Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
Next edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
set up Dec
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{TOClimit|3}}
==December 2011==
==December 2011==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive4}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Liverpool F.C. in European football/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Project A119/archive1}}

Revision as of 03:49, 5 December 2011

December 2011

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:49, 5 December 2011 [1].

S&M (song)

Nominator(s): Calvin • Watch n' Learn 16:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... from what I have gathered from the last FAC, the only thing which (in some people's opinion) seems to be a problem is the length of the Background section. I'd like to say that there is no Background information missing, this is everything. And this article should not be Opposed purely on the basis that it might be too short for a few peoples preference. All that should matter is that all of the Background info is there, so I don't really see why it is a problem. I really don't think there is much that could hold this article back now for being Supported, I mean: 2 Peer Reviews, 3 GANs and 3 FACs! lol. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 16:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (1a, prose): I don't think the above nom statement shows an understanding as to why this article regularly fails its FACs (this is its fourth). I have just read it through for the first time; there are still basic errors in the prose, such as I have listed below:-

  • "Under her stage Sandy Vee": Missing word
  • "as her albums fourth...": Missing apostrophe
  • A sentence should not begin and end with the same words, thus: "The video ... the video" and later "The music video ... the music video"
    Where is this? Calvin • Watch n' Learn 13:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the lyrics should not be construed as too literally..." doesn't make sense. Remove "as"
  • "S&M received garnered mixed responses..." Either "received" or "garnered", not both.
  • "In Poland, the song peaked at number one on the Polish Singles Chart..." The words "In Poland" are unnecessary, as are the words "In Denmark" and "In France" which begin subsequent sentences
  • "eighty-seven" requires a hyphen. If you are going to spell all numbers out, for whatever reason, you need to be consistent about this throughout the article.
    Why "19-year history" when other numbers are written out? Brianboulton (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what to make of this: S&M was Rihanna's 8th No. 1 hit, "making her the artist with the highest pop number one hits in the chart's 19-year history". Later in the same paragraph: "Rihanna also logged the shortest span between a solo artist's first and tenth number-one in the chart's history..." How does that reconcile with te earlier statement?
    Where does it say 8th? I just did a Ctrl+F and it returned nothing. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 13:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the general reader, what is the "bridge" of a song?
    Not yet explained. Brianboulton (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone doesn't know, then they can just click on the link? I don't think it's right to explain what a bridge is of a song in the music video section. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 19:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the same general reader, what are "daddy issues"?
    We don't know, it's something that is projected onto the wall in the video. It's never been explained what it means. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 13:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the postpositive context "was generally well-received", no hyphen should be used.
  • "Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of New York's Southern District Court denied a motion to dismiss the copyright violation allegations,[62] however, noting many similarities between the works" The word "however" makes no sense in this sentence.
  • "The lawsuit was resolved on October 19, 2011, which resulted in Rihanna..." Wrong construction. What you mean is "The resolution of the lawsuit, on October 19, 2011, resulted in Rihanna..."
  • "an disclosed sum of money"; do you mean "an undisclosed sum of money"?
  • "based on the fact that" is a verbose way of saying "because"
  • Multiple issues with this: "Paris-based photographer Philipp Paulus later sued as well, alleging further copyright violations, with regard to a scene in the music video where Rihanna wears a large dress and is taped to the wall with a plastic sheet covering of her". Do't say "as well", say who he sued; lose the comma after "copyright violations" and sort out "a plastic sheet covering of her".
    Well, the sheet does cover her in the video. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 13:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Example of an overcomplicated and clumsily worded sentence: "This was due to the BRIT Awards corporation trying to avoid receiving similar complaints about Rihanna on the final of the seventh series of The X Factor on December 11, 2010, for wearing a provocative outfit and performing a suggestive dance routine before the watershed."[67]
    You've not attempted to reword this. Brianboulton (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rihanna performed a cover of Prince's "Darling Nikki" while she spanked, groped and pretended to smack three semi-nude female dancers, with a cane." Fascinating, I'm sure, but to which part of her activities do the words "with a cane" belong? In my admittedly very limited experience, you don't grope or "pretend to smack" using a cane.
    Lol, you're funny. And yes it was fascinating. I've seen her do it twice live. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 13:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad you enjoyed it. I think you need to rephrase, however: ""Rihanna performed a cover of Prince's "Darling Nikki" with three semi-nude female dancers whom she spanked, groped, and pretended to smack with a cane."

