Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2012

February 2012

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:31, 7 February 2012 [1].

---

Randall Flagg

Nominator(s): CyberGhostface (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because other editors and I have put a lot of work getting it into shape over the last couple of years. It is in my mind very comprehensive, covers a variety of topics including the character's concept and creation as well as critical analysis and has proper citations. This has gone through noms in the past but I believe that the article has improved since then. CyberGhostface (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether location is included for book sources
• Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
• FN 4: formatting
• Some of the links to external sources are returning errors
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This?
• FN 14: italicization
• Compare formatting of FNs 17 and 18
• "pp." is for multiple pages, "p." for single
• FN 24: page?
• FN 27: site appears to have either changed names or shut down
• Are FNs 4 and 30 meant to be the same?
• FN 34: ISBN?

For an article with so (relatively) few sources, there are quite a few issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I've addressed most of those issues, but are there any recommended places to go for help in things like this? I've put it up for Peer Review recently but haven't gotten many responses in that regard.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Images: All check out except File:Walter o'Dim.PNG. The link given for the source is broken—need updated information on the source and copyright status. The licensing and fair use rationale don't seem to make sense either. A book cover? --Laser brain (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It's basically Michael Whelan's art for The Gunslinger and was later used as the cover for a collection of Stephen King related art. There's more info here.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, primarily on criteria 1a, 1b, and 1c. There is a lot of great material here, but I'm afraid this has a fair way to go before being a well-written and comprehensive account of this character. My principle issues are as follows:

• I found several problems with the writing, even in the lead. For example, you have at least one shift in tense that is not suitable for writing about fiction ("Flagg made several more appearances"), and I spotted at least two misplaced modifying phrases. The narrative is unclear in order once you start the body of the article; why is Hearts in Atlantis mentioned out of chronological order?. The article will probably need attention from an editor not familiar with the text.
• You are missing any coverage of one of the central discussions of Flagg in literary circles—essentially the debate over which of King's characters are actually meant to be embodiment of Flagg. For example, you have no secondary sources establishing Walter/Marten as Flagg. I understand this notion is generally accepted within the community of King readers, but here it's WP:OR. The literary discussion of which characters may or may not be Flagg needs its own section in this article, cited to reliable secondary sources.

Much more could be said, but these are two large items that need attention before this can be considered for FA status. --Laser brain (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Past three weeks, with no support; closing.

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 19:44, 4 February 2012 [2].

---

Hotel Polen fire

Nominator(s): S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 04:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article again because I believe it complies with the FAC after having been looked over by several experienced users. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 04:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• "In an enormous dust cloud, the entire hotel collapsed to the ground. The fire department proceeded to extinguish the smoking debris, and at 9:30 am the fire was declared under control." - source?

• Fixed: I re-read the sources and added some refs and removed some claims which are (as of yet) unsourced. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 20:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• FN 3: formatting
• Mixture of templated and untemplated citations is causing formatting inconsistencies. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. If you are referring to the fire department report I don't think its' neccesary to give the full citation including the URL for each subsequent ref. Just like book citations often just mention the name of the author and page number for subsequent refs. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 20:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, primarily on 1a. The writing is not up to the required standard. Random examples of prose issues:

• "a multistory hotel in the centre of the city built in 1891" The modifying phrase "built in 1891" is misplaced and confuses the meaning of the clause.
• The mention of the furniture store highlights a need for clarity in the previous clauses; you should avoid discussion the "hotel" as a building and the "Hotel" as a business interchangeably.
• "Many of the hotel's tourists" reads as if they were tourists of the hotel. Or were they guests?

• Fixed: Changed it to: "Many of the tourists who stayed at the hotel"

• "At the end of the 18th century, the "Poolsche Koffiehuis" (English: Polish Coffee House) was established, which began offering guest accommodation in 1857." Another misplaced modifying phrase.
• "The Hotel Polen was once known as a fashionable place to stay." This sentence is out of place in the narrative. The cafe opened, the hotel was a fashionable place to stay, the cafe closed.

The cafe closed because the hotel became run down as the owners didn't want to spend much money on it. The cafe closed in 1974 which is mentioned on page 5 of the fire department report. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 23:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• "There were only 10 fire extinguishers and 11 fire hoses in the hotel." Another narrative problem. The "only" qualifier doesn't make much sense without context. We don't even know how many floors are in the building at this point. Is that number of extinguishers and hoses low for a building of that size?

The building that replaced it, the Rokin Plaza has 5,086 m2 office space (although the smaller building on the right which survived the fire was demolished to make room for it.) It was quite a large building so 2 fire extinguishers and fire hoses per floor does seem sparse. I did remove the word only. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 23:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• In fact, you don't mention the number of floors anywhere that I can see. Nothing should be in the infobox that's not in the article.

• Fixed

• "the hotel was also not on a direct line with the emergency centre of the fire department" What does this mean?

A direct telephone line ie like the Moscow–Washington hotline. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 23:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I only read through Background, but this looks to require substantive work to bring it up to FA standards. Recommend withdrawal so you can work with a copyeditor. I would also recommend additional research; the narrative after the fire is extremely sparse. --Laser brain (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I did ask for help by several experienced copy editors who rewrote the text. It's pretty hard to come by additional sources, I only know of one study which covers the fire but is only available at university libraries and I'm not a student or lecturer so I probably can't access it. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 23:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak to the quality of copyedits you received before, but I think you will need someone to help you dig a bit deeper. Lots of issues were missed. I thought we had a page of volunteers who could help you access library sources, but I can't find it now. --Laser brain (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:RX. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: Templates removed, per FAC page instruction. Brianboulton (talk)

• Oppose on 1a, prose, per Laserbrain, and per this sample which was the first my eyes fell on:

  Just before 7:00 a.m. the part of the hotel which lied on the Kalverstraat collapsed.[21] The burning debris landed on the fire engine in the Kalverstraat, and the fire fighters barely escaped to safety. The nearby book store was also burned out[22] and fires broke out in several buildings on the other side of the Kalverstraat, which were quickly brought under control.[21]

  The prose needs to be reworked thoroughly, and it's unclear to me that it attains GA level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I reluctantly withdraw the nomination. Thanks for your input. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:44, 4 February 2012 (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 19:44, 4 February 2012 [3].

