I am nominating this for featured article because I would like to improve this article beyond its present GA status and I believe it may already meet FA criteria. Several other editors contributed to the article, and it was copyedited by Allens. -- Tomobe03 (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – There are a couple of references where the title is entirely in UPPER CASE. These stick out like a sore thumb; could they be made consistent (per 2c) with the other citation titles? Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on referencing Printed books that have been used more than once are the only ones listed under "Bibliography", even though there are tons more used as references in the article. If anything, it makes it a lot harder to read and is inconsistent in its use of notes. It might be better to list them in short format as with Norwich and Pinter, Grenerczy & Weber. Also, printed books that have been accessed through Google Books should not be treated as online sources with retrieval dates since they are merely scans of printed works. Keep the handy links to Google Books by all means, but the retrieval dates should be removed as they add no useful information. PeterIsotalo12:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, it would be preferable (or required) to remove accessdate parameter from cite book templates, move full references to all the books to the "Bibliography" subsection and use short {{sfn}} references in the "References" section even if a particular book is used only once as a source. Did I get this right?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe this matches the application of the accessdate parameter I've seen elsewhere - it means an editor retrieved a copy of the document at some specific date, and it's actually useful to know when the google books link was last verified to be working by an editor - those links aren't permanent just because they're at google books. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Tomobe. I'll admit to being too wordy at times.
Joy, the reference is to a specific edition of a printed work which will not change, not even on Google Books. More importantly, the printed work exists irrespective of Google Books and is not dependent on that source for its verifiability. The source will remain just as reliable even if Google changes the link or removes the digital copy. Google Books is in this case nothing but the equivalent of a traditional library, and we never specify when we bought or borrowed a paper book or at what time we read a certain section of it.
Right, I already started moving the book references to the bibliography and using {{sfn}} short references, but I'll need some time to complete it - I think 87 such refs need moving - because I'll move them one by one to make sure nothing gets messed up. As far as the access date parameter is concerned, I'll keep it where it is right now until all the book refs are moved to bibliography and then (if no consensus to the opposite is reached) remove them in a single edit which can be reverted if need be if that's all right. I don't see anything wrong with use of the accessdate parameter, but I admit it adds little - except when was the google books url accessed - but I'm not really bent on either solution.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The retrieval dates make the notes look a lot more cluttered, though, which makes them harder to read. I don't intend to press the issue, though.
Thanks for the effort. Having short form notes as well as a bibliography may seem like it only takes up more space, but it makes it a lot easier to get an overview of which sources have been used. And with the use of {{sfn}}, it shouldn't make it much harder for readers to follow up refs.
Actually, yes we do, because the parameter is generic enough - it tells you the time someone had cited from that book, in a sense it's just another parameter more specific than e.g. the book's edition. It allows readers to see when was the last time an editor (claimed to have) verified the reference, which is much clearer than having to roam through a large amount of diffs in the page history. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree since this kind of information has nothing to do with establishing verifiability of a reference. But an FAC is not the place to delve deeper on the matter. I'll bring this up for discussion over at {{cite book}}. Please join in if you're interested.
All the book references are now moved to the bibliography subsection with {{sfn}} used instead in the prose. I kept the access date parameters for now - at least until some comments are drawn from the {{cite book}} discussion you mentioned above.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will have more comments as I review the body of this interesting article in more detail, but one thing I noticed right away in the lead was the phrase "a body of water separating the Apennine Peninsula from the Balkan peninsula". Would it not be better to use the more recognizable alternate term "Italian Peninsula" rather than "Apennine Peninsula". I realize Appennine Penninsula links to Italian Penninsula, but it is usually best to use the form that is in most common use and is most likely to be recognized non expert readers. This is particularly true in the article lead as people often merely glance at the lead of an article when they look up the answer to a quick "What is this?" question.Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on history. Since I'm a history buff, I've been looking primarily at the history section, and I believe it could use some improvement. Right now it's all strictly limited to military-political history, and of that very little is about maritime power itself, but rather land ownership. I would expect that control of the sea itself would be the main focus while political and military control of the surrounding land would be only a secondary concern. Besides one or two passing remarks in the first paragraph, there's absolutely nothing about the history of trade, culture, economy, mythology, religion, folklore, etc. Every small aspect can't be covered, but I would expect a much broader history in an FA. PeterIsotalo19:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I'll tackle the issue(s) shortly - I plan to add information in appropriate places of the History section and add a new section to the article (likely not that long) regarding mythology, lore and similar.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I usually do copyediting at FAC, but there's an in-use template and I was reverted on this edit, so I'll make comments here. Btw, on that edit ... {{langx|sl|Jadransko morje}} produces Slovene: Jadransko morje, which is in a bold, ugly font on my screen, unlike with the other lang-xx templates. I recommend just writing it out as: [[Slovene language|Slovene]]: ''Jadransko morje''. - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your edit and Eleassar's revert, but I see no problem with the template, I get "Jadransko morje" in italics, not boldface. Could anyone else confirm this - maybe something should be changed in the template's settings?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I can fix it by changing my Firefox settings under Options/Content/Advanced, by forcing my browser to use the fonts I select. Is anyone else seeing the bold font? - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about the in-use template, I don't normally use that, but moving the cite book templates takes a while before I can save a change, so I thought to prevent edit conflicts by using that template. I expect to move all (or nearly all) of them today.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"separating the Apennine Peninsula from the Balkan peninsula": I don't have any objection to using "Apennine Peninsula" instead of "Italy" throughout if that's what you want to do, but Italy should be mentioned at the first reference, because most readers won't know what the Apennine Peninsula is: "separating the Apennine Peninsula of Italy from the Balkan peninsula"
Done. I tried to introduce information that those are synonyms in the first reference (in the lead and in "Geography" section).--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Bosnia–Herzegovina": Bosnia-Herzegovina, per that article, per established usage, and because the meaning isn't "between Bosnia and Herzegovina", it's a state (now, sometimes) called Bosnia-Herzegovina.
"—the northern being the shallowest and the southern being the deepest,": nonparallel punctuation; either use dashes or commas on both ends. Per WP:DASH, commas would be better.
"The Otranto Sill, a decrease in depth, is located at the border": "a decrease in depth" isn't idiomatic for a place. There are several options, depending on what you want to say: an undersea ridge or plateau, for instance.
That's an underwater ridge. Unfortunately underwater ridge redirects to mid-ocean ridge and the Otranto Sill is not one, so I did not wikilink that. There's a possible source explicitly defining the Otranto Sill as a ridge in an issue of The Biologist magazine, but that's available online with a paid subscription only. Do you think adding that source is required or at least of any use to the article?--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The Adriatic's salinity is lower than the Mediterranean's because the former collects a third of the fresh water flowing into the latter,": "former" and "latter" can often be avoided, as here: "The Adriatic collects a third of the fresh water flowing into the saltier Mediterranean". - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The plate's movement contributed to the Alpine orogeny and Apennine tectonic uplift via its collision with the likewise-moving Eurasian plate.": It would probably be more readable and more relevant, in the lead at least, to say when and how the Adriatic was created.
"The Adriatic Sea is significant to the economies of the countries found along its coasts, especially in terms of fisheries and tourism.": I think I'd go with: "Fisheries and tourism are significant sources of income all along the Adriatic coast", assuming that's accurate.
The title can stay, but the capitalization of "Ancient" in the text there should go. The sources of that article don't support the capitalization of "Ancient" because, except for one translation, they're all in Italian. Our list article is List of ancient peoples of Italy. - Dank (push to talk) 21:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Eastern Adriatic coast": (several places in the article). It depends on what you mean ... since you say "shores", I think you want to lowercase "eastern". "Eastern Adriatic" is a term sometimes used to mean the Western Balkans.
"During classical antiquity, the Adriatic's shores were initially inhabited by the Ancient peoples of Italy—the Etruscan civilization becoming the most prominent before the Roman Republic's rise—on the Western Adriatic coast, and by the Illyrians along the Eastern Adriatic coast.": Here and elsewhere, be on the lookout for ways to reduce the number of pauses necessary by rearranging your clauses and avoiding repetition. This reads more smoothly as: During classical antiquity, Illyrians inhabited the eastern Adriatic coast, and the western coast was inhabited by the peoples of Ancient Italy, mainly Etruscans, before the Roman Republic's rise.
"colonisation": This article is American English elsewhere, so: colonization
The peer reviewer tool indicates otherwise, pointing out only one AE spelling (meter) which is found in references only as a title of a cited work. I'm not a native speaker of English though so I could very well be horribly wrong.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm aware "colonization" is AE spelling, it's just that I was under impression that the rest of the article is in BE since there are a lot of cases of "metres", "favourably" etc.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"saw the Carolingian Empire's rise and subsequently the Frankish Kingdom of Italy that controlled": saw the rise of the Carolingian Empire and then the Frankish Kingdom of Italy, which controlled
"Sixth Ottoman-Venetian War": Okay, now's the time for a dash (at FAC, at least), since this was a war between the Ottomans and the Venetians. (And this is the last I'll say about dashes; it's a contentious topic on Wikipedia, out of proportion to its importance.)
"The treaty reversed all wartime annexations, transferred the islands of Cres, Lastovo and Palagruža, the cities of Zadar and Rijeka, Istria and most of the Slovenian Littoral to communist Yugoslavia, guaranteed the independence of Albania, and created the Free Territory of Trieste (FTT) as a city-state.": See WP:Checklist#series. In general, if there's one element in a list more complex than the others, you want to move that to the end of the series; that can be done twice here: The treaty reversed all wartime annexations, guaranteed the independence of Albania, created the Free Territory of Trieste (FTT) as a city-state, and gave communist Yugoslavia most of the Slovenian Littoral, as well as Istria, the islands of Cres, Lastovo and Palagruža, and the cities of Zadar and Rijeka.
"The war that ensued": See WP:EGG. "The ensuing war". I got the sense that there may be other "Easter Eggs" in the links, but per my standard disclaimer, I don't generally check links.
Copyedited as suggested, and that easter egg is now removed - I'll look for any other ones that may be there (I can't honestly say if there are any left).--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that one. In the process I noticed (and fixed) a glaring mistake - Montenegro declared independence... - effectively land-locking Serbia. (by 2006 there was no Yugoslavia - FR Yugoslavia was renamed Serbia and Montenegro in 2003 with Serbia and Montenegro as constitutive elements of the state union. Once Montenegro left the union, all that was left to be land-locked was Serbia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Given the importance of the Adriatic to the Roman Empire, and the importance of the Empire to the history of that region, I think the coverage of the Roman period in the history section is inadequate. I would suggest creating a named Roman subsection (like the one already there for the Middle Ages). I would recommend that, in addition to the comments you already have on the Illyrian Wars. I would suggest as minimum a brief mention of the following:
Roman military and economic power in the Adriatic began to increase rapidly after the establishment of a major navel base at Brundisium (now Brindisi) during the Punic Wars in order keep Carthaginian shipping out of the Adriatic.
During the Roman (and Byzantine) period the two major trade ports on the Adriatic were Brundisium on the western shore, and Dyrrhachium, now Durres in Albania]] on the eastern shore. Dyrrhchium was the western end of the Via Egnatia, the major Roman road across the Balkans, which terminated at (Byzantium/Constantinople).
There were naval blockades of both Brundisium, and Dyrrhachium during the civil war between Julius Caesar and Pompey. Also Caesar's campaign against Pompey was held for 3 months by winter storms on the Adriatic that delayed Mark Antony from reaching him with reinforcements. It might also be worth mentioning that Antony and Octavian crossed the Adriatic with an army for their final battle with Caesar's assassins Brutus and Cassius.
Although, as you already mention, the eastern shore of the Adriatic technically became a Roman Provence following the Illyrian wars from 229 to 168 BC, Roman political control of the region did not become absolute until Tiberius crushed the Great Illyrian Revolt in 9 AD.
I have some decent sources. If people agree that this would be appropriate, and if no one beats me to it, I can add some material on this in the next couple of days. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Just returned from a one-day trip, so I just got to see this. Thank you very much for the great suggestion and offer to lend a hand, I appreciate it very much!--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Battle_of_Lissa.jpg - US-copyright situation needs to be established (See commons documentation for template:PD-art, it has a second parameter for more specific copyright tags. Also documentation of template:pd-old offers a list of possible alternate tags).
File:Novaral.jpg lacks US-specific tag. Also it notes a "PD-GWDPA"-license as "Permission". Entering "template:PD-GWDPA" on commons leads to an "insufficient copyright information" page. Frankly you'll need another more experienced image specialist here to assess the situation, that's far outside my league.
File:Boundary_between_Italy_and_Free_Territory_of_Trieste.png - i am not sure, this can be used: the original source image has "source = my collection" and "author = User:Melo86". "My collection" is very vague, how can we be sure, that this collection consists of copyright-free images? (maybe ping Melo86 for further background info about the image history?).
File:TrattatoDiOsimo.jpg has "own work" as source for a close-range photography of high ranking politicians (looks like a newspaper photo). The history and original source of this image should be clarified and stated in the image summary. GermanJoe (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
" each covering about the same area of 405.78 square kilometres". There's no way these two islands have an area of exactly 405.78 km sq each, and if they did, then "about" would not be appropriate. I'm curious whether the cited source (two sentences later) is the source for all of of this info. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsThe 2nd paragraph in the flora and fauna subsection of Biogeography and ecology (which begins: "A number of rare and threatened species are also found along the Adriatic's eastern coast") has a couple of source citation and completeness issues.
The paragraph doesn't cite a source. I suspect that this [2], a source you site elsewhere, was the source of the information. If so it should be cited explicitly, if not some source citation needs to be provided.
That same source also says: "Several rare and threatened species, such as the monk seal and sea turtles find safe haven in Croatian waters of the Adriatic." I would think this would merit mention in the article, especially the part about monk seals, since the Mediterranean monk seal is so extremely endangered.
The last sentence of the section reads: "Only a small fraction of the fish found in the Adriatic are attributed to recent processes such as Lessepsian migration, cases of escape from mariculture or similar." I find that hanging "or similar" very annoying. I suggest either completing it to "or similar causes" or just deleting it as it is kind of redundant with "such as" anyway.Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A distinct leaning to the eastern coast is detectable in the text and sourcing.
The history section needs a good deal of work: "the western coast was inhabited by the peoples of Ancient Italy, mainly Etruscans, before the Roman Republic's rise." Really? The Etruscan heartland is entirely on the opposite side of Italy, though they did control a shortish stretch of the Adriatic coast, well to the north, at their point of maximum expansion. What does the very respectable ref actually say? Subject to that I'd change "mainly" to "including".
Should probably mention that to the Romans "Italy" (Italy (Roman Empire)) extended round to include Istria.
Ravenna is not mentioned at all in the history, but this was the final capital of the Western Roman Empire itself (402-476) and then both the Ostrogothic Kingdom, which ruled almost all the Adriatic coastline on both sides, and the Byzantine Exarchate of Ravenna, which more or less controlled pretty substantial territories. The Adriatic has never had more geopolitical significance than at this period, which is skipped over in a short sentence.
You make a very good point about Ravenna, I have added coverage of it up to the end of the Western Empire to the Roman section. I agree that there should be more about the Byzantine reconquest of Italy, and, if nobody else does, I may add something on it to the middle ages section in the next couple of days, but I am hoping that the nominator of this article will become a little more active in addressing some of the comments. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the current text "The 15th and the 16th centuries brought about the Byzantine Empire's destruction in 1453 and the Ottoman Empire's expansion that reached Adriatic shores in present-day Albania and Montenegro as well as the immediate hinterland of the Dalmatian coast..." surely significantly post-dates Muslim expansion, or attempts at it, on the Eastern coast - a complicated subject I know little about. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the good thing is that you found another much clearer error there - the Ottoman Empire actually controlled a patch of the eastern coastline up north with the reasonably notable port of Makarska between 1499 and 1646. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of factoids about Venice, but the extent to which it controlled the Adriatic at its height is not really conveyed.
In the Middles Ages we should talk of the Republic of Ragusa (the actual title of the article) not that of Dubrovnic.