This is not necessarily a full list, but these are the issues that jumped out. This is by no means a poor article: "poorly-finished", perhaps, but in terms of its coverage of the topic it certainly seems adequate. If the source and image reviews are in order (I've not looked at these aspects) I can see this crossing the line. Please do not respond to my points with bolded statements, and keep calm. Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to three points which I would like you to clarify further. Other than that, I've done all of your points. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 13:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. There is only two short paragraphs that is actually about the song (in the "Background and composition" section). This cannot be one of the best Wikipedia has to offer. And even then, the information in this section is made up entirely of quotations. Don't say that this is all there is about the song; the truth is that it is either poorly researched, or the sources aren't being used to their fullest potential. I did a google search, and within 3 minutes found "Ester Dean Talks Solo Career, Writing 'S&M' and 'Firework'", from Billboard, in which the main songwriter spoke about composing the song; I found "'RUDE BOY' WRITER ESTER DEAN ON PENNING HITS FOR RIHANNA, USHER", which does not necessarily mention the song, but goes into great detail about the mental processes of the songwriter when she composes songs for Rihanna; and I found "Rihanna, "S&M"", again from Billboard. Obviously something can be salvaged from these sources. And you can obviously do more in depth research. At least mention in sentence form that the song was written by xxx, and produced by xxx, and mixed and recorded by xxx, and mastered by xxx!! That's what the Background and composition" section is for. Stop bringing rushed, half-finished articles to FAC.
    On an entirely different note, a sentence reads "Jake Conway of Yale LGBT magazine Q wrote that the song's lyrics showed that...", yet the Q magazine linked to is a rock/indie magazine from the UK, and not a "Yale LGBT magazine".
    And lastly, your references are unformatted, and have the garish red text that reads "Cite error: Invalid ref tag..." Orane (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, I'd like some civility please. I have added the DeanBillboard interview. Also, The Boom Box site which talks about the writing process behind Dean's work is what I had used in "Rude Boy", so I have re-adjusted it to make it fit in with S&M. And the third site you provided isn't really Background info, it's just someones opinion that they have fabricated; Dean does not just specialise in writing "provocative pop". I have added who wrote and produced the song as well. I have removed "Yale LGBT magazine". And lastly, the reference which you said was coded red was actually formatted near on perfectly; all I had forgotten to do was ad ".." to the ref name. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 14:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

First off, you're welcome for the sources. I know you didn't ask me to find them, but a simple thank you would be appropriate here. My oppose remains because the background section is now 90% quotations, and 10% actual prose; also oppose because of prose concerns that have been raised: A few examples

  • "It reached number one in its fourth week on the chart and stayed at its peak position for weeks." How many weeks exactly? Sentence feels like it's missing something.
  • "Rihanna logged the shortest span between a solo artist's first and tenth number-one in the chart's history, a stretch of four years, eleven months and two weeks." Maybe a colon of emdash between the record she broke, and the time she took to do it (i.e. between history and eleven).
  • ""S&M" became Rihanna's eighth number-one hit on the Billboard Pop Songs chart, making her the artist with the highest pop number one hits in the chart's nineteen-year history." Doesn't make sense. Also echo Moisejp's comments below. Couldn't have said it better myself. Orane (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. But I can't help but think you have done here with some pre-conceived ideas, which should be left behind. I know what's been going on. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 12:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry Calvin the prose is not FA quality. Here are a few observations and tips that I think will make your good writing sparkle and reach the professional level of accuracy and style required.