---

Giraffe

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it gives well-written, well-sourced and fairly complete information on the animal. LittleJerry (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Question The "Relationship with humans" section does not touch upon attempts by humans to ride the animal. Has there been any? Successful? 109.214.164.25 (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No information is available. LittleJerry (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It makes no sense for humans to attempt to ride giraffes. The long neck would obscure forward vision. There are better animals around for riding. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Necking", paragraph 2: "It appears that males that are successful in necking have greater reproductive success." I don't think that the first part "It appears that..." is necessary. Why not say "Males that are successful in necking have greater reproductive success"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Mortality", paragraph 3: "Some parasites also feed on giraffes." This sentence doesn't really follow smoothly from the preceding paragraph about lions and crocodiles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks. How about changing the subsection title to "Mortality and disease"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

  Or maybe mortality and health? LittleJerry (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

  Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

From "Relationship with humans", subsection "Cultural significance", paragraph 2: "With the fall of the Roman Empire, the people of Europe were no longer able to keep and display giraffes." "No longer able"? Or just that they didn't? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• The source says that when the Empire fell, so did the ability to keep and house giraffes. I suppose it was referring to Rome's infrastructure. I changed it anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

In "Relationship with humans", subsection "Conservation status", the first paragraph is only tangentially related to "conservation status". The article "Galápagos tortoise" has separate subsections for "Historical exploitation" and "Modern conservation". However "Giraffe" does not really have enough text to justify such a split. Perhaps re-name the subsection title "Exploitation and conservation status"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

From "Relationship with humans", subsection "Conservation status", paragraph 1: "Normally, giraffes can coexist with livestock, since they feed in the trees above their heads." Who feeds above whose heads? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

  "Normally, giraffes can coexist with livestock, since they feed in the trees above the latter's heads." This still isn't quite right. The giraffes are not in the trees. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

In "Relationship with humans", subsection "Conservation status", the photo ("Giraffe killed by tribesmen") looks quite old. From the Wikimedia Commons info, it was taken between 1906 and 1918. Perhaps change the caption to "Giraffe killed by tribesmen in the early 20th century"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is still semi-protected. I'm not sure when this was done or why. Was it subjected to repeated IP vandalism? Would it be reasonable to unprotect it now? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• You'll have to talk to the person who protected this. This issue doesn't have anything to do with whether the article should be FA. LittleJerry (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Many broad articles on animals like lions, giraffes, elephants, whales etc.which are familiar to schoolchildren are often subject to waves of vandalism, and as such, many have been semiprotected for long periods. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. From the previous FAC, I still have a concern about the way that the subspecies populations are estimated. Also, I am slightly uncomfortable with the phylogenetic tree image in "Taxonomy and evolution", subsection "Subspecies". However both LittleJerry and Stfg are happy with the image, and there are no dissenting voices. The pictures are all free images from Wikimedia Commons. I have not checked the references. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ranges should use endashes consistently
• Compare formatting on FNs 4 and 5
• Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations for books
• Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
• "p." should be used for single pages and "pp." for ranges - check usage
• Don't include both {{citation}} and the {{cite}} family of templates, as this causes formatting inconsistencies
• FN 61: formatting
• Don't duplicate cited sources in External links
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

All clear. LittleJerry (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have some difficulty accepting the abandonment of the use of {{MSW3}} and {{IUCN2008}} templates, though. They can put things in categories, if wanted, which the straight {{cite}} templates cannot. Template MSW3 creates hyphenated ISBN, but I don't think that outweighs the value of using it (and the new cite is much less complete). I don't see what was gained by abandoning template IUCN2008 at all. --Stfg (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind it either, but apparently I can't use both types of citing. LittleJerry (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, is this really true? That we can't use templates MSW3 and IUCN2008 (and the other IUCN... templates) and {{cite}} in the same article? --Stfg (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to adjust these templates so that the formatting is consistent with {{cite}}? Actually, I don't believe that any of the problems I noted involved IUCN refs. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought you included {{IUCN2008}} as a {{citation}}. LittleJerry (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No, there was an actual {{citation}} there last I checked. IUCN is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I found it and fixed it. LittleJerry (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, I'm not sure what we can do with {{MSW3}}, as it's very widely used. For example, probably some articles using it will hyphenate ISBNs and others not. But I'm willing to ask Ucucha's view if you like. I've put the original MSW3 citation and the current Cite-book citation side by side in User:Stfg/Sandbox1 for comparison. Please could you let me know which aspects of MSW3 (the top one) you would like changed? --Stfg (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

In addition to a non-hyphenated ISBN, it also should'nt list the publisher's locations. LittleJerry (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I was really asking Nikkimaria which aspects are of concern, not merely what the differences are. I see you've restored the use of IUCN2008 (thanks) and made the MSW3 citation pretty much as good as the output from the template, but there's a wider issue here. I've asked Ucucha for his view. --Stfg (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

... and he has replied that he doesn't use Template:MSW3 as there are some problems with it. So what you've done looks good to me now. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I'd been meaning to return here - article looking more polished than when I last looked, and a couple of things had been added that pushed it further into "safe" ground comprehensiveness-wise. So I am happy with prose and comprehensiveness now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: MOS issues needing attention, on a quick scan, I see a collapsed scroll box in text, I see text sandwiched between images, I see an image gallery. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

All fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the image gallery fits recommended WP:IG use. I provided details elsewhere before I realised the removal originated here. If people prefer they can add comments about it here. –RN1970 (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia's reasoning on the talkpage means sense. Plus, the diagram already gives shapshots of the coat patterns for six subspecies, which are pretty much the only thing that distinguish them externally. LittleJerry (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It does indeed make sense, and I too think the diagram and the commons are sufficient. --Stfg (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There are nine subspecies (ten if you believe the recent split of angolensis is correct; MSW3 follows a review from 1971 and the three they don't recognise have all been proven valid by detailed studies after the publication of MSW3). That means 1/3 are not shown by the diagram! The latest comment on SandyGeorgia talk page includes a few incorrect comparisons: Most people are unlikely to know there are several distinctly different subspecies and people that work in biology (like myself) are often forgetful about their differences. If this had been a collection of random photos it would have been "don't we all know what giraffes look like", but it isn't. To fit it should be modified to "don't we all know what the giraffe subspecies look like" and I doubt that statement is right. The comparison to the lion article is also incorrect because the typical argument by people who added more photos to it could be summed down to "I think it is a nice image". Are there any places where the giraffe subspecies gallery does not match recommendation in the WP:IG policy, the very basis for gallery use? To my eyes the main difference compared to the WP:IG textbook example of good gallery use, 1750–1795 in fashion, is that the giraffe gallery was not directly linked to each text section describing the subspecies. That can easily be done by adding numbers and switching the subspecies text order to match the subspecies photo order. RN1970 (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: In two (camelopardalis, thornicrofti) of the three subspecies where some have argued the text description is sufficient, the text description of their appearance is not supported by any citation. They're right but still unsupported. RN1970 (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay then, all fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, it's hard to tell the difference between the coat patterns in the gallery as many of the giraffes are not close enough to the camera and some have bad lighting. LittleJerry (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose on a few counts, the prose is tedious and makes it hard to read pages and page ranges are missing from one of the major sources. When there are 30+ refs tagged to one source the page ranges would be nice.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

