bayern Munich,[27]"). More of my poor German reading? Strafpeloton2 (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added a better ref. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Everything of mine has been addressed. Looks good! Support Strafpeloton2 (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose on prose and a couple of reference issues: Sorry to come in late on this one, but I don't feel this is quite ready yet. It suffers in places from a tendency I have noticed in football articles to read an awful lot into a page of statistics. I found a large number of prose issues, most of which I have listed here but there are a few other ones too. A copy-edit would help here, I feel. I am slightly uncomfortable with a couple of the references and I think it needs someone with good German to have a quick look at some of the prose sources. One other point which makes me uncomfortable (I'm afraid it's a bit of a sore point with me): this chap is very young and very early in his career. How can this article be fully representative when he is so young and so much is still to come? How can we guarantee that his subsequent feats will be added in such a way to keep this at FA standard? This is not something I would solely oppose on, but I am not particularly happy about it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• For non-footballers: link for second striker? Also, what technique? More specific is good; tackling, dribbling, shooting, crossing…
• "he made his first-team breakthrough in the 2009–10 season after Louis van Gaal was appointed as the main coach": This suggests the two are connected; if not, lose the information about van Gaal.
• "This accomplishment earned him an international call-up…" I think neither the fact of Munich winning the Champions League, nor his appearance in so many games would cause him to be called up. What about "His performances earned…" or even just "At the end of the season, he was called up…".
• "This accomplishment earned him an international call-up, and at the end of the season he was named in Germany's squad for the 2010 World Cup, where he scored five goals in six appearances as the team finished in third place." Very long sentence. Maybe split after "World Cup" and lose "where".
• "he made the 50 km journey to join local Bundesliga side Bayern Munich in 2000." Odd sentence. It sounds like he made a one-off 50km journey to join the club, and sounds rather like a very old-fashioned story where a player walks miles and miles to join a club! Did he move to the area, or travel 50km every time to play and train?
• "He made his debut for the reserve team in March 2008 when he replaced Stephan Fürstner in a Regionalliga match against SpVgg Unterhaching,[4] in which he scored." Two points: first, the reference does not mention Furstner but my German is not good enough to tell if it says he scored. Second, it is very wordy. If he appeared as a substitute, what about "He scored on his debut for the reserve team in March 2008 when he replaced Stephan Fürstner in a Regionalliga match against SpVgg Unterhaching."
• "second string" is football speak and should not be in a FA.
• "Despite Müller feeling that his performance did not go well…" Noun-verbing. What about "Although Muller felt…"?
• "made his Champions League debut on 10 March 2009 when he was substituted on in the 72nd minute for Bastian Schweinsteiger": Substituted on?? Either "when he replaced XX in the 72nd minute" or "when he came on as a substitute for…"
• "a two year deal" I think it should be "two-year".
• "He was prepared to be loaned or even transferred away to find first-team football…" A little clunky; what about "To find first-team football, he was prepared to be loaned or even move permanently to another club".
• "but when Louis van Gaal was appointed manager, both players became fixtures in the Bayern first team from the start of the season." Again, my non-existent German does not help, but I am certain that the given ref neither mentions van Gaal, nor speaks about Badstuber, as it is a list of Muller's appearances.
• "He rounded off September by being named the Bundesliga player of the month…" A bit too much here; what about "He was named Bundesliga player of the month for September".
• Not a big deal, but there seem to be different sites used to show his appearances. Is there any reason, as I can see no reason for ref 18 being used instead of some earlier ones. And to be fussy, I'm not sure it shows that he played nearly every game.
• "In February 2010, Müller signed a new contract with Bayern Munich through 2013…" Rather than "through 2013" it may be better to say "signed a three-year contract".
• "usually playing in a central striking role due to the availability of other wide players Franck Ribéry and Arjen Robben." This is the first mention of his playing position and implies that up until now he played on the wing. If this change of position is significant, his position in earlier games should be covered somewhere.
• "this time extending his stay at Bayern until 2015" Again, maybe use the length of the contract instead of giving a finishing date as there is no guarantee he will still be at the team in 2015.
• "but as the team struggled for results, Müller was unable to match the previous season's goalscoring exploits" My lack of German does not prevent me believing that a list of appearances and stats can offer the opinion that he was not matching his previous feats, nor that the team was struggling for results! Maybe "lost frequently" or "did not win many games" for the latter.
• "being dropped to the bench": Jargon for non-footballers.
• "even receiving a telling off" Un-encyclopedic. Maybe "received a reprimand"?
• "He was philosophical about this dip in form, though…" No need for "though" and while I agree the ref supports the "philosophical" I think there may be a better way of putting it. But I would be happy for it to stay as it is.
• "a spectacular goal": POV. Who says it was spectacular?
• "but was involved in an altercation with team-mate Arjen Robben, who was angered when Müller showed his displeasure at a poor free-kick Robben took during a 3–1 win at Werder Bremen." Not sure of the significance of this, unless it was a serious dispute that received comments from the press/other players.
• "Müller again played in every game of the season and scored 19 goals (12 in the league),[45] but the season was less successful for Bayern, as they finished third in the league,[46] and were knocked out of the DFB-Pokal in the semi-finals by Schalke 04[47] and in the round of 16 of the UEFA Champions League by Internazionale; Bayern had won 1–0 in the San Siro, and Müller scored 31 minutes into the second leg to make it 3–1 on aggregate, but Inter levelled the score at 3–3 in the 88th minute, to go through on the away goals rule." A very very long sentence. And too many ands in the first part before the semi-colon.
• "Van Gaal was increasingly criticised for inflexibility…" By who? His players? The press? Officials at the club?
• "the eighth in an 11–0 thrashing of San Marino." Thrashing is POV.
• "Müller's regular appearances for Bayern's first team caused German national team manager Joachim Löw to publicly consider him for a call-up…" Surely the fact of his playing would not interest the manager? Otherwise, any player for any team (or a big team if we are going to be more precise) who appeared regularly would be called up into the national team. Would it not be his performance and success that interested the manager?
• Is it not unusual for a player to be called up to the national squad after so few seasons?
• "winning Germany's goal of the month award in the process": Surely he won the award later, not the instant he scored it, which the sentence suggests at the moment?
• "the bronze medals": I was not aware that such medals were given at World Cups. Nor is it a term I have heard used in this context before.
• "The team's success was a culmination of a series of changes made after the national team's failure at Euro 2000. The Germans emphasized a more open, attack-minded style not previously associated with Germany, and included prominent young players, including Müller, Sami Khedira and Mesut Özil." Not really relevant here as it is written, unless it is recast to say that his selection was part of a deliberate youth/attacking policy.
• "With five goals Müller ended as joint top goalscorer of the tournament": Odd phrasing. What about "With five goals, Muller was joint top goalscorer for the tournament"?
• "Müller has started each of Germany's first eight qualifiers for Euro 2012, all of which have ended in victory." Why switch to present tense? Perhaps just "Müller started Germany's first eight qualifiers for Euro 2012, all of which ended in victory".
• "He has scored twice in the campaign, both goals coming in a 4–0 win over Kazakhstan in March 2011" As above, maybe just "He scored twice in a 4-0 win over Kazakhstan".
• "Müller's role can be described as an attacking all-rounder"… Well, why not describe it so then? Better as "Müller's role is an attacking all-rounder".
• Müller has been praised…" By who?
• "he describes himself as a player who can find gaps in the opposition defense but not particularly good at dribbling or one-on-ones." Something missing from the second part of the sentence. Maybe "is not particularly good".
• "His parents are named Klaudia and Gerhard, and he has a brother, named Simon, who is two and a half years younger.": Better to combine this whole part and say "Muller was born in xxx to Klaudia and Gerhard Muller. He and his younger brother Simon grew up in xxx."
• "He married girlfriend Lisa, a model[89] in December 2009, after being engaged for two years." He and his wife Lisa, a model, married in December 2009 after a two-year engagement."

I'm sorry for the long list of points here, but I felt I ought to make them all as the article already has three supports. I am quite prepared to strike the oppose when these are cleared up. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• I would also like to contribute here but would prefer to wait until the above comments are resolved. Please leave a note on my talk page once these are covered. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:24, 19 September 2011 [39].

---

Battle of Vukovar

Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Joy and I are co-nominating this article for featured article status. It has recently undergone a major expansion and rewrite to mark the upcoming 20th anniversary of the battle, which falls two months from today, on 18 November 2011. The battle was a critically important event in the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s and will be the subject of commemorations in Croatia. It will also attract significant international media coverage, some of which has already begun to appear, in the run-up and on the day itself. Having written featured articles before, I've set out to write this to featured standard from the outset and I'm pretty sure that it will meet many of the featured article criteria. The sister article on the Croatian Wikipedia is already a featured article (though this is not a translation of it). Prioryman (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

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

• Some internal inconsistencies, for example in the use of World War II vs Second World War
• WP:ENGVAR: be consistent in the use of either American or British spelling
• Missing bibliographic info for Little & Silber 1996; no citations to Crnobrnja 1996
• A few instances of phrasings too close to those used by sources, for example "devastation not justified by military necessity" (verbatim from source)
• Manual of style issues: spell out "%" in article text, don't include external links in article text, etc
• Provide conversions for figures like "2 million tonnes"
• Several vague or subjective statements - for example, "a very distinctive architectural and cultural character" - according to...? There are Baroque and classical mansions in other places, what makes these so distinctive?
• Check for repetitive and redundant phrasings
• File:Logo_of_the_JNA.svg - on what source was this image based?
• File:JTO-logo.jpg gives a deleted page as a source. Please check for other image issues
• Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
• Problems with reference/citation formatting: page ranges should consistently use "pp." and endashes, some books include publishers while others don't, etc
• Some references are incomplete - for example, newspaper sources without weblinks should include page numbers. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• I could only find two references to "World War II"; both changed to "Second World War" for consistency.
• I've made a few changes to the spelling. There are still American spellings in the article but these are within quotations - they don't need to be changed, do they?
• Little & Silber 1996 was a typo; should have been 1997. Fixed now. Crnobrnja removed.
• "Devastation not justified by military necessity" is a legal term of art. I've put it in quotation marks to make this clear. Are there any other examples?
• % now spelled out as "per cent" except when given inside parentheses as part of a list. I only found one external link in the text - now removed.
• Conversion of tonnes to tons added. Converted km to miles and m to ft.
• Added a pre-war source to spell out what was so distinctive about Vukovar.
• I'm using the harvnb format. Changing "pages" to "pp." in the template doesn't seem to work and breaks all such references when I try it. I've added dashes for the page ranges.
• It would be helpful if you could indicate which books don't include publishers. I've checked them all individually and I can't see any that don't have publisher info. I made a point of including it, so I would be surprised if there were omissions.
• Repetitive and redundant phrasings - can you identify some for me?
• I could only find one example of a caption that was a complete sentence that didn't end in a period - now fixed.
• I'll have to defer to our ex-Yugoslav editors on the sources of the logos, which were already in the article when I started editing it. I don't think they're essential so I have no objection to removing them if necessary.
• I should be able to get hold of the page numbers - bear with me, please.

Thanks for your time. Prioryman (talk) 07:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I would very much like to see this article become featured, and I know it's a hard article to work on. It's a really good idea to put military history articles through the military history A-class review before they go to FAC ... we do a good job of prepping them. Peer review for history articles can also be helpful. Some problems from the lead section:

• "between August–November": see WP:DASH
• "destroyed with over 700,000 shells fired at it": destroyed by over 700,000 shells (unless you're saying that something else destroyed the town)
• "even now", "the town is today", "these days": see WP:DATED
• "deeply divided – these days psychologically rather than physically": I get what you're saying, but "psychologically" isn't the word I'd use. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Reworded these various elements to resolve those issues. Prioryman (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks. When an article gets early opposition at FAC, it's generally because we're a bit short on reviewers. If there's a lot to do before we can support, and different reviewers are covering different things, then after all the work is done, all the supporters would have to go back and review the whole article again to see if they still support, and we just don't have time to do that (at least, not if we're going to be fair to all the other FACs). So thanks for fixing those, but I'm still opposing, since this is a very, very long article and it appears to me there's going to be as much work to do in each section as there was in the lead. I understand that you'd like the article to be in the best shape possible for the 20-year anniversary, in about two months, and GAN tends to have a long wait these days, but you've got time for a peer review or an A-class review. - Dank (push to talk) 12:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Having had a prior review isn't part of the featured article criteria, so it seems a bit unfair to effectively make approval conditional on having an A-class review or peer review beforehand. Is there really time to do an A-class review and a featured article review? There certainly isn't time to do a GAN considering how slow it is these days. Prioryman (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
        • There's time if we get started right away. See WP:MHR for instructions. There are a few articles ahead of yours, so we won't all jump on it at once, but you should start to see some helpful edits and reviews soon. (This isn't a guarantee it will pass ... that's up to the reviewers, and I only look at one small part, the prose.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
          • OK, I'll give it a go. I'll remove this nomination temporarily from the FAC page. Prioryman (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
          • See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Vukovar. Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 14:18, 16 September 2011 [40].

---

Barbara Gordon

Nominator(s): The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I've worked on the article for a few years now and I believe it is as close as it can be to FAC requirements. I nominated it for PR first, but received no response. I chose to move forward with the FAC. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, unfortunately - you've done some good work here, but it doesn't quite meet the FA requirements. Here are some specific concerns:

• Prose needs a good copy-editing - I see a few grammar and spelling errors ("whit", "apated", etc)
• WP:MOS issues: ranges need endashes not hyphens, overlinking, etc
• FURs for non-free images generally need to be improved, particularly the purpose of use sections
• Source link for File:Yvonnecraigcomic.jpg is dead
• External links could stand to be culled
• Some phrases are written using a non-neutral or otherwise problematic tone - for example, "In her persona as Oracle, Barbara Gordon is not limited to the Batman Family, serving a unique and universal role in the DC universe"
• Referencing format is inconsistent and problematic. Web citations should include publishers. Book and magazine citations should include page numbers. Be consistent in whether you include publisher locations for books. In general, edit for consistency.
• Don't repeat cited sources in Further reading or External links. Use the same reference formatting for both cited sources and Further reading entries
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I am very concerned about the use of non-free content in this article. I appreciate that it's a very difficult subject to freely illustrate, and, of course, it's a visual topic. However, currently, every non-free image is used with the useless justification of "Illustration of a specific point within the article." One of the key points of a rationale is to explain what that "specific point" is, and why it needs to be illustrated with the use of non-free content- preferably with reference to the text of the article. J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I've begun working on the citations. I've also removed images I could not come up with a good rational for as well as writing new rational for images I believe are essential. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Far too much of it is unsourced, sorry. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 14:18, 16 September 2011 [41].

---

Finnish parliamentary election, 2011

Nominator(s): Lihaas (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it passed GA and peer review recommendations are tackled. It has scope for growth in status as the articles subject is done and there is not much more new stuff to come out. It is also one of the best election articles and most comprehensive of a non-english speaking country (those have more editors). I edit the majority of election articles since ive been on on WP so i think i should know its worth ;) Lihaas (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Why so many citations in the lead?
• Where footnotes are at the end of a sentence, please ensure that the closing period appears before the footnotes and is not omitted
• Ensure that all foreign-language sources are identified as such, and that English sources are not misidentified as foreign-language (as in FN 112)
• FN 22: publisher?
• Be consistent in whether web sources are cited using base URLs, website names or publishers
• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for newspapers
• Publication names should be italicized
• Check formatting of quotes within quotes
• FN 72: formatting
• Bloomberg or Bloomberg L.P.
• Check for minor formatting inconsistencies like doubled periods
• In general, make sure formatting is consistent - for example, compare FNs 101 and 102
• FN 103: retrieval date?
• Make typographical changes to source titles to comply with our local manual of style - for example, don't write a title in all-caps
• Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name firstLihaas (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• check for consistent naming - for example, The Wallstreet Journal or The Wall Street Journal? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Most articles have it that way, thought stndard practice. Ill remove some. better?
2. usually ref note is after period, no? seen that way everywhere.
3. 112 is a Finnish source and labeled as such. did a review of them sometime back to add lang tags seems sorted
4. done
5. will review
6. ah! there was some debate on that earlier, think some got entered in and others not. will remove
7. agree fully, though it was, per above some might have escaped
8. will do
9. what about? it was bot reflinked i believe.
10. okay will do. usually bloomberg mentioned on WP so ill go with that
11. will do
12. seems to already mention "Retrieved 12 July 2011" seems done
13. will do
14. will do
15. per above italicise

will get it done in a day or 2? should be free tomorrow.Lihaas (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape checks - Copyscape has revealed some issues that need addressing.

• Close paraphrasing with Agenda Magazine [42]
• This source might have been used [43], but does not seem to have been cited. Graham Colm (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure of the first one. it seems the bold text is just a handful of words and not whole scale copying. --> okay, i reworded some stuff, but quite frankly that software is crap. it catches some similar words from a sentence with WILDLY different meanings that simply happen to mention a similar word like "prime minister" or the name of the party. Crossing off above as done, if not then tell me and ill redo.

2nd is already cited to WSJ, probably overoll got it from here or there.Lihaas (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If you mean Duplication Detector, I didn't use that software; I used Copyscape and we still have "Investigations focused on a group of...entrepreneurs called Kehittyvien Maakuntien Suomi (“Finland of Developing Provinces”), who" and "at the core of the accusations after". Taken from here [44].Graham Colm (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - for now. There are problems with the prose. There is redundancy such as "in order to", "similar looking", "in regard to affecting", "at the end of the advance voting period, the total number of advance votes" and "cast their vote". There are odd expressions such as "hot button issue", "a scandal...broke", "in a party conference" (should be "at") "upon the media then delving further into the issue" (should be "when the media delved further") and "the effect of the Finnish election on a possible EU bailout was concerning to international investors", the "was concerning" sounds odd. Is the tense right here "the Green League, which was part of the governing coalition, has announced"? The "maintain a need" sounds odd here "the SDP's Urpilainen said that the party would maintain a need to cut pensions". I don't think value added tax should be hyphenated, and I'm not sure about "65-years-old". A comma is needed here, "the parties were preparing for future electoral reform which would not provide for electoral alliances" or change "which" to "that" depending on the logic. Lastly, the info box looks very cluttered; are all the details needed such as "leader since"? Graham Colm (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm leery featuring something that happened only five months ago. While I don't think it will change drastically enough to be unstable, I think it's a bit soon to tell. I'm not opposing, however, because I haven't reviewed the content. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 14:18, 16 September 2011 [45].

