Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page. Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}. Table of Contents – This page:

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC) Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR) Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

Nominating How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead. Commenting, etc Commenting, supporting and opposing Supporting and opposing To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice. For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Nominations

Latter Days

Article has been peer reviewed here, and I think it's worthy of FA now. If there are any small prose problems you can see however, I ask that you correct them yourself, as, although it has already been copyedited, my prose writing is not brilliant and I find I am unable to spot minor problems myself. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Conditional Support. You have a good start to a Featured Article, but this is not there yet. As it is, I think it could be considered GA class. I know this film quite well and the article adequately covers the basics, but I think there is still much more that could be said. Here are some areas that could use work:
  • I'm not a big fan of long plot sections and I think the plot section is a bit too long, it is almost as long as the rest of the article. I would try reducing it to 2 or 3 paragraphs. If you hit the basic plot points, I think that will work. Cut out much of the detail.
  • A background section is needed. This isn't the first film to discuss religion and homosexuality (you mention Trembling Before G-D), but what are some of its predecessors? Have other fictional films portrayed the subject with the seriousness as it is portrayed here? Did any other films influence the making of this one? You might also discuss Cox's scriptwriting here.
  • Part of the development section can be included in the background section. Development should include some information on the artistic decisions made during the filming, but also the development of the script. I know that certain scenes were deleted (Aaron's sister finding him after the suicide attempt), why? Look at the "Development" and "Initial stages" stages sections of Gremlins for some ideas.
  • The characters section can be written in prose. Take a look at the Casting sections for FA's such as Sunset Boulevard (1950 film) and Gremlins. Both sections are in prose with explanations of why certain actors were cast and information on the actors.
  • The critical reception section should be expanded. You used a few reviews in the article, but they all appear to come from internet sources. What about highly respected sources such as The New York Times, The L.A. Times, Washington Post, Rolling Stone or even Roger Ebert? IMDB may have links to some of these and others. If you run into problems getting any of these, let me know and I'll see what I can do to help you. There could also be expansion on the controversy in Utah. Was there controversy anywhere else? Additionally, the themes section could be expanded using these reviews and relevant film criticism if available.
  • I know this film is quite recent, but has it influenced any other films?

Again, this is a great article, but I think it could be much better. Take a look at the plethora of film articles that are Featured and compare this to them. Please let me know if you need help on this, I'll be more than willing to help as I am familiar with this film, though film, as a subject, is not a strong point of mine. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, much of the stuff you've mentioned, such as turning the cast list into prose, is purely personal preference. I based mine on V for Vendetta (film), you like Gremlins, and there's yet another variation at Dog Day Afternoon. Personally, I prefer the vendetta version, so I won't change that. I've checked the plot against those of other FA films, and it is of an appropriate size and detail, so I don't think I should do anything to that. I've gone through a good 80% of the FA films now and I cannot find a previous similar films section like you want - as I have my own doubts about the appropriateness of such a section (it seems kinda sidetracky from the film itself), I'm reluctant to put one in. So far as I know, Latter Days has yet to influence another film, no LGBT film in recent years has had a similar plotline that I know of - however, you're absolutely right about my lack of "hard sources", and while I'm looking out for some of them to replace the others with, I'll see if any similar films are out. So basically, I'll go and see what I can find, but I think many of your objections are purely based on personal preferences and not because the sections as they stand need to be improved (I'll see if I can expand the themes section), but I'll definitely get on with the rest of them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just an observation. Sunset Boulevard (1950 film) and Gremlins both use "Casting" as the section header, and "casting" is a process, so therefore writing in prose to describe the process, is acceptable. You've used "Cast" as the header (same as the examples you gave) and so the way you've done it is fine, IMO. Rossrs 20:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I added reviews from Roger Ebert and the Los Angeles Times, but I didn't find any film influences. I tapped a rich seam of information at affirmation.org, the gay Mormon website, so I added everything I found there. The Utah controversy has been expanded and cited, the rique French release has been added, and a little has been added to the Development section. I'll see if I can find any more interviews with c. Jay Cox. That OK? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

On the other films thing, Cox says in this interview that he can't think of any similar film - and if he can't, there probably isnt one. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The criticism section looks much better! One thing I do think should be included: why did the movie make so little money at the box office? I would presume that it had a fairly limited release, but I'm just assuming. As for the Background section, I think you really still need one. Imagine if this article is read by someone fifty years from now who is not familiar with the controversy over homosexuality and religion, there should be something said about the Mormon approach to homosexuality and the controversy in general. In this you might include Cox's own experience and how the movie come from that. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Box office stuff has been added and Ganymead has agreed to write the background section himself, as he knows what should be in one. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, the lead says the film "was popular with ordinary fans", which is a problem for many reasons. First, it is at odds with the low box office take. Second, it's unsupported by any citations or by any later (cited) statements in the article. Third, what are "ordinary fans"? Fans of what? Ordinary, how? Andrew Levine 11:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It was popular with ordinary fans because the Rotten Tomatoes user rating is 75%, as opposed to the critics' 42%. It won several Audience Best Film Awards (which are listed in the article) when it played at sold out film festivals, and the cast were given standing ovations by the audience at several other screenings (not just as film festivals). This is all in the article. What I mean by ordinary is just that: people who aren't critics, who don't specialise in reviewing. The low box office is partly explained by the fact that it was never given a full release, and at its peak was only screened on 19 screens at any one time. I will see if I can find an average take per showing - this might resolve the issue. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I found statistical data at http://the-numbers.com but I'm finding it hard to interpret at the moment. However, thsi article implies that per theatre, it didn't do badly - http://www.the-numbers.com/interactive/newsStory.php?newsID=600 Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article and the entire first paragraph of the reception section is devoted to discussing the ordinary fan reception, in addition to the awards section (all of which are audience awards). I think this objection has been addressed, but Andrew Levine is not responding to his messages from both me and another user asking him to review his objections on our respective FACs. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It still reads "popular with fans." Obviously any movie is popular with its fans. This is still not good, and it gives no idea of the scope of its popularity. How about "popular with film-festival attendees" or soemthing? Andrew Levine 04:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Have replaced with more accurate "most of those who saw the film". Because it is. That Ok? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Support. This was indeed a wonderful film, and you've written a beautiful article about it, quite comprehensive and detailed. I've just taken the liberty of copyediting it for you again--I have some expertise in that--but feel free to revert anything you don't like. I can't see how the article could be improved much, but I will throw out just a couple of small points for you to consider:

1. At the end of the opening paragraph, perhaps add something like ". . . with strong supporting performances by Jacqueline Bisset and Mary Kay Place"--? Their appearance in this low-budget indie was an unexpected pleasure for many viewers, I suspect.

2. I like the way you list the performers/characters; to do that in prose would make it nearly unreadable for me. But the description of Mary Kay's character might be expanded just a tiny wee bit: perhaps "strictly religious, controlling" would be appropriate? (That's the nicest way I can put it. Ha.)

3. One more tiny point: you do say that Aaron's mom is the one who tells him about the $50 bet, but could you add in a couple of words or so how she knew about the bet? (Heard it from his missionary buddies, I think I remember). But this may not be important enough to worry about.

But these are just minor quibbles from a big fan of the film. Overall, I think you did a fantastic job! Hope you get FA status! Textorus 06:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I changed one bit of your copyedit, and put in the stuff you recommended (though I didn't say "strong" supporting roles, or call Aaron's mother controlling - potentially on the wrong side of POV, I thought). There's only one person I know of who has seen this film and disliked it, and she's doesn't know what she's talking about. Everyone else just falls in love with it. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. 1a. Here are examples of what you find throughout. Please don't just fix these.
  • Is it US spelling? Seems to be a mixture.
  • "Some while later" ... What does this add, exactly?
  • "Christian admits that he initially just wanted to win a bet, but "it's not about that" anymore." Direct quote not well integrated.
  • "Ryder relents enough to tell him"—"Relent" is binary, isn't it? Either you relent or you don't.
  • A few stubby paragraphs.

The film looks like right trash. For this reason, it's hard (although not impossible) for the writing to be "compelling", as required. I just wonder why an increasing proportion of our FAs is taken up with storylines. If not engagingly written and more interesting than monotonous suburbia, they reduce the object they describe. Can someone tell me why such a story is worth telling in dissociation from the film itself? Is this "among our best"?

For example:

"Christian confesses his love, and despite his profound misgivings, Aaron admits his own feelings of love. With all flights cancelled due to a snowstorm, Christian and Aaron are able to spend a loving and intimate night together in a nearby motel. However, when Christian awakes in the morning, he finds Aaron has gone. Sadly, he is forced to return to his former life in Los Angeles."

Fascinating. Tony 14:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's supposed to be US spelling, because it's an American film. However, I am English, so it's possible there are American spellings I am unaware of. "Some while later" is supposed to indicate that there is another ten minutes of the film between scenes that is not mentioned because it isn't vital to the plot. I've added to the quote and changed my choice of verbs. Why you don't want me to fix these I don't know. Your objection to this FA on the grounds that you think the film is crap is silly. If you're reading an article on a film, do you not want to know what the film is about? Is it not part of our mission to be comprehensive to explain what the content of the film/book/album is , not just how it was conceived and received? Just because you personally do not find an article interesting doesn't mean that it's not FA standard. If every Article on Wikipedia should have the potential to reach FA, that should include every notable film, whether rubbish to watch or not. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article and reduced three stubby paragraghs. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's supposed to be US spelling, then make it US spelling throughout. Your comments aren't a fix for the poor writing. Tony 15:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. If I can't convert it though, would it be OK to convert it all to british spelling? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any British spellings, so I don't know what you mean there. However, it would seem I trusted my copyeditors too much - some bits of this article are badly written, you're absolutely right there. I'm going to quickly go through it on paper and tidy it - I'll be done in about an hour, so check back then. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. What's it like now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object - 1a. References don't use a consistent style (some have website before, others after, the title) - please use a consistent bibliographic style in the refs. The prose is tortured. The paragraph I glanced at towards the bottom of the article is a sample of the extensive problems throughout:
  • In 2004, the Latter Days screenplay was adapted into a novel, written by T. Fabris, and published by Alyson Publications. The book was mainly faithful to the film, but added several extra scenes that explained confusing aspects of the film and gave more about the characters' backgrounds. For example, the reason Ryder tells Christian where to find Aaron is as a result of his own broken heart over a girl he fell in love with at his mission training. It also added dialogue that had been cut out of the film: finishing, for example Christian's cry of "That's the hand I use to..." in the film with "masturbate with".
• Needs a thorough copy edit by an uninvolved editor, and the prose needs something to make it compelling and interesting. Sandy (Talk) 16:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've copyedited it, you might liek to comment again. The references issue you mention is where I have added the website first in the reference, I cannot find an author - I read it in one of the referencing guidelines, though I cannot find where at the moment. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As explained on her talkpage, Sandy is having trouble editing Wikipedia. Request FAC not closed until she has a chance to respond to my improvements to the article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - still have problems. I've converted all of your references to a standard style - Author last name, author first name. Title. Source, (publication date). Last access date. Please go through and doublecheck my work, and wikilink all full dates.

Real problem with the term "ordinary fans": I changed it.

I made some changes so you can see the need to fix the tense and choppy sentences: I changed an it's to its, which shows the copy edit needs are still there. I eliminated a redundancy "all funding" equals "funding", linked to subsequent sentence about funding. These are examples of the work you still need to do throughout - the prose still needs work. Since the article is well referenced, you should be able to make FA if someone will run through the prose Sandy (Talk) 23:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've wikilinked the dates, someonelse has copyedited it but I have fixed the comments they had, and I've dropped a line to another editor to take a look at the article. Does it look OK now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's getting better, but the prose is still not compelling. Here are some random examples:

• Nevertheless, a major theme of Latter Days is that there is an underlying spirituality in the world that goes beyond the rituals and dogmas of religion.[15] This can be particularly seen in the scene where, after a day of making phone calls, Christian finally traces Aaron, writes down his phone number, and then discovers he has already idly drawn it on the previous page. (I can't see the connection between the first sentence and the second - and since it's not sourced, it sounds like OR.)

You can't see the connection between an underlying spirituality in the world and Christian mysteriously coincidentally doodling the very phone number he's been searching eight hours for? You haven't seen the scene, so you're going to have to trust me on this, but the message is so unsubtle Cox may as well have hit you with a two by four inscribed with "There's an underlying spirituality in the world". You don't need to reference the blatently obvious, I recall.

• A total of three songs were written by C. Jay Cox for Julie to sing: "Another beautiful day," "More," and "Tuesday 3 AM." Allaman was very impressed with C. Jay Cox's musical ability, and both men composed more songs as background music. (I'm not sure what this means - other songs? Songs that were or weren't used? Are songs usually in quotes or italics? What impressed Allaman about Cox's ability?)

I don't know, it's on the featurette, which is referenced. No other explanation was given, and to speculate would be OR on my part.

• For contractual reasons, Rebekah Johnson did not appear on the album, and her character's songs were performed by Nita Whitaker instead. (What contractual reasons? Why was Whitaker chosen? Who is she?)

I don't know, it's on the featurette, which is referenced. No other explanation was given, and to speculate would be OR on my part.

• (This is unreferenced). In 2004, the Latter Days screenplay was adapted into a novel by T. Fabris and published by Alyson Publications. The book was faithful to the film, but added several extra scenes that explained confusing aspects of the film and gave more about the characters' backgrounds. For example, the reason Ryder tells Christian where to find Aaron is his own broken heart over a girl he fell in love with while on his mission training. The novel also added dialogue that had been cut out of the film: finishing, for example Christian's cry of "That's the hand I use to..." in the film with "masturbate with".

What, you want page numbers?

Ok, I've added page numbers. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• (Aggressive attitude to the script?) Gordon-Levitt originally auditioned to play Aaron, but his aggressive attitude to the script but good sense of humor made the producers decide he was a perfect Ryder.

I don't know, it's on the featurette, which is referenced. No other explanation was given, and to speculate would be OR on my part.

• Full dates in refs are not yet completely wikilinked.

Yes, they are. I am not going to wikilink 2006, it bears no relevance at all to the article, and the only reason I'm wikilinking the dates in my references at all is because you want me to, there's absolutely no reason to otherwise do so.

Ok, I looked up WP:DATES, and get why wikilinking is needed. But years, according to the policy are only to be dated according to personal preference, and I prefer as few blue links as possible, especially in the footnotes. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sandy (Talk) 23:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I will dig up a Amazon link for the novel, but the rest is unnecessary. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've dug up the relevant part about tracking down Aaron on YouTube here. The bit where Christian says "That's the hand I use to..." is around the one minute mark, but the scene where Christian is tracking Aaron is 6:18 onwards. You should see what I mean. And obviously, if you have the time, I recommend watching the entire film, which has been uploaded in twelve parts. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added page numbers, and explained everything above. Is that all OK now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Striking my object - everything looks in order now, and Dev920 has been persistent in improving the article - I think s/he's done the best that can be done with a really sappy, cliché storyline. Sandy (Talk) 21:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You just need to watch it Sandy... :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Some of the double-Ls, s instead of z. Paste into Word, put Word on US English, and spellcheck. Paste back again. Simple. Tony 23:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've run this article through three US English spellcheckers, and they changed two spellings, one of which was in the footnotes. What on Earth are you seeing that I, two copyeditors and three spellcheckers are not? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Bless your heart, Dev, all these sugggestions and counter-suggestions to deal with. That's why I will never propose an FAC myself!  :-) Hang in there, you'll make it. Textorus 20:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support, Dev920 contacted me asking for help in regards to the oppose votes above, I read the article and genuinely agree with this article becoming featured. - Tutmosis 22:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The nominator has worked with commendable vigour to make this FA-worthy. To a certain extent the article is never going to be stellar because the plot is so tired, cliched and frankly dull but on its own terms this is FA quality. Moreschi ^Deletion! 15:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Disclosure: I've completely skipped the synopsis in order not to be coloured by any weakness of the plot. The article seems fairly complete and readable, and I note fair use rationales have been written for the three images. Seems like a fair candidate for the main page some day, so I'm not objecting. Gimmetrow 05:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "This can be particulary seen..." Apparently he unknowingly wrote a number which is coincidentally the number he's trying to get. Perhaps add another sentence explaining how this relates to an "underlying spirituality in the world", or at least making it sound more dramatic? (I'm guessing this is a key dramatic moment in the film, but it's not obvious to someone who has not seen it.)
  • I don't really understand the 42% and 75% ratings with rottentomatoes. I thought all rottentomatoes raters were "critics". If "critics" means a distinct type of rottentomatoes user, perhaps that can be explained slightly better.
  • The partial wikilinking of the "retrieved" dates looks a little unorthodox. WP:DATES says that "The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present."

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 promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

---

The Simpsons

• First FAC
• Second FAC
• Third FAC
• FARC; if repromoted, re-categorize at WP:FFA, has not been on main page

The page was improved considerably since it was delisted, and has since been improved and copyedited by many different users. A few days the page was nominated by a random user, and I felt it wasn't ready then, but we have since improved it so we figured it was worth a try. Any concerns that people have will be addressed by myself or Gran2. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I haven't re-read the article, but my concerns at FARC were 1) sloppy referencing and 2) the External link farm. The current references look clean and reliable, and the External link farm is gone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support I didn't scrutinize the references, but read through the text. It's highly informative, has well-proportioned sections linking to daughter articles, and quality prose. I could've looked harder for errors, but I'm confident that any I missed would only be minor and easily fixable. bobanny 01:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support As per above. ISD 07:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Of course --A cool night green owl 07:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support it has been a strong article for a long time, and this has more love and care invested in it than any of the FA/GA Simpsons episode articles. Alientraveller 08:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support had a read and corrected a few typo's a very comprehensive, well-referenced article. Well done to all who contributed--Hadseys 12:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - outstanding article that has come a long way! --Naha|^(talk) 15:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Love it! Ive read this article and it definitely is FA status! EvilHom3r 15:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Great job! --Esprit15d 19:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Oppose - Reading this article was a pleasure, but there remain several grammar and copyediting things that do need addressing:

• There should be a better transition between these two sentences, "Its success prompted Fox to reschedule the series to compete with The Cosby Show, a move that hurt the ratings of The Simpsons.[12] Ullman later filed a lawsuit, claiming that her show was the source of the series' success. The suit said she should receive a share of the profits of The Simpsons—a claim rejected by the courts," since initially, it sounds like Ullman's lawsuit had something to do with the scheduling change.  Done
• "Two male actors" - There are two male actors...  Done
• "Celebrity guest stars often play" - "Celebrity guest stars have often played"; the latter half of the sentence necessitates the use of present perfect.  Done
• "As the show's revenue..." - the connector "as" makes it seems like this is a chronological continuance, when this is actually a new event. I would preface that sentence with "On another occasion", "in XXXX" or something equally fitting.  Done
• "consists of 16 writers" - spell out sixteen  Done
• "developed the show since season one" - Season One should be capitalized  Done
• "with 60 episodes" - spell out sixty  Done
• "the run of animated short" - "the run of the animated short"  Done
• "season four, Gracie Films" - capitalize Season Four  Done
• "the show as of December 2006" - is this the most up to date info?  Done
• "After season 13, production" - spell out and capitalize Season Thirteen  Done
• "paint during season twelve's episode" - you know the drill  Done
• "We [The show]" - is there a reason why "The" is capitalized? If not, lowercase it.  Done
• "writers' evince an appreciation" - remove the apostrophe  Done
• "makes jokes from across the political" - remove "from"  Done
• "government and big business as" - capitalize Big Business  Done
• "The director of The Simpsons told Castellaneta to shorten the noise so that it became the well known exclamation in the TV series." - It is doubtful he would know this in advance. The sentence should read something closer to this, "The director of The Simpsons told Castellaneta to shorten the noise, so that it became and it went on to become the well-known exclamation in the TV series.  Done
• "of sight gags and does not use" - "of sight gags and did not use" - As is, the first half of the sentence is present tense, and the second half past. It should be all past.  Done
• " 20th century's" - Century should be capitalized  Done
• "marks the 20th anniversary" - spell out twentieth  Done
• "With its 19th year" - spell out nineteenth  Done
• " of 20 produced" - same deal  Done
• "until its 29th season" - ditto  Done
• "a top-10 episodes list" - it should read "a top-ten list of episodes"  Done
• "a top-15 list" - "a top-fifteen list"  Done
• "among the worst, so season four looks" - Season Four  Done
• "Despite this criticism, The Simpsons has managed to maintain a large viewership and attract new fans. However, the first season had an average of 13.4 million viewers in the US, compared to the 17th season, which ended with an average of 9.2 million viewers." - Two problems: (1) The sentences appear to contradict each other. The second sentence should begin with something like "Despite this,..." or "Even still,..." (2) The second sentence is grammatically wrong - the first season had 13.4 million viewers whether you compare it to the seventeenth season or not (the current wording insinuates otherwise). The first sentence should be followed by something like "Despite this fact, there has been a decline in viewership. While the first season enjoyed an average of 13.4 million viewers per episode in the US, the seventeenth season ended with an average of 9.2 million viewers."  Done
• "it a billion dollar merchandizing" - billion-dollar should be hyphenated  Done
• Remove this sentence "Music is featured in The Simpsons, with characters breaking into song during the course of the series." it is jarring since it doesn't talk about merchandise, and is actually redundant; if original music is sold, then it must have appeared on the show.  Done
• "seasons 1–9 have" - "seasons one through nine have"  Done
• "Seasons 1–7 have also" - Seasons one through seven have also"  Done
• "one after the first season, and the other still available" - huh? Maybe try: "One that was available briefly after the first season, and another that was produced in XXXX and is still available for purchase"? This is just a fragment as is.
• "various difficulties (comma) such as lack of a suitable story and an already fully engaged crew of writers (comma) delayed the project"  Done
• "The Simpsons film released on" - "The Simpsons that was film released on"  Done
• "It opened at the top of the international box office (comma) taking $96 million from 71 overseas territories (double dash) including $27.8 million in the United Kingdom, making it Fox's second highest opening ever in the country."  Done

Note how these issues have been resolved, and alert me on my talk page.--Esprit15d 18:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

All of the issues have been addressed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comments The article looks much better than it has in the past. I have a few comments, however.

• Is it necessary to mention Snowball II and Santa's Little Helper in the opening paragraph? They've been the stars of, what, four episodes? Moe, Apu, Krusty, Grandpa, etc, are far more important secondary characters, but they're not mentioned anywhere in the lead.

• They have been removed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Are all of the references correct? Double-check reference 14, for example. I'm not sure how that relates to anything in the "Origins" section. (There may be a few other problems; I haven't looked at every reference yet.)

• Gran2 removed it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Cool. I'll try to look through the other refs. Zagalejo 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not comfortable saying that the show has a liberal bias, regardless of what Al Jean has claimed in the past. John Swartzwelder, the show's most prolific writer, is definitely not a liberal, and the show has fequently lampooned liberal leaders and liberal causes. (And I'm not some right-wing nut, in case you were wondering; I just think we should strive for a more complete and accurate description of the show.)

• The entire paragraph says "Some commentators say the show is political in nature and susceptible to a left-wing bias. Al Jean admitted in an interview that "We [the show] are of liberal bent." The writers evince an appreciation for progressive ideals, but the show makes jokes across the political spectrum". So, it doesn't just say Liberal bias. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm. I guess it's not as bad as I thought. Would it be OK to change the third sentence to say, "The writers often evince an appreciation for progressive ideals"? Or something along those lines? That would probably assuage my concerns. Zagalejo 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Done and done. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• The show portrays government and Big Business as taking advantage of the little guy. I think "Big Business" and "little guy" are too informal for an encyclopedia article. (These two terms are also Al Jean's exact words, as quoted in Planet Simpson, but the article does not make this clear.)

• Is this better? "The show portrays government and large corporations as taking advantage of the common worker"? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Better. Is "as" necessary, though? I'm not sure if the sentence sounds better with or without it. Zagalejo 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• The sentence was somewhat awkward, so I changed it to "The show portrays government and large corporations as somewhat evil entities that take advantage of the common worker". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Alrighty. If someone can replace "somewhat evil" with a strong, single-word adjective, I'll cross off that concern. Zagalejo 00:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• How about "malevolent", or is it too strong of a word? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'd use "malevolent" to describe Mr. Burns, but we might want an adjective that could also apply to characters like the Big Rich Texan or the Laramie Cigarettes guy. How do you feel about "callous"? Zagalejo 05:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• What about capitalist enterprises?

• I've changed it to callous. Gran² 10:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I may have more to say later. A lot of hard work has gone into this article, but there are still a few minor things to hammer out. And I don't think this should be promoted until someone really tough, like Tony, has a look at it. There are a lot of supporters, which is unsuprising, but this isn't a popularity contest. We need to look at the article critically so that it's the best article we can produce. Zagalejo 21:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is (was) reference 14? Some sort of blog related linkspam, so I've replaced it. Gran² 22:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't understand the list above (now checked as done) to spell out some numbers greater than 10; please refer to WP:MOSNUM and revisit all of those. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Done and done. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry for any confusion. I was more of the school that spells out any words that are one- or two-word numbers, which that policy also mentions (eg - I have a hundred dogs out back.). But the only Wikipedia hard-fast rule is to spell out numbers under ten, otherwise it is opinion. I hope this didn't cause to much added work.--Esprit15d 18:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: I'm going away for a week starting Sunday, so Gran2 will take over the FAC for the remainder. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• More comments Why is reference 7 attributed to Chris Turner? I don't see his name anywhere in the link. Also, the link in reference 32 isn't working. Zagalejo 17:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Both fixed. Gran² 18:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Awesome. Anything you can do with ref #71? That one isn't working, either.Zagalejo 23:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Another thing: Ref 14 (Turner pg. 131) is used to cite the claim that conservatives viewed Bart as a bad role model. However, that specific page in Planet Simpson doesn't say anything about conservative criticism. Zagalejo 00:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Okay I've changed ref 71, I thought pg. 131 was fine, but if you disagree, although it could be that the page number is wrong as my copy could be a different edition. Anyway, if not, would this satisfy the point [1]? Gran² 07:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, we should add that ref into the article. In my version of the book, anyway, page 131 only contains an in-universe analysis of Bart. It does mention that Bart rarely gets punished, but it doesn't say anything about real-world conservative criticism of the show.

We may indeed have different versions of the book (I have the 2004 DeCapo version), but I didn't find any problems with the other Turner page numbers (with one exception, which was easy to fix). Zagalejo 18:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Mine is a 2005 Edbury Press copy, the British print of the book. And if you see no problem with the BBC source, I'll add that ref into the article. Gran² 18:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay I've put them both in, as the each cover the different points of the sentences. Gran² 18:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Cool. I'd like to comb through the article once more to see if there's anything else that could be tweaked. Zagalejo 18:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Other comments:

• The Simpsons is a highly successful long-running animated American sitcom. That's a long string of adjectives. Should there be a comma in there somewhere? Or could we possibly eliminate "highly successful long-running" from the sentence altogether, and just let the facts speak for themselves? We do discuss the show's awards and run-length later in the lead. Zagalejo 19:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Done, removed the phrase. Gran² 19:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Groening sketched an outline version of a dysfunctional family, and named the characters after members of his own family, substituting Bart for his own name. It may not be clear what "outline version" means in this sentence. It's not that clear to me. Zagalejo 19:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Changed to "Groening sketched out a dysfunctional family". Gran² 19:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hmmm.. "Sketched out" is still vague. Did Groening draw the family, or did he merely describe them? Zagalejo 20:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• He drew them. Gran² 20:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I would prefer a more precise word than "sketch," which could mean several different things within the context of that sentence. Zagalejo 22:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Changed it to just "drew". Gran² 08:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, there might be some other problems. I just viewed the "America's First Family" DVD extra, which is used as a source for that part of the lead as well as the first paragraph of "Origins." Groening never explicitly says in the documentary that he was worried about rescinding publication rights to "Life in Hell," nor does he say that he drew a picture for Jim Brooks during the initial pitch. Here's exactly what he says:

Well, the Simpsons really began in the fifteen minutes that I had to prepare for a meeting with Jim Brooks to present him with my ideas. I was originally going to do my "Life in Hell" characters in animated form, and then, at the last moment, I got I scared. I thought, what if this fails miserably? I'll have ruined my characters, I'll go crawling back to my weekly comic strip, so I decided to make up new characters on the spot. Hence, the Simpsons, named after my own family. I wasn't particularly feeling creative in that fifteen minutes, so I quickly named them after my own family. I do have a father named Homer, a mother named Margaret - Marge is close, I thought Marge was a slightly funnier name - and I have two younger sisters, Lisa and Maggie. I thought if I made the main kid Matt, that would be a little too obvious, so I changed him to Bart.