Closing comments
After 20 days and no support, I think this nomination would benefit from being archived at this time. There has been a lot of changes to the article, and issues, including the image review, have not been addressed. Graham Colm (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because... It has gone through a GA nomination, PR and two GOCE copyedits. I believe it satisfies the criteria. Jonatalk to me14:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I don't find the prose exceptional and there seems to be substantial original research. Some examples:
"The song was intended to showcase Selena's diverse musical abilities on her album Entre a Mi Mundo (1992), and to allow a diverse selection of music to be included on the album." – Second part of the sentence seems redundant.
"Selena's use of melisma and her emotive vocalization emphasize the song's title and its central theme." – The liner notes are cited here. Do they really attest to this? Do they also attest to the third paragraph of the "Background" section?
Yes, the reissue of Entre a mi Mundo was released in 2002 and her family, friends and former band gave a commentary review for each song. Best, Jonatalk to me17:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping the liner notes contained a quote borrowed from a critic, but yikes. I'm averse to presenting an opinion of someone close to the artist as if it were objective fact. If you'd like to modify the sentence to attribute the statement to its owner, that would be acceptable, although it would remove whatever weight the sentence carried. Two Hearted River(paddle / fish)18:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you want me to add their comments in quotes? Wouldn't that border WP:QUOTEFARM? I think the prose flows better like it is, but how about I add a notes section that states their review? Best, Jonatalk to me20:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...moves at a moderate 144 beats per minute" – No need to tell the reader that 144 bpm is "moderate"; you've presented the actual number, so the reader can judge for himself. You can cut "moves", too, and just say "...the beat is set in common time at 144 bpm".
"It was among the station's most-played clips according to Billboard, and was positioned at number 47 out of 50 music videos for that channel." – Similarly, don't tell us it was among the most-played, just saying it was 47th is enough. Also, this only applied for one week; that fact should be mentioned.
Example: "She keeps a positive outlook by thinking of their happy times, but she desperately wants to express her feelings to him." What is the source that told you this is how the lyrics should be interpreted? Two Hearted River(paddle / fish)18:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "Critical reception" section advances no thesis and instead reads like a list.
That would be plaque :)) That link shows blank pages in a French-language magazine. Feel free to revert me if you like, Kürbis. --Stfg (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. So I've restored it, but replaced "plaques" with the more normal "discs" and wikilinked to an explanation. --Stfg (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think THR wanted removed because the claim is only on one magazine. Note that RIAA (which is the official certification issuer for the United States regarding singles and albums) did not issued both of those singles a gold certification (denoting shipments of 500,000 units). Furthermore, "Missing My Baby" was not released as a physical single nor a promotional recording so that contradicts the entire article. But if we can change it to "According to Vibe" I think it would be better. Best, Jonatalk to me13:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Original research remains and the prose is still lacking. For example, there remains a number of sentences in which the subject (usually "it") is ambiguous, and the quote about "hint of aspiration" is somewhat misrepresented. I suggest finding another set of eyes to go over the text. Two Hearted River(paddle / fish)18:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected the "hint of aspiration" quote and given its context. I've also been through looking for ambiguous sentence subjects and "it" (whether subject or otherwise) and corrected what I found. What other issues do you see with the prose? --Stfg (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: at a glance, I'm inclined to agree with Two Hearted River about the prose. The article is generally in Ok shape, but I don't think it's at 1a standards.Striking my oppose since the article has been copyedited since I last read it. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC) I don't mean to come across as too negative, the FA prose requirements are very difficult, even for experienced contributors. Haven't looked closely enough at the other issues to comment. Some possible issues:[reply]
"Vibe magazine said that it was because of "Missing My Baby" and "Techno Cumbia" that Quintanilla III was awarded platinum plaques for these recordings.[15] Another writer for Vibe said that the song is a "hint of aspiration"." I'd suggest mentioning a writer in the first sentence if you're going to say "Another writer" in the second.
"Chris Riemenschneider and John T. Davis of Austin American-Statesman stated" I think you need "the" in front of the paper's name, should check the rest of the article too.
"Cary Clack of San Antonio Express-News wrote that "Missing My Baby" was played on non-Tejano radio stations and believed it would have been a posthumous hit.[9] A music video for "Missing My Baby", which included some of Selena's personal home videos, was released posthumously for VH1 in 1998 to promote the album Anthology." Try to avoid the repetition of "posthumous" here.
"The Virginian-Pilot said that "Missing My Baby" was built on hooks that recall Diana Ross' "Missing You", which is a tribute to Marvin Gaye.[13] Cary Clack of San Antonio Express-News believed the recording "displays her wonderful vocal and emotional range"." You should probably identify "her" in the second sentence.
"However, keeping a positive mind, she believes he will always be hers, though she believes this is because it is in her mind." Repetition of "believes" here. Check for repetition of "tells" and "love" in the same section.
"She believed it would convince EMI Records' chairman Charles Koppelman that she was ready to release a crossover album.[1] At the time, the record label did not want to launch a crossover career for Selena until she had a bigger fan base.[4] Although EMI did not push for a crossover, Selena decided to include the song on Entre a Mi Mundo." Is there a way to avoid the repetition of "crossover" here?
I've done so today. I believe I've dealt with those of the above comments that concern prose, but I may have overlooked some WP:OR (or I may not) as some of the sources are subscription only. Please would Two Hearted River and Mark review? --Stfg (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because the article has already passed GAN and I think it is FA-worthy. Please note that I generally only have Internet access on the weekends, and may take a while to respond. SharkD Talk 16:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to oppose, exactly, but I see a few things that need work before this can pass. One relatively straightforward fix needed is to normalize all the citations. Make sure you have as much information for them all as possible, specifically author, title, work, and publisher. Also, get all the date formats to match. Right now, you're using at least three different ones. I'd also like to note for other reviews that the "Diablo III Launching May 15– Digital Pre-Sales NOW OPEN" link is not dead. It's getting a false positive that I discovered in the GAN a couple weeks ago. —Torchiesttalkedits01:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"title=" is normally the actual title of the article, while "work=" is either the book, or the website, for example. As for the dates, no format is preferred, they just all need to match one way or the other. —Torchiesttalkedits11:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and fixed the dates for all the Web citations. Also, is it OK to use the "publisher" field for the website? That's what I've always done. SharkD Talk 19:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The citation template italicizes the name of the "work", which is a problem because Website names should *not* be italicized. See: Bramwell, Tom (2010-06-14). "Fallout: New Vegas dated". Eurogamer. Eurogamer Network Limited. Retrieved 2010-06-14.SharkD Talk 22:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just wanted to add that I agree with what you said here about not necessarily italicizing websites. I've been using the publisher field for them myself now. —Torchiesttalkedits23:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I did was italicize them within the article so that they cancelled each other out, resulting in no italicization. It would be better though if the template itself offered a better solution. SharkD Talk 04:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I filled in the work and publisher fields of all the references except for a few press releases which I don't know how to handle. SharkD Talk 03:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are some places missing citations (example: 1. "Unlike many of the classic "Golden Age" RPGs..."), and footnotes like 2. "But later deleted and lost to history..." should be rephrased to be encyclopedic. As far as the citations themselves, on a quick look, 3. References should come before Bibliography, 4. sources like this one are of unclear reliability, 5. publications like The Escapist should be italicized, 6. citations like FN41 are incomplete, some are inconsistent (7. compare for example FNs 93 and 104, some 8. like FN119 are missing publisher, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I completed numbers 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8. (Sorry for editing your post by adding the numbers.)
As for number 4, WP:VG/RS shows that the notability of the site has been discussed several times with no clear conclusion. The closest to a conclusion was this discussion where the site was considered "situational".
Comment: very interesting article, and seems like you've covered a lot of ground here. I would have suggested a peer review between good and featured article candidacies though. The prose does not seem to be at featured standards.This may not be true anymore, since substantial copyediting has occurred over the past week. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC) A few comments at a brief glance:[reply]
Having a section titled "Recent video game consoles and multi-platform titles" is probably not a good idea, it would be better to use a more specific term than the vague "recent".
"Lastly, veteran game designer Cleve Blakemore's "Golden Era" retro-RPG, Grimoire, became notorious for having been "close to release" for over a decade, leading many to label it as vaporware.[138][139][140] However, Blakemore staunchly denies this" What does the "this" in the second sentence refer to?
"One of the few successful video game RPGs not set in the swords-and-sorcery setting, Fallout was notable for its open-ended, largely non-linear gameplay and quest system, tongue-in-cheek humor, and pervasive sense of style and imagery highly reminiscent of Interplay's earlier Wasteland" This is a pretty awkward sentence, particularly at the end. Also you might want to attribute the description of notable.
"The third game in particular was notable for having a "ton of quests", rewarding exploration and approachable combat, but also for its high system requirements, unfinished feeling and atrocious voice acting." I'd prefer that you attribute these descriptions to critics, rather than saying in Wikipedia's voice that the acting was "atrocious".
"And, collectively, Interplay's Fallout, Planescape: Torment and Baldur's Gate (particularly the last[67]) are considered examples of some of the finest RPGs ever made." According to whom? Fans? Critics? Industry executives?
"Two expansion packs, Shivering Isles and Knights of the Nine, were eventually released, as well as several, smaller downloadable packages costing each between $1–3." too many commas here.
"one of the goals during development was to reproduce the feel of a live pen-and-paper RPG experience, complete with human dungeon master." Should this be "a human dungeon master" or "human dungeon masters"?
There are (or were) a few that are linked twice--once in the lead or first occurrence, and once in the sections dedicated to them. Is that too much? SharkD Talk 03:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely okay to link in the lead and then the first time the item appears in the body of the article. I'm not sure about linking again in a dedicated section. I have been removing that type of link so far. —Torchiesttalkedits04:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really liked reading the article but I found several instances where the first use of the name of the game is not wikilinked. Nergaal (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, if I may, strictly in terms of criteria 1b–1e (the article is comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, and stable) and 4 (appropriate length and focus). Disclaimer: I have done some minor technical edits on the article over the past month. —Torchiesttalkedits02:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
break 1
Comments I don't like to definitively say yes or no on prose, not considering myself a great arbiter of FA-level style, but I'm pretty tempted to say this needs a general copy edit. There are quite a lot of long, dense and not terribly elegant sentences, though some sections flow better than others in this respect. A few other bits and pieces that stood out:
Some possible tone issues here and there, such as saying that games were "more or less" the same (first section); talking about level creation "on the fly" (end of action-RPG section) and the need to "wow" audiences (start of last section).
At the end of the Decline section it's written that NPCs "became chattier", then the prose refers to "silliness and weirdness" and then calls anthropomorphic characters "embarrassing". I don't have any problem with the choice of words per se, but the quick succession of them kind of feels like the prose has veered from dry and disinterested to light-hearted punditry. As well, I think it's also caused by an overlap between levity in the word choice (see above) and subjective opinion (see below).
In the console/multi-platform section, you've used the word "Ironically" to describe Bioware's change of direction. Dropping "ironic" into the prose is a personal peeve, as it so often indicates OR by a passing editor, and I see this sentence is sourced; but nevertheless I think there should be more specific attribution in the prose as to who said this situation is "ironic". I don't think all opinion needs direct attribution but maybe some of the stronger subjectivity: possible examples include the "embarrassing" animal characters mentioned above and the assertion that "innovation and quality need not necessarily be stymied" in the Indie/Eastern Europe section.
"Ironically" and "embarrassing" were deleted for POV reasons. As for the part about "innovation and quality", I'm actually not sure that statement's strong enough. One reason for the appeal of low-budget "grindhouse" films is that filmmakers were forced to use additional creativity in the absence of large production budgets. That likely applies here, and would be a good point to make, if it could be sourced. Dementia13 (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"replayability" (in the Diablo section) surely can't be a word, and is dubious even as a neologism. At least use "replay-value".
From Replay value: "Replay value or replayability is a term found in combination with video games, but it may be also used to describe other kinds of games, movies, music, or theater plays. (...)"Here you can get some G-hits limited to our project's good sources. That said, "replay value" works just as well. SharkD Talk 04:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noting the discussion above, regarding citations: You may wish to check the MOS to see whether this is life-or-death, but it's my understanding that print mags are italicised, websites not (The Escapist is a debatable exception because while a website it stylises itself with italics; there may be a discussion confirming our practice re. it somewhere).
The problem is that the citation templates automatically italicize the "work" field regardless of whether he source is a website or magazine. SharkD Talk 04:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One reason I don't use the templates :) I think you need to enter websites under "publisher" rather than "work", or something. bridies (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On criteria 1b and c: I don't know a great deal about RPGs, but based on my familiarity with other genre articles, I think the length, detail, breadth and depth of content look good, as well as the structure. I plan to check some individual sources in the next day or two. That said, a couple of minor points:
In the first section there's a sentence listing roguelike games with no other information (see below) or sources.
Clicking on the links takes readers to the games' individual articles. Do I need to provide additional information if these articles already categorize the games as roguelikes? SharkD Talk 04:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the Diablo/action-RPG section there's another list, here of action-RPGs. These ones are sourced, but there's no other information on why they're worthy of note (it's not like an RPG is itself a rare thing by this point) and it thus feels pretty arbitrary and overly-detailed. bridies (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting a copy edit, which will be thorough and may take a couple of days. I typically find phrases that I can't clean up because they're unclear, and I'll point these out on the article's talk page. Dementia13 (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. It should be done by tomorrow, tonight if I'm feeling frisky. A number of the above issues will be, and some have already been, corrected by the copy edit. You'll find that the completed sections flow more smoothly, and are free of the informal and POV language that occasionally appeared. Dementia13 (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
break 2
Belatedly noticed the copy edit is finished, so here's a start to the source check I promised (will read through to see how the copy edit went later):
"Ultima III is considered by many to have been the first modern CRPG." Source says: "Ultima III, a game that many CRPG enthusiasts cite as the first modern CRPG." Y
Start of the Ultima and Wizardry section says: "The early Ultimatum, later called Ultima,[14] and Wizardry games may have been the most influential on later RPGs." Which is the cite for this? Is it the next cite which comes along, mid-sentence a couple of sentences later (next to a mention of Time Bandits)? Or one of the two cites at the end of that sentence, or what? ?
That got turned around during the copy edit. Ultima should really be mentioned first, as the title Ultimatum was only used while the game was in production. As for Ultima and Wizardry being the most influential, I do not recall. Barton says (speaking of Ultima), "What the genre really needed was a definitive game (or preferably a series) that would help garner momentum for the genre," and (speaking of Ultima and Wizardry), "Together, these two series helped define the genre."[5]. Comments? SharkD Talk 20:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Ultimatum was only used during production, then perhaps it shouldn't be mentioned at all. If no released game in that series bore that title, it's essentially trivia. Dementia13 (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure "popularity" is what Barton is talking about when he refers to the "momentum" of the genre. Rather, they helped "define" what we expect to see (feature-wise) in an RPG today. SharkD Talk 00:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the Golden Era section, the paragraph on Dungeon Master says: "It was also one of the first series to popularize the real-time, first-person viewpoint common in first-person shooters and more recent games such as The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion." The source notes the real-time system was unusual at the time, and it compares it to a first-person shooter; but as far as I can see it doesn't say explicitly that it helped popularise this view, in FPS games or otherwise (can't see any reference to Oblivion either). ?