---

Byzantine–Sassanid War of 602–628

Nominator(s): DemonicInfluence (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I've worked pretty hard to try to make this article comprehensive and readabe. I hope that everyone can help me improve the article and perhaps make it a featured article. Thanks DemonicInfluence (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• "He advanced slowly because a Persian army under Rhahzadh was nearby; each commander was waiting for an opportune moment to attack." - source?
• Why use a blockquote template in End of the war? The quote is quite short
• Be consistent in whether or not ISBNs are hyphenated
• Be consistent in whether initials are spaced or unspaced
• Link for Ostrogorsky gives a different date - is this an edition issue? If so, be consistent in whether or not you include later publication dates, as you do for Haldon
• Check alphabetization of bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Response

• I will add this source when I get home tonight and then edit this post accordingly. I checked my sources, and that original statement was from Norwich, which is kind of old. The other sources seem to agree with the new statement, and I sourced accordingly.
• I wanted to emphasize that quote and also it is technically 4 sentences, so it kinda fulfills the MOS requirements? I can change this if you'd want.
• I made them all un-hyphenated
• If this is in the bibliography, I think I fixed this.
• The copy I have of Ostrogorsky is from 1969, but the Google Books version is 1986. I used my copy primarily, so should I still put the orig year =1969? I ask this because for Haldon, the copy I used was from 1997, but the Google books version was from 1990, so it was reversed.
• Fixed this
• Thanks for your comments DemonicInfluence (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments. Overall a good article, but it needs work before I am ready to support. I'll go through the article making copyedits and noting the specific points where I have trouble:

• "Some scholars like John Julius Norwich claim that Bonus tried to forcibly convert the Jews". Could we have another scholar aside from Norwich for this? I love his books, but he is prone to errors and oversimplifications.
  • I remember having this conversation last year. I still can't seem to find any other sources on this, but I felt it was interesting enough idea of Norwich's. Do you think it will be better if it is removed?
    • Well, if it is only Norwich who says this, then I'd remove him.
      • Done
• "Heraclius controlled the number of state-sponsored personnel". "controlled" is probably not the right verb here. "Limited", perhaps?
  • I changed to limited, fixed a number of places where you put clarify, and fixed some minor typos you inserted.
    • Yeah, good catch, my PC seems to have developed a mind of its own lately and inserts letters wherever it wants...
• there should be consistent usage of names, e.g. Anatolia or Asia Minor, but not both.
  • I changed to all Anatolia, except where quoting and referring to another article (Shahin's invasion of Asia Minor)
• I strongly recommend a general copyedit and a tightening of the narrative. For instance, in the "Persian ascendancy" section the Persian advances are confused: first it is stated that "the Sassanids took advantage of this civil war to conquer Syria and launch raids into Asia Minor itself." then we get a list of raids in Mesopotamia and Cappadocia, which events are essentially repeated in the third paragraph with different details, and in the last paragraph we are told that only after the Persian evacuation of Caesarea did the Persians attack (but not yet conquer) Syria, thus contradicting the opening sentence of the section.
  • I'm not so good at this stuff :(. I think I fixed the one your brought up though and added some more relevant information there. I will try to read over it again later today.
    • For a thorough copyedit, place a request at WP:GOCE. The sequence of Persian conquests now looks much better, though I'll go over it for another copyedit.
      • If you think it's needed, I'll place a request, but I haven't yet, as I hope it will not be so bad as to be needed.
• the maps are a bit problematic: Mohammad adil's campaign maps are lifted almost verbatim from Kaegi's book and that may be a copyright concern (admittedly, my understanding of copyright minutiae is hazy), while Byzantiumby650AD.JPG completely lacks sources and Sassanid empire map.png (last modified by myself) is only supposed to be approximate.
  • I'm not too sure what to do about this, but I was aware Mohammad adil's maps are under some suspicion =/. The map of 650AD and your map both look reasonably accurate, but they probably are not the best.
    • The maps may be by and large accurate, but for FA articles, sourcing is absolutely necessary. I'd suggest placing a request at WP:GL/MAP for some new maps.
      • Done for the two maps in particular you questioned. I will also try to find some map sources for them.
• in the "Anatolia" section, it says "Still, the Persians were soon forced to withdraw.", but we are not told why.
  • I looked pretty hard, but I seem unable to find any source that says why. All the sources I have (Kaegi, Persian Frontier, Ostrogorsky, Norwich) talk about how Shahin conquers Chalcedon and then the story goes elsewhere. The next time Shahin seems to appear is in the 620s defending against Heraclius. If you could find a source, that'd be awesome :) I have currently changed it to unknown reasons, but I'm not exactly sure how to cite that.
    • In this case you should simply remove the "were forced", because it implies some external factor. I have largely the same books you have, so I don't think there is much to add.
    • Strike that: Luttwak (p. 398, see below) suggests that Shahin retreated in order to focus on the conquest of Egypt.
      • I added this in. Thanks
• the statement "has been called the "first crusade"" should be directly attributed in the text.
  • I added some sources. I'm pretty sure William of Tyre was the first to see it as the first of the crusades, though I'm not sure if he explicitly gives it the title of "first crusade." Should I unquote this?
    • If it is not a direct quote, then I'd say unquote it and use some periphrasis instead, e.g. "it has been seen as the first crusade, or as an antecedent of the Crusades". Personally, I'd prefer some catchy quote, if you can find one.
      • I'll try to find one, but if not I'll do as you suggested.
      • I didn't find a cool quote, so I did what you suggested.

I'll continue from the "Byzantine assault on Persia" section later. Constantine ✍ 10:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Constantine and thanks again for your always helpful comments. DemonicInfluence (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • My pleasure :) Constantine ✍ 18:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Added some responses DemonicInfluence (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Continuing the review:

• "He recovered Caesarea, in defiance of the letter that Khosrau had sent him." This statement is oddly placed, as it does not seem to fit with the narrative. Did Heraclius recover it before marching to the Caucasus, or was this an earlier development still?
  • This was apparently very shortly before going to Caucasus. I added more clarifying sentence
• A short explanation why the Battle of Sarus was a nominal victory (heavy casualties etc) is necessary.
  • It was a very minor battle and somewhat successful retreat for the Byzantines. I think I changed it to be clearer.
• I don't remember now, but are there any details on how the Persians coordinated the attack on Constantinople with the Avars?
  • Kaegi says "Neither Persians nor Avars left records of their decisions and actions"
• On the siege of Constantinople, perhaps it should be made explicit, for those unfamiliar with the topography, that the Persian army could not actually support the assault unless it was ferried over. And perhaps it should be noted that the Persians had a reputation as very skilled in siege warfare, a fact mentioned in the Strategikon of Maurice (XI.1.10).
  • I added both and did some rearranging
• There should perhaps be a reference in the siege section to the tradition that the Akathist, one of Orthodoxy's most well-known and revered hymns, was composed after the failure of the siege.
  • added
• "where the Byzantines used the counterweight trebuchet." Two issues here: First, it cannot have been a counterweight rebuchet as this was not used until much later, but a traction trebuchet. Second, why is this important enough to be mentioned (presumably it was one of the first recorded uses)?
  • You're right that it was not a counterweight trebuchet. I misread the Kaegi description. I added in a part about how it was relevant.
    • OK on the correction, but the importance is still missing.
      • I added another bit (it was the first usage of the word helepolis to describe the trebuchet. I can remove if you don't think this is important enough.DemonicInfluence (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Hmmm, it is of dubious value. The fact that this was one of the first documented uses of the trebuchet (not only by the Byzantines, but in the West in general, I think) is more important by far than a linguistic note. Constantine ✍ 21:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
          • I dunno, my source seems to say that trebuchets were used before then because they were mentioned in the Strategikon, the Avars in 587 (from stealing Byzantine engineers). I'm not sure just saying more than it was one of the first known use by the Byzantines would be accurate (and even then with the footnote that it may have been used earlier under a different name) DemonicInfluence (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• "It was mid-September before his brother Theodore had arrived at Chaceldon." Why is this important?
  • It seemed self-evident in that Heraclius waited a long time. However, after more closely reading the sources, I realized the chronology of the return was very uncertain. So I removed that bit.
• In the "Long-term consequences" section, I think some mention of the Byzantines' inability to recruit or finance many troops should be inserted as a factor in the Arab successes. Kaegi has a good overview of the military aspects of the damage of the war with Persia in his Byzantium and the early Islamic conquests, especially pp. 43-46.
  • I will check out that book
  • Added a bit about that.DemonicInfluence (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• I am not sure that the "Composition of the armies and military tactics" works as intended. Though informative, it does not really add to the understanding of the war we have just read about. That is understandable, because the section concerns the tactical aspects of warfare, which are not and cannot be much in evidence unless battles are described in detail. I suggest either adding a few examples where such tactics or the different practices between the two armies are evident, or, better yet, expand the section into one examining the respective military systems, i.e. recruitment, supplies, strategy, army movements etc. which are more in evidence when examining a war as a whole. It is indicative for instance that the Persians did not fortify their camps, or some explanation should be provided on how Heraclius managed to move is army in winter, when campaigns were usually avoided until recent times. Here I strongly recommend that you take Edward Luttwak's The grand strategy of the Byzantine Empire into account, he devotes an entire chapter on Heraclius' strategy, diplomacy and logistics during this war, and gives IMO a far clearer and concise overview of these topics than Kaegi's sometimes rambling account.
  • Sadly, it appears someone has checked out that book at my library until December. I'll try to read the Google Book online preview. If you have the book and could expand that section, that'd be pretty cool (though I'm not sure if you'd still be allowed to review).
  • I added a bit on that, but it seems like an awkward transition. If anyone else can suggest a better transition, that would be quite helpful. DemonicInfluence (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Added some more. Anyone who can give comments on the effectiveness of the new section would be giving a lot of help to me. DemonicInfluence (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That's it for now. Constantine ✍ 21:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Some response DemonicInfluence (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I have stricken most points that have been dealt with, except for the trebuchet. Good work so far! Constantine ✍ 13:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments. The writing is basically fine, with a few hiccups. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• "The magnanimity of Tiberius II Constantine had created a large debt in the Byzantine treasury, which Maurice tried to alleviate with strict fiscal measures. However, these measures made him unpopular with the army, as he cut their pay. When, in 602, Maurice commanded his troops campaigning in the Balkans to spend the winter in the barbarian lands beyond the Danube to save money, this led to open revolt.": If there was actual debt, say who the debt was owed to. If not, "strained the Byzantine treasury" would be better. Also, the whole passage needs to be tighter. - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • will check out my source tomorrow
  • Changed with a bit more info. Might be a bit clearer.
• "friend and father,": WP:LQ.
  • fixed
• "casus belli": follow this with: (a reason given for war). Also follow comes Orientis with a translation in parentheses. - Dank (push to talk) 23:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Added
• Please check the placement of ref "frontier184"; I moved things around a bit.
  • Seems fine.
• "His use of ceremonies allowed him to legitimize his dynasty, and his support of justice strengthened his internal situation. Still, external threats loomed before the empire.": unclear - Dank (push to talk) 03:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I changed this. Please tell me if it is improved. Thanks for your help. DemonicInfluence (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
    • "However, despite the change in Emperor, external threats loomed before the empire.": still unclear. One solution would be to delete this sentence, but if you want to say that it was hoped or expected that the change in Emperor would reduce the threat, but it didn't, then expand a little on that. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I mainly have this to better transition to the next section. It seemed a little awkward to end talking about Heraclius' justice. However, I removed because it seems to bring confusion.
• "Luttwak called the Strategikon of Maurice the "most complete Byzantine field manual", and it provides valuable insight into the military thinking and practices of the time.": "providing" instead of "and it provides" would indicate that you're continuing to give Luttwak's view; "and it provides" means you're giving someone else's view, perhaps a consensus of historians. Can you clarify? - Dank (push to talk) 12:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes I wished to indicate that other historians also felt it was important. I had the Luttwak quote because I felt it was interesting. I also didn't want to add many historians feel it is an important source because I think that's against Wikipedia policies. I changed the comma to a semicolon to better delineate that they are two different ideas.
• Your source says: "King Abgar wrote a letter to the Lord, and the Lord replied through his messenger Ananias ...". You write: "Edessa ... was thought impregnable by the Byzantines because of Jesus' promise to King Abgar V of Edessa to give him victory over all enemies ...". See the problem?
  • I'm not sure what is the problem. I guess my sentence might imply that Jesus promised Abgar personally, but I don't think its much of an issue as that source even quotes Abgar saying that "you promised us no enemy..."
    • If you don't personally believe that Jesus guaranteed a victory, then the promise needs to be attributed to someone other than Jesus. Anything that you don't attribute implicitly or explicitly to someone else is what you're saying you believe based on your reading of the references you cite. - Dank (push to talk) 21:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm still very confused. I believe that back then, people believed that Jesus guaranteed a victory, and my sources say that. However, I added the word "supposed" to make it seem more objective, if that is what you wish for.DemonicInfluence (talk) 03:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Okay. Suppose your books suggest that everyone around Abgar believed that Khosrau made a promise to him, but that in fact no such promise was made. Would you say "Edessa was thought impregnable by the Byzantines because of Khosrau's promise to King Abgar V"? Won't a reader who hasn't read the books take that to mean that Khosrau actually did make the promise? Now substitute "Jesus" for "Khosrau" and you'll see what I mean. - Dank (push to talk) 04:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
          • I think I understand now. Check out the new version. DemonicInfluence (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• "In Armenia, the strategically important city of Theodosiopolis fell in 609 or 610 to Ashat Yeztayar, after the Persians presented a man who claimed to be Theodosius, the eldest son and co-emperor of Maurice, who had supposedly fled to the protection of Khosrau.": What does it mean to "present" someone? What's the connection between presenting someone and winning a military victory?
  • I changed to better indicate the use of diplomacy.
• "the Persians had conquered all the Roman cities east of the Euphrates, Armenia, and had moved on to Cappadocia, ...": nonparallel.
  • Changed
• "the Heraclii": If you mean the family of Heraclius, say that. Don't use Latin plurals for family names.
  • changed
• "did little to improve the immediate situation regarding the Persian threat.": did little to reduce the Persian threat (if that's what you mean).
  • changed
• "... Phocas, the original casus belli": Maurice's death was given as "a" casus belli; are you now saying that there was just one casus belli, and it was Phocas' actions generally?
  • changed
• "Heraclius attempted to stop the invasion at Antioch, and even met with Saint Theodore of Sykeon to ask for a blessing for the battle. However, at Antioch, the Byzantines under Heraclius and Nicetas suffered a serious defeat at the hands of Shahin.": Did you really want to say that they lost despite a blessing from a saint? Also, the successive "however" in the following sentence is a problem, and the two sentences might be better off combined.
  • shortened to combine the ideas
• "severing the land links between with Constantinople and Anatolia on the one side and Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and the Exarchate of Carthage on the other": severing Constantinople and Anatolia's land link to Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and the Exarchate of Carthage.
  • changed
• Okay, apart from the things I mentioned, and the things I fixed (see the edit summaries), the prose is fine per standard disclaimer down to where I stopped, Persian dominance. The prose has been generally fine with a few hiccups, and the writing is generally of a higher quality than in most of our history articles, but I'm hoping someone checks the prose starting at the point where I stopped. I'll come back later and have a look; I might support or oppose at that time. - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks a bunch for your aid. :) DemonicInfluence (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
    • My pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 21:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• Continuing. Except for the following few points, I'm happy with the edits in response to my comments above.
  • I responded to them DemonicInfluence (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• "In Armenia, the strategically important city of Theodosiopolis surrendered in 609 or 610 to Ashat Yeztayar through the diplomacy of a man who claimed to be Theodosius, the eldest son and co-emperor of Maurice, who had supposedly fled to the protection of Khosrau.": The meaning here isn't clear to me. Diplomacy doesn't usually result in a surrender, and what does "supposedly fled" mean?
  • I changed diplomacy to persuasion. Supposedly fled means there were rumors that he fled to Khosrau at the time.
• "Although the Persian conquest was a gradual process, by the time of Heraclius' accession, the Persians had conquered all the Roman cities east of the Euphrates and in Armenia before moving on to Cappadocia, where their general Shahin took Caesarea.": I'm not sure what "although" means here. Consider the sentence without it: "The Persian conquest was a gradual process; by the time ...". Is that not exactly what you wanted to say? Are you trying to make the point that the victories were accelerating? If so, please make that explicit.
  • I changed to what you suggested
• "Heraclius attempted to stop the invasion at Antioch, but despite the blessing of Saint Theodore of Sykeon, the Byzantines under Heraclius and Nicetas suffered a serious defeat at the hands of Shahin.": It would help if I knew why it was important that Theodore blessed the battle. (His article is red-linked, so I can't look it up there.) Did he represent some important faction? - Dank (push to talk) 17:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • St. Theodore of Sykeon was just a widely respected saint that had helped Heraclius earlier in his rebellion. His hagiography is a useful source for the reign of Heraclius. He does not represent an important faction as far as I know, though he had at one point very close relations with Phocas. Still, Kaegi only says it is plausible that the ties of Phocas were important to the meeting. Hope that explains it. Do you think it should just be removed?
  • I created an article about St. Theodore with some of his information.
• "defeat": a better description for what readers will find after clicking is "suffered a serious defeat"; I made the edit.
• "The details of the battle are not known however due to inadequate sources." Which details aren't known? And I'm not sure what "due to inadequate sources" means here ... would the meaning of the sentence change if you omitted that? - Dank (push to talk) 17:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Details of how the battle was carried out/maneuvers etc are not available in the primary sources from what I can tell. I have just removed it.
• "although local elites constructed fortifications,": I don't understand "elites" in this context.
  • Elites meaning local nobility and people with money.
• "but there was no active Monophysite treachery from 600 to 638 and many saw the Persian occupation in very negative terms.": I'm not following; do you mean there was no treachery against the Byzantines? I thought the Sassanids were in power for part of this time. - Dank (push to talk) 20:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I mean there was not active treachery against the Byzantines, meaning that the Monophysites did betray the Byzantines the Persians. They also did not work the hardest to restore Byzantine rule.... I also don't think they rebelled against the Persians either. DemonicInfluence (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Okay, I made a few edits, and I'm fine with what we've got so far. I got down about halfway, to Byzantine resurgence.
• Oppose. It's been a lot of work to get halfway through, and we've probably waited long enough ... if someone were going to jump in and help here, it would have happened already, probably. If this FAC fails, see if you can find someone who's interested in the history of the period, or maybe just someone who enjoys copyediting, to go over the second half, looking for the same kinds of problems I found in the first half. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 22:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Wait, I'll try one more thing. Demonic, if you can look through the second half of the article and fix any obvious problems, and any problems that are the same as ones I've already pointed out, I'll ask at WT:MIL to see if anyone can help. - Dank (push to talk) 01:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll try, but I tend to be not very skilled at this sort of thing. Hopefully it works out though DemonicInfluence (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Media Review - Everything looks good here. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:28, 12 September 2011 [46].

---

Ionian Islands under Venetian rule

Nominator(s): Marcofran (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. Plus its Peer Review has been archived. Marcofran (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Question - the peer review link on the article talk page is appearing as a red link; could you provide the correct link to the peer review? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it. Ucucha (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I appreciate the work you've put into this article, but I don't feel it currently meets the FA criteria. You might consider putting it through WP:GAN first. Some specific issues:

• I note there is currently an unactioned request for copy-editing at WP:GOCE. You should wait for this to be completed, as the article currently has many prose issues. For example, from the first sentence, "historic period of the Ionian Islands during which were part of the maritime possessions" - missing a word.
• Why so many citations in the lead? The material should mostly be cited in article text
• Don't include terms in See also already linked in article text
• Source problems with some images. File:Blason_fam_it_Orsini.svg is missing a source. File:Armoiries_Anjou_Durazzo.svg needs a page number for its source. File:Tocco_stemma.png is missing a source. File:Corfu_town_08.JPG is missing a source (likely "self-taken")
• File:Corfcefzan.jpg needs a licensing tag for the coins themselves, in addition to the photograph. File:Corfu_town_08.JPG needs a licensing tag for the building, in addition to the photograph
• Manual of style problems: dates should not be written as ordinals, headings should have only first word and proper nouns capitalized, etc
• Multiple formatting issues in citations. Web citations need publishers and access dates. Citations to multi-page PDFs need page numbers. Page ranges should be notated with "pp." and endashes. A consistent format should be used for dates. Retrieval dates are not required for Google Books links. Please ensure that citation and reference formatting is consistent and correct.
• What makes the Clayton book a high-quality reliable source, given that it is self-published? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• There is indeed a request but nobody has responded.
• So, do you think I should delete the sources and leave the text?
• I did exclude those three links.
• I don't understand what you want to say about the images.
• What do you mean about dates, example? I corrected the headings. What other MOS problems can you see?
• In some citations I could not find a publisher. I think all web citations have access dates, don't they? Only one PDF, page number included. What do you mean about page ranges? Give me an exapmle of another article please. Which dates you mean here? Should I delete the retrieval dates of Google books then?
• Nothing I suppose. Should I delete it then?

Are there so many issues? So what should I do? Sorry but I am new here and I'm still learning. Should I propose it for a GA and when should I do it now that I have proposed it for FA? --Marcofran (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape checks - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I saw this article on the Guild of Copyeditors' requests page. Firstly as a procedural point, all copyediting and reviews should be finished before FAC nomination. A quick reading shows two things: that the article has been well-researched using quality sources, but also that it is far from the rounded product expected at FAC. Parts are difficult to understand; and some sentences are laboured with sub-clauses that trip over themselves.

