Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zscout370 (talk | contribs) at 07:01, 6 March 2006 (→‎Nominations: added Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National emblem of Belarus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.
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: Purge cache

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. 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.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
  5. 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

Shortcut
  • 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.
  • 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

National emblem of Belarus

Ok, making the second-go around after a lack-luster peer review. The history sections have been expanded and illustrated, added more photos to the main sections and added more sourcing itself. Overall, I think it is better than what I had the first time around and I hope yall agree. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scotch College, Perth Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eddie Guerrero Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/We Belong Together Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spira (Final Fantasy X) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geo Storm Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alan Moore Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of the Pakistan Army Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Napoleon I of France

Eric A. Havelock

Self-nomination. This is intended as a general-purpose introduction to a very scholarly subject. My goal was to have material that would be of interest to readers on multiple levels, so I recognize that some of it gets a bit technical. I had some useful help with the lead from a peer review, which is here. Please note that, as far as I know, neither additional biographical material nor a usable photograph of Havelock is likely to be forthcoming. All of Havelock's personal effects, papers, and photos are in the Yale archive, from whence nothing ever emerges. I'd be grateful for any advice for improving the article. Chick Bowen 00:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Pop some external links at the bottom if you have them tho! Nice article. --PopUpPirate 01:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article is very well written, but the intro seems weak. Reading the intro leaves me with a fuzzy feeling that I still don't know the basics of the man. For instance, it doesn't state clearly what Havelock's profession was (professor, essayist, teacher, etc). The lead is my only concern. --NormanEinstein 02:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Support. The changes help. Looks good. --NormanEinstein 02:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's a good read, has plenty of cites, a fact check on a dozen footnotes appears to demonstrate that they are correct to the associated content. Very encyclopedic and stable.--MONGO 04:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A picture of the man would be awfully nice. If you can get one, the {{Infobox Biography}} template would be appropriate to add. Also, I see one or two identical references, which you can combine using the name="foo" and <ref name="foo" /> syntax. Circeus 15:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your edits to the article, Circeus. I would love to find a picture. Do you feel strongly about the double references issue? I'm used to print, so I prefer things to be closer to traditional Chicago style, and also that the references will function as regular endnotes if the article is printed out. Do others see it as inefficient or redundant? Let me know if so and I'll make the fix. Chick Bowen 18:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Wonderful article!--Bcrowell 21:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, every biographical article should include a picture of the subject, except for individuals of whom no picture seems to exist (e.g. Matthew_Brettingham). I consider any other biographical article to fail criterion (2b). A fair-use image would be well justified here. Andrew Levine 03:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid you've misunderstood what I said above. It's not that I can't find a free picture, it's that I can't find a picture at all. As I've said, I would love to find a photograph of Havelock. If you can help, please do. Thanks. Chick Bowen 03:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, critera 4 states that "including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article", and though it would be great to find an image, it does seem as if no pictures seem to exist of Havelock also. AndyZ 13:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Criteria 4's "images are not a prerequisite" really only applies to subjects which pictures can't illustrate well (like Psychosis). However, in this case I did indeed misunderstand what Chick said about "no usable picture" and since none seems to exist, I am striking my oppose. Andrew Levine 20:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand the confusion now. When I said that I meant that there are apparently pictures locked away in the Yale archives (at least one of the items catalogued there is a box of photographs). But there's no way Yale is going to let us scan any of those pictures, so they wouldn't do us any good, fair use or no fair use. Thanks for striking your oppose, Andrew. Chick Bowen 21:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. That's a fine piece of work. I hope you do locate a photograph of Havelock, but this is good enough to feature without it. Regards, 68.101.254.59 06:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Beautiful article! —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very well written, but I would like to see a photo of the man as the lead photo. Staxringold 12:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blue screen of death Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First Council of Nicaea

George Washington Dixon

Self-nomination. An interesting figure from 19th century America who is today mostly forgotten. His story touches on American popular culture, blackface minstrelsy, yellow journalism, spectator sports, and many other areas. The article draws from all major contemporary works that discuss the man (primarily Cockrell and Browder). There are a lot of footnotes. I know that some people don't like footnotes, but I feel that all of the ones I've included are necessary. The article is 32 kb long. Without the references and categories (this guy did so much in his lifetime that he belongs to a ton of categories), it drops to well under the limit. Peer review netted exactly one comment. Thanks for any comments! — BrianSmithson 15:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Support: I know you're going to get some complaints about the references, but I don't think ref formatting is all that important. The information is there, and I'm fine with it, so I'll leave that to someone else. I do think it's important to not link to random dates and years in articles, though. 90% of the dates in this article could be unlinked. Clicking on "September 12", for example, doesn't add anything to one's understanding of the article, and makes for needless clutter. Otherwise, A very interesting and well-written article. Seems comprehensive and stable, with relevant pictures and (in my opinion) good references. Kafziel 19:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough explanation for me. Changing to full support. Kafziel 20:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Andrew Robinson

F-4 Phantom II

Considerably rewritten and expanded, addressing all concerns raised in the Peer Review and previous FAC attempt and more. A detailed overview of history and service of this Cold War icon. This is a self-nom of sorts as I am the primary contributor to the current revision. - Emt147 Burninate! 06:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, a great article on great fighter. Just two points from me:

  • Is it possible to have a table of contents please? Those list-like entries are kinda creepy :)
  • I would appreciate a section/paragraph/whatever on the Wild Weasel variant. If memory serves, these aircraft were completely "undressed" and modified in order to be converted. Plus, it is a role which is slightly different.
  • I'm not convinced by "comparable aircraft"... Mig-21 is 2 times lighter and much smaller than the F-4, so while they may fulfill similar roles (just as all fighters do, they're not really in the same category). Just a thought, maybe I'm wrong so I don't insist :)

Overall, a great article worthy of FA! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 10:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I went to the list-like entries because the TOC was gigantic. I think this is much tidier. The Wild Weasel is discussed briefly in the Gulf War section and I made it a separate bullet in the variants summary. All variants are covered in more detail in F-4 Phantom II variants. In truth, there was nothing directly comparable to the Phantom when it came out. MiG-21 and EE Lightning were the closest in mission and performance. - Emt147 Burninate! 15:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor object:

  • The "Operators" section is redundant with the entire "Phantom in foreign service" section, no? I can't see any reason to give the same list of countries twice.
  • Footnote 6 seems misplaced. I'm assuming it's meant to apply to the entire section; but footnotes are usually placed after the relevant material.

Other than that, great article! Kirill Lokshin 12:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected both issues. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate! 15:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great, support from me now! Kirill Lokshin 16:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice article, but I object until formatting and a few other issues are fixed. This should use subsections, but not as many subsections as you have bold headers. In the first level 2 section, use perhaps "Origins", "Testing and production", and "Records". Also, no bold outside of the first sentence of the lead please. Citations follow punctuation,[1] like this.[2] As for units, I've fixed the lead to comply with WP:MoS, try to make the rest similar (abbreviate only the conversion, and use &nbsp; between the number and the abbreviation). "Contemporary United States dollars" needs to be defined (what year was the book published that says those numbers?). Also, the F-4 in fiction section is lackluster; anything to add there or can it just be removed? --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I will work on making those improvements. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented all of your recommendations. Please re-evaluate and comment. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate! 00:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job, but I think there are now too many subsections (the table of contents is quite long considering the size of the article). Perhaps the subsections for each individual country could be changed to subsections for each region (Europe, Asia, Middle East, Australia), and a few of the subsections in the development section should be combined. Is there a way to combine Nicknames and The Spook? They're both short and somewhat related, but I can't think of a good section name that would cover both of them at the moment. Also, there is still alot of bold within the prose; that needs to be removed. If something needs emphasis, use italics, but it's almost always unnecessary. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "Related content" should be renamed "See also" and moved above the references as per WP:MOSHEAD. Its subsections should be eliminated as well. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the reason why I was using bold words rather than == tags which produced a very compact TOC. Then you came in and expanded it back. Now you don't like it. Please make up your mind. The TOC is an optional element and can be turned off if users don't like it, so I would prefer to stop messing with the headings altogether. Check the box in your Preferences if it bothers you. Combining sections and compromising clarity and organization for the sake of shrinking the TOC is an absolute no go. The Spook, the nicknames, and all the separate countries are distinct elements and should not be clumped together because Wiki TOCs suck. I'll work on the bold text. The Related content section is per WP:Air MOS, template-encoded, and will stay. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate! 14:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On further review, I think the use of bold is appropriate to highlight the first mention of a new variant or a special project. It improves legibility and makes it easy to find the appropriate text segment by quickly scanning the page. - Emt147 Burninate! 18:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been perfectly consistent. I said "This should use subsections, but not as many subsections as you have bold headers." You turned all your bold headers into subsections, and now complain that I'm having difficulty making up my mind. Did I miss something? The TOC is visible to virtually all users, and must concisely note the key components of the article. Level three sections that are only several lines long are not key components. Everything I have suggested is in line with WP:MOS and is identical to what I suggest on all articles that look like this. And please take a look at WP:CON; terms like "absolute" and "will stay" have no place around here, especially when the things they refer to are not commonly accepted practice. Since my opinions are apparently not of any more use to you, I'll quit commenting unless you ask on my talk page for more input. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 18:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll shrink the TOC again. Your other recommendations contradict the consensus-derived WP:Air MoS, which differs from the general WP:MoS in order to provide better subject-specific coverage. As for "absolutely," I stand by my words -- it makes no sense to collapse distinct sections of text into a run-on heap for the sake of a shorter TOC. Sorry I upset you and thanks for your feedback -- it is sincerely appreciated even if not followed to the T. - Emt147 Burninate! 21:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Overall a very well done article. Coffeeboy 14:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support My only suggestion for improvement to this excellent article is that the 'Phantom in foreign service' section be re-named 'Phantom in non-US service' to remove a minor US bias (though the F-4 is, of course, an American designed and built aircraft which was used in the largest numbers by the US military) --Nick Dowling 10:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, I'll implement it. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate! 16:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frog

Joint self-nomination. This article has been subject to a lot of attention by several editors (signed below) recently. It's had an Article Improvement Drive and a peer review (link); the issues raised in peer review have been addressed.

(Other editors involved but not available at time of nomination: Pstevendactylus, Lejean2000)

Comment The work put into this article was quite staggering during the last month or so. I would love to see this page become featured, as it is very good, and would prove that (with dedication) an article can go from something pretty bad (when I first saw it, frogs were wrongly classfied as Ranids), to "the best of Wikipedia". --liquidGhoul 11:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment Article looks good so far. But it need to elaborate more about it's three chambered heart. It's very important in evolution for amphibians to evolve from two chambered fish (artrium and ventricle) and three chambered frog (two atria with one ventricle) and say something about mixing of deoxygenated and oxygenated blood in the same ventricle and how it affect frog physiology. Current article has only one sentence about this, and it's not really put into context. Temporary account 20:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent. And I like frogs. RyanGerbil10 05:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Objection removed, pending resolution of Nixie's queries....Tony 01:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC) I agree with the previous reviewer, but Criterion 2a is not yet satisfied. Here are examples.[reply]
"Frogs and toads are often distinguished based on appearance, but this has no scientific basis." (Second sentence in the lead.) I guess you mean that frogs and toads are typically distinguished from each other, not from other species; best to reword so that it's clear. The referent of "this" is imprecise. "on the basis of their" would be better than the awkward expression currently used. But most importantly, you imply that people CAN distinguish them on this basis, but then say that it's unscientific; puzzling.
"compared with" not "to" for contrasts.
"have legs modified for jumping rather than walking"—the "have" is awkward here; reword ("their legs ...")
"The physiology of frogs is generally characteristic of other amphibians (and differs from other terrestrial vertebrates) because oxygen may pass through their highly permeable skin. This unique skin allows frogs to "breathe" largely through their skin, but also requires that the skin stay moist at all times". False comparison—you need "that of" before "other", don't you? The first clause is awkward—frogs' physiology is characteristic of other amphibians, so ... um ... I guess it's characteric of frogs too. Can "but also" be replaced by "and thus"? However, there's still an assumption that we know why/how moist skin allows 'breathing'. Needs explanation.

On the surface, it's a good article, but when you scratch that surface it falls apart in many places. The whole text needs careful editing, not just these examples I've plucked out of it. Get a non-contributor to look at it? Tony 07:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for the detailed comments. I believe the "compared with" issue is due to regional differences in English usage. Shakespeare writes "to", for instance. The rest has been fixed. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather be compared with Hitler than to Hitler. All of the major US and UK style manuals recommend (some insist on) this distinction. Tony 14:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Get a non-contributor to look at it.": You offering? --liquidGhoul 13:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't look at who the contributors were; I may be able to help, but it's a rather large job .... (Tony)
  • Support but agree that much of what Tony suggests should be worked out. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - an impressive job; one small note :a drawing of the three-chambered heart would be welcome. JoJan 15:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nice article. Well done. Giano | talk 15:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. All comments made so far have been addressed, with the single exception of a three-chambered heart image. If anyone can find or make one with a suitable license, please let us know! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. There's nothing about any French person in this article (Just kidding!) Daniel Case 18:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment We need to add more about use of xenopus oocytes in studying the cell cycle in the frog for research section. This together with yeast study have resulted in several Nobel Prizes. Check this out: http://www.nature.com/celldivision/milestones/full/milestone07.html Temporary account 21:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment...I looked this article over for a couple of days now and the only things I would like to see are a few more references...(I have to go into the fourth section to find the first footnote) and I would also like to see a better clarification that distinguishes a frog from a toad...maybe it is there, but I didn't see it. Otherwise, this is an excellent article.--MONGO 04:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't have time to work on it now, but true toads are a subset of frogs. Bufonidae should have more detail on it. Some things may not be necessary to include in the frog article. It already exceeds the recommended size "for some browsers". - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because of Gallery. Otherwise it looks OK. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you be more specific? Are you unhappy with the style of the existing gallery, or the fact that there is a gallery at all? Joyous | Talk 23:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure. Wikipedia is not a collection of "photographs with no text to go with the articles". We allow photo galleries to happen sometimes. There are perhaps some cases where content can only be transmutted with them. This is not the case in an article about Frogs and we should hold featured articles to a higher standard. There are plenty of pictures of Frogs which have been integrated into the text. Perhaps several if not all of the images in the gallery could be similarly incorporated. However, I object to having a gallery just because there were far more images than text to house them. If we have a featured article with a gallery it will open the flood gates. Use as many images as the text merits, but don't just throw them all in at the end. That's what WikiCommons is for, which is already linked from the arrticle. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The idea of the gallery is to show the diversity of frogs, there are over 5000 species, and we cannot show this diversity without pictures of varying frogs. We are trying very hard to keep this idea. We have thrown out very good photos because there was already a similar frog, from the same family. We do have two from the genus: Litoria, however one is a ground dwelling tree frog, and one is an arborial tree frog. Again, we are showing the diversity, even within a genus. If we were to just show the taxobox image, and some photos down the side, that would be misleading as to what frogs are. Maybe there should be an explaining sentence at the start of the gallery section? --liquidGhoul 00:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you convert this gallery to a table formatted list and include more information, such as the location where each species lives. If there's more to be said (diet, habitat, lifespan, etc.) then add that. I suggest List of Oz books and similar featured lists as a model. Regards, 68.101.254.59 06:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be a good idea, except there is one problem in that you cannot include every frog, or even every frog family. With the Oz books, that includes EVERY book, and it makes sense. Evolution has produced frogs which do not follow straight lines of logic, so it is hard. I don't really see how it would work. --liquidGhoul 06:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an easy objection to address: just state that this is a selective list rather than a comprehensive one. I named that example for its superb presentation. Besides bringing the article into compliance with site policy, a good list can present more useful information and is easier to reference. Unfortunately fewer than 100 of Wikipedia's lists are featured so the poor average quality leads many editors to dismiss the format. Other good examples that integrate pictures and text include List of Final Fantasy titles and List of U.S. states by date of statehood. Durova 16:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can come up with a good way of presenting the diversity of frogs, then I would implement it, however a list like that is not feasible. You cannot base the list taxonomically, as there is so much diversity within families, and there are far too many genera, and there is still great diversity within genera. There are 50 states, and 11 FF games. There are > 5000 species of frog. Your examples do not apply. --liquidGhoul 23:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Continued on Wikipedia_talk:Featured article candidates/Frog. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This has become a great,highly informative article. Frankly I don't care if it becomes a featured article or not, because either way you guys did a great job, and I disagree with most of Wikipedia policies (or should I say politics?) Lejean2000 20:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, mostly on comprehensiveness- as follows:
  1. The lead does not give a sufficient overview of the content of the article
  2. The ordering of sections in not optimal. It would be useful for the reader to introduced to the suborders/families of frog/toad before the differences are dicsussed in terms of physiology and so on
  3. Mositure retention would more logically be called- skin, this section could also then cover other things to do with the skin like skin secretions (which aren't mentioned at all) and Camouflage (which doesn't really fit where it is currently discussed).
  4. The distribution and status section is underdeveloped. Frogs are found worldwide ...., this is obvious. This is a good place to discuss the types of habitats where frogs are most likely to occur and to mention weird exceptions, like the Australian species that live underground in the desert and so on. It warrants more than a sentence. There is a huge body of literature on declining frog populations, which is not reflected here; at the very least the number of recently extinct species and endangered species should be included so the extent of the decline is apparent.
  5. The section on agriculture and research is too brief. Some important discoveries have been made using a frog model, for example the first successful clones were frogs. The reader should understand why frogs are useful for research and how they are used in reseach.
  6. The popular culure section has been shifted to a separate article- I think it would be a good idea to incorporate a little bit of information from there into this article in summary style
  7. Would it be possible for someone involved to make with the images in the article into a picture showing the life cycle (unreleated example). It is a lot more simple for the reader to visualise the detail with a pic like this.
  8. I don't think the gallery adds much - a table illustrating the different suborders included with the section on taxonomy would be useful though.
  9. I also echo Tony'c concerns about the language and grammar