Might want to change "popularize" to "feature" and "common" to "as seen in". Barton says (speaking about first-person versus overhead or isometric graphics), "Gamers were just as divided in 1988 over games like Pool of Radiance and Dungeon Master as they are about Neverwinter Nights 2 and The Elder Scrolls IV."[6]SharkD Talk 20:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, missed the Elder Scrolls mention as it's above the main DM section. Semantics, but I think what the source is explicitly saying is that the first-person perspective was unusual for the time rather than it being one of the first to use this viewpoint. I've just changed this, hopefully not a big deal. Ybridies (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The end of the first paragraph on Indie games says: "Independent developers can be successful, if they deliver what large companies cannot.[81]" This is supported but I think it needs to be more detailed/explicit. The source certainly says: "Indie RPGs may never be able to compete head-to-head with big-budget RPGs in the mainstream commercial marketplace, but they don't have to if they can excel at giving gamers what the big RPGs can't." But in context that's right after: "I think the indie-RPG scene can fill in the "old school" RPG niche, where you won't be expected to have full VO, and hence have as much dialogue as you want; where you can have that 100-plus hours of gameplay; or where you don't need to pay for a bleeding-edge graphical engine to ensure maximum cinematic effect. You can still have fun without those things. For example, I tried out the Eschalon: Book 1 demo a while back and had fun with it. It had good exploration and world interactivity." There are at least one or two more examples in the source and I think you need the context/detail to understand what is meant by "if they deliver what large companies cannot". Y? kindasorta
"Interplay, BioWare, and Black Isle" says: "Baldur's Gate (1998) provided an epic story with NPC followers and written dialogue that continued through both titles and two expansion packs,[4] and solidified BioWare's reputation as one of the premier designers of RPGs in the late 1990s and into the next decade. Black Isle produced an even more combat-oriented series, Icewind Dale, soon thereafter.[68]" Not sure where the cite for the second part of the first sentence is, as it does not appear to be covered by the cite at the end of the next one. ? The second sentence is supported: "Icewind Dale lets players create and control six characters, and since the game is so focused on combat, building a properly balanced party is of paramount importance." Y Though I might drop the word "even", as a side note. bridies (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
? The end of the Ultima/Wizardry sections says: "Dragonstomper, also from 1982, was the earliest role-playing video game produced for a console, the Atari 2600." However the source says this is a contentious issue. It first says: "What was the first console RPG? Accounts vary, but most fingers point to Enix's Dragon Quest (Dragon Warrior in the US)" but then quotes fellow GameSpot journalist Joe Fielder opining Dragon Stomper is the first. And then it says: "A devoted gamer could make a decent case for either of these Atari titles founding the RPG genre; nevertheless, there's no denying that Dragon Quest was the primary catalyst for the Japanese console RPG industry". Whether or not these are RPGs being based on subjective analysis of gameplay elements (fantasy/medieval setting, random monsters, quest format), I think the article should note Fielding's point, but should mention and indeed give more weight to Dragon Quest as being far more influential and commonly cited as the first console RPG. bridies (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Y after some tweaking. The statements regarding thematic consistency, "weirdness" and "embarrassing" characters mentioned above are supported (I note "embarrassing" has been ditched anyway): the source uses the word "weirdness" a number of times, talks of "silliness" and calls the "weird" cat-lizard-whatever-else "embarrassing". I still think there's a possible POV/prose issue with the loaded words though. The other possible issue is that the source takes a positive view of a lot of this "weirdness" as self-aware and interesting, even noting some of it has continued (in Fallout and Final Fantasy particularly). So I've taken the the liberty of rewriting it thus: "Video games became darker and more thematically consistent. Designers abandoned or reconciled some of the eccentric elements and pastiche of the 8-bit and 16-bit titles." bridies (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
? Last sentence of the article. It's supported, but is the best part of a decade out of date; is RPGDot reliable? It trumpeted the game as nearly ready and really good and that doesn't seemed to have been vindicated as accurate... bridies (talk) 06:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
? Penultimate sentence of the article. Not really seeing anything to support the words "notoriously", "vapourware" and "by many"; the questionable RPGDot again and a forum post, not ideal. bridies (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Y Again tightened this up with a prose teak, but the last couple of sentences in "Video game consoles and multi-platform titles" section, paragraph 4 is supported by the source, which talks of how the game changed the authors definition of "RPG", the definition in general, "genre tension", elements of other genres, and "Mass Effect's surprising popularity seems to say that RPGs aren't novels, they're movies now." BioWare as former "saviour" of the RPG is also supported. bridies (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chipping in here: when I copy edited this article, I noted that the entire last paragraph was out of place. The final section has three paragraphs devoted to trends, and then it has this paragraph devoted to a single piece of vaporware (and despite protests to the contrary, it's vaporware until it gets released). That game would have to be awfully important to justify that paragraph, and I recommend that the entire paragraph be deleted. If the game gets released and becomes a classic, then it will be worthy of inclusion in the article. Dementia13 (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
break 4
I'm doing a second, buff-and-polish copy edit. I'd hoped to finish it tonight but it'll probably be tomorrow. A couple of points on the prose:
I don't really get this sentence regarding Ultima's moral system: it "was subverted in later titles as unintended and unforeseen consequences became apparent in the surrounding world." It means it became more unpredictable? Or the consequences became ironic? Or just that it started to have tangible effects on the game world?
I re-read that section of the book. Apparently, in Ultima VI the player Avatar wakes up in the underworld and doesn't understand how he got there or why. Later he finds out that his actions in the previous game were causing unexpected problems down below, and that the denizens of the underworld were suffering as a result. He spends the rest of the game trying to fix the problems in both worlds instead of just the one.
"[Might and Magic] is also notable for making race and gender an important aspect of gameplay." Maybe just a bit of context or clarification would be beneficial there. bridies (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Barton says, "For instance, one of the kingdoms in Might and Magic is stringently anti-male, and an all-male party will not be welcomed. Likewise, character alignment (i.e., good, neutral, or evil) plays a role in which locations the party can visit."[7]SharkD Talk 00:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another sentence I don't quite grasp: A lack of technical standards among hardware manufacturers forced developers to support each manufacturer's implementation, or risk losing players. (Decline section)
The lack of common standards meant that hardware manufacturers came up with their own, individual solutions to technical problems instead of the same solution each time. Game and software developers were forced to accommodate each manufacturer's solution when developing a product. This was back in the day before plug-and-play. SharkD Talk 00:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fallout was nearly as influential on post-crash RPGs as Ultima was on Golden Age RPGs (Interplay, BioWare, and Black Isle section). What's the "crash" here? The 1990s decline? In which case I suggest rewording as "crash" seems to be a step up from "decline" and is possibly a bit confusing. bridies (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This following prose is too emotive and in the way it's presented as fact, appears biased: Like the movie industry, the indie video game scene plays a crucial role in formulating new ideas and concepts that mainstream publishers and marketing departments, stuck in their old ways, might otherwise deem unworkable or too radical.[86] And, history is filled with examples of movies that would never have passed muster among corporate decision makers, but ended up being huge hits and all-time favorites anyway.[86] (Last section). I don't have time to go through the source again but this needs more detached prose and/or more direct attribution (similar problem to previous examples discussed before). bridies (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed that the penultimate paragraph is pretty horrible, essentially a blizzard of blue linked titles with no real information. Similar to the roguelike and Diable-clone lists that were cut, but a paragraph in length. It says that some have called Eastern Europe "a hotbed of RPG development in recent years." Again I don't have time to check the source, but it's one IGN article. Suggest summarising which games have actually had some impact or importance with other sources. Or if there's not much then just expanding from and leaving it at whatever is said in the IGN article. bridies (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support Fairly sizeable condition but I'm putting this here given SharkD's limited time (and mine, right now). I have done another copy edit of the article and FWIW I believe the prose to be of a professional standard. This excepts the handful of minor prose points and a couple of weightier content concerns listed above; of course the support is contingent on these being addressed. Aside from that I believe the length, breadth, detail, structure and general content to be up to the required standard. I'll abstain from commenting on images, FURS etc. as it's not my thing. The other condition regards the attribution and accurate representation of the sources. I've checked a dozen or so claims against their sources - which is about all I have the energy for - and some were fine and the problems raised have all been addressed. But given the significant proportion of checks that raised questions or needed things to be changed, I'd want to see another editor check some more statements against the sources - and for these to come up "clean" - before I could wholeheartedly support. bridies (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comments by Johnbod I should start by saying I know absolutely nothing about the subject (and have not entirely improved that by reading the article). The lead needs to be clearer as to what makes a role-playing video game. There are an awful lot of lists of games with little analysis (and I don't understand much of the analysis though technical ignorance), though I understand the difficulty of seeing the wood for the trees here.
Bibliograpy. If you are using refs like "Barton 2007a, p.37" you should start the bibliography entry by clearly showing this, for example using this style:
""Barton 2007a": Barton, Matt (2007-02-23). "The History of Computer Role-Playing Games Part 1: The Early Years (1980–1983)". Gamasutra. UBM TechWeb. Retrieved 2010-09-05.
The bibliography should be in alphabetic order.
There are 3 published books on the subject but these are cited far less than online sources, which makes me uneasy. I haven't examined sources for reliabity, though Barton, easily the main source, I suppose can be considered reliable-ish. You link to the google page on his book, which has two reviews starting: "I can only recommend this book to people who have NEVER played an RPG (or ANY kind of video-game)and even then I'd just tell them to spend an afternoon on Wikipedia to get pretty much the same effect ... Read full review" and "Don't buy this book. It's not much of a history, but rather a tedious, exhaustive catalog written in a deeply annoying, self-absorbed fanboyish style. Literally every game ever gets a page, with....". Hmmm. King and Loguidice fare rather better, though I accept they may not be as squarely on topic. I don't know how many other books are available on the subject.
Why are the titles of very early games not capitalized?
This is the history of an industry, or part of one, but there is very little financial or business information at all. I realize much information is never released, but it must be possible to do better than this; aren't volume figures released? Film articles generally now do this, though professional sports ones still tend to ignore such mundane issues too.
Having glanced at the "Eastern" equivalent, I can see splitting the subject was necessary, but is East/West an encyclopedic way to do it? Are the styles really that distinctive? I wouldn't know.
I'd like to be able to support, but after this long time at FAC already, I'm not sure this is going to happen, also noting bridie's comments above. If I knew more about the subject perhaps I would. An awful lot of work has gone in, but it's possible that GA is this article's natural level.
I am nominating this for featured article status because it has already gone through both peer review and a successful GA review, and I am now confident that it fits all of the FA criteria. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments: Are you sure that's all the sources you can find? I count six, including the book itself. Enough to show notability, but I'm not sure it's comprehensive. Also, the one-sentence paragraph in #Wider recognition should probably be merged somewhere. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Crisco; admittedly, this is a rather obscure page, so I'm not too surprised that not many editors have left comments. As far as I can gather, the sources I have used are comprehensive; I have scoured Google Books for further references but have found none. In other news, I shall make the corrections that you suggest regarding the book image and the "Wider recognition" section. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
comment I've read the article and fixed a couple of spelling errors added a link when I stumbled upon a term I didnt readily recognise. To me it read as comprehensive coverage of the book though it could have some additional information about the author given theres no article. The section Reception and recognition could either be expanded or the two subsection be merged as that contributes the feeling that its struggling to be comprehensive, especially without an introduction paragraph before them. Altogether I think theres sufficient for this to be promoted even if it hasnt recieved a large number of reviews Gnangarra08:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupported belowFor an article of this size, the lead should probably only be two or three paragraphs. Will try to do a full review this week.
"Looking at the evidence for foundation deposits in European buildings which likely had magico-religious purposes, he then looks at several examples of written charms and spells which have survived in the archaeological record." There's some repetition of "look" here.
"in rivers and other water-places" I'd suggest "in bodies of water".
There's some repetition of "discuss" in the lead too.
"In ensuing years, the book has been widely cited" By whom? (I presume scholars, maybe scholars and journalists).
I think the background section is pretty good, the bits about the Air Force and Ghana seem extraneous to me though.
"She opined that it should be read by every archaeologist as a corrective to their widespread ignorance of folklore" Is the bit about ignorance of folklore her opinion, or a settled fact? If it's just her opinion it should probably be noted as such.Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd like to keep the information on the Air Force and Ghana in place; fair enough, it's not particularly relevent to the article in question, but it helps to build up a greater picture of Merrifield, who doesn't have an article of his own (yet). Your other suggestions all sound fine to me, I'll go through and implement them. Thanks Mark. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm close to supporting, I think there is a little more copy editing needed on the synopis section first though.
You probably want to link "Votive" again in the body, maybe add a few words of explanation too.
Watch for repetition of "look" throughout the synopsis.
There's some repetition of "both" in the third paragraph.
"He examines Late Medieval and Post-Medieval finds of items deposited in rivers, including swords and pilgrimage souvenirs, speculating that it might be a survival from the pagan tradition of casting votive offerings into water." Is "finds... it" correct here?
In the 5th paragraph you start three consecutive sentences with "He..."
You use "moves on to..." or "goes on to..." a few times, you might be able to tighten it up by removing some of them, i.e. "He then goes on to discuss" -> "He then discuses" Mark Arsten (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"discusses the use of the written word in magical contexts. Discussing" Some repetition here.
Should this be hyphenated? "19th and 20th century examples"
"The seventh chapter is entitled "Charms against witchcraft", and deals with archaeological evidence for a variety of Early Modern and Modern British spells designed to ward off malevolent witchcraft. After briefly dealing" Some repetition here, "deals... dealing"Mark Arsten (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok, I'm willing to support on prose/MOS/presentation now. No comment on comprehensiveness of sources, though. I'm still not sure about the Ghana/Air Force bits, but I'll defer to the rest of the reviewers on that one. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Johnbod On the whole one would rather see articles on the subjects of books of this type than the books themselves at FA, especially when the book is now 25 years old. The lead says "Upon publication, The Archaeology of Ritual and Magic received predominantly positive reviews in academic peer-reviewed journals such as Folklore and The Antiquaries Journal. In ensuing years, the book has been widely cited by scholars as an influential and pioneering text in the study of the archaeology of ritual and magic." but the rather thin crop of examples given below arguably don't really support this; more would be welcome. Has the book ever been reprinted? 2nd edition? Is it still in print? Can its citation by other authors be quantified, as you can in the sciences? Note that the references in their entirety amount to: a) the book itself, b) the author's obituary by a colleague, c) 3 other mentions by other writers, one an "independent researcher". Otherwise seems ok. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, an article on the topic of the archaeology of ritual and magic would be more important than this particular article, but it would be a particularly difficult article to produce to a good standard. I can confirm that this book has not been republished, and is certainly not in print anymore, but this is not too unusual when it comes to academic texts. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
When Humber threw his perfect game in April, it drew me to this article, which was in lousy shape. TonyTheTiger was drawn to it too. In an excellent collaboration, we performed a 5x expansion to promote the page for DYK, passed it through GA, and also obtained a peer review. Now, we're ready to co-nominate this article for FA. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Muboshgu. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I don't like seeing FACs waiting a week or more for their first comments, so here are a few observations on the prose in the early sections - by no means a complete review, but hopefully this will kickstart this FAC:
Some repetitive prose in the lead: "He subsequently played for the high school baseball team at Carthage High School in Carthage, Texas. Humber led his high school baseball team to the state championship..." It should be possible to avoid this.
I would except an encyclopedia article to use the formal the medical term rather than "Tommy John". Many of your readers will have to use the link to understand the term, which is never a good idea.
The sentences in the "Early life" section seem haphazardly ordered, without any sequential thread, and with unexplained statements. For example, what is the relevance of "As of 2004, the Panola County Dixie League teams had won 15 state championships in the preceding 20 years..." I would give this section some serious attention.
Same section: "Carthage was a Texas anomaly with its baseball athletes being the most admired role models rather than football players." Not the best phrasing. I'd put a comma after "anomaly", lose "with" and add "its" before "football players".
"Humber attended Carthage High School in Carthage, Texas". The Scool's location is a given, and you have referrd to "Carthage, Texas" in the previous section.
A general point, after which I will stop. I appreciate that, when writing an article related to a particular sport, you will need to use the language of that sport to a certain extent; you cannot keep stopping to explain terms. But in a general encyclopedia you have to take some steps to make the article broadly accessible. Sentences like "Humber struck out six and walked only one in a three-hit shutout..." are pretty well impossible to fathom, unless you are familiar with the game. I suggest you look out for this aspect through the article, and add the odd few words of explanation from time to time.
Oppose – Sorry, but I'm just seeing way too many issues after reading only the lead and first two body sections. I can see why Brian is having trouble with certain aspects of the article, and there are some subtle prose and MoS issues as well.