Thirdly, the extensive bibliography does not appear to be completely cited in the references. Those works which are not directly cited should be moved to a further reading section. Given the extensive academic sources avaliable I also feel that this article is too short, some sections are very bitty. The "Background" sub-section in the "History" section could be deleted. I'm going to copy-edit it now, and reccomend that a history expert be found to have a look at it, then a nomination at GAN, both would help to develop the article further. I want to stress that it is a strong article with good prospects, and clearly lots of hard-work has gone into it. However, it does not yet reach the "finished, complete, outstanding" standard of a FA. Keep up the good work. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:28, 12 September 2011 [47].

---

Dragon Warrior

Nominator(s): MuZemike and 陣内_Jinnai 20:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

When this was brought up in July there were some issues with it. Since then, we have found more info, took another look at the sources again and in general went about improving the article in every way possible. There was also another independent copyedit.

As for the images, since this was brought up specifically last time and not addressed then, I will note that I believe the image with the Japanese/English side-by-side comparison does meet the NFCC specifically because the text does not really describe the graphical changes made. It only really describes the technical changes. You cannot explain how the king, knights and hero look by comparison to the NA couterpart without going into blatant orginal research as the text only mentions they were westernized in the most vaugist sense, something that cannot be shown without a side-by-side comparison.-陣内_Jinnai 20:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Problems with References by User:Odie5533}}

Problems with References: I noticed a number of problems with the references.

• Publishers like GameSpot are sometimes wikilinked and sometimes not.

It is wikilinked in the first mention in the article and in the references section. Unless you want it linked more, I am not seeing an issue here. –MuZemike 22:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the references, and you did fix it by unwikilinking it in the ""gspot_consolehist_a" ref. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• The citation to "1-up" has the wrong name for the publisher and links to the wrong Wikipedia article. This problem occurs more than once, and is sometimes linked and sometimes not.

Should be 1UP.com, which is the proper name of the website. That has been fixed. –MuZemike 22:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• GamePro is linked twice in the references. Style appears to be only to link the first occurrence. One of the refs also lists United States while the other does not.
• Square Enix Online → Square Enix Music Online

Fixed. –MuZemike 22:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• RPG Gamer is referenced, so is RPGamer. Pick one name for it.

The latter, "RPGamer" is the proper title of the site, so I went with that. –MuZemike 22:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• GameSpy is sometimes italicized, sometimes not, and never wikilinked.

From my look through the article, it is wikilinked on the first mention in the article and the first time in the references. –MuZemike 22:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You fixed this by changing work=GameSpy to publisher=GameSpy, which changes the italics. You also wikilinked it. That was the problem. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

GameSpy is web-only and not print, so it shouldn't have been italicized in the first place. –MuZemike 02:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• The first occurrence of RPGamer in the article is not wikilinked, but the second is.

That should be fixed to where the only the first occurrences in the article body and in the references are linked. –MuZemike 02:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• What makes The-Magicbox.com a reliable source? dqshrine.com?

Jinnai is addressing that below. –MuZemike 02:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• EDIT1: Ref "Dragon Warrior I & II for Game Boy Color Review. GameSpot. 2000. Retrieved April 10, 2008." is incomplete. The full posting date and the author's name are available from the link.

Fixed. –MuZemike 22:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ref38, "Horii, Yuji (November 2007).", doesn't say what publication it is from. It also links to South San Francisco, but it is not the first occurrence in the refs.

Sorry, that should have been Nintendo Power. Added. –MuZemike 22:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• EDIT2: Famitsu and GamePro should be italicized in the references as they are italicized in the article.

Fixed. –MuZemike 02:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Dragon Warrior I and II Official Strategy Guide" and "Dragon Warrior I & II Official Strategy Guide" are both referenced. Pick either and or &.

Fixed. –MuZemike 02:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 8: "Dragon Quest: Sentinel of the Starry Skies" → "Dragon Quest: Sentinel of the Starry Skies"

Fixed. –MuZemike 02:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 52: "The Art of Dragon Quest" → "The Art of Dragon Quest"

Fixed. –MuZemike 02:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 56: "Dragon Warrior Explorer's Handbook" → "Dragon Warrior Explorer's Handbook"

While I don't find it clear that "Instruction Manual", "Instruction Booklet", etc. should also be italicized along with the title in every case, the whole thing is currently italicized. –MuZemike 02:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 116: "Clone Warriors: RPGs Inspired by Dragon Quest" → "Clone Warriors: RPGs Inspired by Dragon Quest"

Fixed. –MuZemike 02:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That's all for now. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Got some of the issues above (Diff: [[48]). Will get the others later as I am busy at the moment with other stuff. –MuZemike 22:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

All the other ones (aside from the sources, which are being discussed below) should now be fixed (Diff: [49]). –MuZemike 02:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Replies about sources:

• The magicbox - They are cited for the news and content by a number of reliable sources. Specifically:
  • Eurogamer
  • Gamespot
  • Edge Magazine
  • Silicornera
  • Anime News Network[50].

In several instances they are noted for translating info from Famitsu specifically.

The Eurogamer article used them only for their translation, not actual reporting information. Gamespot is a forum post (!), Edge doesn't say what they use Magic Box for, Siliconera is a comment made on a blog post (!), first ANN is where they posted pictures, and the second ANN is the only one that helps establish any reliability. I found some better citations ([51] [52] [53] [54]), and I am now inclined to believe they are reliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It's tough looking for them even with a filtered google search because so many entries are about the movie The Magic Box or some litteral or metaphysical magic box. >_< 陣内_Jinnai 00:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I should also add that ABC News cited it upon Halo 3's release. –MuZemike 02:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

DQshrine - per the note at WikiProject Square Enix it is published in a gaming encyclopedia by a reknowned expert. Specifically, the site was listed in the bibliography in Encyclopedia of Play in Today's Society by Rodney P. Carlisle, a "Professor Emeritus" at Rutgers University.陣内_Jinnai 23:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reliable to me. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Could you please clean up the rationales used on File:Dragon quest battle 2.png and File:Dq comparison side.png? It's difficult to judge the usages when there are two separate rationales for the same use. J Milburn (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the former. Will do the latter if MuZemike doesn't deal with it later.陣内_Jinnai 13:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• The characters section is so small! I'm amazed it has it own subsections! Any chance of expansion in that section? or getting rid of the subsections? because it clearly fails 1(b) in the featured article criteria-SCB '92 (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • And are all these red wikilinks necessary?-SCB '92 (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Removed the section headers. There is really nothing more we can add. I was shocked we were able to find as much as we did.
    • As for redlinks, I removed 2 of them. I used the {{ill}} for another (her birthname is translated as Emi Nagashima, the romaji of the Japanese link. The Tokyo Strings Ensemble i would wager would meet the GNG if anyone could find Japanese sources.陣内_Jinnai 19:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Both image rationales have been taken care of.陣内_Jinnai 19:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
      • After seeing some video game articles, I suggest the Characters section should be merged as a subsection into the plot section-SCB '92 (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Done.陣内_Jinnai 16:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: I won't have the chance to review the article, but I thought I'd mention a problem that I noticed after a brief skim: there's only one review of the game's initial release, and it's for the NA version. Retrospective reviews and awards are fine, but surely more contemporary material is available. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think so. I even checked for reviews of it in Magazines like Dragon which are dedicated to RPGs (mostly tablestop, but they also covered video game ones) and they never mentioned it. At this point in history, RPGs were a new thing. Even Famitsu, Japans premeire video game magazine, does not have review scores on it because its so old. There just weren't any video game magazines back then.陣内_Jinnai 14:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is a lot of good stuff here, but the article is not yet comprehensive. I recommend trying to track down Chris Kohler's book Powerup: How Japanese Video Games Gave the World an Extra Life, which contains more information on how both Toriyama and Sugiyama became attached to the project and which tells of how the game looked like it was going to be a failure when first released in Japan. Indrian (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I put that book, as well as a few others on order (it's been a long while since I bought books on video games, anyways, at least not since early this year); hopefully, it won't be any more than a week until I get them. –MuZemike 06:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I found a number of sources that directly attribute the game's success to a marketing campaign run in Shonen Jump. [55] also states "Dragon Quest was so popular that the Tokyo government demanded that Enix not release new games on school days after children across the country skipped school en masse to line up for the latest version." I'm not sure the 4 lines in the legacy section do the game justice. I am opposing based on criteria 1a, 1b, 1c, 2 (MoS), and 2c. 1b/c were just briefly addressed, so here are the other problems:

• 1a) Comma usage is bad everywhere: "Players control a young hero, who sets out" "players are presented with a menu, which allows them" "Reviewers said that, while Final Fantasy has been"

• The discussion of the menu deals with batt saving for NA. To properly understand this paragraph, readers must read the note. The paragraph should be understandable without reading the note and so the information in the note should be integrated into the text.
• "If players choose to start a new quest, they may give the hero any name they wish, as long as they use no more than eight letters in the NES version or four kana characters on the Japanese version. The hero's name has an effect on his initial ability scores and their statistical growth over the game's course." → "When starting a quest, players may specify a name for their hero, and depending on the characters in the name, the game will change the hero's initial ability scores and statistical growth for the game." I think listing out the different restrictions for chosen names is a bit overkill.

Jinnai made changes here. Does that sound better? Also, keep in mind that I integrated the stuff that now follows from the "Notes". –MuZemike 05:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• "After receiving some items and gold, the hero sets out on his quest." his quest to destroy the Dragonlord? to find the Balls of Light? to go to White Castle? Is this information deliberately withheld from the reader or do players know the purpose of their quest early on in the game?

No, that was not the purpose, but I can see how it can be missed. That has been clarified. –MuZemike 05:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• "The status displays present information and statistics to the player." Sentence appears to be extraneous as it is repeated in the next sentence.

Fixed by Jinnai here. –MuZemike 05:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• "With the exception of a the Dragonlord's" extra "a"

That was fixed (can't locate the diff right now); I also shortened it to "Except the Dragonlord's...". –MuZemike 05:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• "if his HP are low" "when his HP is low" I think HP is used as an abstract noun to refer to health rather than hit points, so "HP is low" would be correct.

Fixed by Jinnai here. –MuZemike 05:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• MP is never explained or wikilinked

It is wikilinked under magic point and abbreviated immediately after. –MuZemike 05:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• "However, players has limited inventory" players have limited inventory space

Fixed by Jinnai here. –MuZemike 05:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• "to search beneath them" what? I've never played the game. This is confusing and probably should be deleted unless you want to explain it more.

Changed to "search beneath their feet". –MuZemike 05:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• "characters face forward so players must choose a command" forward, so

Fixed. –MuZemike 05:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'd like to note that the plot section is brilliantly written. I noticed "Ball of Light" is used once here, and should probably be changed to Balls of Light since it's only used once in the article.

A minor nitpick on my part, but both singular and plural are interchangeably used, depending on the version of the game. Anyways, Jinnai fixed that here. –MuZemike 05:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Note 5 should come at the first mention of Erdrick in the plot section

Fixed by Jinnai here. –MuZemike 05:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• "However, when he arrives" when the prophet arrives or when the descendent is prophesied to arrive?

Fixed by Jinnai here. –MuZemike 05:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Is it possible to win without rescuing the princess?

It probably is, but it's not relevant to the article, nor is it necessary to be added (it has now been added twice by an IP). That has been removed. –MuZemike 05:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Dragon Warrior debuted at No. 7 on its bimonthly "Top 30" top NES games list in November 1989." What is its? This entire paragraph is confusing to follow.
• "most of which can readily be found on the Internet." should probably be deleted, not sure if it says this in the source, but even if it does, I'd be skeptical that most of the existing rom hacks are very easy to find on the internet.

Here is the direct quote from Retro Gamer:

Most of the hacks that can be easily found on the Internet are NES or SNES titles, and this selection reflects this bias.

–MuZemike 05:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The source is saying that most hacks that are easily found on the internet are for NES or SNES titles. This does not mean that most NES and SNES hacks are easily found on the internet. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine, removed. –MuZemike 21:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• "many of the techniques used were intended to make up for hardware limitations; despite advances in technology that render some of those unnecessary, many of them have become conventions still used in today's RPGs." techniques used for what? Also, it is not clear what these conventions were.

Changed to "...many of the development techniques used were intended to make up for hardware limitations, but contemporary RPG developers continue to use them despite technological advances that would normally render them unnecessary." –MuZemike 05:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• semicolon usage: "Nintendo Power ranked it as third out of five upon its original release; later rating it the 140th-best game made on a Nintendo System in their Top 200 Games list in 2006."

Can't locate the diff, but it has been fixed. –MuZemike 05:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comma splice: "IGN reviewed the game years later and gave it a 7.8 out of 10, RPGamer's Bill Johnson gave it a 4 out of 5 overall score."

Added an "and" there. –MuZemike 05:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• This sentence doesn't make sense: "In response to Japanese youth's being arrested while waiting for its release, Quartermann, reviewer for Electronic Gaming Monthly, noted that the game was not "that special at all"."

It was a bit wordy, but I shortened the middle part to "Electronic Gaming Monthly's Quartermann said...". The mercurial editor wrote it in the "Gaming Gossip" section, as the third installment was being released in Japan, and the first installment was about to be released in North America. –MuZemike 05:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• NES' is used, and so is NES's

Changed it to the former. –MuZemike 05:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think this semicolon should be a colon, but check with someone else on this: "1UP.com explained why the series was not immensely popular at first in North America; American console gamers were not used to the idea of RPGs, and they said that would take a decade for the genre to be "flashy enough to distract from all of those words they made you read"."
• article changes its style of forming possessives. most of the article uses only s', except here: "GameCritics' Chi Kong Lui" "similarities to ICOM Simulations's"

Hopefully, they're all changed to s'; I did a search of the text and found nothing else that needed changing. –MuZemike 05:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Should probably be "the NES": "Horii believed that NES was the ideal venue for Dragon Quest because"

Fixed. –MuZemike 05:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• "can easily kill unprepared players – something in which Gamasutra described"

Changed it to a semicolon and a separate complete sentence to avoid any convoluted grammar issues. –MuZemike 05:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Horii used bridges to signify a change in difficulty and a level progression with" → "Horii used bridges to signify a change in difficulty and used a level progression with"

Those sentences were split into two separate ones. These were two completely separate concepts in which Horii used (i.e. players do not increase levels by crossing bridges; only the difficulty level increases). –MuZemike 05:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• I prefer listing the Japanese name first, and the American one in parenthesis: "for the Super Famicom" "for the NES (known in Japan as the Family Computer or Famicom)"

Made that fix in the lead. The first mention of "Nintendo Entertainment System", accompanied with the common abbreviation "NES", appears in the first mention in the article's body. –MuZemike 05:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• 1c) The immortal words of one Quinton Klabon, while immortal, are not useful for an encyclopedia. This would be akin to citing the letters section of a magazine. "In survey response, Gamasutra cited Dartmouth College's Quinton Klabon as saying that Dragon Warrior translated the D&D experience to video games and has set the genre standards to levels that have not changed since."

Removed. Upon a further look, I do agree with your assessment, as it's basically nothing more than a user-generated comment that Gamasutra decided to publish; it neither confers reliability nor relevance. –MuZemike 22:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• 2) There are multiple MoS violations for WP:ENDASH (pseudo Elizabethan English, pseudo-Elizabethan English, pseudo–Elizabethan English) "described as simplistic –or even Spartan and archaic – years"

It should he hyphenated, which was all changed here. –MuZemike 22:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• 2c) MOS:DATE Citation switches date styles for this one: Andrew Vestal (1998-11-02). "Other Game Boy RPGs". GameSpot. Retrieved 2009-11-18.

• And another date style here: Bailey, Kat (February 2010). "The Uncanny Valley of Love: The challenges and rewards of crafting a video game romance". 1UP.com. Retrieved 12 September 2011.

Fixed. Please note that this was added during the FAC. –MuZemike 22:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

--Odie5533 (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"players are presented with a menu, which allows them" is proper grammar usage, as pointed out in the previous FAC, as "which" needs to be preceded by a comma. Unless you suggest they should be changed to "that" or "in which" without a comma. Can we be a bit consistent here? –MuZemike 21:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyways, most of the issues have been fixed, with the exception of a couple of them (Diff: [56]). –MuZemike 05:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 01:17, 11 September 2011 [57].

---

The Emancipation of Mimi

Nominator(s): CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the Featured Article criteria. The article has received a pretty extensive Peer Review, where I got a lot of help from my peers; Thanks guys! The article also received a pretty thorough copy-edit from the GOCE. I think you'll be pleased with its current condition. Thanks to everyone for commenting!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• When including multiple footnotes consecutively, use numerical order (ie. [1][2][3] instead of [2][1][3])
  • Arranged
• You've got an [H] in there that doesn't seem to link to anything
  • Result of a careless copy and paste job by yours truly
• Ranges should consistently use endashes, not hyphens
  • I'm actually not completely sure about this one. Ranges inside the references, or in the text? Can you give me one example?
    • Well, both, but I only checked references. One example would be "Bands A-Z". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Okay, so I believe I added them to all the ranges
• What's with the triple parentheses in some of the allmusic refs?
  • Again, not sure why that was like that. Fixed
• FN 80: Lerner Newspapers is the chain, not the newspaper name
  • Switched both work and publisher
• FN 110, 129: don't italicize publisher name
  • Fixed
• FN 159: is an album catalogue number available for this source? Also, why are you using two different citation templates for the two album liner citations?
  • I am having trouble with this one as well. I guess I can place a catalog number from the album. For the next part, I don't really follow
    • There are two citations to liner notes - one using "cite music release notes", the other "cite album-notes". Assuming those are both actually liner notes, they should use the same template. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Now they match
• "(in Spanish). Portuguese Albums Chart." - that seems odd, are you sure? Looking at the source, most of the text seems to be in either English or German, strangely enough
  • Yes, what I don't understand is why I even wrote Spanish. If anything it should have been Portuguese. Fixed
• Foreign-language sources should be consistently identified as such
  • From what I checked (I believe all of them) there is a language parameter (proper ones) on the foreign language sources
    • I think you missed one in Works cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Got it!
• Why use {{cite}} templates for footnotes but {{citation}} for Works cited?
  • Fixed

Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Nikki. I have addressed all of them, except two for which I asked for further explanation.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I now think everything has been addressed Nikki. On a side note, I had to place "Citation" again for the "Works Cited" section because when you added "Cite book", the links broke :S I don't know why, but now as they were, they now work. Thanks for the tips and comments! :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• No issues were revealed by copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Quick review

• n+ing phrasing such as "with some critics calling it Carey's return to vocal form" This was already pointed out during the PR but it seems it was not addressed. Try User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing for the exercises.
• Vague terms like "vocal form"
• POVish terms like "high-profile"

I'll do a review perhaps on Saturday. Ciao! --Efe (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) That would be awesome! I made these quick fixes. I guess I overlooked them in the PR :S--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

--Efe (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Whose oppose is this? Please sign. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ooops! Forgot. --Efe (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This is certainly huge so I have to give my comments one at a time. And in this fashion:

• 1(a) well-written: for the lead

• Although it shared similar vocal production to her previous works I think that should be "with", as in shared with, not share to. --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Nice catch. Don't know why I didn't see thins before.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• and an inclination towards her signature pop and R&B ballads, the album encompassed a variety of dance-oriented and uptempo styles that were in keeping with its celebratory aesthetics Perhaps you delimit her ballads by removing pop and R&B, because the sentence says later that the album encompasses a variety of dance-oriented and uptempos... Pop and R&Bs could be uptempos too. --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Done.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• In contrast to the pop and adult contemporary music styles that framed her previous releases, the album showcased a wider range of genres and explored a variety of R&B-related styles I thought R&B was predominant with her previous releases. --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No. I switched it a little to make more sense.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• the album showcased a wider range of genres and explored a variety of R&B-related styles, including 1970s retro gospel and soul, as well as R&B and hip hop. Not clear. Why is R&B repeated? --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Done.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• The album debuted at number one on the US Billboard 200, with opening week sales of 404,000 copies, That first comma is superfluous. --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• To date, The Emancipation of Mimi has sold over 12 million copies worldwide. This was already mentioned during the PR. To date is out of date. Better use specific date of publication of the source, or whatever the source says. --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Specified.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• it achieved top-five places in several European countries and was later named "song of the decade" by Billboard Song of the decade don't have quotation marks. The sentence also doesn't cohere. Billboard did not it sone of the decade because it achieved top-five placed in several European countries. --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Re-arranged.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• 2(b) appropriate structure:

• The structure of the whole article has no cohesion. For instance, why is Promotion put after Award and Recognitions. And why is the section Ultra Platinum Edition follow Singles? --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• There supposed to be subsections here. For instance, you may put Awards and nominations and Critical reception under one section. --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I created a subsection called "Reviews". Its mighty huge. --Efe (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• I'm bother by the sections Singles and Ultra Platinum Edition sections. They break the flow of the structure. --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • So we already said to placing the "Awards" under "Critical", so where do you think "Singles" and "UPE" should go? I'm all ears.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
    • UPE could actually be under a section called "Release". I'm (a bit) bothered by how the section called "Singles" is presented. Its supposed to appear as promotional tool for the album. But then, the way its written, it sort of disconnect with the rest of the article (which is about the album). --Efe (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• I personally don't think that Grammy Awards should be part of her promotional duties for the album --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • You don't? Where should it be places then?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
    • You already have "Awards and Nomination". --Efe (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• That table which contains one item, End of decade charts, should have been merged with the prose. --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I really don't see why this one should be an issue. Its not like the whole table is for it. It's just a little extension.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Perhaps its just a personal taste. For me, when its only a single entry in a table, then better incorporate it in the list. The reason why we provide lists and tables is for a neater presentation of the facts without having to mention them in the prose. --Efe (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Media

• There three audio samples which some of them might be dispensable in keeping with our policy. I'll rationalize it later. --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay. I have removed one.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 16:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• The addition of that picture in the Commercial Performance section is irrelevant. Regardless if its free or fair-use, its still irrelevant. --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Removed.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Uh uh. Sorry. I forgot to say you might want to add it somewhere relevant. --Efe (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Gotcha. Removed one audio file and moved the photo to the singles section. I think this is what you mean.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 16:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm still digesting this article. So huge, but great. --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your comments Efe. I believe I have addressed your concerns, however, please clarify on a few points.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Organization

• Background.
  • There might be an attempt at establishing that Mariah did have setbacks, but that section is circuitous and contains facts that actually are dispensable.
    • For instance, and according to some, released her "inner sex kitten" on Butterfly (1997), her first album commissioned following their separation. Why the quotation? What is its relevance?
    • With her next release, Rainbow (1999), Carey continued to infuse more R&B influences into her music, notably with "Heartbreaker", the lead single from the album, which features Carey's farthest reach into hip-hop territory to that point. I understand there was a radical change in her "music" and "voice", but then again, you started the whole story with "Carey had experienced a year of critical, commercial, and personal troubles". I can see facts for this are mentioned somewhere in the section. --Efe (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
    • When comparing Carey's new style to younger pop singer Christina Aguilera's "Dirrty", Andre Meyer of CBC News said "Mariah may be cheapening herself, but she’s doing it with a knowing wink." Some random quoted opinion from somewhere outside Mariah's country. --Efe (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Though her singing style was significantly different and had critics divided, Cinquemani wrote, "Carey's vocal delivery and her willingness to experiment with it helped define the album, so it's only appropriate that its title track is the first of many to showcase Carey's much-debated "whisper voice". But it could be the most important of 'Butterflys changes, as it marks the first time that Mariah the vocalist seems consistently real." The first part is fine "her singing style", but then again the quoted opinion seems too much. Why give weight to his opinion? --Efe (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Controversy involving Mottola and executive Benny Medina took place during 1999, as they used several productions Carey had written and been involved with on songs for Jennifer Lopez. What about the controversy? --Efe (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This instance signifies that the articles fails to comply with criterion no. 4 (Length). --Efe (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

In summary, my oppose is based on the following criteria which are not yet satisfied by the current status of the article. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Reviewers, pls follow FAC instructions; is this a second oppose? And there is excess bolding throughout this FAC making it hard to read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry Sandy. Just one oppose. I have "debold" it now. --Efe (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

1a. Well written.

• Carey had written and been involved with on songs for Jennifer Lopez. What other involved she might had? And "on songs for" is a bit sloppy. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• Carey's 2001 film Glitter was panned by movie critics The context is already there. Unless there were a substantial number of music critics who went overboard by serving Mariah a comment on that particular movie of hers. But nevertheless, the context is there. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• and has sold over two million units globally Maybe the adverb here is too far from the verb. I suggest using worldwide. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• They paid her $50 million to part ways. Carey checked into a hospital in Connecticut following a controversial appearance on Total Request Live There is an abrupt change in topic. Transition might be a better solution. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• appearance on Total Request Live, in which she gave in or during?
• and demonstrated what was considered by the media as "erratic behavior". Perhaps "and demonstrated a behavior that was considered by the media as "erratic"?
• using some of the experiences she had gone through in recent months as material. I am not sure if this will be affected in the inevitable cleanup of this article, but on a note, this is unclear. Perhaps you would like to say she used it as inspiration for her material. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• re-establish her popularity throughout the 1990s Perhaps you add something like "attained". At present, it looks like she was gearing up to establish her popularity during that time. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• and thus the title meant she was letting her guard down You mean the usage of the title? --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you're referring to the usage of the title in the album, not really the title itself. --Efe (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• She felt it marked Carey finally "shaking" off the "shackles" of Mottola. You mean the "shackles" that Mottola "imposed" upon Mariah? --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

2. MOS issues

• What is carping? Link anyone? --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• notably with "Heartbreaker", the lead single from the album delink lead single. That's a common term. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• in which she began using a "whisper register" link anyone? --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• earned less than eight million dollars at the box office. as opposed to unprecedented $100 million dollar the latter even redundant. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• Carey left troubling messages on her website as opposed to In a letter she posted on her official site
• Capri, Italy, It is too much if we link that? --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• "post-breakdown, post-Glitter, comeback." Italics? --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• While the DJ feels that Carey has a solid core audience, "her relevance to the general public hinges on whether she makes music that has to be heard." Placement of punctuation marks. The guide is here: WP:MOS#LQ. Personally, I would enclose a period if the quoted material is a complete sentence. Otherwise, it should be put after the closing quotation mark. There's so much throughout the article. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• (Following this recording session, "Shake It Off" was briefly selected as the album's lead single, replacing the originally-planned "Say Somethin'".[12]) Parenthetical. Would it be possible to make this as a footnote?

2b. Appropriate structure.

• As above, the sections "Singles" and "UPE" are misplaced. Already explained. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

4. Length. Soe

As stated above, the article has a lot of unnecessary details. Aside from the foregoing, here are some examples:

• Overly detailed background. Explained above. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• Promotion for the song began at the 2005 Echo Awards, where Carey opened the ceremony with a live rendition of the song.[26] She appeared on stage in a short pink costume and sang alongside several paired male and female dancers, all dressed in elegant evening ensembles. What's the significance of that? --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• Two days later, on April 8, a similarly choreographed pre-taped performance of the song aired on the German game show Wetten, dass..?, having been filmed at the Velodrom on March 19. Seems like a collection of performances. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• After completing another constume change, Carey, joined by her background singer Fancruft. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• She wore a long blue evening gown, and appeared with a four piece band and three background vocalists. Trivial. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• On June 4 she performed at the annual Macy's Fourth of July Parade, singing "America the Beautiful", "We Belong Together", and "It's Like That". Don't have to track all of her performances by date. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• Following the tragic events involving Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast throughout August 2005, she was featured as a headlining performer at the Shelter from the Storm: A Concert for the Gulf Coast concert charity benefit.[47] Carey, wearing a non-formal ensemble of a pink tank-top and blue jeans, performed "Fly Like a Bird" alongside a large church choir.[ Might be a nice, but then again the trivial info (bold). --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• After performing "Shake It Off" and the official remix version of "We Belong Together", Carey made her way into the shallow pool, followed by Dupri and the back-up dancers. Same thing. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Its pretty amazing how the editor, by the name of Peter (is that your real name buddy?), put up so much effort in researching and organizing this article. But then again, the FA Criteria must prevail. (Note to Sandy) I might not be able to respond during the weekdays, but my oppose should remain an oppose. The editor though is quick in responding to the comments. Thank you and good luck. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, thank you :) No, I'm Nathan :P Look at my signature lol. I just did a massive change to the article, removing tons of those insignificant details from the "Promotion" section and removed a lot of "background" info that didn't flow. I didn't comment on each point, so whenever you have time and are back, please take a look at all of them :D. Thanks for the thorough review Mark!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Left comment on my talk page. Sorry. Got no enough time to re-review the entire article. Until next weekend! --Efe (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As promised to Nathan, I am doing a re-review. While most of my explicitly mentioned "standouts" have been addressed, still the article doesn't meet the FA Criteria. --Efe (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

1a. Well written. Loose and unclear phrasing and/or grammatical errors like "old songs from her catalog", "her previous personal and commercial setbacks", "The Emancipation of Mimi received a generally positive reception", "Carey's voice seems "damaged" in comparison to [with] her "glory years" in the 1990s", "the longest stay of the 2000s decade", "the song was name[d] the", "which represents the twenty-five songs below the Hot 100's number 100 position"; this one "After Carey received the Bambi denoting shipments of over 100,000 units of", is Bambi Awards based on shipments? --Efe (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Corrected all of these and more.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

1c. Well-researched. Strong claims such as "The Emancipation of Mimi was heralded as Carey's "return to form", her most expressive and original album of the 2000s." must have a direct inline citation. There are also original researches such as "The Emancipation of Mimi was released in Mexico on March 30, 2005, and was the first country to receive shipments of the album." There is an inline citation, but I cannot find the info there. --Efe (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Same as above.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

1d. Neutral.

Well written lead, but might have been written based on the knowledge of the editor on the subject and the artist in question. There are summaries and point of views that are not supported or discussed heavily in the body: "Although it shared similar vocal production with her previous works and an inclination towards her signature ballads, the album encompassed a variety of dance-oriented and uptempo styles that were in keeping with its celebratory aesthetics." Such applies to "A number of artists had pivotal roles in the album's writing and production", whose "pivotal roles" were not even discussed in the body. --Efe (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

As per your suggestion on L.A.M.B, I have re-done the "Music and Lyrics" section. I have provided two parts. A "Structure and style" and "Songs and lyrics". The former goes into detail on the lead information that was not found in the article before.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight given to critical reviews. "The song received mostly positive reviews from music critics, who declared it as "catchy and infectious"—a song that would re-ignite Carey's popularity among MTV viewers." A general review that is supported by only two inline citations, and a quoted material that is supposedly quoted from music critics, but seems supported by only one inline citation. Such is applicable also to this: "Critics praised the song's strong vocals towards the climax, and with it claimed "The Voice has indeed returned."[87]" which is only supported by one inline citation. --Efe (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I added more critics in some instances, and in others, am more specific with who is quoting such information.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

1b. Comprehensive. The failure to discuss the foregoing (first para under "Neutral") makes the article less comprehensive. This attempt "The Emancipation of Mimi was heralded as Carey's "return to form", her most expressive and original album of the 2000s." at the beginning of the section called Music and Lyrics are not even expounded. --Efe (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Done above.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

2. MOS compliant Misuse of italics such as "Ultra Platinum Edition" and terms that should have been in italics like "in Billboard history", "'Mimi' deftly" and "He continued, "on 'The Emancipation of Mimi,' she"; inconsistencies like ""We Belong Together" on the Late Show with David Letterman (May 5), The Tonight Show with Jay Leno (May 11), and The Ellen DeGeneres Show on May 13", "chart topper in the US" as opposed to "chart topper in the United States", and "as well as Best Female R&B Vocal Performance and Best R&B Song" as opposed to "nominated for "Best Female R&B Vocal Performance" and "Best R&B Song"" (use of quotation marks); and unlinked signs/acronyms such as "$95 to $150 USD" --Efe (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed all of this and more. Only one disagreement. Why should UPE not be in italics? It is the album's title.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? Isn't that like those marketing blitz that music industries go about by releasing more than one versions such as Ultra Platinum Edition, Platinum Edition, Deluxe Edition, etc etc? Appreciate supporting source. --Efe (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not yet done. There are still inconsistent placement of quotation marks throughout. See [{WP:LQ]] for reference and guidance. --Efe (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

3. Media. What makes this file fair use? File:Mariah Carey - It's Like That.ogg. Of this: File:Mariah Carey - We Belong Together.ogg? The latter has a caption that reads in part: "The sample highlights Carey's acclaimed vocal performance throughout the climax.." Not discussed or supported in the body. --Efe (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Added better rational. Also, the "acclaimed vocals" are found in the "Singles" section and is now more prominent.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

@ first file. What about its strong bassline? I can see at least one critic mentioned it, but what it? Is that important? --Efe (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This one too is not yet done. There a caption, but what now? Is it significant? Is it important? --Efe (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

4. Length. The article still needs more pruning. This is already pointed out in my previous comments, and also by other editors. --Efe (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I trimmed down the Promotion section even more. I honestly find the article to be the very basics, and do not see where it can possibly be pruned down even more without removing vital information.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

How come this is vital: "Two days later, on April 8, a similarly choreographed pre-taped performance of the song aired on the German game show Wetten, dass..?."? --Efe (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Random information like "The performance earned the night's only standing ovation, prompting Teri Hatcher, who was presenting the next award, to exclaim, "It's like we've all just been saved!"[87] Carey's performance earned rave reviews from critics.[88][89][90]" I think that part "The performance earned the night's only standing ovation" would do. That "rave reviews" are leaning toward POV. --Efe (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There are still sections that need trimming. --Efe (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The article has a lot issues than I previously thought. My oppose remain as is. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

2c comments

In many of your references you have the |work= parameter and use the italicize quotes at the same time. The |work= parameter automatically italicizes what ever is entered there. Using additional italic commands renders the entry to not appear italicized. I tried to fix this with AWB but AWB kept choking on it. While you're fixing the italic problems it would be a good idea to delink some of the information to cut down on wikilinking. Likely the publisher names can be unlinked. Brad (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brad. Yes, that is intentional. While the work parameter automatically italicizes all works, only printed sources need to be in italics. Therefore, the works that should not be italicized, are place in italics so the work parameter does not automatically do it (Hope I didn't lose you there). I don't see the issue there, most "works" aren't meant to be italics, so the ones that are not supposed to are like that. As for the linking. Brad, Nikki and I made sure that every work and publisher in the references are linked only the first time, so I don't see an issue of over-linking. Its first time only. Thanks for the comments!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Nathan. One way to circumvent the problem is to take the info that you would normally put in the work parameter, and place it in the publisher parameter, and leave the work field blank. For example, you'd have "|work=|publisher=CNN Online. Turner Broadcasting Company|". Note the period between the work (CNN Online) and the publisher (TBC). It's formatted the same way the template would do it. That way, you don't have to try and manipulate the template, and, since the info in publisher is not italicized, it's easier to work with. That's how a number of articles have it done. Orane (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up Orane. I fixed that issue throughout.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from THR

• I don't know what the "Background" section has to do with this article. It seems like it belongs in the Charmbracelet article instead, as every event described happened before that album's release. I think the "Titling and development" section is the real "Background", and this first one could be cut entirely.

• It belongs to this article. Nathan wants to establish here that Mimi is Carey's real comeback album. Its just that that part needs more emphasis. --Efe (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks Mark. Yes, in order to emphasize the commercial and critical accomplishments of the album, I had to give some insight on the events prior to its recording. It was much larger before, Mark helped me trim it down a lot.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Even now that I know the intent behind this inclusion, I still don't see what insight it provides. The critics were looking for a "comeback album" – whatever that is – and in their eyes Carey didn't succeed on her first attempt, but here she did. Is this how Carey saw it, too? If so, how did the first attempt inform the second? We aren't told. If this "comeback" business was only coming from the critics, that can be covered in the "Critical reception" section. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 17:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• The "Marketing and Promotion" subsection (by the way, which of the details would be considered marketing and which promotion?) is heavy on details that make me forget I'm reading an article about an album. Do we need to know what she was wearing for every performance? Do we need to know that Eva Longoria introduced her? Do we need to know where the MTV Video Music Awards took place? Do we need to know that her performance at the Super Bowl halftime show was announced beforehand, or is it enough to just say she performed? Do we need to know what Teri Hatcher said? Et cetera...

• Agreed. I removed all of that, except for the Grammy part, because it was notably the only standing ovation of the evening, so I have to give that sentence a little life.

• The "Singles" subsection would probably benefit from being cut down to half its length. I know you've covered all those details in the respective song articles.

• Whittled down substantially.

• You might change "Other Notable Songs" to "Other charting songs", as what's notable depends on your POV

• Done.

Okay, but don't capitalize every word in the heading. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 17:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• "The tour proved successful, with Carey playing to over 60,000 fans in the two stop in Tunis alone." – Just give us the numbers and let us decide whether they constitute success.

• Done.

Now check for other instances of POV phrases. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 17:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• "The Emancipation of Mimi became Carey's most commercially successful album...." – You might say "highest selling" or whatever, as "commercially successful" might not be interpreted the same way by everyone.

• Done/

• The Metacritic score was 64/100, but only one of the ratings in the infobox is lower than that. It would probably be good to swap out a couple for a more representative selection.

• Added.

• The "Release details" section seems like an indiscriminate collection of information. This isn't a Beatles album that has been re-released multiple times with something different (format, mono/stereo, remastering, bonus tracks, artwork, etc.) to make each one interesting to collectors. The only thing different about them is the release dates, and that information would be better summarized in prose. Also, that prose should be part of the "Release" section, which oddly enough doesn't mention the release date(s). Example: "The album was first released in Mexico on March 30, 2005. It was released in most of Europe on April 4, then in the US and Japan on April 12."

• I removed the box completely and wrote it out in prose.

• Some of the critics' comments in the "Music and lyrics" blur the focus of the section. I recommend retaining only the comments that actually particularize the musical/lyrical content and cutting the comments that appraise it – e.g. "features finger-snaps, kick drums, and a strong piano-driven melody" is great, "powerful vocals" is borderline and "the performance would re-establish Carey's reputation as a balladeer" belongs in the "Critical reception" section instead. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 17:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I salute you for the obvious effort you put into this article, and I look forward to supporting the nomination. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 12:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Thanks a lot for your comments THR! I appreciate it; yes a lot of work went into it :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I trimmed down the "Music and lyrics" section and removed all "critical reception" of it. I think I've addressed all of your points THR, but I would really like to keep that small introductory paragraph. I think its really important to have as an introduction for this successful album. Thanks!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been evaluating the followup to this album at Talk:E=MC² (Mariah Carey album)/GA1. One point that astounds me is the amount of content dedicated to presenting a Carey album discography and biography in the E=MC²_(Mariah_Carey_album)#Background_and_recording section. As of 16:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC), a quick scan at WP:GA showed the background sections for Music Box (Mariah Carey album)-2228 characters of readable prose, Butterfly (Mariah Carey album)-1724, Mariah Carey (album)-2451, Emotions (Mariah Carey album)-2960, Daydream (Mariah Carey album)-2079, Merry Christmas (Mariah Carey album)-1051, Rainbow (Mariah Carey album)-1775, Glitter (soundtrack)-3672, and The Emancipation of Mimi-4270. In response to this the E=MC² (Mariah Carey album) background was cut from 4058 characters to 2445. I think a similar reduction is in order here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tony. I don't seem to follow on this issue. The "Background" section is only 294 words, whereas the "Titling and development" another 419. Now, compare that to E=MC2; 411 for "Background" and 418 for "Title and cover art". These two sections are very similar, and it happens to be that this one is 25% shorter, so I'm not sure where you're getting at. Thanks.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

First off lets stay with the standard WP measure of prose length which is either bytes or characters, which are somewhat interchangeable. I prefer to focus on readable prose, which is also quite standard on WP. When I looked at Mimi, I had a brain freeze and was thinking it came after Mimi for a second making all that 2004 and 2005 stuff background. However, I am just plain wrong. Thanks for keeping the background reasonable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment – Not really going to review the article but I think the Singles should be a level 2 section. The reason is that the "Other charted songs" have nothing to do with the album's promotion because they weren't released. Second, don't say "officially released" because all singles are official. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 14:29, 10 September 2011 [58].

