Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/April 2012

April 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 GrahamColm 05:56, 25 April 2012 [1].

---

Cherish (Madonna song)

Nominator(s): Lil'Monster Heart (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because i feel is one of the most complete articles regarding Madonna's singles discography. It's structured in a really complete way making it easy for the readers to understand the article and it's different sections. I consider it to be one of the most complete articles regarding Madonna's old songs. I believe, here on Wikipedia, it should be a featured article after gaining consensus from my fellow reviewers here at FAC. Lil'Monster Heart (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Procedural comment - according to the Contributors tool, the nominator has made only one edit to the article. Per the instructions at the top of the FAC page, have you consulted the more significant contributors prior to nomination? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 22 April 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 Ian Rose 06:53, 22 April 2012 [2].

---

Unfaithful (song)

Nominator(s): — Tomica (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... this is my second Rihanna article on which I have worked and heavily and with all my efforts. I know that is not perfect when it comes to prose, but I just want to try the first nomination and see comments with which I can improve and eventually satisfy them. Thanks — Tomica (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose based on incomprehensibility issues in the Info box and Lead alone. This many mistakes in one prose sections leads me to believe that it is highly probable that countless more are present in the other 10 sections.

• Why is the "Recorded" parameter blank? You have stated the recording location in the credits section so why not here?
  • Now is. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Shouldn't the formats in the Format section be alphabetised like the genres are
  • Done. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Certifications section is also blank.
  • Certifications are not more written in the box. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Says? They are allowed to be there. That, or remove the parameter. Simple. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
• by the Stargate duo → Poor phrasing
  • Re-worded. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• co-written by American singer Ne-Yo → It was co-written by all of them. You haven't said that Ne-Yo is listed as a co-writer in the credits.
  • Re-worded. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• contains prominent R&B characteristics → "prominent R&B characteristics" ? So, it's simply an R&B song, as you have put it in the info box.
  • Its not specifically R&B, its Pop and R&B. It was same with "Rehab". — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
    • If it's not specifically R&B, then it shouldn't be there. Did a critic say it is an R&B song? Aaron • ^{You Da One}
• by the works → I would associate this phrasing describing a piece of artwork by an artist, not the songs of a group. Wrong context.
  • Read the source. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
    • So you've copied it then? Aaron • ^{You Da One}
• cheating → This is quite a colloquial word, couldn't you use something a bit more encyclopedic? deceitful, even unfaithful.
  • If I re-word it, the phrase will be poor. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
    • It's already poor, so you might as well. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
      • I guess the more formal term would be infidelity, but there's no verb for that. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• received → "garnered" would be a more preferable choice of word.
  • Okay. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• powerful ballad style → This isn't working for me. Why not use "powerful balladry" ?
  • Same here. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
    • ? Aaron • ^{You Da One}
• The song reached the top ten → The song peaked inside the top ten
  • Same thing. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
    • But worse. Reached sounds like it struggled. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
• of more than 15 countries → Why not just list the actual amount? It's clearly not more than 20 otherwise you would have said so, so it's between 16 and 19. Might as well just say so.
• including the UK Singles Chart, on which it became Rihanna's third top ten single. → This seems a bit out of place and didn't seem to flow when I read it. Why is just the UK Singles Chart so important? It would be better to write two or three countries.
  • UK is a big music market. So its worth of mentioning. Don't see the problem with flowing. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
    • No problem with include two others though, as it wasn't just the UK. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
• having sold more than one million digital copies. → Didn't you read List of music recording certifications? US singles are based on shipments, not sales. So change to "denoting shipments of over 1,000,000 copies."
  • Done. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• dangerous love triangle → Dangerous doesn't work here. And link Love triangle, as some people may not know what it means.
  • Done. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• How do you know it's her husband specifically? Could just be her boyfriend.
  • It was not written by me. Some of users (possibly Jivesh or Legolas) wrote it when c/e the Synopsis. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Doesn't matter. You've nominated this article, so you have to make the changes. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
• "Unfaithful" has become a staple of Rihanna's live performances. → Why?
  • Because it did. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
    • But there's no reason for why. Have any critics said it is a "staple" of her live performances? Aaron • ^{You Da One}
• In 2006, she performed it → Shouldn't this be "As part of promotion" or something similar?
  • And why just not performed?— Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Because I presume she was only there to promote it? Aaron • ^{You Da One}
• The song was in the set list → "in"? You mean "on".
  • Done by Penguin. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, three general comments. Why is the there an unneeded and unsightly clear in the Background and release section? And nine of the Digital remixes countries in the Release history table are missing a Label box. The "A Girl like Me" book link should also be included.

Done those too. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Aaron • ^{You Da One} 12:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose (1) One does not ask a sourcing question[3] about an article at WP:RSN and then ignore the input there when submitting an article for FA status. The source is not a RS and should not be used in a Wikipedia article (2) Any article with User:Legolas2186's fingerprints on it is automatically suspect.[4]Fladrif (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

OMG! I mean maybe you are right for the first one. Obviously I am looking for an alternative source to replace the Artistdirect one (howevr, is still not proved that the source is FA unreliable). But, blaming Legolas here (or better said everywhere)??? Legolas made only couple of edits and just made the prose better. I wrote the whole article and sourced everywhere. You check that ! — Tomica (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait. Legolas barely did some copy-edits here. So, it's unfair to say Any article with User:Legolas2186's fingerprints on it is automatically suspect. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Why like this article will never get promoted because Legolas did two edits on it. Plus I don't see how he that he false references. Check them If you want. And Btw maybe I am collecting sources to defend ARTISTdirect. Yourp oppose is childish and on purpose. — Tomica (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• What is the current status of this review? It has been abandoned for six weeks now. Till I Go Home 09:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  I don't know why still is not archived as not promoted. I don't have time to work on it, plus I can't approve that ARTISTdirect is FA reliable source. So it will probably fail. — Tomica (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Yes, with two opposes and no serious movement on the review for some time, this FAC will have to be archived. If and when all outstanding comments are addressed, and a minimum of two weeks have passed following archiving, the article can be renominated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:25, 22 April 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 GrahamColm 09:21, 21 April 2012 [5].