"It took him several years to regain his velocity after the surgery." I know what this means, but fear that non-baseball fans won't know that this refers to the speed of his pitches. Maybe that could be made more clear as a way to avoid jargon.
Amateur career: I don't see how the second sentence of this section is relevant to Humber's career. It's already been made clear that the area has some baseball tradition, which is all that is needed. I think this is an extension of the issue Brian already spotted.
Hyphen should probably be removed from "nationally-ranked".
The sentence about Humber being scheduled to start against Notre Dame appears to be about the College World Series. If so, it should be moved up to before the sentence about the national team trials. It makes no sense to have the writing jump around like this.
The invitation for the national team trials was in the same citation with College World Series results, so the invitation came at that time. Although the trials were much later, the invitation was made irrespective of activities at the CWS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spaced em dashes in the next paragraph are a no-no according to MoS. Another more acceptable format should be found instead.
Last three words are quite redundant in "as Rice won its first national championship in any team sport, not just baseball." Doesn't "any team sport" say everything that needs to be said?
I find it odd that after discussing his College World Series performance, we go to facts about the middle of the season. Shouldn't the order be reversed, to remain as chronological as is practical?
I had felt that the following sentences were season summaries, rather than inseason accomplishments, but I have moved them to earlier in the paragraph at your request: "That season, Humber achieved his 17th consecutive win in WAC play. He was recognized as a Third Team All-American by Collegiate Baseball and was a First Team All-Western Athletic Conference honoree."
"He also set the Rice single-game record for strikeouts when he fanned 17 Hawaii Rainbow Warriors hitters March 20, 2004." Ignoring for a second that "fanned" is jargon that non-baseball fans will get lost with, it may not even be accurate. Fanned is used in baseball terms for swinging strikeouts, and would only be appropriate here if every batter who struck out did so while swinging.
"most recently when Steve Hosey, Tom Goodwin and Eddie Zosky were selected in the first round of the 1989 Major League Baseball Draft of the Fresno State Bulldogs." Would read better if "of the Fresno State Bulldogs" was moved directly after the three names.
New York Mets: "The New York Mets chose Humber out of Rice University with their first-round draft pick in the 2004 Major League Baseball Draft". Redundancy here with "draft". The first one isn't needed at all.
Repetition from one sentence to another in the following prose: "Humber was named the 20th best prospect in the Florida State League by Baseball America. Baseball America...". Could try "The publication" or similar for the second usage.
"For the season, Humber finished tied for fourth in the PCL in wins and the tenth-best ERA." For this to work grammatically, it needs "had" after "and". It also shows more inconsistent hyphenation, by the way.
"He flirted with a no-hitter with the Zephyrs on August 22 when he entered the ninth inning without giving a hit to the Iowa Cubs." Add "up" after "giving"?
In the last paragraph of the section, I see no reason to provide Mike Pelfrey's full name again, or to give him another wikilink. There are some other repeat links from earlier in the section that pop up in the following sentence; these could use pruning.
I think it would be helpful to non-baseball fans to explain what is meant by "Following the 2008 season, Humber was out of options." I can imagine some people not understanding it.
Chicago White Sox: "He made two pitches, both of which were hits that came around to score." Something about this doesn't sit well with me. The people scored as baserunners, not the hits themselves.
Was there any attention given to why he wasn't selected as an All-Star in 2011, given that at one point he was a "probable" pick? Was it because of some poor starts?
Redundancy here: "It was the third perfect game in White Sox history after perfect games thrown by Charlie Robertson and Mark Buehrle". Not loving the multiple "perfect game"s in here. See if one of them can be trimmed.
Overall, this is a lot of outstanding issues and I don't claim to have caught every issue. I wonder if at some point withdrawing and resubmitting the article after some more work would be the best course. It's not an easy decision, but I'm not convinced this can be improved to meet the FA prose standards in the timeframe of an FAC. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two more I noticed while checking the recent edits. First, the double punctuation in "striking out 422 in 354 innings pitched.," should be fixed in Amateur career. Second, the Mets section has one instance where Oliver Perez's name has diacritics, and one instance where it doesn't. The second instance probably doesn't need his full name, but it shows an inconsistency that should not be there. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"2011–2012 offseason" - would put "after the 2011 season" or (similar) to avoid readers from potentially thinking it's including offseasons of post-'11 and '12 seasons
I am nominating this for featured article because the article had a Peer Review, and recently passed the GAN process. I would now like to take it through the FAC process and hopefully pass. JDC808 (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: as regards the fair use of File:GOW2_PAL_backpage_CoO_teaser.jpg, could you explain how this imparts any more information to the reader than the text in the article In February 2007, Ready At Dawn posted a teaser for an upcoming handheld God of War title, featuring "PSP" in the Omega symbol with the words "Coming Soon" in the God of War font. also I'm not quite clear on whether An editor from 1UP also obtained an early copy of God of War II and posted the game's instruction manual, featuring a one-page teaser with "Coming 2007". refers to the same teaser (if they're different and the latter, then my first question should be directed at the appropriate one). The FUR for File:God of War PSP Bundle.jpg is also severely deficient, including "Replaceable: yes" which would if true disqualify the rationale. I think on balance that image is more defensible but it does need to be threshed out. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 10:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly honest, I didn't really want the image there as I didn't find it necessary, but a couple editors argued it was necessary. I would be fine with removing that image. The 1UP is not the same teaser as the image depicts. Will fix the rationale for the "PSP bundle" image. JDC808 (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some titles use hyphens where they should use endashes
Fixed.
Don't italicize page numbers
Fixed.
Publication dates shouldn't use YYYY-MM-DD
Okay, what format should they use? Does that include the accessdate format? And by publications, do you mean printed work, online work, or all the above?
Printed and online works - date of publication should be formatted the same as dates in the article text. Access and archive dates can use the hyphenated format, or the same as the publication dates at your discretion (per WP:MOSDATE). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I think.
FN16, 18: accessdate?
Fixed.
FN24: quote formatting
I removed the quote as I didn't find it necessary.
You need to get all the date formats to match. They're about 50/50 (e.g. August 4, 2012 and 2012-08-04). Doesn't matter which one, as long as they're all the same.
Nikkimaria made a comment below about this.
I believe Rovi Corporation is the correct publisher for Allgame, which should not be italicized.
Okay, on Allgame's page, it said All Media Guide (with Rovi in parenthesis) which is why I put them. As for italics, it automatically italicized it.
I don't see the name God of War: Chains of Olympus – Original Soundtrack from the Video Game mentioned in that Allgame source. Maybe you could rewrite it to just say Marino composed the music. —Torchiesttalkedits12:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it has that name is because all other games in the series have used that title where it's "(name of game): Original Soundtrack from the Video Game" (but they were actually released). This can be changed if necessary. JDC808 (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Torchiest, for date formatting, see my comment above: you're allowed to use different format for publication vs access/archive date. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about first comment; I was unaware they could be different for access dates. As for the music, I'd say change it, since it can always be changed to the Original Soundtrack name again if and when it's actually released. Otherwise, it's borderline WP:OR to assume that's the name.
Changed to "The soundtrack of God of War: Chains of Olympus was composed by...."
I'll have some more comments, but here are some items from the gameplay section for now:
"A third-person, single-player, fixed camera game, the player controls the character Kratos in a combination of combat, both normal and quick-time, with platforming and puzzle game elements." That sentence has some grammar problems. It sounds like the player is the game, because they're set up appositionally to each other.
Okay. I've reworded it. Is there any better way this could be worded?
The part about the quick time events seems both too detailed and not detailed enough. I think part of the problem is that it's not clear what is happening, especially for someone who has no idea what "a quick-time feature" is. I'd break the first sentence off like so: "Combat includes a quick-time feature, which is initiated when the player has weakened a stronger foe." Then rewrite the next couple sentences, perhaps stealing some from the main quick time event article, which I see you've already linked earlier in the text.
Okay. I've delinked the first quick time, and relinked it where it's described. I've reworded stealing from the QTE page.
"Health and Magic increases—Gorgon Eyes and Phoenix Feathers respectively" is a little confusing. Maybe rewrite to say "items that increase the maximum amount of health and magic" or something along those lines.
I've done a few copy edits here and there, but in the development section:
Make sure you have commas after the dates.
Fixed.
There's no explanation of what UMD means.
After the first time "UMD" is used, I put "the optical disc medium for the PSP."
The Ready at Dawn stuff needs some minor fixes. I'd say explain that Ready at Dawn is the developer. Also, "at" is being inconsistently capitalized.
I put "Game developer Ready at Dawn..." in the very first paragraph. I'm not sure if there needs to be more clarification. Decapitalized the "at's".
I'm wondering if you need to note the people who had previously done voices in other GoW games, especially if they aren't notable enough to have their own articles.
I thought it would be a nice tidbit to know. It can be removed if need be.
In the reception section, it seems like the reviews aren't balanced properly. For a game that "gained universal critical acclaim from reviewers", splitting the positive and negative quotes 50/50 seems off. I'd think you should add another paragraph worth of positive commentary in between the two you have right now.
Quote "universal acclaim" in the reception section as it's Metacritic's expression and otherwise looks like puffery. Ditto with "Chains of Olympus achieved the highest composite score for a PlayStation Portable title" in the lead: is this something to do with the charts or just from Metacritic? Needs clarified/attributed either way. bridies (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quoted "universal critical acclaim" and noted that "highest composite score" with Metacritic and GameRankings.
The reception section looks to be really rather short for a recent, highly acclaimed game. I generally baulk at an article in which the plot and/or gameplay sections are at least as long as the reception section, which looks to be the case here. The fact that it's largely a succession of brief quotes from different sources gives it a knocked-together feel and it seems to lack thematic coherence other than a very basic positive-then-negative structure. Suggest more adding more detail and seeing if it can't perhaps be arranged by something like graphics, gameplay, controls, difficulty, etc. bridies (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will work on as it's a bit late for me right now.
Some copy editing needed. A lot of passive voice in the gameplay section where there seems to be no need for it; the whole article has this issue to a lesser extent. The reception section doesn't read all that well as I mentioned. Prose is pretty good otherwise. bridies (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Torchiest has been doing some copy-editing. Could you quote some of the passive voice in the Gameplay so I could find it easier? JDC808 (talk) 07:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In just the gameplay section alone, methinks:
it is presented
Wasn't sure what to do with this one, so I put "it features".
(weapons are) acquired throughout the game
reworded sentence some. It now reads "with Kratos acquiring additional weapons,...., throughout the game."
Magic is also used
Changed to "Kratos utilizes magic, with new abilities..."
Wasn't sure with this one either. Made it "that's initiated..."
"Combat/the game initiates the quick time event feature when the player has weakened a stronger foe". That said IMO the passive reads well enough here, but it should now be "that is", not "that's". bridies (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"that is"
orbs can be found
Reworded sentence as "...,Kratos finds chests containing orbs during the game."
Each chest is marked
Reworded as "Chests are marked..."
Still passive. Should say, "corresponding colors mark each chest"; although this is another where I wouldn't argue strongly against the passive. bridies (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it.
and can be found in plain, non-colored chests.
Reworded to "are found in plain...."
Active would be something like: "The player finds the feathers in plain chests". If you want to say that the feathers return maybe you need the passive. But right after that there's another passive example in saying the feathers "are required". bridies (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We want to say return. The next part, reworded to "The player must find five Eyes or Feathers to increase each meter's maximum."
Red orbs may also be collected
Reworded to "Red orbs are also collected..."
Still passive, active would be something like: "The player collects red orbs..." This is right after the "are required" example noted above. bridies (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Put your wording in except I put the word "also" in between "player" and "collects". I've also moved this sentence to before the "Gorgon Eyes and Phoenix Feathers" sentence.
The above gameplay section should now all be fixed; will look over over everything again when more general copy editing and expansion is finished. bridies (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
I think the box art image should be shrunk down to 300px on its longest side. It's currently too big for fair use.
The image of the battle with the basilisk might need to have more discussion in the text. Moving down to the story section may be better. Alternately, a screen shot showing more specific game activities that are already discussed in the gameplay section could be a better option.
More discussion added.
I'll try to find another image, perhaps one that shows more than just the basilisk's head. I've also moved it to Story. --JDC808 (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the image of the GoW II instruction manual should be in the article. It really doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding, and fails fair use.
I agree. Removed.
Likewise, I don't think the image of the bundle should be in the article. It's mostly redundant with the main box art, and it's not necessary to understand what is in the bundle.
I think maybe an image of just the PSP itself should be kept as it is unique.
So, it might be possible to add one more gameplay screen shot and move the basilisk shot down some, which would leave you with three images. Perhaps someone else can comment on this. —Torchiesttalkedits13:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Something else: you have a lot of in-game terminology and items inside quotation marks, which I don't think you need to do. It's inconsistently used anyway, with stuff like Phoenix Feathers not in quotation marks. I'd say get rid of them all. —Torchiesttalkedits12:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Metacritic source (40) says it was the PSP Game of the Year for 2008, but that's not mentioned in the reception. Seems worthwhile to me. That same source says "universal acclaim", not "universal critical acclaim". That quote needs to be fixed.
I was also not the original contributor of that source so I didn't know about that (or why the original contributor didn't mention it). Fixed quote. --JDC808 (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Allgame source (15) doesn't seem to back up the claim it follows: "The Dream God Morpheus is mentioned but does not appear." Can you fix that, or explain how the reference supports that sentence?
Is the Spike source (26) supposed to support the first four sentences in the paragraph talking about the demo?
I assume so. I again wasn't the original contributor of that info and source, but I remember I had to add this source because the original GameTrailers source took down this post so I searched Google and I found the Spike source that featured the GameTrailers video. --JDC808 (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found one source that looks pretty problematic. Although it is on the IGN site, the walkthrough (5) is a wiki, which means anyone can edit it, and there's no way it can be considered reliable, since it could change at any time. That will require some resourcing for about half a dozen spots. —Torchiesttalkedits04:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The reception section is quite poorly written. There is no logic to how that section flows, it reads like a scanned list of review snippets off Metacritic. In the first paragraph, you talk about the lack of second analog stick, yet you do so again in the second paragraph. So why are they different paragraphs? You should rewrite and structure this section so that it flows. Don't focus on stringing reviews one after the other, but focus on the game. For example, spend the first paragraph talking about the graphics/sound and general presentation. Then go into a paragraph detailing gameplay/controls/AI. And then finish with a conclusion. Each paragraph can contain both positive and negatives, just make sure it gives a rounded view of the entirety of the game, which the current version does not with it's disjuncted "A said this, then B said that" approach.
Also, if you're quoting a review in the prose, and that review includes a score - include that score in the reviews box. You've skipped out CheatCodeCentral and Modojo, but then again, I would question the use of those two sources at all. They may be reliable, but they clearly aren't as influential or popular as some of the other review sites - so why pick their voice? I generally think it's good to have a review from the "official" magazine (such as official Playstation magazine), they're meant to be independent but tend to toe the company line. Edge magazine is a source worth looking out for too, given its status as "industry" magazine. I also personally think it's redundant to include GameRankings when you've already covered Metacritic, but others disagree. - hahnchen20:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on the format of how the Reception is organized. I hadn't had much time to try and work on this section the past week. I chose Cheat Code Central and Modojo because I was looking for more reviews to use on the page from Metacritic's website and Metacritic posted a link to both of those reviews. It did not, however, post a link to the reviews from any of the OPM's (it just gave their score and one sentence from their review praising the game). --JDC808 (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you moved what you had about so its a bit better, but I note the content is pretty much the same. You should describe why there were concerns in the first place about the second analog stick, some readers may not be familiar with the loss of that from PS2 to PSP. Okay. There are some sentences just stuck in there with no real context, how does this line "Kristan Reed of EuroGamer criticized Ready At Dawn for cutting co-op play, multiplayer, some puzzles, dialogue, and characters." relate to the rest of the article? There's a spot in the development section where it states that Ready at Dawn cut these features. Why is the first mention of possible co-op right at the end of the reception section - yet this had never been part of the GoW series? More or less the same as last answer. The finishing line, "GameTrailers praised the replay value for being able to 'bring your powered-up methods of destruction with you.'" - just feels tacked on. It can be removed. It was just something else that was praised.