First off the article has gone through a billion fine tunings for prose, it is no harder to read then any of the current FAs. Second, there are no missing pages/page number for "many" of the sources. I presume you're talking about the Giraffe book by Edgar Williams. There are no pages ranges given because I'm citing the entire book not just a section. The books by Estes and Kingdon have specific sections dedicated to the giraffe, so I give the pages ranges. The entire Williams book is dedicated to the giraffe, so it is silly to give ranges, especially since I'm using different sections of the book. An inline page citation for each fact is all that is needed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I've been kicked in the nuts over having too broad a range on pages, so I find no page ranges unacceptable for FAC. As for the prose, I know how that happens, but try reading it again, sometimes those tweaks make it as boring as a dog's ass.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

When page ranges are too broad or if you're using the entire book, you give inline page citations for the cites, which is what I have done and maybe you didn't. So your objection is invalid. I've read through and fixed the article hundreds of times and I'm not doing it again for some vague claim of it being "boring". LittleJerry (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not boring, actually the body of the article reads well, it is the lede that comes across as tedious. As far as the page ranges, we will have to disagree on that. Like I said, I took your attitude about that once and got nutpunched later. I'm just trying to save you from headaches down the road.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay I'll fix the lede and what if I give the page number for the entire book? LittleJerry (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I did some fixes in the lede and gave the page range for the entire book. LittleJerry (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Leads can be tricky, but they are important to get as attractive as possible. It looks better now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Much better, sometimes it is only a word or two in the right place...after 5 years I still think i suck at it, but this is looking good now!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note:

• 29.^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae Williams, E. (2011). Giraffe. Reaktion Books. pp. 1-174.

We shouldn't be expected to look through 174 pages to find about 30 different citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Give narrowed down page ranges. LittleJerry (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This still doesn't allow readers to easily locate and verify information (over 30 citations to broad ranges of pages, totaling to around 100 pages):

• 29.^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae Williams, E. (2011). Giraffe. Reaktion Books. pp. 21-44, 45-71, 116-50. ISBN 1861897642.

Also, pls see WP:DASH, WP:ENDASH and WP:HYPHEN and check article throughout for correct endashes on page ranges. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I fixed one of these myself-- please check throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Whats wrong with the inline citations? LittleJerry (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your question; the problem is missing page numbers. We need to give readers enough that they can find and verify information-- these page ranges are too broad to be able to locate something. Each item should be inline cited to a tighter page range. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sample

• Williams (2011), p. 34.
• Williams (2011), pp. 45–50.
• Williams (2011), pp. 120–21.

or something similar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said, when pages ranges are broad, inline pages cite are given. You know, the {{Rp}} template. Why are you guys making this more difficult then it should be. LittleJerry (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ha ... now I see what you mean. Yes, those page numbers attached to the citation in the text are acceptable (even if they are obnoxious and ugly :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOS#Captions punctuation review needed (full sentences in image captions should have final puncuation, sentence fragments should not). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review and spotcheck for accuracy in representation of sources and close paraphrasing pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Endahes all clear. LittleJerry (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Made a few changes, sourcing all clear. LittleJerry (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any more hypens in page ranges. LittleJerry (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Source spotcheck

1. http://www.giraffeconservation.org/giraffe_facts.php?pgid=6

Source: The distinctive coat of the Nubian giraffe has large, normally 4 sided, chestnut brown spots set against a slightly off-white background. It has no markings on the inside of its legs or at all below the hocks (knees).

Article: Its coat pattern has large, four-sided spots of chestnut brown on an off-white background, with no spots on the inner sides of the legs or below the hocks.

Source: Sometimes also called the Netted giraffe, it is plain to see why with the browny-orange coat patches clearly defined by a network of thick and often extremely white lines.

Article: G. c. reticulata,[16] known as the Reticulated[16] or Somali giraffe, has a coat pattern of well-defined patches that are usually bright orange-brown.[17] These patches have sharp edges and are separated by bold, bright white lines.

Source: The Angolan giraffe is relatively light in colour (hence the name 'Smokey') with large uneven, notched, spots covering the entire leg.

Article: G. c. angolensis, the Angolan or Smoky giraffe, is relatively light in color and has large spots with some notches around the edges, extending down the entire lower leg.

Source: It is estimated that fewer than 20,000 remain in the wild. ISIS (the International Species Information System, based on zoological data information) records indicate that only about 20 individuals are kept in zoos. (note, not sourced to this article, data comes from another primary source, but text is close to this article).

Article: It is estimated that no more than 20,000 remain in the wild;[18] based on ISIS records approximately 20 are kept in zoos.[21]

Stopped there.

2. http://www.awf.org/content/wildlife/detail/giraffe

Source: The giraffe is a selective feeder and although it feeds 16 to 20 hours a day, it may consume only about 65 pounds of foliage during that time. It can maintain itself on as little as 15 pounds of foliage per day.

Article: A giraffe can eat 65 lb (29 kg) of leaves and twigs daily, but can survive on just 15 lb (6.8 kg).

Source: Although they drink water when it's available, they can survive where it is scarce.

Article: The giraffe can survive without water for extended periods. (what is "extended periods"? Not in the source.)

Source: Giraffe tails are highly prized by many African cultures. The desire for good-luck bracelets, fly whisks and thread for sewing or stringing beads have led people to kill the giraffe for its tail alone.

Article: The tails were used as good luck charms, for thread and as flyswatters.

Stopped there: I'll let others decide if paraphrasing is up to snuff, and one concern about accuracy ("Extended periods"). I'm not sure this is an extensive enough look, but hope others will do a few more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit complicated. Some of the very recent changes to the wikipedia article (e.g. coat descriptions) may require changes but some other parts (e.g. information based on ISIS data) were on wikipedia first. Giraffeconservation.org copied wikipedia. Not vice versa. RN1970 (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting-- that's a big problem. If giraffeconservatin.org copied Wikipedia, is it really a reliable source? Doesn't seem likely; in fact, I can't find anything on their website that indicates why we are using an advocacy organization over journal publication sources for a potential featured article, which requires high-quality sourcing. At any rate, a deeper source check might be warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that some of the information they provide, notably approximate wild population counts of each subspecies, is very hard to find elsewhere. There are currently two giraffeconservation.org pages used as citations for wikipedia:

"Giraffe - The Facts: Giraffe subspecies" is a relatively new page that became a wikipedia citation less than two weeks ago. It appears to incorporate information from wikipedia or at least some of the information was on wikipedia before the same information appeared on their page. Based on the wayback machine, the first proven appearance of the Giraffe subspecies page is July 2011 (Giraffe subspecies in left bar, absent in earlier archived versions). Anything that was in the wikipedia article about that time and also appears in a near identical form on their page may be WP:CIRCULAR.