---

School of Advanced Military Studies

Nominator(s): Airborne84 (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the Featured Article criteria. Airborne84 (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments leaning to oppose -- Cassianto (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• "In June 1983, the first class of 13 U.S. Army students began in the basement of Bell Hall at Fort Leavenworth (image right)."

• No need for the "image right" direction. As per WP:FILE#Location

Removed. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• "A second year of school away from the force to attend a school that had not yet proved its value in combat was risky. But the school's chance would soon come."

• Too many "schools". The opening could be trimmed down, as at the moment it reads a bit muddled. The last line is redundant. It's almost like a teaser for what's to come. Not needed.

Removed redundancies. I actually used the last sentence as a transition. It was meant to be a bit of a teaser, but in the sense of linking the paragraphs together. I removed it, but wonder if a different teaser might be better or if it's ok as is? --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• "The "first test of battle" for SAMS graduates..."

• Why the inverted comma's? If its a quote then it should be referenced.

For this and a few below, I quoted multiple sequential sentences at the end with a single, summary footnote. I suppose this might be confusing to some, and could even cause a break in the link if someone added a sentence in between. So, I replicated the note for both sentences here. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• "With its first 'combat'"

• again, why inverts?

SAMS planners don't typically engage in armed combat, so I initially used the quotes. They are now removed. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• "They were expected to 're-engineer the decades of planning that had gone into the GDP [General Defense Plan] almost overnight'".

• and again. If it is a quote then there is no reference.

As above, I replicated the source for the following sentence and attributed it to this sentence as well. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Would be nice to have a blue-link to Hurricane Katrina. Also, why the need for brackets?

Wikilink added; brackets removed.

• "The United States Central Command requested planners from SAMS along with its "sister schools", the United States Air Force's School of Advanced Air and Space Studies (SAASS), which..."

• "sister schools" - says who? Refrence for this?

I need to dig the reference back up for this. MTF. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I added the reference mid-sentence to attribute the words in quotes. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• "During this period, SAMS also "continued to serve the Army at war as a 'reach' asset", helping deployed headquarters plan operations and contingencies."

• More Un-referenced inverts. Unless you are using the reference at the end of the sentence. In which case the cite should be up near the quote.

The entire sentence is supported by the source—both the quoted words and the paraphrased words afterward. Short of making the entire sentence a quote (which I wanted to avoid), the note should go at the end of the sentence. If you have another suggestion here, I'd be happy to hear it. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• "SAMS students from the 2002 and 2003 classes participated as "reach" planners in the preparations for the invasion of Iraq, as well as the "post-hostility plan for the occupation of Iraq"

• again here

Again here the source supports both the quoted and paraphrased words. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Stopping for now. These quotes/inverts really need to be fixed, as they are occurring in nearly every sentence. I will carry on when you have caught up.

Thanks for the comments. I appreciate it. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• I appreciate your fixes, however I have since gone through the article and have totalled a further 18 issues. I don't think FAC is the place to fix these problems and I agree that a thorough PR is needed. Im sure with a decent PR, it could turn into a good little article.

Oppose from me at this time, as I think it's current FAC is a little premature. Cassianto (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand. Since you totaled 18 further issues, would you mind recording them here or on the article's talk page? I'd certainly appreciate it. Thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

done. See the article's talkpage. -- Cassianto (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose at this time. Given the topic, it might be helpful for you to try Military History A-class review, or a peer review before coming to FAC. Here are some specific concerns:

• Some unsourced material - for example, "SAMS' leaders view..." should include a citation to where these leaders said this
• Manual of Style editing needed - WP:OVERLINK, don't begin section headings with "The", etc
• Tone problems, ex. "continued to morph to meet the demands of a changing world"
• Very heavy use of quotes, at times to the detriment of flow
• Coverage. Given that this is about an educational institution of sorts, we would expect to see it cover things like the physical campus (which you have pictures of, but not really much text)
• Images: File:Combined_Arms_Research_Library_in_Eisenhower_Hall,_at_US_Army_Command_%26_General_Staff_College_(Fort_Leavenworth,_KS).jpg is tagged as lacking author and date information, and you should use the Army-specific template for Army images
• Sourcing: formatting issues (ex. publications should always be italicized), missing information (ex. Bower 2011 is missing publication/publisher), generally inconsistent formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I'll pursue a peer review. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I don't want to pile-on, but this article currently doesn't meet the FA criteria, and would take a reasonable amount of work to get there. I agree with Nikki's suggestion about seeking comments through the military history project, though I don't think that the military history A-class criteria are met. My specific comments are:

• Most of the article's references are to public relations products produced by the US military, many of which are directly related to the institution. These obviously aren't neutral.
• Related to this, the article reads like something written by the military and contains no criticisms of the institution or its products. The graduates are only associated with successes for the military.
• As an example, the article states that "SAMS students from the 2002 and 2003 classes participated as "reach" planners in the preparations for the invasion of Iraq, as well as the "post-hostility plan for the occupation of Iraq"." - given that this planning is widely regarded as being deeply flawed, this suggests that there might be problems with what SAMS is producing. This should be discussed. Likewise, the invasion of Panama is not normally regarded as a military masterpiece.
• The article doesn't really explain what it is that SAMS teaches and how this is delivered - when this is discussed its centred on quotes written in military jargon. Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments. I think it would be reasonable to nominate the article for peer review as well, given the above comments. All of your comments make sense as well. The only one that concerns me as I continue to pursue improvements is the criticism section. I also considered that the article seemed a little one-sided in its coverage. But, I have simply not found any published criticism of the SAMS school or its students. The closest is historical concerns from the force about attending a school that hadn't yet proven itself and potentially damaging a career, which I covered in passing. If the only ingredients on hand to bake this cake are "vanilla", so to speak, how should that be addressed? Thanks again. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I always wonder how newcomers are going to respond to FAC, which can be a daunting process. That's a great answer, Airborne. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 16:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Wait, you're not a newcomer to FAC, you got Sentence spacing through ... great topic btw!

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 GrahamColm 14:52, 15 April 2012 [6].