I suggest working with a copy editor. I think there are issues in the previous sections too, the first paragraph of the development section does not flow at all. - hahnchen16:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've messaged a copy-editor, hopefully they can help out. I've also left response in bold in your second paragraph. --JDC808♫06:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
To the fellow editors of the Wikipedia I would like to present the article Bloor-Danforth line for featured article candidacy. As this is one of the first articles which I have made a significant contribution to, I look forward to addressing your concerns as you present them to me. Tarret talk01:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by PumpkinSky
FN retrieve date format is not consistent, most are July 6, 2012, but 25, for example is 19 June 2012.
FN 24 is missing a retrieve date
Some FNs with Toronto Transit Commission have it spelled out and some say TTC
Comments Welcome to FAC! This article is pretty good, though I don't think that it's currently of the same standard as our FA-level articles on urban rail lines. My comments and suggestions are:
A map of the entire line would be invaluable - and the current maps of extensions aren't terribly useful without this
The second paragraph of the lead and the history section should provide some indications of where these streets are in Toronto; focusing on streets isn't helpful for readers such as myself who are unfamiliar with the city's geography
The level of detail on the bus service in the lead seems excessive given that it's not the topic of the article, and isn't mentioned in the body of the article
"Plans for a somewhat longer route, running east to west from Victoria Park Avenue to the Humber River were suggested by the Toronto Planning Board in December 1943" - 'plans' aren't normally 'suggested' - I'd suggest replacing 'plans' with something less concrete such as 'proposals' in this context
"The opening of the Yonge subway in 1954" - this is the first time that actual subway construction is mentioned. The article should provide a (very) brief history of the process which led to the start of subway construction in the city
The paragraph which begins with 'In 1956, Toronto's mid-town area was starting to experience growth' needs references. Also, how did the Ontario Municipal Board go about approving this without the agreement of the local transport authorities? (and what is/was the Ontario Municipal Board? - was this an agency of the provincial government with the power to override local authorities?)
Can more be said about the construction of this line? The coverage seems rather brief in comparison to other FAs on urban train lines. For instance, how was the underground section built, and were any engineering problems encountered?
Added a sentence about construction method. Other than that, I don't believe there were any other problems other than the opposition that was already mentioned. Tarret talk19:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first two paragraphs of the 'Stations' section need references
Can anything be said about the layout of the stations? (for instance, do they use island platforms, or the other sort?). The 'designs' section also only seems to discuss the underground stations, and not the appearance of the surface stations.
The last sentence in the 'Fare collection' section needs a reference (and what's a 'Presto card'? I presume that this is something like the London Oyster Card?)
The names for the 'Scarborough extension' aren't referenced. Given that the article (rightly) doesn't list the names of all the other stations, I'd suggest converting these two bullet point lists into prose. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't really cover the public reception to this line, and the number of people using it over time.
I believe that I have adressed most of your comments about the article. If I missed anything or need more information in another part of the article feel free to comment some more. Tarret talk02:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just copy-edited the article, and have some further comments:
Please provide individual page numbers for the journal articles cited in the article; including the entire page ranges doesn't help readers locate the material in question
Please provide publishing locations for the books cited in the article
The statement that "In the 1950s, there was intense debate over where the second Toronto subway line would run as it would affect how bus routes in Toronto's suburbs would operate." seems a bit strong - was there really 'intense debate' over this topic? Given that it's fairly cheap and easy to change bus routes, it seems hard to believe that this was a major driver of the debate (as compared to the cost and the pros and cons of different station locations, which are typically the issues with metro systems)
Some of the station names are linked several times in the article (for instance, Kipling (TTC))
"there are still a few stations which use a centre platform instead" - does this mean that this design was common until the stations were re-worked at some point?
"These trains which were a part of the H-series were similar to the M-series trains" - this wording is a bit unclear. Where these H-series or modified M-series trains? (or is it the case that the H-series was a variation on the M series?)
"With the introduction of the Toronto Rocket subway trains" - is this occurring at the moment?
"Currently, the CN rail tracks will be converted" - the 'currently' is a bit awkward: what's the timeframe for this project?
"Before the opening of the Wilson Subway Yard" - when did this open, and what's its role?
"In 2005, Toronto politicians again proposed" - did all of the city's politicians propose this as this wording suggests?
I suspect that Nikki's concern is that the image lacks the image metadata which is normally associated with user-created photos (for instance, that which appears in this self-made image I recently uploaded), and it appears to have been compressed in size judging from its blurry appearance; these are typical features of images taken from other websites unfortunately. I'd suggest replacing the image. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Bloor-danforth-expansion2.gif: what source was used to create this image?
I am nominating this for featured article because it meets the required criteria. While the previous nomination just recently ended with a decision of no consensus, I received permission to re-nominate it due to the resolved and responded to comments as well as the overall lack of discussion the nomination received. ToaNidhiki0518:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Toa Nidhiki05. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about "arrow in the middle of a horizontal bar"? Kidding. I checked {{listen}} and alt is only used when an image accompanies the sound. So skip the alt for the audio files. – Lionel(talk)06:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I looked over the licensing of the pics and the audio clips, checking the length of the audio against NFCC--and though I'm no expert--exerything seems to be in order.– Lionel(talk)02:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am no expert in this field, but some substantive comments on this FAC are overdue, so I hope that the following may kickstart the review by encouraging others with more knowledge to join in. My comments are restricted to the lead and the Background section, which is as far as I have read. The prose does not read particularly smoothly, and may require some general attention.
The first paragraph of the lead needs some reorganisation. It should open with some headline facts about the album, rather than information about the change of management agency and other background information. The paragraph tends to dwindle into snippets of information, e.g. Brad Avery leaving the band, which have no direct relevance to te album itself
There is too much detail in the lead about the working relationship with Benson, since this information is given again in the background section which immediately follows. I would replace all the material between The band worked and "reflected in the record" with a simple sentence along the lines: "The album was produced by Howard Benson, with whom the group achieved a positive working relationship after an uncertain start".
Beware of overlinking; terms such as "Jewish" and "rock" do not in my view require a link
As you mention the change of management agency in the Background section, a very brief account of the reason for this change would be helpful
Commonpace expressions such as "more confident than ever" are hardly worth quoting verbatim. A simple paraphrase would be better
Likewise, the single word "transcended" in quotes looks very odd; again I would replace this with your own term
"According to Benson, both he and Mosley were moved to tears by the session, and opined "you don't get that in the studio very often". Not grammatical: who opined?
Tense consistency required. Tai Anderson "says", but others are quoted in the past tense. We also have "The band says..." Surely the band is plural?
First off, thanks for commenting. I've rearranged a bit, removing the management bits and highlighting the collaboration with Benson, recording conditions, overall style and lyrics. I've also avoided overlinking in the lede. I've noted the reason as to why, which was to "shake things up". I've also changed 'transcended' to 'went beyond', removed some paraphrases, and changed all tense to past tense in quotes. ToaNidhiki0520:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I have been working on it for almost three years now. The first nomination a year and a half ago was definitely premature, but since then, I've taken it through two peer reviews, and followed all the advice given. I've also added a significant amount of new content. I think the article is well-sourced and complete now. —Torchiesttalkedits04:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I believe I've corrected, removed, and/or replaced all the problematic sources I hadn't already mentioned in the last comment. I also went through and fixed every problem with reference formatting I could find, and added references to the last section. There is only a problem with one CD booklet lacking pages, but someone else is going to be adding that later today. —Torchiesttalkedits22:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Working on a few remaining ref problems, but some responses:
Reflections of Darkness has a full editorial staff listed here, which should be sufficient to be a RS.
I'm not sure about the parenthesis issue, because I'm not adding them manually. It looks like the {{cite news}} template adds the parenthesis, while the others don't. I'm not sure how to get around that problem, other than change the type of cite templates.
What do you mean about the page notation being different for albums? I can't see a difference.
I thought having an editor-in-chief listed would be a sufficient display of editorial oversight for The Culture Shock.
I pulled the Sonic Envelope reference. I'm glad to see that a good number of these weak sources are from before I worked on the article. :) I think I've also addressed all of the other issues above, and a few other minor problems. —Torchiesttalkedits00:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Culture Shock has an editor listed, but his bio (and the heading it's under - "meet the fuckers"?) doesn't really inspire confidence. Do we know what his background is? For the parentheses, how are you deciding which of the templates you're using? Right now it varies even for the same publication (and while I was checking...Billboard or Billboard Magazine?). For album pagination, compare "pp.2–3" with "pp. 138–139" - spacing's off. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Touché. Culture Shock ref was pulled/replaced. As for the pagination, it was a difference in the way the two cite templates were written. I changed the album-note template to match book, which I believe puts it in line with all other cite templates. —Torchiesttalkedits21:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still looking into dealing with the inconsistent parentheses problem. Part of my confusion is in which cite template to use for Billboard in particular. Some of the information is from the actual website, and some is from the printed magazine, so I'm not sure I could use the same template for all citations. —Torchiesttalkedits17:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I notice right around the "Success in America" section, critics from Allmusic start getting heavily quoted about the band's style at this point. It feels like undue weight and over-reliance on a single source.
Why is the etymology after the band's history? It'd probably be nice to have information about what's going on with that earlier, rather than later.
Non-free content: I'm not entirely sold on the non-free cover File:What do you know deutschland.jpg; is there any more detail or description that goes into the band's relationship with this illustrator with specific visual cues? Basically, unless there's content that really needs the image to go alongside it, it could probably go.
Likewise, I don't see the defensibility of most of the music clips. Once again, a lot of the caption justification is through Allmusic sources. To me, File:More & Faster 243.ogg and File:Krank sample.ogg seem to have better viability as overall descriptions of their style, but a lot of the other ones aren't really elaborated on in the text in a way that needs an auditory addendum.
I've replaced the album cover image with another about which I found a good amount of commentary. I also found some more details for the artwork section that I think lend more weight to the relationship.
I pulled a couple audio samples ("Sucks" and "Superpwoer") and added more details to two of the others ("Power" and "Juke Joint Jezebel") that I've kept. The remaining sample ("What Do You Know?") in the musical style section I think is necessary as a good illustration of the band's politics. I feel like there should be at least one specific example of that.
I pulled about half a dozen Allmusic quotes and replaced some of them with other sources.
I forgot to reply to the other point. Do you think it would be best to put the Etymology section as the very first section, in front of the history? The other possibilities I can think of would be making it the first section after the history, or eliminating it as a separate section entirely and blending it into the history. —Torchiesttalkedits23:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's still (by my count) six Allmusic critics referenced in the main body, and I really think they should be moved. The band article isn't really the place to get into the nitty-gritty of reception but I think a better idea would be to create a more verbose section that goes through a little more about their reception--is it different for later albums versus their early work, etc. I think ultimately that's a better place for the Allmusic quotes as how they're structured (at the end of paragraphs, etc.) you're essentially giving these critics "the last word". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)15:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reception section looks good, but I'm still not convinced the five music clips are necessary. Non-free content is only used when its inclusion significant aids the article and its removal is deleterious to the article as a whole, but I don't think most of the clips meet that threshold. You'd be better off with a clip that shows multiple elements of their style (the lyrics, music, etc.) than spreading the elements out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)21:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two band FAs that I've been using as references for my work on this are The Beatles and Radiohead, which have six and five audio samples, respectively. From what I see in those articles, they don't necessarily have much beyond the type of commentary I've added for the samples in KMFDM. Specifically, look at "I Want to Hold Your Hand" and "Creep". Just to be clear, I'll lay out my reasoning for each of the current five samples:
"What Do You Know?" – shows political elements, specifically, the speech sampled is rearranged to mean almost precisely the opposite of its original intent. I feel like hearing the audio makes it clear why it's "scathing" commentary. Without the sample, that description isn't enough to understand what is going on.
"More & Faster" – Shows their humor and early style, considered the first classic, but you've already said you were okay with it.
"Juke Joint Jezebel" – The band's best selling and probably most notable song ever, it seems like a obvious choice for inclusion, and the audio box does have a number of quotes about it.
"Power" – As the band's most highly promoted song, with a good amount of commentary, specifically about the decisions behind how and why it was created the way it was, it seems justified.
"Krank" – From the most recent album, and described as illustrative of the overall current style of the band, this is the other one you've said you're okay with.
Of those five, are you saying three should be pulled? Or substituted with one new sample? I'm just wondering if it would be possible to add more to justify the inclusion of all of them, or if it's a non-starter. —Torchiesttalkedits22:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am a former fan of industrial music, so I have some knowledge. I never heard KMFDM, and I would like to know more about their lyrics. You state what they are opposing, but no information about what they are supporting, despite expressive album titles. Maybe you can find more information. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 18:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to address this issue. I feel like opposing violence, war, and a police state, along with the final quote of "think for yourself" explains what the band stands for pretty well. —Torchiesttalkedits17:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Following the current featured list candidate for List of Awake episodes, I present, Awake, an American television police proceduralsupernatural drama that originally ran on the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) for one season from March 1, 2012 to May 24, 2012. The show's concept has been considered too complex for American television. It has had extremely low ratings, but high reception since its original debut. Awake recently underwent a peer review, a copy-edit from Davejohnsan, and has already been promoted to GA status, earlier this year, in mid-June 2012. I feel that it truly is comprehensive: the production section is filled with information, the "series overview" section is complete, and recently, the "Setting" section has been merged into that. The "Reception", "Distribution", and "Broadcast history" is filled with fully-referenced information, while, the "External links" area is filled with useful "External links". The article has many useful images, with "Alt" on the images. Prior to this nomination, these were the changes I made on the article for FA. My inpersation for this article was House (TV series) and Firefly (TV series). Thank you for looking at this and considering it. If there are any outstanding concerns, please write below. Thanks again! TBrandley04:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some overlinking of common terms (ie. Detective, car accident, canceled)
Done
"Critically acclaimed for the most of its run, Awake was praised for its casting performance from television critics, particularly Isaacs's performance as Britten."
The critically acclaimed part seems like an odd phrase, being that the show only ran for one season.
Done
The second part of the sentence, I think you mean "Awake's cast members were praised by television critics, ..."
Done
"A critical success, Awake's cast members were praised by television critics, particularly Isaacs's performance as Britten." -- It should read -Issacs'- not -Isaacs's-
Not done. See the page. It is with two a's, not two s's. Thanks
Typo was my bad, but that's not the problem; the problem is that it should say Isaacs', not Isaac's
Done
"Episodes "Pilot" and "Say Hello to My Little Friend" were generally considered the best episodes of the series by commentators based on the storylines." -- comma after 'commentators'
Done
Everything in the article should be briefly mentioned in the LEAD. Why is there no mention of Writing, U.S. television ratings, Accolades, or Distribution? If something is important enough for its own (sub)section; it should be mentioned in the lead.
Done
Conception
"Kyle Killen devised the concept of the series, which was originally titled REM until production of the show was green-lit by the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) in May 2011.[1][2][3]" -- comma after '(NBC)'
Done
Again, unlink 'canceled'
Done
Unlink 'dreaming' in the picture caption and P2
Done
Can some of this be paraphrased? There's lots of quotes, and very little prose
Done
Production team
IMO, 'showrunner' should be unlinked in the photo caption and P1
Done
Likewise 'cinematographer', ' 20th Century Fox Television', and 'principal photography'
Done
Not done, I still see '20th Century Fox Television' linked. Also unlink Jason Isaacs.
"Minnette commended the series's script, and noted the auditioning sequence was fast." -- It should read -series'- not -series's-
Done
Writing
Again, lots of quotes; consider paraphrasing
Done
Series overview
Lots of overlinking (why are all the characters relinked in this section?) (also: detective, car accident, his family, officer, dream, fast food restaurant, heroin, evidence, Kyle Killen)
Done
Not done, I still see 'officer' linked.