  • First delete every occurrence of "also" and then critically ask yourself is the word needed in the sentence. The reason why this will help to improve the flow of the prose are given here under "Additive terms".
    Done Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • I have mentioned the problem of fused participles to you elsewhere, Tony explains why they should be avoided here; this is one, "The video opens with Rihanna being dragged kicking and resisting into a press conference". Often, the use of this construction is difficult to reconcile with the rest of the sentence, which is a problem here.
    Doing. As I don't know what you mean by fused particle. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
    The link I gave explains, with examples, what they are. Tony calls these constructions "noun plus -ing". Graham Colm (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I know, that's why I said "doing". Calvin • Watch n' Learn 16:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some word choices need to be improved. Here, "lost some of the appeal which" should be "lacked some of the appeal that" and colloquial phrases such as "a bit of", "biker chick" and "motorcycle prop" are not found in FAs.
    Have removed "a bit of" and "prop". But Biker chic is a style of clothing, which describes what the feel of Britney's performance is, so I don't know what you expect me to change to. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 16:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It says "with Spears as a biker chick". Graham Colm (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Have put it into quotations, as that is how she was described as by the writer of the article. I don't know how else you want me to write it. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 16:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many phrases that are untidy and confusing. This is one example, "with the performance beginning with the stage decorated as an S&M-inspired set". There is another fused participle here, which doesn't help, but there are other problems such as the two occurrences of "with" and is "inspired" the best word here?
    Removed with and inspired, reworded sentence. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • This sentence needs to have a connector to link it to the previous sentence, "The singer had been criticized for wearing a provocative outfit and for performing a suggestive dance routine before the watershed." You could use a simple "Then," (but don't forget the all-important comma).
    I was told to do that above, but I don't think it reads right? It's ambiguous as to which tense it is talking about. But as you are the second person to say, I'll add it. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
    I suspect you haven't recognised the power of that humble comma in it's ability to refer readers to the immediate past rather than than the immediate future. 00:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    Lol. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 00:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the above is generic advice that needs to be applied throughout the article – addressing the examples given alone will not bring the quality of the prose up to FA standard. Graham Colm (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, when I've addressed those 5 points you will Oppose anyway. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 15:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin, the simple edits that you have made this afternoon have improved the article greatly. Please don't presume and try to work with the reviewers and, as Brian says above, above all keep calm. Graham Colm (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am keeping calm, can't you tell? Lol. But what I'm saying is, you've said that more needs to be done, but haven't said what those things are, which means your vote will stay as an Oppose. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 16:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin, I think what Graham Colm is saying is that if you really want this FA bad enough, you should take the initiative yourself to go through line by line and ask yourself critically "Is this the clearest, most concise, most professional way to express this idea?" You always come into these reviews with the attitude that the Wikipedia community owes you FAs and GAs and Keeps, and that if they don't give them to you, it's because they're out to get you. They're not out to get you. They're trying to give you constructive criticism to help you bring your articles to certain standards agreed by the Wikipedia community. I think Graham Colm is saying that he, as a volunteer like all of us, may not have time to highlight every single instance that could be improved, but that if you take the time to look for other similar instances, you might find them. Calvin, all of the people above have opposed based on prose issues. Instead of thinking, "They're all out to get me," what if you took a more humble, positive approach and thought, "Oh, this is great. All these people have generously given up their time to point out some weaknesses of my writing. Great, I can use this to become a better writer, and all of my future articles will be better for it." Moisejp (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you actually being serious? I can't believe you just said that. When have I said "They're all out to get me,". I have addressed all of the points. I've had a really shit couple of days and I don't need someone saying things like that to me. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 17:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin, that was good advice; please do not let your penchant for gut reactions and appeals for sympathy drive away much needed reviewers. Graham Colm (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pleased that I've had 3 people review on this FAC, last time it got closed after a few days. But I don't like how people think that of me. Of course I want people to comment. When I see people have commented, I do the points straight away, no one can deny that, and I don't look for or expect sympathy. I say things how they are. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 17:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, Calvin. I can see there's no getting through to you, and I won't try again. Peace, Moisejp (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

Graham Colm (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Have replied to some. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 20:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many basic errors can you spot in this recently added sentence, "Rihanna explained in an interview for Spin magazine that the lyrics should not be construed too literally, explaining that she does not think of the song in a sexual way, but rather metaphorically, because of how it implies that people can talk about someone but it cannot be prevented, as well as saying that you have to be a strong person and not let peoples opinions get the better of you"?
  • And in this one "S&M" peaked inside the top-ten for ten consecutive weeks and spent a total of twenty-four weeks on the chart in total"?
  • And here,"It peaked number one two weeks later stayed at its peak position for five non-consecutive weeks"?

Graham Colm (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin, I have to point out before one of the FAC delegates comes down on us like a ton of bricks, that FAC is not the place to come to get articles fixed. They should be highly polished before nomination. Yes, some FACs last for weeks, but not because of the need to fix elementary grammatical and stylistic errors. You are not learning from your mistakes and reviewers are not going to follow you around to point them out. You are too used to the GA process (and I notice you are trying to deal with one concurrent with this nomination), but FAC is in an entirely different league. What do we have to say to convince you find some collaborators? You desperately need them. Graham Colm (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graham, I know that FAC is not where one should come to get articles fixed, but as you know, S&M is my first attempt at getting an article to FA. I never thought it would have been this difficult to get it to that status, and there have been no two points the same in the 4 FACs, so I clearly am learning from them. This article has had an unbelievable amount of input from other editors, it really has. Look back over the last 6 months, so many editors have been involved. And I can't help that I am "used to the GA process", there's nothing that can be done about that. I'm sorry I'm not someone who is only concerned with FA and racks them up all the time and is used to the process article after article. I have learned a lot from these FACs, but as I've never (successfully) promoted one to FA, I don't know the full extent as to what an FA looks like which I have written. And saying to look at other FAs hasn't helped me, as all FAs are different. As noted above, a lot of things come down to personal opinion, like the Background section. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 19:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the lengthy commentary above, I popped down to a random section and found:

  • It was remixed by several notable DJs, including Dave Audé, Joe Bermudez and Sidney Samson; these remixes were released as a digital remix package and made available to download via iTunes.

Do you see the problem? I've let this FAC run longer than usual, but the prose still needs work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:49, 5 December 2011 [2].

Liverpool F.C. in European football

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the article has recently undergone a copyedit which has improved the prose, which was the main issue when the article went to GAN. A peer review was recently undertaken which helped improve the layout of the article and improve it for non football readers. All in all, I believe the article is ready to be considered for promotion. NapHit (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Include both authors for Ponting refs?
Steve Hale, the co-author is a photographer, it's ponting that has wrote the book, I can include him if you want? NapHit (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • be consistent in whether you provide locations for newspapers
done NapHit (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use a consistent date format
scanned through the article and I can't find any inconsistent dates, could tell me which were the offending dates please? NapHit (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" Retrieved 12 September 2006" vs "Retrieved June 6, 2011". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done NapHit (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LFC History is a highly reliable site, the authors of the site have recently released a book entitled Liverpool F.C. the complete record using info from their site. Statistics from the site have been regularly used on the club's official site, and the club has recognised the site's work. I think all this make it highly reliable. NapHit (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your first sentence isn't really relevant, but the second helps. Do you know who the authors are and what their qualifications are? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sixth paragraph on this page will clear up any reliability issues. NapHit (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
added the page NapHit (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape check - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have only read the lead, and I find the first paragraph dense and difficult. There is probably too much detail, and the organisation of material is confusing. Specifically:-

  • The opening sentence: "Liverpool Football Club are an English professional football club based in Liverpool, Merseyside, whose team has regularly taken part in Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) competitions, winning a British record total of eleven trophies since their first appearance in 1964". is very clumsily phrased and far too long. Is it really necessary to say that Liverpool Football Club is based in Liverpool? Try to redraft as two succinct sentences.
  • "Qualification for English clubs is determined by a team's performance in its domestic league and cup competitions." That wording implies that the qualification rules for other (non-English) clubs are different – is that the case? Also you need to clarify what the "qualification" is for, e.g. "European tournament qualification is determined..." etc
  • "From 1964 to 1985, Liverpool regularly qualified for the primary European competition, the European Cup, by winning the former Football League First Division." What does "regularly" mean here? The implication of the word is thst they won the first Division every year, which of course they didn't.
  • " Since 1992, qualification to the renamed UEFA Champions League has been achieved either as runner-up or finishing in the top four of the Premier League". Eh? "Either as runner-up or finishing in the top four..." doesn't make sense (and nothing about winning either). You need to find a simpler way of saying that the top four clubs in the Premier League qualify.
  • The final sentence of the opening paragraph does not adequately introduce the other European competitions, and the wording "Liverpool have also achieved European qualification via the FA Cup and Football League Cup..." is imprecise.