---

Augmentative and alternative communication

Nominator(s): Poule, Failedwizard, and Quadell 22:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) is critical in the lives of millions of people who depend on it to communicate. User:Poule made improving the article part of an educational assignment. Later User:Failedwizard improved it further and helped make it a "good article". Since then, Poule, FW, and I have worked together (in a sort of informal peer review process) to make sure every aspect is fully and correctly covered. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources review:The sources look unimpeachable. Just a couple of clerical points for your attention:-

• Some of the footnotes have common or overlapping page ranges (for example, 45 and 49 - possibly others). These should be combined.
  • Good point. I fixed this in this instance, and in several others I found. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• In references, check alphabetical order: "Hazell, Gillian"; "Rate enhancement"; "Weymeyer, M. L. (et al)"
  • I can't believe I'd missed those! I fixed them, and double-checked the others. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, all well. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods; those that are not should not. In general, captions should meet same standards of prose and formatting as article text
  • I believe all such problems have been fixed. Please let me know if any problems remain. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Avoid stacking images or sandwiching text between images where possible
  • In the "Aided AAC" section, I believe it is useful to contrast high-tech and low-tech AAC aids. I changed the format to use the {{multiple image}} template. Does this address your concerns? – Quadell ^(talk) 15:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Sign language image: caption says this is LSQ, but image description says the same sign also applies in ASL. If this is correct, the caption should reflect this
  • Thanks for finding that, but the statement about ASL may not be completely reliable (per Poule, below). – Quadell ^(talk) 15:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• When taking pictures of artwork or three-dimensional things, the original work retains copyright independent of that of the picture. Thus, some of your images will need additional copyright tags. For example, what is the copyright status of the images seen in File:Communication_book.jpg? File:Minimo.jpg? File:Gotalk.jpg? File:VMax.jpg?
  • I'm unsure whether these count as derivative works or not, so I asked for further advice at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Derivative Work issues in photos of AAC aids. Whatever the best solution is, I'll gladly do. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
    • File:Communication_book.jpg and File:VMax.jpg, are, in my mind, clearly derivative works. I've nominated them both for deletion Commonsside. I'm not certain, and could be swayed by a good argument, on the other two, however. Courcelles 21:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid that I have a very hard time understanding image copyright issues, but if it is any help the communication book and the go talk pages/overlays are my own work: in other words, I designed them, including deciding how many symbols to use, which ones to use and where they should go; a clear creative aspect was involved. The other two pictures show standard programming produced by the manufacturer. Poule (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
        • It turns out that this issue is geniunely a AAC research question in its own right, but I don't want to take the conversation out of purpose - I think its useful to ask how Wikipedia treats pictures of, say, a laptop showing windows and a picture of a laptop showing windows with a picture drawn in Paint?(and I genuniely don't know at this point) because that's the closest analogy for those images we are discussing here... Failedwizard (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Regarding File:Communication book.jpg, I offer a self-made replacement image that uses only free content: File:Sample page from AAC communication book.png. For File:VMax.jpg, I moved it to en.wiki and used both a free license (for the photograph itself) and a non-free tag and rationale (for the underlying screenshot). For File:Gotalk.jpg and File:Minimo.jpg, I believe that any potentially copyrighted underlying content consists only of line drawings that are not recognizable at the angle and resolution given in the way the photograph is presented in the article, similar to the TV screens and book covers in File:Nyas lobby wtc7.jpg or the advertising signs in File:2004 norwich 05.JPG (which are both tagged as free and currently used in featured articles). I hope this addresses all concerns with these images. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• File:Stephen_Hawking_050506.jpg: the listed source gives itself as a source - should be amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Quick answers; I've fixed the periods. Regarding adding ASL to LSQ, I'm not comfortable adding the information on the say so of the uploader. The signer is an LSQ user, and the ASL signs for interpreter that I have found are similar but not identical. (e.g. [59]. I think Quadell knows a lot about image copyright, so I'll let him comment about the image issue, but I can certainly email to ask for release if necessary.Poule (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

A quick update. I think we have dealt with all the concerns from Brian and Nikkimaria mentioned above. Concerning the images, Courcelles has withdrawn his concerns about the communication book image given that it is my own creation.[60], and any others that have been mentioned that been dealt with by Quadell as mentioned above. I hope we get some other reviews soon. Hint hint --Poule (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Cryptic C62 · Talk. I was browsing through the list of articles at WP:FAC looking for something interesting to review, and this immediately caught my eye. Regardless of the outcome of this FAC, kudos to the authors for taking the time to work on this interdisciplinary topic. Hurricanes, films, and mushrooms can bite my ass. Anywho, on to the review:

• "It was not until the 1980s that AAC began to emerge as an area in its own right." Area of what? Could be research, medicine, etc.
  • I don't have the history reference I'm afraid - Poule? Failedwizard (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• "On static speech generating devices, symbols are in fixed positions on a paper overlay..." This is the first instance of "static" in the article, and I'm not entirely sure if it is a specific class of high-tech aids, or if it refers to low-tech thingies.
  • Rewritten Failedwizard (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• "However, high-tech devices typically require programming, and as they are prone to be unreliable" Err... what? Why are they unreliable? This could be interpreted so many different ways that it's not even worth trying to list them all.
  • replaced with 'and a low-tech system is often recommended as a backup in case of mechanical failure.' Failedwizard (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• "these include Blissymbols, which possesses linguistic characteristics such as grammatical indicators, and the more iconic Picture Communication Symbols (PCS) which does not." Two things that concern me here. First, the subject-verb disagreement: "Blissymbols" and "Picture Communication Symbols" are plural, but "possesses" and "does not" are singular. Second, this phrasing seems to think that Blissymbols are better than PCS. If the sources indicate that the inclusion of linguistic characteristics is a reason to favor Blissymbols, that should be stated explicitly. If you are instead just trying to make a general comparison, the phrasing could be tweaked to be a bit more neutral.
  • I've fixed the plural (apologies, should *really* have seen that earlier) - the sentence it's self was quite difficult to get consensus on (it's an amazing percentage of the talk) so I'd like to leave it as alone if you are just mentioning it in passing, but happy to change if you really would like it changed. Failedwizard (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• "including understanding of symbols, memory etc." Eek! I'm not a fan of "etc." First, it is not always clear what the other items in the list would be. Second, there are much nicer ways to phrase this: "including understanding of symbols, memory, and various other thingamabobs" or whatever.
  • Sentence is now 'The choice of symbols and aspects of their presentation, such as size and background, depends on an individual's preferences as well as their linguistic, visual, and cognitive skills.'

More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If this is indeed the will of the Council, then Gondor will see it done.Failedwizard (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 14:29, 10 September 2011 [61].

---

Kurt Hummel

Nominator(s): HorrorFan121 (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Hummel is one of the most fascinating and controversial characters on television today. He is an example of how people struggle with bullying in high school, has often been regarded as an icon for the gay community, and is referred to by critics as a "fashionista". His pairing with Blaine Anderson (Darren Criss) has become popular with fans and critics, with Jarett Wieselman of the New York Post labeling them "one of the most beloved TV couples of the millennium". Originally a supporting character on Glee, he's developed into one of the most complex leading characters to be featured on the show. The article is currently a Good Article, and has undergone a two peer reviews and several copy-edits by various users. This is the second time I've taken this article to FAC in hopes of it reaching FA status. HorrorFan121 (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• No issues were revealed by copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Comment. I only got past the intro, but the prose for me needs some work. It's choppy and awkward in places, and just doesn't flow as much as it could.

• Instead of "In the second season, after a closeted jock classmate's bullying escalates and he threatens to kill Kurt, Kurt's father transfers him to a private school for his own safety" how about "In the show's second season, after intense bullying and death threats from a closeted classmate, Kurt is forced to transfer to a private school for his own safety."
• And instead of "Kurt joins the school's glee club, the Dalton Academy Warblers, a competition rival of New Directions. He becomes friends with an out Dalton student, Blaine Anderson, the lead singer of the Warblers." You could write something like "Kurt joins the Dalton Academy Warblers, the school's glee club, and competition rival of New Directions, where he is befriended by their openly gay lead singer, Blaine Anderson".
• "Colfer describes Kurt as projecting a very confident "I'm better than you" persona, but ultimately being a typically scared and anxious teenager." Is that a direct quote? If so, please cite. If its not a direct quote, how about "Colfer describes Kurt as projecting a very confident, often arrogant persona, despite being a typically scared and anxious teenager."
• "Glee follows the trials of the New Directions glee club at the fictional William McKinley High School in the town of Lima, Ohio. Kurt is a member of the club, which is the show's primary musical group." Just awkward.
• "Colfer's portrayal of Kurt has received much critical praise, and he has been the recipient of several awards, including Best Supporting Actor in a Series, Miniseries or Television Film at the 2011 Golden Globe Awards, and of award nominations such as those for the 2010 and 2011 Emmy Awards for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series." I'm sure you can say this better.

And this is just the intro. I could help out, but I'm occupied in real life. But I'm going to have to Oppose until the prose is straightened out. Orane (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've corrected the "comment" to "oppose"; see FAC instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

BlueMoonset (another editor who has put a significant amount of work in the article) and I are already at work fixing some of the problems that you addressed here. HorrorFan121 (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

fixed. Okay, we just changed some of the problems with the lead. How does that look now? HorrorFan121 (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No, not fixed. Changing the three examples I cited in the lead does not fix the entire problem. The rest of the article is surprisingly cleaner than the introduction, so it may not need as much work as I though, but here are a few more examples

• "In "Home", Finn discovers that his mother Carole (Romy Rosemont) and Kurt's father have been dating, though not that Kurt introduced them in the hopes that he could eventually spend more time with Finn." Do you mean "although he is unaware that Kurt introduced them..."?
• "Early in the second season, Burt suffers a heart attack and is comatose in the hospital, leaving Kurt terrified of losing him." Can this sentence be constructed differently?
• "Kurt and Blaine later try to talk to Karofsky about being gay and closeted, but he denies that the kiss happened and soon resumes his bullying—he even threatens to kill Kurt if he tells anyone else about their kiss." Awkward, and probably incorrect dash.
• "At Dalton, Kurt joins the Warblers, and the Warblers and New Directions tie at Sectionals, meaning both will be competing at Regionals." Awkward.
• " Karofsky, abruptly faced with having to publicly dance with a guy in the traditional dance between King and Queen, cannot do it; rejecting Kurt's suggestion that he come out then and there, he instead leaves Kurt alone on the dance floor, and Kurt dances with Blaine instead." Awkward.
• "When the glee club arrives for Nationals in "New York", Kurt and Rachel sneak into the Gershwin Theatre where Wicked is playing; from the stage, they sing a song from that musical, "For Good"." Awkward.
• To describe someone as "out" is colloquial and un-encyclopedic. Use "openly gay" instead. I'm also not sure if saying that Kurt "comes out" is formal. I'd prefer something like "Kurt openly acknowledges his homosexuality" or "Kurt reveals that he is gay" or something similar. But it may be personal taste.
• Overall body is good, but it still needs a copyedit. And please, don't only fix the few examples I gave and say "done". Orane (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We've addressed the specific places you mentioned, and several other spots in the article as well. We also looked for colloquialisms, and changed those we thought might be problematic. Thank you for pointing these out to us; we hope you find the article improved. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Saw some of your changes. Seemed good. I'll strike my oppose for now, but won't support until I get the chance to read it over in full. Also made a couple tweaks to the intro. I'll be away tomorrow, but will read fully in a day or two. Orane (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! We're looking forward to further comments, suggestions, and corrections. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - link check. No broken external links (OK), 1 DAB-link to "Academy of Arts and Sciences" (needs disambig). Earwig's tool shows no results (OK, a deeper source check was not done however). GermanJoe (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed: "Academy of Arts and Sciences" is now "National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences" in those two references. Thank you! BlueMoonset (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: As far as I can ascertain, the sources seem reliable. A few format issues:-

• Consistency required in adding publisher details to newspaper/journal titles. Compare refs 1 and 2

• Fixed this by adding the publisher of Starry Constellation Magazine, Lisa Steinberg.

• Sorry, I thought that Starry Constellation Magazine was a print journal. Lisa Steinberg is the editor, not the publisher of this website. I suggest you restore the ref to how it was before. However, perhaps you would comment on why you consider this to be reliable? Brianboulton (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• I looked for guidance on interview reliability, but couldn't find anything useful. I hope the following about this particular publication is germane:

• They have conducted two dozen interviews with Glee cast members over a two-year period; the Colfer interview cited was one of the first five conducted, and the show has continued making their actors available to the website for interviews. (The list of interviews and podcasts, with links, is here.)
• Six of these interviews have accompanying podcasts with the actual recording of the actors' voices from the interview; a couple of one-minute spot checks showed the print transcriptions to be accurate. (The podcasts started later, after the Colfer interview.)

I've removed the publisher field from the reference, and I hope the source will be considered reliable. If there's any additional information you need, please let me know. (HorrorFan121 has had spotting internet connectivity lately, so I'm responding to this item instead of him.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Another consistency point is parentheses around publisher details. For example, compare ref 2 with ref 48. Check for others.

• These are different solely because one is a cite web template and the other is a cite news template. I was told to use both formats in the last FAC discussion.

• OK, no problem Brianboulton (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Can you clarify the source that is being referenced in ref 17?

• 1. 17-24 are episode sources from Glee. Not sure if that's allowed here, but I've seen that format used many times when citing storylines for fictional characters.

• Can you indicate a case where this format has been accepted on a featured article? It's not really the format that concerns me as much as the practicability of verification. If, say, DVDs existed for these episodes, one could cite to the DVDs. Brianboulton (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Would it make sense to retain those individual episode citations, as long as they're paired with a DVD citation? The DVD does exist; the citation is: "Glee: The Complete First Season (DVD). 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment. September 13, 2010.". If you just cite the DVD, you lose the episode being referenced, but with both verification should be quite practicable. (I'll try to find some featured article television shows to see if the cite episode template has been used there.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• Later: I just found the Martin Keamy article, which is an FA of a character from the Lost television series, and while it doesn't use the "cite episode" template, it lists several Lost episodes as references in a virtually identical format, e.g., "Lindelof, Damon (writer) & Cuse, Carlton (writer) & Bender, Jack (director), "The Constant". Lost, ABC. Episode 5, season 4. Aired on February 28, 2008." BlueMoonset (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecking: I am a little concerned that some of the references do not seem to support the statements cited to them. A couple of examples:-

• Ref 25 seems to cover a lot of information which I can't find in the source article. For example, the article does not mention John Mellencamp, Brittany Pierce, Burt, Carole, Karofsky or Azimio. So I wonder what info it is actually supporting.

• I believe this is fixed now.

• Ref 32 apparently supports the statement: "To Kurt's disappointment, the Warblers lose to New Directions at the Regionals competition. He transfers back to McKinley in "Born This Way" after Karofsky assures Kurt that he regrets the earlier threats, and that the anti-bullying club he had recently started with glee club member Santana Lopez (Naya Rivera) would help keep Kurt safe at school."[32] But I find the source does not mention New Directions or the Regionals competition, and otherwise bears little relation to the cited sentence.

• That was a mistake by myself. Ref 8 has no relation to that line, but the new one cites it.

Perhaps you would comment on these. Brianboulton (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I just fixed most of the things you mentioned. What do you think of the changes? I would also like to know about your opinion on using episode citations, and whether or not that needs to be swapped. HorrorFan121 (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have checked a few more citations against sources, and found a couple more instances where the text seems at odds with the source:-

• Article: "Instead, Kurt's boyfriend became another new character, Blaine Anderson, a member of the rival show choir group the Dalton Academy Warblers, who initially is a mentor for Kurt." The source says: "But will his character become a romantic interest for Kurt (Chris Colfer)? A "Glee" source told Entertainment Weekly that Blaine and Kurt will remain strictly platonic, but that things could change as the season progresses". That in my view seems to be saying something quite different.

• Agreed. I think that reference (Derschowitz) should be removed entirely. I believe the next reference after that (Goldberg) covers the matter adequately. If you feel we should repeat that next one in the earlier place, we can. Incidentally, I think both of the references after an earlier sentence in that paragraph, "His original intention was to have Sam Evans, a new member of the glee club, be Kurt's love interest.", should be removed as well (Berk and then Malkin). That information is covered by the Overstreet reference at the end of the following sentence (RadarOnline). Once they're removed, we can repeat the Overstreet reference there if necessary, though the same ref two sentences in a row seems like overkill. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• Later: The Derschowitz reference has been removed. After Orane made edits to the earlier sentence on Sam Evans that I mentioned above, I also removed the Berk and Malkin references, because they were clearly no longer germane. Based on my reading of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(footnotes), it seemed to be okay to only list each remaining reference once immediately after the two sentences in a row that it covered, rather than after each of the sentences. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Article: "Leah Anthony Libresco of the Huffington Post disapproved of Will treating Kurt's upset as the key problem, rather than the unchecked bullying provoking it, and found Blaine's advice "misleading and dangerous". She was angered by the suggestion that targeted children should be held responsible for confronting their attackers and putting themselves at risk of further injury." The words "She was angered" are your interpretation; the writer does not express anger. "She repudiate the suggestion...", perhaps.

• The entire section on Libresco's comments has been rewritten, and the inappropriate characterization of anger has been removed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Please look at these. Brianboulton (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope I've addressed your concerns, and that my suggested reference deletions make sense. HorrorFan121 will be addressing any other outstanding issues (e.g., Starry Constellation Magazine). BlueMoonset (talk) 05:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know we are still pursuing the FAC. With Brianboulton away for about another week, the sourcing check is stalled. We have an offer from Dank to look over the prose, but not until the article has passed the sourcing check. Can anyone help jumpstart the process, or give any advice for keeping the FAC progressing? I'd really hate for it to be closed while the candidacy is still being worked on. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences should not end with periods
• FUR for infobox image should mention that the image is used in the main infobox. Also, "replaceable" field needs amending - the character is not a "work" in the traditional sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I just tweaked the "replaceable" field on the image page. Does that look any better? I also removed the period from the image caption. HorrorFan121 (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

We should note that the image that had been in the infobox was removed from Wikipedia. We have replaced it with one of the existing images from the article body, which necessitated a change in the infobox image caption. The image from the body, which had been in the Musical performances section, was replaced there by another image. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 14:29, 10 September 2011 [62].

---

Magdalena Neuner

Nominator(s): EnemyOfTheState_|talk 19:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all featured article criteria. The article is a good article and has been nominated twice before (here and here) over one year ago. Work has been done since then on the page's structure and prose, and it now has 60+ sources which are not the sport's governing body, a concern previously. EnemyOfTheState_|talk 19:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment If this article is already a good article, why does it need to be a feature? (just a thought).Mike 289 21:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of "needing" to be featured. However, featured articles are recognised as examples of Wikipedia's best work; GA status may be a step along the way. Editors are entitled to see whether their work matches up to the tough FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead:

Sorry to be a hyphen-nerd, but "all-time", twice.

"at ... at". The first could be "in".

Comma after "mass start", I think (more than one "and" hanging around).

The "also" could be removed: "As part of Germany's World Cup team, she has also won". The "also" here, is it needed? -> "Neuner has established herself as one of the fastest cross-country skiers in biathlon, but has also been noted for her volatile shooting performances in the standing position, often at the expense of better results." And the "but": is it really a contrastive to the preceding clause?

'Tis a little peacockish in the lead; I hope authoritative sources are provided later in the article for these very positive claims. Tony (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. I made the changes, although I'm not sure about the first "all-time" hyphen, because it's not used as an adjective. EnemyOfTheState_|talk 12:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: On the hyphen issue, "all-time" requires a hyphen only when used as an adjective, not otherwise (as in the first line). The same is true for "two-time". I have made the necessary adjustments in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences should not end in periods. Also, while not required it would be nice to have more captions that don't use the construction "Neuner + -ing"
  • I removed the periods and reworded three captions.
• The trophies and medals are three-dimensional works, and thus have copyright independent of pictures taken of them. What is the copyright status of each of the trophies/medals pictured? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I would be very surprised if the designs of the sportswoman award and the crystal globes had any international copyright restrictions; they aren't that well known to go to such troubles. The Olympic medals might be a different story, but I don't think so either. There is even a whole category for them on Commons: commons:Category:2010 Winter Olympics medals. EnemyOfTheState_|talk 10:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - link check. No broken external links, 1 DAB-link to "Oberhof" (needs disambig). Earwig's tool shows no results (a deeper source check was not done). GermanJoe (talk) 08:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oberhof is done.--Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 08:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Couple of quick ones from the lead; don't have time for any more at the moment...