Done
""I've seen some really interesting [theories], and I wouldn’t say that anyone is wrong — except the people who are calling it a Dallas or a Newhart, [...]" -- erase the spaces around the em-dash
Done
Main characters
Again with overlinking (separate realities [linked above], Hannah Britten)
Done
The opening feels repetitious of 'series overview'
Done
Recurring characters
"Other recurring characters includes: Emma, Rex's girlfriend. She is pregnant with Rex's baby, and is focused to give it away. However, due to a discussion with Michael, her father and mother reconsider.[33] Cole, a school teenager who is Rex's best friend, work on a motorbike together, which he let Hannah ride in the red reality, after she convinced him to finish it.[38]" -- awkward setup. First of all it should say 'include' not 'includes'. I don't think the colon setup is smart. I recommend: "Other recurring characters include Emma, Rex's girlfriend. She is pregnant with Rex's baby, and is focused to give it away. However, due to a discussion with Michael, her father and mother reconsider.[33] Cole, a school teenager who is Rex's best friend, also received recurring status. The two work on a motorbike together, which he let Hannah ride in the red reality, after she convinced him to finish it.[38]"
Done
Not done; there is still a colon before 'Emma'
Done
Critical response
Overlinking (weighted mean, average, IGN, Jason Isaacs, NBC, The Hollywood Reporter, The A.V. Club)
Done
Not done, I still see 'weighted mean' linked.
Done
"RedEye journalist Curt Wagner stated that the series was well-written and perfectly acted,[49] and BuddyTV writer Laurel Brown called it a "great episode".[50]" -- Part one of the sentence says 'series was well written', but part 2 says "a great episode". If they are discussing different topics, they shouldn't be in the same sentence
Why isn't this addressed?
Done
Not done; now you have an unnecessary 'it' (BuddyTV writer Laurel Brown called it the pilot a "great episode".[50])
"It was #2 in the Best Reviews from Metacritic users for the 2011–12 television season, with a user score of "8.0".[43]" -- '#' should be 'No.' per WP:POUND
Done
"He wrote, "David Slade's direction conveys the emotional world of the show so well that you could watch it on mute and grasp most of what’s going on. In particular, Slade's use of color—of reds and greens and blues, meant to boil the show's complicated premise down into a visual aesthetic—is so wonderful that a whole article [...] could be written about how he suggests places where realities overlap and intertwine, just through placement of a red scarf. At the end of the episode, you'll leave feeling like you've seen something unique and wonderful, something worth watching every week in an increasingly crowded television landscape."[51]" -- Way too long for one critic, per WP:TVRECEPTION the section "preferably should not exceed two or three sentences per critic, so as not to apply undue weight to any given reviewer."
Done
There is also an MOS:LQ issue with this line now. - "David Slade's direction conveys the emotional world of the show so well that you could watch it on mute and grasp most of what's going on.", -- comma should be inside the closing quote, and the period should be erased.
Done
"As the series progressed, the episode "Say Hello to My Little Friend" was generally considered the best episode since the pilot.[55]" -- One review doesn't make it "generally the best episode". That said, it has to be rephrased at P3 of the lead as well.
Not done. It is more than just HitFix, I have added an IGN reference there, which also claims it was the best episode since "Pilot".
Ok.
""Game Day", by contrast, had mixed reviews with IGN and The A.V. Club giving it their lowest scores in the series.[56][57]" -- Awkward phrasing, I'd recommend: ""Game Day", in contrast, received mixed reviews with IGN and The A.V. Club giving it their lowest scores of the season.[56][57]"
Done
"After Awake's cancellation, Mareen Ryan of The Huffington Post hoped that new dramas on NBC would "achieve the kind of visual and emotional poetry that "Awake" did. I'm not completely finished watching the pilots the networks sent".[64]" -- rephrase. You're saying Maureen Ryan of HP hoped that new dramas would achieve the kind of visual and emotional poetry that Awake did", which makes sense. But the second part of the quote doesn't go with your lead-in.
Done
U.S. television ratings
"The premiere episode on March 1, 2012 had 6.2 million viewers, the most for NBC in that time slot since April 2010, and an improvement over its lead-in Up All Night.[65]" -- 'Over' should be 'from' IMO
Done
"Awake premiered in the Thursday 10:00 p.m. time slot slightly [...]" -- indicate that the time is EST
Done
"The second episode fell by 2 million viewers with new competition.[68]" -- needs more context (what competition?)
Done
The Mentalist, CBS, and ABC are now double linked.
"[...] the final episode is not included as it aired out the regular television season.[70]" -- 'aired out' should be 'aired out of'
Done
Accolades
Overlinking (Jason Isaacs, Kyle Killen, "Pilot", "Say Hello to My Little Friend")
Done
"Throughout its run, Awake has been nominated for two awards, currently."
Two awards? The table shows five
Done
Avoid vague terms like 'currently'. It's better to use 'as of July 2012' or something in that nature
Done
"Killen's writing in "Pilot" was nominated under the "Best Writing in a Drama Series", while Jordan Goldman and Paul Trejo's editing work in the episode was nominated under the "Best Editing in a Drama Series" category.[85]" -- the first 'under the' should be 'for'
Done
Not done; you addressed the wrong sentence. Revert your changes, and fix the correct sentence. Also, replace 'under the' not just 'under'.
Done
Fandom
Overlinking (NBC, Fox, CBS)
Done
Not done, NBC is still linked
Done
"Their efforts included teaming up to create a campaign entitled "Save Awake" when the series was in danger of cancellation, performing a sleep blackout outside of major television networks in the United States, a writing campaign send to various network such as Fox and CBS, and created a YouTube fan made video.[85]" -- grammatically incorrect: It should instead read: "Their efforts included teaming up to create a campaign entitled "Save Awake" when the series was in danger of cancellation, performing a sleep blackout outside of major television networks in the United States, a writing campaign sent to various networks such as Fox and CBS, creating a YouTube fan-made video.[85]"
Done
"Currently, the campaign are trying to convince Netflix to revive the series, by sending letters, tweeting, and phoning the company.[86]" -- avoid 'currently', and it should say 'is trying' instead of 'are trying'.
Done
Distribution
Overlinking (NBC, Global [should only have one link on first occurence; it has two], Fox, YouTube, iTunes Store [should only be linked once on first occurence, and is it 'iTunes Store' or 'iTunes'?], Hulu [link once on first occurence; also is it 'Hulu' or 'Hulu.com'])
Done. Except for Fox. That links to Fox (Japan), not the Fox Broadcasting Company
Not done iTunes is still linked as the last word
Done
"Awake episodes premiered on NBC in the United States and Global in Canada in March 2012, which had identical schedules.[87]" -- put 'on' before 'Global'
Done
"Episodes of the show are also available online on: Amazon Instant Video[94] and the iTunes Store,[95] which offers all 13 episodes for purchase, with episodes appearing the day after their live airing, in SD and HD."
Get rid of the colon, instead write: "Episodes of the show are also available online at Amazon Instant Video[94] and the iTunes Store,[95] which offers all 13 episodes for purchase, with episodes appearing the day after their live airing, in SD and HD."
Done
Don't abbreviate SD and HD--write it out.
Done
"Episodes can be purchased in HD on iTunes for $2.99, and for $1.99 in SD.[95]" -- again write out HD, and indicate that it's US money.
Done
"The first episode was made available two weeks before the series premiere on television, on February 16, 2012 [...]" -- 'premiere' should be 'premiered'
Done
Erase the note about DVD, if there was a DVD it would have been mentioned
Done
Broadcast history
Overlinking (NBC, 2012 tv season, "Turtles All the Way Down", "Two Birds", The Firm, The A.V. Club, The Mentalist)
Done
"Although it was originally scheduled to premiere in the fall of 2011.[3]" -- comma after 'although'
Not done. Doesn't need pause after although.
Although is an awkward word choice, because it is usually chosen as the starting word in the first part of a compound sentence, or the second part. Rephrase by perhaps joining the sentence: "The series originally aired in the United States on NBC from March 1, 2012 to May 24, 2012 in the 2012 television season, at 10:00 p.m. on Thursdays,[104][105][106] although it was originally scheduled to premiere in the fall of 2011.[3]"
"The last two episodes were scheduled to air as a two-hour finale on May 17, 2012 between 9:00 and 11:00 p.m.," -- indicate the time is EST
Done
"[...] most notably airing the episodes in the Thursday night 10:00 p.m. timeslot [...]" -- indicate EST
Done
Not done, That hasn't been addressed
Done
"Film.com's Gretchen Alice also observed that Awake is in a "tough timeslot", and that NBC's previous show's in the timeslot "didn't fare so well".[110]" -- "is in a tough timeslot" should be "was in a tough timeslot"
Done
General
Per MOS:PUNCT, "Consistent use of the straight (or typewriter) apostrophe ( ' ) is recommended, as opposed to the curly (or typographic) apostrophe ( ’ )." That said, I see several instances of the curly being used:
Conception: "Killen said: "the concept of the way your dreams feel real, the way you seem to experience them as something that you don’t blink at until something crazy happens that sort of bursts that balloon. I think I became interested in the question of what if nothing ever popped that balloon? What if you couldn’t tell the difference between when you were awake and when you were asleep? And then I started looking for a way to marry those two ideas up, and a few months later we had Awake."[9]" -- Used twice.
Done
Casting: - "He's a guy who goes to sleep, wakes up, he’s with his wife, goes to sleep, wakes up, and he's with his son. And so — and he's a cop who sees clues and details that crossover from one world to the next, and he uses that insight to solve crimes."[19]" -- Used once.
Done
Casting: - "[The main character] was somebody that you couldn't decide if you liked or hated, and I think that Britten's dilemma is something that we’re not only sympathetic for, but somehow we want him to win."[19]" -- Used once.
Done
Writing: "He stated: "Every pilot that's made comes from some people with amazing prestige. They're all a big word thrown around town and they're everybody’s favourite project and then no one ever mentions them again. Lots of fabulously talented people, and the head of the network chooses only one. But do I want to move here? Do I want to put my kids in school here? Is that what I really want?"[15] -- Used once.
Done
Writing: "Despite such concerns, Gordon asserted that the concept of Awake was a "fairly gettable concept once you sit down and actually pay attention to it. And whatever learning curve there might be, we hope it’s a shallow one."[19]" -- Used once.
Done
Critical response: "He wrote, "Awake handles the confusion problem well: yes, it takes more concentration than a Law & Order, but it’s no Inception in its twistiness. Michael himself needs to hold on to markers to anchor his sense of reality—for instance, he wears a red and a green wristband in the existences in which his wife and his son are alive, respectively—and those help us follow along too."[47]" -- Used once.
Mostly done. I have added new source for Zap2it. I have not removed Cinema Blend, TV Fanatic becasue they are critics reviews, and are considered reliable, because, well they are reviews. I have not removed The Voice of TV, as it is an interview with the creators and producers, which is good source.
Although I agree with TBrandley that TV Fanatic is a reliable source, based on its website; I question the reliability of Cinema Blend for a FA. The argument that "they are reviews" is invalid. I can make a website, and post a review of Awake, but that does not make it reliable. I have no opinion on The Voice of TV. TRLIJC19 (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per TRLIJC, just because they're reviews doesn't make them reliable. Who are these reviewers, and why should we care what they say? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed Cinema Blend, and replaced it with a completely new good source review from IGN. Have removed 1 of 2 Science Fiction sources. I can't find a replacement for the other one in the "Casting" section, it is an interview. Thanks. TBrandley15:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm pretty sure that TV Fanatic is a high-quality source, I have replaced it with USA Today. Thanks!
FN42 is broken
Done
Don't use double quotes - quotes within article/webpage titles should use single quotes.
Photo of Kyle Killen: there should not be an apostrophe ( ' ) after 'Series', because you do not have 'the' before 'series'. Think of it like this: If it was the creator of a movie, you would say Movie creator not Movie's creator.
Done
Same goes with photo of David Splade
Done
Triple picture should have links to all characters/actors mentioned IMO
Done
Picture of Jason Isaacs under 'Accolades': Link his name and remove the apostrophe (You are not referring to him in a possessive way)
Done
"Jason Isaacs was nominated for the Best Actor in a Drama Series at the PAAFTJ Television Awards, once." -- 'once' is unnecessary
Done
After checking a random source, I feel that spotchecks are necessary. This sentence in 'Broadcast history': "The A.V. Club cited several actions by NBC that contributed to the show's failure, most notably airing the episodes in the Thursday night 10:00 p.m. (EST) timeslot, in the same slot as hit drama The Mentalist,[110] and the show's script was cited as potentially being too complex for mainstream American television.[110]" is mainly original research; (basically) none of that is written in the source, except for the first part about the time slot. I feel this indicates that spotchecks are needed. TRLIJC19 (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentTemplates - "Use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as "-done-" and "-not done-") is discouraged, as they slow down the page load time." - see FA guidelines. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks
Ref 1: "NBC just kicked off its second day of pickups with orders to Kyle Killen’s Inception-style Awake (form. REM)...
Article: "Kyle Killen, the series' creator, devised the concept of the series, which was originally titled REM until production of the show was green-lit by the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), in May 2011."
Ref 11: "Jennifer Salke, then 20th TV's executive vp, reached out just days after production on Lone Star wrapped in October and urged him to try again."
Article: "Jennifer Salke, the president of the entertainment division of NBC, encouraged Killen to conceive a concept for a future television series after the cancellation of Lone Star."
Ref 12: "Filmed in Los Angeles by Letter Eleven and Teakwood Lane Prods. in association with 20th Century Fox Television. Executive producers, Howard Gordon, Kyle Killen, Jeffrey Reiner; co-executive producer, Davey Holmes; producers, Jason Isaacs, Keith Redmon; director, David Slade; writers, Killen."
Article: "Awake is a co-production of Le11er Eleven and Howard Gordon's Teakwood Lane Productions label, in association with 20th Century Fox Television, and is distributed by 20th Television."
Why does the source say "Letter Eleven" but the article says "Le11er Eleven"? Also, the source does not mention that it is distributed by 20th television.
Done
Ref 29: "There's a risk Awake is too high-concept for US networks."
Article: "He also claimed that it is a "high concept risk" for network television."
Ref 40: "You still would have had red and you still would have had green. [...] would have had a really interesting pitch for what to do with that third space, and whether there was an ongoing narrative we wanted to tell there or whether we wanted to use it as simply a surreal dream space that we could access when we wanted to and how we wanted to that let us bring other weirder elements into the show that we’d always wanted to try. [...] The role of Tara was envisioned from the start as a potential love interest for Britten, and though producers, especially Isaacs, wanted to go there, it didn’t feel right for season 1. [...] That was something we were really eager to explore in the second season.
Article: "A second season, Killen said, would have used the idea of both wife and son being alive, but not necessarily as a third reality. Also, in the "green reality", Tara would have been a romantic partner."
This feels supported, except for the article's text saying: Tara would have been a romantic partner. The source says "eager to explore". The article sounds too definitive.
Done
That was not done correctly, but I have adjusted it, so: Done.
Ref 49: "Well acted and smartly written, "Awake" works as an intellectual puzzler, emotional family drama and case-of-the-week procedural."
Article: "RedEye journalist Curt Wagner stated that the series was well-written and perfectly acted."
The article does not show what the source says. The source does not call the acting 'perfect', it calls it 'well'. That is a large exaggeration. It should be rewritten to say: "RedEye journalist Curt Wagner stated that the series was "well acted and smartly written".
Done
Ref 60: "Isaacs and the show play this delicately and well, employing a reservedness that draws viewers to him."
Article: "Denise Duguay of the Montreal Gazette thought that Isaacs evoked a reservedness and ambiguity that attracted viewers to his character."
Reservedness should be in quotes, since it's an exact copy of a descriptive term she used.
Done
Ref 86: Needs a 'subscription required' tag
Done
Ref 87: This reference is a blog, and should be removed, in addition to the text.
Done
Ref 111: "But in all honestly, it’s a tough timeslot and the shows that preceded Awake on NBC (Prime Suspect, The Firm) didn’t fare so well."