---

Hyderabad, India

Nominator(s): Dipankan says.. ^{("Be bold and edit!")} 08:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it deserves to be a FA. The article is also a good article. Dipankan says.. ^{("Be bold and edit!")} 08:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

For a short note, since I'm not a contributor to this, I've notified User:Omer123hussain about this, a major contributor to this article. Dipankan says.. ^{("Be bold and edit!")} 08:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Premature nomination This is a premature nomination by someone who is not a major contributor to the article. Extensive work is needed and is being done by the major contributors as of now. I would request the delegates to archive this nomination.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:45, 15 April 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 20:54, 11 April 2012 [7].

---

Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council

Nominator(s): kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the Featured Article Criteria. I think it is well written (although I am not in the habit of calling myself, or my writing, brilliant), and covers the topic well. I have looked for media to include, and alwyas come up short, even in my request to the United States Army Corps of Engineers for some PD images. kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• 'Tailing[s]' needs to be linked; I would say it is by no means a term familiar to general readers.
  • Tailings is linked in the lead.
• 'resulting in the floor elevation of the lake to rise by 50 ft (15 m).' reads slightly awkwardly. Perhaps: 'causing a rise of 50 ft in the floor elevation of the lake'?
  • It is awkward, I changed it to "causing the floor elevation of the lake to rise 50 ft (15 m)." It's a little less wordy than both.
• No citations for the third paragraph in Background; are there statements here whose validity might be disputed?
  • They were souced with the same reference as in the following paragraph, but should have had a reference at the end of the paragraph, it's done now.
• The lede does not discuss any material from "Subsequent Developments".
  • I'm having a think about how to do this...
    • Expanded the lead (lede) section to discuss the sub dev section.

- MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Newspaper names should be italicized
  • Done.
• Use a consistent date format
  • Done. I thought I had (DMY), but I hadn't, so I switched it all to MDY (US topic, use US dating).
• Be consistent in whether you use "AP" or "Associated Press"
  • Done - opted for full spelling
• This source gives a publication date of June 22, but you say May 23 - why?
  • Stupidity on my part? Only reason I can think of, It's fixed.
• Single pages should use "p."; "pp." is for multiple pages
  • Yes they should be, when I used the handy template tool at the top to add it, it used the field "pages" rather than "page", it's fixed now, and I know to check that in the future :).
• Don't need retrieval date for convenience links to print-based sources like Google Books
  • Removed, it had came up when I did the "check links" prior to nominating it, so I added then.
• Isn't this the same as the version in the Seattle Times? It lists the same author and title
  • Yes they have the same author and title, and cover a lot of the same information, but they were written a day apart, and don't say the exact same thing. For example. the Seattle Times does not list the reaction of Sarah Palin. However, all the material that was sourced by the SPI can be sourced with The Guardian, however not vise versa. I am replacing have replaced all the SPI references with TG.

While the sources used seem reliable, there are only 6 of them. What steps have you taken to look for additional material? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The last "big look" I did was when during the GA review in December last year, there is nothing new coming out of the decision, and I didn't find it referenced as precidence in any other cases (the question I was asked at GA). I have also looked on the EPA and the USACE websites for pictures to include, but haven't found anything. I have found the EPA Record of Decision and the USACE Notice of Application for Permit.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen this? This? This? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access to any of those.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness concerns: Comparing with FA United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Missing:

• Details of Opinion
• Details of Concurrence
• Advocates
• Arguments and counter-arguments etc.

I found the same and other info by a google search: OyezLII[8][9][10]--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Will look at adding (noted below as well).

Comments from Noleander

• Follow up? - "In March 2009 the Clean Water Protection Act was brought before ...." - Need to say what happened to that 2009 proposal. It was 3 yrs ago: did the law pass?
  • Last I saw (late 2011) it had been brought forward, but not passed. According to this it has been referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
• Wording - "... is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in favor of Coeur Alaska's permit to dump mine waste in a lake...." - Sounds like the court favored the _permit_, when the court was probably favoring the mining company.
  • Will look into it, probably a better way to word it.
• More detail? - Since it was a 6-3 split decision, the reader probably wants a bit more detail on the (a) arguments of the majority; & (b) arguments of the minority. Also, include a couple of key quotes (if there are any) from the majority.
  • Will look into it, using sources above.
• Precedent? - What later SCOTUS cases, if any, relied on this case?
  • None that I have found.
• Map? - Since this case about a lake, it would be appropriate to include a geographic locator box in the article, showing where the Lower Slate Lake is; and where the mine is.
  • Not sure about usability, because the mine and the lake are so close together, the difference might not show up on the Alaska locator map, although it could show the location of one of the entities.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council#Opinion of the Court. - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Image is unproblematic. I don't suppose it would be possible to find a more representative image? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Image of the lake or of the judge who wrote opinion can be used. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:15, 10 April 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 Ian Rose 00:02, 11 April 2012 [11].

---

Ra.One

Nominator(s): ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the film Ra.One is considered important, especially from a technological point of view. Besides, the article is currently a good article, but it has a level of detailing and content that is fit for a featured article status. The article has undergone two quite successful peer reviews as well. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the article is written very well and satisfies most of the feathered article characteristics. JPMEENA (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Jpmeena. However, as per rules, a completely uninvolved editor must review this article for the FAR. You have contributed to this article in a considerable way. Your opinion is appreciated, but please understand that due to your affinity to the article, your opinion may not be taken up as an official support. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Just for the record, all Done suggestions shall be boldened from henceforth, because we can't use Done templates here. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Comments by User:Dwaipayanc

• Minor nitpicking In the references, Hindustan Times has HT Media (as publisher) within parenthesis once, but not in other instances. The Hindu has "Chennai, India" as publication location once, but nothing in other instances. The Times of India has Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd as publisher only once among its multiple usages. These two sentences seem disjointed,

Please chose one style and stick to it. You can chose not to mention publisher and location in any citations, which is ok, but has to be followed for the sake of internal consistency of the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I read a few random paragraphs. Following are the observation. Prose is not up to the mark.

1.and Chinese-American actor Tom Wu Why "Chinese-American" needs to be mentioned? Why not just the name? ANy significance of him being Chinese-American?

I'll remove it.