Groening does later explain that he gave quick sketches of the family to the animators, but he never says if he did so for Brooks. Now, it's possible that Groening has told many different stories about the origin of the Simpsons, but the Wikipedia article must accurately reflect what the cited sources say. Zagalejo 20:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So should I change it (if so what to), or find another source for that point? I mean Turner mentions that he drew them, and was worried about losing his rights to Life in Hell. Would be okay, or it to much of a secondary account? Gran² 20:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually scratch that. [2] Gran² 20:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, that settles that he drew them. He still doesn't explicitly say in that video that he'd be giving up his rights to the "Life in Hell" characters, but don't worry, I've located another interview where he does. The following comes from an April 22, 1998 broadcast of the National Public Radio show Fresh Air. It's from an interview between Groening and TV critic David Bianculli.

Well, they called me up and they -- and they said they had -- were doing this new comedy-variety show and they wanted to have little animated cartoons as part of the show, and suggested that I animate my Life in Hell characters, which I thought was a great idea. I found out that I would give up ownership of whatever it is that I put up. And so I created The Simpsons in their stead, 'cause I --you know, Life in Hell, with my Rabbitz (ph) and Akbar and Jeff --that's a regular gig and I was doing just fine with that. And I didn't know if this animation thing was going to pan out at all. And I decided not to sacrifice my own characters. So, I made up these other characters who I didn't really care about -- The Simpsons.

I found the transcript of the interview through Factiva, which I accessed through my university's library system. I don't know if it's available for free online, so if you need more info about the source, just let me know. Zagalejo 21:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah its going slow for me as well. Anyway, if its Fresh Air they usually have it on their website somewhere. I've used a Fresh Air interview in the Troy McClure article, using the cite interview template. So even if we just link to the transcript it should be fine. Gran² 21:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think I found it: [3]. You can incorporate it into the article as you please. Zagalejo 18:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Okay the movieweb source is pretty unusable as its just some Youtube like site, and I don't think that the interview was conducted by them and so it can't be used as a source. If it transpire that the did do the interview then it can be used. So until then I've chaned it from "drew" to "created". And I've added the Fresh Air source. Gran² 19:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Good work. -- Wikipedical 21:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. I hate to do this, because the article does seem to be well written and informative, but it contains very little on international versions of the series. Perhaps I missed something, but the only mention of international activty relates to the DVD sales and the movie's box-office take. How many languages is the show dubbed into? Where is it broadcast? I know it's dubbed into Japanese, French, Spanish, and perhaps German and Italian, because those are all options in the DVDs for special episodes (e.g., Homer's Enemy and Kamp Krusty), and I recall Groening making a comment about having to choose the Japanese voice actors (perhaps that was in the commentary for In Marge We Trust). Beyond that, have you examined any academic opinion on the franchise? I know some stuff is out there (see the FAC for "Homer's Enemy" or "Homer's Phobia", I forget which at the moment). Also, Is there any sense of how The Simpsons have affected global perceptions of America? I know that Homer has ranked near or at the top of A BBC survey of most popular Americans in Britain recently. This is a huge topic, and the contributors deserve congratulations for producing such a fine article, regardless of my nitpicks. Great job!--Monocrat 04:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've added about the foreign dubbing as that seems the most important thing of what you suggested, I might look at adding some of the other things later on. Gran² 08:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. The image Image:Simpsons cast.png cites a web forum as its source. This should be sorted out ASAP, and removed if no official source can be found. Image:Simpsons comic books.jpg cites its source as a fan-site, the same applies here. The Image:C-SimpFamily.png source is a fan-page too, I believe. I feel the resolutions of the following images should be cut down-Image:Simpsons final poster.png, Image:Simpsons couch gag.jpg and Image:Bart Night Gallery.jpg. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 17:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Why does it matter that a source for an image is a fan site or a forum? Its not like it being used as a reference... its an image, they can come from anywhere. Is there some kind of policy that forbids images using fansites or forms as there sources? Gran² 18:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, see Help:Image page#Source and author. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm probably being stupid here, but what part of that policy says that images can't have sources that are fan sites or forums? If the image was found there, what's the problem? Gran² 19:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we are saying that these images were released by the organisation (Fox or whoever) to promote their work. But we are citing a fan forum. I could take any old image, post it on a forum, upload it to Wikipedia and claim that an organisation has released it as a publicity still etc, couldn't I? We need a proper source, maybe from a press release from Fox or something that includes the image. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 20:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, a few more things. Some sources, such as <ref>Turner, p. 30</ref> are very vague. Is this a book, is this a pamphlet, is this a press release? It should be in the correct citation template and some parts should be wikilinked if possible. Also, it would be nice to mention religion in the sentence "... and lampoons many aspects of the human condition, as well as American culture, society as a whole, and television itself." It is one of the main themes of the series and is often imitated, somewhat controvertionally. I also feel that [4] should be included. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 20:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well its pretty obvious that its a promotional image, and the fact is that any "official" sources don't exist. Unless you want me to quote www.foxflash.com, which doesn;t let you add direct links, but its every Fox image ever made. Also there is nothing wrong with the Turner ref, its how you cite book sources, the full book is in the references section if you cared to look. Gran² 20:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I feel these references should be in the {{cite book}} format. It's easy enough to do. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 12:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No, again, when a book is cited multiple times in one article, each using different pages, that is the preferred system. The full book is included in the references section. Gran² 12:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You also claim its "pretty obvious" that the image is a promotional shot-unfortunately, that isn't good enough for FA status. I reccomend having a look on that flashfox site. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 12:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it is... Anyway, I've used Fox flash as a source for the images in question. Gran² 12:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of cite templates is not required, and the citation method is fine. Asking for use of cite templates isn't a valid oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Another comment I'm not really satified with this section, but I'm not sure how to fix all the problems:

Credited with sixty episodes, John Swartzwelder is the most prolific writer on The Simpsons staff.[24] Conan O'Brien also wrote four scripts before becoming the host of Late Night with Conan O'Brien. English comedian Ricky Gervais is the only guest star to have guest written an episode,[25] although there have been other guest writers, such as Spike Feresten, a Seinfeld writer famous for "The Soup Nazi" episode.

Here are my concerns:

• The sentence about Conan O'Brien reads awkwardly within the flow of the paragraph. It's just so abrupt.
• I think we should clarify that Ricky Gervais actually played a character in the episode he wrote. Otherwise, it's not immediately clear how he differs from the "other guest writers."
• Was Feresten really a "guest writer," (as in someone specially invited by the show to write an episode,) or was he just a short-time staff member? This isn't clear to me.
• Perhaps more important than the last two issues, is it really essential to mention Gervais or Feresten at all? In the grand scheme of things, they contributed very little to the success of the show. Zagalejo 05:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with you, but Gervais writing an episode received quite a lot of media attention. I think the section needs to be rewritten to have a few more introductory sentences sort of thing. I'll get to work on it, firstly by listening to commentary for Sideshow Bob's Last Gleaming, to see what they say about Feresten. Gran² 08:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Okay I've re-written the section, and removed all mention of Feresten and the commentary mentions that although he wrote the original script, it was re-written almost completely afterwards so he doesn't really warrant a mention. Gran² 09:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Well, I suppose I'm just looking at the Gervais thing through an American perspective. I do have one more comment about the above section. Namely, should we cite a source to prove that Conan O'Brien wrote four scripts? (I know that he did, but that might not be common knowledge to everyone.) Zagalejo 02:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've had to change it to "several" as I couldn't find a reliable source to say he had written four, but it is now cited. Gran² 07:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, the episode counts are somewhat screwy to begin with, as most shows are collaborative efforts anyway. I did reword part of the section to more clearly emphasize why Conan is important. Note to Raul654: I'm not quite finished combing through the article, so don't close the discussion just yet. Zagalejo 20:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• More Looking through "Voice actors," I have a couple of questions:

• Do we need to source "Richmond, pp. 178–179" so many times within this section? For example, one footnote will cover the first two sentences of the second paragraph.
• Do we have sources for these two sentences? I don't believe these come from the Complete Guide: 1)She sometimes refuses to perform Marge's voice in public to maintain Marge's mystique. 2)With the exception of Harry Shearer, every main cast member has won an Emmy for Outstanding Voice-Over Performance. (I'd recommend removing the first of these two altogether, as it's trivial and it disrupts the flow of the paragraph.) Zagalejo 21:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Much of the third paragraph in that section is unsourced, as well. Zagalejo 21:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'll look into it, luckily I found a ref for the Shearer thing this morning, but I never got around to adding it in. Gran² 21:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, all (as far as I can tell) done. Gran² 22:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. We're getting there! Zagalejo 22:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• More

• This part from "animation" is unsourced, and somewhat confusing: Animators used digital ink and paint during Season 12's episode "Tennis the Menace". However, Gracie Films delayed using 'digital ink and paint' for two more seasons. The already completed "Tennis the Menace" was broadcast as made. Do we mean that Gracie Films dealyed the regular use of digital ink and paint until season 14? Also, I don't think we ever actually explain what Gracie Films is. Zagalejo 22:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Gran² 10:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Just noticed something else. I don't think this source ever mentions the 138th Episode Spectacular as being a digital-ink-and-paint show. Zagalejo 17:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'll listen to the commentary for the episode, although if it doesn't mention, its not a great loss, I mean, I think Radioactive Man being done with digital ink is more well known. Gran² 17:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• A general question: Might the article make more sense to readers if "Characters," "Setting," "Themes," etc (ie, the in-universe stuff) were placed before Production? Zagalejo 22:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure, I look into it, I personally like the article layout as it is. Gran² 10:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's just a thought. It would be really nice if someone unfamiliar with The Simpsons could chime in. That way, we would know for sure if the present layout works. Zagalejo 17:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that would be the best thing, because I'm really not sure which one would work best. Gran² 17:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• More comments

• From "Setting": Groening has said that Springfield has much in common with Portland, Oregon, the city where he grew up. Though this comment is sourced, and seems true, to an extent, it just seems to contradict everything else in that paragraph. Some better organization and better transitional words might help. Zagalejo 17:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Done, may need some improvement. Gran² 20:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Also from that section: Commentators have suggested, and then ruled out, nearly every US state and region as the basis for Springfield. This appears to be sourced to Turner, but I'm not sure where in the book he says something like this. Zagalejo 17:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Does Turner mention anything about Springfield's location? If not, how's this [5] even if its changed to the "Springfield is everywhere and nowhere" quote. Gran² 20:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Turner talks about the flexible nature of Springfield, but he doesn't mention any sort of systematic process of elimination to determine where it is (or isn't.) I just don't like the implications of the phrase I quoted above. It sounds like someone had a checklist of every US state and made some sort of comprehensive study to determine that Springfield wasn't in any of them. Zagalejo 21:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• I understand, in want of a better sentence, I have removed it altogether. Gran² 21:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• That section looks like it could still use some work. The last three sentences just don't flow very well, IMO. Zagalejo 19:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• From "Opening sequence": This last segment is often the only one of the three gags to survive the process of shortening the opening for some syndicated episodes and for episodes which needed extra time. Is the sax solo really a gag? Zagalejo 20:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know, should all mention of the sax solo be removed or "three" be changed to "two". Gran² 20:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, it's usually more subtle than the other two segments. I wouldn't mind removing it altogether, but I'll have to ponder it some more. We could probably retain it if we reorganize some things in that section and rewrite parts of it from scratch. Zagalejo 21:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• From "Halloween episodes": Although the Treehouse series is meant to be seen on Halloween, in recent years, new installments have premiered after Halloween. This is due to Fox's current contract with Major League Baseball's World Series. This probably needs to be sourced. Zagalejo 20:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• I looked eariler, best I found was this [6] which wasn't very helpful, any help would be good. Gran² 20:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'll try looking. Zagalejo 21:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• This should be good enough. I found this on Factiva: "The annual Simpsons Halloween special traditionally airs the week after the big day — since Fox's October schedule is taken up by baseball playoffs — but for real fans, it's worth the wait." (Andrew Ryan. "Pick of the Day: The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror XVII." The Globe and Mail. 4 November 2006. pg. 12.) Zagalejo 18:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Implemented, thanks. Gran² 19:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• In "Criticism of declining quality", there is the sentence, "Some critics started calling the show 'tired'". Is there a reason "tired" is in quotes and italicized? Is that some Manual of Style thing? Zagalejo 21:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• No idea, so I've removed the italics. Gran² 21:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note that someone on the article's talk page is disputing the claim that the show is dubbed in Swedish. Zagalejo 02:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• From "DVDs": In particular, seasons one through ten have been released on DVD in the US (Region 1), with more seasons expected to be released in the future, Europe (Region 2) and Australia/New Zealand/Latin America (Region 4). I'm not sure how to interpret this sentence. It seems like someone jumbled parts of it around. Zagalejo 19:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• From "Video games": Two Simpsons pinball machines have been produced; one that was available briefly after the first season, and another that was is still available for purchase. So, is it still available for purchase? A source might be needed here.Zagalejo 19:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Gran² 19:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, those are all the easily fixable problems that I noticed. However, I still have some concerns about more general things, like paragraph flow and organization within sections (Setting, Themes, and Merchandise, in particular, could all use some polishing). The page is almost featured article material, but I'd recommend recruiting some fresh-eyes (preferably, people who aren't hardcore Simpsons fans) to copyedit parts of the article. Zagalejo 21:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 22:34, 10 January 2007.

---

Paulins Kill

This article's candidacy for FA status is a self-nomination as I've done about 90% of the work on bring it from a stub to where it is now. It has been noted as a Good Article and has undergone an extensive Peer Review from which all of the issues I believe were taken care of. I think this article meets all the FA criteria, (if I may say modestly), as it is well written, comprehensive given the subject, factually accurate and supported by citations and other resources, it's neutral and stable, meets MOS issues, nice images (especially an awesome map), and it's reasonably sized at a slender 42Kb. I've run this article by User:Ruhrfisch who has two river-related FA's to his credit, Larrys Creek and White Deer Hole Creek and he has helped me improve it with his very exacting and scrutinizing eye (which I thank him for immensely). I thank you in advance for your suggestions and your support. ExplorerCDT 03:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It looks pretty good overall, but I suggest some work on the lead to provide more of a summary and a complete rewrite of "Flora and fauna" (it's far too listy and the use of binomial nomenclature is most certainly not necessary - the Latin probably just confuses the average reader.) Additionally, the sub-section "Valley and watershed" is completely unreffed. Mikker ^(...) 05:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • REPLY: Latin removed. Please suggest what else could be summarized in the introduction, and how you would propose to rewrite Flora and fauna. (the suggestion that they ought to be revised doesn't aid or send me in any direction) Will add refs shortly to the Valley and watershed section. Thanks. —ExplorerCDT 17:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • REPLY2: Valley and watershed subsection is now completely reffed. —ExplorerCDT 03:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for addressing my concerns - "Valley and watershed" is now properly reffed; and although the "Today" section (ex "Flora and fauna"?) is still a bit too listy for my taste, I think you've dealt with the substance of my concern. Mikker ^(...) 22:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- nonstandard formatting used: eg excessive bold text, ToC resized, references resized (see Indian Standard Time for the CSS class to be used for references. And flora and fauna is too listy. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • REPLY: First, I do not think the bold text is excessive. It was suggested to me that I could put the tributaries in quotations rather than emboldening their names, but I have been taught and firmly believe that quotation marks should only be for quotations. Would you suggest italicization as opposed to emboldened text? (q.v. Emphasis (typography) stating that bold text should therefore be used to highlight certain keywords that are important to the subject) Second, I have resized the references and TOC per your suggestion. Third, I am using a citation format with which I am comfortable and which I use IRL. I will not use a CSS class for references as it is not explicitly or expressly required by WP policies and guidelines. To bolster this decision, I quote WP:CITE (1) Full citations may be formatted by hand or using one of the citation templates. (2) Inline citations may use one of the following three systems. (...) Footnotes (most often using <ref> and <references/> elements) (please also see WP:Footnotes). As different disciplines utilize differing standards of citation, Wikipedia accomodates this by saying various methods "may be" or "can be" used. Lastly, please suggestion how you would rewrite the Flora and fauna section to avoid it being "too listy". Thanks. —ExplorerCDT 17:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

    The ToC text is still small. Do not wrap a div tag around it. The image sizes are also too large. The width of the text space is 600px for standard web resolution (800x600). Keeping the width of an image at 300px takes too much of the readable space. Suggest you do not add a pixel value parameter, and instead allow the width to be automatically resized according to what the user has specified in his/her preferences. As for flora and fauna, you can reduce the sectioning, the number of animals/plants mentioned and add more prose eg. among the large animals found.. / smaller mammals include etc. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

    • REPLY: TOC div tag removed. I"m surprised people still use 800x600. Is there an option to make it 25% in terms of width? Some of the photos are just to large to leave it up to preferences (even defaults), so some limiting parameter is necessary. As for Flora and Fauna, please take a look at User:Ruhrfisch's proposal and contribute your commentary on that. Whatever the consensus is on how to best tackle it, I'll take the time to work on. —ExplorerCDT 20:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
      • 300px is the largest size in user preferences. I believe the default will make them 180px. Jay32183 20:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Two of the citations are just external jumps, they need access dates like the rest of them. Even if you don't use the {{cite web}} template, I recommend looking it over so importnat information is not left out. Jay32183 17:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • REPLY: Corrected, checked them today, can't remember when I first accessed them, ergo, put access dates for today. Thanks. —ExplorerCDT 17:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Today's date is fine. For your above question about bolding you may wish to read this and this. Jay32183 18:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you for directing me to those two MOS issues. I was just looking for guidance from the MOS on how to proceed with that issue and all I found was the above article I stated above. Will now remedy that. Thanks again. —ExplorerCDT 18:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Enough issues have been addressed that I believe the other changes will be made well. Ruhrfisch 14:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Comment: I think the overall article is well done. While it needs some fine tuning as pointed out above, I plan to support it once the issues raised have been fully addressed. In the interest of full disclosure (and as ExplorerCDT mentioned graciously above), I was quite involved with the Peer Review process and have made many suggestions about the article, although I have so far made only nine or so actual edits to it. After I finish this comment, I plan to add {{geolinks-US-river}} (which I was unaware of in the peer review process) and make a few minor copyedits.

  As for the list-y problem, what do you think of adding context and perhaps splitting up the Flora and fauna section and distributing some of the information elsewhere in the article? For example, what if the section header were instead Recreation and it had subsections on Bird watching (with all but the game birds), Hunting (with the game animals and birds), and Fishing (with fish and insects)? Some more information could be added on the hunting and fishing seasons and on the national rec. area, state parks, and state forests in the drainage basin (see the map) (some of this is already in the article). Hiking could be moved to a Recreation subsection with the non-game mammals and reptiles, as well as the wild plants and trees, or perhaps these could be in a subsection on the Protected areas. The non-fish aquatic animals could be moved up to the dwarf wedgemussel section, and perhaps the amphibians could be there too. The farm plants could go in the Today section where farms are discussed. I hope this idea helps at least start a useful discussion on improvement. Ruhrfisch 03:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Just to clarify, this is an idea to address the listy nature of the Flora and fauna section. Nichalp's idea is fine with me too. Ruhrfisch 14:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If the users who have so far commented (and will soon pipe in) like that approach, I'll try to find some time in the next day or two to redo the article in that regard. I'll leave it up to their consensus. —ExplorerCDT 19:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support:This is a nice article. I think that with the suggestions above, the nominator could improve it well into the realm of featured status. Right now, it is (in my opinion) just barely ready. We (not me, actually) have overloaded him w/ suggestions. But the article itself will be easy to fix up if it doesn't make it. Evan^{(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!)} 12:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So far, I think all the issues have been addressed with the sole exception of the listy Flora and fauna section. Now there are two ideas on how to tackle that, and there are possibly others. If you could weigh in on what the preferrable method to tackle this in the next day or two, I'll be able to fix it before Christmas. Also, in addition, if you could take a second look at the article and its candidacy and examine whether the edits made in response to the FAC page comments address your concerns adequeately, I'd be much obliged. —ExplorerCDT 01:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I killed the flora and fauna section. Even with the suggestions on how to repair it, it's intractable. —ExplorerCDT 15:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Feel free to revert, but I tried putting the flora and fauna into the article as per my suggestion above. If it is reverted, you can see it here too. Ruhrfisch 02:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for taking the initiative on that one. I'm so frazzled right now (FAC fatigue, methinks), that I couldn't wrap my head around it. I have no complaints. —ExplorerCDT 03:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support This is a well written, well-researched, thoroughly-documented article that covers the subject well, uses images, and ties it together with historical events and individuals. This would make an excellent feature article. The changes made since the FAC started have only further improved the article. Alansohn 04:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object In the present version, many web "Notes and citations" lack info on authors, publishers, work etc. Only the URL and retrieval date have been provided. Changed to conditional object later.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply Much to the contrary, the Notes and Citations do provide that information regarding books, as to websites cited many of them provide as much information regarding this as the website cited itself offers, the only way that Dwaipayanc's objection can be satiated, I assume (given a review of his contributions and his citation preferences) is by using the CSS tag in references, which I've stated above I am not compelled to use as WP:CITE says I am not compelled to use one particular method of citation over another. I've chosen the citation method used in the article, it's consistent, and meets the policy guidelines of WP:CITE and WP:RS and WP:V. Therefore, this objection is specious and as it is wholly without merit, I requestfully request of you to rescind your objection. —ExplorerCDT 18:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Of course one is not compelled to use one particular method over another. But what I am trying to emphasize is Full citations. It says, Full citations typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, and the date of publication. For example, this web citation that you have used [7] has got a publisher and author information. So this information should be provided. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • REPLY: A whopping FOUR out of 68 citations needed correction, not "many" as you stated. As I said before many didn't need to be changed because there was no information, thus the rest now are marked that "no further authorship information given." Now, rescind your objection. —ExplorerCDT 02:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: Dwaipayan is correct, and is merely trying to improve the article. Please try to remain civil, Explorer. Further, the references do need work, in my eyes. Books are cited with no page number, and in at least oine case, it is stated that the ISBN number cannot be found. How was this used as a reference, then? The ISBN number is in the book. If it was actually a newspaper that cited the book, then the paper should be used as a reference, and not the book itself, and should include the article date and author. References, as well as actual content, must adhere to WP:V. readers need to be able to find what you used as a reference. Jeffpw 12:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
          • ISBN numbers are only found in books published after 1964. Most local history books are published in the 19th century ro early half of the 20th, and noticeably, a lot were published in the proto-patriotic fever leading up to and after the 1876 Centennial celebration. Also, a lot of local histories before and after 1964 are privately published, circulating in numbers lower than 500, usually in the collection of local and university libraries. Thus, most local history books are often not reprinted, or commercially published with ISBN numbers, and sit in libraries collecting dust with their high-acid paper, split spines and mildewed covers, etc. If a book is before 1964, there's no way to provide an ISBN. I'll gladly remain civil, as long as people don't say "many" when they mean "four" and the like (stuff they could, with little additional effort point out or do themselves...like Dwaipayanc who did find that there was additional data for one of the four that needed changing). —ExplorerCDT 16:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I know from personal experience that if a book is old enough and has not been reprinted, it may not have an ISBN. However, as another example, I am concerned about the Kilmer letter reference (added since this FAC started). I have no idea where I would find this letter - a library, an archive? I would also remind ExplorerCDT to be civil - we are all working to make the best encyclopedia and article possible. Ruhrfisch 13:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Kilmer link, fixed.—ExplorerCDT 16:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Minor style issue. Use of dashes is not proper in the section "In art, literature and popular culture". I have not gone through the article yet, but at least two citation still lacks author information despite being available (this and this). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. Two citations and 4 or 5 ndashes fixed. —ExplorerCDT 18:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• more comment Access dates of sources should be wikilinked, per Dates containing a month and a day of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply that's a guideline, not a rule. Also, there's nothing in the guideline to say access dates have to be cited per your page, or WP:CITE. According to the MOS page you cite, "one way is often as good as another." If you want to do it, go ahead. I'm not taking on extra work based on something not mandated by an inflexible rule. The rescinding of your objection should not be hinged on something "optional." —ExplorerCDT 21:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply #2: I should clarify the reasons for my flat refusal for the above. The wikiguideline Dwaipayanc quotes pretty much says, in a gist, that things (dates, numbers, etc.) should only be linked if it is useful to one's understanding of the article, if it's relevant to the context of the article. Linking the dates I, or other users, accessed articles in each internet citation is not relevant to context and is no more useful to a user linked or unlinked. Also, applying that that WP:MOS provision to this "should be done" demand by Dwaipayanc is contrary to the spirit and letter of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Therefore, I will not do it. Sure, the 2nd FA criterion says we should follow the MOS, I think I am...but in the unlikely event that Dwaipayanc's demand is justified, the MOS contradicts itself on this regard and until the contrary guidelines are resolved, this provision should not be enforced. —ExplorerCDT 08:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply #3: For clarification on this issue from people who contribute and debate the MOS provision which Dwaipayanc seeks to demand of this article in its candidacy, I have asked the question of whether wikilinking source access dates is necessary or if it is ridiculous given the MOS provisions cited above. The discussion has been started here: [8] and [9] . —ExplorerCDT 18:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to replies Dates containing a month and a day are probably an exception to the general guideline of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Because, "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format."

However, I am not very efficient in discussing MoS policies. May be some more experienced Wikipedian can throw some light on it. What I remember is that there had been FACs in the past where wikilinking dates containing a month and a day was an issue, and such dates were wikilinked. The rationale is nicely described in the openning sentences of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers): "Manual of Style, like all style guides, attempts to encourage consistency and ease of reading. The guidelines here are just that: guidelines are not inflexible rules; one way is often as good as another, but if everyone does it the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read, write and edit.".

Let's see what comes out of the discussions started by ExplorerCDT. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Until then and that being said, will you withdraw your objection (not asking to jump over to "support"...just to withdraw the objection)...or are there other hoops I need to jump through with this article? —ExplorerCDT 18:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No. I shall wait, just in case "the unlikely event that Dwaipayanc's demand is justified" !! Regards. --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • So you should state that it is a conditional objection, and not a full objection. —ExplorerCDT 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Conditional object The reason is: Dates containing both a month and a day should be wikilinked. But the article does not. Please see the discussion above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC) This argument has been identified by one or more editors as constituting an arbitrary demand for a shrubbery. Please resolve this by clarifying the basis for the objection in canonical policy. Expanding the requirement to include chopping down the tallest tree in the forest WITH A HERRING may be met with additional mockery and scorn.