As the first paragraph of the lead is likely to be the first part of any article which is read, it is particularly important that it offers a clear and coherent introduction to the article. At present I think this doesn't quite do that. Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd had a go at redrafting the paragraph and I'm happy with everything apart from the last sentence, which I'm going to redraft a few times to see if I can introduce the competitions better. NapHit (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have tried to address my points, but I don't think the lead works as it is. The first paragraph mixes details of Liverpool's performance with qualification rules that have changed over time and are quite hard to explain or follow. Elsewhere there is unnecessary detail, e.g. "Liverpool's first match in European competition was in the 1964–65 European Cup against KR Reykjavik of Iceland." That's not necessary in the lead. Instead of trying to patch and stitch, I've written a shorter lead which I think works better. You will find it here. Please feel free to adopt it. Brianboulton (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it was a mess, I've incorporated your lead, which flows a lot better, thanks for that, I appreciate the help. Any further comments on the article would be welcome. Cheers NapHit (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a couple more tweaks, to clarify the difference between the old European Cup competition and the present Champions League. Please check the these changes make sense. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the successor trophy bit, as they still get the same trophy its just a different name, perhaps the best method would be to simply have European Cup/Champions League and then explain that it was rebranded in 1992? NapHit (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • European competitions: "This was later expanded, based on the countries rank in the coefficients...". Minor, but an apostrophe is needed at the end of "countries".
  • Paisley years: "As the 1975–76 League champions". Capitalizing League seems inconsistent with the rest of the article so far.
  • Fagan years: "Liverpool won the first leg at Anfield 1–0, their tactic in the second leg of withdrawing Dalglish into midfield put Benfica's game play into disarray". Comma clearly should be a semi-colon.
  • Benitez years: Don't need a second penalty shootout link, especially since this one's a general article, not specifically on the soccer version.
  • Repetition from one sentence to another here: "Dudek was replaced by Pepe Reina. Reina...". Try to avoid this if possible.
  • Another one here: "and again faced Chelsea. Chelsea progressed...". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments Giants I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Giants I put the apostrophe on the wrong sentence it should be right now. NapHit (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by User:Dweller

Kudos on a great article. I'm enjoying it immensely, as, like many English fans of other teams, I have a soft spot for LFC. However, I do have some observations, please bear with me. Comments will follow, below. --Dweller (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC) I'm doing some minor c-e as I go through the article, but here we go with my comments to-date... apologies, I've not read the above (TLDR), so they may conflict with or repeat things said before:[reply]

  • article title is too colloquial for my liking. It's also bewildering for non Brits - of course Liverpool F.C. is "in Europe", as is Halifax Town F.C.. Permanently, by dint of geography, not footballing ability. I know it fits with the other seven club articles in Category:English football clubs in Europe, but I don't think that they're Featured. The parent article English clubs in European football is much better titled. Sorry, that's an annoying one to start with.
Ye, that has been mentioned before, it is fairly ambiguous. I think titling it along the same lines as the parent article would be the best choice. NapHit (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's an easier one to deal with: "club" appears three times in opening sentence.
  • "that has been" implies it is no longer
  • first mention of each trophy should be wikilinked
  • comments on methods of qualification for Europe are way too detailed for Lead - it's an entire sentence utterly unrelated to Liverpool F.C.

More to follow. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments so far, I've dealt with a few, but I have work in the morning so going to bed in a bit, will address the rest tomorrow. NapHit (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • small point, but I believe RS usually talk about English clubs being "readmitted", not "reaccepted" (I'm a Norwich fan - no history of crowd trouble and we'd have qualified twice during the period of the ban, grr)
  • The section on European competitions seems massively overblown. I appreciate the rigour, but really just want the reader to understand what the various trophies are/were and roughly get an idea of their hierarchy. But mostly, it should be covered by a main article hatnote. I think you could make this an introduction section, which would then explain that in the early years of the competitions, Liverpool didn't play. You'd then explain something that is significantly missing from the article: why didn't Liverpool participate from inauguration of the competitions in 1955 until their first campaign in 1964. Sorry, I know that's another horror comment to get at FAC.
ok I think I've addressed all your concerns now, I've moved the page to reflect the name of the parent article. I've rewrote the section on the competitions per your comments, I'm unsure on the title though and how it should be implemented. I'm not sure whether it should stay as it is or be put into the history section. Anyway I hope the article is in better shape now. NapHit (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think its Internazionale, every football article I've seen on here refers to them as Internazionale, even the guardian reference refers to them by this name. I'm certain its WP:FOOTY convention to use Internazionale, when I've taken lists to FLC with Inter in the list its been suggested to use Internazionale. I've addressed all your comments. Cheers NapHit (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll continue next week. --Dweller (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't see anything or think of anything which is obviously missing. It seems complete. The only comment I'd make on this is that there's no mention of Liverpool's record in the Intercontinental Cup in the text itself. Brad78 (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to read the article. I've added bits about Liverpool's participation in the Intercontinental Cup, cheers. NapHit (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:49, 5 December 2011 [3].