There is no significance of him being Chinese-American. But there is significance in him being a non-Indian in an Indian film with all other major cast being Indian. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Two reviewers differing over a change. Let the confusion begin :P ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There is certainly a significance of him being Chinese-American. One, as Animesh pointed out, he is a Non-Indian and second, his character in the film is also that of a non-Indian. There's no reason to remove it. Secret of success 10:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

But in the lead? That's too much emphasis on being non-Indian! It can be mentioned in the cast section. Even in cast (or some other section), it would be great to explain the significance of mentioning his nationality (which has been told above by Animesh and SoS). For an international reader, it might be difficult to understand why the nationality is being mentioned all of a sudden.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess we could accomodate it better in the Cast section.

Thats fine. Mentioning somewhere is good. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

All right, I am perfectly all right from removing it from the lead, and at the same time, retaining it elsewhere. Secret of success 13:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

2. The villain escapes from the game and begins to track down Lucifer (Verma), the only player to have defeated him. Somehow does not read lucid. The villain escapes the game -- goes where? Who is this Lucifer suddenly? The name of the Khan's son in the film was Lucifer?

Lucifer was the gaming ID of SRK's son (i.e. Verma) in the film; the son's name is Prateek. Uh, the villain escapes into the real world. Should I elaborate?

3. Upon release, the film broke several box-office records May merit a citation even if in the lead. I jumped to the box-office section of the article, and there also the sentence is un-cited. I went on reading a few more sentences, and could not figure out what records did the film break exactly. Can you please explain which records were broken?

Single-day gross, highest three-day weekend records are currently with Ra.One. I believe they are cited in the box office section; please check the table in that section. Records are highlighted in blue, and for each row there is a reference.

I believe this is done.

4. Ra.One was the second highest-grossing Bollywood film worldwide at that time. At which time? During first phase of release.? What was that period, how many weeks?

5.To make his character more believable, Khan decided that he would perform his own stunts in the film The cited source does not mention this.

There is a sentence at the last :- "The film requires the star to perform never-before heart-in-the-mouth stunts, which he's gearing up to do." I guess that means the same thing.

What about the "to make his character more believable"? That sounds like OR. Secret of success 10:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

6. Khan faced considerable difficulty while filming. His character required him to apply prosthetic makeup for over eight hours a day, depriving him of food and water The cites source says it made it "difficult" for him to eat and drink. Does not say "deprive".

Alright, that shall be changed to "His character required him to apply prosthetic makeup for over eight hours a day, making consumption of food and water difficult."

7. On a parallel basis, Shahrukh Khan decided to ... What do you mean by "On a parallel basis?"

When Sinha made the script, at the same time, but independently Khan also decided he wanted to make a film heavy on VFX. That's what I meant by "on a parallel basis".

8. After finalizing the story, Sinha approached Khan, who agreed to produce and star in it But within a few lines, Before starting the film, Khan approached several directors to lead the project, including Aditya Chopra and Karan Johar, but they all refused. Sinha was the director, so why was Khan looking for another director?

No, Sinha had just written the script. Sinha approached Khan with the script, and the latter agreed to produce and star in the film. Khan didn't say he allowed Sinha to direct (though he did, later, due to the backing out of the other directors).

9. After finalizing the story, Sinha approached Khan, who agreed to produce and star in it. Red Chillies Entertainment continued working on other projects before finalizing Ra.One. No other films were accepted by the company after My Name Is Khan.. How is Khan and Red Chillies related? These 3 sentences and the one following these seem very disjointed, lacking flow. Looks like three different sentences picked up from different sources forcefully put together. A reader without any prior knowledge would find id difficult to put together the pieces to make sense.

Red Chillies Entertainment is Khan's production house, and the producer of Ra.One. Guess I'll elaborate that part.

10. Pre-production work began in November 2007 after the release of Khan's Om Shanti Om. What do you mean by "Khan's". Was he the director of OSO?

He was the star of Om Shant Om. By "Khan's" I was referring to a film in which he had starred in.

11. ...process helped him to create a novel character'. What do you exactly mean by "novel" character? Superhero is nothing novel.

It was actually a quote, an interview Sinha gave to a newspaper. There had been a concern that the article had too many quotes, so some of the quotes had to be converted to normal sentences. If you wish, I can add the quote back.

12.Dmitry Medvedev, the President of Russia, visited Yash Raj Studios in Mumbai to watch Khan at work Really? Sounds unreal. The president might have dropped by during his visit of India. But, the president flew from Russia just to watch Khan at work, sounds really exaggerated!!

No no no! He didn't come to India just to watch Khan work! LOL SRK isn't THAT important :P What is meant is that Medvedev dropped in and watched Khan at work. Does the sentence give that sort of impression? I'll change it.

13. The schedule included the filming of the cameos of Chopra and Dutt, and was done at Film City Which Chopra and Dutt? Reader has forgot about them by this time, as they were mentioned fleetingly in the lead.

I'll add them.

14. The indoor portions were filmed on two replicas of a train coach which were built in a record five days, a process Gill initially thought would take three weeks Why was this is a"record". Also, a citation would not be bad.

I'll remove the "record" part. The citation is given at the end of the paragraph. In some places, large blocks of text have been cited by a single source, so I found it best to keep the source at the end of the paragraph.

15.The trains were electric instead of diesel, forcing an on-the-spot change of the action sequence. No context. Difficult to understand. What's the big deal if it was electric instead of diesel?

I shall elaborate. The train stunt was initially meant to be SRK running over the train; since the train was electric, that idea had to be dropped.

16.In addition, the train and track length ended up being the same, making any movement impossible. That's funny. How can track and train length be same? Where can one find such track? IMO, this whole paragraph needs to be re-written.

It was in a set. Remember that two replica coaches? They had to run on something :P

17. Pecorini reportedly faced considerable difficulty... Who reported?

Okay, reportedly shall go.

18. A music video for the song "Raftaarein", choreographed by Feroz Khan, was filmed one week before the release due to an excellent critical response Critical response to what?

To the song. Should I add that?

Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

More comments

• Regarding referencing, you have not consistently used any particular style among either "sentence case" or "title case". Usually sentence case is encouraged.Please see Title_case#Headings_and_publication_titles. So, in stead of "^ "Movie Review: 'Ra.One' is a Complete Entertainer"" in the reference, it has to be "Movie review: 'Ra.One' is a complete entertainer". Please update when the whole reference section is updated and made consistent accordingly. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Multiple inconsistencies in referencing. Some newspaper names are italicized, some are not. SOme random sampling— one citation reads "Mid-Day (January 10, 2011). "Kareena's 3 diets for her look in Ra.One". NDTV". SO far as I know, mid-day is a newspaper itself, how can that be the author?