• If the discussion on those two MOS talk pages determines that your interpretation is correct, I'll comply. —ExplorerCDT 20:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Retracting, by it's nature as guideline, it's optional, and with the MoS is ambiguous and contradictory, I'll stick to my refusal rather than try to serve two masters (i.e. two seemingly contradictory provisions in MoS). —ExplorerCDT 01:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Being bold, I believe I have now wikilinked all the dates in the refs. Revert if you want, but I hope that resolves this issue for now (regardless of the outcome of the discussions above). Happy New Year! Ruhrfisch 04:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • So far, General consenus on the WikiEN-L mailing list is that this is a trivial objection without merit, and of note, one contributor has stated that "People who object to FA candidates on trivial grounds like this should be given peremptory 1 month bans from all FA discussions." I agree. —70.126.123.153 18:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to log-in ExplorerCDT 18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC))
      • This probably should have been a comment rather than an objection, but it is perfectly reasonable. In fact, it is suggested in automated peer reviews. Refusing to take action on an actionable non-arbitrary suggestion is just silly. Dates containing a month and a day shold be wikilinked so that user date preferences work. Since feature articles are supposed to represent the best work on Wikipedia, formatting needs to be perfect. Jay32183 18:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        • My thought (and one reason why I wikilinked the dates) is that, although the method used to provide references is not specified, the results should be the same in all cases. Thus a casual reader should not know from reading whether an editor used {{cite web}} or just used < ref > tags. Since the cite web template does wikilink the dates, I think one can argue they should be wikilinked whatever method is used for citations (again, for the date preference function and not because the date accessed is relevant). My overall goal here is to see a deserving article reach Featured status. Ruhrfisch 18:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
          • The objection rationale was actionable and non-arbitrary, and thus, valid, though trivial. As Jay32183 has said, "Refusing to take action on an actionable non-arbitrary suggestion is just silly...Since feature articles are supposed to represent the best work on Wikipedia, formatting needs to be perfect." Yes, as Jay32183 has pointed out, it should have been a comment. In fact, it was a comment initially following my initial objection (please see the above discussion). The reasons for initial objection were addressed and so the objection was striked out. People are trying to address this date-linking problem ( see A new parallel syntax for autoformatting dates and this mailing list). Hopefully soon we'll have clear guidelines. I appreciate ExplorerCDT for taking the effort to start the mailings, despite his FAC-fatigue. It would be interesting to see this pre-emptory ban. Bye the way, this new template "shrubbery" is interesting and funny, but probably against WP:AGF. Anyway, this is not a place for discussing these things. Maybe somebody will take an effort to start another discussion elsewhere!!--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support All of the major problems seem to have been addressed, although I haven't gotten the chance for a thourough spelling and grammar check. I am also confident that any small issues found will be addressed quite quickly. Jay32183 22:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Hurricane Erika (2003)

After working on this for, yada-yada-ya, I think this complies to FA criteria. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Well written and well sourced. Great work. Jay32183 05:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great work as always Mercenary2k 20:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. When is David Roth gonna make a rainfall graphic?!?! Other than that, supertastic! íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 21:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• comment since the event has now passed, did the Bahamas get rain or not? "The precursor disturbance was expected to bring heavy, yet needed rainfall to the Bahamas" Hmains 23:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No idea. I've checked a lot of places a lot of times, but there was no info. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. CrazyC83 05:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The article is well sourced, well written, and overall informitive. The only things I have wrong with it is that its a tad short, and the first portion doesn't have any refrences. However, how much is there to say about a Hurricane which did not last very long and was just barley a Hurricane and the rest of the article's citing makes up for the lack of it at the top, but some would be appruciated. Overall, though, I don't see why not. Jerichi 21:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to let you know, the WPTC prefers not to use references for the lede if the information is sourced further down in the article. We like having our ledes look nice and neat, though having unneeded sources for all of that (when it's further down) just clutters things. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Article guidelines say that the lead should summarize the later text of the article rather than contain its own information. To this end, any facts in the lead are elaborated upon later in the article and cited there. That has become TC Wikiproject policy. (This was an edit conflict with Hink above, but I thought my clarification was useful.) —Cuiviénen 21:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • (double edit conflict) Well, if you mean the lead section, it is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article; so, everything in the lead should be covered with more detail on the other sections in the page, and that's where the references are. If something that is described in the lead is not described with more detail on the rest of the article, it should a) be referenced, or b) ideally not be there. Other FACs have been opposed due to that, such as Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Anthem of Russia. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, no problem with that then. Again, its a tad short, but it seems to be as long as it can get, so I have no objection whatsoever. Jeri-kun 23:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good work, well sourced. --SunStar Net^talk 21:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Writing could use some work. Look at the second sentence for example. Derex 06:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Terrific article, well-sourced and organized. Hello32020 21:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support As usual, the Tropical Cyclone project sends another excellent article to FAC! Some quibbles:
  • I'm not sure what the "however, operationally" is doing in the second sentence. Why is "however" needed? To what is "operationally" referring?
  • Some repetitions in the lead: "quickly westward and strengthened under favorable conditions and made landfall as a hurricane on northeastern Mexico on August 16, but quickly dissipated inland." and "along with light rain, causing light"
  • "it passed beneath a cold-core upper-level low" Wikilinks for the last part?
  • "10,000 were evacuated from northeastern Mexico" Is there a way to avoid starting that sentence with a number? Perhaps "About 10,000"?
  • According to the guide to layout, the See also section in this article isn't needed, since the terms are already linked in the article. Gzkn 02:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, got all of that. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I still don't know what role the "however" plays; how would the meaning change if that word were omitted? Is 70mph below hurricane speed or something? Derex 23:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes; minimum hurricane speed is 74 mph. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Ok then, the sentence is as clear as mud. Since it's one of the first, that's important. It ought to say something like the NHS classified it as an X (tropical storm?) at the time based on 70mph winds, but later (a week?) revised it upward to hurricane force with peak winds of X. The sentence saying it was the xth cyclone, yth tropical storm, and zth hurricane is really confusing to someone who doesn't know the distinctions. particularly since the cyclone article starts off by saying that "hurricane redirects here". The lede is also a chronological oddity, as it first tells me that Erika moved west into Mexico and rapidly dissipated. then, it tells me that it caused issues in Florida and Texas. I understand that's probably b/c it treats the "hurricane" impacts first, but it's still a bit confusing. FA should be clearly written, and _certainly_ so in the first paragraph. This is still not. Derex 19:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Ok, I had a hack at it. The first paragraph is supposed to be a summary of the meteorological history of the storm, and the second paragraph summarizes the impact the storm caused, in chronological order. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
              • I revised your revision a bit :). Hope I didn't render it unintelligible. I'm still not clear what purpose "operationally" serves in the sentence though. Gzkn 00:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
              • It's a term meaning that as the storm was still "alive", the National Hurricane Center's regular tracking operations defined it as a tropical storm, not a hurricane. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Cell nucleus

This A-class article was the subject of the molecular and cellular biology collaboration in September, and was barely more than a stub before we started work. Much of the credit for the work and collaboration coordination goes to ShaiM, who is currently on a break, with contributions from myself and many members of the MCB project. The article had a brief peer review in October, archived here. Comments on this critical article in cell biology would be appreciated. Thanks. Opabinia regalis 03:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support, for what it's worth. I'm admittedly biased, but we worked hard on this to make it into what it is, and I'm satisfied that it's complete. – ClockworkSoul 04:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A shorter version of the lede will have to be created for it to go on the front page. I'm sure you guys are working on this. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, the summary must be summarized summarily. Wow, I'm a dork. – ClockworkSoul 15:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• There are three 2-3 sentence sections in the middle of the article. It's not clear why they need their own section headers. Otherwise, good. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The subnuclear bodies sections could be a bulleted list, I suppose. I liked having them clearly demarcated in some way that makes it obvious how the descriptions relate to the table. Opabinia regalis 01:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comments

• In the introduction, its not clear what this means "It was later popularized by Scottish botanist Robert Brown in 1831." When was the cell nucleus ever popular? :)

What, you mean it's unpopular? Well, I like my nuclei, anyway... :) Reworded.

*Units of measurement should be spelled out on first use Style guide (such as μM)

Fixed the ones I found.

• Are all Karyopherins really transcription factors? "Most proteins, ribosomal subunits, and some RNAs are transported through the pore complexes in a process mediated by a family of transcription factors known as karyopherins."

Err, that should say "transport factors". Fixed, good catch.

*Need to stick to either US or real English. I caught a few British spellings and changed them to US English, since this seems to predominate.

Fixed the ones I found (two uses of 'organised'). So what, the US uses fake English now? ;)

*The changes in sub-cellular localisation of Hexokinase seems to have more to do with transcriptional control than direct control of enzyme activity, see review in PMID 12007644 "The hexokinase 2-dependent glucose signal transduction pathway of Saccharomyces cerevisiae." Moreno F, Herrero P. After all, phosphorylated hexoses will diffuse freely in and out of the nucleus.

Caused by my ham-handed attempt to fix the flow of the writing and not be too wordy, I think. This has been clarified.

*I can't find any references in PubMed to nuclear laminins regulating apoptosis. "The progressive organisation of the nuclear lamina throughout apoptosis is used to initiate and regulate the various phases of apoptosis." TimVickers 17:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad writing; see the revision. Lamina don't 'initiate apoptosis', but they do initiate some of the apoptotic processes within the nucleus after being cleaved by caspases, and lamin assembly failure induces apoptosis. (Not sure by which pathway this induction occurs, but that's a bit too specific here; more a matter for nuclear lamina.) Opabinia regalis 01:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Support. Comprehensive, well-illustrated and clear. TimVickers 17:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comments. Quite comprehensive and well referenced. However,

• Lead needs quite a bit of reworking. What is the paragraph on gene expression doing in the lead?

I believe the original point was to emphasize that only transcription occurred in the nucleus, but I think you're right that it's unnecessary; paragraph removed.

• Is it possible to add a bit about the pathological conditions involving nucleii - Progeria, Anti-nuclear antibody, etc. ? Shushruth ^{\talk page \ contribs} 09:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Added short descriptions of these two to the appropriate structure discussion. I don't think it's feasible to include much more than a short mention of individual disease states, as this invites indefinite expansion of an already somewhat lengthy article. Opabinia regalis 01:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Wonderfully organized and magisterial in scope and treatment. It's written at a fittingly high level and should definitely not be simplified further; but I would include a higher density of wiki-links for the less well-read readers, e.g., phosphorylation and other freshman biochemistry concepts. Willow 12:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Few more wikilinks added - phosphorylation, snRNP, etc., especially at the beginning. Opabinia regalis 01:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support --WS 23:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, very nice, but please fill in the missing PMIDs. I did one as I was checking to see if those journals are carried at PubMed, and will try to do more as I have time. Sandy (Talk) 06:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

PMIDs added. TimVickers 17:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tim! You beat me by a mile. Opabinia regalis 01:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Darwin

Old FACs
Archive 1
Archive 2

This has been a Good Article for some time, with very good prose. Dave Souza has put a lot of effort into it, and we have now very thoroughly referenced it, which was the main remaining criterion to be satisfied. Please help us address any issues that arise, as this is a very important historical figure to have a featured article on. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I would change the Greek endnotes to common Latin. --Brand спойт 15:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point. I'd thought of that myself earlier. Fixed now. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd personally prefer Roman Numerals, but that works. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Support. Nice to see the article featured at long last. --Brand спойт 20:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, though partially a self-support as I helped with the citations. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, essentially a self-support, many thanks to all who have contributed to transforming this article. .. dave souza, talk 17:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support- Its all Greek to me. Seriously though, this is well written and has more references than you can shake a stick at. It is an excellent article about a very important topic and considering how much this man's life has been studied, a very nice summary. Good work. pschemp | talk 17:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object, overall, excellent, but....a)solo years should not normally be wikilinked. You have some linked and some aren't. b) at least note a (check for others) is in the middle of a sentence. notes/citations go after punctuation. c) your web reference format isn't consistent. most don't have a retrieval date, so do but in the format "downloaded on", and some do but in the format "retrieved on"--be consistent, suggest using the "retrieved" format.Rlevse 20:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • On b), the guideline, WP:FN, states Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers. The ref tag should be placed directly after most punctuation marks, which is what we have done. Years have been delinked. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I haven't had a chance to read the article yet, but the web access dates should be good now, and ref punctuation doesn't always go at the end of the sentence. Sandy (Talk) 05:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great article, well done! --WS 20:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The "children" section needs to be expanded. On the other hand, the list of publications could be split off to a separate article in order to shorten the overall article, which is pretty long. Also it's a long list of references. Has any attempt been made to make sure that these are the most reputable sources? Good luck! -- Ssilvers 21:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As all of the sections have been kept concise, the brief summary about Darwin's relationship with his children with dates and links to individual articles seemed appropriate. Having a list of books on the same page is useful for readers who want to refer to what came when, but don't want to go to another page: a link is given to the very full bibliography which the University of Cambridge provide at Darwin Online. Many of the references are to primary sources, the original books made available at that site. A lot of use has been made of the very reputable biographies by Browne and Desmond & Moore, which as it happens have recently been recommended by the Darwin Online founder and director Dr John van Wyhe on this page. Other sources have been checked against these main and primary sources for accuracy. .. dave souza, talk 22:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  Please note that the "children" section has been expanded: any comments? .. dave souza, talk 19:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The section entitled "Illness, natural selection, and marriage" needs to be renamed, since it isn't clear if all these things could happen to one person! TimVickers 22:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The original heading for that section was "palpitations of the heart", a somewhat ambiguous quotation that Dave liked because it could be seen to refer both to his chest pains and his romantic involvement with Emma. Would you and others prefer this original heading? Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If you can accept "natural selection" as being an idea rather than a process in this case, they all happened to Darwin in less than eighteen months! :) .. dave souza, talk 22:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Support I'm happy with the revision and I also changed the Section called "Descent of Man, sexual selection, botany and old age." since this had a similar problem, with three of Darwin's areas of study mixed into one thing that happened in his life. TimVickers 17:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Thinking about it, perhaps "Descent of Man, sexual selection and botany" would work better – the fact that it's the last "Life" section covers the old age point. .. dave souza, talk 19:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Implemented dave souza, talk 08:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support While I agree some sections could have slightly shorter/more encyclopedic titles, these are very small issues. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you! :) Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very well written, strong article covering the life and impact of Darwin. (Just be prepared for vandalism when this is the FA of the day.) Excellent work all! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support I've been half-paying-attention to the work you guys have put into this article, and it is extremely impressive. The picayunity (picayune-ness? anyway...) of these comments is a testament to how well-done this is to begin with. There's a few minor prose issues -

• In the lead - 'wrote a series of books on plants, then one on earthworms' - 'followed by', maybe, or 'in addition to'?
• 'Illness and marriage' section - the prose here is a bit disjointed due to covering both his relationship and his scientific interests during the same period in his life. There's a bit of a jump from his invalid aunt being cared for by Emma, to his studying earthworms - could use some sort of transition. (Also, 'intelligent but unmarried?)
• Same section, second-to-last paragraph - in one sentence Emma is worrying about the afterlife, and in the next Charles is house-hunting in London. As apt as that may be, there could be a better transition here, if the house-hunting process is really important enough to include.
• Not terribly relevant to this FAC, but this is as good a place as any - some of the daughter articles, eg Darwin from Insectivorous plants to Worms, are rather awkwardly named. Opabinia regalis 04:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for these pointers, I've tackled the prose issues and tried to make the "illness and marriage" section more informative, as well as adding "Overwork" to the title in case anyone got the impression that Darwin was idling in his sickbed ;) The daughter articles were named at a time when it seemed good to allow the name to be used in a sentence without a piped link, this could certainly be reconsidered but I'm not sure if the effort would be worthwhile: better suggestions welcome. .. dave souza, talk 06:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not weighing in with a support because I've edited to article quite a bit, but I did do a very thorough informal review of the article (here) and, amongst other things, can attest (1) everything is accurate & NPOV and (2) all of the online refs support the claims made. Mikker ^(...) 05:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Just gone through it, and found a few minor things which I have fixed. Very comprehensive and good article. Just one thing, you may want to mention that Darwin's Sound is a glacier. I had to enter the article to find that out. Great work. --liquidGhoul 10:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The image on that article is misleading - the Darwin Sound is an expanse of water - as it says, a navigable link between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Moderate Support - I'd rather have all the References gathered into inline citations as well as Darwin's iconic bearded picture in the infobox, but overall very worthy. Wiki-newbie 15:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The references are now all linked from the inline citation footnotes, using the newish Harvnb template system. There was a lot of discussion earlier resulting in the decision that the image from around the time of publication of The Origin is preferable to the iconic image of Darwin's beard which he grew seven years after publication. .. dave souza, talk 10:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that this is yet "compelling, even brilliant" prose, as required. Here are examples just from the top.
• "by convincing the scientific community of the occurrence of evolution and proposing that this could be explained"—"Occurrence" is definitely the wrong word here. "notion"?
  • "could"—use present-tense "can".
  • "His theories are now considered the foundation stone of biology"—Remove "now", and possibly "stone".
  • "The wildlife distribution he saw on the voyage"—The first item (three words) is awkward.
  • Unsure that "heretical" requires linking. Tony 06:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for these examples: it's prodded me to rethink what we're trying to say in the introduction and rephrase it accordingly. Nuances I've tried to incorporate include the point that he was already eminent before publishing his theory, evolution is a phenomenon which he demonstrated convincingly to the community of his day and, citing the linked biography, is "now the unifying theory of the life sciences". Life sciences redirects to biology, though I'd have thought it covered other disciplines. Geographical distribution of species set him thinking, and it seemed desirable to me to link "heretical" since it was literally heresy to the established church. However the linked article probably confuses rather than helps that point, so I've delinked it. I've previously checked over the prose of the rest of the article, will now try to re-examine it with fresh eyes. Thanks for that insight, .. dave souza, talk 09:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. An outstanding article, if a little long (especially since most of the sections have separate articles). Solid prose (as good as it gets by committee), and very well referenced, using well chosen sources among the (literally) hundreds of Darwin biographies out there. Come to think of it, now is about time someone wrote an article on the Darwin Industry.--ragesoss 07:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent, well-researched, and well-cited. You'll have to watch the size, though, as it's edging towards the high end of readable prose size - I hope the article will maintain about 40KB prose size over time. Sandy (Talk) 00:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support This is one of the best biographical articles for a scientist with which I am familiar. It is long, but the length is probably appropriate for a subject of this importance.Rusty Cashman 07:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Meets every criteria of WP:WIAFA with flying colors. Good job! --Jayron32 04:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• support good article Hmains 04:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

hey guys great article, i did't even have to read it to know how good it was. All these other comments just sums up how excellent this truly is :)

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted.

---

South Australian legislative election, 2006

Round 1 failed

• FAC 1

Round 2 failed

• FAC 2

Round 3

Okie dokie, how's it looking now? The concensus is that it's looking good, feedback on this page has been acted upon AFAIK, if there is anything that is preventing this article from reaching FA status, please let me know, otherwise, if there is nothing preventing it, let's add another Featured Article to wikipedia! Timeshift 14:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - much of the article looks good. Here are some initial thoughts:

1. In what sense is this the Liberal Party's worst election result? The source given suggests that this is for a statewide election - this needs to be stated.
2. Do the tables of results list all the parties which stood? If there is a cut-off point, this should be noted; if not, it'd be interesting to know why no no-hope parties seem to have stood.
3. The Legislative Council section needs more references. Some it expresses opinions (e.g. "he proved to be more than just a single issue MLC"), and this in particular needs to have the source clearly shown. Some other sections would also benefit from additional references, but are not so lacking.
4. The maps are difficult to read as the ALP's colour is so deep. Could it be changed to a lighter colour, making the border lines easier to see? This deep colour is also a problem where it is used as a background for text.
5. It'd be good to standardise on a colour for independents. White is used on the maps, but grey in the tables. Warofdreams talk 17:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

1. It was the Liberal Party's worst election result, in terms of the percentage of lower house (the house that decides which party will be government) seats they won, as can be seen by the reference linked to (worst result before this was in 1906 but that was before the Liberal Party as well as the Liberal and Country League). However I do see where you're coming from, but i'm not sure how to describe how it was their worst result to a global audience. Any suggestions?
2. I was actually thinking about expanding this like I had been doing with individual districts such as Adelaide. I will do this when I find some time (next couple of days).
3. Mmm, I was unsure about this sentence, I never added it myself. I am thinking about rephrasing Xenophon's paragraph totally.
4. Will see what I can do but I do not really wish to deviate from the colours used for Australia's other elections (see election links on Template:Politics_of_Australia). What are your thoughts after this?
5. Good point. Will work on it. Cheers for your words of advice. Timeshift 06:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work on this. I've tried rewording the sentence under point one, and changing the text colour where the Liberal Party colour is used as a background (just the first instance at present, to see whether this is popular). Good work on the maps; while the yellow borders may not be the prettiest solution, they certainly make the divisions clear and so solve the issue there; and also on standardising on a colour for independents. I'd now be prepared to support provided that more references are added to the "Legislative Council" section; although the most contentious sentence has been removed, this is still largely unsourced. While the "Results" section appears less contentious, it would still be very good to see more citations, as per Staxringold's request. Warofdreams talk 21:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support I'd be willing to vote support but for one reasonably large issue, IMO. I see almost no citations in the "Results" section. First, while they are linked under External links, it'd be nice to see the results cited for the large results table (at least). Beyond that, what are the criteria for "Key" seats? Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Will do. As far as Key seats, I didn't start off the article so I can only say from my perspective, is that the ABC who do TV and radio coverage of election nights chose them, based on their likelyhood of falling to Labor. Stuart and Unley were included as they were also feasible possibilities for Labor, but there is no way that I could ever forsee Heysen falling in to Labor hands any time soon. Timeshift 06:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ref, that looks better now. As for Key Seats, I know it'd be a bit of work, but any chance of changing it to Close seats, and setting some kind of a margin (I dunno what margin would get you a good number of seats, <1%? <3%? Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

They can't really be called close. Rory McEwen, an independent, held a margin of 26.6% - by no means marginal/close, but a seat to watch due to being an independent (and now a margin of 6.2%) which is why it's called a "key" seat, because it's a seat that psephologists believe has a feasible chance of changing hands. Timeshift 20:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The lead is now so long that the Table of Contents is not visible without scrolling on a reasonable-size browser window. This is clearly a result of attempting to respond to RandomP's comments to the first FAC attempt, but now it seems excessive. It can be shortened a little by making the infobox smaller by shrinking the pictures to about 130px, and the sentence "It is bordered..." could probably be dropped. Beyond that needs a decision about what to move to another background section or lose completely. WP:LEAD says 1-4 paragraphs, and this is currently 5 substantial paragraphs. While the background is useful to someone who found the page from Special:Random, much is available a click away from the first paragraph, and would be background brought with the reader from most links into this article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wanna take a go at chopping it? :P Timeshift 06:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You beat me to it - I'm happy now. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(to clarify, that's support from me now. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC))

• Comment Everything has been acted upon (except for party colours, should it be changed or should it be the same as the other state election pendulums?). Can everybody please re-look at the page and see if anything needs changing or adjusting. One issue I was unable to fix, attaching the reference for the title "post-election pendulum"... if I leave it out of the ' ' ', the words contained within them don't bold, if I include the reference in the ' ' ', the number of the ref appears in the Tabof of contents... suggestions? House of Assembly results for all parties are on page 15 of the reference, Legislative Council results on page 10. All HA included, however for LC, I have left out the parties that got 0.1% at last election and did not run at this election. Suggestions, comments, anything that can help it reach FA status will be most appreciated! You guys have already been great help as it is. Thankyou very much. Timeshift 16:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If you can, lighten the colours a tad, it shouldn't be too difficult. And move the reference from the title to after the boxes. michael ^talk 01:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I think this has developed into an excellent article. The only minor issue I could find with it was that it linked the South Australian electorate of Mitcham to the Victorian electorate of the same name. I have currently linked it to the Electoral district of Waite but, although the Waite article claims that Waite is merely Mitcham renamed, Mitcham covered a very different area, including a lot of what is now the Electoral district of Unley. I have been meaning to create a separate article for Mitcham but I am currently seperated from my reference sources. As mentioned, this is a minor issue and doesn't detract from my support of the article; I just thought I should mention this somewhere. --Roisterer 01:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The solution would be to show maps of districts throughout time, including in articles on abolished ones. Bragg and Davenport, for example, are in a completely different location from where they were when first created in '67. These qualms don't present a problem to the article's FA status, however. michael ^talk 01:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Above suggestions completed. Anything else that people think needs improving? Timeshift 07:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I found the results tables very confusing. I would recommend using simpler, more elegant tables based on something like this: Template:Canadian federal election, 2006. —Cuiviénen 21:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarifications: "Informal votes" - I assume that means invalid votes or spoiled ballots, but it's not clear. Having vote totals at the top is confusing; sicne the number of people who votes really isn't relevant to the results, it should be at the bottom of the table. The number of candidates who stood for each party should either be in a separate column or not included. "Primary votes" linking to plurality doesn't tell me what is meant by "primary vote". If it's the first step in the single transferable vote, call it first preference. Parties that have stood candidates before but didn't in this election should be omitted; right now, it's unclear whether they stood candidates and won no votes or didn't stand at all. The term "swing" is misused; it should be "change". The Droop Quota is too technical for an article about a single election and should be omitted. That should help you get started. —Cuiviénen 19:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I've created what I feel is a much better table for the HoA election in my sandbox. I could create one for the Senate as well. —Cuiviénen 04:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot find a wiki page for invalid/informal/spoilt votes. Total enrolled is at the top, with informal votes, then down the bottom at the end of the votes it has a total tally for the amount of total valid votes. Add the informal votes to the formal votes and you get the votes cast figure. All verifiable through the provided citation and/or www.seo.sa.gov.au. It's relevant in terms of the fact that an election where an outcome was expected and/or people's apathy toward politics is rated in terms of if the informal vote has risen or lowered. I have fixed the number of candidates issue. Fixed primary vote to first preference. Parties that did not run should be included as suggested by previous comments throughout the FAC process, and is required anyway to show that CLIC (Peter Lewis) did not run in this election and subsequently lost a seat - the fact that areas are greyed out except for the minus percentage show that they did not run. Changed swing to change. Why id droop quota too technical for an election article? It's only a small link in the upper house results table and has no drawback to having it there as such... Timeshift 20:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. 1a. My overriding impression is that it's a boring article. Who cares about the 2006 election there? My point is proven by the fact that the lead contains nothing, niente, zilch, zero, about policy. Elections used to be about policy; if policy doesn't even rate in the summary at the top, why bother? That's not actionable, except that the prose has to be "compelling", and it's hard to be in an article that studiously avoids anything that's interesting. Beyond this inherent difficulty, there's a genius for stating the obvious:
  • "South Australia is a state of Australia in the southern central part of the country." Gee whizz.
  • "The majority of its people, 1.1 million, reside in the state capital,..."—Do we need to be told that 1.1 million is more than half of 1.5 million? "Live" better than "reside".
  • "31.9% of seats (15 of 47)"—Do we need both figures? I'd drop the percentage.
  • "four-year term" with the hyphen.
  • And this snake: "In the upper house, the Legislative Council, both major parties finished with a total of eight seats each, with Labor winning four, Liberals three, No Pokies independent Nick Xenophon polled an unprecedented 20.5 percent, returning himself as well as electing his running mate, Family First elected a second member, the Democrats vote collapsed leaving one remaining member, and the SA Greens won a seat for the first time." The grammar doesn't work. Did Xenophon himself elect his running mate? "With" occurs twice in successive clauses. Remove "a total of". What a bombsite. Tony 05:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Further down, at random: "It has been Australia's main centre-left party since 1904 and its ideology has greatly varied over time." Two quite different ideas jammed into the same sentence with "and".

Tony, your comment is unclear - are you saying the subject is boring, or that the current article is a boring report on the subject?

Your criticisms of stating the obvious are either because you already know the obvious, or haven't thought of the less obvious:

• I have encountered foreigners who assumed that Melbourne is in South Australia, as it is the southernmost mainland large city. A complaint at an earlier FAC was that the article did not define "South Australia" beyond a wikilink.
• Some readers respond to quantitative and some to qualitative information - both the 1.1 and "majority" are valuable.
• Both percentage and number matter - the total number of seats has varied over the time of the comparison.