--nixie 04:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, I am going to create a list here. I have not completed all of these tasks, but as I do I will reply to your comments. If someone else addresses one of nixies points, use the points below to comment please.--liquidGhoul 11:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. -
2. I have moved taxonomy to the top of the article. --liquidGhoul 11:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Renamed it to skin, and merged the camouflage section. Also, I have moved poison so it is directly below it. If you read that section, you will find the skin secretions stuff you wanted. If you want expanding on anything, please tell me specifically. I don't particularly agree with you on this though. The moisture retention section contained specific adaptations the frog used for moisture retention (e.g .desert adaptations) Now it does not fit there. --liquidGhoul 11:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it could fit in the section on distribution.--nixie 23:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Check out the Decline in frog populations article. It is extensive, and very good. It does not fit into this article, makes it far too long. As for the other section, it is mentioned elsewhere in the article. The burrowing frogs ARE mentioned. I don't think it is suitable for distribution as much as it is for moisture retention (which is no longer there - see above). --liquidGhoul 11:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed my points, which are that (1) That the distribution sentence is completely inadequate - it should be at least a paragraph, and that that paragraph could include some species with unusual adaptations (I don't care which) to flesh it out; (2) an estimate of the decline in frog numbers should be included so that the reader gets a good idea about the extent of the decline.--nixie 23:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it now? --liquidGhoul 08:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 This will take the longest time. I need to get some resources, and it will probably take a little while.
6 Has been done by liquidGhoul. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7 Unless we can find a GFDL similar to the one you linked to, this may take some time as well. --liquidGhoul 08:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8 There are three sub-orders. That does not sufficiently illustrate the diversity of frogs. --liquidGhoul 11:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to, illustrating the diversity of frogs is an impossible task in the bounds of this artilce. A table of images illustrating the suborders would be useful for the reader, so that they are able to see and associate certain characters with each suborder.--nixie 23:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The suborders are not easily distinguished based on overall appearance. This is an enormous problem for frog taxonomists, not to mention laypersons. The suborders are technically classified based upon such features as number of vertebrae, rows of labial teeth in tadpoles, positions used in the mating embrace (believe it or not), morphological details of the pelvic girdle, number of teeth on various bones in the skull, and (increasingly) genetics. None of these characters will be exemplified from pictures. I think you will agree that they are also not the most interesting features of frog biology to a general audience. Pstevendactylus 03:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 Has been addressed by Tony (see his withdrawal of objection). Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nixie can you please strike out when you are happy with a point. Thanks --liquidGhoul 08:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. —Encephalon 21:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Did anybody looked into the article I posted a few days before? We need to add stuff about using frog eggs for research (MPF and cell cycle stuff) to show that in addition to yeast, fly, and mouse as model organisms, FROGS are important too! Also, I think research section should come BEFORE pop culture section. It's ridiculous when pop culture is first when you think about it. Temporary account 02:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, that will be included with the science section when we get to expanding it. Thanks
  • Comment Woops, looks like Pstevendactylus has already done it. I have rearranged so reasearch is above culture. I thought I had done this originally, as I completely agree with you on the importance. --liquidGhoul 07:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--liquidGhoul 07:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Floyd

This a slight self-nom on behalf of WikiProject Tropical cyclones; I myself have contributed relatively little to the article. It's been through a peer review and was recently assessed and was recommended to FAC. Some final changes were made, and it now looks ready. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 02:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I am beyond impressed at how much this article has grown in just the last month. --Golbez 02:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have added a lot to this article, and think that this is good enough for FA. Hurricanehink 02:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Like hurricanehink I've done a lot of work on this article so I'm biased. The only thing that might be left to add is a section on the long-term aftermath - many of the areas affected are poor rural communities that have been made much poorer by the storm. However this is something that is really optional for the article; it might not even be time to write it for a few more years. — jdorje (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks pretty good at a quick glance, I played around with the formatting. Deckiller 02:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's decent read, has the major events and is adequately linked...just wish the images were a bit bigger in a few situations, but that's not enough to take away from the rest of the excellent work.--MONGO 11:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good work. Jkelly 17:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Excellent job. Coffeeboy 19:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Great work. Rlevse 19:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Awesome work! —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Reluctant object. Is there a reason why in excess of ten images are featured to demonstrate each figure of the hurricane? I'd love to support if one or two were removed, because in my opinion, there are just far too many, whether they are registered under fair use rationale, in the public domain, etc. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just took a glance, and I don't think I see any redundant images, except perhaps the large flood map of coastal NC. --Golbez 22:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you be a little more specific? What do you mean by "each figure of the hurricane"? The only problem with pictures I'd see is in the North Carolina section, because there are simply a lot of them even after we moved a couple into other sections. None of them are redundant but they might be too clumped. — jdorje (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I brought up the picture discussion at the talk page. Hurricanehink 22:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed the photograph of flooding in the North Carolina section because there is another picture of flooding in the Virginia section. Hopefully that clears up the problem. (Posted as an edit conflict with Hurricanehink...) —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 22:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I can't of a single thing wrong with this article. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, very detailed without having too much information, and I cannot see anything wrong either. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object on minor grounds:
    • Lead section could do with being a bit longer. Three paragraphs would be ideal.
    • First sentence A tropical wave exited the coast of Africa on 2 September reads as if it bears no relation to the hurricane. Suggest rewording to The genesis of Hurricane Floyd can be traced back to a tropical wave which originated near the coast of Africa on 2 September 1999.
    • while void of deep convection - do you mean devoid?
    • What is an eyewall replacement cycle?
    • A strong mid- to upper-level trough eroded the western portion of the ridge - I don't understand this.
    • at its peak tropical storm-force winds spanned a diameter of 580 miles - might be useful to compare this to other well known hurricanes.
    • ...became extratropical...' - what does this mean?
    • Although Floyd's track prediction was above average while out at sea, the forecasts as it approached the coastline were merely average - what does this mean? Who determines whether a forecast is good or bad, and what is 'average'?
    • If water entered the system - which system?
    • Also, a thorough read through with fresh eyes would be good, there are quite a few small grammatical errors and sentences where a slight rephrase could greatly improve clarity. I just did some editing of these but I'm sure more can be done.Worldtraveller 01:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • For terms like subtropical ridge, extratropical storm, and eyewall replacement cycle, is it sufficient to include a link to their articles or is a full explanation needed within every article that these terms are used in? — jdorje (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To "become extratropical" means that the storm loses tropical characteristics (which the article says), "tropical characteristics" meaning that it is powered by the energy released by evaporation and condensation (which the article doesn't say). Is the current wording really not enough? — jdorje (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thing is, 'extratropical' is not a word I've come across, and I expect most people wouldn't know what it means. It sounds a bit like specialist jargon, and that makes readers switch off. I would probably suggest omitting the word, explaining that the storm lost its tropical characteristics (explaining what they are) and link to extratropical storm. I think that would be a lot clearer. Worldtraveller 02:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • When a tropical storm loses its tropical characteristics and becomes extratropical becomes an important event in the history of the storm. I'll add a link to Extratropical cyclone, if that's ok? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree that the term is important (it is very common usage), but we do have to be careful to give short explanations when we use a technical term like this. Not sure about "eyewall replacement cycle" (how would you describe that except as a "cycle where the eyewall is replaced"?), so simply adding a link is probably okay there. — jdorje (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I clarified the "average forecasts" sentence. The "average" referred to is the 10-year average; the NHC always assesses their forecasts in every hurricane report by making this comparison (of course since forecasting will improve over the course of 10 years, most hurricanes' forecasts exceed the 10-year average, so an "average" forecast is not very good). Anyway, the wording here could probably be improved but I'm not sure how. — jdorje (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-written. Gflores Talk 22:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starship Troopers

Starship Troopers is a controversial science fiction novel by Robert Heinlein about powered armor warfare from an infantryman's perspective. The book has always been a personal favorite of mine, so this is a self-nom. I unsuccessfully nominated this article for FA status at the beginning of February. Since then, the article has been extensively rewritten and received a thorough Peer Review. Several other editors and I have spent a lot of time copyediting and cleaning up this article. To be perfectly honest, there isn't much more we can do on our own. I hope you will see fit to give this article FA status, and if not please give us some constructive feedback so we can keep improving it. Thanks again.

  • Nominate and support. - Palm_Dogg 01:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are two objections which I anticipate, so here are my pre-emptive responses. First, copyediting: this article failed last time because it had not been properly edited. However, we have made a good-faith effort to make this article presentable and would appreciate a little slack. If there are any glaring errors, let us know and we'll fix them immediately. Second, the book covers: though several users have expressed some concern about the number used, no one has lodged any formal objections and we are confident that they capture the spirit of the novel. Palm_Dogg 01:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. As I brought up on the talk page, this article has WP:NOR problems. The entire "Comparisons to Heinlein's other works" section is basically literary analysis by a Wikipedian editor, as is the sentence Since Heinlein compares the Arachnids on more than one occasion to Communists, it's more than likely that they serve as a foil for the individualistic Terrans. We're arguing that certain critics are wrong, and "drawing conclusions" (in the words of a Talk page contributor) that are not only not verifiable, but, in fact, a creation of our own new analysis. We don't get to make judgement calls about whether reviewers and critics are right or wrong in their interpretations, and we don't get to originate our own. Jkelly 02:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Striking objection, but not supporting until examining image question in more detail. Jkelly 16:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]
As I explained on the talk page, I disagree.--Bcrowell 04:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As do I, this NOR policy needs to be handled a little bit more flexibly than many editors seems to want to contemplate. Is not the process of finding and including "reviewers and critics" comments original research of it's own type. I understand the policy aim, but we need to avoid being too "slavish" about it. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 10:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very different thing to cite the opinions of named, reputed critics and to include such analysis in the article without attribution. Andrew Levine 17:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that was quite what I was saying. All references to reviewers and critics shoudl be properly referenced. Quite agree. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 17:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that it's not "original research" to gather such opinions. Andrew Levine 18:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the talk page, it sounds like there is no source for the specific passage mentioned there. Unless a published source has promulgated this idea, it is original research that has to be removed. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the passage in question. Palm_Dogg 08:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a current comic book series based on the book, by a company called Markosia.[1] --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I have never actually read this selection, even though it has always been one of those i knew i should; but having said that, I found the article rather long winded and much too analytical to really be NPOV. Overall the article is very informative, but much too in-depth; if you want to have this sort of analysis, you could probably add an external link to another site that has done such a thing, but this isn't really the place; this article needs to be stripped down to the facts. (eg. Johnny then went to the river with his mother; and this represents his freudian blah blah blah. SHOULD be simply: Johnny went to the river with his mother.)
    • Could you be a little more specific? You're not giving me much to work with :). Were there any particular areas that you think could/should be trimmed down? Palm_Dogg 02:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think it's good; however, shouldn't there be some sort of symbolism section? But it doesn't really matter becuase it explores far more themes thanthe symbolism. Hillhead15 13:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: Too many fair-use images. Most of those book covers are being used for decorative purposes only, which isn't permitted under Wikipedia's fair-use policy. --Carnildo 04:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think this article is pretty comprehensive about the subject. BlueShirts 05:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Outstanding article - Check-Six 17:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cautiously Support Although I love Heinlein and really think more people should be exposed to his work, I have a few reservations as to the suitability of this article for featured article status, given its at times technical/specific nature. Also, very very minor detail, the aliens are sometimes referred to as the Bugs and at other times as the Arachnids, with no statement that I saw saying these terms are synonymous. In the end, I support given how well reaserched and written the article is. Nicolasdz 09:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Osmond, South Australia Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brokeback Mountain Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/College football

Joan of Arc

Wikipedia lists Joan of Arc among its top 0.5% of most visited articles. It deserves our best effort. This biography covers the major aspects of her life and legacy from a background discussion of fifteenth century political intrigues to current developments including scholarly reassessment of her military career, symbolic appropriation of her image by the French political party Front National, and last month's announcement of a forensic examination to assess the authenticity of her reputed remains.