Some citations mentions the news agency in the author parameter, some does not mention the news agency at all. For example, unknown (October 11, 2011). "I approached Karan, Adi for Ra.One: Shah Rukh Khan". NDTV. NDTV Convergence Limited. p.u. Archived from the original on March 8, 2012. Retrieved October 11, 2011. This citation does not mention news agency, even though the information is available. What does p.u. mean in this citation?

This citation — Hanks, Douglas (January 2, 2010). "The Bollywood effect in South Florida: Lights, camera, ka-ching!". The Miami Herald (The McClatchy Company). Retrieved September 22, 2010 mentions "The McClatchy Company" as the publisher of Miami Herald. No other newspaper sources mentions publisher (in the ones that I went through).

The article seems not ready for FAC yet. Tending to oppose, --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The issues highlighted are pretty minor, and can be fixed quickly in a day. Give the article a little time. FAs do take time to get flagged off, I believe. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose and comments from SoS

• Some of the issues raised in the peer review have not been fixed yet.
  • The film's budget of production has been cherry picked from first-party data.
  • References could be archived wherever possible.

• The images in the cast section are not needed. A discussion is taking place about this in WT:INCINE. Note that the consensus will apply to all articles within its scope.
• Poster requires an ALT text, if possible.
• The images in the filming section, depicting locations are also unnecessary. They do not show the actual filming, or the appearance of the structures in the film (which may not necessarily be the same as they are in real life).
• The image in the suit section is improperly licensed. And plus, it is supposed to be "costumes", not "suits".
• There is no mention of Kareena's costume in Chammak Challo, which I believe, was an attraction to the media, in the same section.
• Questionably reliable sources as of this version : 7, 9, 11, 17, 27, 29, 38, 49, 86, 108, 122, 204, 206

Secret of success 08:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments by User:Animeshkulkarni

Lead

* Opening sentence has too many names. Readers new to Bollywood and unfamiliar with all actors might have to re-read.

What can be done in this case?

Umm... how about moving the supporting and cameo actors after the two lines of the story? That way while reading the two lines of plot you know who Khan, Kapoor, Verma are. Also "villian (Rampal)" should be added. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Consider it done :)

* "...begins to track down Lucifer (Verma), the only player to have defeated him. Ra.One was co-produced by.... " Thats a sudden jump from plot to producers. Something sounds wrong here. Maybe something like "The fight between the villian and the hero results in the defeat of evil." can be added. The production sentence can join next para.

I have done a small re-arrangement and I think it looks better now.

* What is "viral marketing"? Is that a formal marketing term? Is there a wikilink available for it?

Yes, its a formal and actually very well-known form of marketing. There is a wikilink, but I though it had been wikilinked. Strange. I'll add it anyways.

Plot

• Why use devnagri script for the dialogue?

The dialogue used is a recurrent part of the film. Its actually a very important part of the film, so I believed it was necessary to preserve it. The English translation had been added for non-Hindi users as well.

Will let other editors comment. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

* "....and sends the real Sonia in an uncontrollable Mumbai Suburban Railway train." Uncontrollable train means? Had Ra.One failed some breaks or somethng? Or is that just an adjective used in general. Because in real too there are few things one can control in those trains. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

What you pointed out above is something that is seen in the film very frequently. Its called a "plot hole" :P Do I even need to go into details? The flaws of Ra.One as a piece of story forms a list too big to fit into this page :P Even I wondered how the train was "uncontrollable", seeing as it is that Kareena broke the brakes after SRK came onto the train. Blame the script-writer for such a glaring contradiction :P.

Cast

• Isnt one line about their roles sufficient there. Why do we have to write all their agonies there?

Cast section should elaborate on all aspects of the Cast (I think Comprehensiveness is a major part of an FA). So I added preparation bits as well.

Will think & let other editors comment till then. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

* "Khan was the first actor to be approached by Sinha, despite the fact that Sinha had never worked with him." Why "despite the fact"?

Well, Sinha didn't know Khan. Its weird that Sinha approached an actor whom he had never met, and never knew personally. That's why I had added the "despite" term.

Okay! But "had never worked with him" gives the impression that he hasnt professionally worked with him. It does not say they had never met. You should then edit that part. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Will do.

• "Wu was contracted to the film in July 2010." Are readers supposed to be surprised here? Yes! Why? Because the filming started in March 2009 itself. The surprise isnt surprise here. It just feels like an odd sentence.

Even Kareena was contracted in 2010. I don't see what's surprising. Unlike Hollywood, in Bollywood a cast need not be pre-determined and set permanently.

Then why is only Wu's signing date mentioned? It feels odd to read that when none of the other actor's dates are mentioned. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There had been a sentence with a ref talking about Kareena's official signing-on date. Argghhhh! Somebody must have removed it. For Tom Wu, I added the signing-on date because the rest of the point is about Jackie Chan, not about him. Besides, Wu had a important part in the film (even if not very substantial in screen time).

Will reply on other sections soon. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Production

* In case the year of release of other films is not mentioned in the sentence it should be suffixed in brackets like Main Hoon Na (2004), Toonpur Ka Super Hero (2010).

Will do.

• Nicola Pecorini and V. Manikandan should be introduced by saying something about their work, as Andy Gill's experience with Toonpur is mentioned. Similar with Nino Pansini, Terry Bamber, Martin Walsh, Resul Pookutty, Edwark Quirk, Hingorani, Keitan Yadav.

I guess that rather than do all that stuff, we can better remove the Toonpur part for Gill :P. I'll see if I can dig up info, but if I can't I think we'll have to get rid of the Toonpur bit.

If its not available for all, then dont bother. But dont remove Toonpur. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

* Techinical terms like VFX, story-boarding, prop masters, call sheets, digital inter-mediation (DI), Maya, Houdini, Macs, Nuke, Shake etc. should have wikilinks if available.

Somebody had commented that wikilinks inside quotes are not allowed. The wikilinks had been present initially but were later removed. I would like a bit more consensus on this bit.