"Giraffe – The Facts: Current giraffe status?" is an older page that has not changed significantly, at least since April 2010 (Wayback machine). When information from this page first entered the wikipedia article in December 2010 it included the citation (total wild population and wild population of each subspecies all originates there). This proves it was on their page first and not CIRCULAR. RN1970 (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know how to use Wayback. Again, that they are copying text from Wikipedia does not speak well for them being a high quality source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The ICUN cites it as a source. So it is a RS. LittleJerry (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not how reliability of sources is determined, btw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

They are the main conservation organisation working with giraffe in their native range. They are a high quality source for data on the wild populations and their conservation. It would be hard to find any source speaking poorly about them and their reliability in this field. A large percentage of the peer-reviewed publications about conservation of giraffe in the wild are in some way connected to them, directly or indirectly. Their reliability in other data but especially captive data (where they have little involvement) is far lower. It is perhaps unsurprising they looked elsewhere to fill in their own gaps in that field. Wikipedia isn't using them as a source for captive data anyway but our use of their "Giraffe subspecies" page for differences in the appearance of the subspecies may require a check. Cf. my last comment. RN1970 (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed subspecies reference. LittleJerry (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Giraffe_Mikumi_National_Park.jpg: image description indicates that caption attribution is requested. Same with File:Giraffe_feeding,_Tanzania.jpg and File:Giraffe_Ithala_KZN_South_Africa_Luca_Galuzzi_2004.JPG
• File:Samotherium_skull.jpg: if author is unknown, how do we know he/she died more than 70 years ago? Also, need US PD tag
• File:GiraffaRecurrEn.svg is partially sourced to a deleted image
• File:Yongle-Giraffe1.jpg: licensing indicated in image description and actual licensing tag are contradictory. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

All fixed, expect for the first one. The photographer himself added the pictures. [4] [5] LittleJerry (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. Two comments on lead:

• Capitalization inconsistency in classifications: "Least Concern" but "endagered"?
• "Nevertheless, giraffes are still found in numerous game reserves." – To me, the "still" here seems kind of redundant to "Nevertheless" Auree ★ 20:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, but I think this has had enough nitpicks. This needs a source spotcheck. LittleJerry (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I'll add in my support. I read through it and think it's very well written and informative. Good luck with the rest of the nomination--hope it can get its spotcheck done soon... Auree ★ 05:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose based on spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Arab prophets and poets considered the giraffe the "queen of beasts" for what they saw as its delicate features and fragile form" vs "Arab prophets and poets considered the giraffe the queen of beasts, with enchantingly long eyelashes, delicate features, and fragile form."
• "Eastern sultans prized them as special pets" vs "Eastern sultans prized them as very special pets"
• "During the Middle Ages, giraffes were mostly forgotten by Europeans, except in legends from Arab travelers" vs "During the Middle Ages giraffes seem to have been nearly forgotten, except in legends and embellished tales from Arab travelers"
• "When water is available, it may drink at intervals of three days or less. Giraffes can also get water from green leaves, especially when covered in dew" vs "Giraffes may drink at intervals of three days or less when water is available, but can also fill much of their need from green leaves, especially when covered in dew."
• "In low intesity necking, the combatants gently rub their heads and necks together and lean heavily against each other, while flapping their ears and rubbing shoulders, perhaps to assess their comparative weights" vs "At low intensity, they proceed to rub heads and necks gently together, and may lean heavily against each other with ears flapping and rub shoulders or flanks – probably assessing their comparative weight"
• "In high intensity necking, the combatants aim blows at each other's rump, flanks or neck. To prepare to strike, a giraffe will straddle with its front legs, draw its neck sideways and swing upward and downward over the shoulder, attempting to hit its opponent with its horns.[20] The contestants try to avoid being hit by moving their necks at the last moment" vs "At higher intensity, the contestants aim blows at rump, flanks or neck...straddling his forelegs, then he draws his neck sideways and swings upward and backward over his shoulder to strike his opponent with the parietal horns...each does his best to avoid being hit by moving his neck away at the last moment"
• "The pelvis is shorter in the giraffe than in most other ruminants, and the ilium has more expanded upper ends" vs "The pelvis is shorter than in most ruminants, and the upper ends of the ilia are more expanded"
• "the giraffe's proportionally larger limbs have high rotational inertia that would make rapid swimming motions strenuous" vs "the giraffe's proportionally larger limbs have much higher rotational inertias...making rapid swimming motions more strenuous"

The number of very close paraphrases in this relatively small sample leads me to conclude that this article needs to be thoroughly checked and likely at least partially rewritten before attaining FA status. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Nikkimaria, and suggest withdrawing this FAC and having fresh eyes comb through the entire thing. And I do so wish any reviewers entering Supports on first-time nominators would do this work before the nomination languishes at FAC for so long; it's not really fair to Little Jerry or to FAC that this page sat here so long with a couple of supports, but no one looking at sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What? Okay I can see a some But 4, 6, 7 are very different. LittleJerry (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

LittleJerry, I'm sorry to see you retiring. If you're still looking in, this may help you to judge better how close a paraphrase can acceptably be, and to see why 4, 6 and 7 are still too close. I hope to see you back one day. Simon. --Stfg (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose due to plagiarism concerns. Based on a quick check of another article from the nominator, coaching on avoiding plagiarism and copyvio is going to be needed. --Laser brain (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose due to plagiarism concerns. Looks like Jerry took his ball and went home, too: [6], [7].--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:48, 4 February 2012 (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 23:30, 2 February 2012 [8].