I'll have a go at fixing the sentences you've identified. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've chopped around your first suggested sentence, but in the light of Australian Labor Party, there appears to be nothing wrong with the second one. Do you disagree with either part, the juxtaposition of the two parts, or the conjunction between them? --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Above suggestions completed. Despite myself feeling somewhat offended by the tone of certain comments, I and others have worked toward and I believe fixed any and all criticisms of the above mentioned issues. Is there anything else that can be worked toward to improve the article to get it to FA status, or is it too boring to some people? And thankyou very much to large majority who have left positive comments regarding how well the page has come along, I do appreciate them. Timeshift 18:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's somewhat better now. However, a few points:
  • Why does "Sovereign" link to "Queen of Australia". The states are sovereign entities themselves, and for many decades now, Elizabeth Windsor has been Queen of South Australia. It's a serious constitutional matter.
  • Why are all of the simple years linked? I can cope with 1901, which contains some relevant information at the top (that's unusual), but the others are utterly useless. Take 1865 It starts with:

January - The first free public school west of the Mississippi River was established in Tipton, Iowa. 8 January - Borax is discovered (John Veatch). 24 January - U.S. President Franklin Pierce declares the new Free-State Topeka government in Bleeding Kansas to be in rebellion. 29 January - Queen Victoria institutes the Victoria Cross

Can you remove these useless links? They dilute the important ones and make the page speckled blue. Tony 13:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Links removed. As for the sovereign/qoa stuff, refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Australian_legislative_election%2C_2006&diff=94666313&oldid=94664717 - ScottDavis may want to comment on this so i'll let him as he's probably more familiar with it than I am. As for Cuivienen's contributions, what do you think of the current tables? I don't think they need changing and nobody else has raised the issue, and you seem to be the guy to ask. Is there an issue with the tables? Timeshift 13:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

She is not styled "Queen of South Australia" in the same way as she is "Queen of Australia". The article Governor of South Australia says at the top "The Governor of South Australia is the representative in the Australian state of South Australia of Australia's head of state, Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia." The Governor's web site is not clear of the exact role relationship, except that it is not via either the UK government or the Governor-General of Australia. "The Governor's direct relationship to The Queen, which is independent of that of the Governor-General, reflects the sovereignty of South Australia within the Australian Federation." suggests (but does not explicitly state) it is to the Queen of Australia. South Australia is neither a Commonwealth Realm nor a member of the Commonwealth of Nations (independently of Australia). Commonwealth Realm says "She is also represented by a Governor in each state of Australia, by a Lieutenant-Governor in each province of Canada and by a Queen's Representative in the Cook Islands. In these cases, she is represented in her role as Queen in right of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand respectively." The AUSTRALIA ACTS (REQUEST) ACT 1985 is also unclear to me. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Overall, it appears that the Governor is the local representative of the Queen of Australia, at least since 1986, if not earlier. I think in this article, what's there is sufficient. I copied the text I used for that edit pretty much straight from Parliament of South Australia. I suggest that if you're not satisfied, add {{cite needed}} to the details in Queen of Australia or any of the articles it links to. The wikilink should be enough in this article, as the issue is incidental to the subject, which is the election. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that she's Queen of SA. This was clarified in the late 70s, I think. Tony 03:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC) PS, but it's a minor point, so I won't hold to it. Tony 03:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

So how do we change your object to support? :-) Timeshift 05:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - not sure if you saw the comments I made last week; as I wrote than, "I'd now be prepared to support provided that more references are added to the "Legislative Council" section; although the most contentious sentence has been removed, this is still largely unsourced." Warofdreams talk 02:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Is everything ok now? I have added the reference/citation link for the 2006 results PDF to both the lower and upper house result tables as requested, which should cover whatever you might want a reference for. Anything specific, please let me know. Timeshift 12:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment' there is no fair use justification for all those logos, they are not necessary for the reader to understand the article. --Peta 23:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Timeshift 12:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Comment. I don't really see the point of the big parties section - it is list-like, takes up a lot of the article, and includes a lot of information that doesn't specifically pertain to this election. This could well be cut down to a couple of concise paragraphs, and the article would be better for it. Rebecca 23:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I've been told to include it for the international audience. A lot of criticism seems to contradict earlier criticism made by others. I cannot please everyone. How do you suggest I change it that keeps everyone happy? Or can't I please everyone? Who makes the final decision about whether this should be a Featured Article, and why can't they contribute a bit more to criticisms? I hope I don't offend anyone but i've found the whole FAC process quite confusing with everyone contradicting everyone else and thus not exactly knowing what is required. Timeshift 12:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I know it is a large section, but like TS said, it's essential for an international audience. Newcomers to Australian politics need an introduction to our parties and that section does it reasonably well. Cutting it down, I fear, could result in a poor understanding of them. michael ^talk 13:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I realise that we need to explain things, but I think this section is over-the-top, and takes up too much of the article: I think we could have a much smaller and more concise one with a link to some broader article giving more detail for those who want it. Rebecca 01:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you propose it's done? Have a go at the edit, we can always revert if need be - because I think that the section is already at it's bare minimum and wouldn't remove anything else. Timeshift 02:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not very happy with this section, but I don't want to stand in the way of the article getting featured, so I'm changing this to a comment. Rebecca 00:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. An excellent first FA by TS. It has been through enough improvements to merit FA status. michael ^talk 13:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - It's difficult for an article almost entirely about statitics to be "compelling" to many readers. Any drama would help - I was sidetracked on the Playmander article for a while.

Anyway, please provide some explanation of "informal votes" since I have no idea what that means. I'm also unclear why the party and district names are bolded; it seems contrary to WP:MOS. I personally think acronyms like IRV, STV, and TAFE should be spelled out, although mere wikilinking is tolerable.

Fixed.

Down in the legacy section:

• • "It included 1,600 public service job axings despite an election pledge of only 400, however none of the redundancies will be forced." What is a forced redundancy in this context? Does this sentence have a bit of a POV?

Redundancy packages are available for the employees, nobody is sacked in voluntary redundancies, they are not forced upon employees, unlike the Liberal government in the 1990's who slashed the public service.

• • "Being replaced is the current $90 million contract for 170 buses won by Scania with Custom Coaches from 2001 over five years." Just a suggestion but how about "This contract completes an upgrade that began with the $90 million contract for 170 buses by Scandia in 2001-2006."?
  • "With the new contract, Adelaide expects to be at 89 percent disability accessible by 2013 and fully accessible by 2022." Something doesn't seem parallel in the contruction. Maybe "expects to be 89% disability accessible"?

Removed. Timeshift 15:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Gimmetrow 23:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Kill the section. It's unimportant; most of the issues don't directly relate to the election. michael ^talk 02:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Killed the paragraph. The rest relates to directly to parliamentary people and issues and think the rest of it can stay imho. Timeshift 15:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't mean to be a party-pooper, but aren't the NewsPoll results copyrighted? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No. 'Any reproduction of this material must credit both NEWSPOLL and THE AUSTRALIAN."', which is what i've done :-) Timeshift 15:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment So how are things looking now? I've acted upon all suggestions and fixed as appropriate and replied to each comment or criticism. Is it ready to be a featured article yet? :-) Timeshift 04:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment One thing I'm a little concerned about in these reviews is that it's been largely bottom-up - while such analysis is totally necessary to get to the best standard Wikipedia can offer, it ignores some big-picture issues and the so-called "birds eye view". Oddly enough, even a quick reading of the text reveals spelling and grammatical errors which are in need of repair, and some textual redundancy, but I'll ignore those for now in the interests of trying to get more of a perspective or focus on where this article needs to go from here.

1. Well written, comprehensive, factually accurate and stable.
   1. Well written - generally yes, although needs a proof-read.
   2. Comprehensive (does not neglect major facts or details) - Yes.
   3. Factually accurate - Yes.
   4. Neutral - Some questions regarding this, but broadly yes.
   5. Stable - yes.
2. Complies with MoS and Wikiproject guidelines
   1. Lead section - Contains information irrelevant to election that does not read consistently with lead or intention, also needs proof-read.
   2. Hierarchical headings - Yes.
   3. Table of contents (substantial, not overwhelming) - Yes.
3. Images with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status - Maps of high quality (good work TS!) Pictures of leaders copyrighted and unlicensed but this should be OK in the circumstances.
4. Appropriate length - Yes.

Neutrality of some points, lead section and writing style (standard of prose needs to be "compelling, even brilliant") need work, all other points seem OK to go IMO. Orderinchaos78 10:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Where are the spelling/grammar issues.... I and others have looked and fixed as appropriate many times, you must have an excellent eye (a compliment). Timeshift 12:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Noticed a few "it's" that should be "its", and especially in the lead, a fair bit of awkward wording. It's not a criticism - it's what happens when you're very close to something, I'm guilty of it myself in articles I work on extensively :) I would propose rewriting most of the lead, and completely omitting the third paragraph, which has the look and feel of having been dropped in and adds little or nothing contextually. The concept that the lead should be a summary of the article capable of being an article in and of itself should be key. The following is my suggestion - I am putting it forward here with the full knowledge of "if you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it" rather than a "my version is the best possible".

Legislative elections for the 51st Parliament of South Australia were held in the state of South Australia on 18 March 2006, and were conducted by the independent State Electoral Office of South Australia. The centre-left Australian Labor Party, in government since 2002 under Premier Mike Rann, gained a 7.7 percent statewide swing, resulting in the first Labor majority government since 1989 with 28 of the 47 House of Assembly (lower house) seats, a gain of six seats. The centre-right Liberal Party of Australia, led by Rob Kerin, achieved their worst result in any South Australian lower house elections, with 15 seats. Following the outcome of the election, Iain Evans replaced Kerin as opposition leader.

In addition to the major party results, all three sitting independents and a sitting Nationals SA member retained their seats. In the Legislative Council (upper house), both major parties each finished with a total of eight seats, with Labor winning four and the Liberals winning three. No Pokies independent (...as per current from here)

Hope this contribution is of some use or help. I'll have a quick look through the rest before bed but by and large the main body was in substantially better shape. Orderinchaos78 13:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the assistance :-) Btw, voting is not compulsory for citizens over 18 years. Enrollment forms are sent to citizens 17 years of age, all they need do is not send the forms back, which means they are not required to vote in any elections. Also, the South Australia info was added as per previous criticisms over people not knowing what South Australia was, as the article must be for a worldwide audience, and apparently wikilinking to South Australia wasn't enough... Timeshift 13:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries! :) As a fellow politico, I'm keen to see the standard rise on political articles for Australia and IMO you've done a tremendous effort on this article - it's not far from FA at all in my opinion. AFAIK it's compulsory to enrol - it may be different in WA to SA though (I'm Perth-based). However, my understanding is that the roll is national, but used by State ECs/EOs - in which case it's been compulsory since 1911 [10] [11] Orderinchaos78 14:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

45 Is State enrolment compulsory? Initial (first time) enrolment for State elections is not compulsory, however, after having enrolled you must maintain your enrolment details and vote. It is compulsory to enrol for Federal elections once you turn 18.[12] Timeshift 14:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Have replaced the lead with yours, with a few slight changes. Timeshift 14:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I would disregard the earlier objection and remove the third paragraph from the introduction. It is un-necessary – a description of South Australia would only be relevant if something in its make-up uniquely affected elections; this is not the case. See this article for a good election article lead.--cj | talk 15:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. I happen to think the lead is pretty good, but if you can make any suggestions in particular they would be most welcome. Timeshift 15:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I've added {{fact}} tags to the remaining statements which appear to need a citation. If citations can be found, or if sections can be altered so that they can be cited, then I will support. Warofdreams talk 23:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Timeshift 03:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Support - excellent (and speedy!) work. Warofdreams talk 11:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Support as my previous concerns have all been addressed. Good luck! :) Orderinchaos78 12:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - so, with everyone having withdrawn their objection and/or providing support, anything else to do in getting it to FA status? :-) Timeshift 12:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Just sit back and wait. If no new objections arise, Raul is likely to feature it next time he looks through. Warofdreams talk 15:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

References

• Object - 1c The referencing is very bad, consisting of a bunch of weblinks without authors or publication dates, which will make it very hard to verify that information if/when those links go dead. You can either use the cite templates, or fill in the information manually, but we need at least to see author and pub date on new sources, and more information on websources. Readers need enough information to be able to find your sources in a library, in hard print, or on the net should your links go dead, which most of them inevitably will. Also, since you haven't identified your sources with correct formatting, for all we know (without checking each and every source individually), the entire article could be referenced to unreliable blogs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If this is an issue, why hasn't it been raised by anyone else after all this time and why has everyone else supported the article becoming FA, even by some administrators? Timeshift 08:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a very good question. I ask it often, and I see that more reviewers are starting to check references now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, it would be very difficult (and would look unwieldy) to adopt such a tight standard for what are mostly government publications and transcripts of programs (TV and radio) by the national broadcaster. There are a few spots where referencing could be improved but I can clearly see the origins of most of the articles. Ones I would argue could be done better are:

No, it wouldn't - why do you suppose most other FAs are able to do it? And, why do you suppose the cite templates exist? (Maybe to help format news, web, and book sources correctly?) I will start a few to show you how to correctly format your references. I don't use the cite templates - I do them manually. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment With regard to the objection, I have now looked around and found three featured articles 1 2 3 which do not use the cite web/cite news template and in two cases don't even provide links to the information or a year of currency - the referencing in this article is actually of a considerably higher standard than those mentioned. I hope this is taken into account by whoever reviews this article for FA. Orderinchaos78 14:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say you had to use the cite templates, and what other articles did/do is irrelevant - we are looking at this article, and many older articles no longer comply with current standards - for that, we have WP:FAR. I've done the final section for you as an example - it would take you less time to complete your references than it is taking you to object to completing them: as you can see, five of the thirteen references given are not verifiable - that's a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I should clarify that the article has little to do with me - I entered as a reviewer only a few days ago (see script above), and once it passed my objections I changed my vote to support, and have since been looking to help wherever I can to get this through the process. In my own work I always use the cite templates, as can be seen from my contributions history. As for references - which five out of which 13? I see 83 in total. If you can point me to them, I'll look and see what I can find/do. Orderinchaos78 15:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh.. I see what you mean now (having looked at it more closely). This is a hazard of citing any News Ltd publication or The West Australian, and why I refuse to do so. I'll have a look for possible replacements for those, and failing that, can get the actual cites off a fulltext service I subscribe to. Thanks for pointing that out. I would note, however, that if you compare the last part to the first part, it looks jumbled and unreadable - the only way to sort it out would be to get rid of the two columns and have an overly long list (this was the problem I encountered when trying to do the first five) Orderinchaos78 15:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not just a problem with citing web news sources: it's a problem with citing any source without giving full and complete bibliographic information, which will allow a reader to find an alternate source for that information, or to relocate dead links. Also, last access date should always be given on any internet source. The aestetics look just fine on my screen, and WP:V policy overrides aesthetics. I also fixed the top section, to give more examples (authors and publication dates left out, and incorrect titles given on publications, which will make it harder to locate those sources should the links go dead.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding some of the missing sources, Orderinchaos78. I had to change the formatting, for consistency. I had already added many cites manually, and the article doesn't use the cite templates. You added sources with the cite templates, which resulted in inconsistent date formatting. I changed them back, to agree with the others. It doesn't matter which format is used, but results should show a consistent style: if you want to use the cite templates, all of the refs I did will need to be changed as well. I don't recommend that, since the original authors didn't use the cite templates, and it will be much more work to convert them all. All that needs to be done is to add on the missing information to what is already there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a weird one for sure. Not sure what's going on as I've been trying to submit the revised links for 15 minutes with no success. It's now 1am over here and I'm supposed to be somewhere at 10am, so I might leave it to others at this point Orderinchaos78 15:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's morning here, so if the other authors want my help in completing the refs, I can pitch in, but first a consistent style should be decided on, and someone has to locate missing sources. I started a talk page section on that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I managed finally to get the Legacy ones updated, so they're fine now (I manually altered them back to the format you had - still feels weird typing in the dates the wrong way round in an article about Australia, but oh well :)). The other sections, not sure. Anything from the Advertiser or Australian will need to be checked on a full text site as they delete their articles after about 3 months. Factiva has both on its file, and has page numbers for offline paper editions which is great. Anyway, bed for me. Orderinchaos78 16:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I was afraid that might be an issue: that's why I only did one section. If the other authors want me to switch those I already did, I can do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• No.11 - source from http://www.sa.greens.org.au/charter.htm instead of australianpolitics.com
• No.18 - source from http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2002/s481379.htm instead of australianpolitics.com

Hope nobody minds - I have gone ahead and changed these two. Orderinchaos78 14:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously. It's just references. I've referenced, and IMHO the page going for FA status has much better references than some other FA articles i've seen. Again, seriously, any controversial statements have been referenced and can clearly be read by the weblinks. Why must we split hairs? Timeshift 17:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I also want to point out the fact how long i've spent on this project and the amount of hours i've put in to it, and to get various member's approval, yet at the last hurdle to find this glaring in my face. But I do see that many efforts have been made since i've last been online, and I do thank you for it. It would be nice if this stumbling block could just disappear (does that sound a bit selfish? :P) but if there's still stuff to be done, let me know so I can see how difficult it is and whether I have the time in the next few days to accomplish the tasks, whatever they may be. I know it might sound like a whinge, it's just that i've put so much time in to this and to find the references are bung, is a bit disappointing... (i'm also a lil bit drunk in another state of australia, sorry if this sounds like a big whinge :P) Timeshift 17:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's cool. I didn't even realise a few of the ext links were broken - that's a lesson for *me* for next time when reviewing. With all but two or three exceptions, they were News Ltd ones. There was a couple also which linked to a password-only site. About 2/3 of them seem to be fixed after our work tonight, the other 1/3 are easier as they really just involve converting the remaining ones to look like the ones we've done - which means clicking (and hence checking) the link, grabbing date, author if necessary, and noting today's date under "retrieved". Once they're all done, I think that clears that one up. (And yes, I know what it must be like - just when you think it's all done, something else comes up - but I can see in retrospect this was a more valid issue than I originally thought - apologies to Sandy!) Orderinchaos78 18:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem - no apologies needed :-) As you can see, many important sources just weren't there. The notion that "it's just references" is something I'm trying to get more reveiwers to be aware of, so this doesn't happen at the last minute to others - but not to worry, it's still doable. As far I'm concerned, "brilliant, compelling prose" is not a pillar of Wikipedia, while WP:V is, and FAs must satisfy WP:V before we even bother to examine the prose. I fail to grasp why so few reviewers let articles get this far into FAC without verifying the sources. It's a pet peeve; I originally came to work in FAC/FAR by becoming aware of two glaringly inaccurate, poorly-referenced, biased and POV FAs, which passed because of brilliant prose combined with reviewer ignorance of the issues. With several more hours of work, we should be able to wrap this one up, but I can't substitute the internet archive sources, since I don't know if the archived versions are still accurate - I can help, but you all will have to do that. I can help you fix your refs, but I cant' really find/decide on the best references to use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've completed all the refs, except the dead links for the government sites - if you all can decide how to handle those (internet archive?), I can remove my Object. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Only one problem source left (source found, but doesn't verify the text cited to it), so I'm striking my Object, assuming that remaining issue will be dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with (see article talk page) - replaced an unsourced claim that the leader "just sat back" with a reasonably factual claim that Labor's advertisement reminded voters of three actions, each of which is sourced. Orderinchaos78 03:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Five outright supports and no objections remaining :-) Timeshift 12:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Montreal Screwjob

I have listed the Screwjob as a major candidate as it goes into deep depth in regards to the events that occurred, leading up to and after the event. It also says how it still occurs today. Davnel03 21:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object has been tagged as unreferenced since July 2006. The article will need references if it is to be featured. Jay32183 22:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have read the article before, very great article in a good formal tone. Hope for the best. Showmanship is the key 01:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Very obvious object It's got zero references. Not just unreferenced, but zero references. Please see WP:WIAFA (or, for that matter, WP:WIAGA). -- Kicking222 15:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Uh... Yea... Object. A very strange vote for a very strange article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Surprisingly, a book search doesn't show anything obvious about it to use, even though it undoubtedly occurred. I don't really know how to fix this article at this point, unless we refr to the action figures. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object "Undoubtedly occurred?" Hmmmm.... Haven't any of them written a book? Not even McMahon? My son has a couple of books by professional wrestlers of this era. All these guys have web pages, they're referenced in various internet sources also--there are books, and Internet resources, and magazines without end about WWF. If none of these have anything about it that can be referenced, we ought to be considering AfD, not FAC. KP Botany 15:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a URL to a scholarly paper by an undergraduate that discusses this incident[13], the paper is referenced, so, although it might not be usable, it might get you a good start on other references. WWF is comparatively mainstream enough that the expecation of references is not too much to ask, and I like to think of Wikipedia as the one encyclopedia that does archive modern culture. KP Botany 15:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• • A little outside the realm of this discussion, but this is more a failure of our sourcing policies and guidelines than a lack of sources. There's no doubt that this event occurred, and the details in the article are more than likely spot-on, but there's no way this could become featured even with inline cites considering the current handling of sourcing. Just saying. Object anyway, for major prose issues. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't follow, what about Wikipedia sourcing policies would make it impossible for this to become a FA? I can see The Mentors might have problems with sourcing that could lead to it never becoming a FA, but WWF? Please elaborate. KP Botany 15:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Mainly because we lack reliable third party sources on the event. We have some who refer to it in terms of it happening (as a Google Books searched showed), but most that refer to it would be considered unreliable, being self-published sources or lacking serious editorial oversight. I'm not even a WWE/WWF fan anymore (haven't been in 12 years) and I'm aware of this - it was a Big Deal - but what's available simply wouldn't cut it. That's not a problem with the subject matter, but with how we rate such sources for the subject matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
        • But this stuff is written up in magazines. Did you look at the research paper and see what they used? What about the industry pages, also? Like the lay public reads magazines that feature restaurants, but there are professional journals for restaurent owners and managers--is there something similar for WWF? This might require some library searching at the nearest University as opposed to all on-line research, also. Also, when my son went to a match, it was written up in the newspaper the next day, not the sports page that I recall.... KP Botany 00:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

KP Botany is right - magazines and wrestling books have extensively covered the incident. Plenty of sources out there for this, both first hand and third parties. LuciferMorgan 02:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it seems pretty far-fetched it wouldn't be covered, when a long look by one wrestler to another's potential lady friend generates a season or two of coverage. Actually, I talked to my son about this. He said there are some underlying issues, mainly that it was unscripted, and apparently (obviously this is going to show I didn't read the article fully) Hart's brother died soon afterwards and he never got another title match, and it's written up, he thinks in one of McFoley's books, but it was written up in magazines at the time, and later in articles and biographical information about Hart, although, again, because it was unscripted, not fully and accurately covered initially. Hart was supposed to loose, was actually pinned, then McMahon came out and told them to restart the match, almost as soon as match started Michaels pinned him, declared winner, Hart went around telling people he would go to WCW because he was very angry about it, went around for weeks throwing up the WCW signal with his hands, eventually left, Bret Hart post 1997 in WCW, Triple H, Shawn Michaels was in Degeneration X still claim to not have any knowledge of what had happened that night. And on and on and on. AND my son started watching wrestling AFTER Bret Hart moved to WCW, so he learned about all of it from reading wrestling books. So, it's there, in the books, in other sources, and I love somewhat non-mainstream culture, and obscure little parts of non-mainstream culture, and would love to see this sucker as a FA, so get cracking, get it up to snuff, and bring something beautiful all about this back here to get on the main page! I love to hit the mainpage and there's an article about something I never even heard of, and others must have fun with this also. Montreal Screwjob--sounds like a sting, to me. KP Botany 03:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Boondock Saints

This is a self nomination of the article. I've been working on the article for about two weeks. I think the article meets all the featured article criteria. It's comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and without edit wars or disputes. The lead section is concise and gives a broad summary of the entire article. I feel it is an overall interesting read, that is ready to be a featured article. KOS | talk 17:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - The three images need Fair Use rationales. Wiki-newbie 17:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've added fair use rationale for the three images in the article, sorry about that. KOS | talk 18:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -Footnotes come after punctuation, not in the middle of a sentence (at least 2 are). The footnote about the DVD should have info on the DVD, title, publisher, date, etc as this info can change over time.Rlevse 19:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've changed two of the footnotes that did not come after some form of punctuation. Please let me know if I missed any more. I also added the publishers and date into the DVD section, and the footnote text. Thanks KOS | talk 19:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The DVD footnote, number 13, still isn't up to snuff, nothing changed.Rlevse 20:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah my apologies I misunderstood your comment at first glance. Thanks for pointing that out more specifically. Done. KOS | talk 20:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• A comprehensive and interesting article, well-referenced and neutral. Now that the images have FURs, I have no hesitation in supporting (though please fix the placing of the footnotes). Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 19:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• After a breeze through the article, I found a lot of run-on sentences, small typos, and other style and grammar related issues - perhaps a thorough copy edit by users who have not been involved in the article's development would be a good idea?--Dmz5 05:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've attempted to resolve the issues you have pointed out, I believe the issues have been resolved, though an other copy edit by users who have not had a hand in the development of the article, might be a good idea. KOS | talk 11:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have been overlooking this article for about the 2 weeks that it has been worked on. Over this time, the changes that have been made have enhanced the article in several ways. The article captures a wide audience, and interest in the subject is not necessarily needed to make for an enjoyable read. The article edit history does not include any edit wars, the whole article is written in a comprehensive manner, the number of sources provided is sufficient and the article is not bias in any way. In my opinion, this article should become a featured article. Support --Ali K 11:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I'd like to see the refs have a bit more information than a url and retrieval date, but that's my only issue. pschemp | talk 16:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008 [14].

---

Pilot (House)

Nominator(s): David Fuchs

WP:FFA, delisted 17 September 2008, has not been on main page

This article was delisted about a month ago for comprehensiveness concerns; it barely touched on production and hardly had anything in the way of reception, weighing in at 1157 words with 11 references. With some work by Music2611 and I, it has been expanded by 700 words and 18 references; I now believe it meets all FA criteria. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Checking the history, the article was defeatured only three weeks ago: just a note, in the future, you can simply request extra time to address the issues at FAR, so that FAC/FAR won't become revolving doors and paper shuffling. Extra time is always granted at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I must agree that this is a little strange. FAR exists for a reason. You began working on this literally within minutes of voting for its removal. Marskell (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support, Despite the above (wich is rather strange) the article is up to FA quality.--Music26/11 10:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Per the MOS, curly quotes aren't used.
• http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/magazine/daily/15434857.htm deadlinks
• Current ref 23 (Roush, Matt) also deadlinks
• What makes http://www.reel.com/movie.asp?MID=141135&PID=10120416&buy=closed&Tab=reviews&CID=18 a reliable source for anything other than a reviewers opinion?
• Current ref 27 (Nuland) is lacing a last access date

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed the deadlinks (I've got pdfs of them offline but I couldn't use archive.org to generate an on-line archive), added the accessdate, and removed the questionable source (it was redundant with other sources anyhow.) As for the curly quotes, I assume you meant the quote box? I changed it to a different template. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, meant the quote box. Looks good! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Note

I found this recap by Sara Morrison from Television Without Pity, it may be handy if you want to expand the Reception section a bit further.--Music26/11 14:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure about the reliability of the source, and also that since it's done in a sarcastic, snarky manner it would be hard to actually say what is criticism and what is just humor. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's your call.--Music26/11 17:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Giggy's comments based on this version

• Why are there wikilinked years in the infobox?
• "Adler happily agrees to take her medication." - so, um, does she die? The section ends without a wrapping up of loose ends.
• "pitched House to Fox as a medical detective show" - Fox is in all caps in the lead, be consistent
• I doubt you're pointing to the right page when you link to invasion.

Giggy (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the above. The wikilinked dates are part of {{House (TV series) episode}}; I'll see about changing the template. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support; clearly it's close to FA quality and could have been fixed up at FAR, but whatever. Giggy (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Yes, it seems to be close to FA quality. No obvious problems with the text of the article, and no clear reason to oppose, really. Anthøny (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments: Some of these are picky and may be ignored.