I guess that by WP:JARGON it would be in the best interests to add the wikilinks.

* "Filming for Ra.One was due to begin in Miami but this was scrapped because of budget concerns." What was scrapped? The beginning of filming at Miami or the filming at Miami itself?

Clarified.

• "Rajnikanth, accompanied by daughter Soundarya..." But she is not seen on-screen, right? Was she there because his health problems?

Yes, Rajnikant was ill and so Soundarya accompanied him. Should I write that again? Because its given at the end of the sentence - "Rajnikanth, accompanied by daughter Soundarya, filmed his scene with Khan and Kapoor on October 2, 2011 at Subhash Ghai's Whistling Woods Studios in Mumbai despite health problems."

* "A music video for the song "Raftaarein", choreographed by Feroz Khan,...." This Feroz Khan died in April 2009!

Uh oh! Guess the wikilink must be removed :P.

* "The addition of sound effects was done in Los Angeles." Where in LA? Do we have the name of the studio? Also for other Indian studio's mentioned i am assuming names are not known.

The studios are, unfortunately, unknown. Which Indian studios are you referring to?

Thats fine. I was refering to all the studios where sound mixing and other such work happened. But i can imagine that this info would not be available. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

* "The film was monitored in Croma by the team during that period." Monitored in this computer language? Or monitored by? And how does one monitor using a computer language? Is this wrong wikilink?

Oops, wrong wikilink.

• Post-production section says "The film was pieced together by more than 1,000 people, working in shifts, in around 15 studios across the world." And Visual Effects section says "1,200 artists from 16 studios, working in three shifts, incorporated the film's visual effects." Are they all different or is something wrong?

The film was pieced together by 1,000 artists. But the visual effects were done by 1,200 artists. So yes, they are different.

* Again "A team of 750 technicians working at ten facilities around the world carried out the addition of special effects into the film." Are they part of those 1200?

I should mention that those technicians were solely of Kleiser.

• If Chammak Challo's file is being added here, something more of the song should be written here also. Atleast the singer.

As per previous discussions, it was decided to keep the Soundtrack section brief. Adding information about any one particular song, no matter how famous, makes the section imbalanced IMO. The ogg file is given only as a sample.

Yeah! I get that when a separate article is dedicated for it, there is no need to repeat stuff. But with sample audio file just next to it its better to mention that Akon sung this. We are anyways mentioning he sang something. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I'll add it.

• Not applicable for just this film. But i have noticed this at many places. "The post-production of Ra.One involved over 5,000 personnel from India, Italy, UK and the US." Why the US? Is it because its some group of states? Then why not "the UK"? Note: This point should not stop FA.

Its actually "The United States of America". Technically yes it should be "the United Kingdom". IMO, i prefer adding "the". I'll wait for more consensus on this.

• In my opinion nationality of all these non-Indian people involved should be mentioned. Probably User:Dwaipayanc has to say something here.

Nationality for all the people may be a little hard to find. I'll try, and yes, i shall wait for more consensus.

Not necessarily of all. But try to get as many as possible. We also dont want their official nationality as such. But something more about the person who is doing cinematography is good to read. Not much. Single sentence. Like "Italian designer XYZ who is known for designing sets of Blah Blah....". §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Will do my best.

• Images: The conclusion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Images_in_the_film_articles will be applicable for this article also. But talking specifically about this article, why is Battersea Power Station's image required when it can be seen in background in the images used in Visual effects section?

I can change it. I think the bridge of the car chase scene will do just fine.

Umm... No! Same reasons that we are discussing at WT:INCINE goes for this bridge image too. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we'll have to wait for the consensus to finish then.

Marketing

* "The television broadcasting rights for Ra.One were bought..." By whom?

STAR (India).

* "The distribution rights for the Tamil Nadu and Kerala versions..." What is that? Does it mean Tamil and Malayalam version?

Weird, I don't know who wrote "version" there. I'll change it.

* "...on a tour of five cities, which included Delhi, Chandigarh, Indore and Ahmedabad." Which was 5th? Mumbai?

No idea. Frankly, the entire marketing section was handled by other editors (I added some statistics only later). Logically yes, it should be Mumbai. Besides, I just said "including" so we needn't actually write all five :P.

* "During this event, a 3600 ft long fan mail collecting audience wishes and messages for the film was also launched." WHAT? Which event? Touring in 5 cities? Launched in all 5 cities? Launch will happen only once, right? How is fan mail's length measured? Like spread on ground and then measure it? Fan-mail is letters written by fan, right? Why was fan mail launched?

A fan mail, in this case, is a single piece of paper/cloth or whatever which is used as a place where fans write their wishes and love for a star/film. Meaning that as the promotions went along in different cities, SRK would give the paper to the fans and they would add stuff to it. That paper was 3,600 feet long. Yes, the fan mail was launched only once (launched in the sense started). That same paper was used in all other cities as well. Fan mail was launched for promotions, duh! Such a long fan mail means some new record, meaning lots of headlines and lots of publicity :P

Okay! Got it! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

* "The comics were written by Khan and featured weekly episodes.... " Featured where? Some website? Print?

Huh? Of course in the comics. The comics featured weekly episodes; the Khan part is added in-between.

No! My question is whether this comic was printed and published weekly like some Chacha Chowdhary comics or in some newspaper or magazine or just online on some website. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

They were published separately as books. Like Tinkle. I'll add that.

More to come.... §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Release

• "A reported partnership deal is being finalised by the distributors, which will allow the film to be released in China with 1,000 prints." Odd to read a future tense sentence after so many days of release.

China comes under the second phase of release, and as of now the second phase is a future tense. There won't be much money coming from it, so only minimal updates will be required.

* "REVEALED: THE MAKING OF RA.ONE" Is this required in capitals?

De-capitalized.

* "Days before its release, scriptwriter Yash Patnaik claimed that...." should be replaced with "Days before its release, a scriptwriter, Yash Patnaik claimed that...." Current gives impression he is scriptwriter for Ra.One itself. Doesnt it?

Done.

* "Sinha claimed that he had developed the film's story." He means Sinha, right?

Added the word "himself".

Critical reception

• None

Box office

• None

Commercial analysis

• "Image guru Dilip Cherian said..." Whats image guru? Photographer?