Article: "Film.com's Gretchen Alice also observed that Awake was in a "tough timeslot", and that NBC's previous show's in the timeslot "didn't fare so well".
Most references appear to support the text in the article, and there are few instances of close paraphrasing. If an issue is listed above, fix it. TRLIJC19 (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be willing to revisit my stance on whether or not the article meets the criteria, after my concerns with 'writing' and 'conception' are addressed. TRLIJC19 (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A comment about paraphrasing: I agree with TRLIJC19 that the Conception and Writing sections need some paraphrasing. They both appear as quote-farms right now. Unfortunately, your beginning efforts here to do dome paraphrasing are not the way to go.
Gary Newman, chairman of 20th Century Fox Television, opted not to develop a deal with cable television networks. "We read it and really believed it was a network show. I just don't accept that the difference between cable and network dramas is how smart it is."
Your paraphrasing: Gary Newman, chairman of 20th Century Fox Television, opted not to develop a deal with cable television networks, and claimed that is [sic] should be a network show, as it is smart.
Done
and
The complexity of the script of the pilot episode and the show's concept was cited as a potential issue for the series. Salke evaluated the series as a Sliding Doors–like concept. "The implications of this are complicated," Salke opined.
Your paraphrasing: The complexity of the script of the pilot episode and the show's concept was cited as a potential issue for the series. Salke evaluated the series as a Sliding Doors–like concept. Salke opined that Awake's script was "complicated".
"Britten begins to live in two separate realities after a car accident." -- Unlink 'separate realities'
Done
""Say Hello to My Little Friend" was generally considered the best episode of the series since pilot by commentators, based on their storylines." -- Ungrammatically correct: You cannot say "since pilot". Either say "since "Pilot"" or "since the pilot episode". Also, "based on their storylines" doesn't make sense, because even though you mention "Pilot", it is not the main point of the sentence. Therefore, say "based on its storylines".
Done
Not done; you didn't do anything to fix this.
Done
Still not completely done; you didn't change "their storylines" to "its storylines".
Done
Conception
"Killen stated that it was still an interest to him.[9]" -- Remove; it's repetitious of the previous sentence.
Done
Not done; you didn't do anything to fix this.
Done
Erase the quotations mark around the block quote; when it is formatted like that it shouldn't have quotation marks.
Done
"Killen sought inspiration from the dreaming process. Killen said: "[...]"[9]" -- Merge the sentences, reading: "Killen sought inspiration from the dreaming process, adding: "[...]"[9]" Also, capitalize the first letter of the quote.
Done
Not done; you didn't do anything to fix this.
Done
"[...] he is "making two cases work."[12]" -- Closing quote should be before the period (MOS:LQ)
Done
Not done; you didn't do anything to fix this.
Done
That's still not done, why?
Done
Production team
"He said, "With The Good Wife, there are procedural aspects, legal aspects, so many personal stories that they have to decide every week what format they'll do and how they'll fit all that in. With Awake, the question we ask ourselves is, why is this an Awake episode? How do you leverage the unique conceit? In some ways, [the premise] flies in the face of storytelling, in which you usually have a beginning, a middle an and end."[15]" -- Needlessly long quote, paraphrase or trim it. Also, it should say "a middle and an end" not "a middle an and end".
Done
Casting
If multiple refs after one sentence can be avoided, they should. That said, why are there three references for "In February 2011, Jason Isaacs obtained the role of Michael Britten, the central character of the series.[18][19][20]" and "In January 2012, Alias actor Kevin Weisman obtained a recurring role on the series.[26][27][28]". These are not controversial statements and there should only be one ref for each. (Preferably the highest quality sources)
Done
Writing
"He stated that every pilot comes from people who have "amazing prestige", and that there are lots of "talented people, but the head of the network chooses only one."[17] But stated: "But do I want to move here? Do I want to put my kids in school here? Is that what I really want?"[17]" -- "But stated" is wrong, because it is not part of the sentence. Just cut out all the crap after the first line, because it adds nothing to the article.
Done
Not done; you didn't do anything to fix this. Why did you lie that you did so many things, and didn't even touch them? If you thought I wasn't going to check, you should have thought again.
Done (sorry again)
Series overview
"However, later, when Michael breaks into Ed's house, Ed admits that he and someone else has been hiding heroin at the Westfield Distribution Center, and "they decided he had to go" after Michael begins to uncover it.[39]" -- "Ed admits that he and someone else has been hiding heroin [...]", "has been" should be "have been".
Done
Not done; you didn't do anything to fix this.
Done
"Killen said "we actively fought against" the idea that the whole series was Britten's dream, and that what his seeing his wife and son together "really represents is a further fracturing of his psyche."[41]" -- Ungrammatically correct: erase 'his' after 'what'.
Done
Not done; you didn't do anything to fix this.
Done
"Since the finale was written before the show's cancellation, it was written so that either reality could have been the real one, because "we didn't intend to have that mystery sewn up in this episode."[41]" -- Whose 'we'? Perhaps write "[The writers] didn't ..." Also put the closing quote before the period.
Done
Not done; you didn't do anything to fix this.
Done
Main characters
"There are eight main characters in both realities." -- Unclear, do you mean if you add up the characters in both realities it equals 8, or do you mean there are 8 different characters in each reality, totaling 16, or do you mean the same characters are in both realities?
Done
Not done; you didn't do anything to fix this.
Done
The sentence hasn't been rephrased at all.
Done
"Michael does not know which reality is real, and because of his two realities, Michael now has routine to help him maintain the illusions of control.[42]" -- Should say "Michael now has a routine to help..."
Done
Not done; you didn't do anything to fix this.
Done
"Michael gets confused often, and suffers from a sleeping disorder, and does not like heights.[34][42]" -- Repetition of 'and'. Write: "Michael gets confused often, suffers from a sleeping disorder, and does not like heights.[34][42]"
Done
Not done; you didn't do anything to fix this.
Done
"When Cole accidentally breaks it, Rex fights with him because of this but later apologizes.[37]" -- There needs to be a comma after 'this'.
Done
Not done; you didn't do anything to fix this.
Done
"Shortly after, Efrem is put on lead on a new case by Michael.[35] They mainly are friends from this point on.[35][32] This is his new partner, after working with Isaiah "Bird" Freeman.[16]" -- Odd phrasing. I recommend: "Shortly after, Efrem is put on lead on a new case by Michael,[35] and the two are mainly friends from this point on.[35][32] [He/she] serves as his new partner, after his working with Isaiah "Bird" Freeman.[16]"
Done
Not done; you didn't do anything to fix this.
Done
The second sentence hasn't been changed properly, and it is now grammatically incorrect.
Done
"However, he still works with Isaiah in his "green reality", while he does not work with Vega in this reality, Vega is an officer in the "green reality".[16]" -- Ungrammatically correct. Rewrite to: "Although he still works with Isaiah in his "green reality", and he does not work with Vega in this reality, Vega is an officer in the "green reality".[16]"
Done
Not done; you didn't do anything to fix this.
Done
"Isaiah is Michael's long-time partner.[16]" -- Tiny sentence and should be deleted; it's been made clear above.
Done
Not done; you didn't do anything to fix this.
Done
Recurring characters
"Captain Carl Kessel, the commanding officer at Hawkins' precinct and man behind Michael's car accident, after hiding heroin in a storage unit, for the both of them.[32]" -- Rewrite to: "Captain Carl Kessel, the commanding officer at Hawkins' precinct, was the man behind Michael's car accident, who hid heroin in a storage unit, for the both of them.[32]"
Done
Not done; you didn't do anything to fix this.
Done
This was not correctly rewritten.
Done
"She is pregnant with Rex's baby, and is originally focused to give it away,[32] but due to a conversion with Emma's father Joaquin (Carlos Lacámara).[34]" -- But due to a conversion with Emma's father what?
Done
Not done; you didn't do anything to fix this.
Done
Now you mangled the sentence. There should be a comma after (Carlos Lacámara), and 'she' is misspelled as 'see'.
Done
"Cole, a school teenager who is Rex's best friend, also received a recurring status." -- Remove 'a' before 'recurring'.
Done
Not done; you didn't do anything to fix this.
Done
Critical response
"At Metacritic, which assigns a weighted mean rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the show received an weighted mean score of 75, based on 29 reviews, which indicates "generally favorable reviews".[43] -- Rewrite: " At Metacritic, which assigns a weighted mean out of 100, based on reviews from mainstream critics, the show received a weighted mean score of 75, based on 29 reviews, which indicates "generally favorable reviews".[43]"
Done
Not done; you didn't do anything to fix this.
Done
That was not correctly rewritten, and you have mangled some of the sentence.
Done
U.S. television ratings
"The premiere episode, which was originally broadcast on March 1, 2012, garnered 6.2 million viewers, making it most viewership for NBC in that time slot since April 2010, and an improvement from its lead-in Up All Night.[68]" -- Rewrite: "The premiere episode, which was originally broadcast on March 1, 2012, garnered 6.2 million viewers, making it the most viewed in its time slot for NBC since April 2010, and an improvement from its lead-in Up All Night.[68]"
Done
Not done; you didn't do anything to fix this.
Done
"The" is missing before "most viewed". Can you check the page before you save, because it is annoying that most issues have not been correctly fixed.
Done
"[...] Prime Suspect; which premiered with 6.05 million total viewers and a 1.8/5% share in the age 18-49 demographic.[70]" -- Use an en dash ( – ) for the 18-49, and erase "age".
Not done; you didn't do anything to fix this.
Done (didn't see in the first place)<
Distribution
"Episodes of the show are also available online at Amazon Instant Video[96] and the iTunes Store,[97] which offers all 13 episodes for purchase [...]" -- "offers" should be singular.
Done
Not done; you didn't do anything to fix this.
Done
Broadcast history
"However, the final episode, "Turtles All the Way Down" aired outside of the television season, on May 24, 2012.[74]" -- Need comma after "Turtles All the Way Down".
Done
Not done; you didn't do anything to fix this.
Done
"The A.V. Club cited several actions by NBC that contributed to the show's failure, most notably airing the episodes in the Thursday night 10:00 p.m. (EST) timeslot, in the same slot as hit drama The Mentalist.[110]" -- Rephrase; according to the source they only cited one action.
Done
Not done; you didn't do anything to fix this.
Done
The way you rephrased it is grammatically incorrect.
Done
"Film.com's Gretchen Alice also observed that Awake was in a "tough timeslot", and that NBC's previous show's in the timeslot "didn't fare so well".[111]" -- "show's" should be "shows"; it's not a possessive reference.
Done
Not done; you didn't do anything to fix this.
Done
I intended to only leave 5-10 comments in this section, but it seems as the quality of the prose has declined since I last read through the article. Nevertheless, once the above issues are addressed I will put the article up against the criteria again. TRLIJC19 (talk) 06:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a joke? You literally only fixed four issues above. It is ignorant to assume that I would not check to make sure you have fixed the issues. It is one thing if you tried and didn't understand, or did it the wrong way; but you literally made no changes to the majority of the issues. When reviewers take time out of their day to list issues line by line, it is disrespectful to lie that you fixed them. Fix the issues for real, and when you write 'done' under the issues again, please include the fixed sentence, to show the changes you have made. TRLIJC19 (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are still a handful of outstanding issues above, in which your efforts to fix the issues, resulted in further mangling of the sentence. TRLIJC19 (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on all criteria except 2c (consistent citations), as the double quote issue with sourcing has not been resolved. Other than that, The issues I listed have been resolved, and I believe this can now be represented as one of Wikipedia's finest articles. TRLIJC19 (talk) 06:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are still concerns about your paraphrasing skills. I have not checked the entire article, but this is another example of where your attempted paraphrasing has changed the meaning of the sentence.
Well, being that you have struck that, I am assuming you think it is done? I can't say it is any better now than it was.
Original quoted text: "It was 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, and I remember I was so freaked out by the script that I went upstairs to our guest bedroom where my wife was sick with the flu and I got into bed with her," recalled Korman.
Your first paraphrase: Korman was impressed by the show's script, he claimed that it was "1 or 2 o'clock in the morning", and he notified his wife who was sick about the script.
Your second paraphrase: Korman was so impressed by the script that, though it was after midnight, he went into the room where his sick wife was sleeping, and got into bed with her.
Here you have removed part of a quoted sentence, again twisting what was said. (In addition, as that sentence reads now, you have an instance of "that that"). As it stands, the sources need to be checked in these "paraphrased" sections for accuracy. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments.
I'm not seeing the point of both File:Awake logo.png and File:Awake Title.jpg here. They both give roughly the same information, and base their inclusion on the threshold of originality. I'd say go with one or the other. The latter makes a much stronger case for lack of original design, and if cropped a little would sit in the infobox just as easily as the former.
Done
The second instance of the "red reality" and "green reality" cells in the "Characters and story arcs" is pretty redundant, the cells below these all refer to both columns so it's not necessary to include them.
The very last paragraph features three uses of "timeslot" in two sentences; the article as a whole doesn't use the word much so it seems even more concentrated to have most of them in quick succession like this.
Paraphrasing and the use of ellipsis in this article is problematic. The general rule to follow is if ellipsis points are in the original text, the ellipsis points should be enclosed in square brackets. Looking at the NYP article "...than the average [...] viewer is likely to put in..." I can't see the ellipsis anywhere. Nothing is omitted. Therefore remove the square brackets.
Done
"Fans first organized to try to save the series from being canceled by NBC." first is redundant
Done
Ref 91 was published on guardian.co.uk, not The Guardian newspaper.
Comment: I'd like to see more redirects to this page. You can see a list of the article's current redirects here. Preferably, there should be a few more such as: Awkae (TV series), Awake (TV show), Awake television show, Awake (tv series), etc.TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs)15:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I think that the article pretty much meets the FA criteria and deserves to be featured on the main page. Yerevanci (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the article currently contains large quantities of unreferenced material, and so it clearly doesn't meet the criteria. It also contains lots of single sentence paragraphs, and the copyright status of quite a few of the photos seems questionable. I think that this should be withdrawn. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Yerevanci, are you able to find one or two collaborators to work this one up properly? Also, it needs an image audit for size and location. Probably there are too many. My personal pref is for larger pics, right-side only. Please experiment with narrow to wide window widths on your screen to see how poorly wiki-software handles text–image relations. Tony(talk) 07:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree to the above, other issues to check:
the history section lacks chronological order (in some parts) and narrative flow.
the article contains a lot of lists, which should be trimmed for notability and rephrased as prose, where possible.
it would be better to extract 1-2 main facts from the "etymology" quote and rephrase them as regular prose, details about vowel and consonant shifts are probably not notable enough for a summary article (see WP:SUMMARY). Despite its name most etymology sections give only a general overview about a terms etymological background.
Well, it has been a while since I've been in the FA corner of the wiki, but I think some of my recent articles are at the modern FA standards. Here's is an old FA (2005 vintage, delisted in 2008) that has been significantly reworked over the past year or so. The subject is one of the oldest constitutions in world's history. Let me know what you think :) PS. Oh, I almost forgot: I am taking part in that WikiCup thingy, if that matters for anything PPS. Got a delegate approval to renominate before two weeks passed (Wikipedia_talk:FAC#Request_for_delegates). The previous nomination failed due to insufficient interest from the reviewers :( Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here17:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Piotrus. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk
Leaning support - Image check is fine, prose looks okay. No support just yet as I'd like another editor or two to vet the prose (may still be some issues hiding somewhere) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
On the points just above: [Note: Crisco moved his points to this FAC's talk page.] I'm fine with Piotr's stands on the notable works and holiday mention. It does seem slightly odd to mention celebrations only in Chicago, but I don't think it's a fatal flaw, and you certainly don't want to spend a lot of time talking about celebrations. OTOH, I think you missed the point, Piotr, on burghers ... you define the term several sentences later ... so how are readers supposed to know what it means when you first mention it? Also, "rights" is a very slippery term in English; were the burghers being protected from excesses of local lawmakers, national lawmakers, or others? On Burke et al., you need something more than just the names; it's a judgment call how much to say, but "nothing" is the wrong judgment. Instead of saying "Bill Moyers wrote" and "Albert Blaustein wrote", I would say "American journalist Bill Moyers wrote in 2009" (the date is important when it's that recent) and "constitutional expert Albert Blaustein wrote". - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Yet, despite the King's capitulation, the Second Partition of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (1793), and the 1795 demise of Poland, over the next 123 years of Poland's partition the Constitution of May 3, 1791, was seen as an important step toward the eventual restoration of Poland's sovereignty.": Too much before the main verb. Try: Yet, despite the King's capitulation, the Second Partition of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (1793), and the 1795 demise of Poland, the Constitution of May 3, 1791, was seen over the next 123 years as an important step toward the eventual restoration of Poland's sovereignty.