• "With 24 World Cup wins, Neuner is ranked all-time third for career victories on the Biathlon World Cup tour." Flip the order of "all-time" and "third"?
  • Brianboulton made this change, related to the all-time hyphen question. I guess it's more a question of personal preference than grammar? EnemyOfTheState_|talk 17:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• The second Biathlon World Championships link looks like a repeat link to the event, but really goes to that year's version. Moving the link to "first appearance" would make this clearer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Giants2008 (talk • contribs)
  • Done. EnemyOfTheState_|talk 17:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:07, 6 September 2011 [63].

---

Fallout 3

Nominator(s): SCB '92 (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I recently helped to make this article become a Good Article, and I think it has potential to become a Featured Article, and a lot of articles get nominated for Featured Article soon after becoming a Good Article. I believe it meets all of the featured article criteria and am willing to make any suggested improvements resulting from the review. I am strongly committed to bringing this article to FA status.SCB '92 (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• FN 16: formatting
• Be consistent in whether web sources are cited using base URLs or website names or just publishers, and if the first how these are formatted
• Be consistent in what is italicized
• Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
• Web citations must consistently include publishers
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? this? this? this? this? etc. Sources must be high-quality and reliable for FA-level articles. Also check use of self-published sources per WP:SPS
• Print sources need page numbers, as do multi-page online sources

Oppose unless/until sourcing issues are resolved. Additionally, on a quick scan of the text I see some potentially inaccessible content for non-specialist readers (for example, what is a Perk? A G.O.A.T.?), and weak FURs on File:Fallout3_special.jpg and File:Fallout_3_V.A.T.S._Screen.PNG. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'll take care of the sourcing issues-SCB '92 (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Took care of most of the things Nikkimaria addressed; everything is consistent; removed unreliable sources and replaced it with reliable ones; defined Perk and G.O.A.T.; I'll make the FURs more comprehensive-SCB '92 (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay, now everything Nikkimaria addressed has been taken care of; let's move on-SCB '92 (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think the 1a criteria is quite satisfied yet. For a particular example, see the paragraph that begins "Along with the health." Likewise, the long sentence that begins "Dogmeat can be killed". Why is it assuming the reader knows about factions before they have been introduced? Where are they introduced? Several of the suggestions from the last PR haven't been implemented. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sources I have a problem with some sources:

• TechTree.com, I see no indication that the source is reliable. Consider using GamingBlend.com instead, as it has many of the same facts and appears reliable.
• psu.com, I see no indication that the source is reliable. Consider using smh.com.au instead. Also, the specific date of August 7, 2008, is not found in the source (psu.com). I was able to find the date at classification.gov.au, so consider adding this as a source too. I see you have an archived version as a ref already, so you might want to update it with the current, working site's version.
• GalbadiaX is not a reliable source. Consider using GameSpot's article instead, as it has much the same info.

Done-SCB '92 (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You also seem to have ignored sources like The New York Times, USA Today, FOX News, Entertainment Weekly, The Telegraph, and PC World magazine, and focused entirely on game-only media outlets. I think this is perhaps to the detriment of the article. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:07, 6 September 2011 [64].

---

Dr. No (film)

Nominator(s): SchroCat (^ • @) 11:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC), igordebraga ≠ 18:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it concerns the first film in series of James Bond films and is therefore an important moment in world cinema. It is also a high quality article that I believe meets the FA criteria. SchroCat (^ • @) 11:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Random sentence as I was adjusting section headings for WP:MSH-- I have no idea what this sentence is trying to say:

Cary Grant was initially chosen for the role, but was not selected due to his commitment of only one feature film.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Should include both authors for shortened citations to Pfeiffer 1998 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Is Caplen 2009 or 2010? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• No citations to Jütting 2007 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether you cite websites using base URL, website name or publisher (ex. BBC.co.uk vs BBC News vs BBC News) Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Be consistent in what is italicized when Done (I think!) If there are any that have been overlooked, please let me know if there are any specific examples, thanks. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Source that require subscription/registration should be notated as such Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Use a consistent date formatting Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• FN 13: retrieval date?
  • It's part of template, can't add accessdate.
• Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Don't mix templated and untemplated citations, as this causes formatting inconsistencies Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• Screenonline or ScreenOnline? Check for internal consistency Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether or not you provide publishers for magazines Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• FN 65: page(s)? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Ranges should consistently use endashes, not hyphens Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • Mi6-HQ.com#Media_Association
• Titles for FNs 72 and 74? Done - igordebraga ≠ 22:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Page(s) for FNs 78-80? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• FN 87: Premiere Magazine should be italicized Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• FN 88: missing something? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• FN 94, 106: why the duplication? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• FN 95-96: why is BBC News wikilinked here when it wasn't in the preceding citations? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• FN 110: newspaper name should be italicized Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Date for Ultimate Editions? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose on Featured Article Criteria #3. Can you elaborate on how File:Bond, James Bond.ogg and File:Ursula Andress as Honey Ryder crop.jpg meet Wikipedia's non-free content criteria? It seems to me that both it fails at the first hurdle. These aren't complex scenes or compositions, and are easily replaceable by simple text descriptions of their contents. Unfortunately, the presence of the files does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", nor would their omission "be detrimental to that understanding" (as set out in the criteria). Note: I'm not saying that's ideal—obviously, seeing the files is better than merely reading about them—but given the strict criteria set out at the aforementioned link, you need a lot more justification than what we currently have, which seems rather cursory. If it helps, an example from my own back catalogue is the rationale for File:American Beauty gymnasium.ogv, which IMO has a quite solid purpose of use (as opposed to "This is an iconic moment in cinema"). With that file, the key was nailing the emotional intent of the scene, something difficult to convey to the reader using words alone. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Multimedia#Examples for some other approaches. I'm not sure if there's a different clip from Dr. No that you could include along those lines, but that's what you need to look for if you want to include non-free video. All the best, Steve ^T • C 20:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC). Edited 20:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC) by Steve ^T • C

The page for the second one shows it isn't fair use, but public domain (taken from the trailer). The other, we'll take a look. igordebraga ≠ 20:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the video clip, I'm not sure how it breaches WP:NFCC, to be honest. There are ten criteria and the clip passes all ten. In terms of the Contextual significance point, the video is used alongside the text that refers to its importance in world cinema. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the image; I assumed without looking at its summary page that it was a still from the film, not the trailer. As for the video, the question you need to ask is whether it is needed to adequately convey its purpose of use, namely to illustrate "an iconic moment in cinema". That iconic moment is merely the first "Bond, James Bond" introduction, and for that I just dont think the clip is needed to understand what the text is referring to, failing WP:NFCC#8. It's showing something that needs no further illustration, and does not help to visualise what could need better explanation. Though I'm no lawyer, I guess there's probably a fair-use claim under US law for the clip's use. However, the important thing to recognise here is that in its stated aim to not just be a free encyclopedia, but a free content one, Wikipedia's fair-use requirements are far, far stricter than those of US copyright law. Feel free to ask at the relevant talk pages, and if you want a second opinion, Jappalang has an excellent grasp of site policies on non-free content; I'm sure there are others who would be willing to weigh in. However, I'm pretty certain that precedent on the use of these sorts of files is not on your side. Steve ^T • C 20:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Question asked on Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Bond.2C_James_Bond.ogg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk • contribs)

Update: discussion has been ongoing at the aforementioned content review page, and further opinions are welcomed. Even if I don't respond, either here or on my talk, assume I'm busy IRL, but I'll keep these pages watchlisted and update my "oppose" as necessary should my mind be changed (it's been known). Steve ^T • C 21:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I have stated my case on the review page that not only should this file be kept, but that is a very, very, very easy keep and that the argument against it essentially ignores the rationale of our NFC policy. I should add that my observations there about an inappropriate—and, yes, anti-policy—bureaucratic approach do not refer to Steve's carefully considered comments (which, nonetheless and fatally, ignore the purpose of our NFC policy) but to an earlier statement by another party in the thread, which invokes a specific policy criterion without any evident regard for the ruling principles it is meant to support.—DCGeist (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm concerned that the article is not comprehensive and well-researched. Even as a famous film, the existing content is much less than in Featured Articles about other films. The "Bibliography" section is a bit misleading because in most cases a book may be referenced just once. If only one page is being referenced, then it should be listed in only the "References" section. The point of a section like "Bibliography" is to avoid repeating the same information for a publication that is being referenced multiple times. For example, the Chapman book Licence to Thrill only references page 253. Yet in the book itself, there is a 40-page chapter about Dr. No, From Russia with Love, and Goldfinger. The article does not reference any of these pages, only a later one that is outside the chapter. I'm wondering such references were fully accessed; not all pages can be seen online. What was the research process for this topic? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

  Here is a source I found: Baron, Cynthia (January 1994). "Doctor No: Bonding Britishness to Racial Sovereignty". Spectator. 14 (2): 69–81. ISSN 1051-0230. The article "Uses DR NO to give examples of how the Bond series' represents British identity. With especial regard to sexual and colonial politics." That is the kind of research I feel like the article is missing. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Erik, Thanks for your comments. I think they ostensibly break down into two points:

1) Bibliography: "The point of a section like "Bibliography" is to avoid repeating the same information for a publication that is being referenced multiple times." Could you please point to the section of the MOS where it says that is the case? All I could see was this, which does not seem to support your point, referring as it does to "Contents: A bulleted list, usually ordered chronologically, of the works created by the subject of the article." (My italics)

2) Chapman etc: Dr. No is ostensibly dealt with on Pps 57-72 of Chapman, but the book is either thin on anything original that isn’t in the other sources used, or falls into the same category as Baron: the intellectual masturbation to which all academics are prone (and I speak as an academic myself). There are no overt themes in either the book or the film that were placed there by Fleming or Broccoli/Saltzman that have not already been brought out. Baron does not identify underlying themes within the film and draw them out for all to see: she tries to force her own theories onto the matrix of the film, trying to prove a point when one was not there to be proven. You are right that not all pages of the Chapman can be seen online, but the hard copy I have is well-thumbed and has been closely studied, I can assure you. In terms of the general number of references, more could have been added, no doubt, but simply to add additional sources in place of others to beef up a reading list is little short of intellectual flummery or peacockery. The list that is there is covers all the main aspects of the film and it main themes perfectly adequately. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The layout link is for listing the subject's written publications. Reading WP:CITESHORT, though, I suppose there's nothing explicit about what to do with publications referenced once or multiple times. I guess it seems excessive to require two clicks to get to the reference that is cited once? I can understand two clicks when the reference is cited multiple times, otherwise we would repeat the citation template too many times. I think that listing references that are cited multiple times help show what sources look at the film in depth.

For the film's themes, are you saying that you intend to include only themes supported by the filmmakers? I'm trying to discern what you mean by, "There are no overt themes in either the book or the film that were placed there by Fleming or Broccoli/Saltzman that have not already been brought out." I had something in mind like what is at American Beauty (film). Erik (talk | contribs) 18:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm… I see where you are coming from with American Beauty, but Dr. No really isn't the same type of film at all. It was written as a spy-thriller / adventure story, very much in the mould of John Buchan's The Thirty-Nine Steps, or any of the Bulldog Drummond stories. It was filmed in much the same way – keeping to the rather simplistic plot with no extraneous themes, but doing it all rather well. Rather than comparing Dr. No with the rather excellent article on American Beauty, have a look at another FA-rated article that is a little closer to the Dr. No-mark: Casino Royale: no themes, no interpretations, no analysis and all because the film doesn't actually need them. American Beauty needs an explanation to it because it works on so many complex and intriguing layers (which are missed by so many people!) but Dr. No doesn't because it is a simple story, well told and subsequently well made into a film.

In relation to the Bibliography, I come from an academic background and, as far as I work, everything is listed there as the sole point of reference to the work. If it were up to me entirely I'd also include details of the newspaper articles, DVDs and webpages accessed too! I went over the MOS and could only find scant information about what should and should not be included there. I think this is one of the areas where WP should have a much tighter policy surrounding use – something they could easily adopt from the university world, I'm sure. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose because the article is not comprehensive and not neutral in its exclusion of film analysis. After the conversation above, I have to disagree with the decision to exclude sources like Chapman and Baron. Both of them appear to be authoritative figures in their fields. Baron has this resume and list of publications, and Chapman is James Chapman, a media historian. Yet what they wrote about Dr. No is considered "intellectual masturbation" by the primary contributor. I'm opposing because I am concerned what other analyses were excluded. I disagree that because the film is simple, the article should be too. MOS:FILM – Themes says, "Most themes are implied rather than explicitly stated, regardless of whether their presence is the conscious intent of the producer, writer, or director." In short, I do not see the reason for dismissing analysis that is not associated with the filmmakers' intent. Lastly, Casino Royale (2006 film) is a poor example of a Featured Article; it was promoted not even a year after the film's release. Today, I can see in WorldCat.org and Google Scholar Search that there is now analysis of that film, so the Wikipedia article may need to undergo review. Dr. No has been out for much longer. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, Erik: you are, of course, entitled to your opinion and if you wish to start re-classifying articles to back up your argument, then you are free so to do. To be "not neutral in its exclusion of film analysis" is an interesting point, however, and one I must pick you up on. I have not excluded Chapman: he has already been quoted within the article and I have the highest respect for him, but what he has written about Dr. No is rather thin - more an extended narrative than anything else. (His work improves on the later or 'bigger' films, however). I think you will also find a number of other sources in there which adequately cover the analysis requirement, including Lindner, Black, Lisanti, Caplen and others. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As the primary writer of the Casino Royale (2006 film) article Erik, the fact that it was promoted less than year after release and is somehow a poor example because of it is wrong. Yes, I agree it needs updating with book sources. But you have such a harsh approach towards articles and images its hardly surprising you have targetted it....♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily call out Casino Royale as a poor example of a featured article; what's there is good. What I would say is that less than one year after the film's release may have been a little soon for it to be a featured article, seeing as it was almost certain to attract more scholarly analysis, as Erik has indeed now identified. But this is a grey area when it comes to articles on newer films (relevant literature versus available literature), and so I certainly won't begrudge your taking that article to FAC. However, Dr. No is a much older film that has already attracted analysis from bona fide experts in the field. In that regard, it seems as if the nominator is excluding their viewpoints merely because he either disagrees with them, or because their analyses go against what he believes to be the filmmakers' intent. However, many mainstream schools of thought posit no need for an identified author, or at least devalue the maker's influence when reading meaning into the work of art; "to give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text" after all. So, like Erik, I lean on the side of including further analysis; not to introduce intellectual flummery, but to ensure the article is a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". All the best, Steve ^T • C 20:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This is all very interesting. Perhaps you could talk me through The Mummy (1999 film), Alien vs. Predator (film), The Cat and the Canary (1927 film), Jurassic Park (film), The Lord of the Rings (1978 film), The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film), Richard III (1955 film) and to a lesser extent Battlefield Earth (film) and Casablanca (film) all of which have less analysis than in included in Dr. No and all of which are also FA-rated articles. Dr. No does have analysis in there, as I've mentioned before: and more than a number of other FA articles. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

SchroCat, while "other stuff exists", a lot of these articles went through the featured article candidate process around four years ago. Not to mention that they can always undergo review; Jaws (film) and V for Vendetta (film) did, for example. The bar has been raised, so the recency of the FAC process is part of it. For Casablanca, here is the FAC page in 2004. Editors do not go out of their way to pursue the FAR process (I think YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) is the only diligent one for films, or at least was), since it's usually a negative experience. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Blofeld, I think it is too premature to put a Wikipedia article about a film not even a year old through the featured article candidate process. If it succeeds in becoming a Featured Article, then my experience is that it is just not kept up with the sources that can come up. After a few years, certain films (iconic ones, Best Picture winners) will have an abundance of retrospective, analytical coverage should be incorporated into their articles, otherwise the articles cannot continue to claim to be comprehensive. SchroCat brought it up for comparison, and I responded about it. Featured articles are supposed to be the best Wikipedia has to offer. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: Prose is inadequate. While I have and will continue to defend the inclusion of the "Bond, James Bond" clip, this article is evidently not FA-ready as yet on the basis of our first criterion. It was actually brought to FAC with "Ursula Undress" in it...and yes, it's still there. Sorry, but that's very, very bad. In the same section, we find "6 million" and "seven million"...in the very same sentence. And, again in the same section, we have this: "It has been claimed that the use of the bikini in Dr. No led to 'the biggest impact on the history of the bikini'"—major tin-ear territory (of the bikini...of the bikini...of the bikini...). (Hint: How about simply cutting "the use of the bikini in" and attributing the claim.) By no means is the article badly written and its deficiencies are readily rectifiable—with a good top-down copyedit.—DCGeist (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right: it is bad (or was, as it's now changed) but it's been there through writing, GA review, peer review and the first part of FA review and you're the first person to spot it and mention it! The rather clunky bikini section has been partially re-written (although it's difficult to write about "the bikini" without frequent use of the words), but it should read more freely now. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:07, 6 September 2011 [65].