This article draws from a variety of sources and, at 70 footnotes, it is more heavily referenced than all but one of Wikipedia's featured biographies. These references convey expert opinions about the dynamics that led to her surprising rise, early death, and enduring popularity. Joan of Arc was many things to many people and, within the 50kb limit, peer review has agreed that this article covers the subject in a comprehensive, fair, and unbiased manner. Images range from artistic depictions to Joan of Arc's actual signature. I hope this work earns your support. Self-nom. Durova 21:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Impressive. However, I'd like to know why the info box is as low in the page as it is (it should be in the lead, as far as I can tell), and the year linking seems inconsistent—unless there are extraordinarily good reasons for keeping a year link that isn't attached to a day and month, I'd suggest removing the link. I've only read parts of the article so far, but I'm confused by a few things—first, in the clothing section, it says, "The technical reason for her execution was a Biblical clothing law." Then, it says, "Doctrinally speaking, she was safe to disguise herself as a page during a journey through enemy territory, and she was safe to wear armor during battle." I don't see a mention of her specific violation of biblical clothing law. Does that second sentence I quote refer to the second court's findings? Second, does source 11 really say "no one"? Not a single one? Third, the sentence "It was in this environment of skepticism that Joan of Arc proved herself" sounds both ebullient and nebulous—this should probably be toned down, or at least directly quoted from one of the sources, and made a little more meaningful than simply "proved herself". Proved herself what? --Spangineer (háblame) 02:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: When the saint box was at the head of the article it generated a large amount of empty white space. I was concerned that the appearance would drive away readers. The editor who added the saint box did a good job and I wanted to preserve the content. Other reasons for moving it to the legacy section include her recent canonization and her multifaceted fame. When the editors discussed adding a saint box there was some concern that it would lend undue weight to the religious aspect of the article. I checked the biographies of quite a few other saints who were famous for secular as well as religious reasons and none of them had saint boxes yet. So in the spirit of Wikipedia:Be bold I may have created a precedent.
Regarding Wikilinks, thank you for the heads up. Someone recently went through the page and added a profusion of minor Wikilinks, even the site check dates in the footnotes. I must have missed a few when I undid the damage. Please let me know if there's a browser issue with the clothing citations. When I go to the passages you identify I see the biblical clothing law referenced in footnote 45, which names Deuteronomy 22:5 and links to the Gutenberg.org e-text. The quote from Thomas Aquinas in footnote 46 should satisfy your question about doctrinal exceptions. Perhaps you skipped the description of her trial and execution in the preceding section? Regarding citation 11, yes. I name deVries, but this is consensus among leading scholars. Sometimes strong statements are appropriate Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. I'll take another look at the phrasing in the last spot you identify. Modern readers do not associate skepticism with the middle ages so it takes a full paragraph to communicate why this particular royal court was cautious regarding mental illness. Durova 07:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm still confused. The first paragraph of the clothing section states that the official doctrinal position on clothing changed over the years. However, the following paragraph doesn't specify the time period. So the sentence, "Doctrinally speaking, she was safe to disguise herself as a page", begs the question of when was it doctrinally safe to disguise herself—originally, or only in time for the second trial. I'm also not seeing the details of the exact causes of her execution. Was she 'caught' wearing men's clothes? The text suggests that she wore men's clothes twice, and that was why she was executed, but how exactly did that go down? It seems like the text is just saying "She was wearing men's clothes, and then she wore them again, and got executed for it". What was the process between being caught wearing men's clothes a second time and being executed? What exactly did she abjure when she signed the abjuration document? Also, could "Nonetheless, her testimony could be brilliant" in the third paragraph of the trial subsection be reworded somehow? --Spangineer (háblame) 22:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see where you're coming from. In order to avoid redundancy the clothing section elaborates on the information in Trial, Execution, and Retrial. I'll add a few words to direct the reader and clarify some points in the text. You're right. Some readers leap to their favorite topic. To answer your questions:
  • The legality of her use of men's clothes was determined by situation, not by chronology.
  • Church doctrine remained stable. Bishop Cauchon deviated from doctrine and ignored the legal exceptions to Deuteronomy.
  • The Execution subsection explains why she resumed men's clothes and provides a reference. She was sexually assaulted and all her women's clothes may have also been stolen, leaving her only men's clothes to wear.
  • Footnote 38 links to the text of the abjuration statement in the trial record. Footnote 39 links to eyewitness testimony from a court official that swears the court substituted a forged abjuration in place of the one she actually signed.
  • I'll take another look at the phrasing regarding her testimony. The adjective "brilliant" isn't used lightly: the section cites a witness who describes the court's stunned reaction and a Nobel prize winning writer who decided her words were better than anything he could invent. Durova 01:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Criterion 2a. Here are examples from the top.
"Joan of Arc has remained an important figure in the collective imagination of Western culture"—"remains", surely, not "has remained"; unidiomatic expression at the end, and "collective" seems redundant.
"the lowest era in French history until the Nazi occupation". "Lowest" is unclear; the comparison with Nazi occupation begs too many questions—isn't there an easier way to get your meaning across?
"She received a wound to the leg"—is that code for "Her leg was wounded"?
"and fell prisoner at a battle"—huh?

It's all like this, so can you get someone else to thoroughly copy-edit it? (Don't just fix these examples ...) Tony 07:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure this constitutes a criterion 2a objection? Your second two points carry weight and I'll change the text. I'll also proofread the article again as you advise. My undergraduate degree is in history and I studied writing in graduate school. I have honest doubts about your first two objections. "Has remained" is the correct verb tense to introduce a list of authors that spans several centuries. A culture is the product of many minds so the idiom "collective imagination" does seem appropriate. The remaining statement is a truism of French history, as commonplace and uncontroversial as the assertion, "Napoleon's disastrous invasion of Russia was a leading cause of his downfall." Respectfully, Durova 15:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've also removed "collective imagination" per the discussion below. 68.101.254.59 19:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. --DanielNuyu 02:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem with 'has remained', if you want to emphasise the evolving research; it's just more vivid in the present tense. The problem with 'collective' is that it's redundant. What else is a culture but collective? 'important figure in Western culture' reads better - it's what you want to say, isn't it?
  • A few minor quibbles:
  • The "See also" section should be trimmed of everything already linked in the text (which may be everything there).
Good point. I'll trim. Durova 04:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This ended in disaster when Armagnac partisans murdered John the Fearless during a meeting under Charles's guarantee of protection." - citation? Richard Vaughan's John the Fearless gives a rather different version of this.
Footnote 7. My other sources are in agreement so you've piqued my interest. If you'll take a few moments at my user page, would you summarize Vaughan's account? Durova 04:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps mention her letter to the Hussites shortly before her capture? (It's a minor detail, but a somewhat interesting one, in my opinion.)
Joan of Arc facts and trivia would be the place for that. Durova 04:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, looks quite nice. —Kirill Lokshin 02:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that the trimming has been done. —Kirill Lokshin 16:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Leadership section, it states that Meung_sur_Loire was recovered on 15 June. I don't believe that this is true. After capturing (recovering) Jargeau, the French army proceeded to Beaugency, on the way seizing the bridgehead at the southern end of the bridge leading into Meung which was on the northern bank. Apparently, this was done so as to prevent the English in Meung from crossing over to the south bank and attacking the French from the rear. Meung was abandoned by the English only after Beaugency fell.

Also, the English relief force under Fastolf arrived in the vicinity of Beaugency prior to the assault on same. Then, after a stand-off, they withdrew. Only then did the French assault and capture Beaugency. Then, adopting Joan's plan of immediate pursuit, they followed the retreating English relief force, overtaking them and defeating them at Patay.

Source: Kelly deVries

JFPerry 21:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I worded the account carefully to maintain accuracy within the 50k space limit. The previous paragraph specifically states that Joan of Arc's plan was to recover the bridges along the Loire. The mention of Meung-sur-Loire links to an article I wrote about the battle that explains the distinctions you raise. Regarding Beaugency, DeVries's study has been criticized for its difficult chronology. "That English leader [Fastolf] finally arrived outside of Beaugency on 17 June while Joan and her army were attacking the town." (p. 106) You seem to refer to Jean de Waurin's report, which was not a full standoff and describes an encounter at the very end of the day after the battle had ended. Fastolf was between Meung and Beaugency when he noticed the French in battle formation surveying his troops from the top of a hill and gave orders for his own forces to take battle positions, expecting an attack. Before they could obey she told Fastolf to go and camp for the night.(p. 107) Guillaume Gruel's account contradicts Waurin's story. DeVries lends more weight to Waurin's version and then leaps backward in time to describe the battle at Beaugency that had taken place earlier in the day. A further difficulty is that, a few pages prior, she describes Arthur de Richemont's arrival before the battle in vague terms that could lead a reader who skims to confuse some descriptions with Fastolf. To summarize, Fastolf arrived just a few hours too late to join forces with the defenders. Durova 00:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose all the informraiton on references should appear in this article, not in a separate article - it is an unnecesssary fork and makes the upkeep confusing for future editors. Consider putting the notes in two columns like in Hugo Chávez, which would take up less space. Only sources consulted for writing the article need to be listed.--nixie 04:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very strong opinion. Actually the limiting factor is article memory: footnote format only alters cosmetic appearance. Do you have a specific policy violation to cite? The editors did a review when we made the change and agreed this satisfies all official policies. It's quite common for studies with this level of citation to provide a bibliography with background reading, not all of which are referenced directly. Durova 08:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although there doesn't seem to be any specific policy or guideline it is a logical conclusion from Wikipedia:Verifiability and reading though WP:CITE that the references for an article should appear in that article. There are no featrued articles with separate bibliographies and I can think of several equally detailed articles that include their references, a featured article is supposed to be a complete package. The information exists, all you need to do is move it.--nixie 09:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you're the first editor to raise this issue. If this starts to become a chorus I'll follow the recommendation. Sounds fair? Durova 09:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably a good idea to list the sources being directly cited, at the least. Or why not use Chicago Manual of Style-type footnotes and have the full bibliographical information in them directly? —Kirill Lokshin 14:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, my objection on criteria 2c is completely (and easily given the information just needs to be moved into this article) actionable and does not depend on the backing of anyone else. --nixie 11:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So far you're the only one who interprets 2c that way. Your preferred solution would cause a violation of criterion 5. I'll look into other alternatives. Durova 16:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it wouldn't, there is no increase to the length of the text (which is what is most often assessed on FAC) by including the references.--nixie 22:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried your solution in the sandbox. Unless I'm mistaken, the official "hard limit" for FA is 50k. This article needs to stay within that limit to maintain stability. The sister article on the Catalan Wikipedia ballooned to 165k. [2] We have an editor whose main contribution is to the supplementary pages and aids them in ways that make them better resources for students. The bibliography has been a separate list page for four months, two peer reviews, and an RfC. This really seems to be custom rather than policy. I'd like to win your support and make this unanimous. Durova 09:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no 50KB limit, see Scotland in the High Middle Ages at 79kb as a recently featuered article that provided all its sources in the article and does it well. It doesn't make it easier for anyone to have the refs on a separate page, say I'm a student and I print this out at the library in a hurry, only to find the refernces missing - which makes the text much less useful. Even EB1911 included reference information (where it had it) with the article--nixie 23:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Le Pen.jpg needs a fair use rationale too.--nixie 01:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could discuss this on my user page? I'd like some advice. Durova 02:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5000th Edit Level SUPPORT - I stumbled upon this article in December of 2004 and, hoo-dilly, was it not even close to featured. The biggest issue was its neutrality (or lack thereof). At the time the page was being owned by a couple of folks with a specific viewpoint. They weren't necessarily forcing their POV, they just weren't letting certain views in (same thing, I guess). I was one of many folks that tried to work through a compromise, but not knowing much too about the subject, couldn't do too much and eventually moved on. Now, 13 months since my last efforts, the page has moved forward light years. This is an amazing article on an endlessly fascinating subject, and its a testament to the wiki process and The Project as a whole. Great work. Neutral(!), well sourced, and well-written. Just plain great work. Shazaam! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object on a few minor grounds:
    • On references, there are few things more horribly distracting than the name of a person, the first words of an article, being followed by a footnote. And one horrible distraction is followed immediately by another, a footnote after the year of her birth. It would be far better to note these discussions in the main body of the text, extremely easy to do in the 'Origins' section.
The comment about her name is interesting and I'll see about accommodating it. Regarding the footnoted date, it's the lesser of two evils. Some other reference works provide a January 6 birthdate, which is a hagiographic claim that references the Epiphany and depends on very weak evidence. It would violate NPOV to assert a precise date as fact, but visiting editors kept adding it over several months. We tried notes on the talk page and markup comments within the text, which were all ignored. The problem ended when the footnote got implemented. Durova 03:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the footnote about the name. Durova 08:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that looks a lot better, and can see the desirability of retaining a footnote for the date so certainly won't object if that stays. Worldtraveller 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Section titles seem a little bit odd in places - origins? Makes her sound like some kind of theory or abstract concept. Also 'biography' - surely the whole article is a biography.
"Biography" contrasts with "Background" and "Legacy." Please improve the heading titles if you have something better. Durova 03:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about 'Life' instead of biography? Maybe that would sound a bit odd... 'Early life' for 'Origins'? Worldtraveller 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "Life" and "Childhood." I'd like to maintain parallel construction with single word headings. Durova 02:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also sections are usually unnecessary, links should normally be provided in the main text if a subject is relevant enough.
I'll cull this down some more. Given how most people skim, there seems to be a need for quick pointers to the three branching Joan of Arc articles. Durova 03:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Culled and incorporated other links into the text. Durova 08:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That now looks like an exemplary use of a see also section. Worldtraveller 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Writing style - there are many examples of short sentences which badly disrupt the flow of the article. I just corrected a couple but it really needs a thorough edit to merge sentences where appropriate. Worldtraveller 00:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone tried that last month and the result did more harm than good. It introduced syntax and subtle changes that made the material vague, such as an ambiguous introductory statement where the reader might interpret that the duke of Bedford was nineteen years old when Joan of Arc died. To answer more fully (and digressively), when I was in graduate school I needed emergency surgery. For the following five days I lay in a hospital bed and had two options for entertainment: Mexican soap operas or Henry James. After 60 pages Mr. James had me flattened. I started counting punctuation just to see which of his sentences was most convoluted. When my surgeon made her rounds she wondered how I liked the novel and I asked her to remove its semicolon. This experience gave me a lifelong appreciation for healthy subject-verb-object sentences. My condition improved when I got my hands on some Hemingway. Durova 03:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha, well I can see that Henry James might give one a liking for a more pithy writing style! Ignoring if you can, though, the fact that I managed to get two spaces in the wrong place in this edit, would you object if I were to do a bit more work like that on the article? To me it would read much more smoothly with a few more joined sentences like what I did in that edit. Worldtraveller 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. Your edits so far have been quite good. I'll keep an eye out in case a change affects factual accuracy. Thanks for the help. Durova 01:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There was much discussion in the past archives of the article to move it away from such a religious view. However, we see this FA is catagorized under Religion and beliefs. — Dzonatas 05:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support. Nice work all round. I would support this if the citations were properly listed. At the moment one has to do further work to see what book or journal is listed. you could use the cite book, cite journal and cite web templates. --Bob 21:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Photosynthetic reaction centre Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daniel Day-Lewis

X Window core protocol

Peer review

Self-nom. This is an overview of the base protocol used in the X Window System. It's a bit technical, but I think is now complete and relatively clear (I will not submit it for the main page). It's already listed as WP:GOOD. This article is only about the base protocol: other technicalities of X11 are in X Window System protocols and architecture (which is also in WP:GOOD). X Window System is already featured. - Liberatore(T) 11:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment- The lead is slightly too long; according to WP:LEAD it should be condensed to 3 paragraphs. AndyZ 01:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. I have shortened the lead by removing some sentences and reformulating others. It's now of three paragraphs. The middle one may be slightly too long. It could be shortened by removing the definition of request/replies/events/errors, but that would probably make the lead too short. - Liberatore(T) 14:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. First-rate technical article. Redquark 15:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A solid effort! —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was originally going to just strike my objection after the changes, but changed my mind. I think the article is a good example of a current "best", for a daughter article on a very specific, technical topic. It gives the general reader an understandable explanation with a real world context, and I think it would also serve anyone interested in programming, interface design, whatever, from novice to expert, a good overview. It does get into detail, but if you're actually interested, it doesn't lose you. In maybe a more typical encyclopedia architecutre, articles this specific might be limited to a word count and so not get into this amount of breakdown, but in WP, where all kinds of things are being tried, for this length, format and subject area, it's one approach to more detailed technical stuff that seems to work. (I am trusting as a non-expert it is comprehensive for the field. Also, it is a single author article, that's been around since end of Dec-2005. Dunno if it was split off or written there, but I'm assuming, because of numerous links to other X articles and related, which have numerous authors, it has been checked out.) I think that's it. Supporting takes effort, too... Object I have a problem with the writing quality and overall presentation of a technical topic. First, the lead is unclear. Reading it as any other article, it did not describe what X Window was about (I went to X Window System to find out it's "a windowing system for bitmap displays"), and the descriptions were rather head-spinning ("The server controls...", "The client interacts...", "A client sends...", "The server sends...",...) and not summary. The main text also reads more like a quick primer on the topic than a description, with too many bulleted and numbered lists, and detailed explanations. I haven't compared this with other similar articles, but on its own, I found the information interesting, but the presentation not. However it's approached, there are better, more summary and readable ways to present all of this material... (I can provide more examples if required.) --Tsavage 22:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have rewritten the first two paragraphs of the lead (I can remove the definition of requests/replies/events/errors, if needed) and removed some lists and unnecessary details from the article [3], but your main point seems unfixable to me. The network protocol (i.e., the rules for sending packets over the wire) is almost trivial: there are just four kinds of packets, and the only constraint is that requests may generate replies, events, or errors. I mean, there are no complicated interaction between packets. The main part of the article is a sequence of sections, each one detailing the various "aspects" of the protocol. Again, every section is mostly a sequence of facts about an aspect of the protocol. I do not see how better can be done with the same material. Could you provide an example of a convertion from a "primer" into a "description"? - Liberatore(T) 15:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the helpful reply. I thought about it. I guess the core question was, is it "enough" to have an X Window System article, with a section on the X protocol, is a separate protocol article needed, or is it just gonna be technical stuff and jargon. But I guess, yes, this being WP, describing the protocol in detail is useful. So then, a "general reader" reader should be able to put it into a familiar context off the top, and be able to read the whole artilce. I think it actually does that pretty well. The first-paragraph intros to the sections are great, and the edits made things more readable. I'd add to the lead that X is for constructing GUIs ("the standard toolkit and protocol to build graphical user interfaces on Unix, Unix-like operating systems, and OpenVMS"), that I think gives it an even broader context, more people recognize GUI, Unix.... I think only Atoms needs a clearer intro. I'll read again tomorrow, and strike my object, perhaps support. Thanks! --Tsavage 02:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your suggestions. I have added GUIs and Unix to the lead to place the article more in context. I have also added an initial paragraph to Atoms: you are correct in pointing out that most readers would be left wondering why atoms exist in the first place. Let me know if you have any other specific comments. - Liberatore(T) 16:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd also add dates. The article may or may not need a history section (it's in the main article, but, to be self-contained), but I think in this subarticle territory, just adding to the lead should be OK, and something like, from the X article: "X originated at MIT in 1984. The current protocol version, X11, appeared in September 1987 and possibly the developers' names as well. One other double point that's not clear: a) that this is linked only in See also in the X article, and b) I'm not sure if there's unnecessary overlap with X Window System protocols and architecture. But this article seems to stand on its own, so that's probably another issue... --Tsavage 21:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noah's Ark