• Mention the orange tint. There must be some reliable source on the Internet that mentions it. It is just about the first thing that anyone who has seen this episode notices.
• Link to Television pilot and mention that the show is from the States, e.g. start with: The pilot episode of the American television series House, titled "Pilot", premiered on the FOX network on November 16, 2004.
• It introduces the characters of Dr. Gregory House (played by Hugh Laurie)—a maverick antisocial doctor—and his team of diagnosticians → It introduces the character Dr. Gregory House (played by Hugh Laurie)—a maverick antisocial doctor—and his team of diagnosticians
• Get rid of "young" in "The episode features Dr. House's attempts to diagnose a young grade-school teacher"
• "Pilot"'s initial broadcast → The initial broadcast of "Pilot"
• 62nd → sixty-second per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers as figures or words (also in "Reception")
• House and his actor have already been introduced in the lead so "(Hugh Laurie)" is unnecessary in the plot section
• which forces → prompting • remove "first" as redundant
• House, working in the hospital's clinic, treats → Working in the hospital's clinic, House treats
• The second "House" in the conception and filming section needs to be italicized
• was shot in Canada (while later episodes were shot on soundstages in California) → was shot in Canada; later episodes would be shot on soundstages in California per User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Sentences
• Mention that Flight of the Phoenix is a film in "actor Hugh Laurie was filming Flight of the Phoenix"
• His or its? "[Laurie] apologized for his appearance (which Singer compared to a "bin Laden video")"
• Did Wilson or House have "boyish" looks?
• David Shore, Hugh Laurie, Dr. James Wilson (x3), Sherlock Holmes, Robert Sean Leonard, Omar Epps and Jennifer Morrison are all linked again in the production section
• Which part in Numb3rs was Leonard planning to audition for?
• Does "planning on auditioning" fall under User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises#A common problem—noun plus -ing?
• states → stated • didn't → did not • costar → co-star
• BuddyTV should not be in italics
• Three "Spencer"s in one sentence: change the second one to "he"
• Critics reacted positively to the character of House; Tom Shales of The Washington Post called House → Critics reacted positively to the character of House; Tom Shales of The Washington Post called him
• Remove "positively and negatively" from "The episode's format was positively and negatively compared to a rival television series"
• "Numb3rs" and "ABC's Invasion": Networks should either be mentioned or not
• Why is Pilot italicized and without quotation marks?
• Link to Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Music Composition for a Series
• Should music be mentioned, e.g. Rolling Stones' "You Can't Always Get What You Want", lack of Massive Attack's "Teardrop" on the DVD for this episode

I would support, but this article has nothing from the interviews in the extras from the DVD set and according to TVShowsonDVD.com, there are at least three good bonus features for this article. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; I believe I've dealt with all the concerns you mentioned above (except for the orange tint; I've found mentions of it, but only in a snarky review which may or may not be reliable and is a poor source for something like that.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose per criterion 1b, as no information has been extracted from the DVD release. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support;Comments

Did it air anywhere else on the planet? The world wide look on the topic is missing, the British and the Canadian have to be added at least.--Stone (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I was unable to find English-language reliable sources talking about the show outside of the US. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It placed outside the top 20 in Canadian ratings. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had found that previously, but it just seems weird to say "it didnt do this" rather than its actual performance. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

For it's UK terrestrial premiere it was shown on Five on June 9 2005 and got 1.8 million viewers (a 10 percent share). -Halo (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Added the info to the article, nice find! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support After a read-through of the article, I see nothing of concern. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Drive by comment. Is there something in the reliable sources you have about the unaired version of this episode? It was about five minutes longer, and FOX included it free with several magazines to help publicise the show before it aired, and to solicit viewer opinion on a temporary web site they set up. Maybe relevant as marketing information if there's anything to be found in the sources? Steve ^{T • C} 23:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I found a lot of fan-sites and such had the information, but not any good reliable sources (I'm guessing most didn't notice that the preview episode was longer, or didn't note as such.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support I felt the article was very close to FA when I did the GAN review a few weeks ago, and the changes since then[15] have been additionally beneficial. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional Support. I find all the prose and references excellent, but I'm not convinced by the IDP of the necessity of this copyrighted imagery (Image:House-(pilot)---trachea.png).

  The rationale is "to illustrate the appearance of several of the main characters in the medium of the TV series; to illustrate some of the medical procedures as shown in the show." The image's performance in the supposed identification of characters and medicine in this particular episode is poor at best. Further, the article's prose adequately describes the action portrayed without going into any critical commentary on the copyrighted imagery as listed on the non-free content acceptable use guidelines.

  I don't see any need for any illustration by non-free media, but if there's a convincing rationale for this (or another) image, I don't see any reason not to support this as one of the best of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the image if necessary. It's whatever other editors think. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the following images can meet the criteria. #1 ends up being the image used behind the words "House, M.D." for the show's title card; #2 shows House, some X-rays and the orange tint that I was talking about; #3 shows a scene that takes place in just about every episode, gives an idea of what the hospital's interior looks like and shows the relationship between House and Wilson, which is talked about in the production section; #4 also gives a glimpse to the design of the hospital, is a typical scene, has the orange tint, has movement and shows the main cast minus Cuddy. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not adverse to images per sé, but the significance to the particular images you linked woul dneed to be cited to reliable sources first. I'm browsing mobilly right now and can't discern any tint in the frame (orange or otherwise), but if there's reliable sourcing for it in a particular scene, that would be wholly appropriate for pertinent illustration, I should think. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the third image the characters walking in the hospital? Maybe then I could make a mention of the "walk and talk" aspect of the show (I have a source for that). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The source of the images? I took these screenshots from the episode. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No, i mean I have a source that talks about the 'walk and talk' aspects of House, in particular season 1, so if you had an image which shows that, it might be better defensible per NFCC? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I was actually responding to the first sentence in pd_THOR's most recent post. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and removed the image. If at some later time one with a more defensible FUR can be found or added, so much the better. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - For whatever reason, there is a big blue bar in the infobox under Final diagnosis that completely obscures the text within it. Is it my browser - Firefox 3.0.3? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a big blue bar, but it doesn't obscure the text (In Safari 3.x, at least). I've tried to make the episodes thing less garish, but it's a confusing template. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• More comments: I still recommend that you mention the orange tint and the episode itself should be a sufficient reference. Secondly, I have come across some reviews by The Seattle Times, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the San Francisco Chronicle. As the reception section is not the longest, you could add those. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the above references into the article. As to the tint, I can't see how that wouldn't run afoul of WP:OR. You may consider the tint orange, I might consider it brown; citing it to the episode seems a bit misleading. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I have no experience at FAR, but does anyone think the Plot section is a little long? I guess it's more permissible to have a longer summary when you're doing a relatively in-depth discussion of a single work (as you do in FA), but this just caught my eye because I've had to cut plot summaries of entire series down to things about this length or shorter, and this summary does seem a little detailed. But again, I'm not familiar with FAR, and if you think this level of detail in the plot summary is necessary to impart understanding of the article then I have no complaints. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's only three paragraphs; that's hardly an excessive plot summary anywhere. It's 483 words ,in the range than the guidelines at WP:TV state is a good size. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - Very good, follows the criteria; and I see no other major or minor flaws. However, as mentioned before, information from the first season DVD would be much appreciated and make the article a lot more interesting. GO HOUSE

Sunsetsunrise (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support with notes. I think recent edits have addressed the concerns I had at the FAR. The Emmy award sentence seems to be separated from its reference, and the award cited the "pilot" episode, which isn't very clear from the text here. Series awards don't always cite the first episode of a season, for example the Carnivàle nomination the same year as the House win. Gimmetrow 02:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I'd like to fix whatever you're talking about, but I'm not really sure what's the issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that the description of the Emmy in the text here says "Christopher Hoag, who composed the music for "Pilot" and the first season of House, was nominated for a 2005 Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Music Composition for a Series (Dramatic Underscore)." This implies the award is for the season and is only mentioned here because the music played in the pilot. Also, the ref for this line is on the following sentence, although it appears to me that following line is not supported by the Emmy award cite. (But I could be wrong on that.) Gimmetrow 03:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Fixed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Image review The one free image currently in the article checks out fine. Awadewit (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2008 (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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 22:34, 10 January 2007.

---

Hippocrates

I'm resetting this nomination (old nom). Much of the old nom pertained to the now totally rewritten formating at the end of the article (it was bad before, it's very good now). Raul654 17:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC) ghjhygjghjghjghj56?--Yannismarou 09:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Missing page number noted; I just don't have that book with me at the moment. I have put it on the talk page todo and will fix it as soon as possible. -- Rmrfstar
• Support, nice work. Sumoeagle179 11:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment disagree that "much of the old nom pertained to the now totally rewritten formatting at the end of the article". Most of the opposes on the old nom were for the sloppy choppy prose and referencing problems. Sandy (Talk) 11:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC) In fact, upon review of the old nom, it seems that none of the previous Opposes were because of the formatting at the end, hence, they should not be discounted. Sandy (Talk) 15:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Several footnotes are *still* dead blue links, and prose problems are still apparent (example, "Hippocrates and his followers identified many diseases and medical conditions for the first time."). Can you "identify" a disease for the second or third time? Sandy (Talk) 12:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I went through every link in the sections with footnotes and couldn't find the dead link. Which ones are dead? And yes, one can identify a disease multiple times, because doing so only involves linking together the relevant symptoms: that's what identifying a disease is. -- Rmrfstar 21:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • No, some links are dead. If you click on the note "National Library of Medicine 2006" it takes you nowhere. However, if you click on the note "Garrison 1966" it takes you to the appropriate source under "References". So "Garrison 1966" is not dead. But "National Library of Medicine 2006" is a dead link. So are links like "Internet Classics Archive 2006", "eMedicine 2006", "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2006". This is probably because the Harv style has not been properly followed while creating this notes. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
        • This has been fixed completely, I believe. -- Rmrfstar 23:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Identification of disease — I've changed the sentence. Also have done some merging in the section "Direct contributions to medicine" in order to decrease choppiness, and establish proper sequence of sentences. Please check out. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Nice improvements, Dwaipayanc. I'm striking my oppose. Sandy (Talk) 23:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object—Not written uniformly to the required "professional" standard. There are some nice sentences, especially in the lead (which will satisfy the director's concern when it comes to the main page), but a serious copy-edit is still required. In most places, glitches are easy to find. Here are a few random examples. Please don't just fix these ones alone.
  • "He is often referred to as "The Father of Medicine" for his lasting contributions to the field as the founder of the Hippocratic school of medicine which revolutionized medicine in ancient Greece, separating the field from the other disciplines (notably theurgy and philosophy) and making a profession of it.[2][3]". A comma is mandatory before "which", unless there are a set of Hippocratic schools of medicine, and it's just one of them in question—that's not the case. Why not chop this slightly long sentence into two, anyway? I'm not convinced by the assertion that he "revolutionized medicine in ancient Greece. What, in every village? Suddenly? Needs qualification or softening.

If anything, this statement is too weak: the Hippocratic school practically revolutionized all of Western medicine, in addition to that of ancient Greece...

• • "Historians accept ...". Who? Name them, or supply references.
    • There is a reference there.
  • "As no real biography was available until centuries after his death, those that are available today might be based on hundreds of years of oral tradition and are thus unreliable." What's a "real" biography? How many centuries? (If you know this much, name the first and date it.) "Those that are available—what centuries that are available? "Available" is repeated, too.
    • Dwaipayan fixed this.
  • "He died probably in Larissa at the age of 83, 90, 100 or even later; different accounts of his death exist." The position of "probably" is awkward. "Later" is grammatically different from the three ages that precede it. Avoid the ungainly "exist" construction, which is all too often used on WP. Just "There are different ...". I'd be happier with "at least three different ...", or something like that. If extact info can't be rustled up for a FA, where would you find it?
    • I have reworded this sentence along with Dwaipayan. And there is no reliable account of his death, as is stated in the article: no biographies were available until centuries after he died. -- Rmrfstar 19:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Not good. Tony 13:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote on your talkpage, I am too close to this article to significantly improve the prose myself (I've copyedited it many times over). All I can really do is fix anything someone highlights. -- Rmrfstar 19:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I have copyedited the article. --Robth^Talk 09:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object I think it still needs quite a bit of work, although not necessarily major work (imo), as I know there are real limits to writing about Hippocrates. I will post comments on the talk page. KP Botany 17:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I have responded to your talk page post. -- Rmrfstar 21:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A request for reconsideration has been made. -- Rmrfstar 16:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Too much one-paragraph sections that need either expansion or merging. Circeus 23:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that this is allowed, considering it follows Wikipedia:Summary style. The one exception is "Vis medicatrix naturae" which I don't think should be expanded or merged. -- Rmrfstar 02:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:MOS says "Be generous in adding sub-headings. They help readers to get an overview of the article and to find subtopics of interest." -- Rmrfstar 17:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Which doesn't mean the section should be kept unreasonably short. WP:GTL is pretty clear on it: "Just as for paragraphs, sections and subsections that are very short will make the article look cluttered and inhibit the flow. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading". Single paragraph sections have been a prime objections to FA status for a long time. Circeus 13:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
        • • Please see this and this changes. Two short subsections in "Hippocratic therapy" have been merged. While a new section "Notable concepts: humorism and crisis" has been created from two prior subsections of "Humorism" and "Crisis". The new sections looks substantially flesy than the previous two subsections individually. Please comment. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Note The aforementioned changes were followed by this change, whereby unintentional modification of Robth's copyediting were reverted. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I still think these two sections ("oath" and "corpus") could be lengthened, or reworked enough to contain more than a paragraph. Maybe add in a "buffer" paragraph between "works" and corpus". Having two headers that follow each others is poor layout. And the "namesakes" needs to be prose, not lists, someting I should have noticed earlier.Circeus 16:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at this version. Namesakes has been transformed into prose format. A section named "Hippocratic Corpus" has been created, including a subsection on "Hippocratic Oath". The information on the Corpus has been enhanced. Please comment. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I do like Dwaipayanc's working of "Hippocratic therapy" and "Hippocratic Corpus", but I do not think that "theory" has been thus improved. Should not "notable concepts" still fall under the "Hippocratic theory" header: concepts are part of theories, no? By my estimation, "Notable concepts" does not warrant its own top level subheading; the current organization there seems contrived. And what's the point of sticking together "crisis" and "humourism" into this new section without differentiating between the two? How does it fundamentally help the article? Indeed, it only makes it harder to read. Sure there are now no "one paragraph sections", but that in and of itself is not sufficient cause to merge these sections. Such action should only be taken when it actually improves the readability of the article, and right now does not do so. -- Rmrfstar 00:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's have a look at this version. Please comment.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

A request for reconsideration has been made. -- Rmrfstar 16:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC

I'm opposing on minor stuff now: the references are very confusing right now. You have a few unique references used in the footnotes, while others ("Internet Classics Archive 2006") are duplicated to the references section. Personally, I believe that non-book references (i.e. when you don't need to reference distinct places in a physical item) do not warrant the duplicated Harvard ref at all (it just add an extra step that is meaningless), but the referencing is still inconsistent, and that is bad. See recently featured articles Only Fools and Horses, El Greco and Tiridates I of Armenia. They all use Harvard refs, but single and web references are not moved into the separate section.

Also, none of the access-date variable has been entered correctly, as demonstrated by the extraneous brackets. These dates should be in ISO 8601 date format: YYYY-MM-DD.Circeus 18:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've standardized the references and made them all Harvard style. They are all Harvard style... and Harvard style, according to Wikipedia:Harvard referencing, puts the date in the format I've used. -- Rmrfstar 21:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: dates. Okay, so It's Harvard style that requires brackets around consultation dates? Amazing that is the *most confusing thing* that could happen, since a wrongly inputted date in {{cite web}} results in the same appearance... I still find that puttingal those references away is unnecessary and confusing, though. (moving the refs away didnot actually help)Circeus 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Making all of the refs with access-dates to be in the {{cite web}} format would not work very well, if that's what you mean... -- Rmrfstar 00:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Nice work. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The article has a length that is not intimidating. It uses several book and some web sources as reference, which are properly cited. After it went through copyedits and merging of short subsections, it is now in a position to be promoted to FA status. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - the business about him having pseudoscientific beliefs is anachronistic. They are beliefs that are not tenable now, after the scientific advances of the past 400 years, but they may have been the most rational accounts available then. It's not like a modern physician believing in astrology or whatever. This part needs some finessing. Metamagician3000 10:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh well, did a quick but perhaps acceptable fix of this myself. Metamagician3000 06:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Came by for a new look, and see massive improvements thanks to Dwaipayanc, Robth, Stevefruitsmaak and many others (the article has been rewritten during its FAC), but still find problems:
  • (Weasle words - according to whom?)
    • The Plane Tree of Hippocrates, under which Hippocrates is said to have worked.
      • Considering that this statement is based on legend, I think a reference here is unnecessary; the 18 sources at Tree of Hippocrates do suffice. -- Rmrfstar 16:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        • No Rmrfstar, a reference is necessary. Tree of Hippocrates is a different article. We are here for improving Hippocrates. So I have provided a reference.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • These parenthetical inserts – sending readers to and for in the text – are a distraction, and should See be capitalized? All other information - all - anything else I find anywhere else about Hippocrates is unreliable?
    • Historians accept that Hippocrates existed, was born around the year 460 BC on the Greek island of Kos (Cos), and became a famous physician and teacher of medicine; all other biographical information, however, is apocryphal and unreliable (See Legends).
      • Please see the arguments above: all biographical information on him except those basic facts was first (detectably) written down hundreds of years after he died... so yes; all other material is unreliable! -- Rmrfstar
• Not there yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Despite Rmrfstar's convincing reply, I've softened the words. See has been made see. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Great article. Wikipediarules2221 04:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object Every time I peek back in to this article, it's something else. Now it has mixed reference styles (using both Harvard and cite.php). Hippocrates and the beliefs that he embodied are considered medical ideals. "He is, above all, the exemplar of that flexible, critical, well-poised attitude of mind, ever on the lookout for sources of error, which is the very essence of the scientific spirit" (Garrison).[51] "His figure... stands for all time as that of the ideal physician”(Singer and Underwood), inspiring the medical profession since his death.[53] Pick one style and stick with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about; we went over this before: the article uses both cite.php and the Harvnb template in every reference (that I know of). This is quite standard practice. And in the cases above, the names are simply inserted there to make the author of the quote a little more visible, because the claims are a bit steep. I see no problem with the references... they all work, and they all are the same. -- Rmrfstar 01:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not surprised: example above: you cite the quote to (Garrison), followed immediately by [51] which is ^ a b Garrison 1966, p. 94 - Garrison again - that is, you cite it twice, with two different styles. Later you cite (Singer and Underwood) with no footnote in cite.php. Pick one style, stick to it. Since the rest of the article uses cite.php, why does it have these references in parentheses? After a month, this FA should be steadily improving by now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. I have "prosified" the two citations for these quotes. -- Rmrfstar 03:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That's better; I wish this article would stabilize, so I could quit striking objects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is not actually "mix[ing] reference styles". Just look at the two articles i link to above. They use a very similar style, except without the links. It would only be doing so if the Harvard referencing was used inside the article text itself. The way these two particular quotes are cited, though do happen to be the only 2 cases of such references, and these parentheses must go.Circeus 03:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Like Circeus, I believe that non-book references (i.e. when you don't need to reference distinct places in a physical item) do not warrant the duplicated Harvard ref at all (it just add an extra step that is meaningless). However, in this article all notes have been done in Harvnb format. I just fixed two errors. Request Rmrfstar to please address the concerns of Circeus. (I could not do it as I am not comfortable using harvnb stuffs!). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's one more click which makes the whole system consistent, uniform and almost painfully simple. This is a good thing. Also, in the future, even the web references might be used twice in the article, something that would be very easy to implement in the current system. -- Rmrfstar 15:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment -- is there no better image than Image:HSAsclepiusKos.jpg to illustrate the "image" section? And I think there are more suitable illustrations for the legacy section, and that the image of the Tree of Hippocrates should be located at a different section. At the legacy section, maybe you could put the Roman bust. / Fred-Chess 11:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and have shifted around some of the images. Please review. -- Rmrfstar 15:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support -- although I would still like to see better images. On Image:HSAsclepiusKos.jpg, it is hard to distinguish the persons. Shouldn't there be lots of images of Hippokrates? / Fred-Chess 18:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC) I have added one image I think is suitable, but I haven't referenced it with the Harvard system. I might do that later, or you can remove it from the article. / Fred-Chess 18:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Why's the reference there? What statement does it verify? Is that website the source of the image? Concerning other images, I'll soon include Image:GreekReduction.jpg and Image:HippocraticOath.jpg. I just need some information from the book where I found them. They should help, though. -- Rmrfstar 20:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The reference is intended to verify the location and year. That information wasn't included on the image description page. / Fred-Chess 21:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The article was promoted.

---

Germany

• previous nomination

I believe that the article is of sufficient quality to deserve FA status. It is well-sourced and very informative in addition to being well-organized. TSO1D 04:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose As the initial nominator, I believe an explanation of the removal of my support might be warranted. The problem is that when I first nominated the article, I did not fully understand the requirements for a featured article. Although I believe that the article is much better in current state than it has been in the past, it appears that it still does not meet the expected level of excellence. I thank all the fellow editors who have helped to drastically transform this article for the better over the course of the last weeks. I also thank the critics whose opinions were extremely valuable in identifying certain weaknesses of the article, enabling the implementation of improvements. I sincerely hope that the other editors will be able to raise the article to FA status eventually (even if it fails this time around). but unfortunately I do not believe that the article is ready yet. TSO1D 03:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I suppose that if the nominator objects to the nomination, this should just be withdrawn. It's great to see TSO1D thanking his fellow editors but I think TSO1D also deserves to be thanked for calmly addressing the various issues that have come up in this process and for helping improve the article tremendously. Whatever happens next, the quality of the article has increased dramatically in the past month. It may still be sub-FA quality but it sure is something Wikipedia can be proud of. Pascal.Tesson 04:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, there is really no point in doing that. I still believe that this FAC will probably fail this time, however there's no reason I should try to close it faster. There is no better channel for suggestions than the continuing advice that flows into this page and helps propel the article's improvement. I was just a bit frustrated and tired yesterday, and acted impulsively. I'll do my best to address all new concerns, regardless of the future of the FAC process. So again, sorry, and it won't happen again. TSO1D 22:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Minor objections: Overall prose is very good, but I have several comments:

1. The lead section does not summarize the article. In particular,
   • This sentence from the lead: Historically consisting of several sovereign states with their own history, distinct German tribe dialects, culture and religious beliefs, Germany was unified as a nation state amidst the Franco-Prussian War in 1871 is confusing, too many things to describes in one sentence.
   • Also this sentence: It is the European Union's most populous and most economically powerful member state uses WP:PEACOCK words, uncited and I cannot find it anywhere in the main article.

   • I mistakenly placed the source for population a little to the right. As for economic prowess, Germany has the third highest nominal GDP per capita and the highest in Europe. Perpahs it could say "one of the most powerful countries", would that be better? TSO1D 20:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

   • GDP per capita doesn't translate into a powerful country neccesarily, in that case we should all bow to luxemborg. Those words should probably be removed anyway, they smell of PoV. 212.10.217.122 17:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

   Oh, I meant GDP, not per cap. TSO1D 22:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Please replace the source of this sentence: There are 2.3 million guest workers of Turkish origin in Germany, making them the largest group of foreign workers. The accurate source should be from the official statistic reports, rather than a letter article in New York Times. The sentence itself is an orphan paragraph.

   May I help? In this source [16], exactly here: [17] the Federal Statistical Office of Germany is quoted: "Nach den am 20. Juli 2005 durch das Statistische Bundesamt bekannt gegebenen Einbürgerungszahlen für das Jahr 2004 hat sich die Zahl der Türkinnen und Türken in der Bundesrepublik mit deutschem Pass auf insgesamt 840.000 erhöht. Damit ist fast jeder dritte der 2,6 Mio. türkischstämmigen Menschen zwischen Alpen und Nordsee eingebürgert." In 2004 there were 2.6 Million people of Turkish origin in Germany, 840.000 of them had the German Citizenship. -- Cornelia -etc. 01:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Why does the Demographics section only describe about foreign workers and asylum seekers? Where is the demographics information of the Germans themselves?

   • I believe that the problem is that the information about the native population is scattered across other parts of the article, for instance Relgion and Social Issues. TSO1D 04:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

4. This sentence: The third largest religious identity in Germany, after the two Christian groups, is that of non-religious people... is quite strange. Does the non-religious people is officially one religious identity?

   • Well in the poll they had religion: Protestant, Catholic, and then non-relgious/atheist. That's why it was presented in this way, but I see your point. TSO1D 20:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

5. This sentence: Germany has been and continues to be the home of some of the most important researchers of various scientific fields is uncited; thus looks opinion to me. The Science and Technology section still has orphaned paragraphs. The last paragraph of the section is awkward to specifically write in detail about psychology. The flow is abrupt and the last paragraph does not belong to the whole section.

   • The first sentence is common knowledge in my view and too vague to need to be sourced. I mean there have been numerous German scientists as demonstrated by the subsequent information. Well I put in a source just in case. TSO1D 03:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

6. This sentences: Unsubsidised long-range service operators can compete freely all over the country, at least in theory. Actually, Deutsche Bahn holds a de facto monopoly on long-range services. It is not a fact, but rather speculation. Not an encyclopaedic statement.

   • I agree, I will try to modify it. TSO1D 03:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

7. Please standardize numbers. Use comma for thousands and use non-breaking space between the number and its metric.
8. Please standardize reference items. Some of them are not informative enough.

   I changed two refs; do you believe there are other ones that need to be fixed? TSO1D 15:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

9. Trim the See Also list. Articles that have been wikilinked in the body do not need to be listed again in the See Also section.