---

Moonrise (novel)

Nominator(s): Brambleclawx 16:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is ready to be scrutinized by reviewers against the FA criteria. Brambleclawx 16:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• No issues were revealed by copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Leaning oppose for a couple of reasons: first, because of the lack of third-party sources, and second because as a reader unfamiliar with the book or the series I find it very difficult to follow what's going on. For example, you mention that several characters are "apprentices" - what is the meaning of that term in the context of this story? If the term has the same definition as it does in the real world, to what trade are they apprenticed? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean the lack of third-party sources in the article itself, or just in general? Brambleclawx 20:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether other sources exist; if they do, they should be added. If they don't, it may simply be that there are not sufficient sources to build an FA-level article. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've also attempted to clarify the article: I've added an extremely brief explanation about Clan structure. Please tell me if you think there's more you think needs explaning. Brambleclawx 21:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose as well. Sorry- this actually looks like a the kind of thing I'd enjoy, too. At the moment, two and a half times as much of the main body of the article (synopsis, including the list) is devoted to in-universe information, (approx. 6855 bytes, versus 2960 bytes) when a high quality article would really be the other way around. I'm not convinced the character list is even needed in this article. There's already a chacter list article, so the characters can simply be linked in their first mention in the plot section. If they aren't mentioned in the plot section, then we probably don't need details about them anyway. J Milburn (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed a large portion of the in-universe material. Brambleclawx 22:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've struck my oppose. The article is currently rather short; I have no problem with short FAs per se, but I worry that there are more reliable sources out there which may contain valuable information which could be brought into this article. Give me some time; I am looking into this. J Milburn (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a couple of sources about the book's appearance on a minor Canadian chart. I wonder whether there warrants a mention of Harry Potter in this article? See my comments on the talk page of this FAC; a couple of sources I came across link the two works. J Milburn (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Just curious: where did you manage to find these sources? I've been looking everywhere, and haven't been able to find much. Brambleclawx 15:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I have access to various newspaper archives. Everything else I found was either not worth including, or you'd already found. J Milburn (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

In terms of the sources you've found, I can see what you're thinking, but I'm not quite sure how I'd write it per se. The first source seems to indicate that Warriors as a whole is more popular than Harry Potter in some regions, while the second source seems to say that people who like Harry Potter would like Warriors as well, but I'm not sure if this would be seen as original research? Brambleclawx 15:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand- it was just a thought, I'll have a think on it. There are a few other things which need looking into with the article; I'll get to that this evening. I think this FAC will probably fail this time, as it's now a little late in the game; this may have a shot, but I worry that it may be an article which is going to be stuck at good status. J Milburn (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I've given inserting those refs a shot anyway. I've tried my best not to say anything more than is actually written within the news articles. Feedback? Brambleclawx 15:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Look into the USA Today best-seller list. Looks like this book appearred on it for one week in 2005. maclean (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Brambleclawx 17:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Prose comments from J Milburn-

• "which follows the adventures of four groups of wild cats (called Clans)" Mention that they're anthopormorphic
• "Moonrise introduces a new group of cats, the Tribe of Rushing Water. Series editor Victoria Holmes drew inspiration from locations such as the New Forest and the Scottish Highlands. Moonrise follows six cats, Brambleclaw, Squirrelpaw, Crowpaw, Feathertail, Stormfur, and Tawnypelt, as they return to their forest home from a journey to the ocean. They travel through the mountains, where they meet the Tribe of Rushing Water. The Tribe cats were being attacked by a savage mountain lion called Sharptooth. Although reluctant at first, the Clan cats agree to help the Tribe get rid of Sharptooth." This para seems to be in the wrong order. I'd open with the main characters, and mention that they're returning from the journey they undertook in a previous book (I assume they are?). The fact that the Tribe is a new group can be mentioned after they're introduced. There's also a tense switch- events of the book should be in present tense.
• "Kirkus Reviews criticized" Avoid personifying publications
• "The New York Times Best Seller list for two weeks." It's not THE bestseller list, it's the kid's bestseller list
• I think you need to make clear in the lead that "Erin Hunter" is a pseudonym
• The "Inspirations, influences, and style" section seems very light, and this is indicitive of my main concern for this article- you're piecing together snippets about the series as a whole and isolated comments.
• Who wrote this particular novel? That information seems to be sorely lacking from the article.
• The entire "Setting and characters" section is unreferenced. A basic retelling of the plot can do without references, but that kind of thing needs something to back it up.
• "highway" If it's in England, we don't have highways, we have motorways. Go with the word the book uses, though.
• "Moonrise is followed by Dawn." At the moment, this line feels slightly out of place.
• The prose in the plot section isn't perfect- for example, I had to reread "However, their plan to poison Sharptooth goes awry, and Feathertail jumps up to the roof of the cave onto a stalactite to save Crowpaw from being killed. She plummets to the floor with the spike, falling on Sharptooth." before I understood it. Surely, it's not the jumping onto a stalagtite that saves Crowpaw, but the stalagtite then falling onto Sharptooth?
• "Kirkus Reviews criticized the novel" Again, personification
• Odd that you say that the reviews praised the work, yet jump straight into negative attention
• "saying that "a small plot twist is refreshing and suspense builds steadily towards the final installment"." Final installment? This was more than a trilogy, wasn't it?
• "Booklist praised" Again
• "Horn Book Review gave a"
• "The review stated"
• "BookLoons gave" Same personification- what is Bookloons?
• "reached The New York Times bestseller list," Again, it's the kids' list.

I've got to say that I worry that this is something that will struggle to make featured article status- there just don't seem to be the sources. That said, I enjoyed reading it; I roleplay, and run a lot of Bunnies & Burrows (and I've also played the Mouse Guard roleplaying game) so, genrewise, the book is right up my street. J Milburn (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

In terms of the inspiration, influence and style section, I afriad there's not much I can add. There used to be a bit about the Tribe's different faith being inspired the 9/11 attacks, but that was a ref to an "author chat" on Wands and Worlds, which seems to draw the attention of every reviewer for being a forum, so I got rid of that. Other than that, unless inserting the stuff from reviewers about the cliffhanger ending counts as style information, I don't see anything I could add to the section.

As for who wrote the novel, I'm almost certain it was Cherith Baldry, but again, no reliable sources. Only sources are an author chat (which is not reliable due to being on a forum) and the widely-known (but completely unverifiable) fact by Warriors fans that the "Special thanks" page indicates the author of the book (Moonrise says "Special thanks to Cherith Baldry"). I suppose I could use the source where Baldry talks about how it was hard to write Feathertail's death as implicit proof that she was the one who wrote it, but I get the feeling people would object to that.

As for the thing about the final instalment, yes, it's a six-book arc. But that doesn't mean the suspense toward the final book can't start building in the second.

And to be honest, as far as I know, BookLoons is some sort of book website. The review given doesn't seem to be user-created content (which would definitely be unreliable), but I'm not quite sure of how reliable BookLoons actually is. Brambleclawx 17:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Question. The Booklist review notes that the story is "Told in alternating narratives". What does this mean? maclean (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The novel is written from a third-person limited narrative, that alternates between characters. In terms of this specific book (excluding the prologue which is in objective third-person), chapter one is a third-person limited narrative following Stormfur (i.e., the story is told in the third person from Stormfur's perspective: we know his thoughts, but not the other characters'), chapter two is a third-person limited narrative following Leafpaw, and chapter three switches back to Stormfur. In general they switch every chapter, though I believe on occasion, they have two consecutive chapters that don't switch perspectives. Brambleclawx 19:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• That kind of structure/style information should be included in the article. maclean (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

  I have added it. Brambleclawx 18:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Nominator, can you please ping the reviewers and ask them to revisit? Karanacs (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Brambleclawx 14:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Leaning to Oppose - I have not reviewed the prose, but judging from the references alone, I'd have trouble supporting this nomination. You do not cite any really reputable written or published sources, and the few that are are missing publishers and/or works. What makes a load of these sources FA worthy? I as a reviewer and reader have never heard of them, and can't read up on them here. So please, enlighten me as to why they belong on Wikipedia's best?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Could you clarify which ones are missing publishers? Brambleclawx 17:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:07, 6 September 2011 [66].

---

Glenrothes

Nominator(s): Yoostar (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has been worked on thoroughly since gaining GA status. I now believe it meets the criteria for FA status and submit it for the determination of peers. Yoostar (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Check for consistency between Notes and Bibliography - some shortened citation titles don't match bibliography. Also check internal consistency of shortened citations (rechecked 13:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC), not done)
• How are you ordering the bibliography?

Done alphabetically by author. In case of GDC documents listed by year.

• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for publishers

Done

• Missing bibliographic info for Glenrothes Development Corporation Glenrothes - A Guide to Scotland's New Town in Fife, Glenrothes Development Corporation Glenrothes Development Profile 1983

Missing documents now added to bibliography

• Don't duplicate bibliographic info in Notes where it is included in Bibliography, and don't include cited sources in External links

Done

• Don't italicize publisher names, do italicize newspaper names. In general, be consistent in what is italicized and what isn't

Done, references amended

• Citations to multi-page sources should include page numbers
• Use p. for single pages, pp. for multiple
• Be consistent in whether websites are cited using website name as work or with a publisher

Done

• All web sources need publishers

Done

• Not quite done - for example, FN 99. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you source websites by publisher, website name, or base URL, and if the latter how these are formatted. 13:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - while sources are generally reliable, there are too many errors in formatting and citations. Also, on a quick look at the text I see problems with tone, MOS and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I am disappointed that the points you have raised have at no point been specifically raised during any of the assessments or peer reviews undertaken on the article to date. Particularly the issue around the bibliography. I am confident that the issues you have raised can be addressed within a short timescale and I will address each one. Yoostar (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok I believe I have now managed to address all of the bullet points you have raised. There should no longer be any errors in format or citations. I have also rechecked the text line by line for tone and prose problems.Yoostar (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I've struck my oppose. While some issues remain, I feel this article will benefit from the input of other reviewers. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Interesting article with lots of information. However i feel, that the article - like many town or country articles - looses it's focus at times and provides too many details, where a broader, more general description would be enough for the average reader (see FA criterion 4, some examples below). The article would also benefit from a copy-edit by an experienced English copy-editor, as some of a phrases are a bit repetitive or don't really "flow" together. Some specific points follow:

• Lead - "It is located approximately 30 miles (48 km) from both Edinburgh and Dundee." ==> include directions for the casual reader's convenience "... Edinburgh to the south and Dundee to the north.".
• "The town had a[n estimated] population of 38,750 in 2008, making ..." ==> no formal census, need specific "estimated".
• "newly established coal mine, ..." ==> "establish" is used 4 times in this paragraph. Need more variety.
• "The GDC supported by Fife County Council ... Fife Council" ==> "Fife County Council" or "Fife Council"? Use complete formal name and "[the] Fife..." consistantly. Also link Fife Council at first mention in second lead paragraph.

Changed Fife County Council to local authority to avoid confusion

• "Beautiful Scotland" and "town artists" ==> both statements don't need cite in lead (general, uncontroversial information), source in main text is sufficient.
• "Glenrothes is not located on the rail network ..." ==> Consider replacing with existing bus transportation. Lead should only include most notable, summary facts.
• History - "New Towns (Scotland) Act 1946" ==> As this has no link, could you add a brief additional sentence, what was the main intent of this Act? (reader can guess from context, but shouldn't have to).
• "The issue of the town's name .." ==> Remove the whole statement. Unnecessary detail.
• "Leslie and Thornton were also considered but as a consequence an area of 5,320 acres (2,153 ha) that sits between all of these villages was chosen." ==> "... but as a consequence" doesn't follow. I assume, the spot was chosen to have the new area as close as possible to all three old areas, but this should be stated more clearly.
• "The land taken was previously an area of great natural beauty." ==> a bit out of context as a stand-alone sentence. Should be dropped or expanded slightly (what was especially beautiful?, any note-worthy remains today?).
• ""The primary reason for the designation of Glenrothes was to house miners who w[h]ere" ==> typo.
• "The new mine was to be the most modern of the day .." ==> World-wide? Very strong statement, needs an immediate reliable source.

Changed to "most technologically advanced mine in Scotland"

• "...officially opened by the Queen in 1957" ==> Queen's full name at first mention (for the 0.001 percent, who don't know her).
• "The Silicon Glen legacy peaked ..." ==> Legacy with "inheritance" as primary meaning seems strange here, suggest "Silicon Glen era".
• Governance - "Currently, Scotland returns two Labour MEPs, ... to the European Parliament." ==> Remove, unnecessary detail for the local town level.
• Geography - "The central parts of the town lie on land between " ==> 3 times "lie on land", maybe "extend between, stretch between" or similar.
• "The Mid Fife Local Plan is guiding ... 1,800 new houses. There are also ... and business parks." ==> Remove, unnecessary details for possible future events.
• Demographics - "Compared with the average demography of Scotland, Glenrothes has low proportions of people born outside the United Kingdom [but] has fewer proportions for people over 75 years old. ==> replace "but" with "and", phrases don't oppose.
• Economy - "A large supermarket development is proposed ... over a 20 year period." ==> Remove completely. Unnecessary details for possible future events.

removed

• "The current facility is made up by an a[n]glomeration of two former mills" ==> typo, "the current facility is a merger of two former mills, ..."
• Education - "Higher" ==> this is quoted three times, but never really clarified. Quote only at first mention, with a brief explanation, why "Higher" is used in a special context here or has a special meaning (which?). Why is "High School" in quotes aswell? If the whole topic goes beyond the article focus and cannot be summarized, maybe it's best to drop the distinction between old "Higher" schools and actual "High School" altogether - unnecessary detail for the average reader (better suited in a UK education history article).

Added link to Scottish Qualifications and altered paragraph to make it more understandable to an international audience.

• "The Adam Smith College was formed on the 1 August 2005 from the merger between the former Glenrothes College and Fife College," ==> Glenrothes College is the same as Glenrothes Technical College? Continue with full name to avoid confusion (there's a lot of mergers going on).
• Transport - "Bus", "Railway" and "Air" ==> should be trimmed and could easily fit into one paragraph. The detailed description of Thornton and Markich belongs to their respective articles, not to Glenrothes. Same goes for overly detailed non-Glenrothes airports. Suggested rewrite: "The town has a major bus station in the town centre, providing frequent links to the cities of Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow as well as to surrounding towns and villages. Two railway stations outside of the main town serve the Glenrothes area - Glenrothes with Thornton railway station and Markinch railway station. Glenrothes is home to an airfield, Fife Airport (ICAO code EGPJ), which is used for general aviation with private light aircraft. Edinburgh Airport is the nearest international airport to Glenrothes, Dundee Airport operates daily flights to London, Birmingham and Belfast."

Suggested alteration made.

Please note, that the mentioned sections (only meant as examples) are most likely accurate, but they are far too detailed (see WP:Summary) and/or provide information outside of the main article focus. Some of those facts are certainly interesting on a local level, but not for a general readership. As a procedural note, please only respond to points, when you have specific comments or questions. I will assume, that other points are done, when not stated otherwise. GermanJoe (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Status Update (GermanJoe) - i hope you don't mind, that i cleaned up and compressed the list a bit, otherwise it would be nearly impossible for other reviewers to follow the progress. I stroke all points, considered as done. Of course i haven't changed your additional comments (please make sure to sign comments between other text blocks to avoid confusion).

Remaining points were: *List of "major" employers ==> which criterion was used for this list, are those the top 6? Is an employment statistic per company as source available?

Query- - In relation to the major employers- List of "major" employers ==> which criterion was used for this list, are those the top 6? Is an employment statistic per company as source available?. These employers are listed on page 5 of reference 77/78. It would be accurate in saying that these represent the areas largest employers. unfortunately, there is no actual workforce figures provided in the source. How would I be best to address this?

I'd suggest to cite this source page in the lead for once, as the companies are described separately later. While looking through the PDF, i couldn't find the company Velux in the source at all - could you please double-check this one?

This has now been removed by another editor. It is slightly frustrating because Velux has their UK headquarters in the town (http://www.velux.co.uk/aboutvelux/velux_gb/). They manufacture all their roof windows in the UK from their Glenrothes plant. They and their sister company, Fife Joinery Ltd, employ almost 500 people between them. Unfortunately I have not been able to find an up to date source to prove this. Im happy therefore for it to remain out of the article.Mcwesty (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• You should ask an experienced copy-editor to help fine-tune the prose, a native English speaker will have better input for that. You can add a request at the copy-editors guild here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GOCE/REQ.

I have asked a former High School English teacher to assist with this. I hope to update this element gradually over the next few weeks.Mcwesty (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'll try to reread the article and check some more criteria later. GermanJoe (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• Working on some minor issues. Just to give an example of "article focus" - the article offers 19 different objects as landmarks.

• Could the level of detail for the buildings be reduced?
• Does the reader need to know 5-6 statues by name (are they all notable to a wider public)?
• What is notable about the 2 last viaduct landmarks (besides their relative low classification)?

• As a sidenote, WP:UKCITIES suggests to include only "notable" landmarks. As a personal guideline i would suggest to add landmarks, only when they are of broader regional (or better country-wide) importance. GermanJoe (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I will look again at the landmarks. Some of the town artworks have recently received listed status by Historic Scotland and I am wondering if it would be better to add these rather than some that are named in the article...? The Markinch railway viaduct is regionally important. The Cabbagehall viaduct is more locally important. Although the latter was designed by the same architect who designed the first Tay Rail Bridge. Mcwesty (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Never been there, so no idea :). I appreciate you want to add as much detail and information as possible, however you need to draw a line somewhere (see WP:Summary). Check the text from the view of an outside reader, unfamiliar with the topic - which landmarks are most notable for him and what exactly makes them interesting? You don't have to add all possible landmarks, when they don't have specific, note-worthy features. From the actual information given, it looks like the viaducts could be skipped for example (or they could be put in a more detailed sub-article). GermanJoe (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been given a suggestion by another wikipedia editor. He is suggesting that in the Culture section the parks should be given geographical context within the town rather than just be listed. ie. Balbirnie park is located in the northeast of the town, Lochty Park is located on the southern edge of the town. Any thoughts on whether this would enhance the article? Im not sure if its required or would indeed do much to enhance the article...?Yoostar (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:07, 6 September 2011 [67].

---

Chinese Indonesians

Nominator(s): —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 04:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Chinese Indonesians are one of the most studied and most important Chinese diaspora communities in the world. Their tragic yet empowering story documents centuries of discrimination by the indigenous population of Indonesia and European colonial settlers. Even while faced with this challenge, they sought to create a new home in Southeast Asia and helped shape the history and culture of the nation which celebrates its 66th birthday today. This article is a high priority topic across multiple WikiProjects and would not be where it is today without the tremendous collection donated to the Commons by the Tropenmuseum in Amsterdam.

When I first took up the task of re-writing this article in January 2010, I knew it would be a lengthy and enormous task. There were months where I was conflicted on how to write certain parts of the article because of their topics were quite complex. If I had not restrained myself, the article could potentially be twice as long if it went into more detail. But here I am, 19 months later with the finished product which has received a diligent copyedit from Chaosdruid and the input of countless other editors. This is my first featured article nomination, and I look forward to your constructive review.

—Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 04:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support, although I'd prefer stating that they do not allow polygamy if an RS is found. Dare I say this article provides a better overview on the subject then some written by sinologues. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• FN 98: missing date
• Missing bibliographic info for Dawis 1963
• No citations to Skinner 2001
• See also should appear before Notes
• Foreign-language sources should consistently be identified as such
• Compare formatting on FNs 63 and 103
• "Ananta, Aris; Arifin, Evi Nurvidya & Bakhtiar" - is Bakhtiar one-named or are you missing one?
• Why include states for US locations and not provinces for Canadian?
• Be consistent in whether you include publisher locations
• Retrieval dates are not required for convenience links to print-based sources like Google Books
• Use a consistent formatting for multiple authors/editors. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting all of these. I can't believe I never spotted them. When you've looked at them for so long like I have, you tend to miss things. >.< I've fixed the majority of things with the exception of these:

• FN63 comes from Tempo's web only content. FN103 was in the print issue of Tempo but also has a web archive. You can see this by looking at the URL subdomain, where one starts with "www" and the other "majalah".
• Bakhtiar is indeed only one name. This is common among Indonesians.
• I can't seem to spot the inconsistency in multiple author formatting. Could you point it out for me?

Do let me know if you find other issues. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 03:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Never mind the third point. I found it. 06:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Media Review + Oppose - Images are a mess here.
  • The use of images in this article is really poor. Images are supposed to augment the articles they are in by appearing in small numbers, one maybe two per section, nested with associated prose. Now I've done media reviews for warships and warplanes, which often cram in way more images than they should, but this is just absurd. It looks very much like you had a pile of pictures sitting around and said 'where can I stuff these?'. As a result you have far more images than the article can really hold (it looks very cluttered), and many of the images just don't tie into the prose they're near very well. My advice is that you go though and remove about half of the images. Don't just cut randomly, look though the article and keep the ones that best fit, add the most, ect. and cut the ones that don't. File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Kali langs de achterzijde van huizen in de Chinese wijk van Semarang TMnr 60051223.jpg fits well where it is, File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Chinese vrouw met kind in draagdoek TMnr 20017932.jpg adds very little. Keep the first, cut the second, that kind of thing.
  • I'm not sure if you can justify the use of the non-free image File:Great Tycoon, by Oscar Motuloh.jpg, although after you preform the cuts (above), it'll be easier to judge.
  • A large number of the files used do not have English descriptions on their file description pages. Please add them, (using the {{en|1= comment here }} template). Note that you should not remove the Dutch descriptions when you do this. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I will hold on the file metadata until we've finalized the images. Contrary to your impression, my initial image usage was not arbitrary. The images were carefully selected from the hundreds available in order to fill in gaps of coverage in the article. I am well aware that this article does not cover certain parts very well because they are difficult to convey in words and can only be observed through experience, which many Indonesians will find when they read this article. However, I see your point as well. My changes are available in this edit. I will refrain from cluttering the nomination with my specific reasons for each image. We can also further discuss images in the article talk page if you wish. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 22:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose on images:
  • File:IndonesiaRaya-SinPo1928.jpg: (minor) Is this scanned by you or was it obtained from a website?
    • Scanned by request from the Cornell University Library Annex. I still have the original PDF of that specific magazine issue if needed. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 21:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
      • It would be best in this case to put down the link to where the article exists on the Archive (or to state the location and the catalogue number or some other ID). Readers should know where the scan came from per WP:IUP. Jappalang (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • File:TMII Kong Miao Confucian Temple.jpg, File:Cheng Hoo1.jpg: Note that Indonesia grants copyrights to architecture and does not have freedom of panorama (ref: commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#Indonesia). Who is the architect/sculptor? Did he die earlier than 1945?
  • File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Grote reclameaffiche voor het Ierse bier Burkes Guiness Stout TMnr 4884-36.jpg, File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Reclame voor de film The magnificent chivalry TMnr 20018014.jpg: The copyrights of the subjects (underlying copyright) do not belong to Tropenmuseum. The permission of the subjects' copyright holders are required to make these images truly "free". Ref: commons:Commons:Derivative works). The problem with image donations from organizations is that they were mostly uploaded without considerations for freedom of panorama or underlying copyrights (museums are not experts on such issues and might view their photographs as totally their own creations).
  • File:Mega-Hasyim-CH.jpg: Similarly, what is the copyright status of the photographs used in the poster that is the subject here?
  • File:Chinese Indonesian origin distribution.png: From what source or data was File:Peta distribusi asal leluhur.jpg (geographical depiction and the distribution data) created from?
  • File:Great Tycoon, by Oscar Motuloh.jpg: This photograph does not really add to the content described (presumably native resentment towards the Chinese): "Property and businesses owned by Chinese Indonesians were targeted by mobs and over 100 women were sexually assaulted. In the absence of security forces, large groups of men, women, and children looted and burned the numerous shopping malls in major cities." It does seem to satisfy NFCC #8 to me; furthermore, Oscar Motuloh is a commercial photographer and use of his work could be construed as a violation of NFCC #2. Is there no amateur photographs published in the papers of the riots (specifically targeting Chinese businesses and show the vehemance exhibited) that can be used? Jappalang (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Article 23 of the 2002 copyright law not a freedom of panorama, assuming Wikipedia is a public exhibition?