Red vs Blue

Self Nomination - Several of us have been working on this article for a few months now with the intent of improving it into a featured article. It is well written, has had a peer review (which, unfortunetly, did not get many responses. Unless that means we did a good job, in which case it's good that we didn't get many responses), and appears to meet all the featured article requirements. Dr. B 08:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I read this article because I had no idea what red vs blue was, and understood it perfectly! An excellent example of an article.Dee man45 18:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I've worked on this page periodically, but not as much as a few other articles that I am planning to submit for featured status. I can honestly say that this not only one of the best articles I've read on Wikipedia, it is also one of the best maintained. The folks who work on it are excellent at being comprehensive and yet clear on the who, what, where, why, and how of Red vs Blue. The Filmaker 03:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well, of course I'm going to support it. I submitted it, didn't I? Dr. B 04:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. When I first saw this nomination, I was unsure (like many pop culture FACs, I thought it would be a train wreck). But when I read the article, there was no doubt. This is the most excellent example I have yet seen of a current pop culture article being detailed here. At home, I'm giving a standing ovation. RyanGerbil10 04:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did not understand from the lead whether I was reading about a television series or a video game. Jkelly 05:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - It's a good article, I'd like to know a bit more about the origins of the series though. Where did the creators get their inspiration from? What other series/concepts influenced them? The reception section gives us ideas on similar works and possible influences, but is there any information from the creation team itself? I mean, why did the team choose Halo to base their series on, given that the series has no relation to the Halo storyline. I'm sure not all these questions have meaningful insightful and sourced answers, but if they do it'd be great to include in the background section. Oh, and the distribution method, do Microsoft/Bungie get a cut of the revenue? - Hahnchen 06:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added in some more background information; there was a single discussion about Halo's Warthog that sparked the series. I also added more detail about influences and about the deal between Microsoft and Rooster Teeth (I put it in the Reception section, mostly because the deal was already mentioned there). Is that better? — TKD (Talk) 10:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - However I do not like the opening sentences: "a science fiction comedy series created using machinima — media created using computer and video games — techniques." - The long brackets are a bit full-frontal. Is there a better way to change it. I'm glad to say that this will not change my vote so "oppose" - but it would be better to change it. Hillhead15 09:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Great article, fantastic use of inline citations, well referenced and great images to accompany the text! --lightdarkness (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent article. It's very informative and interesting. Making it a featured article will allow more people to be aware of this humourous work. Blue Leopard 05:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment I don't know enough about the subject to support on some of the FA criteria I knew nothing about the subject, but the article seems comprehensive and well-sourced, and the version I read today was really good! I'm left without questions... IMO, fine on all points. (I upgraded my approach to supporting, and adjusted this comment accordingly...) --Tsavage 23:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was skeptical of the subject matter but looks great. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A great article about an outstanding siries. I watch it every week. Its funnier than anything on TV. This article sumerizes it perfectly, and gives links to more detial. It is clean, well written, and impressive. Well done. Tobyk777 01:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lothal

Peer review Self-nomination: After a closely planned construction, extensive copyediting, building a strong graphics base and a good peer review, I now submit this article to FAC and request your vote to make it a featured article. I would like to address 3 concerns that are likely to arise:

  1. One primary source: This issue has been repeatedly clarified by me - I found after a lot of hunting that only one source- this ASI guidebook - providing the many details listed in this article. I've taken care not to import POV or problematic materials, but owing to the lack of other primary-class sources, this article should not be felt wanting due to this reason.
  2. Extinction theory: While the extinction of Indus civilization is a hotly debated topic, the ASI guidebook provides archaeological evidence to project the destruction of Lothal via floods. Now I've taken precautions to present this assertion as NPOV as possible, but there is no other major theory that specifically describes what happened to Lothal, and I don't want to import the Indus debate into this article, becoz its not specific to Lothal. Besides, the citations lead to further archaeological evidence to back up the flood theory.
  3. Citations: It may appear that some facts are not backed up with citations. This is wrong, since a lot of facts were often from the same page, I've had to place in-line citations a little more selectively than in other articles. All facts are properly cited.

I hope you will vote for this article. Thank you. Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 05:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object; some fine-tuning is necessary. I don't understand "The main sewer has an average is 1 foot 40 inches high, 46 cm - 20 cm deep and 86 cm to 68 cm to 33 cm in width." Intended meaning is rather obscure—if it's an average, there should only be one number for each dimension—and there's no reason to change system of measurement half way through. Also, I noted a few inconsistencies w.r.t. BCE vs. BC—pick one and go with it. The use of &nbsp; seems to be inconsistent; make sure that it is used between numbers and their units. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've rearranged that units section slightly; I feel that it's more readable. Another question—what is this "Egyptian Oedet" that is mentioned in "Science, mathematics and engineering". And in the same section, "served as a compass to measure angles on plane surfaces or in horizon in multiples of 40–360 degrees". Multiples of 40-360 degrees? I'm having trouble picturing exactly what is meant there. The rest of it looks good; once these things I've just mentioned are fixed or at least explained I'll be ready to support. --Spangineer (háblame) 02:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your concerns have been addressed Rama's Arrow 03:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC) - Egyptian "Oedet" was an Egyptian standard of measurement, a note in the book however not relevant to explain here. Rama's Arrow 04:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportConditional support. Full support if/when Spangineer strikes out his object vote. Generally excellent work by Rama's Arrow, per my comments in the peer review. Saravask 22:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If no other (acceptable) sources are available on this topic, could we have more information from the same book, to support some statements. Eg: there were red-ware people, and there were Harappans, but what indicates their 50 years of co-residence? In speaking of 4400 years ago, a period of 50 years is a tiny, indiscernible period, so if the Harappans arrived c.2400 BC and the flood destroyed the place c.2350 BC, that is a reasonable question. Also, if there was co-residence, what accounts for the flood washing away the old people but not the new settlers? I suppose the book presents evidence on this and such other questions, so maybe the article could give the info. ImpuMozhi 01:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would suggest rewording the deadpan statement "A flood destroyed the village (c 2350 BCE), allowing the Harappan settlers to re-develop the land." Even given the narrative format, I would suggest removal of statements like "Despite the ruler leaving the city...", "Independent businesses caved in" etc -- remember we are talking of 4400 years ago, and even the race of these people is debated. Also, may I urge parsimony in drawing conclusions: If no evidence of mother-Goddess worship obtains, that just means that the Lothal people (probably) did not worship that deity; it is hardly an indication of "religious tolerance". (The caption to the mother/sea goddess photo is confusing and needs to be reworded. Can we have some reasoning from the book about how the goddess-figure was identified as a sea-goddess and not a mother-goddess?) Again regarding conclusions, it appears that a single joint-grave has been discovered, in a total of only 17 graves, so does that warrant speculations on Sati and statements like "Lothal is unique amongst Indus-era sites for the practice of joint burials..." and "the practice had been given up by 2000 BC"? ImpuMozhi 02:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The article's passage on "Sati" emphasizes that it is only the "suggestion" of some Indian archaeologists, as it is stated on the ASI guidebook. I've added more to clarify what the "Sea Goddess" of Lothal is - it is conjectured that Lothal's people worshipped a Sea-specific Mother Goddess not akin to Harappa or Mohenjodaro. No, please do not conclude that only one joint burial was found amongsy 17 graves - the writing does not make that assertion. ASI archaeologists have their own researched basis to make that assertion. There is a limit to the data given in the book, and I've cited accordingly. Rama's Arrow 03:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Again, ALL DATA/FIGURES are CITED. There is none exempt - as I explain in the opening, many facts are found on the same page, so I've placed in-line citations in allowance of that. Rama's Arrow 03:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Is the S. R. Rao, Lothal (ASI, 1985) the definitive source on this? Kind of like the Nasr book on Mawdudi? Because, if not I'd be slightly worried about how often it's cited. I don't know about this subject so I won't vote on it but I just wanted to ask. gren グレン 04:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Clarification in response to above, I already clarify in opener here that S.R. Rao's book is the official ASI handbook/guidebook for public information on "Lothal." Now since it is the official ASI book - (1) the ASI-led research is summarized in it, (2) the ASI's conclusions and assertions are summarized in it. For Wikipedia, I've removed, and we continue to remove any POV/problematic assertions, but this is the base of this article as far as factual details go. Rama's Arrow 04:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Rama's Arrow 22:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great work - my concerns in peer review on other theories of collapse of the civilization have been adequately addressed. It would be good to link "S. R. Rao" in the text of the article and create a stub for him - incl. his work on deciphering the script of the civilization and finding of Dwaraka. --Gurubrahma 02:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think references and further reading should be one section. If all those works in that section were used as references, the section should simply be ==References==. We can assume a work used as a reference is a good place to look if we want to read further. If a work isn't referenced, it needs a separate further reading section. Also, Ibid could be used for the repeated citations of the one source, but it isn't really necessary. The Catfish 03:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've separated the sections, albeit as a sub-section. Please note that these are actually "indirect references," cited by Rao in his book. Rama's Arrow 15:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way to just cite them directly (i.e., perhaps Rao gives page numbers for what he uses)? Saravask 00:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't have a "notes" or glossary. Rama's Arrow 03:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've incorporated that data into the article. Thanks! Rama's Arrow 13:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Borderline personality disorder

Manuel I Comnenus

The subject matter of this article seems particularly compelling at the moment, given the current world focus on the issues surrounding the clash of Islam and the west; and the struggle today between Israel and the Palestinians over the 'Holy Land', which in some ways echoes that of the era of Manuel Comnenus and the Crusaders. Manuel's reign was a crucial moment in the history of the Byzantine Empire, a topic which itself has only recently begun to recieve the attention it deserves as one of the major epochs in world history. But what makes Manuel so fascinating is that his fate was so closely bound up with that of the empire he ruled, and that at this most crucial point in the history of his empire, it was his judgement which determined whether Byzantium would rise again like the phoenix of legend, or whether it would decline and drift into impotence. This article has had a peer review and is a self-nomination. Bigdaddy1204 18:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks quite nice. Any chance you could add {{Infobox Military Person}} to it? —Kirill Lokshin 18:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had a go at putting the template in but it didn't work; but feel free to add the template yourself if you can fix it :) Bigdaddy1204 19:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added the infobox- I couldn't find most of the information though, so I left them as HTML comments. AndyZ 20:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to you on the image, I've found a place for it here [[6]] in the section I've been writing on Twelfth century Art & Culture on the Byzantine Empire page Bigdaddy1204 19:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. I appreciate the well written prose, but neutrality of the article is questionnable. Manuel I is praised (especially in the introduction) as a great hero and victor. However, the most important event of his reign is arguably the Battle of Myriokephalon (as the end of Byzantine attempts to reconquer Anatolia), which he lost. In general, the introduction is not very well balanced. Too much space is devoted to Manuel's chivalry ant personal friendships. Moreover, it mentions "Byzantine protectorate over the Crusader kingdoms", though it was just the case of Antioch and not Jerusalem. Similarly, the Kingdom of Hungary is claimed to have been "reduced to a client status" (The Danube frontier section). This is too strong for a description of Byzantine influence over Hungary (which was only temporary and Hungary under Béla III should be described rather as an ally). The "Assessment..." section seems to argue that Manuel was generally successful, though unrealistic in his ambition. IMO, more space should be devoted to the assessment of military defeats because thay showed that the Empire is not in capacity to reconquer the lost territories in Asia Minor and Italy. Finally, some of the pictures are redundant (the satellite picture of Greece and the picture of the Nile, for instance).Tankred 18:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the "Byzantine protectorate over the Crusader kingdoms", the statement 'it was just the case of Antioch and not Jerusalem' is simply not accurate. In his landmark work "A Short History of Byzantium", John Julius Norwich says that by 1170, Manuel "had imposed his suzerainty over the Crusader states of Outremer". Furthermore, according to Jonathon Harris in "Byzantium and the Crusades", Manuel "had secured an acceptance of the empire's hegemony over Antioch and Jerusalem". Both authors are quite clear on that point.

As for the kingdom of Hungary, on page 209 of Michael Angold's "The Byzantine Empire 1025-1204", he says that Béla III was acclaimed king "only after he had taken an oath to uphold the interests of the Byzantine Emperor". When summing up the section, Angold says "The western Balkans were now under Byzantine control and Hungary had become a client state." Clearly, Angold does not think that it is 'too strong' to describe Hungary as a client state.

I disagree that the pictures are redundant. I will remove them if you really want, but I do not see that they harm the article in any way; rather, I feel that they complement the text and liven up the appearence of the article.