Project A119

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 19:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, after a painless GA nomination, and a thorough examination at WP:MILHIST's A-Class review, I feel it meets the criteria and is as comprehensive and stable as an article on a fifty-year-old classified military operation is likely to be. This is a great opportunity to help counter the harsh bias against moon-bombing shown on this encyclopaedia (and every other encyclopaedia too, for that matter). I'm not likely to be available to reply for the next night or so but I should be more than capable of addressing any concerns over the coming week and beyond. Thanks. GRAPPLE X 19:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consecutive footnotes should be in numerical order - eg. [2][3] rather than [3][2]
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for publishers
  • What are the qualifications of the author of this page? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed the first three (I saw one instance of non-consecutive refs, let me know if I've missed any others). As for the page you're noted, per the CV listed here on the same site, I believe it falls under the expert sources exemption of WP:SPS. GRAPPLE X 13:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That CV is for the site owner; the source you're citing was not written by him, but by Aleksandr Zheleznyakov. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha. I had assumed that the site owner would reliably vet what he publishes; however, thanks to Google Translate, I was able to glean this from Zheleznyakov's website, which further led me to this page. Again, this leads to believe that the source is by an expert in the field, more so now that it appears to come from an expert in "Soviet Cosmonautics". Also remind me to check the library for Sex in Space now... GRAPPLE X 10:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link check - no DAB-Links ("Dark side of the moon" can't be resolved), no dead external links, 3 minor wikilinks fixed. GermanJoe (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape check - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I checked all the sources for the article when it came up for A-class. And I mean all of them. I think this is a fascinating article, well written and well researched. I had never heard of it. It's good to learn new things occasionally. Well done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—It's an interesting topic, but a quick read-through suggests that the article needs further improvement. Here are a few concerns I had:

  • (1) The lead contains the unsourced assertion that the "purpose of such an act would be to demonstrate the superiority of the United States over the Soviet Union..." However, the article says that it "was hoped that such a display would boost the morale of the American people, which had been shaken by the advances gained by the Soviets". Which was it? If the former is true, why isn't it expanded upon in the body? Superior in what way?
  • (2) "Project A119 was one of several possibilities that the United States investigated..." Possibilities for what?
  • (3) Who proposed the project?
  • (4) "...team of ten people...": this doesn't seem very concise. Were they subject matter experts or just ten random people?
    • Out of curiosity, I attempted to tentatively identify the names on the unclassified report. The following seem to be likely matches: James J. Brophy, Narinder Singh Kapany, William Edward Loewe, Dickron Mergerian, Verner J. Raelson, Carl E. Sagan, and Philip N. Slater; all unconfirmed of course (and so unusable in the article). They're all scientists and engineers.
  • (5) "...weight of such a device, as it would need to be propelled over 375,000 kilometers..." It shouldn't have anything to do with the distance. The chief obstacle is in getting the mass off the Earth and into an escape trajectory. The article needs to clarify this.
    • Clarification: if you have the delta-v budget you need to achieve to reach the target, the distance only matters because of the time of flight. I wouldn't expect the flight time to be a concern given the half-life of the fission materials. Perhaps it was worded this way for consumption by non-technical readers? Possibly the information could be presented as a quote, unless another source can be found that clarifies the reasoning.
      • When I read the original source, the wording was subtly different from what is in the article. Based on this source, the obstacle was that the hydrogen bomb was too heavy for the missile to achieve the target objective. The distance clearly isn't the obstacle because the atom bomb would have to be carried just as far. Does this help? Regards, RJH (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (6) It says the "dark side of the Moon", which is the side of the Moon not currently illuminated by the Sun. However, some readers may find this confusing as it is sometimes used colloquially to refer to the far side of the moon, which would hide the explosion from view. Some clarification would help.
  • (7) The information about the objective needs to be collected together under one heading so that there is a historical flow to the content. Right now it's partly covered in the first paragraph of the "Project", and again in the "Soviet program" section. In between the two is the research and cancellation sections.
    • Clarification: the "Soviet program" section begins with "Another major factor in the project's conception...". This is a continuation of a previous discussion. It's clearly not a continuation of the "Cancellation" section, so it is out of place. It appears to belong just after the first paragraph under "Project".
  • The May 14, 2000 story in the Guardian appears to have a few details that are not covered in the article. For example, Reiffel subsequent opposition to the idea and the destruction of eight of his reports in 1987. You might also mention that in Reiffel's now unclassified study, the team had proposed placing three instrument package on the Moon prior to the explosion so that they could measure the effects.