---

Amon of Judah

Nominator(s): Magister Scienta^talk 23:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, while it's certainly on the smaller side, it's a high quality article that fully covers the life of the subject. Magister Scienta^talk 23:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyscape search: No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• There's a typo in the second sentence. The past tense of "lead" is "led".
• I cite-checked the bible verses, and they are accurate.
• I'm not sure what to say about the length. I'd like to think that any article can be featured if it's comprehensive, well-sourced, and well-written, which this seems to be, but there's really not much historical information on this guy, is there? Criterion #4, on length, says "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail." That seems satisfied, at least. And there are FAs nearly as short -- Tropical Depression Ten (2005), for one. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment (Note that I was the GA reviewer of this article): I am certainly not opposed to short articles become featured, however, I am not convinced that this covers the topic completely comprehensively. As I said in the review, before this is ready for featured status, you'd really need to cover everything that there is to cover, and look into every source. "The historical background of the assassination of Amon, king of Judah" by Malamat is not referenced, and I assume that you have not read it. There also seems to be some textual debate of interest concerning Amon, which is discussed at length by Begg; this is not addressed in the article, and some of the primary sources mentioned by Begg are also not mentioned. Also, that image needs to go. The deletion debate on Commons was a fucking joke. J Milburn (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi J, I'm pretty busy right now IRL so I'll respond to the Begg stuff later. In regards to the image, you're probably right, truthfully I don't even really understand what the closing admin meant. Yet, I'm also of the feeling that if the consensus of the XfD was keep, than regardless of our opinions it can be kept. Magister Scienta^talk 04:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Policy is policy (and law is law) regardless of what a "discussion" containing three voices somewhere on another project "decided". For what it's worth, I've contacted the closing admin. J Milburn (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The image has been replaced with the {{Kings of Judah}} template. Magister Scienta^talk 14:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

J, I found it!. Magister Scienta^talk 14:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - There is not enough historical or theological context, and there are stubs longer than this. Does this represent our best work? It is little more than a DYK. I know that length is not a criterion for promotion (although I disagree with this) but the article is too short to be engaging (Criterion 1A). Graham Colm (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you please clarify why the article didn't engage you. Thanks, Magister Scienta^talk 04:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Sorry, but this doesn't seem comprehensive. A cursory search on Google Books and academic databases reveals any number of potential sources that haven't been used here. Many of them appear to contain substantive information about the subject. --Laser brain (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments:-

• Bearing in mind the extremely meagre nature of the text I think it important that you investigate fully the additional sources that J Milburn has identified above. I don't know these sources, but what they contain needs to be established.
• The statement that Flavius Josephus describes Amon as among the worst of the Kings of Judah bothers me, because Josephus says no such thing. The following is the entire Josephus text that relates to Amon: "The kingdom came to [Manasseh's] son Amon, whose mother's name was Meshulemeth [sic] of the city of Jotbath. This Amon imitated the works of his father which he so insolently did when he was young: so he had a conspiracy made against him by his own servants, and was slain in his own house, where he had lived twenty-four years, and of them had reigned two; but the multitude punished those that slew Amon, and buried him with his father, and gave the kingdom to his son Josiah". That's it, there's no more. I see your text is cited to Begg; are you sure you are quoting him correctly?

In his conclusion, Begg writes "In Josephus' version Jotham and Amon remain basically as they are in the Bible, two minor kings, one markedly good, the other among Judah's worst rulers." Magister Scienta^talk 20:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, there you are, a "reliable source" (Begg) misquoting what his source says. Nowhere does Josephus say Amon was "among the worst", he merely says he imitated the "insolent" behaviour of his father's youth. I recommend you correct this. Brianboulton (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sold that it should be removed. Isn't Begg just making a scholarly interpretation of Josephus' writings. Begg isn't claiming to having quoted Josephus verbatim, he's just making an observation on how Josephus chose to portray Amon. Thoughts?Magister Scienta^talk 03:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

My point is that Begg is misinterpreting his source. The content does not support his judgement – not enough information is given, either in the bible or Josephus. And you are compounding the problem, by ascribing Begg's unsupported view to Flavius himself! You say: "Like other textual sources, Flavius Josephus too criticizes the reign of Amon, describing him as among the worst of the Kings of Judah". He doesn't. And what are these "other textual sources" that do? Brianboulton (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed that sentence. the other textual sources are namely scripture. Magister Scienta^talk 23:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Per your template headed "Kings of Judah", please note that Athaliah was not a "king" of Judah.

I have fixed the heading of the template. Magister Scienta^talk 20:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the lead says his idolatrous practices while king led to a revolt against him. There is no information in the article about a "revolt" (a servants' conspiracy is a quite different thing), and what is the basis for saying that this "revolt", if there was one, was caused by his idolatory? Since the people rose up against the people who killed him, it seems he may have been quite a popular figure. Brianboulton (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This and other elements of the article will be revised after I have the time to go through the Malamat article, which had eluded me for some time. Is there anyway to postpone this discussion? Thanks, Magister Scienta^talk 03:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to wait, if FAC will grant you this leeway. Brianboulton (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2012 (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 23:30, 2 February 2012 [9].

---

Wage reform in the Soviet Union, 1956–1962

Nominator(s): Coolug (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for featured article because I feel I've written a well referenced and clear article that is detailed enough as to provide everything a reader could wish for, but is also written in a style that is accessible to the causal reader who does not know too much about Soviet History. There aren't a huge number of sources available on this subject, but I've taken as much as possible from the available sources, all of which are very high quality sources. The article is currently at GA, and since then has had also undergone a peer review. I'd love to hear other editors comments on the article. cya! Coolug (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• (Dealt with) Scope & Weighting question: why haven't you used Filtzer's Labor process theory in the context of wage reform? You accept that wage reform ramifies into the construction of the labor process, "The number of different wage rates and wage scales was drastically reduced." etc., is this going to be part of a broader set of articles around the Soviet Labour Process in the 1950s-1960s. Even if it is, Filtzer's conclusion about skilling, deskilling and reskilling via LPT seems like it would be relevant to the article. (Obviously I'm going to "buy into" this review a lot more, because I saw the title and got excited. Wage determination FAC? Soviet wage determination FAC? From the mid 1950s?) Fifelfoo (talk) 09:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm happy that someone is excited about this FAC :) To be perfectly frank I do not really know anything about Labour Process Theory and how it might tie into this article. I was not planning on writing a broader set of articles at this stage in time, this is just a standalone article about one event in Soviet history. If you could point me in the direction of any additional works that would be considered a Reliable Source I'd be more than happy to read through them and see if there is more that can be added to the article. Thanks! Coolug (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Academics get excited about wage rates because they provide the evidentiary data for large theoretical claims about Fordism and Taylorism and Labour process theory. In particular, Filtzer used the Soviet wage reform as part of an argument about Soviet labour process, and thus the political economic structure of Soviet society. It might pay to read the conclusion to Filtzer for this article. I'm going to try to see if I can't read the (potted) Google version today. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

See, for example, Filtzer p.229 and surrounding for why you need to read his conclusion for this article. Filtzer basically says here that shop floor wage bargaining incorporated skill components of socialist planning, due to the poor quality of management planning in Soviet Taylorism; and, that the only moments where this happened in the West was in areas where value didn't have to be "realised" in production. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've had a read of the area in the book you suggest and added something. However, one issue with this FAC is that it's going to take a hell of a long time if I need to go off to university and get myself a degree in Economics before I can add anything in more detail. The Filtzer text 'Soviet Workers and de-Stalinization' is some pretty complex stuff and there's 300 blooming pages of it. Frankly, the reason I've tried to write this article as something that is accessible to the layman is because I'm only a step or two ahead of the layman myself. For example, I don't really understand what Labour Process Theory is beyond it being a very complicated way of explaining that people do "stuff" for various "reasons". I had a read of some things last night with a couple of PhD friends of mine (admittedly they are scientists not economists, but they are people who are used to reading complicated things all day at work so I thought they might be able to make an educated guess) and they were completely flummoxed by it too (although we were consuming large quantities of Papa November's home made gin which didn't really help...)