On the positive side, I will edit the introduction to fix the points you mentioned. Also, in response to 'more space should be devoted to the assessment of military defeats', I will have a go at doing just that. Bigdaddy1204 19:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I look forward to reading a more balanced introduction and a more carefull general assessment of military defeats. In the maentime, I am withdrawing my objection and I really would like to change it into support after you rework the introduction. As for the pictures, you are right, they are no harm. As for the Crusader states, you convinced me. As for Hungary, the Byzantine influence was really strong by the time of Béla III's coronation. But during his reign, Hungary quickly became an ally ruled by a friendly and powerful monarch. Anyway, although I still think that the "client status" is not an appropriate formulation, it is not a reason to oppose such a good article.Tankred 19:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now re-worked the introduction in line with your suggestions. Also, I have completely re-written the section on the battle of Myriokephalon, adding much more detail to the defeat and its consequences. My thanks to you for pointing out the introduction: I had not noticed until then that Myriokephalon was absent. Hopefully the additions have fixed the article :) Bigdaddy1204 21:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm also not comfortable with some of the images and some of the, I don't know, let's say slightly bombastic writing, but about client states - Hungary and the Crusaders acknowledged at least some sort of dependence on the Empire. I don't know about Hungary but the King of Jerusalem even visited Manuel (unfortunately we don't know what he did there, so Norwich, Harris, Angold, etc are really just speculating, and of course in reality Manuel had as much control over Jerusalem as he did over, say, Venice). Anyway, I think I would support this. Adam Bishop 03:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as per the Bishop of Adam:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as per Machine in the Ghost:>--Ghirla -трёп- 13:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weakly support with the following concerns: (1) the absence of Magdalino's Empire of Manuel I Komnenos as a ref; (2) Norwich's Short History is clearly not the equal of Angold, Harris and the two primary sources, and I'd like to see it replaced by something else; (3) describing the Muslim reconquests in Outremer as a jihad, however correct it may be literally, is probably going to confuse readers. Otherwise I liked it a lot. Angus McLellan 16:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree that Norwich isn't equal to some of the other sources, but I feel I should recognise that his book was still of some use to me when writing the article: as a concise source that can be referenced for useful names, dates and basic details. For anyone who hasn't read the book, and is perhaps looking for a general introduction to the Byzantine Empire, I would recommend it. As for the jihad, I think we needn't worry too much about it being confusing - given the degree of general interest in the crusades, manifested in the countless books and even recent hollywood epic devoted to the subject, it seems likely that most users will know what it means. Bigdaddy1204 18:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, not quite Object The lead is too long and quite over the top with all the praise (almost sounds like an ad for the all new Comnenus). Also, Christianity and the religious context should made clear, what with all the talk of Crusades and jihads. --Tsavage 03:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(NOTE: Comments below are post-FA promotion:)

I concur. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is over the top. Comparison with the recent featured article on Epaminondas reveals that a positive approach is normal. You have to catch the reader's interest, and pointing out notable successes is one way of doing so. However I shall take a look at the article to see if more religious context can be included. Bigdaddy1204 09:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
re top, over the: I understand the intent, but I think it will like as not backfire from reader to reader. My comment was on exactly that point, I wasn't arguing for "balance", but considering reader interest. A topic too forcefully promoted as positive at too much length makes me suspicious. People are pretty skeptical these days, and making claims in too strong and certain a matter is almost guaranteed to set up prejudices before the reader has started reading. The final three paras of the lead are like waves of glowing testament, hammering the praise home, and no matter how accurate and balanced, will still shift the POV of the reader one way or the other. The effect is not subtle. It took away from the article for me: after reading the lead, I was more looking for fault (as much or more from the authors than the subject) than interested to read about this guy... Incorporating the same message in a more subtle (and succinct) way would I think more effectively intrigue. --Tsavage 18:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bath School disaster

This article was prepared in conjunction with Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan and has had a peer review. This is the first request for featured article status. Main page placement is being sought for the May 18, 2006 anniversary date. Comments welcome. Jtmichcock 14:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support comprehensive article, complete history of the event Gnangarra 14:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This sentence could use some fixing: "Disgruntled Bath Consolidated school board member Andrew Kehoe, upset by a property tax levy to fund the school building he blamed for putting his farm into foreclosure, first killed his wife and set his farm buildings on fire." First of all, it's too long. Secondly, the structure of the sentence implies that the school building itself (rather than the tax levy) was the cause of the foreclosure. I think it should be broken into 3 sentences: Who he was, why he was mad, and what he did. Nice article, though. I will support if the wording is fixed up a bit. Kafziel 15:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I restructured the lede per your suggestion. I am also looking at other sections to see if some of the sentences can be broken up. Jtmichcock 16:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo (English version)

I think "Waterloo" is a good candidate for a featured article. It was ABBA's biggest pre-1976 hit, and was voted the best Eurovision song of all time. Plus, it's their longest article pertaining to a single release. -- Supertrouperdc 04:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Che Guevara Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Xenomorph Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bulbasaur Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lord Voldemort Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Glacier retreat

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 00:07, 28 July 2008 [7].

Michael Jackson

Nominator(s): User:Realist2
previous FAC

I'm nominating this article for FA. Just a reminder, English is not my first language, if reviewers have comments could they please write in clear, full sentences to avoid confusion on my part. — Realist2 (Speak) 11:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note of interest to reviewers. Because this article was slightly long, we removed a few things to keep it all tight and neat. A few of the things removed were on the topic of Jackson's appearance and health. To help the FA review, we removed some of these details and I set up a new article for it which has been nominated for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical appearance, health and diet of Michael Jackson The article was nominated because it was "controversial and pov", we have reviewed this article and have all agreed that content was of an FA standard in it's own right. If the article is deleted we are going to have to bring some of the info back, wasting our hard work trimming. For those editors who understand the article and the content please help, that info needed its own article because of this article's length. — Realist2 (Speak) 23:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments regarding MoS compliance:

  • The Dangerous album had seven million shipments in the US, sold two million copies in the UK and sold twenty-seven million copies worldwide; sales figures were slightly lower to those of Bad.[43][14][22] Not a big deal, but try to keep blocks of references in numerical order.
  • Shortly thereafter it was announced that Jackson was producing an all-star charity single — entitled "I Have This Dream" — to help raise relief funds for victims of Hurricane Katrina. The single has not yet been released. em dashes need to be unspaced.
  • Image shouldn't be left-aligned directly under section headers like in the "Legacy, influence and artistry" section, but again, not a huge deal.

Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose - I provided some feedback at the peer view. This is looking very good. But there are some problems with the prose, and other things (I am focusing on the "Legacy, influence and artistry" section):

  • "He broke down racial barriers, transformed the art of the music video and paved the way for modern pop music in his own country." - This is unsourced, and quite a few things are being said here.
    • The reason that is unsourced is because I go onto describe these things in there relevant descending section. The music video section below it, shows all the details on breaking down racial barriers and transforming the music video. Also the Thriller section of the article talks about his visit to the White house and how that broke down racial barriers (again sourced). Is resourcing for the sake of resourcing absolutely necessary when the article is sourced an absurd 300+ times. I could resource it but then I would be accused of reusing web links :-). — Realist2 (Speak) 14:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor redundant words throughout: "Before the success of the Thriller album, Jackson hadstruggled to get MTV airing because he was African American.[166]" - I'm not sure how to reword it, but "to get MTV airing" sounds terrible.
    • D0NE
  • "When the fourteen-minute long Thriller video aired, MTV ran it twice anevery hour to meet demand" - "ran it" -> "played it" (and also, change 'an' to 'every')
    • DONE
  • "He would occasionally grab or touch his chest, torso and crotch." -> "He occasionally grabbed or touched his chest, torso and crotch."
    • DONE
  • "Jackson hired Martin Scorsese to direct the eighteen-minute music video; it sparked controversy, as Jackson's physical appearance had changed significantly" - This sentence really confused me at first. At first, I thought it meant the decision to hire Scorsese was controversial, not the music video itself. Needs some clarification, maybe?
  • "Although the music video for "Leave Me Alone" was not officially released in the US" - Why not?
    • I have absolutely no idea, and probably never will. It was probably the labels decision, but as it was some 20 years ago I don't think anyone knows aside - Sony. After reading multiple books, studying this guys life for a number of years, I have no idea. — Realist2 (Speak) 14:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The entertainer was given the MTV Video Vanguard Artist of the Decade Award" - Why is Jackson now being called "the entertainer"? - Let's keep some consistency.
    • I tried to mix it up a little using, "Jackson", "the entertainer" and "the singer". Do you want it to say "Jackson" every time? Personally i find it can get annoying hearing that name so many times, hehe. — Realist2 (Speak) 15:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1995, it gained a record breaking eleven MTV Video Music Award Nominations; winning three in total." - I would add a footnote for this, who says it was record-breaking?
  • I'm going to stop here. There are many other examples of minor, but still important things which need addressing with 1) the prose and 2) the citations. I suggest you get someone from WP:PRV to copyedit this.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have resolved or replied to what you are willing to talk about, however since the article has been checked by multiple editors on and off of PRV and you haven't left further specifics yourself I don't know how to resolve your weak oppose. If you care to make more suggestions that I can work with please do, either here or on my talk page if you like. After being checked so many times by some many editors I'm interested to know what they missed. — Realist2 (Speak) 15:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's quite simple. The examples I found were in one section. There are many other sections. This article has failed FAC several times already because of prose problems. It doesn't hurt to ask someone to go through and copyedit the whole article (there's no rush, FACs last quite a while), checking for misuse of commas, redundant words and choppy prose. I'm not asking you to copyedit it yourself—get someone new to the text. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am a complete novice when it comes to Michael Jackson, so I was looking for more info in your notes list and - sorry - found some I didn't really understand. There are several refs that just read "Taraborrelli, p. 464–471 or "a b Campbell (1995), p. 53". Please excuse my ignorance, but are these books or magazine articles or something else entirely?-- Seahamlass 16:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure, they are all published books. The full details of their publication can be found further down, by here. Sorry if that confuses you. When an article is sourced so many times it becomes impractical to write the full book detail out every time. The style of notation is perfectly within wiki policy. The taraborrelli book in particular is very well recieved, easily the most comprehensive book on the singer, although not a favourite amongst fans of Jackson. — Realist2 (Speak) 16:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou. I was just reading the (recent FA promotion) Mary Shelley article, and the editors there had done exactly the same thing as you. Now I know why!-- Seahamlass 16:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, glad I could clear it up for you. :-) — Realist2 (Speak) 16:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a reason to implement the usage of the Harvard citation template, which helps readers find which book a footnote is referring to. See Template:Harvard citation no brackets. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that not what is being implemented in this article? All the best, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 17:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I cant make heads or tails of that link, if it involves altering every single book ref I have used, my reply would be (as MJ once said himself) "No Way In Hell". The refs are accurate and reliable and it seems like a lot of unnessary work for nothing. — Realist2 (Speak) 17:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. That template links the footnotes directly to the book its referring to in the 'References' section. Yes, it would be more work, and of course it was just a suggestion as Seahamlass had trouble figuring out the book footnotes. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • All FAs must meet the criteria:
    • (a)-Well written:Kodster is copyediting the article now and after reading the article several times I did not find any major problems
    • (b)-Comperhensive:The article is 108 KB long and covers his entire life and career,IMO that covers all the major facts and details
    • (c)-Factually Accurate:The article has 190 notes 14 books and 10 external links as references.IMO that is more than enough to verify the facts in the articles.
    • (d)-Neutral:Considering the controversy that Michael Jackson has gone through before, this article provides a neutral point of view and does not takes sides saying, "Michael Jackson is bad" or "Michael Jackson is the best singer in the world" instead it's "Michael Joseph Jackson (born August 29, 1958) is an American musician and entertainer. "
    • (e)-Stable:The article has not had any major edit wars recently rather it has only improved over the last few days.
    • (f)-A Lead:The article has a nice long lead though I am not sure if it really "summarizes" Michael Jackson.
    • (g)-Appropriate Structure:The article covers Michael Jackson's life and is excellently organized by the years of his life. The table of contents is of an acceptable length.
    • (h)-Consistent Citations:With well over 190 citations the article is well cited throughout the article.
    • (i)-Images:The article has 8 images and 2 audio files, enough for this article.In addition all the images have the correct rational.
    • (j)-Length:I do not feel that this article goes into unnecessary detail.

Comment: There are some minor WP:MOSNUM issues, or at least stylistic issues that can be resolved by referring to MOSNUM.

*It's nice to have the dates fully formatted for date preference settings.

  • Non-breaking spaces in spelled-out numbers is always a plus, e.g $95 million.
    • Sorry, could you clarify what you would like me to do hear please, I don't understand.
      • $95&nbsp;million. This will make sure that $95 and million always stay together, rather than million hopping down to the next line if $95 happens to be as far to the right that it can go. --Elliskev 20:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that's done, I got most of them. By the way, in this article, since numbers less than 100 are spelled out (i.e, "ninety-five" not "95"), should it be "ninety-five million dollars" or still "$95 million"? All the best, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 20:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maybe. According to the Manual of Style "In the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words, when none of the other reasons indicate otherwise; numbers greater than nine may be rendered in numerals or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million)." and "Careful readers may object to the use of 100,000 troops as a rough description of a force of 103 thousand; it is preferable to use one hundred thousand for such approximations." So I guess it depends.--Elliskev 20:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I went through it added about 6 or 7 but couldn't find more (I'm new to using that symbol so I might have bee a little conservative in my usage.) Hope that's ok now? — Realist2 (Speak) 20:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I didn't go back and check, but I'm sure it's fine. It's really a preventive measure. To see how it looks without the non-breaking space, take a look at today's (7/17/08) FA on the main page. World War II really should be all on the same line. With my browser size, World War and II are broken. You can see it by resizing your browser. Adding the nbsps just makes for a more professional presentation. Maybe you can nbsp Billboard Hot 100. I don't think you have to, but it makes it better. --Elliskev 21:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is at least one instance of of between a month and a year (I found one in the 1995–1999: HIStory, charity, second marriage and fatherhood section). --Elliskev 19:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have been editing this article a very long time (just check my history, it goes back!)[8]. In the years i've worked with it, I've seen constant edit wars, agenda pushing either side of the spectrum and bizarre, bizarre editing from every possible source. This however (without gushing too much) changed when Realist2 got some experience in wikipedia and began editing the article properly. In the past months (not years, months - such is the degree of remarkable transformation) this article has had something done to it I didn't think was possible - it's actually bloody neutral. It's neutral. I cannot overstate this enough. Neutral!

I personally could not have done this, and anyone reading my comment should kindly take a look and see that this article is well written prose of the highest degree - deep, well written, practically existential at certain points! It's a work of actual art. The liberal use of photographs brings it into a class unto itself, the sourcing is just, plain, incredible. It's had zillions of people check, re-check, add more sources and change them over the years. In short it's a paradise of well written factual information.

The articles lead is so good I find myself re-reading it and pinching myself each time. It's better than the Britannica article, hell, it's better than the Taborelli book's intro (one of the best books on Jackson). Structure is exhaustingly well studied, overhauled. I've been part of a recent mind mapping in the themes section, we first theorised appropriate material in a mind map at mind domo. Realist2 found plausible sources and we ransacked them for information, before Realist2 wrote it into perfect prose. It was by far the most interesting and satisfying experience I've had on this article, and I've been working on it for years. So you see, this article has been sourced from good material ground upwards. This is so far beyond original research, it's unbelievable. Because 2 years ago, it was a hive of OR rubbish.

It's exhaustingly comprehensive. This mans' been places, and this article covers this man. Properly. There have been no edit wars going on 6 months, if not more. The current bunch of editors and moderators of the article are in-tune with each other, helpful to new users and encouraging to previous editors to continue the articles transformation, which whilst not complete is now by far and wide more than enough and actually representing a powerful achievement. Neutrality with such a cult, mainstream and notorious figure. This is beyond FA, it's been beyond FA for over 2 months now. If there's something above FA standard, this article is trekking boldly towards it. To think a couple over 8 months ago it was so bad I wanted GA status delisted! [9]. How the article has changed! Unquestionably - Support.--Manboobies (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've been working on this article a lot (it's my second most-edited article, in fact). And I've seen it change. I've changed too. I supported an FA the last time, but I wasn't as experienced an editor as I am now. The MJ article that went up for review last time wasn't an FA (though I thought so at the time). Now it is. Let's run through the Criteria:
  • Well-written: I've been copyediting this article ever since I've seen it, revising and revising until the prose was brilliant. I just did my last copyedit this morning, and I was stunned at this excellence of the prose that I was reading. It was incredible; literally beyond Brittanica.
  • Comprehensive: 108 kilobytes of Michael Jackson. Nothing less.
  • Factually Accurate: 190 reliable sources, nine books, no filler. It is factually accurate to the decimal, no doubt.
  • Neutral: This is to be applauded. I mean, this is Michael Jackson we're talking about here. I've seen people with death wishes for this guy. And yet, this article manages to keep a neutral, informative, encyclopedic tone. This is sheer genius.
  • Stable: No edit wars on the Michael Jackson page. Another mystery of geniusness.
  • Lead: The lead summarizes the beauty of the article with an inherent beauty of its own. It's succinct, yet intriguing.
  • Appropriate structure: Logical system of his biography followed by his legacy
  • Consistent citations: Every citation is marked to perfection.
  • Images:Images are used appropriately and with relevance to the article, and the two audio samples highlight some of Jackson's great work
  • Length:108 kilobytes of Michael Jackson. No more. No less. Sure, the article is long, but this is Michael Jackson we're talking about, not John Power. Michael Jackson is one of the most influential, controversial, talked-about people of all time. There's so much to say. But still, there's no "bull" in this article, and nothing less than the best.