There are some areas of the writing that may need a little work as well, but others can do a better job of checking that. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • (1) I've amended the lead, (2) deleted the "several possibilities" bit since I couldn't find it in the sources and (6) clarified the "dark side of the moon" mention. (3) I've added in the the Air Force proposed the project, which is supported by the Guardian ref in the same paragraph. (4) I've reworded "a team of ten people" as "a ten-strong team" to be a bit more concise; however, beyond Reiffel and Sagan, it's not known who was on the team. I'd assume experts, obviously, but I don't know what proportion of scientists to military men it was. (5) As for the point on the weight of the device and the distance travelled, I've lost access to the source used for it, though I'm almost certain that it made the case for distance rather than inertia or gravity being the issue - I'll try to track it down again and clarify that, but I'm not sure if it would venture into original research to make additional claims as to the overcoming of Earth's gravity if that's not reported in the source, so I'm loath to add anything of that nature without re-reading that first. (7) I'm also not sure what you mean with the point about information on the project's objective being split up - the "Soviet program" section doesn't cover A119's objective, but it does offer some insight into the impetus behind going ahead with the project, which is relevant to the section as it's specific to discussion on the Soviet counterpart. What sections or lines did you think should be moved? GRAPPLE X 23:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    One possibility would be to move the first paragraph of the "Soviet program" section into the lead for the "Project" section, as an additional influence. The last paragraph could be moved to the "Cancellation" section, changing "the Soviet program" to "a corresponding Soviet program". But it's your call really. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've split the "Soviet program" section up into the other headings as you've suggested. I'm loading up the actual released document now to get looking at it for the claim of landing instruments (it's a big file and the lappy's a slow bastard); and I'll hopefully be able to check the book source for the distance-vs-escape velocity issue this coming Wednesday. GRAPPLE X 18:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at this quickly, I don't think I'm going to be able to get it up to FAC standards within my self-allotted 2 hours, if we factor in question-and-answer time, so I'm going to need your help (or someone's help). Please read WP:Checklist and User:Dank/Copy1; there are multiple problems here covered on those two pages. I'll get you started.
  • "a top-secret plan developed in the late 1950s by the United States Air Force with the intention of detonating": It doesn't sound like a plan to intend to detonate, it sounds like a plan to detonate. Please see WP:Checklist#intention. - Dank (push to talk) 20:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The purpose of such an act would be": Wordy; combine with the previous sentence.
  • "to boost public morale in the United States": to boost US morale changed my mind on this one
  • "which had fallen due to the successes of the Soviet Union": "After" would be better than "due to", and it could be tighter. Please see WP:Checklist#because. - Dank (push to talk) 20:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the early phases of the space race": raises but doesn't answer the question of how the space race can be divided up into "phases". "early in the space race" is better, at least in the lead section ... you can go into detail about phases in the text if that makes sense.
  • "The details concerning the project came from": actually, not just the details, the very existence of the project. And "revealed" would be more active and more descriptive than "came from".
  • "a retired executive at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration": If he's retired, he isn't there any more. And "retired" has a small WP:DATED problem; assuming he's still living as I write this, he could take up a job at any time ... which wouldn't be relevant to our story here. So: "a former executive of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration"
  • "researching the theoretical effects": I'm guessing they were trying to predict the effects, rather than simply make theoretical statements about the effects. "predicting the effects".
  • That was all from the first paragraph. Someone have a whack at this please and see what you can do. Once I get started copyediting, I want to get it done within two hours. - Dank (push to talk) 17:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I think I've covered the points you've addressed. I went with your suggested wording where it was given; and rewrote the first few sentence of the lead to address your first few points. As for the "intention" point, I've changed the phrase to "after the successes" to imply chronology instead of causation. If I've missed anything, or if you see anything else, let me know. Thanks! GRAPPLE X 18:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your work on this (and it's always nice to see new people at FAC). I'm probably going to need some help with more than just the first paragraph, so I'll wait and hope that more help is coming. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I've asked for help on my talk page, at WP:GOCE/FA, and at WT:MHC ... and we've got one bite so far, Nikki helped out. - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing. Thanks for you work on the things I brought up; that all looks fine. Please check my tweaks to the lead section.
  • "apparently primarily because": If something is "apparently" true, it generally means it's an opinion, so it requires attribution. I might be able to fix this when I get further along. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what it means for a project to be funded by the US Army but run under the auspices of the USAF. Was the army keeping tabs on how the money was spent? - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have removed the clause mentioned US Army funding. Not entirely sure where that was meant to have come from if I'm being honest. Perhaps "army" maybe have been a holdover from the article's initial translation and an error on my part. Gone now as it's not in the source (Guardian article). GRAPPLE X 04:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "targeting the dark side of the terminator": presumably, terminator (solar). I don't understand where the "dark side of the terminator" is.