   I removed two entries that appeared in other parts of the text. TSO1D 15:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The above was reviewed based on [18] — Indon (reply) — 15:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Is it still rated as B-Class? May be backlogged. --Brand спойт 18:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The B classification is from a much older version of the article. TSO1D 20:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: Lack of print sources. Punctured Bicycle 20:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Many of the sources are from print sources that are found in online databases. For example, most newspaper links are the digital format of formerly printed articles and all the material from encyclopedias comes from sources that are available in print format. The same goes for the CIA and Library of Congress Reports. I mean I can cite the paper version but I thought it would be useful to have a link to the text that has been made available online. TSO1D 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

By print sources I meant books, besides encyclopedias (WP:RS: "Secondary sources should be given priority over tertiary ones.") Punctured Bicycle 21:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But compare this article to the FA Belgium that only has about five print sources that are not linked to a specific part of the text. I think overall the German article is much better sourced. It wouldn't really be a problem to find some books about Germany on Amazon and list them here, but since they weren't used for conducting research that wouldn't truly be useful in my view. Furthermore, I believe that all important information that is not common knowledge has been supported by a credible source even if that source is available in digital format online. TSO1D 13:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What sources did you use when conducting research, anyways? Huge sections of text give no indication of where the information came from (in the form of inline citations). 10 citations—comprising magazine, news, and encyclopedia articles—is not adequate for 2000 years of history, for example. Other FAs, which may end up on FARC at any time, aren't an excuse—why not strive to be better than them? Punctured Bicycle 03:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't I that wrote the article, I just tried to reformat much of the text and provide as many sources as I could find for the content. As a model for my edits, I used the Belgium and Canada articles as they had already received FA status and I believed that they had already come under close scrutiny so they must have reflected adequate Wikipedia standards. Online sources where the only ones I had to my disposal and I selected the most credible ones to support the information of the article. I cannot deny that it would be better to have more sources, that is always the case, however I believe that in its current form possesses a quality of a sufficient degree to warrant the promotion of the article to FA status. Others of course disagree and constructive criticism has been put forward by many. I have tried to do my best to fulfill these requests, however under the circumstances I do not see how I can do more than change the language and add some more sources of the same type I previously included. TSO1D 03:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose still This article is not properly researched/referenced. The nominator added tons of print references shortly after saying "online sources where the only ones I had to my disposal" and "it wouldn't really be a problem to find some books about Germany on Amazon and list them here, but since they weren't used for conducting research ..." This suggests to me that the sources listed are being used more for show than actual referencing. As far as I can see, the article did not change significantly to reflect the new sources. For example, where are the inline citations that indicate the page numbers that were used to support specific statements? (See Crawford expedition for an example of this.) Even if we assume the sources listed were used to conduct research, the corresponding inline citations required for verification purposes are missing. Punctured Bicycle 14:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are accusing me of adding the references for show you are greatly mistaken. I admit that I didn't use the sources listed to conduct research, but I didn't write the history section either. Rather it was summarized by other users from other fuller articles on various historical periods. I took the sources from those articles and added them to the main article with the summary. TSO1D 21:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Please read again WP:MOS carefully, especially about WP:CITE. All books/articles/publications that are not used in the article can be listed in Further readings section. Items in the References section are used directly in the article and they have to be supported by inline citations. By listing all available books about Germany from website of a bookstore in the References section is not appropriate. — Indon (reply) — 09:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read my above comment, I did not get the sources from Amazon, but from the main History of Germany article and its subarticles such as German Empire. That's were the text came from and I assumed that the references listed there were used for conducting research so I added them to this article as well. But I agree with you, as long as those sources are not directly cited the list should be dropped. TSO1D 12:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we could lose the References section totally. Nobody remembers which book was used to prove which assertion, and I think nobody can be bothered to find out (Germany is one of the most-edited articles, with thousands of edits). Better drop this section and inline reference everything from history books or similar (which is very easy, since all the statements are undisputed). Kusma (討論) 09:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I agree the reference list can be removed. TSO1D 23:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Some paragraphs are totally uncited. They need citations. LuciferMorgan 21:54, 8 December 2006

(UTC)

I believe that the parts of the text that do not include citations include content that can be considered common knowledge thus not requiring the support of sources. Most of these parts are in the history, law, and government sections that are not cited in other featured articles such as Belgium or Canada for the same reason that I have mentioned. TSO1D 13:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• • I am currently changing the references to other encyclopedias (which I think should not be used in a FA) to book references. Kusma (討論) 09:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Not written to the required "professional" standard.Excellent job done by the League of Copyeditors; I'd still like just a brief description of how the DDR was different from that of the Federal Republic. It does mention Soviet Bloc, but nothing about life and the economy of the DDR. Take the lead:
  • "It is bordered to the north by"—Unidiomatic. "A portion of the alps"—same.

I am sorry, but how "it is bordered to the north by" undiomatic? That is one of the most common ways of presenting this information in the English language. For instance see Britannica that uses the same structure: http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9370838/Macedonia. TSO1D

• • "Germany is a democratic parliamentary federal republic, made up of 16 states (Bundesländer), which in certain spheres act independently of the federation." I'd remove the last clause, because it says nothing useful unless accompanied by more detail than is appropriate in a lead. Remove ",made up", which is redundant. Saves the repetition in the subsequent sentence ("consisting of").
  • "Historically consisting of several sovereign states with their own history"—Ungainly repetition.

I agree and will remove it. Actually I see that someone already beat me to it. Is it ok now? TSO1D 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• • "distinct German tribe dialects"—clumsy.

Agree again. TSO1D 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• • "Germany has the third largest economy in the world and is the largest exporter of goods on the globe"—"In the world ... on the globe"? The second is unidiomatic, and both together in a sentence are repetitive.

Again, I don't agree that it's undiomatic, though perhaps a bit awkward, I will try to change it. TSO1D 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This needs serious copy-editing throughout. Tony 01:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The writing is awkward in many places, and the text introduces new terms with only a passing mention (i.e. in the restoration and revolution section). I cannot support at this time. --Danaman5 03:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The article went through many changes and was copyedited many times. Most of the concerns seem to be addressed. How does the article look now?Baristarim 05:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a little late getting back to this. Changed to Weak Support per improvements made.--Danaman5 23:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support there are a lot of small issues that could easily and should be fixed, mostly concerning references (some sections are a little light on references + see comments above) and prose (not bad by any means but perhaps not brilliant). Still, the overall quality is impressive. Pascal.Tesson 21:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• TSO1D—No point in adding your "support" if you're the nominator .... ahem. Not a numbers game here. I agree about "bordered", having looked it up. I still think it's a little ugly, and would rephrase it myself, but you're right, it is correct as is. ON the globe is not idiomatic, unless it's an insect sitting ON the globe in the kids' bedroom. Tony 05:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree (about the vote). Although I see that "on the globe" has already been changed and I agree that it sounds a bit awkward I still say that it's not unidiomatic. For instance look at the phrase "country on the globe" on Google. As you can see some more reputable sources also use it in the same context it appeared in the article. I know this doesn't really matter now that the text has been altered anyway, but I just wanted to defend the idiom :). TSO1D 05:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comments a couple of specific things/sentences that should be fixed:

• "irregular" government employment such as "one euro" jobs, What's a one euro job? or an irregular employee?

Irregular refers to the fact that the employment is not stable but meant for short periods of time as explained by the examples given. I gave a brief definition of "one-euro" jobs in parentheses. TSO1D 15:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Despite the tense situation in eastern Germany, total government employment in Germany remains lower than in other states such as the United Kingdom or Canada. Not sure what that means. What is the comparison to Canada and the UK supposed to prove?
• Get your hands on a better university picture than that of Würzburg. It's not a well-known university across the world.

  What about Heidelberg? It's the oldest University in today's Germany and I think it is well-known, isn't it? Perhaps the picture of the aula there may be okay? -- Cornelia -etc. 02:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• The picture of Angela Merkel next to the social issues section should probably have a social issues caption.

Ok, I changed the caption. TSO1D 15:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• For centuries, women's role in German society was summed up by the three words: Kinder (children), Küche (kitchen), and Kirche (church). Throughout the twentieth century, women have gradually won victories in their quest for equal rights, although women are noticeably absent in the top tiers of German business, holding only hold 9.2% of jobs in Germany's upper and middle management positions. While I'm not denying that women's social position in Germany is an important issue, this group of sentences makes it sound like a German-specific issue which, for all I know, it is not. Do French women hold 25% of top tier business positions? I don't think so.

I don't believe the article is suggesting that this is a German peculiarity, it just lists the "ongoing quest for gender equality" in Germany. This isn't one of my favorite sections, but it's still factually correct and I didn't want to remove it altogether nor did I know how else to change it. TSO1D 15:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• many historical figures, though not citizens of Germany in the modern sense, were influential in the German cultural sphere, including Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Franz Kafka and Stefan Zweig. Don't get me wrong, I like Stefan Zweig but he's not really in the same league as Mozart and Kafka. If you want to have three examples (which is always nice) how about Sigmund Freud instead?

Good idea, I actually though about doing that and will do it now. TSO1D 15:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm no expert but one sentence for German philosophers seems like an understatement. German idealism is of major importance in the history of philosophy. Why not link to German philosophy? (even if that's a low-quality article)
• For some reason, the culture section suddenly switches to a surname-only format for name-dropping.
• Cleanup the selection of names. Kraftwerk is influential, Blind Guardian not so much. Only names that have a significant (and third-party established) impact should be in there.

Pascal.Tesson 07:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've just added half a dozen citation requests. These should all be easy to find by looking up the references of the various sub-articles. Note that I'm not peppering the article with citation requests to prove a point but just to highlight the work that remains to be done. Pascal.Tesson 16:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I just took a look at the Germany article in German and found a few interesting things. First, it's incredibly long (which isn't a good thing I know) but it sort of shows what content is missing from the english article. It has a really long series of sections on architecture (we have a one line sentence I just added), a section on cinema (for some reason we don't), sections on sport, fauna, flora, etc (we don't but not sure we want one). Also I realized that for some reason Willy Brandt and Helmut Kohl are not mentioned anywhere in the English article which does not seem right... Pascal.Tesson 04:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As Adenauer isn't mentioned, either, it seems not so bad not to mention these two. I don't think the history section should be longer than it is, so if you suggest something important is missing, do you have an idea what to remove or shorten instead? Kusma (討論) 14:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well let's put it this way: should we have room for Adenauer if we have room for Dieter Bohlen? Although I have developed it quite a bit, the section on culture could be refactored and dramatically shortened so that it relies on other existing articles (some of which are quite good). The impact of Adenauer, Brandt, Kohl and even Schröder not only on Germany but on Europe as we know it today is too important for us to ignore them here. Pascal.Tesson 16:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added Adenauer and Brandt to the post-45 history section. I couldn't find a good way to describe Kohl's role there yet. Kusma (討論) 16:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

On a related note: I think the section on German culture is slowly reaching higher quality than the article Culture of Germany and so it does not make much sense to link to it unless we move some of that content. I would favor rewriting the Culture of Germany article by merging the Germany content in there. Then we could rewrite a much more succinct section and add a note in the source that this section should not be expanded too much. We could limit ourselves to a general discussion on the Culture of Germany versus German culture and mention fields in which Germany has been particularly influential. Pascal.Tesson 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support, the article ahs improved amazingly from a month ago. The "administrative divisions" section could still be improved, though, by adding a one-or two-sentence statment that notes how much freedom the divisions have to make their own decisions. That would make it look less like a table without comment. Kusma (討論) 09:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Mild support (upgrading from weak) the page has gone through considerable improvement. I think the next thing to do is to shorten dramatically the culture section: I've copied the (excellent) content of that section to Culture of Germany and I think we should have a simple summary style paragraphs or two. The rest of the expansion should go in the Culture main article. On another note, I'm going on a wikibreak so good luck to all, TSO1D in particular who has done a lot of very good work on this article. Pascal.Tesson 05:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support — Indon (reply) — 18:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Further to my objection:
  • Why are en dashes and hyphens inconsistently used in titles?
    • Can you please explain what you mean. TSO1D 22:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The history section is way too long: it's out of proportion with the rest of the article, and I'm afraid to say, is pretty boring in places. Why is Martin Luther brushed off in two sentences, whil paragraph after paragraph are given over to grey details from the first millenium? Luther was of critical importance. Same for the Thirty Years War.
    • I'm sorry if you find certain areas of the history section boring, however I believe that the text needs to be this long to even give an overview of German history and personally I am generally satisfied with the distribution of information (except for the last section).
      • Ok, again reduced the length of the history section to a section that I believe is now appropriate. TSO1D 15:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The placement of images often forces the text into very narrow columns. For example, Hitler and the subdivisions crowd the whole space.
    • I tried to remove some of the images (I tried to make it so that any line of text was only bounded by one image), however I believe that further reductions would only have a negative effect by removing valuable visual aids. TSO1D 00:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Pretty superficial account of modern history, even if it's in summary style. Getting very blue, too. Why the repeated links? I'd ration them. Why not reduce the early stuff and deal properly with the important stuff. DDR knocked off in a few shallow sentences.
    • Ok, I will try to see if this section can be expanded. However I do not intend to remove text from other sections to make room for it. TSO1D 00:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I added a little more to the modern history section, however if we continue to expand that section, it will be out of proportion with the rest of the text. TSO1D 15:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "The climate is influenced to some extent by the Gulf Stream, which promotes an unusually mild climate in areas adjacent to it." Remove "to some extent". "Adjacent" is odd here.
    • I changed the sentence according to your suggestions. TSO1D 22:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "areas bordering on the North Sea"—Spot the redundant word.
    • • Removed "on". TSO1D 22:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "along the Rhein which flows into the North Sea"—Comma before "which" almost mandatory. Too few commas throughout, IMV.
    • Added that comma, if you see other omissions please indicate where they are or rectify them yourself. TSO1D 22:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "rain falls all year round"—So it does over the planet, but we're interested in the patterns. Is it totally uniform?
    • Levels are relatively uniform though the greatest variation occurs during the summer maximum. I changed the text to reflect this. TSO1D 22:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Winters there are relatively mild and summers tend to be comparatively cool"—"mild" and "cool" are already relative/comparitive.
    • I agree, I took the adverbs out. TSO1D 22:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "for prolonged periods of time"—spot the two redundant words.
    • Removed "of time". TSO1D 22:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you sure the one trillion dollar estimate of exports is correct? Thought it was 1200 million. And does this exclude services and returns on investments, as implied?
    • Thanks for pointing that out. Total exports did in fact add up to 1 tril, however merchandise exports were 912 billion. By the way, the source is here. TSO1D 23:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not good enough.

• • Overcompartmentalisation, esp. in "Culture". Can the subtitles be removed?
    • The problem is that the entire section needs to be summarized, removing the subtitles wouldn't be sufficient. However, you are right, the section is too lengthy as it is. TSO1D 22:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, I just love the last sentence tacked onto what deals with amazing grandeur:

In the field of music, Germany claims some of the most renowned classic composers of the world including Bach and the Bonn-born Beethoven, who marked the transition between the Classical and Romantic eras in Western classical music. Other composers of international fame include Handel, Telemann, Mendelssohn Bartholdy, Brahms, Schumann, Wagner, Strauss, Orff, and Pachelbel. The film score composer Hans Zimmer is from Germany as well.

Ok, I reduced the size of the culture section and removed all subtitles. Perhaps more could be taken out, however I believe that the amount of space dedicated to the section is proportional to its importance to the topic. TSO1D 00:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Bonn-born Beethoven ...

Sorry, that's my awkward translation from German. I completely removed it now. TSO1D 22:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

of the world

Ok I said "some of the world's most renowned...", it was at least repetitive. TSO1D 22:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC) TSO1D 22:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Did Bach also mark the transition? That's what it says.

Ok, I put Beethoven first so that the statement would be restricted to him. TSO1D 22:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Really folks, this does not compare to the other nation FAs. Tony 14:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ok Tony, I think I have addressed all of your concerns, at least partially. TSO1D 15:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Tony that this does not compare to other nation FAs. It is better. Support. ---Pedro 00:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object This article's structure is definitely not correct. Please see Canada, Australia and India, some of the best country articles out there. Demographics and society sections need to be combined. The article is not very easy to read. However, the references and the depth of the subject matter is good, so will support if the structural issues are dealt with. As for other country FAs: there are some that will be getting a delisting soon like People's Republic of China - apparently it passed FA in 2004 with the standards of the day, but currently it is nothing but a mess. So please restructure the article. Plus some of the information in the article needs to bet seriously cut, and some other stuff expanded: History section is way too long. Most of that stuff should go to sub-articles. There is no need to mention the wind-power capacity of Germany in this article, that also needs to go to relevant sub-articles. There are seealsos in the middle of sections etc. Better take this article to peer review first I think. However, if the regular editors can work on it, then it should be fine. Cheers! Baristarim 09:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I tried to use the framework of the Canadian article, however there are several significant obstacles. What the Canadian or Indian articles call demographics is supplemented here by a society section with three other subsections that sometimes overlap with that subject, but at other times would be impossible to integrate there. I am talking about religion (which should easily be merged with dem), social issues (which might be merged in part), and education (which I really don't see a way of merging). I guess I will deal with the society section by merging what's possible with demographics and making education a new section. The history section presents another important obstacle. I see that many users have expressed complaints about its length, however I never fully realized the magnitude of the reductions that should take place. I have tried to trim the section over time, however it is still much too long. I guess I will have to remove all subtitles and slowly reduce it. Do you believe that other sections such as transport, which do not appear on other FA national articles. They seem too informative to remove. By the way, there was a peer review for the article, but it attracted only limited attention. TSO1D 14:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment and minor objections The structure looks better. I know that writing country articles can be hard :) Well, I think that there are some improvements that can be made, not neccessarily because the article is bad, but simply because it will make the article better.. However some of them are pretty important: The culture and science and technology sections might be better combined. The thing is, there are too many names listed that it is somewhat confusing. More analytical sentences about the German culture and its place in the global context might be better than simply listing names. I know that some of those people have been very important in global culture, but a greater focus on Germany would be better, since the article is about the country. Also culture sections should include something about the sports in the country as well. What kind of sports are popular (I know that it is football, but for the uninformed reader :)), olympics etc? It shouldn't be simply a list of the country's achievements either (i ran into this problem in France :)), it should be about how the sports relate to the country and the people as a whole. I don't know, is there a traditional German sport for example? No need to mention it if there isn't one, but might be interesting if there actually is/has been one. I also think that the social issues should be combined with other sections, with the paragraphs combined into their relevant sections. As I said, the only problem I can see is the overlisting done in some places. As for the transport section.. There was a similar thing in France.. Someone is insisting that the transport section should be included at all costs :) However, I think that it would be more appropriate in a sub-article. I just cannot see the transport being as important then a country's culture or politics or etc. The things is, transport sections generally seem to make the articles something like a travel guide. In fact, what you might need is a "Topics in X" template to put in the see also section, that way you can list all topics about Germany easily and give the reader the opportunity to select what want to know about Germany directly in that list. I will try to drop by later. Baristarim 19:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

About the culture and science sections, I agree with you that too much of the text is composed of a list of names. I tried to reduce this (it was even worse in the past), however it's very hard to decide what names to remove (Mozart, Einstein, Mann?). You are right, however, more comprehensive sentences should replace much of the current format. As for including sports and other elements in the culture section, I hadn't even thought of that. When I thought of culture, I immediately assumed it was high culture. However, the other elements you mentioned are also very important and should be included in that section. As for transport, I am not that big a fan of the section personally, I even tried removing it in the past. I tend to agree with you that it might be better just to link to the subsection. TSO1D 20:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the topics in... template is much better, thanks for pointing that out. TSO1D 21:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

lool. I know, when I first came to Wikipedia it kinda surprised me to see sports in the culture section, however it made sense after a while. The "topics in .." template will really help out the article, you will see. Not only will it look nicer, but all the see alsos will take less space while grouping everything related to Germany in a very concise section easily accessible to the reader. Just use one of the layouts of the other topics templates and replace the wikilinks with relevant Germany articles. For the moment I don't have a lot of time but I will check in soon. Cheers! Baristarim 02:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I've already used that template since you first made the suggestion and it looks great. TSO1D 03:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have added a sports section. Do you think that's sufficient in that area? TSO1D 16:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sports section looks just fine :) Baristarim 05:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support My above concerns were addressed and the article looks really good now. I am sorry about not being able to get back to this earlier, I have been busy both in Wiki and real life because of the holidays et al. A great congratulations to editors who have spent a lot of time trying to address the concerns in the FAC, and the article seriously looks really good at the moment and it fits FA criteria. The "topics in X" template also simplified a lot of things and really made the article informative for readers who want to know more about the country. Good job for the whole effort! Baristarim 05:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Further comment. I was going to weaken on my objection, but there are problems wherever I look. You must find this frustrating, I'm sure, but a FA should read smoothly and be crystal clear. There are problems in both the rendering of facts and in readability. I've cast my eyes about and found these issues at random in a few small windows of text.
  • "the Chancellor is the head of ... a pluriform multi-party system"—Are you sure? The distinction between being head of the government and of this might be lost on most readers. It is on me.
  • Awkward word order: "in the face of a growing migration of East Germans to West Germany via Hungary and mass demonstrations"—just move "mass demonstrations to after "face of", and follow it by "and".
  • "The country eventually came to enjoy prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder)"—what on earth is "eventually" doing here? Replace "beginning in" with just "from". Insert "known as the" before the German term.
  • "The recovery occurred largely because of the previously forbidden currency reform of June 1948 and from 1949 on partly by U.S. assistance through Marshall Plan loans." This is cumbersome: more commas throughout the text would make for easier reading and more accurate expression—here, one is needed after "1948", isn't it? "On" should be "onwards". "By" should be "through".
  • "The sectors controlled by France, the United Kingdom, and the United States were merged to form the Federal Republic of Germany on 23 May 1949; the Soviet Zone established the German Democratic Republic on 7 October 1949." No, the Soviet Zone didn't establish the DDR, the Soviet Union did.
  • "were somewhat reduced"—spot the redundant word.
  • "During the summer of 1989, in the face of a growing migration of East Germans to West Germany via Hungary and mass demonstrations, East German authorities unexpectedly eased the border restrictions in November 1989,"—There are time-phrases at the start and finish that seem to overlap.
  • "sent a peacekeeping force to secure stability in the Balkans and sent a force"—repetition.
  • "In recent years,"—this should be banned from WP as so vague that it's useless. "Since 2001"? "Over the past five years"?

Now, why not try out our new League of copy-editors? Specify precision of expression, commas, and redundancies. Perhaps the Director is willing to wait another few days ....? Tony 09:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I introduced the changes you proposed above. I guess I never took the time to carefully copy-edit the entire article. I will do that, and also I have taken your advice and asked the League for help. TSO1D 14:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I went through the entire article and did a general copyedit. I'm sure I missed some things, however. I've become so used to the text in its current form that I'm liable to overlook certain errors. Nevertheless, I have to say that I'm satisfied with the general quality of the text. Hopefully others will catch any residual mistakes, but at this point I don't see what else I can do to improve the article's quality. TSO1D 23:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support, is a great article and there are only tiny problems left with it. Mathmo ^Talk 08:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If you have any specific concerns, could you please list them so that the editors of the page can try to improve those aspects of the article. TSO1D 20:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object Fails 1c. How did this article get this far into FAC without cleanup of basics like WP:MSH?
  • What is this at the bottom of the article? ( [nds:Düütschland]] ) ?
    • That was added a few hours ago by another user who added the interwiki, fixed it now. TSO1D 18:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There are unformatted and incorrectly formatted references throughout (example: http://www.olympic.org/uk/games/past/table_uk.asp?OLGT=2&OLGY=2006 Turin 2006 Medal Table] International Olympic Committee. Retrieved 2006, 12-28 )
    • In that example, is it just the extra bracket, or was there something else as well? And other than that what sources are not formatted correctly? I thought I had used MLA style for all. TSO1D 18:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A spot check of the references turns up lacking - this, for example, is a dead link (Germany: Culture Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2006. Retrieved 2006, 12-27 )
    • That one is strange. I did it again and it seems to work now. TSO1D 19:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Pls indicate a German-language icon on sources which are not in English - it does me no good to click on those sources to attempt to verify them. For example, (in Spanish) is the Spanish-language icon - I don't know the German one.
    • It's (in German) and I will do that.
  • What is this? (Hoppenstedt business databank 2002 )
    • Oh, I had replaced that one, I guess that got lost in some reverts though. Anyway, I will do it again. TSO1D 19:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Include all bibliographic info in citations; for example, the authors on this and this.
• I stopped checking references, since the referencing is overall sloppy and incomplete.
  • I did it for most of them, I guess I just missed some. I'll go through them again and check and I will correct these two. TSO1D 19:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Why did you leave out the rising mortality rate, mentioned in one of the BBC sources, and what is that due to?
  • I mean a lot of information was left out, only a summary of the most important aspects of German demographics was kept. Besides, I included the BBC source because I needed a citation for the birth rate, and having found that I did not pay close attention to the rest of the article. TSO1D 19:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• "Critics have alleged?" Please specify what critics.
  • I completely removed those two sentences. The view of non-compliance was held by a small minority. In any case, that part was too detailed, the rest already exists in subarticles. Anyway the problem disappears there. TSO1D 20:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• The article is undercited - I'm going to add ref tags to only a few sections as examples. Many statements also need to indicate as of when (a date). I cited some of the facts myself, by using named refs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I will provide sources for the ones you listed. The problem is that for many of them, I just added a citation at the end of a group of sentences supported by one source. I guess I will add it for every instance though. TSO1D 19:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think I have addressed all the major concerns that you presented. I checked all sources and tried to make them conform to Wikipedia standards. I added language tags for the sources that were written in German. I also filled your citation requests and added new sources elsewhere and removed the problematic bits of text you identified. TSO1D 23:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The references are looking better now, although every time I've come back to the article, I've found more referencing problems that needed to be fixed. External links could use pruning per WP:EL and WP:NOT - they should be kept to a minimum. The CIA factbook is already used as a reference, hence shouldn't be be in External links. This doesn't look "encyclopedically" useful - [19]; this says it's "official" or "government", but the website doens't seem to indicate that, and it seems commercial [20]. Can the Wikitravel link be included in the sister projects box? Science and technology is unreferenced. Main templates are used incorrectly: they should indicate when a main article is summarized back to this article via summary style, yet many of the articles listed as Main are barely stubs, aren't cited, and don't support the text given in this article, meaning for example, that the Culture section should be better cited, as it can't rely on the daughter articles. (The main templates should be switched to See also on the articles which are barely stubs.) For example, Education in Germany is an uncited diseaster needing cleanup - it can't be the main article upon which an FA depends, nor can Germanic culture. Demographics of Germany, Geography of Germany, Judiciary of Germany and Economy of Germany are also uncited rambling unorganized articles - I suggest that none of these are appropriate uses of the Main template, and might be listed as See also. Those are the ones I checked working from the bottom up - I stopped there, since I'm finding that the daughter articles don't support the text in the main article. I'm not convinced this article yet rises to the level expected of an FA on the English wikipedia: I don't speak German, so I don't know about the German Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I reduced the external links per your suggestion and removed some quasi-trivia. As goes for the main templates, I removed it for education and German culture, but Geography of Germany has useful information on other geographic landmarks of the country, Economy of Germany includes much relevant data, and demographics of Germany and Geography of Germany also supply further info. Thus I see no reason to remove them. Whereas I agree that they could be improved, I don't agree that it's necessary to remove them altogether. And I know you don't like this argument, but all other national FA's are the same way. Look at Canada, for instance, where many of the subarticles linked with the main template are in a much poorer condition than Germany's articles. As for science and technology, what exactly could sources be provided for. I found one for physics, but most of the text is purely Common Knowledge. TSO1D 21:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I added some references to that section after all. But I don't think it needs to go any further. I mean is it really necessary to provide a source for the fact that Gutenberg invented the printing press in Europe or that Geiger was the inventor of the Geiger counter? TSO1D 21:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support now, the article is much cleaner, has been copyedited, and is better referenced. I'm still concerned about the use of the "Main" template, and would prefer they be switched (in some cases) to See or Further (since the daughter articles are *clearly* not the basis for summary to the main article), but that's not enough to object over. Nice, persistent work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment User:Raymond arritt over at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors was kind enough to pitch in and copy-edit the article. Perhaps those who commented on prose could revisit this one? Gzkn 09:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose (1) section heading in the history section blow out this size of the TOC; (2) Social issues section is biased to whatever this author things these issues are - merge demographic issues into the demographics (demographic effects of reunification, opposition to immigration etc) section and drop the rest; (3) Education also should be a part of demographics; (4) Merge Sports into cluture since its so short and sport is a part of culture in many other country FAs; (5) The science and tech section just adds a long list of names to the article - a brief mention of technical innovation in the history section would suffice. The culture section could use some work too, how does being a large market equate to influnce on trends, is Kraftwerk the only successful German music export, wasn't Rubens Flemish?--Peta 02:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

1) Even if the subsections inflate the TOC, they are useful in sectioning that part of the article. I tried it without them and it didn't work too well. Of course, there will always be the matter of bias, but the social issues section reflects what the media covers to the greatest extent, not the views of the authors. If you believe that any element is given undue weight, please explain which one. 3)How can education possibly be merged with demographics??? 4)Ok, I merged sport and culture. 5)I really don't think a brief mention of German innovation in the history section would be enough considering the long history of science and technology in Germany. Besides, to what period should it be added? 6)No one said that Germany's large market makes it influential, that sentence just describes the actual situation; Kraftwerk is only given as an example, there are many more, but I don't believe that section should be expanded further. Oh, and Rubens was born in Germany, but his family fled to the Netherlands because they were Protestants. TSO1D 21:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I decided to merge social issues and demographics after all, and seems to work fine. As for education, I scratched my head for a long time over this, but I just don't see a way of merging it anywhere else. However, given the peculiarities of German education and its importance to the state, I don't think it should be too big a deal to just keep a small section for it.TSO1D 01:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

How about merging tech into the economy section? It really is predominately a list of names just taking up space.--Peta 02:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I merged science with culture. I just didn't know where else to put it, but the information there is too important to Germany to be removed entirely in my view. In any case, scientific pursuits have been a deeply intertwined with German culture and some of the philosophers mentioned elsewhere in that section also were important scientists and mathematicians. Do you think this works?TSO1D 03:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per Peta. John Smith's 20:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe, however, that most of Peta's stated concerns have already been addressed. Could you please specify what major problems you believe persist. TSO1D 20:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur, the article went through a lot of changes since the start of the FAC, and unless further specific objections are raised per FA criteria, I don't know what can be made of this objection.Baristarim 05:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Provisional sSupport This is a very good article. I hope you approve of my edits. The article has clearly benefited from the past few weeks of hard labour by its proposer and by the constructive commentators. Consequently the problems that I have with it are relatively small and if they can be addressed, I would give it my strong support.