That's all I have to say. This is from a completely objective point of view actually, not taking into account any work that I took place in this. Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 23:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. Support. :-) Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 23:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I share the concerns about using allmusic for a biography. While it's generally a reliable source for album information, it's not as reliable for biographical details that might be controversial.
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 12:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the reliablity of the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just stumbled across this and I'm not sure if my input here is warranted, however I would just like to point out that stuff.co.nz is owned by Fairfax Media, the biggest media corporation in New Zealand and Australia. Also holds the title of New Zealand Website of the Year 2008. Very reliable source. ~ Ameliorate U T C @ 09:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know but as there were questions raised about it's falidity validity I removed it so that it didn't damage the articles prospects. — Realist2 (Speak) 12:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Validity, if anyone was confused. Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 18:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, cheers. — Realist2 (Speak) 18:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see issues with some of the books that are used, and I think it would be better if you could substitute in more refs from Taraborrelli, which seems to be by far the most reliable-looking book source you have. The article relies heavily on two books by Lisa Campbell published by Branden. I cannot find anything about Campbell's credentials, the books look like extremely low-budget productions, and the publisher's website doesn't reassure me that they are reputable. The Lewis and Jones books are likewise published by somewhat marginal publishers. Any facts that could be instead sourced to Taraborrelli would be good, because he is clearly an established, reputable author in the field. Mangostar (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While Taraborrelli is an acclaimed writer, the only acclaimed writer who has dared to write a complex biography on Jackson, I have surely used that book enough? Are there specific, controversial issue that you think should be sourced by Taraborrelli over Campbell? For the vast most part, I have not used the Campbell books for controversial material. — Realist2 (Speak) 14:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A featured article should use the highest-quality sources available, even for facts that are not particularly controversial. I have much more confidence in Taraborrelli's (and Taraborrelli's publisher's) fact-checking than Campbell's or Lewis's. (By the way, Jones wasn't used in the footnotes so I removed it... perhaps it should be added to further reading.) If you are worried about relying too heavily on a single source, I would double-cite these. I don't think concern over relying heavily on a single source is really an issue though, since it is clearly the best biography there is. Mangostar (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I went through changing a lot of refs for the career overview written by an acclaimed writer on R&B/Hip hop artists. — Realist2 (Speak) 18:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for replacing so many of these. I still think it would be better to replace the remaining Campbell/Lewis refs, but they're not the end of the world and I don't think it's anything worth opposing over. I haven't read the whole article thoroughly, so I can't support or oppose at this time. Perhaps some of the prose may need a bit of polishing. Mangostar (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image Review: All images and media okay --JayHenry23:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Image Review
    • Image:Michaeljackson (cropped).jpg -- problem here. This image is obviously not cropped from the image it claims to be cropped from. The correct source needs to be located.
      • It was taken by the same man/family here [10]. He has given away the rights to it. We need to upload it and have the crop linked to it. Can you help with that I can't do pictures.
        • Ah, I see. Good find! I'm just heading out for the evening but I can fix that tomorrow. Actually, I can go ahead and fix the star as well. So no worries, all images are okay. Too bad we couldn't find one of him in concert, or at the superbowl that one year. --JayHenry (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you, I look forward to your help. I agree, I wish we had more pictures. Michael Jackson's art is a lot to do with his dancing, costumes and music videos. He uses imagery as his art form, unfortunately with wikipedias policies it is almost impossible for the reader to understand how captivating he is. It is a shame that we cant use more music video pictures or something. Instead we must settle for words. How does one describe a performance such as the Super Bowl or Motown 25, I will never know. It is somewhat tragic that the reader cannot see the guy moonwalk or spin or simply grab his crotch (OK the last one was a joke)--— Realist2 (Speak) 00:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Michael Jackson with the Reagans.png -- Properly identified public domain image.
    • Image:Michael Jackson fans waving posters in support of MJ.jpg, Flickr image, appropriately licensed
    • Image:Wj46nxya.jpg -- user created, appropriately licensed
    • Image:Vitiligo03.jpg -- user created, appropriately licensed
    • Image:MJ Star.jpg -- Flickr image. It's identified on flickr as {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}, which is an okay license to use, but it's uploaded to Commons as CC-by-2.0. The image is okay, but the tag needs fixed. Might want to ask a commons person how to do that. User:Giggy would know.
    • Image:Smooth criminal patent.png -- Hilarious. PD as non-disclaimed part of patent application
    • Image:Scream video.png -- Fair use image, but with appropriate rational and it's an iconic video, discussed in the text
    • Image:Michael Jackson Thriller.ogg -- fair use audio, iconic song, low quality and brief, appropriate rationale
    • Image:Smooth Criminal by Michael Jackson.ogg -- fair use audio, slightly less iconic song, but still important enough to merit fair use, low quality and brief, appropriate rationale.
  • Only real issue is properly sourcing that first image and fixing the tag on the star. --JayHenry (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Jay, I'm going to have to disagree on the current usage of Image:Michael Jackson Thriller.ogg and Image:Smooth Criminal by Michael Jackson.ogg being suitable. The fair use rationales are fine but the in article descriptions are inadaquet; how is "Excerpt of the album's title track, and one of Jackson's signature pieces, "Thriller" released as a single in 1984." "critical to the understanding of such a performer" as asserted by its fair use rationale? Same applies for the "Smooth Criminal" caption (though that's minorly better, it still needs more detail. Let me know if you'd like some good examples.). —Giggy 07:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reviewing for WP:NFCC 1-10. This satisfies NFCC. Editors are welcome to go above and beyond if they so desire. To be frank: the reason some other image reviewers burned out is because they were demanding that editors go sometimes radically beyond what's required. I'm not here to do that. If you'd like to encourage the editors to spiff up presentation that's cool. You're not talking about NFCC issues though. It'd be ludicrous to suggest someone could understand Michael Jackson without hearing a note of Thriller, that's enough for NFCC#8 right there (never mind that thriller isn't discussed only in the caption). --JayHenry (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you're right, this is fine in terms of WP:NFCC (and I certainly wasn't criticising the excellent work you've done); my comments are based on Wikipedia:Non-free content#Audio clips, first point ("...when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary..."). —Giggy 08:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry if my tone seemed prickly. I didn't take the comment as criticism. I'm familiar with NFC guidelines as well (hence my specific use of the word iconic above). It is noted in the captions that both are signature songs, and there's further discussion of the songs in the text outside the captions--sourced commentary on both. Now, perhaps the article would be better with more commentary on his iconic music--I don't dispute that. Like I said, definitely go above and beyond and make it as perfect as possible! Some examples where you feel NFC is executed really perfectly would probably be of great help to Realist. Actually would be useful for me as well. In future I could present it as: "X satisfies guidelines and policies, but here's an example of what's perfect." --JayHenry (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, damn, you asked for "perfect", that means I can't give any of the articles I've worked on;-) Anyways, check out Silverchair, for instance; the "Luv Your Life" sample in the "Diorama (2001–2002)" section contains piano and an orchestral arrangement... and so does the caption. The "Straight Lines" caption (at time of writing) probably needs improvement and the sample itself isn't that great, but hopefully you get the idea from the first sample. Hmm... just browsing, Odyssey Number Five contains some pretty good captions, though I say so myself. —Giggy 09:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, to clarify, is the lead picture and star now fixed? Do I need to do something with those audio samples? If and when this is all cleared up can it be struck as resolved? — Realist2 (Speak) 13:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware the lead image issue is resolved (Jay said he was happy with everything so I'd say it's all done). I fixed the star issue on Commons, so that's fine. There's just the audio samples still to fix, in my opinion; basically the captions need better descriptions of the music on them, and on the significance of this music (they talk about significance at times, but not about the music itself). —Giggy 05:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "He has been the subject of long-term financial difficulties and health concerns."? I'm not sure what this means. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There's a lot of extraneous details best reserved for song, album, or other such articles. One example is an entire paragraph devoted to the name change from the Jackson Five to the Jacksons. That kind of detail doesn't belong here. I was telling Realist that this needed to be addressed before the article underwent another FAC. This article needs more focus, especially with a subject so well documented. This article needs to be as effective as possible, but it still needs some work.WesleyDodds (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I appreciate your advise, you told be that you wanted to remove aproximately 20,000-30,000 bytes, with the community consensus of only yourself, (if that was a slight joke or an exagoration then I didn't get it, I thought you were being serious). I am not of the opinion that much details needs removing and do don't believe it to be in the best interest of the reader, since I have actually studied Mr Jackson. I always made is a goal of mine to stick to a square 100,000 bytes which I am happy to support, but bringing it down to 80k is absurd. There are many FA article above 100,000 bytes. — Realist2 (Speak) 13:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up I've gone through and removed a lot of details better suited to subarticles. At this point the biography section is pretty good, with everything from the early life through Thriller more or less perfect. There are some issues I have in latter portions of the bio, but I'll get to that later. I was trimming down the music videos section, but Realist kept revert me and even removed the in-use template at one point. Now, that's just not very nice, especially since I'm more or less working on this because Realist has asked for help in the past, but I'm not going to dwell on that. There are still some issues that need to be dealt with, and the entire second half of the article should probably be restrucured and definitely trimmed of detail. I don't feel like touching the "Themes and genres" section right now; I was going to remove a lot of unnecessary detail, but I realized that would have left nothing about Bad. In contrast, there's nothing about Jackson's voice. He has a very distinctive voice and phrasing, and I know there's commentary about that. The "Physical appearance" and "Finances" sections should be merged into the rest of the bio. I'll come back in the next day or so listing more specific items that need to be fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree completely. Detail levels are perfectly appropriate, and there's nothing about Jackson's voice because nothing authoritive exists about it that has been written. Simple, really.--90.213.175.101 (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added a section on his vocal style. — Realist2 (Speak) 18:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Intergrated "finances" and "physical appearance" sections. — Realist2 (Speak) 20:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Article is now at 53,000 bytes for readable pros, perfectly acceptable considering the nature of the topic. — Realist2 (Speak) 02:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My concern was never the exact length. My concern is over how much of the material is actually necessary or pertinent to this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree some areas could be trimmed but removing chunks seems wholely inappropriate when quite a number of editors (some of whom have FA articles or are regulars on the FA circut) already feel the article is up to standard. The vast majority of them have voiced their delight at seeing an article on Mr. Jackson that is neutral, a good read, well written, "better than Brittanica" (two people have said that, one of whom was a long time critic of the article) and tells the whole story. I am interested to know what you think of the various improvements I made since yesterday at your suggeestion? Have the alterations further improved the article? — Realist2 (Speak) 03:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there's still work to be done. It's not FA-worthy quite yet, but it's closer. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm not a fan of MJ but this is an article that every great encyclopedia must have. I was invited to review the article by the nominator, (see my talk page), and I reluctantly agreed. Reluctantly because, well because this is about Michael Jackson and I was expecting problems of neutrality and so forth. But I was pleasantly suprised; this is a great article, well-balanced, neutral, comprehensive and quite a good read. I noticed a couple of glitches:

  • The musician then released... — presumably this is Jackson?
    • Yes, I wanted to mix it up a little, hearing "Jackson" over and over can drive one mad :-), if you thing I have over done the musician thing (he is a musician by the way) I will happily fix it. — Realist2 (Speak) 17:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jackson has been observed in public spending large amounts of money in an apparently frivolous manner, such as in 2003 when he spent six million in a single store, or from money given to charity. — There is no logical connection betweeen the two halves of the sentence; it needs to be split or otherwise fixed.

GrahamColmTalk 17:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • "The son of Joseph "Joe" Walter and Katherine Esther (née Scruse),[2] he was the seventh of nine children. His siblings are Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, Marlon, Randy, Janet, La Toya and Rebbie" - why the sudden change in tenses?
  • You mention the term "gigs" in the first section - some people (including me, sort of) might not know what that means, could you use either a clearer word or explain in-text?
  • "An unusually candid ninety-minute interview with Oprah Winfrey occurred in late 1992, Jackson's first interview in a number of years" - one of the most clear-cut cases of redundancy I've seen.
  • "Huey asserts that throughout his solo career, Jackson's versatility has allowed him to experiment with a number of themes and genres." - as above. Not nearly as clear-cut, but still probably redundant.
  • "Jackson was charged with seven counts of child molestation and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent in order to commit that felony; all charges regarded the same boy, Gavin Arvizo, who was under fourteen at the time of the alleged crime." Also, this is the topic sentence of a second paragraph that seems to have nothing to do with the first paragraph in the section - the transition is a bit choppy. This happens a few times in the article; could you please rearrange the paragraphs or reword the sentences to make the article read better?