Unless agreed otherwise between the Copyright Holder and the Owner of a creative work in the form of a photograph, painting, drawing, architecture, sculpture and/or other artworks, the owner shall be entitled to without the consent of the Copyright Holder to display the work in a public exhibition or to reproduce it in a catalogue, without detracting from the provisions of Article 19 and Article 20 if said work of art is in the form of a portrait.

The copyright holder would be the work's original creator. The owner is the person reproducing the work. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 21:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say no. "Publication" is only legal if done by the copyright holder (or authorized parties). Furthermore, the quoted law grants the "owner" permission to display the work only; it does not allow other parties to reuse the work in any other way (further derivatives and modifications). Jappalang (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the beer poster: Seeing as it was published prior to 1950, it would be public domain in Indonesia. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The basic demand of images uploaded to Wikipedia and Commons is that they be public domain in the US (PD in the country of origin is another requirement on Commons). Ref: Wikipedia:Image use policy#Public domain and commons:Commons:Licensing. The beer poster would have to be published before 1946 to be undoubtedly considered in the US public domain ({{PD-US-1996}}), due to the restoration of copyrights accorded by the URAA. The poster does not qualify if it was published in 1946–1950, which is part of "pre-1950". Jappalang (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Have the image concerns been addressed? Ucucha (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think to be safe the questioned ones should be removed. I am not sure how Arsonal feels about the issue. It seems they are the only thing holding this nomination back. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:49, 6 September 2011 [68].

---

A1 (Croatia)

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe this article satisfies all FA criteria, provides concise and comprehensive information on the topic, and by now its history includes a DYK, a PR, a WP:HWY PR and a successful GAN, therefore I am nominating it for featured article. Tomobe03 (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• A cursory look doesn't result in any obvious issues; hope to do a full review soon. --Rschen7754 20:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. This article still needs some significant work on its prose. A few examples from the lead:

• "Apart from Zagreb and Split, the A1 motorway runs near a number of major Croatian cities ...". What is "apart from" intended to mean here? "As well as"?
• "National significance of the motorway is reflected through its positive economic impact on the cities and towns it connects ...". Unidiomatic. Better would be something like "The motorway's national significance is reflected through ...", except for the fact that reflections aren't seen through anything. "Reflected in"?
• "... however its genuine importance as a transit route shall be achieved upon completion of the Adriatic–Ionian motorway ...". Why have you opted for "shall" here?
• "The motorway consists of two traffic lanes and an emergency lane in each driving direction ...". More idiomatic than driving direction would be "carriageway".
• "... two bridges comprising spans of 200 meters (660 ft) or more." So both bridges are made up of 200-meter spans?
• "... a public loan was started in order to collect sufficient funds for its construction." How do you "start a loan"? And why "in order to" rather than just "to"?
• "Zagreb–Split section of the route was completed by 2005 ...". Missing "the", as in "The Zagreb–Split section".
• "... while the first sections between Split and Dubrovnik opened in 2007 and 2008". So these were completed at the same time as the Zagreb–Split section two years earlier?
• "Construction costs incurred so far amount to 3 billion euro." When is "so far"? As of 2011?
• "... provides either access to several national parks or nature parks and world heritage sites and numerous resorts". "Either" distinguishes between two alternatives, not three.

In addition there are numerous breaches of the MoS in terms of the use of dashes, which are not even used consistently throughout the article. One example is "Autocesta Rijeka – Zagreb" vs. "Autocesta Rijeka–Zagreb". If you can manage to recruit a good copyeditor then I'm confident the work needed could be done within the span of an FAC, but right now I don't even think the article meets the GA prose requirement, much less FA's. Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comments - I have some concerns with the article before I can support it for FA:

1. The lead seems a little long, some information may need to be cut as to make it a summary of the article.
2. The picture in the lead should be removed as it looks tacky.
3. Are references needed in the lead? Is the information being referenced unique to that point in the article?
4. "scenic" is a peacock term and should not be used in the article.
5. Citation needed for "The other major tunnels on the A1 motorway are the 2,300-meter (7,500 ft) long Plasina Tunnel situated between Otočac and Perušić interchanges and the Grič, Brinje and Konjsko tunnels. Lengths of the latter three range between 1,122 meters (3,681 ft) and 1,542 meters (5,059 ft)."
6. "At some point after 2012, the A7 motorway is planned to be completed between Rijeka and Žuta Lokva (near Brinje), and a directional T interchange shall replace the trumpet interchange built at Žuta Lokva. The new interchange shall not feature any weaving, similar to the Bosiljevo 2 interchange of the A1 and A6 motorways", the use of shall sounds awkward here, try another word. Dough4872 02:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

• Despite describing many locatable places (service areas, tunnels, junctions, bridges, viaducts, end-points), the article contains only one set of coordinates; and they're approximate, for a section that hasn't yet been built. The omission of coordinates is contrary to criterion 1(b) "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context".
• A number of non-English place- and company-names should be marked up with {{Lang}}
• Repeated instances of "Facilities found at X rest area comprise" are redundant in a table, and should be removed, using a column header of "facilities" instead of "notes".
• The presence of ATMs and rest rooms are trivia and should be removed per WP:NOT.
• the phrase "the motorway is tolled using [...] vehicle classification in Croatia" is nonsensical.
• The two tables should be merged, or the duplicate rest area entries removed from the exit list table.

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The first objection is not actionable - the use of coordinates on highway articles is highly controversial. See WT:RJL and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria. --Rschen7754 20:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion where Karanacs said "You are welcome to put forth your argument in individual FAC nominations where you think coordinates ought to be applied, and the nominator can then respond", you mean? That small number of editors a vocally opposed to including coordinates is not disputed; that doesn't mean that FAs should be passed without them; per 1(b) cited above. After all, WP:RJL permits them. Or were you referring to the former venue, where, on 21 August, you said ""Yeah, I agree that coordinates [...] should be among the "finishing touches" of an A-class or a FA" " (If you're going to claim that's "out of context", please explain it in context). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is moot, because Karanacs quite clearly said "As a delegate, I am not going to fail any article that does not include it." That being said, I don't think this is going to pass FAC for other (legitimate) reasons, so this discussion is moot in that regard too. --Rschen7754 02:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, as I don't feel this article currently meets the FA criteria. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• Find a good copy-editor, per Malleus
• Check the article carefully against the Manual of Style. I see issues with WP:HYPHEN/WP:DASH, WP:MOSNUM, WP:OVERLINK and others
• Work with the article's layout to prevent issues like sandwiching of text
• Review the tables to ensure that all material needs to be included - some of it does seem like trivia, particularly in the exit lists
• Provide page numbers in citations to multi-page sources
• check citation formatting for consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment This article could benefit from a thorough A-class review. I've looked at a few of Malleus' points, and quite frankly, the few I looked at were valid concerns. The problem is... WP:HWY currently has no A-class review. We've been brainstorming about how to fix this in the roads IRC channel and hopefully we'll start getting proposals up soon. --Rschen7754 02:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add that this is an interesting and informative article, nothing to be ashamed of: I certainly couldn't have written it. Malleus Fatuorum 03:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm seeing this more as a failure of the system, rather than a failure of the editor. --Rschen7754 03:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Suggest withdrawal for now. An A-Class review forum or proposal should be offered up soon. This article could use the polishing and scrutiny of a good PR/ACR session before renomination. Imzadi 1979 → 02:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• That seems reasonable to me.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 21:55, 2 September 2011 [69].

---

Ernie Fletcher

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This article as currently a good article and has recently undergone a peer review. Although I generally find it difficult to write about relatively current people, I think this article is at or near the featured article standard. I hope to respond to comments quickly, but be advised that I am often off-wiki on weekends. Your patience is appreciated. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Biographical Directory should be italicized in footnotes

Done.

• FN 10 has an author listed in Bibliography

Added.

• Some of the newspaper articles need page numbers

Added all but one, which was taken from The Henderson Gleaner. The page number was not available through Newsbank or the Gleaner's web site.

• be consistent in whether you include subtitles in shortened citations

Fixed.

• FN 19: which Brammer and Alessi? In general, disambiguation is needed for multiple citations

All footnotes should now include titles.

• Make sure that you close all quotation marks that you open

Only found one, but I fixed it.

• check for consistency in article titles and capitalization, for example FN 40

Fixed FN 40. Capitalization is meant to reflect what appears in Newsbank for different sources. If you are talking about inconsistencies between the footnote and the corresponding entry in the Bibliography, let me know, and I'll take another look.

It's footnote-biblio - I specifically noticed FN 65. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Found and fixed two instances.

• Some of the sources in Bibliography aren't included in citations - don't mix cited and uncited sources

I didn't find any sources in the Bibliography that weren't cited. Could you please be more specific?

I can't find any now either. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• How are you ordering Bibliography entries?

First by the last name of the primary author, then by the title of the article.

• check for hyphen/dash use

In the Bibliography, the footnotes, or the article text?

Mostly in Bibliography (for example: Grunwald), but I didn't check article text. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Found and fixed two.

• Don't include cited sources in External links

Removed.

Sources in general are reliable, but formatting and organization needs work. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is what happens when you start working on an article, leave it for a while, then come back and try to pick up where you left off. Sorry about the inconsistency; I usually do better than that! Let me know if there are still issues. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• No issues were revealed by copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Image review - captions that are complete sentences should end in periods. Image licenses check out. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Done.

Support by Ruhrfisch. I peer reviewed this and thought it was ready for FAC then. I have re-read it just now and except for some nitpicks (below) find that it meets the FA criteria. The nitpicks do not detract from my support. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Word choice - enrolled in or enrolled at After graduating in 1970, he enrolled to the University of Kentucky.[1]
  • Either I'm an inarticulate doofus, or this originally read "matriculated to" and I (or someone else) changed it to "enrolled" without changing the preposition. I hope it was the latter! :)
• Needs a ref On September 17, GOP leaders voted to retain Brock as state party leader.
  • Cited.
• I would briefly identify Rudolph here Fletcher named Robbie Rudolph as his new running mate.[60] (business man, perhaps his role in the cabinet)
  • Done.
• 70 miles per hour needs to converted to kph too {{convert}} does this nicely.
  • Done.

Thanks for your review and support. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 21:55, 2 September 2011 [70].

---

1st Provisional Marine Brigade

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article. It is a GA and has passed a WP:MILHIST A-class review. Everything in the toolbox looks clean. —Ed!^(talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Missing bibliographic info for Alexander 2001
• FN 123: page(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You may want to confirm links to, or deconflict this from, the 1st Marine Brigade that served in Haiti between 1915 and 1934. The existing 1st Marine Brigade mentions no links to that organization, and I've seen sources that referred to it as the provisional brigade.Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

After some looking I'm rather confused about this myself. There is only a source or two that mentions the provisional brigade in Haiti, but the other info I have found seems to indicate it is referring to what is now the 3rd Marine Brigade. —Ed!^(talk) 03:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That was the issue I found as well. "Mars Learning" makes clear reference to a 1st Provisional Brigade in Haiti, with a 2nd Brigade later appearing in the Dominican Republic. You'll want to deconflict that somehow, I think, in this article.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't find that source...could you point me in the right direction? —Ed!^(talk) 13:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Mars Learning is a study of the development of the Marine Corps' small wars doctrine. The chapter on Haiti mentions the 1st Provisional Brigade.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I figured it out, and it's still very confusing. According to The United States Marine Corps: A Chronology, 1775 to the Present, the latest book on USMC history, the "1st Marine Brigade" and the "1st Provisional Marine Brigade" were different units. The 1st and 2nd Marine Brigades on Haiti and the Dominican Republic were permanent establishments, and in 1941 the 1st and 2nd Marine Brigades became the 1st and 2nd Marine Divisions (the lineage carried through, so they are considered the same unit) and in 1960 the 2nd Provisional Marine Brigade became the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade. The 1st Provisional Marine Brigade was never activated again after 1950. —Ed!^(talk) 16:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Haiti and Dominican Republic units were referred to as the 1st and 2nd "Brigade of Marines" and while they may have "(Provisional)" attached at the end, this is a modifier, not an identifier. The 1st Provisional Marine Brigade was always referred to as such. —Ed!^(talk) 16:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"Mars Learning" has it cited as 1st Provisional Brigade, which was why I was thinking a deconflict of some sort might be in order. Just my take, though.Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've clarified the article to reflect this. —Ed!^(talk) 17:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Great! No major concerns on my end.Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• File:49th_Inf_Brigade_(Logo_Polar_Bears).jpg: on what source was this image based?
  • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 18:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• File:1st_Provisional_Marine_Brigade_in_Iceland.jpg - source link returns 404 error
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• File:NDS_3B.PNG: is a more specific source available?
  • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 18:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments [from Sturmvogel 66]

• As an article about an American military unit, all dates should be dmy.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• What does this mean? using them to pile up 20 amphibious vehicles of the 22nd Marines
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Considering that the 305th RCT was an organic part of 77th ID, shouldn't this be rephrased? The 305th Regimental Combat Team supported the Marines for several days before moving under the command of the 77th Infantry Division
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• The 2nd and 3rd paras in the Guam section seem to have a lot of overlapping material.
  • I don't see that. Para 2 concerns the plan and the lead-up, para 3 concerns day one of the battle. —Ed!^(talk) 19:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
    • My apologies, I meant the 3rd and 4th paragraphs.
      • Trimmed and merged them. —Ed!^(talk) 19:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• Weren't the 1st Brigade's troops transferred to the 6th Marine Division, rather than redesignated?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The wording of the sources I have seen indicates they were redesignated. —Ed!^(talk) 19:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, since they probably took the number of their higher HQ, it was probably both and that's how I'd phrase it because redesignated says nothing about coming under another unit's command.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Reworded. —Ed!^(talk) 19:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 23:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think a particular H&S should be treated as a proper noun ("Headquarters and Service Company, 248th Engineering Combat Battalion"), but whenever you can say "a" such-and-such, that's usually not a proper noun, so I'll lowercase; it's lowercased in a lot of ghits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Very good. Your copy edits look great. —Ed!^(talk) 15:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks much. After some reflection, I'm rewriting that as a proper noun. The issue here is that the military loves capital letters, and they can be useful for making otherwise unreadable strings of nouns readable ... so when possible, I'll try to compromise between Chicago and common military usage. - Dank (push to talk) 16:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• Be consistent with dates: 27 June, 7 December. - Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I've corrected all of the dates to D/M/Y format. —Ed!^(talk) 14:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "substantially changed morale": in what way? - Dank (push to talk) 15:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, Guam. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• It's rather odd to think that a provisional brigade has a lineage.
• I find the references to "5th Marine Regiment" rather disconcerting. The more normal form is "5th Marines", "305th Infantry" and so on.
  • In the past I've found non-military types find that very confusing. Past GA reviews have brought up the debate of just why a 1st Infantry Brigade or a 1st Infantry Division is not "1st Infantry." Having both makes it clear. —Ed!^(talk) 15:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• The 1st Marine Brigade, however, was considered a separate unit lineage delete "however"
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• Sometimes it's "United States" and sometimes "U.S." I would get rid of the latter
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• by the end of the year had been moved to the Guadalcanal Campaign This reads awkwardly, because Guadalcanal campaign is not a place. Consider "sent to the South Pacific to participate in the Guadalcanal campaign"
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• The Iceland section is very good, but the following section on the Battle of Guam is not so good. Considering that it lasted as long as Naktong, and was more costly, I would expect this section to be larger, or the Korean one to be smaller (larger would be much preferred though) to keep the article balanced. The brigade did after all earn a Navy Unit Commendation.
  • Did some expanding of that section. —Ed!^(talk) 15:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• Most of the Provisional Marine Brigade units were redesignated and transferred to the command of the 6th Marine Division. Actually, the major units, the 4th and 22nd Marines, were not redesignated. Consider rewording.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• The United States military Joint Chiefs of Staff ordered the Marine Corps to ready a 15,000-man division into Korea as a part of the United Nations Command being created there. Delete "United States military" and change "into" to "for duty in"
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• On first reading I thought that Craig assumed command in Korea. Actually, he assumed command in the US and flew to Japan while the brigade crossed the Pacific by ship, so he met his command when it arrived.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• MacArthur responded by assigning the 17th Infantry Regiment, and later the 65th Infantry Regiment, would be added to Walker's reserves, Something wrong here.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 01:24, 2 September 2011 [71].

---

WindSeeker

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that this article has extremely reliable references, points out all the important points of the ride and has great sentence structure. If for any reason the article needs improvements before achieving FA status, please feel free to tell me what needs to be changed. I will try to make the changes ASAP. Thank-you!--Dom497 (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Just as a note to reviewers, I am somewhat active on the article as well, so some issues may be handled by me. :) jcgoble3 (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose at this time, as I feel the article does not currently meet the FA criteria. Specifically:

• Given the length of the article, the lead section should be longer per WP:LEAD
• Don't use contractions
• See here for a list of problematic links
• Some duplication of info between "Differences" and earlier sections
• Heavy use of primary, self-published and questionable sources
• Problems with reference formatting: some web citations exclude publisher info, italicization issues, etc
• Don't link terms in See also already linked in article text, and don't duplicate cited sources in External links
• Captions should meet standards for prose, MOS and verifiability as article text. Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
• File:WindSeeker_incident_at_Canada's_Wonderland.jpg: FUR needs to be expanded, as it currently doesn't credibly support the need for this image
• Are the dollar values in the lead using US or Canadian currency? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose – I agree with Nikkimaria, and the prose is far below FA standard. The article is not professionally written and needs a thorough copy-edit from top to bottom. I am reluctant to give examples because nominators often only pay attention to them and are reluctant seek fresh editors who can radically improve the prose. Having said this, spot the problem here: "Additional problems have also been discovered with the ride after their opening to the public." And here, "All four WindSeekers consist of the same parts which form an identical structure" (comma needed). And here, "For this reason, hydraulic dampers (that were not a part of the original design of the ride) were added to all four WindSeekers being built in order to reduce the amount of the movement of the swings while in operation" (redundancy). More redundancy here, "The WindSeeker at Knott's Berry Farm has a number of differences from the other five versions of the ride described above. Unlike the other five installations, rather than the white, blue, and green colors of the towers, Knott's tower has a orange, purple, and yellow color scheme that is reflective of Spanish California, to coincide with the attraction's placement in the Fiesta Village themed section of the park." And here, "uses a different method that uses". Graham Colm (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I noted that to have any shot at FA, a major copyedit and peer review had to be done beforehand. Instead, it's still waiting at GOCE for an uninvolved copyeditor, and a PR was closed before any commentors. Lots of major problems already noted above, and I'm sure there's more yet. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

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