Anyway, I shall struggle on regardless and see what more I can add, however, I'm definitely drowning here rather than waving :) Coolug (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, give me a tick, I'll help you out here with this point (it can be relatively quick, Filtzer is the only theorist I can locate either). Fifelfoo (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! BTW, I would still love to find out what this blasted Labor Process Theory actually is, the wiki article on it is a terrible example of what is wrong with some many articles about complicated things on this project. The article tells the reader who developed LPT, what it's been used for recently, but not what LPT is! Coolug (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Tried to expand Labour process theory to better indicate what it is about. Much sociological theory is in this kind of poor state, particularly the serious academic socialist sociological theory. You can see why I got excited by this FAC? :) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support on (1bcde; 2abc; 3 (limited); 4): Content depth, breadth and correctness; source & cite quality; structure; neutrality & stability; media (appropriateness and captions only) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I am willing to spot check this FAC, but the copyeditors need to go through before me.
  • Publisher location for this press in the bibliography: Fontana
  • Correct the colon: "Soviet Growth : Routine"
  • Title caps for Russia: ""RUSSIA: End Five-Year Plan"" Fifelfoo (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for this. I have made these copyedits. If I've made any mistakes please let me know. Cya! Coolug (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments by Jim There's not enough excitement in my life either. Very accessible, well written, but a few niggles. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Because of the nature of Soviet industry, where materials were often in short supply and production would often be the result of "storming" practices, the ability to offer bonus payments had often been vital to the everyday running of Soviet industry, and therefore the reforms ultimately failed to create a more efficient system. — too "often"
• their individual wage payments depended upon how much work they personally completed. — Do you need both?
• stakhanovite — capitalised in its own article
• however — Please check that every use is essential
• great, great deal, greatly — greatly overused imho
• Whilst the reform did succeed in removing some of the peculiarities of the Stalinist era, overall the reforms succeeded — two successful
• Trade Union — why caps?
• couldn't — unencyclopaedic ellipsis

Thanks for this, I have made some changes based upon your suggestions. As you can probably tell I am having a very exciting christmas indeed! Coolug (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

No further issues, changed to support above.

• Media review File:Stamp of USSR 2341.jpg needs a description in English and File:Stakhanov.JPG needs {{Information}} filled out. —Andrew_stalk 23:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  I've added an info box to Stakhanov.JPG and uploaded the full-res version from the source (4060×2690px after crop). I'm a little uncertain about the licensing for this one... it was almost certainly published anonymously in Russia prior to 1943-01-01, so it's OK as a PD-Russia-2008 (i.e. it's currently public domain in Russia). However, I'm not sure if it's PD in the US - for that to be the case, it either needs to have been simultaneously published in the US without a copyright notice (possible during the US-Soviet wartime collaboration?) or it must have been PD in Russia on 1996-01-01 (URAA date). Is it reasonable to assume we're OK? Papa November (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  Also improved the description for Stamp of USSR 2341.jpg. This one's almost certainly PD-URAA. Papa November (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Papa November! I have been sat here at work scratching my head at what I'm supposed to do with these for the past 15 minutes and was just about to give up and ask for help on here when I saw you'd already fixed it. Good work. Coolug (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, looks good now. —Andrew_stalk 22:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment from nominator - Hi, I thought I'd just state on here that whilst Fifelfoo did say he would be willing to spot check this FAC, it should be noted that he is not currently editing due to an unrelated conflict on wikipedia. I am certainly not suggesting that anyone be a scab and take up his tasks, but I am asking that if anyone is thinking of closing this FAC due to lack of interest they bear in mind that there certainly is interest, it's just the interest is not expressing his interest at this exact moment in time. I still welcome any comments from other editors. Thanks! Coolug (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Lead is unsatisfactory:

• "were intended to move Soviet industrial workers away from the mindset of overfulfillment of quotas that had characterised"—suggest two grammatical changes: "of overfulfilling quotas, which had ...". At least I think that's the intended meaning ... that it was the overfulfullment that had characterised, yes?
• Personal pref.: "based on", not "based upon"; there's another "upon" shortly after. And you might consider "most" rather than "the majority of" (= 50%+, a bit fussy).
• Comma again (do watch this issue: subset or not a subset? It's very easy to get the meaning wrong in English): "Workers' personal production quotas were also heavily manipulated by factory managers who were keen to protect workers' wages." It works grammatically, but you're referring to a subset of factory managers; if you want to say that all f ms were thus keen, you need a comma before "who". Just checking.
• "incentivise"—could it be a simple, plain word, such as "motivate"? "Efficiently" -> "effectively".
• I'm not understanding some of the lead. Why should standardised wages (not "wage practices", which doesn't make sense) motivate workers; I'd have thought the opposite. And I wonder why the reforms made workers less dependent on overtime or bonus payments? All a mystery to me. Why would these changes reduce pay? What is "storming" (in the lead, we need to know; otherwise use an easier word or phrase here). Where is the causal logic in the "Because ..., the ability to ...". The last clause, too, needs to be a separate sentence.

Sure, the lead is hard to write; but will I expect to see better writing in the body of the article when I get to it? Tony (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have made some minor changes to the start of the lead so that it might read a little easier. And I've changed the "storming" bit so readers who do not wish to read the rest of the article (or perhaps search for "storming" in the main body of the article and read the explanation) will not feel left out.

However, I don't think it's a good idea to change "incentivise" to something else, "incentivise" has a very clear meaning (and I don't think it's a particularly obscure word that people reading an article on Soviet economics will fail to understand) that is different to the meaning of "motivate". Also "efficiently" has a different meaning to "effectively". The point of the reform was to give workers an incentive that would not result in so much waste. If you read the rest of the article you will discover what this was. Therefore the use of the word "efficient".

As for why the wage reform did the things it did, that is what the rest of the article is about! Coolug (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Incentivise, incentivisation, are just so ugly. I would strike it out of any text except an advertising billboard or TV commercial, where cheapness of language is a device.