• The rise of liberal and nationalist movements was in part a consequence of disagreement with restoration politics. I don't understand. IMHO liberal movements arise from enlightenment; nationalism out of better mass communications. Link to restoration doesn't help.
  • The problem was that nationalism and liberalism emerged simultaneously and were believed to be linked at the time. This was mostly an intellectual phenomenon that attracted much more support from students than from the masses at that point. And this liberal-nationalist movement emerged in Germany in great part due to the fact that these young intellectuals disagreed with the repressive and conservative way in which the Prussian government (or others) operated during this period. More detail can be found in the main article for the period: German Confederation. Of course, it might help to go into further details, but don't wish to expand this section further. But I removed the useless link to restoration. 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• After scrimping to fit German history into a metaphorical postage stamp there are four lines occupied by its capabilities in wind-power. Seems excessive.
  • Ok, I reduced that to about a line and a half. There actually used to be an entire section about this kind of stuff, and this is one vestige of the old mammoth. TSO1D 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Not sure that its large cities are caused by the country's federal structure since this is recent. Each state has a capital which may have provided a nucleus back in history, but since I have supposed that people have clumped together mainly by economic factors, so it is by definition decentralised. Do state capitals automatically cause a population increase? Compare Springfield, Illinois with Chicago.
  • Regardless of the validity of the reasons (which I myself doubt), it's mere speculation, and original research. I removed the reason and just left that fact. TSO1D 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• There are 500-1000 children schooled at home in Germany.In a country of 80 million it it hard to justify its inclusion as a significant feature/issue in a summary of German education.
  • I agree, that fact is really of no importance given the small number of people affected. TSO1D 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• If Kraftwerk is your best example, I would not describe Germany's influence on the world's popular music as strong. If anything it is not pulling its weight. JMcC 20:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok I just said that they influenced music, without any further adjectives. I agree, the influence hasn't been that great, and it's misleading to call it strong, but I assume there must be at least something there. TSO1D 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Not sure why you're picking on Kraftwerk though. This was an immensely influential band in electronic music and has been recognized as such numerous times. Now of course, nowadays one might argue that noone singing in a different language than English has a world-impact on music but if any German band ever had a universal impact, it's got to be Kraftwerk. Pascal.Tesson 00:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Not sure why my vote of strong support has been altered by someone else back to 'provisional'. Perhaps I never saved it. If it happened, it must be against Wikipedia policy. I have re-instated my support. JMcC 08:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, I see no tampering. It seems like it was simply a lapse on your part. Pascal.Tesson 09:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Hoysala Empire

This article has been through a peer review. It has been reviewed for balance in content, facts, citations and has been copy edited by multiple reviewers. Please provide further recommendations if any and I shall gladly comply.Dineshkannambadi 00:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment you don't wikilink solo years, ie, 1320. Rlevse 03:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply Per WP:DATE, "There is consensus among editors that bare month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article. There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text."

So, a copyedit has been done per WP:CONTEXT, and most of the solo years have been de-wikilinked. However, some important years, like the start year or end year of the empire, start date of family record of the empire etc. and reigning years of Kings in Template:Hoysala Kings Infobox have been kept as wikilinked. Please see and comment. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment 2 citation needed tags added. Please address.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply--> I have provided the requested citations in "Women" section.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 13:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support : The article probably needs a couple of rounds of cpedit to tighten prose. That apart, a very useful, important and informative article. I wholeheartedly 'support'. Sarvagnya 22:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object—(1) I'm not agreeing to a promotion until the trivial chronological links are delinked. Why on earth do we need the page to be scattered with blue? And why do you want your high-value links (there are a lot) to be diluted in this way with irrelevant links? Aside from the obvious disadvantages, this aspect is inconsistent. (2) Needs a copy-edit. Here are examples:
  • "Literature in Kannada language, in the Vaishnava, Shaiva and Jain traditions flourished." THE Kannada language.
  • "Sanskrit works spanning Advaita, Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita philosophy were written". Awkward expression.
  • "Poetesses"—please use "poets". "Such as" is more elegant in formal prose than "like". "Gained fame"—bit of a jingle. ay ay. And the grammar suggests that poetesses were an age for emancipation.
  • "Administrative responsibilities were no longer the monopoly of men. Performances in music and dance by women became popular." Stubby sentences that continue similar grammatical constructions to those we've just read. Needs to be varied. But more seriously, these sweeping statements seem to be a little dangerous. I hope that they'll be referenced copiously and authoritatively further down. Do they belong in the lead? Can you have a performance "in" dance, or a performance "in" music?

Don't just correct these examples. The whole text is at issue in this respect. Tony 01:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply-->Thank you for your candid critisism. I am starting with removing all Chronological links (years and centuries) and repeat linking in many places. I am also simplyfying the LEAD.

I shall then look closely at the rest of the article for sweeping statements and replace them with more sobre statements.Thank you.Dineshkannambadi 03:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Copy edits--> I have taken out many repeat links, date links and sobered adjectives through out the articles. The LEAD has been trimmed. I have replaced "like" with "such as" and "poetess" with "poet". Please take a look and give me your opinion.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 17:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object -- choppy prose. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  Please reply on this page, not user talk pages.

  1. Kannada and Sanskrit literature were prolific during the Hoysala rule. The 12th century saw the Champu style of works go out of vogue, while new metres like Sangatya in compositions (meant to be sung to the accompaniment of a musical instrument), Shatpadi and Tripadi in verses (seven and three line) and Ragale (lyrical poems with refrain) rose in popularity The first is too short, and second sentence is long and windy. 2. Cattle farming was attractive in the highlands (malnad regions) from where diary products, fruits and spices came -- awkard sentence 3. They came to be treated with deference. Their accomplishments gave them more freedom in that they could distance themselves from social conventions to a greater degree.
  2. The sections need a rework. The sections need an overhaul with many of them combined under a single heading. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Only Hinduism is mentioned. What about other religions such as Jainism and Buddhism?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 16:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply--> As far as I have read, Buddhism had made its exit from India, becoming more rooted in SriLanka and the Southeast Asia. There may have been a few monasteries though. Jainism itself was on the wane. I shall write briefly about these topics also. Please give me a day. I shall also correct the sentenses you mention above as choppy, lengthy etc.thanksDineshkannambadi 16:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose the following sectioning:

• History (no subsections) - summarise
• Economy (no subsections) - summarise
• Governance
• Culture
  • Religion
  • Society
  • Literature
  • Architecture
  • Language

The map should be added to the infobox =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply-->DoneDineshkannambadi 12:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply--> I have no problem with reorganization of the article. Do other reviewers have their own suggestions?thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have added a few lines about the decline of Jainsim and exit of Buddhism in the 11th century-14th century time.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 19:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thought Since the major developments of this time were art, architecture and Religion, should'nt these topics be ahead of economy and governance.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 20:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Reorg--> I have reorganised the sections per Nichalp's proposal. I will embark on the summarising aspect tommorow. Just two questions, 1) Do I keep the "impact" section as seperate from Religion or merge it and 2) Do I keep the subsections under "Society" or merge it.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 03:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to reorg IMO, Religion and its impact must be merged. subsections of society should also be merged. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply DoneDineshkannambadi 03:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply on REORG->Thanks. That gives me the direction I needed. This job can be done within a couple of days.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 15:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Administration-->I will summarise tonight.thanksDineshkannambadi 16:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've made some more changes to the structure. This leads to a slightly larger section which should be summarised.

Some additional points:

1. Use the Template:Infobox Former Country, the closest infobox we have for such kind of articles.-->Done by Dwaipayan/Dinesh
2. More problems with the grammar: The Hoysala society was comparatively liberal. Woman enjoyed administrative powers. Queen Umadevi administered Halebidu in the absence of Veera Ballala II.[40] Women made progress in the realms of music, dance, literature, poetry, politics and administration. Queen Shantaladevi was a noted dancer. -- very choppy, appear to be just statements instead of flowing text.

Reply modifiedDineshkannambadi 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

1. The Hoysalas followed the Western Chalukya and Western Ganga Dynasty (Gangas) method of governance -- not very useful bit of information for those reading it for the first time.

Relpy modifiedDineshkannambadi 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

1. See alsos should be placed at the end of the section.

Reply doneDineshkannambadi 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

1. The images should be reduced, as far as possible, keep only images relevent to the section placed in.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 16:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply Will do this once the text editrs are complete.Dineshkannambadi 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

SOCIETY--> I have created a subarticle for this also and will compress the content on the main page.Dineshkannambadi 12:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Compressed SOCIETY secton.

TBD-->1) compress RELIGION section without loosing context-->Done by DwaipayanDineshkannambadi 17:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

2) Learn to use the Template:Infobox Former Country

3) Get the IPA for the article

Please tell me if there are other things to be done.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 16:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm happy with the current structure and content per section
• The text still choppy, so request you get a third person to copyedit it.
• Phrases not common to standard English should be modified with context. eg. He relied more on the Puranas -- most people outside India would not know what the Puranas are. How about ...literary works of the Puranas?--->Done.Dineshkannambadi 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Use British English spellings (eg favorable --> favourable)
• Remove the script from the infobox. For those without the correct fonts, it would be badly rendered at large sizes.-->DoneDineshkannambadi 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• change 1/4 to 'a fourth'-->Done

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove the script from the infobox. For those without the correct fonts, it would be badly rendered at large sizes.--> The Hoysala Empire box or Hoysala Kings box?ThanksDineshkannambadi 18:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox: Template:Infobox Former Country. Is there an example of this in use somewhere?. That would make it easier for me to correctly use it.thanksDineshkannambadi 12:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the box. The big ? is where the emblem goes right?thanksDineshkannambadi 15:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I will add symbols for previous and sucessor kingdoms today.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 16:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I dont have pictures of the emblem of the preceding kingdom. So that portion will have to wait for a future trip of mine. I may have the "Varaha" emblem of Vijayanagar Empire.Dineshkannambadi 16:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: can the items from see also be incorporated into main article?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply-->All the items in "See also" are included as wikilinks and appear at various points on the main article.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 19:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Per MOS, if a link is in the article, it should not be in see also - removal of the section seems to be in order.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I removed the See Also section. It is funny because I was thinking of same thing and then I came here and saw your comment and went ahead with the removal. --Blacksun 10:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Minor contributor to the article (copyedits etc). The article now has a size that is not intimidating! It's well-referenced. Has appropriate links to daughter articles. WP:MOS has been followed. Just one issue: images and the Hoysala kings infobox may not appear properly placed in all browsers/resolutions. Please attend. Assuming this actionable point would be taken care of, I support this artcle to be given featured article status. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply-->Done. I have anchored all images and kings infobox to the right so they wont appear misplaced in other browsers.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 13:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this Hoysala kings infobox is still creating problem. I am using 1200 by 800 pixels, usiig Mozilla firefox, in a wide screen laptop. The infobox is not exactly fitting. The infobox appears to hover around in the right-ish middle zone of the section "History", with a lot of white space to its right. Probably there is a problem of space between the former country infobox and this infobox. I tried to left allign the infobox, with unsatisfactory result (sentences almost crammed into the infobox). Is anyone else facing such problem?--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem on my screen.The kings infobox is snuggly aligned to the right side, just as the country infobox.ThanksDineshkannambadi 16:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Requirements, =Nichalp are there any other requirements for this article. Dwaipayan and myself have done one more copyedit for choppy sentences per your advice.Thanks.129.42.208.182 19:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC).Sorry, last edit was mine.Forgot to log in.Dineshkannambadi 19:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, still not up to the mark I'm afraid. A cursory glance: 1. It must be noted -- Essay type phrase. 2. Inscriptions were of three kinds — Kannada, Sanskrit and bilingual -- redundant words present: --> Inscriptions were in Kannada, Sanskrit, or bilingual. 3.Queen Umadevi governed Halebidu in the absence of Veera Ballala II and is known to have fought wars against antagonistic feudatories.[35] Women participated in music, dance, literature and poetry as well. Queen Shantala Devi was well versed in dance and music and performed publicly -- choppy =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

ReplyTook care of these choppy sentences.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 19:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Copy edit-->Another user, Mattisse is helping me with copy edits.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 01:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me know when done =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Strong Support - I read through just a bit over half of the article and have added few inotes and citation tags. I will read through rest of the article later and add additional inotes if neccessary. Mark me as support once these are addressed. Pretty good article so far and should be easy to make it FA.--Blacksun 10:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply I have addressed the concerns. Please take a look.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The Hoysala map I have (ref:A Concise History of Karnataka, Dr. Kamath, page 328) covers the entire northern Tamil Nadu connecting Kanchi down to Srirangam excluding a narrow strip of Coastal Tamil Nadu. The territory also covers Karnataka coast parallel to Shimoga going down to Kerela's northern tip. More than one reviewer has come up with his question. Can this be corrected.?ThanksDineshkannambadi 18:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I suggest that the core empire be in dark color while the rest of south India south of Krishna river be in a lighter colour indicating Hoysala dominaton there. This way we make sure no questons are raised about Hoysala control over southern deccan.Dineshkannambadi 20:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you cannot find a better map then the present one will do. Atleast you have a date now to give it context. I added couple of more inotes in the second half of the article. Please respond to that and then mark me as support. I am very pleased with the attention to details in the article. --Blacksun 10:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Quite interesting and informative. I have two minor issues though: the See Also section needs to be more stratified. Also redlinked cats are not a nice sight.Bakaman 02:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Replies to questions raised by User:Blacksun

all citations requested have been provided.

Innotes on Hoysala page

1. The legend may have gained popularity after King Vishnuvardhana's victory over the Cholas at Talakad as the Hoysala emblem depicts the fight between Sala and a tiger, the emblem of the Cholas.

Reply-->Historians are not sure who Sala was though they have tried to associate the early kings Nripa Kama I or II, but this has not gained popular support. The legend of Sala bacame more popular from around 1117 CE after Vishnuvardhanas victroy over the Cholas after which sculptural and inscriptional depictions started to appear. The emblem rather than focussing on Sala focusses on Salas (Hoysalas) victory over the Cholas, the tiger being the Chola emblem.Dineshkannambadi 16:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your reply. However, my question was did this incident make the legend more popular (as stated) or is it arguably the source of the legend? In case of latter then the sentence can be phrased in a better way. Otherwise, it is fine in its present form. --Blacksun 10:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

2.Reply-->added dates for inscriptions implying Yadava lineage.

3.QuestionBy the 13th century, they governed most of present-day Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and western Andhra Pradesh in Deccan India.

Reply-->The map shows the core Hoysala areas and excludes loyal feudatories from coastal Karnataka. The Pandyas who payed tribute for some time from Southern Tamil Nadu. I have a map here that is more precise and will request user Nichalp to correct it. The map shows the entire northern Tamil Nadu under Hoysala occupation (the Cholas had been reduced to their feudatories at this time, though their control over Pandyas was periodic 1220-1250, 1290-1313 when the muslim invasion started)Dineshkannambadi 16:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

4.The kingdom was divided into four provinces named Nadu, Vishaya, Kampana and Desha, possibly in decending order of geographical size.

Reply-->The kingdom was divided into these four categories and there may have been several Nadus (and Vishayas) under which were several Kampans and under that, several Deshas etc, Just like we have a state under which there are several districts and under them Taluks in present day India (just a crude comparison).Dineshkannambadi 16:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

5.Question Under them were the local officials called Heggaddes and Gavundas who dealt with local farmers and labourers hired to till the land.

Reply I will clean this up. They took care of hiring/paying farmers and labourers.Dineshkannambadi 16:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

6.Question There were other coins called Bele and Kani as well.

Reply No more info on these units are available. However from the way it is just mentioned by the author suggests very low denominations.Dineshkannambadi 16:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Question of Sala Legend by user:Blacksun

Hello, thanks for your reply. However, my question was did this incident make the legend more popular (as stated) or is it arguably the source of the legend? In case of latter then the sentence can be phrased in a better way. Otherwise, it is fine in its present form.

• • Reply

If the incident you mention is " Vishnuvardhana's victory over Cholas" then from what I read (source-->Dr. S.U.Kamath) the legend appeared for the first time in the Belur inscription of 1117 after his victory, but he also says it may be a symbolic represention the wars between the Cholas and early hoysala chieftains (no clarity what early means). However a twist to this is the presence of the emblem in a 1060 Chalukya-Hoysala transitional style temple in Balligavi (which I have visited and photographed), which researcher U.B. Githa claims was added by Vinayaditya, Vishnuvardhana's grandfather. So one can specualte when the legend came into existance. The victroy at Talakad may be the source of the legends "popularity", but Prof. Settar says it is Vishnuvardhanas creation. At present, the earliest inscription with the mention of Sala is 1117, but that does not mean the legend did not exist earlier. So there is no consensus. hope this helps. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 00:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Further to my object, I have problems with 1a. Here are random examples.
  • "He wrested Gangavadi from the Cholas in 1116 and shifted the capital from Belur to Halebidu." No, "moved" in this register. "Shifted" is too loose/informal.
  • "four way struggle"—Hyphen required. Please audit similar constructions. I see "high ranking positions".

But the more serious problem concerns the referencing.

• • The list of references at the bottom (under "Notes") is very sloppy. I'd like not to have to sift back to the earliest mention of Kamath's Concise History to find the publication details, including the year; these should appear in every note. lease remove the copyright character from the reference list. In Note 1, "1998-00" will not do for "1998–2000". "OurKarnataka.Com, Inc." is unclear—is it some hybrid web address/company name? Why is there a book title AND a web address/retrieval date? "pp" means "pages" (plural), and should not be applied to a single page. Remove "Dr." from authors' names, and professional words such as "Historian". Is "Joshi surmise that ..." your speculation, or the title of a book chapter, or what? Fix spacing/lack of spacing throughout. Total consistency in formatting is required. Why just two texts referred to so much; it makes me suspicious of the veracity of the article. How reliable are these texts? Without a great spread of sources, there's a huge risk. And the site http://www.ourkarnataka.com is not itself referenced. Is it just opinion?

Unacceptable, I'm afraid. Tony 13:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Replies to Tony's questions

I will certianly clean up some of the things you pointed out. Regarding your more serious concerns, (I hope I have understood your questions correctly) 1."OurKarnataka.Com, Inc." is unclear—is it some hybrid web address/company name?

Ans. OurKarnataka.com is on line website (not a blog site) that comprahensively covers many topics about Karnataka state and Kannada language. Under this web page are listed various topics including history.

2.Why is there a book title AND a web address/retrieval date?

Ans Here is an example-->Historian C. Hayavadhana Rao, J. D. M. Derrett, B. R Joshi surmise that Sala was a mythical founder of the empire, A Concise history of Karnataka pp 123, Dr. S.U. Kamath, Arthikaje, Mangalore. History of Karnataka-Hoysalas and their contributions. © 1998-00 OurKarnataka.Com, Inc. Retrieved on November 17, 2006.

In a citation like the one shown above, I have referenced multiple sources, one is a book and another the web page. Both of them give the same information, one of them may have had the name of an additional scholar which I though should be accounted for. So there are two citations clubbed as one.

4. Is "Joshi surmise that ..." your speculation

Ans-->Not my speculation. The reference book/web may say "In the opinion of Joshi" or "Joshi feels that". Surmise is just used as another word meaning the same thing. If there are specific wordings you dont like, I can refer back and change the word.

5.Why just two texts referred to so much

Ans I have refered to 7 books all of which are listed. One book focuses entirely on Architecture and another on literature. Four of the books referred to provide the same consistant infomation on the birth/growth/decline of the empire, though two are more detailed (Dr Kamath, Prof. Sastri, the less detailed ones being John Keay and Dr. Thapar) I could refer any number of books but the infomation at some point becomes repetitive. For instance in citation #48 thru 54, I may have as well cited R. Narasimhacharya, History of Kannada Literature, 1988 as he also provides the same information. Prof. K.A.N. Sastri dwells slghtly more in detail, so I used his book as reference and used the former book as additional reference in places. If you want both cited, I have no problems with it. The history of the Hoysalas is one of the most understood because it was not too far back in history (speaking relatively) and the empire has left behind a large number of inscriptions, next only to the Vijayanagar empire. In addition, literary sources from that time abound.

Number of references--> Dr. S.U.Kamath (32), Prof. K.A.N. Sastri (11), Dr. Thapar (12) John keay (2), Web based (19). Please remember that in many a case, I have cited both Dr. Kamath and Dr. Sastri OR Dr. Kamath and Dr. Thapar OR web reference and one of the books mentioned, and so on, indicating the scholars and sources concur. Sometimes I have clubbed citations to cover some extra info in one reference not found in the other for completeness.

6.It makes me suspicious of the veracity of the article. How reliable are these texts?

AnsThe authors of all seven books are renouned scholars and historians. This can be verified online. There is a wiki page also for Dr. Romila Thapar, Prof. Sastri is Prof. of history at Univ of Madras[21][22], South India, Dr. Suryanath Kamat is winner of the prestigious Sahitya Academy award 1973, from Government of Karnataka. He is the Director of Karnataka State Gazetteer and Director of Raja Ram Mohan Roy Historical Library in Calcutta. R. Narasimhacharya is a renouned authority on Kannada language and I can quote you other books he has authored as well. His books and historical lectures are available from Vedams books in New Delhi ([23] akin to Amazon.com except they deal mostly with India related books). John Keay, John M. Fritz and George Michell dont need an introducton. The authority of these scholars is beyond doubt. Some of there books are avaliable even in book stores in the USA, others have to be ordered for from publishers.

7.And the site http://www.ourkarnataka.com is not itself referenced. Is it just opinion?

AnsThe info to this page comes for historians themselves or info collected from historians. The fact that it is copyrigthed and deals with so many subjects makes it a valuable site to source from or verify from. So far I have not seen any inconsistancy between the contents of this web page and the books written by the scholars I have referenced. When I find something interesting worth mentioning from the web page, I reference it.

The copyright is irrelevant, and should be removed (there are so many of them in the list). My problem is that the web site is not itself explicitly referenced. That's all that counts. Our readers shouldn't have to wonder. I don't mind a few references to web sites that are themselves unreferenced, but not a lot, as here. I can only discount the info on the web site in terms of research veracity, because of this shortcoming. The information about the author(s) that you provide here is, I regret, irrelevant. Point 4: my point was that it's unclear what the function of that clause is.

1c is a serious issue for this nomination. Tony 03:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I would help but I do not really follow what Tony is talking about. Anyways their are only nine citations that include the website in question out of sixty-seven? I do not think their is a reason to not use available information just because it is from a website and the article has a lot of good references besides the website too. Maybe the issue is the way it is formatted? Also, I do not agree that simply using three-four books is not enough. It matters on the quality of those books and the subject matter. I cannot imagine finding dozens of books or needing to find dozens of books or someone actually having the time to read dozens of books for this article. --Blacksun 09:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think I see some formatting issues. For instance, I do not think that you need to cite the ebook store where you retrieved the book from. You should just cite the book as citing the site is akin to citing the library where you borrowed the book - bit silly. I can see the reason to cite it if the book is accessible for everyone on a website but needless to cite a place where you have to purchase it. --Blacksun 09:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply-->are you saying I have too many web references from www.ourkarnataka.com (8 of them actually) and that should be removed?thanks.Dineshkannambadi 03:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not understand this comment."1c is a serious issue for this nomination". What is 1c? thanks.Dineshkannambadi 03:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It basically implies that you require citations or that your citations are not good enough. I strongly disagree with the assessment. --Blacksun 09:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I was typing this in when you replied. I counted the number of citations just in case you wanted the info. Number of references--> Dr. S.U.Kamath (32), Prof. K.A.N. Sastri (11), Dr. Thapar (12) John keay (2), Web based (19, of which 8 are from www.karnataka.com). Please remember that in many a case, I have cited both Dr. Kamath and Dr. Sastri OR Dr. Kamath and Dr. Thapar OR web reference and one of the books mentioned, and so on, indicating the scholars and sources concur. Sometimes I have clubbed citations to cover some extra info in one reference not found in the other for completeness.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 03:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Dinesh, do not club sources. Simply make another citation and put two cites next to each other in the text. "For example, this could be a sentence with two difference sources saying the same thing [14][15]".--Blacksun 09:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, make separate notes for different sources. And "1c" means WP:WIAFA criterion 1c. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Objection to candidature of this article

* Object - I object to this article's nomination for FA. This article is not neutral, nor is it well-sourced. It's sources are mainly pro-Kannada and it quite easily hides the Telugu and Tamil connection of Hoysalas. It seems to me like an advertisement of Kannada and Karnataka state. The user who has authored this article, User:Dineshkannambadi is well-known for his POV-pushing as I read from some talkpages of other articles. See Vijayanagara article's talkpage, or see Talk:Rashtrakuta or further see it's archives and see talkpages of Seuna as well. He has been regularly accused of pushing pro-Kannada POV in his articles. He has sone the same here. The article is full of Kannada-POV and I wonder how the administrators and other regular editors are missing the advertisement-style tone of the article. I vehemently oppose this nomination. We cannot let political propaganda run its course in Wikipedia. S Shri Venkata 11:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC))— Possible single purpose account: S Shri Venkata (S Shri Venkata • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Comment - I have blocked the above user as a disruptive sockpuppet of a blocked user. Please ignore his comments as the user has been known to have disrupted articles edited by Dineshkannambadi- Aksi_great (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, can you be more specific? I have read the article thoroughly and have not noticed anything that seemed like PoV pushing. But I am not well-versed in South Indian history so can't be sure if I missed anything subtle. Can you provide sources and examples? Also, lets try to stick to the article instead of getting into personal conflicts. --Blacksun 12:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The above account S Shri Venkata was created on 11:25, December 22, 2006 I believe with the sole purpose of rising an objection.If the user has any real objections he should bring verifyable sources to prove the Telugu/Tamil origin of the Hoysalas and I will be happy to include it. The sources should be accompanied with author, publication year, page number etc to validate the POV claim. If the conflicting source is in another language it has to be accompanied with preferably third party translation.Dineshkannambadi 12:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Your objection is invalid without providing a citation for your claims to POV. Secondly comment on the article not a user's history in FAC. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Language can always be improved, but it is easily among Wikipedia's best as it is now. Nice work. The references look solid and it seems comprehensive. I'd like to know a little more about daily life during the empire's rule, such as food, lifestyle, etc, but that may be more appropriate for other articles. - Taxman ^Talk 16:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

update (12/22/06)

1.Removed city of publication from citations based on advice by User:Blacksun
2.Split combined citations into individual citations per User:Blacksun and User:Dwaipayan

If the 8 citations from www.OurKarnataka.com (pointed out by User:Tony1) is a concern, I can quite easily replace some of it with citations from other "referenced" web sites from well known Karnatakan scholar Dr. K.L. Kamat (not to be confused with Dr. Suryanath Kamath whose book I have used as reference) or may be from my own books. Please tell if that is required.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Done I have reduced this web site usage anyway by giving a few citations from other sources.