"Image" here refers to the image of a person, i.e. his reputation among people.

Accolades

• None

Sequel

• None

See Also

• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#See_also_section. This section is not required.

I guess i am done. But might return with something more. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments

I was invited here. I don't want to Support/Oppose, but few observations

• Consistency: Why is note1 necessary? US$ is used in most of the article.

* "Tom Wu as Akashi and Ra.One" then why not "Kareena Kapoor as Sonia Subramaniam and Ra.One"? Ra.One assumes the forms of both?

Added, and re-arranged slightly.

• Most entries in "Cast" talk about casting/the actor, not the character and then Shahana Goswami, where actor as well as character is discussed.

I have started talking a bit about the characters for the Cast. Just one line. I'll bolden when I'm done.

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose

There are multiple issues with citations. From the perspective of reference style, this article does not live up to FA standard.

1. Some citations use the news agency (such as Indo-Asian News Service) as the author. Although I am not totally sure, this seems wrong. There is a separate |agency parameter in cite news template.
2. Incosistencies are there. Both Box office India and BoxOfficeIndia.com have been used as publisher.
3. News paper names (Mid-Day, Economic Times) have not been italicised.
4. The titles (of references) inconsistently use case. Preferably sentence case should be used consistently.
5. TV channel (NDTV) has been italicised. This should not be, as far as I know. Can check with WP:MoS to be sure.
6. Some dates have been italicised!! ( "Bollywood star Shah Rukh Khan brings 'Ra.One' to Toronto". October 27, 2011. Yahoo!. Retrieved October 27, 2011.)

Major and tedious work is needed to bring consistency in the citations.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I have no problem even if Ra.One fails a first FAC. The problem, as far as I can see, is that many problems in the article were not properly taken up in the prior peer reviews. This FAC has, as a result, turned into a very extensive peer review. Only now do I realize that there are still many problems with the article, so I would like to thank the reviewers who have pointed out flaws. I would like for the reviewers to continue pointing out any, I repeat any more flaws they find in the article, and place them here. In case I can't get the article to FA by the first FAC, I shall subsequently place the entire FAC discussion into the article's talk page and continue working from there.

A small query: Nearly-Headless Nick (not the ghost, the editor :P) gave a really useful way of reference archiving. I would like to know whether I should archive all references. if not, can someone enlighten me as to which ones require archiving? I do know that certain sources, such as Box Office India, require archiving as their web pages ten to disappear after a while.

Any further inputs for the article are most welcome in my/the article's talk page. Wish me luck :) ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Delegate notes -- Hi Ankitbhatt, while I haven't seen an explicit request by a reviewer to withdraw this nom, the number of opposes and lack of supports after just a week indicate reasonable consensus that the article needs further work for FAC; you've identified for yourself that it's looking like a Peer Review, which FAC is not designed to be. I think the best thing therefore is to archive the nom and let you deal with the issues identified, then renominate after a minimum of two weeks per the FAC guidelines. To address your three points immediately above:

• When a FAC is archived, a link to the review is automatically included by a bot (which can take a day or two to run) under Article History in the talk page, so you'll always have access to this info there.
• The citation guidelines don't suggest all online links need pre-emptive archiving, but volatile ones like news reports and (as you've noted) box office info are good candidates.
• It looks like you need no encouragement to have another go at FAC once you've addressed the above issues, so good luck! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:50, 11 April 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 GrahamColm 10:24, 8 April 2012 [12].

---

IPad (3rd generation)

Nominator(s): Zach Vega (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that the article gives a great overview of the tablet, and is ready for Featured article status. Zach Vega (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: The lead is written almost entirely in jargon. OK for buffs, not OK for a general encyclopedia's readership. Can you rephrase in a rather more reader-friendly manner? Brianboulton (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I added links to some of the lesser-known terms. Further explanations are in the article's non-lead text. Zach Vega (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If you may, please specify the specific information you want us to clarified or 'de-jargonise'. To us "tech buffs", most if not all the content in the article can be understood with ease so it's quite difficult for us to identity the content that needs clarification. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 05:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I've only really looked at the lead, but I suspect that the article has been written with the wrong readership in mind. Many non-technical people are interested in iPads and what they can do, and they will be rather put off by the first two paragraphs of the lead. We expect the article to contain technical information, but the lead should be rather more welcoming and general, and should not read like the specifications section of a manual. What is a Retina display? Is the "theoretical bandwidth" issue really worthy of inclusion in the lead? Should I have to use links repeatedly to find out what the technical terms mean? What does "It shipped with..." mean (sounds like commercial jargon)? Likewise the second paragraph is written in techspeak: "There are eighteen different variations of the new iPad, including combinations of black or white glass panels, storage capacities of 16, 32, or 64 GB, and connectivity options of Wi-Fi only, Wi-Fi + 4G LTE on Verizon, or Wi-Fi + 4G LTE on AT&T, Telus, Rogers, or Bell." You use both "3rd generation" and "third generation" in the text – be consistent, stick to one. Ruhrfisch, below, has raised other points about the inadequacy of the lead and other parts of the article, so I think there's a fair amount of work that needs doing. Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose by Ruhrfisch. I closed the peer review for the bot (as article cannot be on PR and FAC at the same time), then read the lead and history section and looked at the rest of the article. This does not meet the Featured Article criteria. The criteria include 1b, which requires that the article be "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" but the History section starts with the announcement of the press conference to announce the release of the new iPad and does not even include the release date. There is a timeline later, but no real discussion of the context and history (no real discussion of the earlier iPads or when the decision was made to develop this new version, etc.) Since the iPad 3 was released less than a month ago, I also have general comprehensiveness concerns. For example, Consumer Reports is quoted once on the overheating issue, but their followup report is not mentioned here and their decision to give it their highest recommendation is not mentioned at all see here. According to criterion 2a the article "...follows the style guidelines, including the provision of— (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections". This lead does not mention either the little history that is in the article or the timeline or the critical reception. There are other issues, but I do not see this as ready for FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose by Jim. I only read the lead, full of jargon, much of which wasn't linked to existing articles or explained in any way. Also, I can't see that the lead section summarises the article as a whole, it's all specs.Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think it's way too soon to have it on FAC since it's only been out for a month. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• How is it too soon? The only thing in the article that is unstable at this point are sales numbers. Zach Vega (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Just dropping a note - Further critical reviews will also be important to add, especially when comparing this product to the next iPad (assuming there'll be one). Ruby 2010/2013 06:22, 8 April 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 GrahamColm 16:44, 6 April 2012 [13].