Efficiently as currently worded refers to this incentivising (that is, motivating—what exactly is wrong with a plain word?). I think you mean effectively; as you say, "The point of the reform was to give workers an incentive that would not result in so much waste."—right, so that workers would work more efficiently. But the incentives were intended to effectively achieve this. And we've just had inefficiencies three lines back, where it refers to Soviet industry, which is fine. So you effective motivate the workers to be more efficient in their production. If you persist with efficiently motivate, I hope it's clear from the article what inefficient motivation would be. Right now it looks like an unfortunate repetition, aside from being the suboptimal lexical choice per se.

Your response asserts that the reader needs to read the whole article to make sense of the lead: this is not the function of a lead. It opens into the article, but should not be impenetrable as it now is on a few counts. The piece work system would have encouraged workers to turn out pieces, but not necessarily to work hard. We all know the stories of goods that fell apart soon after purchase, the generally sloppy practices that placed numbers of outputted units above basic quality. The lead doesn't even go there, but it is central to the failure of the system, both before and after the wage reform that is the topic of the article. This is why I gag on the sentence: "The wage reforms sought to remove outdated wage practices and more efficiently incentivise Soviet workers by making their wages more standardised and less dependent upon overtime or bonus payments. However, industrial managers were loathe to go ahead with actions that would effectively reduce workers' wages, and often ignored the directives, continuing to pay workers high overtime rates." I can't see the logic, and thus it fails in a lead. Tony (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not an economist but as I understand it, "incentivise" has a very specific meaning in economics. It refers directly and explicitly to the introduction of an incentive into an economic system. "Motivate" doesn't quite work - it lacks the explicit economic context of "incentivise". I guess it would be better to be even more explicit, lose the verbal form and say something like "The wage reforms were intended to introduce a financial incentive..." Papa November (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, acted upon. Coolug (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am happy to accept constructive comments on this article. I can see that you have now read the entire article, so if you think the lead is missing something important then please put it in.

However, I am not happy to accept rude edit summaries. Just because you do not think my writing is up to scratch it does not mean it's ok to write things like "Time to update your writing" or other sarcastic comments. Please try to be civil. Coolug (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's an extremely interesting topic and I'd like to see the article promoted at some stage. I'm not sure the details are sufficiently fleshed out at the moment. Tony (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your message on my talk page. Now, regarding what the lead does not mention, you ask that the lead makes reference to "sloppy" practices and how they were central to the point of the reform. The problem is that saying this would unfortunately be original research. The sources I have used do not actually mention that the soviet economy was churning out a load of rubbish, just that the progressive piece rate system was inefficient. I suppose this may be because the sources I have used are a little on the highbrow side and so don't mention anything as 'obvious' as that. There are other sources elsewhere saying that soviet goods were badly made, but don't mention the wage reform and therefore to link the two might be original research too. I'm as frustrated as you that the article and it's lead fails to explain this, but until someone writes a high quality source saying that the wage reform had something to do with sloppy production I'm unable to do anything about it. Coolug (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Serious question, then: since everyone in the east and the west knew the quality of goods behind the iron curtain was pretty bad (don't mention the Trabie), and intuitively a system that imposes quantity quotas but little or no quality control is bound to lead to this outcome, why isn't more written about it in reliable sources? I can't believe western economists and the establishment in general had no interest in analysing the quality of goods, which was a major factor in the failure of that system (I didn't download it, but does the CIA source provide no leads?). Your ref list isn't all that big; I wonder whether there's more to discover. This article is important enough to expand and deepen with more evidence, since it ultimately involves an economic system that consumed (no pun) a huge proportion of the global population for many decades. Other articles, including, for example, that on East Germany (among many), could benefit from the leadership you show in this article. The treatment of the Soviet empire is not really very good on WP; and something tells me it's not good in the German or Russian WPs either. BTW, are there analogous articles in any other language WP? Tony (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm going to claim expert: Western ideologs seriously didn't care that much about the internals of payment structures in the Soviet Union. IR worked at a different level of theoretical engagement; and labour history hasn't caught up with the 1950s in the Soviet Union (the 1920s and 1930s resolve more serious academic issues). The ref list looks about reasonable for one component of a three pronged attack on the quality problem. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Tony, just to be clear, are you opposing this nomination because the writing is rubbish? because the sources don't say as much as we'd like them to say? Or for both of these reasons? Coolug (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments. Support on everything but comprehensiveness and well-researched-ness; also have not done a source check or image check. Prose is fine if not sparkling and everything else looks good. An interesting read.

• The first sentence doesn't seem right: "Wage reform was a process that took place in the Soviet Union from 1956 through 1962". Clearly that's not what wage reform is, or was. This is a hard article to write a first sentence for, but per WP:LEADSENTENCE the title doesn't have to appear verbatim, so I think we could go with something like "From 1956 through 1962, the Soviet Union attempted to implement wage reforms in order to address ...." That's not ideal, but the current version seems quite wrong to me.
• "where materials were frequently in short supply and production would be the result of rushed production" -- I don't understand the second half of this.
• You have "for example" twice in the first paragraph of "Existing system".
• "This method of calculating and paying wages ...": I think you're too far away from the definition of the method to refer to it in this way. I'd say something like "The piece-rate approach to wages", or " Stalinist-era wage policies", or something like that. Actually I think that whole sentence could be recast: perhaps "The piece-rate approach to wages, which had been introduced in the first Five-Year Plan and had changed very little since then, was in practice highly inefficient."

I've made all of the above changes as you suggest. Coolug (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• "... could better incentivize workers ...": I accept that "incentivize" is a real word, but I think this is not quite precise. It sounds to me as though the workers had plenty of incentive already, but the managers of the factories did not. Or is this in fact what Bulganin said, regardless of whether it reflected reality? If in fact there was a problem with worker incentives then I don't understand it at this point in the article. And if we could change "incentivize" to "motivate" or "encourage" in at least one or two places I'd like that; it's one of those words that some readers find annoying.