Also, As far as some of the citations, especially in the literature and architecture sections, I can provide more from R.Narasimhacharya and Gerard Foekema whose books I own and use as additional sources (Foekema ofcourse has been used extensivly on the Hoysala architecture page). I just did not want to overwhelm the article with repeatitive citations.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Done I have used History of Kannada Literature - R. Narasimhacharya and A Complete Guide to Hoysala Temples - Gerard Foekema

These above changes were made without altering the content of the article itself. As I had mentioned earlier, after reading a few books, much of the infomation becomes repeatitive and hence easy to find similar sentences and content while providing citations.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 23:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Object I too object this article as given the 'background' of Mr.Kannambadi,he is an 'dubious' editor, extremely ill-mannered and indecent who manipulates the history to suit his own 'loyalties'. Historical articles need neutral and 'detached' editors. IMO, Hoysalas were not an 'empire' it was a kingdom. Peace. Mrtag 03:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply-->There are small empires, there are large empires (please look at article Empire). One has to focus on the contributions also, not just size. One of the main requirements for any rule to become an Empire is imperialism, meaning one culture occupying the land of another culture and influencing the occupied territories by way of culture, architecture etc. This is what the Hoysalas did when they occupied neighbouring Tamil Nadu and parts of Andhra Pradesh. Also if you do a google search for "Hoysala Empire", you will see many more listings (twice as many) than for Hoysala Kingdom.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 05:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

MrTag, please comment on the article not the editor in question. If you feel it to be a POV, please cite sources to suppliment your claim. Else this vote is invalid. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have little knowledge of Hoysalas hence cant comment on it. Probably this article is fine. My allegations about Mr.Kannambadi are justified, but seems it is not a place to say this. I take back my vote. Mrtag 06:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to thank Mrtag for taking back his vote. Would he be kind enough to "scratch" it out because it spoils the otherwise positive mood on this page. Can I do this myself?.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 12:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm I did it. *shrugs* --Blacksun 14:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that User:Mrtag has now been indef-blocked as a disruptive troll run by User:Sarvabhaum. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Scouting

Overview of the worldwide Scout movement. Rlevse 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too many places have no sources, at a quick glance. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just added 5 refs (making 50 different ones, some used more than once). Will keep working on it. Let me know if there's a specifc ref you feel is needed. Rlevse 03:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)...added 3 more, total 53. Rlevse 11:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)...added 6 more, total 59 now. Rlevse 14:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)....3 more, 62 different refs now.Rlevse 03:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)...See "Announcement" below. Rlevse 14:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Is it really possible to judge the quality of an article by the sheer quantity of its references? --jergen 09:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Every section has at least one-two, often several. They are not a judging of the text, but an indicator of the level of referencing.Rlevse 16:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Do refs 47-52 use other WP articles as sources? -- Kicking222 14:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No, these are notes, which refer to Wikipedia articles as a "see also". Although you should seperate these into a different section. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Michaelas10 is correct, those are explanatory notes made when questions arose in the past; I've seen this done in other FACs/FAs. If the consensus is to separate them, we can, but I've generally seen these left in the regular notes section. Rlevse 14:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is technically impossible to separate proper references from "see also" references if you use the <ref> scheme.--GunnarRene 16:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may clarify my comment: I knew that they were notes as opposed to references, and I knew that they can't be separated. My comment was really that the "includes ###" notes made me think that this information was simply taken from other articles, and it was not sourced in those articles (as I checked a few of them). -- Kicking222 16:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, these numbers were just taken from the mentioned articles. I think I could source most of the numbers, but this would take some days. And it is (nearly) impossible to get complete informations for the countries with fragmented Scout movements because nobody has a complete list of the existing associations. But this concerns mostly small local organizations with only a few members. --jergen 18:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We've fixed Germany and France, are working on the others.Rlevse 01:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)...fixed Italy now tooRlevse 03:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

See El Greco as an example of how to separate notes and refs. Gzkn 06:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Announcement a separate Notes section has been created for those five items, the standard footnotes are now in Citations. There are 5 notes and 55 footnotes now. Rlevse 14:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please convert these to Roman numerals? Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Done, I'd just followed the article that showed me how to do it. Rlevse 22:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support I think it's well written and well sourced. --evrik ^(talk) 14:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Evrik. It has 59 refs now, plenty enough and every section has at least 1-2, if not several. I think the notes are okay where they are. Sumoeagle179 16:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the "In film and the arts" section is awfully short, especially considering that what's there says that Scouting is "prevalent", and used by "numerous films and artwork". Also, though it may be most prevalent in American popular culture, there should be some mention of elsewhere, if possible. Tuf-Kat 16:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've made what was a regular wikilink a "main" link, there's a whole article on this. I'll work on this more later. Rlevse 16:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)...Added a Scottish bit too.Rlevse 22:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object—1a. Let's look at the opening para.

Scouting, or the Scout movement, is a worldwide youth movement of multiple organizations for both boys and girls whose aim is to develop young people physically, spiritually and mentally so that youth may take a constructive place in society. The movement employs a program of non-formal education with emphasis on practical activities in the outdoors, using the Scout method with programs targeted for up to five age groups, as defined by the founders of Scouting in the early 20th century. Most countries have Scouting programs for children and young adults from ages 6 to their early 20s.

• • "Scouting is subtely different from "the Scout movement", so shouldn't be cast with the "or" equivalent. My Phrase Checker shows that M should start Movement.
    • uppercased, changed wording slightlyRlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Multiple"?
    • yes, several organizations are part of the movement, but I'd rm'd 'multiple'.Rlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Both" is a marker; do we need to make some point that it's unexpected to have both genders in the organisation?
    • rm'd 'both'Rlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it the aim of the "boys and girls" or of the "organizations"? It shouldn't be ambiguous grammatically.
    • rm'd 'boys and girls', slight reword. Rlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh dear, the supernatural is introduced in the first sentence. I don't know whether this word "spiritually" is in the written mission statement, but I'd avoid using the term at the top, where it's fuzzy without further detail. Is it a quasi supernatural religious movement? I didn't think so.
    • rm'd, oh my gosh.Rlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • put back in - spirituality does not equal religion, and it is a core part of Scouting... Horus Kol 09:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We have "young people" and "youth" in the same sentence. Are they the same or different?
    • made the same.Rlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "with emphasis on practical activities in the outdoors"¸—No, "with an emphasis on practical outdoor activities".
    • changedRlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "from ages 6 to their early 20s". Clumsy; treat the two items equally.
    • rm'dRlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a very bad start, and indicates that the whole text needs major surgery. Tony 02:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'll do what I can on the rest, but since I, like most of us, aren't as good at it as you and we're not mind readers, it'd help if you could be specific on the rest. Rlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Try to find someone who's distant from the topic. Fresh eyes. Tony 03:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That'd be you.Rlevse 04:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object 1a not met, per Tony. Some examples culled from Origins section:
  • The seeds of the idea of Scouting began during the Siege of Mafeking, South Africa, during the Second Boer War of 1899 to 1902, where Baden-Powell served as commanding officer. Seeds began? Idea began? Unclear, but "The seeds of the idea of Scouting began" is just awkward in general. Also, repetition of "during the".
    • reworded to "Baden-Powell began to formulate ideas of what became Scouting during a battle of the Second Boer War, the Siege of Mafeking, South Africa, where he served as commanding officer." Rlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As a result of his status as a national hero, acquired as a result of his determined and successful defense of the town of Mafeking, Baden-Powell's military training manual, Aids to Scouting (written in 1899) became a relative best-seller and was used by teachers and youth organizations. Rep. of "a result of his". What's a relative best-seller?
    • fixed. Rlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • subsequently met Baden-Powell, and they shared ideas about youth training programs. When?
    • added year and month
  • subsequently published in book form. Again, when?
    • added year and ref. Rlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • At the time Baden-Powell intended... and As the movement grew Sea Scout, Air Scout... these could use commas for clarity.
    • addedRlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In 1919 Gilwell Park near London was purchased as adult training site and scouting campsite. Purchased by whom? Also, "an adult training site".
    • added bothRlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Baden-Powell also wrote a book for the assistance of Leaders entitled Aids to Scoutmastership, and others for the use of new sections that were formed, such as Rovering to Success for Rover Scouts in 1922. Huh? Gzkn 05:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • added 'other handbooks'Rlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Many thanks for these precise suggestions, would appreciate more if you're so inclined. Rlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Since it's been copy-edited, striking out my object until I find time to read the article again. Gzkn 03:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support I liked the article, but the issues Gzkn were essentially my concerns as well. I think you can get them fixed without too much problem, but I thought it was a solid article.Balloonman 09:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support I like the article also. It may not have the most sources on Wikipedia, but the information is well presented and sourced well enough. I don't have any problem with it being a featured article.Ganfon 23:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support I've watched this a couple of days before voting. I think the additional references have been a big help, and I don't really see any problems with the prose after a read-through. --JohnDBuell 03:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support This article has come a long way in the past few days, well done to the editors. Sorry I couldn't have been more help with finals and all. I don't see any problems with the prose, but I'll look over it again and see if I pick anything out. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 04:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The Wood Badge course is covered in two different places; could this be resolved? The sentence "Other popular youth movements have also adopted similar attributes successfully" doesn't make much sense. I've attempted to make the use of the serial comma consistent (sorry if it was intended that it not be used). --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 14:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed both issues. Thanks for the help.Rlevse 17:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Hoary has given the article a good copyedit. Sumoeagle179 12:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Outriggr has done some copyediting.Sumoeagle179 14:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: only one paragraph! Intend to do more. –Outriggr § 22:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Gosh, I'm just finding time to read this. A lot of respected editors have copyedited here, but I found a sentence fragment in the second sentence of the body of the article ... disappointed :-(
  • Robert Baden-Powell founded the Scouting movement in England in 1907 based on his experience, in and outside the army. First only for boys as Boy Scouts, but in 1910, with help from his sister Agnes Baden-Powell, for girls too as Girl Guides or Girl Scouts. Later it spread all over the world to young people of all ages.
• Sandy (Talk) 21:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment that para was cut and merged earlier today, but someone else modified it and stuck it back in. I've rm'd it again.Sumoeagle179 22:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ditto. It's a danger of the wiki method, Sandy. :) –Outriggr § 22:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC).
• Comment After a brief copyedit, does this sentence read awkwardly to anyone else "Program specifics are targeted to Scouts appropriate to their age"? Shouldn't it be "Program specifics are targeted at Scouts appropriate to their age" or something along those lines? Darthgriz⁹⁸ 05:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Not much of a difference to me.Sumoeagle179 13:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• I objected above, and have returned to check progress. Take this bit of the lead:
  • "By 1909, girls wanted to join the Scout Movement and they are called either Girl Guides or Girl Scouts. In 2006, Scouting and Guiding have over 38 million members in 216 countries and territories represented through different Scouting associations at the international level. The works of Ernest Thompson Seton and Daniel Carter Beard influenced the early development of Scouting. Internationally, Scouting has become a significant part of popular culture." Sentence 1 has tension between past and present tenses. Two statements are uncomfortably jammed together with "and", which should be used to join very close ideas. Sentence 2: Are the last four words necessary? Sentence 3: we zig-zag back to the early days, followed by the international theme again in Sentence 4. This is very poorly organised.
  • The third para in the lead is: "The movement has experienced controversy. International Scouting associations have formed outside of the mainstream. Policies on membership regarding sexual orientation, religion and co-education differ between Scouting associations." Sentence 1: stubby and unexplained. Sentence 2: "outside OF"? Remove the second word, and explain what, exactly, the sentence means. Then this bit about sex and religion ... needs to be smoothly summarised, not poked at for the sake of it.

I'm sorry, I can't change my object, yet I wanted to. Tony 09:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I've worked all the above. Since you left no specific points for the rest of the article, we can only assume you support the rest of it.Sumoeagle179 21:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment one reason of my reticence in supporting this nomination has among others been that the lead text was not in line with the fairly well organized body of the article. There even was information in the lead text, that was not mentioned in the body. I have given the lead text a major edit now, and kindly invite native English speaking editors to give it a further copy-edit for its English. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Tiridates I of Armenia

Self-nomination. This is the article's first nomination and the article is very stable. It achieved a GA status in April. It is illustrated and has a good number of notes and references with page numbers etc. A peer review request didn't bring up anything other than automated suggestions (which have been taken care of). There are only two red links which can be removed as they are not that important anyway. Also, there is hardly any other information available that can be included in the article. I researched the topic quite thoroughly.--Eupator 19:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. First off, it looks very well-written and well-cited, so good job on that. Just a few issues: —Cuiviénen 20:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The lead seems a bit short, though somewhat understandably so given the brevity of the article. Maybe just a couple more sentences would be a good addition.
  • This sentence: Tiridates was one of the principle characters in George Frideric Handel's Radamisto and Reinhard Keiser's Octavia operas seems tacked on to the end. Are there any other mentions of him in culture? You could create a separate section for that.
  • A map of Armenia and its geographical relation to Rome and Parthia during his reign would add greatly to the article.

Thank you. I know the lead is short, that was one of the suggestions the automatic peer review brought up. I will try to extend it. Added a map. The borders of Armenia were essentially the same from the end of the 1st century BC until the early 4th century when Armenia was partitioned between Rome and Sassanid Persia. Regarding cultural references, those are the only two I know of. There is a statue of Tiridates at the palace of Versailles made by André. I'll try to find some more. Thanks again.--Eupator 21:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify the copyright status of Image:ArshakuniArmenia150.gif, which you uploaded? (Provide a source and a reason the copyright was released, in this case.) Thanks. —Cuiviénen 22:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the applicable license is Template:PD-AM-exempt since it's a work of the Foreign Ministry of Armenia [24] but the image was taken to Commons and that template doesn't exist there. Should I reupload it to Wikipedia with a different name?--Eupator 23:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be the best solution, I think. —Cuiviénen 00:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Eupator 04:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I suggest to put the monarch infobox and the full transcription for his ordinal from Armenian. --Brand спойт 23:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be nice but he has two potential successors, there is no article on his predecessor and his dates of birth and death are unknown. I'll try and add it, see what it looks like with some missing info.--Eupator 23:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't understand the footnotes - they don't use a consistent style, some refs need to be expanded, and it's not clear if all are reliable sources:
  • Iranica needs to be expanded to include full info, including author and last access date. What is this site? Is it a reliable source?
  • Mithraism by Roger Beck needs full info including last access date and webhost, is this a reliable source?
  • The Jewish Roman World of Jesus by Dr. James D. Tabor needs expansion.
  • Champlin, Edward (2003). Nero. Belknap Press. ISBN 0674011929. Here the footnote style switches to a conventional last name, first name, while other entries don't follow that style.
  • There are a number of References listed that are never cited - were those sources used in the article? Sandy (Talk) 23:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello done, except the last two. Tacitus, Cassius, Pliny are not cited with templates because there just isn't any publisher, isbn etc. As for your last point, I assume you're talking about material taken from Vahan Kurkjian history of Armenia. That's at various places in the article. Under references it says:This article incorporates text from History of Armenia by Vahan M. Kurkjian, a publication in the public domain. With a link.--Eupator 00:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Needs a thorough copyedit. I mainly noticed comma issues. Everyking 11:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone help in eliminating run-ons and other grammatical problems. I'm afraid i'm not proficient in that department. Also, all red links have now been eliminated.--Eupator 18:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Why the marked additive? "an event of far-reaching importance not only for Armenia, but for most of the lands in the Roman East". Better as "an event of far-reaching importance for Armenia and for most of the lands in the Roman East." Tony 15:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Changed.--Eupator 19:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Does this article fit FA guidelines in terms of length?--MarshallBagramyan 02:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. On a cursory glance, I found two direct quotes with no citations, and a punctuation error in the first paragraph of the body of the article (Vologases considered the throne of Armenia to have been: "once the property of his ancestors, now usurped by a foreign monarch in virtue of a crime,".[9]), suggesting a thorough runthrough is needed. Sandy (Talk)

Done.--Eupator 01:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm afraid the article has certain prose deficiencies. Let's pick a phrase in random:

In the summer, Corbulo began moving towards Tigranocerta, through rough terrain, passing through the Taronitida (Taron), where several of his commanders died in an ambush by the Armenian resistance

• Two "through" almost one after the other.
• I count 4 commas. I'm not the best in syntax, but they seem too many to me. And, in general, I think that in the article there is a confusion about the use of , and ;.

I think that this article needs a slight copy-editing by a native Engish speaker. And I think this is its only problem, because it is well-structured and well-researched.--Yannismarou 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Did his reign begin in 53 AD (main text) or 63 AD (Infobox)? Also, there's only one good depiction of him in the article - the photograph, as opposed to the sketch of the statue - but since it has so much empty space around it, details can't be made out. I'd suggest cropping and enlarging. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  There is a footnote next to 63 AD in the infobox that states Beginning of reign without interruption. In the article, it states that he became a king in 53 AD, but his reign was interrupted a couple of times.--Crzycheetah 00:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment In my opinion, the references should be written more explicitly. It seems like a well-written compilation from Tacitus - Annals and Dio Cassius. In addition, i find it very concise. Better to enlarge and provide more material. E104421 19:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: IMO there is a two heavy reliance on primary sources, while secondary sources are far too sparsely used.--Aldux 12:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Added a bunch new secondary sources.--Eupator 22:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Update The article now exceeds 30kb. I expanded it quite significantly today using various secondary sources that were absent from the article before.--Eupator 22:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Just a few notes. I've noted that some paragraphs conclude without inline citations; at least some of these are probably from Tacitus or Dio Cassius, but it's always better to make it clear:

• • "In 53 the Roman governor of Cappadocia, Julius Paelignus, invaded Armenia and ravaged the country, then under an Iberian usurper King Rhadamistus."

• • "Rhadamistus himself returned to Iberia and was soon put to death by his father Parasmanes I of Iberia for having plotted against the royal power."

• • "Tiridates then mounted the steps of the platform and knelt, while Nero placed the royal diadem on his head. As the young king was about to kneel a second time, Nero lifted him by his right hand and after kissing him, made him sit at his side on a chair a little lower than his own. Meanwhile, the populace gave tumultuous ovations to both rulers. A Praetor, speaking to the audience, interpreted and explained the words of Tiridates, who spoke in Greek." Is also this covered by the inline citation by Pliny?

• • "In memory of these events, the Senate honored Nero with the laurel wreath and the title of Imperator, or commander-in-chief of the armies. No reception comparable to this in magnitude and splendor is recorded in the history of Rome. Besides the enormous sum spent in festivities, the Roman Government bore the entire cost of the journey of Tiridates and his retinue, both from and to their homeland. Nero also made a gift to Tiridates of fifty million sesterces."

A different question that may be posed is if the quote from Champlin isn't a bit too long - but regarding this I may be wrong, only I find it a bit too big for the section in which it is.--Aldux 00:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll add inline citations for the lines you mentioned using secondary sources, since primary ones seem to be disliked by some. I'll replace the Champlin quote with an explanation of Tiridates' speech, citing both Champlin and a few others.--Eupator 01:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Finished adding the references. I'm not sure what exactly to do regarding the Champlin quote now though. I would like more feedback.--Eupator 20:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the quote has now been moved.--Eupator 22:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support - the main contributor has awnsered to all the problems posed by me and other editors, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't support. Good luck,Aldux 00:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support -looks quite excellent, and seems to meet all criteria. Great job! Tuf-Kat 01:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Eupator has solved all the issues and the article looks fine. Nareklm 07:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - per Aldux, great effort by Eupator. Fedayee 08:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sei Whale

(self-nom) This article has undergone an overhaul and peer review. It is currently a Good Article and I believe that after implementing the suggestions brought up in the peer review, the article meets the standards expected of Featured Articles.

For comparison, other featured articles about whales include Fin Whale (most recent, link to FAC discussion), Blue Whale (link to FAC discussion), Humpback Whale (link to FAC discussion), Right whale (link to FAC discussion), Sperm Whale (can't find FAC discussion), and Orca (can't find FAC discussion). Neil916 (Talk) 20:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, but with a few nits — A very good article that appears reasonably comprehensive, well-referenced, and an interesting read. I just had a few nits that I thought needed addressing:
  • In the early part of the introduction, the sentence that begins, "Other related whales...," is a bit diverting from the main topic. Since it is covered in the taxonomy section, I wonder if you would consider removing it (or moving it further down)?
  • The second rather than the first occurance of kilograms (and lb) is wiki-linked. Also I believe a period is appropriate following an abbreviated ft., lb., mi., mm., in. and hr.
  • mi/hr is not wiki-linked, &c.
  • The taxonomy section doesn't cover the meaning of the name "borealis".
  • Please use a &mdash; in: "...identified - the..."
  • The single paragraphs in the "North Atlantic", "North Pacific", "International protection" and "Current whaling" sections are quite long. I believe that splitting them up appropriately will make for an easier and more enjoyable read.

Finally, is there any information on this whale's vocalizations? Do they vocalize at all? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Response: Addressing your points in order:
    • I agree, and I have removed that sentence
    • Fixed the wikilink problem. As for the period after the abbreviations, I was under the impression that it should be there as well, but WP:MOSNUM#Units_of_measurement clearly shows dropping the period after all of its examples, even though it is not explicitly stated that the period should be dropped. Any suggestions?
      • According to the abbreviations page, SI does not require a period within or after a unit. So km and mm are correct. Heh, learn something new every day. I'm not sure about the old English units, however: I've always included a period. — RJH (talk)
    • Fixed the wikilink of mi/hr.
    • Added the meaning of the latin word borealis, meaning northern.
    • Added the &mdash; in the appropriate section.
    • Revised and reorganized the paragraphs to make them flow better.
    • Not much is known about the Sei Whale's vocalizations, but I added a section describing what little is known.
  • Thanks for the feedback. Neil916 (Talk) 18:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you, and good luck with your FAC. — RJH (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Mild Oppose for now. I think it still needs a lot of little detail work. However, as it now stands, with attention to a lot of details, and clearing up some prose it has what it takes to be a FA. The biggest thing I don't like about it is the redundancy of text, when you repeat something, make the sentence more detailed the second time, as with the lead sentences for sections taken from the lead paragraph. I added comments to the talk page and will post more soon. KP Botany 23:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Response: I've cleaned up the redundancies between the lead section of the article and the main body. I've been trying to balance requests to expand the lead section with the need to not repeat the entire article in the lead section. See if you like that better. I have addressed the other concerns over on the article's talk page. Feel free to review the article again and raise additional issues as you discover them. Neil916 (Talk) 16:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I don't think the lead section should be expanded at all, sorry for the confusion. I think that when you repeat a sentence from the lead section as an introductory point to another section in the article, the lead sentence from the lead section should be expanded a bit. The lead section for this article is superb, content wise--please don't change it!!! Sorry to mess you up on this. KP Botany 18:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • No, it wasn't you who suggested expanding the lead section, it was one of the issues that had come up in the peer review, and the result was the version that you saw. I interpreted your comment to mean that you felt that the lead section had become too repetetive, where there was a sentence in the lead section that was just an exact replica of the sentence in the main body (which was the case, in fact, because in some cases I just cut-and-pasted it when I was expanding the lead). So what I've done in response to your concern is to verify that in every case where a fact is mentioned in the lead, the fact is mentioned in more detail in the actual body of the article. The only minor exception to this that I can see is the comment about the whale's swimming speed, because I don't know how much that statement can be elaborated upon, but I did move the article around and made that statement part of a larger paragraph on the whale's swimming habits in general, including diving, which wasn't mentioned in the lead. So when I mentioned the balancing act, I was basically referring to work that I'd done in the past expanding the lead, not plans to expand it further in response to your concern. Neil916 (Talk) 18:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - the article is comprehensive, good pictures (I like the whale diagram picture), well-written and it is easy to follow, well-referenced but only one reference to an external wiki page. As soon as the external wiki reference is replaced, I will change my vote into full support. — Indon (reply) — 09:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The unreliable citation to a wiki page has been removed. So I give my full support for this article. Great job! — Indon (reply) — 09:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Very nice comprehensive work. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I agree the prose is very good and very comprehensive. Good job to all who have worked hard on it.--Seadog ^♪ 12:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The prose needs cleaning up, and the lead is poor (1a and 2a). Here are random examples that indicate that the whole text needs considerable work.
  • "The whale reaches lengths of 20 metres"—Plural "lengths" and "weights" are unidiomatic. In any case, the largest ever recorded specimen was this long, but much heavier. Conflicting information with the details below.
  • "an average of about 900 kilograms"—Remove "about" (see MoS).
  • "Its name comes from the Norwegian word for pollock, a fish that appears off the coast of Norway at the same time as the Sei Whale.[3]"—Why highlight this in the lead when the info is repeated just below? Big picture first, please. Tony 12:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Response: Addressing your points in order:
    • Fixed the wording and corrected information; I had copied the wrong stats when writing the lead, thanks for pointing that out.
    • Fixed that.
    • I disagree with this point. Per the Manual of Style (Lead Section), "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any". By that definition, the lead section is going to repeat information contained in the rest of the article. The lead section is organized from the standpoint that it should address questions that a reader would have if the intro is the only thing they read (or can read, It has been suggested that the CD version of WP only contain the lead sections of articles). It is my opinion that a typical reader would have questions about why the whale has a common name "Sei" and that the question is important enough to raise in the lead section. The fact that it is addressed in the following section shouldn't be a reason to not include it in the lead, and additional information is provided in that section. If your objection is due to the fact that the wording is similar, suggest an alternative for the wording.
  • Please let me know if there are additional issues that you spot. Neil916 (Talk) 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Suggestion Can you add something about this species and the whale watching industry? Many of our cetacean articles could use some discussion of the economic significance of the species, apart from whaling. Kla'quot 07:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Good and obvious catch, plus current science outside of Japan. KP Botany 17:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Rejoinder—My point about allowing etymological niceties intrude into the second sentence of the lead is that it's just too detailed compared with the rest of the info in the lead, which should summarise the topic. It's a nice point to make, but do it just once, after you've provided the big picture in the lead. Like, tell us where the species lives/migrates instead. Lower down, you mention the migration without giving an idea as to whether it roams the whole of the North Atlantic or specific areas off Norway, Siberia, Greenland, etc. THAT is the summary stuff we need in the lead, not etymology that's repeated below.
  • Ok, now I understand your point, and I agree with it. I've rearranged the lead section to put most relevant information first. Neil916 (Talk) 18:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, more problems:

• • "The whale reaches a length of up to 20 metres (66 ft) long and reaches a weight of up to 45 tonnes (50 tons).[4]" Try: "The whales reach lengths of up to 20 metres (66 ft) and weigh up to 45 tonnes (50 tons).[4]" Ah, much better ....
  • "although it continues to be hunted to a limited extent"—awkward passive construction and inefficient wording: "although limited hunting still occurs ..."
  • "approximately one-fifth"—a plea for plain English: "about a fifth". It's what our wide range of native and non-native readers want. We're vying for their reading time, too. People are busy, and using short, simple language adds up to a satisfying reading experience.
  • "(up to 180 tonnes, 200 tons) and the Fin Whale (up to 70 tonnes, 70 tons)". Um ... get that calculator out.
  • Can you make the expression of ranges consistent? We have "4–5 metres (13–16 ft)", which I like, but more elaborate wording elsewhere—e.g., between 12.2 and 15.2 metres (40–50 ft)".
  • Love your en dashes, but use them consistently (32-60 looks so squidgy), and then "to" below.
  • It's turning into a wiktionary with the linking of common words such as "scar" and "skin". Please delink these throughout.
  • "Very little is known about their actual social structure." As opposed to their fanciful social structure?
  • "The Sei Whale is notable for its speed, being among the fastest of all cetaceans." Why not remove the bloat: "The Sei Whale is among the fastest of all cetaceans."?

I won't read on. Someone with strategic distance is required, to copy-edit it throughout. Tony 03:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have addressed these points, but I don't know what "32-60 looks so squidgy" means. KP Botany has been providing copyediting assistance on the talk page of the article, addressing his objections raised on this FAC page. Your participation in that discussion would be welcome. Neil916 (Talk) 18:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Because a hyphen is used. Try the trusted en dash for ranges: 32–60, not 32-60; it's standard usage. Tony 07:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Excellent well written article. -- Scorpion0422 00:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Featured article! E104421 13:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)