  • "the potential consequences of an atomic explosion on the Moon. The main objective of the program ... was the detonation of a device, nuclear or otherwise ...": The first sentence implies they weren't researching conventional explosions; the second says they were.
  • "detonation of a device ... to cause an explosion": triply redundant, although it probably wouldn't hurt anything to have two of the three words (detonation, device, explosion ... generally, "devices" explode).
  • "Another major factor in the project's conception may have been a rumor": This sounds like someone's opinion.
  • "planning to launch a hydrogen bomb at the Moon", "by launching a nuclear device at the Moon": Repetitious. Also, I see that one of the sources was in fact representing this as firing a rocket "at" a target on the moon, but that's kind of a cartoonish view of a rocket trip to the moon, particularly in the 1950s ... that is, we should express some skepticism at that image.
    • To be honest, I'm not really sure what you mean here. Could you clarify this a little? If the issue is the language (something being fired "at" a target), I don't see how this is a "cartoonish" way of phrasing it - if an area was decided as the location for the explosion, that area would be targeted by the device, would it not? I may be misunderstanding the problem though. Have rephrased the rest to remove the repetition, however, it's just the second point I'm confused about. GRAPPLE X 04:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify, I'm not saying that your words are cartoonish ... that came from the source. In an age before integrated circuits, representing a moon shot as a simple matter of "firing a rocket at the moon" was clearly a misrepresentation. - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an eclipse due to occur on November 7": an eclipse on November 7
  • "News reports of the rumored launch included mention of targeting the dark side of the terminator, a detail which was incorporated into the plans for Project A119; it was also reported that a failure to hit the Moon would likely result in the missile returning to Earth, which would become a factor in the Soviet project's cancellation.": I can't figure out what this sentence is saying. Which detail? How was it incorporated? What would become a factor? Did the news reports say that the problem had already been cancelled?
    • The detail was the target area, I've cleared up this sentence into two sentences which should read more clearly. Also removed the bit about the Soviet project's cancellation. GRAPPLE X 04:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The project was likely influenced by a similar study initiated by the RAND Corporation in 1956, whose results remain secret to this day.": This raises but doesn't answer the question: if the results remain a secret, how do we know about the study?
    • Ulivi; Harland and Zhou, p.19 - "It was probably based on a still-secret RAND Corporation study, began in 1956, aimed at putting a nuclear warhead on the Moon." That's all the source says on the matter, as it immediately begins discussing Teller's proposals after this sentence. I can't conjecture beyond what's there, though I assume that Teller, Reiffel or both were involved with or aware of the RAND study. GRAPPLE X 04:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If they don't say how they know about the secret study, I'd recommend leaving out that bit, per Hinting at User:Dank/Copy2. It's not uncommon for writers to imply that they know more than they can say, but unverifiable knowledge usually isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. - Dank (push to talk) 00:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. From what I see above, from what I see in the sources, and from the frequest prose problems, I don't have confidence that the text accurately reflects the sources. Does anyone else have access to all the sources? - Dank (push to talk) 03:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    About to go through the article now to sort out those issues, but as for the terminator one, the terminator is the boundary between the illuminated and unilluminated sides of a body - so the "dark side of the terminator" is that side just beyond the illumination. Hope that clears that point up for now anyway. GRAPPLE X 04:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your work on this. I've reached my two-hour limit on this FAC, and I only got halfway through. I'll come back to this if it looks like other reviewers have finished it up. - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Is the "Armour Research Foundation" a government agency?
  • Image description page for File:ComputerHotline_-_Lune_(by)_(5).jpg seems to indicate that a caption attribution is requested. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added an attribution (I assume that's how it's to be done, correct me if I've done it wrong). ARF isn't a government agency, it's a contract research organization working with the Illinois Institute of Technology. Looking at the image in question, I think ARF is credited as the "author" in lieu of the individual authors of the document - would it be better to add the list of ten individual authors mentioned in the document itself? GRAPPLE X 15:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I'm confused: if ARF isn't a government agency, how can a work where it is the author be "a work of the United States federal government"? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be honest, the image was already in use and given its rationale before I came along - I assumed simply that it had been done correctly. My assumption is that the ARF scientists were the authors, but since the work was done for the US Air Force, the research is owned by the government. It was, after all, released by the government under a freedom of information request, which meant it was under their control and not under the ownership of the ARF. GRAPPLE X 17:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/December_2011&oldid=464155996"