I have no idea of the exact wording that Bulganin used, but the source (Fearn page 13) states that he said the idea was to "provide better incentives". I think it's important to accurately reflect the source here. Coolug (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• "The Five-Year Plan stated several key changes that would be made to Soviet workers wages": could this be simplified to "The Five-Year Plan made several key changes to Soviet workers wages"? If it didn't make the changes, but instigated or proposed them, then we could use those verbs instead, but I think "that would be made" is verbose.
• "overall the reforms succeeded more in simply creating new problems for Soviet workers": a bit clumsy; how about "overall the reforms created more new problems for Soviet workers"?
• "to attract workers into roles that had lost much of their attraction" -- can we avoid the repetition of "attract"?
• In the first paragraph of "Conclusions" you have "Filtzer stresses" and "Filtzer cited"; please make the tense consistent.
• "Storming" isn't defined till the conclusion section; if the definition is important (and I think it is) it should come much earlier, in the background section.
• "This had led to a situation where workers who could not count on a western style meritocracy would have to rely on the decisions of their managers who needed to be able to reward workers based on their own arbitrary decisions rather than sticking to a centrally directed system of wages": I don't follow this; can you explain?
• "hegemonic culture of consumerism": does "hegemonic" add anything to the explanation here? I think it can be cut.
• "Filtzer notes that Soviet workers were constantly forced into a position of exerting more skill than called for in plans or norms, a condition only seen to such an extent in the West where industries were insulated from market forces, and as such workers and managers in the Soviet Union had many reasons to collude over setting wages, norms and skill expectations, even after the wage reform": another sentence I really don't understand.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I've also made changes for all of these points now. I hope this makes the article a bit clearer. By the way, thanks for your helpful copyedits too! cya Coolug (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. I will reread tomorrow and I hope to be able to support, on prose at least. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've switched to support above. I copyedited a little more; please fix anything I broke. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Support (primarily prose) Comments from Noleander

• Note: I did the Peer Review of this article, and already submitted several suggestions for improvement at that time.
• Explain: "The reform's clearest effect was in reducing the proportion of Soviet industrial labour that was paid by way of piece-rate, ....". Probably should explain the other payment method that increased. Hourly wages?

Added an extra sentence to this part. I hope this helps clear things up. Coolug (talk) 09:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Russian word: "a process known as "storming" was endemic ...". It would be great if the original russian word were supplied, since it is clearly an important idiom for this practice.

I've looked this up and stuck it in. If it's not formatted properly please do go ahead and amend it. I'm going to Kiev soon so I'll have to try and use this in a sentence :) Coolug (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Why attribute? "Alec Nove wrote in 1966 ... that the lack of transparency ..". This attribution to Nove seems out of place. The assertion by Nove doesnt seem particularly controversial. Omit?

The earlier sentence reads "some academics believed" etc etc, which is followed by Nove writing about how these academics were missing the real reason that statistics were so rarely published. Because of this I think his name should be kept in, since his point goes against the more common perception. Coolug (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Clarify socialism: " The Soviet elite would not radically change the labour process by democratising it and introducing socialism,...". I thought the USSR was socialist? If so, how could socialism be introduced? Please re-cast sentence to clarify for readers that may fall victim to similar confusion.

I've written this in more understandable language. Coolug (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Current situation: It would be nice if the Conclusions section brought the reader up to date with a brief statement of how wages/payment evolved until the fall of the USSR. No need for a big treatise: but the article abruptly stops at 1962 ... what happened form 1962 to 1989? Did quotas remain common? Did the USSR experiment with hourly wages more? For example, see the article 1965 Soviet economic reform about a 1965 reform effort: would it be useful to readers to mention that in this article? Is the 1965 reform a logical follow-on to this article's reform?

Hey, I'd like to add something like this myself, however, there's not a huge amount of stuff out there in the world that deals with wages in the Soviet Union. I shall have a look to see if I have any sources knocking about, but I think it's doubtful I'll find anything. The 1965 Reform was basically a completely separate entity. In a nutshell it was about trying to get industrial enterprises to behave in a more 'market friendly' fashion. There were pay incentives included in the 65 reform, but they were aimed at industrial managers rather than the workers. Coolug (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Footnote format: FN 25 is "Central Intelligence Agency (1961), page 2"; yet when I look down in References, I do not see CIA as I scan down the bullets. When using shortened footnotes, I believe the FN must contain an identifier that corresponds to a left-most text in the associated Reference. I know the blue link takes me to the correct place, but that is not reliable. I suggest either move CIA to the left of the Reference (as the author); or put "An Evaluation of .." in the Footnote text.

Done this one. Coolug (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Leaning towards Support; if these items are resolved.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for these helpful comments. I'll go through them as I get the chance and make some changes. cya Coolug (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Opening two sentences. Logic problem.

"From 1956 through 1962, the Soviet Union attempted to implement wage reforms. The reforms took place during the Khrushchev era and were intended to move Soviet industrial workers away from overfulfillment of quotas, a mindset that had characterised the Soviet economy during the Stalinist period."

Whoever last edited this would have had a feeling it's unsatisfactory, but not known why. The problem lies in the placement of "The reforms took place during the Khrushchev era" in a sentence that otherwise explains the intention of the reforms, not the historical timing. Better, unless you can think of something better, might be:

"During the Khrushchev era, from 1956 through 1962, the Soviet Union attempted to implement wage reforms intended to move industrial workers away from the mindset of overfulfilling quotas, which had characterised the Soviet economy during the Stalinist period."

You might prefer a split, because the sentence is now rather long—either way would be OK: "... from the mindset of overfulfilling quotas; this mindset had characterised the Soviet economy during the Stalinist period."

I know I'm firm in tone when reviewing, but I didn't expect the "rubbish" comment: "Tony, just to be clear, are you opposing this nomination because the writing is rubbish? because the sources don't say as much as we'd like them to say? Or for both of these reasons?" It's for both reasons. But as I've said, I think this is an important topic, and I want to see it featured. I haven't re-read it, and will try to get time. I just want to demonstrate here that the first thing I spot-checked, the opening, is faulty. Tony (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the opening sentence as you have suggested. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the greatest writer in the world, and alone I'm never going to write an article where the prose is absolutely perfect. If anyone out there thinks something could be worded better please do be bold and fix it. Noleander, I shall have a look at the remaining point's you've raised when I'm at home and in front of the books. Thanks! cya Coolug (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's odd that this archived due to having "little support" - it's an article about wage reform in the soviet union - one of the most boring subjects in the universe - that four people could manage to read the whole thing through and support it without slipping into a coma is practically a miracle. Naturally something like this is never going to attract same level of attention as some family guy episode. Anyway, ce la vie. I have to say however, I have found this whole FAC quite demoralising. This is supposed to be a collaborative project and the one and only person who opposed the nomination could quite clearly see that I was never going to be able to write to his exacting standards, yet as is seen so often seen on wikipedia, those who hold this wonderful hidden knowledge of where exactly we should insert a comma and whether one should use a dash or an endash or something else entirely (presumably gained when the rest of us were reading books on soviet history) are not willing to just make a few changes to the article and fix the blasted thing. Anyway, life goes on, and I will always have that ridiculous day in october..... Coolug (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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