Good work overall. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Now, let me say right off the bat that my oppose is for technical purposes. I don't like to render an "Oppose" at an FAC unless the article is nowhere near FA status. However, given a number of supports that have been listed it's only prudent to note that the article still has deficiencies which need to be fixed. A lot of work is still needed. I've been helping out for two days and I'm really exhausted. Now here's my attempt to to list as many issues as possible that need to be addressed.
  • The paragraph on Thriller should mention that it's one of the best-selling albums of all time. Also, the other sections mention the album singles, so it would be appropriate to at least mention the top hits.
  • On a related note, no mention of "Say Say Say"?
    • Done, connected it in with the stuff on the beatles catalog.
  • The sentences "On May 14, 1984, Jackson was invited to the White House to receive an award presented by American President Ronald Reagan. The event, notable because an African-American met a Republican president at the White House in the 1980s (a time of racial tension), was seen as a positive move forward in social views towards race." is really blowing things out of proportion. Compared to previous decades, the 1980s weren't any more a time of racial tension", and it's doubtful that Jackson meeting Reagan had any sizable effect. Find a more objective source to describe the event.
  • When did Jackson purchase Neverland Ranch?
    • Done
  • "Jackson renewed his contract for $65 million; a record breaking deal at the time." Date?
    • Done
  • The item about Jackson in a wheelchair at the 1993 Soul Train Awards seems out of place. Possibly remove it completely, as well as the following sentence about the awards he received there. Jackson has received many awards during hsi career; keep it to the most notable.
    • Removed the awards sentance, keeping performance, it was a noteworthy event.
  • The paragraph about Ryan White should be cut. Their friendship isn't necessarily important to mention in this article. The part about the "Gone Too Soon" dedication belongs in that single's article. The most relevant thing about the paragraph is Jackson pleading for more HIV/AIDS research funding. It could possibly be paired down to a sentence like "Inspired by his friendship with AIDS victim Ryan White, Jackson publicly pleaded with the Clinton Administration to give more money to HIV/AIDS charities and research at the Inaugural Gala in 1992", and inserted as part of another paragraph.
    • Cut
  • There's a lot of detail in the 1993 sexual abuse allegations section, much of which can be transferred to the sub-article. What especially worries me is the way many of the details are presented, which favors Jackson and really paints a bad portrait of Evan Chandler. My suggestion to Realist was to cut it down to the barest facts (Jackson was accused of molestation, the news became public, public opinion turned against Jackson, Jackson settled and he was never prosecuted) in oroder to maintain as neutral a POV as possible.
    • There are no neutrality problems with it, I provided all the evidence from both sides of the story, if that makes Jackson look innocent, too bad. Since they searched both his homes, found nothing, since they closed the case citing lack of evidence and Jackson was never ever charged it's quite bloody hard to make him look guilty. I provided the stories and evidence of both parties in their full, it just so happens they couldn't nail anything on Jackson. I provide the full facts of both parties, I have tried to avoid inappropriate tone. Its all factually accurate, sorry. Also on the talk page I have been encourage to write more, expose the full strong, something you dont hear in the tabloids where they only tell the accusers side of it. If the truth in controversial too bad. — Realist2 (Speak) 12:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The detail on the courtship of Lisa Marie Presley is a bit much. Cut that down ([retty much, just say how they met, how they reconnected, and why they got married) but expand on where they were married and public reaction to the marriage (which was huge).
  • "In 1995, Jackson merged the catalog with Sony's publishing division a decade later, retained half-ownership and earning $95 million in the deal as well as the rights to even more songs". I put 1995 as the year, but the sentence should be rewritten to better describe the event as it happened.
    • It reads clearly to me, seems accurate. No need for rewording.
"In 1995, Jackson merged the catalog with Sony's publishing division a decade later" Was the year 1995? Either way the "decade later" part needs to go. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AH!!! I see, you know that is why I should never has been incharge of intergrating the finances section. :-) — Realist2 (Speak) 12:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing about the atmosphere in which Invincible was released. At the time, it was touted as Jackson's big comeback. Then it disappointed everyone (including me; man, was that a waste of money).
  • The sentence "While most reviewers felt that the album was one of Jackson's least impressive, negative reviewers often discussed the singer's perceived eccentric image rather than the music" is too vague and gives the impression of dismissing the negative response to Invincible. Possibly quote some reviews instead.
  • Wasn't there some controversy about the release of "What More Can I Give?" I remember it kept getting pushed back and atatched to different charities.
    • Yes, sony pulled it's release because they didn't want it competing with the Invincible album. Then there was an issue about the director being involved with gay porn which caused a number of companies like McDonalds to pull out. Jackson eventually released it 2 years later. I don't think its important though, in the near future it will have completely vaded from public memory. — Realist2 (Speak) 12:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraphs about Number Ones and Visionary are really short. Possibly combine these two into one paragraph at the beginning of the section.
  • "Reports of financial problems for Jackson became more frequent in 2006 . . ." This seems to indicate there were financial troubles for Jackson beforehand, but I can't find any mention of them previous to this.
  • The bit about Jackson returning to the US for James Brown's funeral is only necessary if it indicated a permanent return to the country. Right now it seems pretty vague: did he return just for the funeral, or did he return and stay afterwards?
  • Cut down on the details for Thriller 25. It's a reissue anyways.
  • The sentence "Fortress considered a foreclosure sale of Neverland Ranch to service the loan, but ultimately sold the debt to Colony Capital LLC in May of that year" just hangs there at the end and could possibly be cut.
  • Ok, the musical style section. This will need some serious work. The main problem is the "Themes and genres" section spends an awful amount of space describing styles and meanings from specific tracks, often to the point of detailing entire albuum tracklistings. In contrast, the "Vocal style" section is more effective. Use the "Vocal style" section as the basis for the musical style section. Cut the "Themes and genres" section, and readd relevant details from that section to the vocal style section. The sentence "Unlike many artists, Jackson did not write his songs on paper. Instead he would dictate into a sound recorder; when recording he would sing from memory" is definitely worth keep; most everything else can go to the song articles. Instead of describing the sound and meanings of various songs, try to summarize typical styles and lryical themes Jackson uses often. Also, mention something about how Jackson arranges songs; there were some details about this on the Off the Wall reissue disc.
  • There should probably be a section on Jackson's dancing. See Joy Division for reference, where there's a "live performances" section to describe an important element of the band.
    • I wont be commenting on his dancing unless I'm allowed the assistance of a video clip, his dancing and the power it has over an audience are too hard to explain in pro's alone and wouldn't do him justice. — Realist2 (Speak) 12:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You won't be able to include a video of him dancing, but there needs to be more discussion about his dancing in order to be fully comprehensive, since it's a major part of his performance style. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article already talks about his Motown and Super Bowl performance in their relevant sections, I also talk about his sexual dancing in the "Bad", "Black or White" and "In The Closet" videos. — Realist2 (Speak) 23:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there's plenty more to say about his dancing ability besides that. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The music videos section needs to be more concise. See The Smashing Pumpkins and Tool (band) for effective subsections about artists' impact with music videos. Just like with the musical style section, don't describe each and every video. Summarize and talk about recurrent approaches/themes, then get specific when you absolutely have to. I would also strongly insist the screenshot of "Scream" be replace with one from, say, "Billie Jean" or "Thriller". There's plenty of talk about the fact that they were important videos, but next to nothing about why they were important (In the case of "Thriller", it was a big expense\ive shot with lots of extras in complex makeup); a screenshot of either of these would be more helpful to someone who hasn't seen much of Jackson's videograpy.
    • I won't be changing the scream shoot (although I would be ok with a shoot from "Black or White"). We have 3 pictures of Jackson in the 80's and only one from the 90's. If we do what you want that will make it 4 pictures from the eighties and there will be no pictures of his changed appearance in the 90's. NO MORE 80'S US NOLSTALGA. Like I said though, if you can help get a pic of the black or white video (that is a good pic), I will go with that. — Realist2 (Speak) 09:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the desire to try and cover as broad a scope image-wise, but frankly videos from Thriller are the most important. "Black or White" could possibly work, but it might be hard trying to screencap the most notable aspect of that video, the "morphing" bit. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's my offer, actually the end sequence is also very noteworth and I could write some great pro's on the sexual imagery, the dancing and the banning of the end segment on MTV. If not "scream" is staying but I am actually warming to the idea of black or white. — Realist2 (Speak) 09:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's more about the controversy about the end segment "Black or White" than Jackson's approach to making videos. Remember, the point of screencapping a video in this article is to illustrate to the general reader unfamiliar with the article's subject Jackson's impact through the music video medium. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and it was also one of the artistic highlights of the video, it's up to you, I've compromised as far as i'm willing to go, the scream video was considered fine and has sufficient rational. If not I will just have to bit my lip and accept your oppose. — Realist2 (Speak) 09:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a better image from "Scream" to post, go ahead. But the one that's currently there . . . it's just Michael and Janet, in black and white. It's not very enlightening to an unfamiliar reader. Compare that to say, Michael dancing with zombies or Michael touring in stop-motion inside a theme park version of himself or Michael transforming from a pile of sand in Ancient Egypt. Do you understand what I'm getting at? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well bookkeeper showed us a much better version of "scream" but you haven't commented on it (as far as I'm aware). Maybe "Remember the Time" would be better, his fashion sense and graphics are very inique in that. I suggest we arrange a consensus on my talk page unstead of here as this is taking up a lot of room. — Realist2 (Speak) 09:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's most of the pressing concerns. I would like more editors to take a look at the grammar. I'm also somewhat wary of some of the book sources. Ssome of these titles (The Magic and the Madness, Michael Jackson: The King of Pops Darkest Hour, Michael Jackson, the King of Pop: The Big Picture : the Music! the Man! the Legend! the Interviews!) are rather sensational, and I'm curious as to if these are the most credible bios about Jackson available. I'm busy with the article prose, so I would like someone else to check out the credibility of those sources. There's lots of work still to do here, but we might very well get this done. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The books have already been checked once, all books on Jackson have sensastional titles, even the very best book ever written on him The Magic and the Madness is a "sensasational" title. He's had an interssting life unlike the beatles. :-) — Realist2 (Speak) 08:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to make sure because given he's one of the most famous celebrities of the 20th century, there are a lot of subpar bios created for sensational/monetary purposes floating around. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wesley, Have you actually looked into the sources in detail or are you going on a gut feeling? It seems you are judging these books by their titles, rather than the author and/or publisher's credibility for accuracy and knowledge on the subject. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ask because I haven't had time to look at the sources myself since I've been heavily editing the article, which is pretty difficult on its own. If someone else can vouch for the books, great. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guys don't argue, we have done the source checking already, lets get on with sorting this article before I give up.— Realist2 (Speak) 09:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ about the Beatles not being interesting (;-)), but the sources have already been checked, so it's a moot point. Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 15:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see many examples of the prose tightening needs mentioned by Wesley Dodds, example: "He was referred to Dr. Steven Hoefflin, who performed Jackson's second rhinoplasty as well as more throughout his career." More ... rhinoplasty? More ... surgery? Only throughout his career, or throughout his life, and what is the difference ? WP:MOSNUM attention still needed, as mentioned above (is it 25 or twenty-five? what is the boundary on spelling out numbers)? Eleven years or 11 years ? mid-1980s needs a hyphen. Little glitches like that are easy to find: User:Epbr123 might be willing to help with the MoS issues, but prose tightening is also needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, thats it, I have had enough of this stupid number business, different people are giving different advise. Sandy, I trust you, what pattern should I follow for the numbers and I will do it now, but I need it down in words so I can say "Sandy said so", every other week someone has a different opinion on it and they get changed according to that preference. Someone give me a cystal clear system and I will implement it. I'm tired of changing the numbers every other day. — Realist2 (Speak) 01:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've read your talk page, the article talk page, and this page, and I can't find the contradictory information; can you point me to what you were told by others? We just need a consistent boundary, that doesn't disagree with WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words. For example, you spell out many numbers, such as twenty-five, but then we find, " ... Although the group scored several top 40 hits, including the top five disco single "Dancing Machine" and the top 20 hit ... " where five is spelled out, but numerals are used for 20 and 40. It's not clear what your boundary is for spelling out vs. using numerals. Perhaps you've decided to spell out most numbers to avoid too many digits because of The Jackson 5? If so, you just need to be consistent in choosing a boundary for spelling out vs. using digits that is consistent with MOSNUM. Also, see WP:HYPHEN on -ly adverbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see an image was added: can you make sure someone checks the licensing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it was a different shot from the same music video, we swopped it as opposed to adding one. I will get Giggy or someone on it. I'm off to bed now. — Realist2 (Speak) 02:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MOS#Captions on punctuation on image captions. Also, the grammar in this caption needs attention (I'm not sure how to best fix it, but their status didn't display frustration) ... Michael Jackson and sister Janet Jackson display their anger and frustration suffered by their status as celebrities in the acclaimed music video for "Scream", primarily a retaliation against the media for misrepresenting them to the public SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fair Use rationale on this image would be okay except that as far as I can tell, the information in the caption is not cited anywhere. Is there a citation that they intended the video/song as a retaliation against the media? Once that's cited, I think we're okay here. I believe the caption has been rewritten since Sandy's remark, as it reads well to me and is punctuated correctly. Just need that citation... --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is the picture isn't needed to get the point across that the video is a retaliation against the media, so it's fair-use rationale is shaky. Additionally, that's more appropriate for the "Scream" article than for this one. This is why I'm saying a different video screenshot should be used if any at all, because trying to illustrate this point about the "Scream" video is unnecessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree with "shaky" because in addition to illustrating the retaliation, it's also a striking image from an iconic video. And, I'm really just saying that the Fair Use rationale is valid. Whether or not there's possibly better images, or better places to use this one, is more of a content decision than a matter of satisfying Fair Use guidelines. Does it satisfy WP:WIAFA#3? WP:NFCC? In my opinion, very clearly. That's not to say Wesley's points are incorrect, just that they're not something I consider critical to my (limited) review of Fair Use. May still be relevant toward having the best possible article, but I'm agnostic on that point. --JayHenry (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Bookkeeper added a lovely pro's section about the video, it is fine now. — Realist2 (Speak) 13:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. An article that deserves an FA rating, IMO.--andreasegde (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • A lot of work has gone into this article, but since it's about Jackson, it has to be better than good.
    • Can I just ask you on that, are you sayin that this article passing FA should be set a higher thresshold because it's about Michael Jackson? Surely it should be the same thresehold as any other article. — Realist2 (Speak) 14:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall organization. It might assist to separate Jackson's musical career from his personal life in the article. Instead of a biography encompassing the two, try a non-musical career biography, then one about the career.
  • The article reads like a publicity bio of Jackson. While I understand Realist2 is a big fan, and only the insanity that comes with being a fan will allow the kind of time and effort in getting an FA, it might also cloud judgment in the more human aspect of Jackson's development as a person and a musician.
I don't think it's necessarily biased, but it's incomplete. And it's not as compelling as it should be. You have described Jackson's major accomplishments, of which there are many, without giving the reader insight into his development and creative process. Michael Jackson is one of the very few superstars that puts him on a plane that is very difficult to understand. His immense popularity has clearly affected his personality and how he deals with people and events. But he is still the son of a Gary, Indiana working class family. You have to take your reader from relating to the kid in Gary to the mask-wearing monster of a publicity machine. Walk us through it step by step. I see you've already expanded the abuse section in his early life. That's a good start. --Moni3 (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1958–1975: Early life and The Jackson 5:
  • I know Jackson's siblings are famous, but the sentence naming them all is odd, kind of halting the flow of words.
    • This is something I was specifical told to add in the last review "all his brothers and sisters should be named together". Maybe it needs better wording, but I would like to avoid removing it at the expense of being told later to reisert it. — Realist2 (Speak) 15:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're building a framework here to address Jackson's eccentric behavior and motives for his alleged molestation. You need to be very specific about the kinds of abuse Jackson endured. Everything must be cited well.
    • Added more detail about childhold abuse & added a few details amount other mental conditions. I dispersed them in their chronological order to avoid coatracking of mental illnesses. — Realist2 (Speak) 15:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1976–1981: Move to Epic and Off the Wall
  • Open the paragraph about The Wiz (which is one of the scariest movies I have ever seen, btw, but not because of Jackson) with a topic sentence about Jackson getting into acting. This was based on the Jackson 5's multiple TV appearances on variety shows, yes? Can you tie that in?
    • Yes, he definately wanted to break into movies, not so much acting, he got a grip of that just from his general music videos. But, yes, he did want to take it one step further but that wasn't until the mid 80's. Jackson actually hated all those variety shows, he was gutted when it was successful enough to go into the second year. However the point of the Wiz wasn't so much about getting into movies (like I said that was the mid-1980's), it was more about Jackson leaving the family setting, travelling and getting his first taste of independancy. I can certainly add those details if you like. — Realist2 (Speak) 15:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1982–1985: Thriller
  • I think you really, really need to supply the article with a very powerful paragraph about how big Thriller was. Thriller, by the way, was monumental, and anyone who was listening to music at the time—I don't care if it was Merle Haggard or Yo Yo Ma—stared at the radio and thought, "Wtf is this??" Provide quotes and statistics from the music industry. Have you researched Rolling Stone for their literature on Jackson's early solo career? His videos for "Billie Jean", "Thriller", and "Beat It" on MTV stopped action because they were so unlike anything ever seen, and they probably kept the fledgling station alive. It's my opinion that if Jackson had done nothing after Thriller, that alone would have earned him his second induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
I felt the level of detail about Thriller was already sufficient, getting the main points across. some of the detail needs to be trimmed, or else this article is not using summary style effectively. Remember, there's always the article for the album itself. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wes, I'm going to ask you to step away from the article, you are over complicating my job. You have overhauled the article to meet your personal taste way more than awayone else. If you have further problems to with the article then add it to your list of opposing reasons. You have a vested interest in this article and it's unhealth for the process at this point. If you oppose the article that is your perogative. — Realist2 (Speak) 01:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the Michael Jackson Burn Center?
    • Hehe, I have clarifed that since it does have a rather misleading name. It was actually a piece of new technology funded by Jackson that helped treat people with severe burns. Rather odd title therefore but thats Mr. Jackson for you. :-) — Realist2 (Speak) 16:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I don't agree that Jackson paved the way for Prince. If that guy thinks so, then put his name in it as in, "Richard Harrington from The Washington Post says..." then I can write to him and tell him he's wrong.
    • I gave the name of the publication which is the genenral style I follow, I think adding the name adds undue sceptism of the statement and the source is very good. — Realist2 (Speak) 16:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to comment on this. The comment about getting black music back on the radio is inaccurate; there have always been "black music" formats on American radio. If anything Jackson allowed it to "cross over" (as they like to say in the music industry) to "white" radio. I'd be in favor of just excising the Washington Post comment. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Altered. — Realist2 (Speak) 02:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What award did Jackson receive from Reagan?
    • I don't now the name of the award and I have previously done research on it. However I did add what the award was for. In all honesty though, it was really just an opportunity of the Reagans to meet Jackson. I'm personally of the opinion that Jackson should have run for President around 1985. No-one really knows if he is a democrat or a republican though. Hmm.— Realist2 (Speak) 16:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how to respond to that. --Moni3 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you also need to discuss Jackson's publicity stunt-like behavior here. I don't know if it was a reaction to the very strong fanatical following he earned, or if he cooked that up, but his oddball style started to come out at this point: the one white glove, the quasi-military costumes, and the legions of screaming fans. In later videos and concert footage, it's not clear if his publicity machine supplied these screaming folks, or if they came out and screamed of their own volition, but the immense popularity that Thriller earned him set him so far apart from anyone else that it increased his loneliness. Hence, Bubbles, Liz Taylor, and the rumor machine starteth.
    • Added more info about the oxygen chamber, elephant mans bones and bubbles. I'm not getting into clothes or his choice of friends. Considering the number of mental problems that he has been sourced as having it is impossible to prove that he is acting that way for attention. A number of people who know what they are talking about say he has no understanding of how he is perceived and has the mental state of a ten year old. Considering that, I think it goes against the concept of basic human dignity to imply he his behaving in a deliberate manner without strong proof. I disagree with complying with the tabloid sentiment that he is an attention whore. There is strong evidence that suggests he has little control over this behavior. I also feel some of this stuff would cross into original research or be totally subjective or suggestive. — Realist2 (Speak) 18:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it also contradicts the truth, Jackson it not an egotist, he is the complete opposite. He is shy, reclusive, hates his own appearance and it quite evidently depressed. He lacks self esteem not has too much. — Realist2 (Speak) 18:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, regarding the glove, sunglasses and the mask, having done some research on the disease vitiligo and after viewing statements made by Jacksons makeup artist, it is very possible he was using these to cover up vitiligo. Around the mouth and eyes vitiligo is very hard to cover, purple patches can appear. We know looking at Jacksons finger tips that covering the vitiligo is almost impossible. Of course you won't hear this in the tabloids, who blindly continue to refute photographic evidence, legal evidence & medical evidence. — Realist2 (Speak) 17:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jackson royally pissed off McCartney by outbidding him. You need to expand that. That's serious stuff, and probably keeping Jackson afloat financially today.
  • 1986–1990: Bad, autobiography and films
  • Moonwalk is mentioned, but not cited. Why? Specifically in terms of abuse Jackson endured.