---

Avatar (2009 film)

Nominator(s): ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 12:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is ready to be a Featured Article, instead of a good one. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 12:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Note: No record of edits from this nominator. Has there been consultation with main editors concerning this nomination, as required? Brianboulton (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It appears none of the main contributers have been given notification. I suggest the article be withdrawn and renominated until further notice. Just while having a browse through, there are a couple of deadlinks and a dab link for starters. I believe certain refs fail WP:RS. – Lemonade51 (talk) 23:12, 4 April 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 Ian Rose 04:02, 5 April 2012 [14].

---

Sri Lanka

Nominator(s): Distributor108 (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel we have adequately addressed the issues in the previous peer review. Distributor108 (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Sorry to post a negative comment so soon after the review was started, but there are unreferenced sentences throughout the article. I note also that page numbers haven't been provided for any of the PDF documents used as references. I haven't looked at the article in detail. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If you could be specific about the unreferenced sentences and and the PDF documents, It'll help us fix those up. Distributor108 (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

There are too many sentences to be specific about - it's pretty obvious from just skimming through the article (though as some examples "As a British crown colony, the island was known as Ceylon, and achieved independence under the name Dominion of Ceylon in 1948.", and "as do aquatic sports, athletics, football (soccer) and tennis. Sri Lanka's schools and colleges regularly organise sports and athletics teams, competing on provincial and national levels." from the first and second-last sections of the article - there are lots more). All the PDF documents appear to be missing page numbers. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As a more detailed review, here are my comments:

• The article's grammar is a bit rough in places, and it would benefit from a through copy edit for compliance with WP:MOS.
• Some data appears to be out of date (eg, figures are often provided for 2010 rather than 2011 or 2012)
• Quoting impressive-sounding percentage changes without noting the underlying figures is unsatisfactory. For instance noting that the country has a very fast growing stock stock exchange isn't as impressive as it sounds given that the period of growth was marked by the end of a major war. Is the current market value of the companies listed on the stock exchange very high in comparison to similar countries? The same applies to many of the economic growth and other statistics in the article (eg "Sri Lanka's cellular subscriber base has shown a staggering 550% growth").
• Lots of common terms are linked when they don't need to be (for instance "Sri Lanka has a birth rate of 17.6 births per 1,000 people and a death rate of 6.2 deaths per 1,000 people." and "Nearly 50% of them were repatriated following independence in 1948")
• "Sri Lanka has also been a center of the Buddhist religion and culture from ancient times, being the nation where the Buddhist teachings were first written down as well as the oldest continually Buddhist country" - the word 'Buddhist' doesn't need to be used three times in one sentence
• What's SAARC?
• "As of 2010, Sri Lanka was one of the fastest growing economies of the world." - is this still true for 2011?
• The history section is probably a bit over-long
• "The average yearly temperature ranges from 28 °C (82.4 °F) to nearly 31 °C (87.8 °F). Day and night temperatures may vary by 14 °C (57.2 °F) to 18 °C (64.4 °F)." - where are the locations for these temperature ranges? (I assume that the high temperatures are somewhere in the lowlands and the low ones in the mountains)
• The 'Politics' section seems to taken an unduly positive view of the country's credentials as a democracy: Freedom House rates Sri Lanka as 'partly free' and states that "Sri Lanka is not an electoral democracy" and notes problems with the 2010 election which aren't mentioned in the article.
• What point in time do the population figures in the (unreferenced) 'Administrative Divisions of Sri Lanka' refer to?
• The second paragraph in the 'Foreign relations and military' section is over-long and rather heavy going; it would be better to just summarise the key aspects of the country's foreign relationships
• Why is 'The Military Balance 2010' being used to reference some details on the country's military? The 2011 edition is available.
• "Sri Lanka claimed itself the first country in the modern world to eradicate terrorism on its own soil." - seems dubious (and rather early to be claiming this)
• What makes the ministry of defence a reliable source for the statement that "Marking a rare occurrence in modern military history, Sri Lankan military was able to bring a decisive end to the Sri Lankan Civil War in May 2009."?
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sri_lanka_Navy.jpg - lacks any metadata or a source, and can't be assumed to be in the public domain
• "it is estimated that GDP will grow by 9.5% in 2011" - did it?
• "In 2010, The New York Times placed Sri Lanka at number 1 position in 31 places to visit" - what's the relevance of this?
• What's a "A and B class road network"?
• "The rich cultural traditions is the basis of the country's long life expectancy, advanced health standards and high literacy rate" - this reads like puffery, and is basically meaningless (how do "rich cultural traditions" lead to to "advanced health standards", for instance, and why do these traditions only explain the good things about the country?)
• Why are the country's human rights problems discussed only in the 'media' section?
• I'm not going to perform a detailed reference check, but from a quick scan some of the sources don't appear to be reliable. For instance, reference 10 and www.lankalibrary.com (which is referenced seven times) doesn't appear to be reliable sources
• I note also that some of the references are to works in Google books, but don't include page numbers.
• Why are 50-60 year old histories of Sri Lanka and India listed in the 'further reading' section? These are surely greatly out of date by now. The works in this section should be placed in alphabetic order by the name of their author. Also, some of the works in this section have been used as references.
• The number of external links seems excessive (why do we need links to all those board-of commerce/exporters type organisations, and some primary sources about historic visits to the country for instance?) Some of the links in this section also appear to have been used as references. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose this version. The referencing is completely at sea, and needs a good looking at. Take the references to the BBC as an example. Ref 26 includes the author, uses yyyy-mm-dd date formatting, and calls the BBC the publisher. Ref 127 doesn't include the author, uses dd Month yyyy date formatting and calls the the BBC the work. Ref 299 throws in (London) for good measure and wikilinks one of the two words of BBC Sport. Refs 12 and 13 have the BBC as publisher for reasons which are not clear to me. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, they have been helpful, We will address each of these points and resubmit for FaC Distributor108 (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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