More to come... --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I go on, or will the FAC be withdrawn? --Moni3 (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not being withdrawn, Sandy has given a 24 hour break from FA stuff in order for me to catch up on lost sleep. Sorry, Moni3, this has become somewhat unnessarily stressful. — Realist2 (Speak) 14:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not necessarily the place to bring it up, but will someone please ask Realist to not revert me when the "Under construction" tag is on the article? It's very discourteous and frustrating, especially since I edit this article primarily in large blocks of time. I've asked Realist a few times to refrain from reverting while the tag is on the page but he continues to do so. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are disregarding the requests I resolved of other editors. You are being controlling and over powering, you have said your piece. If you continue I will withdraw this nomination. — Realist2 (Speak) 01:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I simply ask that you assume good faith and don't revert when an under construction tag is on the article. You can revert afterwards. Reverting while I'm editing really throws things out of wack. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No Wesley, I have worked bloody hard on this article today for Moni3 and I specifically asked that editor to review my additions. Instead you revert them because you don't like them. BACK OFF. If you have more problems with the article add it to your already accessive wine fest above. You are over stepping the mark, making my job harder and more confusing. Unfortunately this has all made me ill from lack of sleep. Stop now. — Realist2 (Speak) 02:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I remember the previous FAC. I don't see any major image or formatting problems. Only one image tends to overlap a heading, and thats in a section that will slowly expand and resolve (the 2008 section). The article appears to be long and comprehensive. Plus, the primary editor has proven themselves as willing to fix any minor problems and is devoted to making the page as good as it possibly can be, which shows after multiple FAC and Peer Review edits. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen enough to have a guess, and your situation normally leads an editor to stop trying. That shows a lot of commitment. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Roman Vishniac

Danielk212 and I have been working very hard on this article for quite some time, and we now believe it to be of featured article quality. The article was recently peer reviewed, though it recieved very few comments. Danielk212 and I have attempted to communicate with Mara Vishniac (Roman's daughter) to ask for pictures we could use and to fact-check, but she's been too busy to help; fair-use images will suffice for now. We are still trying to reach her, but can't wait any longer. Roman Vishniac was an fascinating person and certainly deserves a featured article in this encyclopedia.-- Rmrfstar 11:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Possessing red links does not preclude an article from being featured, according to an earlier discussion. However, the sheer percentage of red links in this particular article is staggering... do none of those names have articles? Surely some of those links just need redirects... not redirecting links is an actionable concern, just as linking to too many disambig links would be. And the earlier discussion was about one or two red links... not an article full of them. It doesn't look kosher this way. I'd say, make some stubs at the very least... Fieari 16:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - the ref ordering is unusual; most FAs follow numerical order in the text. It doesn't look good to start at 8, jump around to 22 and then finally back to one. In addition, the note at the bottom of the "biograph" section doesn't really fit, and there are some external links in the tables that could be changed to refs. There's also some formatting issue, especially near the bottom. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how to fix the non-sequentially numbered references, see below for my comments on the other system.
Are you talking about the "timeline" note? I just felt that a reader who wants to see a timeline should know that there is one in existence.
I purposefully reduced the number of references and used URLs for simple publication data: those sources are not true "references" and readers should not refer to them unless specifically looking up that publication.
What are these formatting issues near the bottom? And thank you! -- Rmrfstar 02:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply! The refs look better, but still a few issues: the two tables near the bottom still have some external links instead of refs, which should be fixed. In addition, one of them still has the "citation needed" flag, indicating that a source is needed for that part of the table. Also, there are still some external links in the prose, such as in the "impact" section. Finally, I still don't agree with the note For a convenient timeline of Roman Vishniac's life, see page 95 of Roman Vishniac published by ICP at the bottom of the section. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of your objections have been addressed. -- Rmrfstar 00:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Support. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support- if the ref issue is cleaned up. I don't believe the red links are a problem, though it would definetly be better to get rid of at least some of them. AndyZ 23:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Concerning the redlinks, I don't believe that many of them could be redirected or deleted; there are just many obscure topics referenced in Roman Vishniac, such as cinemicroscopy, which does deserve its own article. On the subject of the reference style, I should say that I worked for about an hour trying to convert the article using Wikipedia:Footnotes/Temp and could not do it to my satisfaction. There are simply too many references to the same sources, references which are necessary. Even a partial conversion increases the size of the article by kilobytes and it's already 38K. See User:Rmrfstar/Workspace and User:Rmrfstar/Workspace2 for two (incomplete) versions that I drafted. Neither of them are any better than the current system, in my opinion. But I'm not very familiar with the new system. Perhaps some more knowledgable person should give it a try. -- Rmrfstar 02:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two m:Cite/Cite.php implementations are exampled on my two Workspaces (linked above):Wikipedia:Footnotes/Temp is the same as m:Cite/Cite.php). Neither this, nor ref/note style, has any advantages over the current system, old as it is, besides the numerical numbering. Newer is not always better. One of the problems with such new systems is that they either have an entire "note" for each inline link, or they have tons of obnoxious letters next to each reference (see Workspace2). So I appose the conversion of this article to a newer citation style. If, however, after hearing my arguments, the consensus is against me, I shall convert it to the style decided upon.-- Rmrfstar 17:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minor oppose, a gallery of fair use images would be very problematic in terms of Wikipedias fair use policy, there are too many fair use images in the article as is, the book covers for example are pushing WP:FUC as they are there as decorations rather than images to represent commentary on the books etc. --nixie 05:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is exactly the reason that a gallery has not been created. As is explained in detail on each image's page, the images used are all important in illustrating the subject. I've held off on adding more because more may be viewed easily in the External links section. If there're one or two particular images you feel may be removed without negative consequence, name them. To keep everyone up to date, I've just mailed Mara Vishniac a letter (with article enclosed) asking for freely licensed images. DanielK212 and I are also attempting to reach JDC and YIVO, looking for images not owned by the Vishniac estate.
      • Also, the book covers in the References section are not just eye candy, but are very recognizable images relating to Roman Vishniac (A Vanished World largly increased his renown and Children is currently in print and relates closely to all current appreciation of Vishniac's work). There is little commentary on the books, but they are used in an educational fashion (also next to the place where they are actually referenced) and they don't violate any WP:FUC, I think. -- Rmrfstar 17:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The images Image:VishniacChagall.jpg, Image:VishniacWisdom.jpg, Image:VishniacMara.jpg, Image:VanishedWorldCover.jpg, Image:ChildrenVanishedCover.gif are tagged as "fair use", however, none of them are discussed within the article. The presence of critical commentary is an essential part of Wikipedia's fair use policy. --Carnildo 23:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is "critical commentary" on WP:FUC? All that Wikipedia's fair use policy says is that "There are a few blanket categories of copyrighted images whose use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith. These include: [critical commentary]", but this list is by no means exclusive. I argue that all of these images "contribute significantly" (WP:FUC) to the article either by identifying the subject named in ==In Eastern Europe== or by showing the reader very well known book covers to associate with the subject. -Rmrfstar 12:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have put a little commentary on the Mara picture in ==Religion==. I know not what commentary could be included for the other images. The article is not on them, but on the photographer of them; yet they are still necessary to illustrate the subject. -- Rmrfstar 00:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If there is no commentary, then the images are being used to decorate the article, not illustrate it. --Carnildo 02:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't see your reasoning, and the two are not mutually exclusive. In any case, there is absolutely no violation of Wikipedia policy on this subject. Your cited "critical commentary" is not necessary and the images are all of "acceptable copyright status". -- Rmrfstar 10:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC) I have changed my mind; there is no longer any issue; the second cover image has been removed and the first one is now accompanied by critical commentary in the intro. -- Rmrfstar 03:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • And the other two images I objected to are still there. The "critical commentary" on the book is also pretty sketchy -- I'd expect at least a paragraph, maybe a whole section, if the image is used. Half a sentence just doesn't cut it. --Carnildo 07:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Update -- I have just removed Image:VishniacWisdom.jpg, because I think it is not absolutely necessary to illustrate the subject. The ones left are Image:VishniacChagall.jpg and Image:VanishedWorldCover.jpg, both of which are crucial. Please detail what policy is being violated by their inclusion in this article (in their current form). As I said before, "critical commentary" is not a fair use criterium (see WP:FUC); no Featured article criteria are not being met. -- Rmrfstar 16:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • If they're really that crucial, then why doesn't the article text give more than a brief mention of either? --Carnildo 01:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Nothing more need be said. The brief mention and the detailed fair use rationalse explain their importance. What more could possibly be said that would enhance their educational value? Let's not be superficial and write for the sake of writing. Are the purposes, meanings or significance of the images not clear? And please answer the question: what Featured Article Criterium is not being met? -- Rmrfstar 02:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • No, the "purposes, meanings and significance" are not clear. I'd think that was obvious from the fact that I'm objecting. And as for which criteria are not being met, try #4, "It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status", emphasis on the "acceptable copyright status" part, and #2, "It is well written": leaving the reader to guess as to why certain images are included does not constitute "well written". --Carnildo 03:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • If their meaning/significance is not clear, that is one thing, but they are of acceptable copyright status; they meet all of the fair use criteria. Anyway, I have tried to explain more clearly the significance of the two images by including detailed captions for these two images. Are they sufficient? -- Rmrfstar 03:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Additional comments three indents down. The lead could be tightened up. Particularly the second paragraph; I'm not sure why the brief family history is included here. And in the third paragraph, the list of awards is perhaps unnecessary as well. As a style of self-contained lead—a mini-article—I suppose it does work, but I found it takes the focus off the rest of the article. Consistency across WP biographical articles is probably not a consideration here, but I looked at a few FAs and the leads do tend to concentrate on the "highlights". --Tsavage 02:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you; I agree and shall work on this tonight. -- Rmrfstar 10:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is the new lead? It's not much shorter, but it's neater and more relevant. See diff here. -- Rmrfstar 03:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, it's a little better. I still find the second paragraph distracting, and probably not necessary at all in the lead (kids, cancer are important to him but secondary to the photography and science he's known for). Also, there's a lot of "well-known" and "famous" for one short third paragraph. I don't have time right now to fully commment, otherwise I would "object" if I did. The article is interesting and seems complete, but the prose needs a fair amount of tightening up, for style and consistency. For example, in the lead, A Vanished World is published in 1940, but the table says 1947 (a typo?), and "shtetlach" is unexplained. Early life says, "Dr. Vishniac was not able to publish a paper detailing his findings due to the political atmosphere"—but the atmosphere is not explained. Sentences like, "Even when he grew older, Roman Vishniac lead a very full life", "The items that were in his possession include..." (collection?), "in the dim indoor home of a poor Jew" are kind of awkward and/or bland. "Famous" is used noticeably often, in at times unspecified ways. The subsectioning in "Photography" is somewhat confusing, mixing places and periods (Eastern Europe, Zbaszyn), with "Impact" and "Photomicroscopy" (a Legacy section might be good at the end, it could include impact, info about his death instead of in the lead, etc). I'm certainly not tearing into the article for the sake of it: I really enjoyed reading it and am happy to know about Vishniac (I started looking through the Web for more on him), it's just that a good copyedit is needed to make this really polished. I'd help if I knew more about him... --Tsavage 04:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've tried to address all of your specific concerns. I'll do at least one more good read through and copyedit to-day. -- Rmrfstar 13:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's better. I'll try to help out with a bit of copyediting if I see anything. --Tsavage 03:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Review update 18-Mar The specific concerns I had have been addressed (struck above). The lead I find much improved and rough spots in the main text largely smoothed out. I still find the writing a bit awkward in parts (for example, the first para of the "New York" subsection, or sentences like Vishniac, being a Jew, had to struggle immensely to take the 16,000 photos he did.), but since I was only commenting, I'll leave it at that for this review: outstanding problems fixed, writing still needs tightening up. (It never ends, huh?!) Thanks. --Tsavage 01:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, after a closer reading there are several more things:
  • The see also list seems excessive, those things that are or could be linked in text should be removed from the list
    • I have cleaned up ==See also== and the section now conforms to Manual of Style: all of the topics linked relate to the entire article and should be useful for the reader as a "navigational aid".
  • I can't see the logic in putting the small section on Zbaszyn on its own, it makes the TOC longer and does not really stand alone from the material that preceeeds it, merge it into the trips section (the trips section could use a better name).
    • I have merged in Zbaszyn and renamed the section.
  • It is not really clear why the "Biology and his philosophy" isn't included with the "photomicrography" section. The material on his religion could easily be worked in to biography
    • Biology talks about Roman's unique philosophies concerning biology, what he did in the field of biology and how all of that relates to his religion, (and it does). The topics are too closely related to be separated. I changed my mind and moved stuff around in accordance with you suggestion, how does it work? -- Rmrfstar 17:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no discussion of his work in the context of the work of his contemporaries, who else worked on similar subjects etc. I suppose it is alluded to in the see alsos, but it's be more interesting in text.
    • From all I've read, I can find no definitive statements that his '30s work was especially important to more contemporary photographers; it was not so groundbreaking. The Steichen quote is the best that I've found. Related photograhpers are in the ==See also==, yes; there is no direct link between any of them and him: none of whom I know mimicked him etc. Anything that could be written would be speculation and not enough to warrant a paragraph of text.
  • I'm still not convinced both the book covers are necessary, I'd include A Vanished World where it is first discussed in the article and remove the other.
  • There is no legacy section, which could be useful and interessting- and I it would give you the scope to talk about exhibitions and books realesed after his death as well as his influence on contemporary photography.
    • I don't think such a section would be helpful. The exhibitions and books released postmortem were not so special, and his influence on contemporary photography was not great.-- Rmrfstar 13:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--nixie 02:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC) There has been no response from this user on this page or his talk page concerning this nom since March 9. -- Rmrfstar 12:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 04:25, 4 November 2007.

Chetwynd, British Columbia

previous FAC
FARC
Former featured article: has not been on main page, adjust WP:FFA if re-promoted.

I have nominated Chetwynd, British Columbia as an FA because it is a fine model for an article about a small town and the recent edits have brought it to an FA standard. --KenWalker | Talk 17:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass & support

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.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Early life of Hugo Chávez

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=42444759"