"two of its other co-authors": two of its co-authors
"Constitution of May 3, 1791", "the May 3 Constitution", "the Constitution": the capitalization on all three says that all three are proper nouns, that is, all three are formal names for it ... and that's probably not true. Some copy editors will say "the May 3 Constitution" and "the Constitution" both have to be lowercased; I won't go that far, but "the May 3 Constitution" has to go. Replace it throughout by "the Constitution".
"Already two hundred years before the May 3 Constitution, when the remarkable noble democracy was at its peak": "Already" is more of a German construction (and maybe Polish, I don't know) than an English construction; either omit it, or if emphasis is important, say "As early as ...". And "the remarkable noble democracy" ... ugh. Skimming down, I see a lot of expressions where any native speaker of English would say, "Hm, that doesn't sound right". Don't beat yourself (or me!) up over this ... you're a great writer, and you have many skills that other nominators don't have ... but native speakers know things about what sounds right that you don't. If you can get either a co-nom or a copy editor to go through this fixing the unidiomatic expressions, then I'll be happy to give it another look ... I'd like to support this article, but I can't in its current state, and IMO it's too much for Crisco and me with our current FAC workload. - Dank (push to talk) 22:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to address the above soon, but one quick comment: the article has already been c/e-ed by two native speakers in WPPOLAND who help out with language issues; and that means I have no other c/e's I can call. If their efforts are not good enough, than I am afraid there is little more I can do (I've long ago given on the Guild of Copyeditors or whatever it is called, with it's months-long waiting list). I'd appreciate any suggestion you may have about where to get more assistance, I am out of ideas on that front. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here17:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And all of the above should've been addressed. Also, I wanted to say I very much appreciate all the hard work you guys put into fixing the text; I know well that I am quite bad at the c/e side of things. Well, I am looking forward to more of your comments, and in the meantime, off I go to my latest GA project. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here21:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've gone through removing way too many repetitions of the word "constitution", substituting various alternatives. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Polish–Lithuanian": FWIW, I prefer a hyphen here. You had it both ways in this article; I've standardized to the dash, since the relevant article titles have dashes. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing.
Sigh. I finished copyediting about half of it, down to Constitution_of_May_3,_1791#The Great Sejm, but things get worse at that point, and I'm not going to be able to finish up. FAC and A-class aren't mandatory, of course; lots of wikiprojects get by without them just fine ... but if they're important to you, then please find someone who's reasonably familiar with either copy editing in general or FAC in particular; I'm willing to do a lot of the work myself, as long as there's someone who's taking responsibility for learning this stuff and doing their share of the work. As things stand ... well, in the first paragraph of the section where I stopped, there are problems with every sentence:
"the "Four-Year" or "Great Sejm" of 1788–92": The quotation marks are nonparallel. Use "the "Four-Year" or "Great" Sejm of 1788–92", or "the "Four-Year Sejm" or "Great Sejm" of 1788–92". This isn't a minor stylistic point; what you wrote implies that people called it the "Four-Year", instead of the "Four-Year Sejm".
"so as to avoid": I don't personally have a problem with this, but other FAC copy editors prefer "to avoid", so that's my recommendation.
"October 6, 1788": October 6, 1788,. See WP:Checklist#second commas. I know, it's an annoying little comma rule that's in the process of changing rapidly, so this advice may not be useful in ten years ... but current style guides still recommend the second comma here, so as a copy editor, I'm stuck with it, which means (at FAC) you're stuck with it.
"In the words of the May 3 Constitution's preamble – from 1790 it met "in dual number" when": comma instead of dash. Also: why are the particular words important? The phrase isn't repeated here, and it's usually better just to translate into clear prose.
"Current world events appeared to were opportune for the reformers." ?
"Poland's neighbors were occupied with wars and unable to intervene forcibly in Polish affairs.": "occupied" has a specific meaning in the context of warfare ... the "with" helps a bit, but I'd prefer "engaged in". Readers generally read quickly, and sometimes misunderstand when given the chance.
"Russia and Austria were engaged in hostilities with the Ottoman Empire (the Russo-Turkish War, 1787-1792 and the Austro-Turkish War (1787–1791)), the Russians also found themselves simultaneously fighting Sweden).": Where do I start. One hyphen should be a dash. Sweden is an WP:EGG problem. You need "and" to avoid the comma splice, in this sentence and also the following sentence. Avoid "))", and watch for second commas. And there's a redundancy here that is better avoided; I'd probably go with: "The Austro-Turkish War (1787–1791), Russo-Turkish War (1787–1792) and Russo-Swedish War (1788–1790) were keeping two of Poland's neighbors busy."
Oppose on prose per standard disclaimer. I hope you can find some help, and I sympathize that help seems to be harder to find on Wikipedia than it used to be. I'd be very happy to see you and your wikiproject succeed here. - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Missing words, or something:
"They spent lavishly on banquets, drinking bouts and other amusements, while the peasants languished in abysmal conditions and the towns; many towns were wholly within the private property of a magnate who feared the rise of an independent middle class and were kept in a state of ruin" - while we're on it nobody has anything good to say about the Polish magnates of the period, but could not pretty much the same be said of the vast majority of countries in the vast majority of periods, even today? The Durants are too over-simplified and outdated to be useful references at FA, and this volume of The Story of Civilization was first published in 1967 - both were long dead by the 1992 reprint.
"British historian Norman Davies describes the document as "the first constitution of its type in Europe"; other historians call it the world's second oldest after the U.S. Constitution, which had come into effect in 1789." Misleading as it stands; you could fill book-cases with stuff on the British Constitution before 1791. At the least needs "written" inserted (as Sanford has), or the formulation of that well-known expect on Polish constitutional history Bill Moyers, quoted below: "Europe's first codified national constitution (and the second oldest in the world)." The issue is handled better below, but note a should be adjusted too. The Lapointe etc ref is not worth having, here or elsewhere, given you have better specialist references.
The problem is that some scholars quality the second with various adjectives, some don't - like Davies (who is, notabene, one of the experts on Polish history). But if you think you could improve this, could I ask you to edit this to the form you think is better, and I will review it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here20:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody is arguing that no European country had a constitution before 1791, including Poland, whose earlier constitution has not exactly escaped the attention of historians! Not sure what your point is here, but I will have a go at a ce. Johnbod (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The long taxi-ranks of references generally are a problem, & as it stands the article is an excellent illustration of the disadvantages of this system. The paragraph beginning "Prawo o sejmikach,..." in the Features section is especially bad, with the 2nd & 3rd sentences both having the same 5 citations each, of which a total of 4 relate to a passage of 4 pages in Jedruch. Altogether the short paragraph has, by my count, 11 citations to a stretch of less than 10 pages in Jedruch. but other passages are similar. Meanwhile there is no collected list of references.
I am not sure how to improve it. I strongly believe in referencing every sentence. That said, you are right, we hardly needed that chain for those sentences. I've verified it with the sources, and removed refs that were not necessary. I have also dealt with two more chains I've noticed. Not sure by what you mean as for a "collected list of references". Is it something required by MoS? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here20:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By "collected list of references" I just mean the usual set-up, as seen in the next nom SMS König Albert, of a "Notes" section (or whatever title) with the number, author, page # etc, and then a "References" (or whatever) section listing the full titles etc of the books, once. But I don't think this is required by MOS. Johnbod (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still on references: "Joseph Kasparek-Obst" - note 94, 98 etc, currently returns a 404 error. I doubt "88. John Holmes Agnew; Walter Hilliard Bidwell (1851). Eclectic magazine: foreign literature. Leavitt, Throw and Co. p. 55. Retrieved January 10, 2012." is an RS 160 years on. Are "85 a b Richard C. Frucht (2005). Eastern Europe: an introduction to the people, lands, and culture. ABC-CLIO. p. 16. ISBN978-1-57607-800-6. Retrieved January 10, 2012" really necessary? I think we deprecate links that are just to google books pages about the book, with no text (this may be a location issue - the US might be able to see text where the UK can't). Sanford is an RS (and his description of the constitution as "a most evocative part of Poland's political consciousness" could usefully be quoted) but it is a bit alarming that his few hundred words on the constitution in a book on modern Polish politics are cited at 29 different places. If piled on refs are going to be used like this, which in itself is no bad thing, a simpler style of eg "Smith, p.66; Brown, p. 123-132; Davis, p. 99" is better, with a single collection of the sources, and not referencing every single sentence.
Removed unreliable sources, fixed GBooks link. I prefer to keep them, as readers even if the get no preview, can get other useful GBooks links (reviews, where to buy, find closest library). Regarding ref format, I tried to standardize everything to cite templates. If somebody wishes to reform that, go ahead, but I'd prefer not to spent my time on playing with optional styles, if this is good enough for MoS. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here20:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because the article represents a comprehensive, well-sourced and well-written examination of the critical and scholarly response to the film in question and will be of interest to film buffs and novices alike. Dylanexpert (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have some additional comments to make about this article. I feel that too little attention on Wikipedia has been paid to the quality of the writing in Feature Articles. Many Featured Articles are quite well done, but I have read a few Today’s Featured Articles in which the writing was dull or spotty or even plagued by grammatical and other errors. Of course, the primary goal of the editor is to write an article that is factual and comprehensively sourced. But surely the second most-important objective is that it be clearly, smoothly and interestingly written. I have tried to set a high standard for this article, paying particular attention to establishing a unified and readable style, while maintaining a scholarly tone that is cool but not dry.
The article is very long because the scholarly literature on Late Spring in English is particularly rich and because there is almost too much to discuss about this film. That the article is longer than even the largest print encyclopedia would ever allow, however, is missing the point. The fact that this is an Internet encyclopedia, subject to almost limitless growth, allows articles to find, at last, their proper length. My determination that the article be scholarly and comprehensive led me to expand some sections and to contract (or eliminate) others. I believe that this article has “found” its proper size, in a way that a print encyclopedia would never allow. In a sense, the length of the article is a tribute to the innovation in the concept of the encyclopedia represented by Wikipedia.
All the internal links are free of disambiguation problems and all external links are solid.
Comment - there are some problems with the article. For example, right at the top it uses a rather weak (almost absurd) reference to a quite likely non-notable website listing it as the eighth most popular Japanese film and the two-hundred and something greatest film - so what? It would be better to use a more reputable source like the BFI critics' poll or directors' poll (and the BFI critics' poll gives it a better rating anyway). The use of this website as a source has long bothered me, but nobody can edit this article without their edits being reverted by Dylanexpert. The article as written doesn't represent a consensus of opinions but only one person's work, since Dylanexpert removes any material from the article which he has not written himself. Also, another problem with the article is the botched peer review which was not announced on the talk page of the article before doing it. Please see the talk page of Late Spring for details. Although the article is comprehensive and represents a huge amount of dedicated work by Dylanexpert, it is built on shaky foundations. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
JoshuSasori's "comment" is in fact an ad hominem attack on this editor, when a cool and objective evaluation of the article is called for. In fact, he completely misunderstands the purpose of the website They Shoot Pictures, Don't They?, which aggregates the results of hundreds of different published lists, including those of highly reputable publications like Sight and Sound, a publication of BFI (which is, by JoshuSasori's own admission, a reputable source). I mentioned in the article that TSPDT cited among the film world individuals who had supported the idea of Late Spring as one of the greatest films ever made, and thus worthy of inclusion in the top 1000 films list, the distinguished critic Jonathan Rosenbaum and the famous director Claire Denis, among others. One can argue, perhaps, with TSPDT's ranking methodology, but one cannot question the wide range of published sources upon which they draw. It is by no means a subjective list of TSPDT's editors' own favorite films! Therefore, it is not "shaky" at all and should stand. I do not delete everything others add, but have very solid reasons for judging the texts that I delete to be unsuitable. In fact, one of JoshuSasori's editorial additions that I deleted was, in fact, the exact text specifically objected to by one of my peer reviewers, who agreed with me that the passage was irrelevant. I don't delete passages just because I didn't write them. Also, I literally don't understand his objections to my peer review process. He has never pointed out any Wikipedia rules on Peer Review that I have not followed. I appreciate his mention of my "dedicated work" on the article, but I would insist that he do some "dedicated work" of his own to understand my rationale for employing the sources I use.Dylanexpert (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I don't offer an opinion on whether or not this should be a featured article. I made an error in thinking that Dylanexpert had sent this off for peer review without a notification, which is struck out above. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, JoshuSasori, for conceding your error.
Comments, especially re WP:WIAFA criterion 4: It's wonderful to see an important film like this come to FAC, and extremely rare that a classic of world cinema gets so much attention on WP. So thank you for working on it, I can tell you've put a great deal of care in and the result is very impressive. That said, I'm struggling to see a justification for its length (or at least, for inclusion of all the material). Despite what you said...I just don't think all of the information needs to be there. Why do we need mini biographies on Ozu and Setsuko Hara, for instance? They have their own biography articles. Some background info and context for the film's production is appropriate, but I wouldn't expect it to be more than, say, 700 words. I also feel that a lot of the "Style" section applies generally to all Ozu films, and a lot of it could/should be transferred to the Ozu article (where the current section on style is unimpressive). In this Late Spring article, each of the subsections give a lot of general info about Ozu's approach, and then just a couple of example of it from the film. So why not put the general info on the Ozu page, thus improving his one considerably, and keep the specific Late Spring stuff there, thus keeping it far more succinct and reader-friendly? The whole of the "Ozu's collaborators" section would be better placed there as well.
I do feel bad saying this, since it's obvious you've gone to great lengths to give the reader all the background information they could need. I honestly do appreciate that; for many readers it would be very useful. But for the general reader I think this gives too much information that isn't directly related to the film, and in line with WP:SUMMARY I think it would be better placed in other articles. Your hard work wouldn't be wasted, because a lot of it can go straight to the Ozu page. Your "Biographical" content on Late Spring is currently better than his real biography!
I've come to agree basically with your position, with some exceptions. For the "Historical and biographical background" section, and for the "Style" section, I can divide the content between the main Ozu article and this one as you suggested. For the "Narrative, themes and characterization" section, and for the "Interpretations" section, in which all the content relates specifically to Late Spring, I feel no changes need be made. I also don't want to change the Noda and Hara subsections in the "Production" section. These are far from full biographies of these two artists. Rather there is, in both cases, one brief descriptive paragraph on the person, followed by a summary of that person's artistic relationship with Ozu. There is no discussion of their work with other filmmakers, or of their personal lives. In fact, I consider this article to be "about" Setsuko Hara as much as it is about Ozu.
It should be noted that moving all that content around will probably be more difficult and time consuming than you suggest, given all the references involved and other factors.Dylanexpert (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I also have to agree with the above editor that use of the TSPDT 1000 list is controversial. It's a great list for film buffs, I refer to it regularly, but the fact is that is has just been assembled by any old average Joe. It's a fansite. It just doesn't fall under the category of "reliable sources", even if it is based on lists from important figures. You just need to directly reference those lists (critics who cited Late Spring) instead, and it will pretty much have the same effect. Besides, Late Spring did very well on the recent Sight & Sound poll ([18]), coming in at #15 (ahead of Seven Samurai!), and that is pretty much the most prestigious "film list" there is. So you're more than okay just using that.
Can I also add that we don't get much information on the actual filming process? I don't even know when production began or finished. That's a fairly big omission.
That's a very good question and I anticipated it. The simple truth is, there has never been a biography in English about Ozu on the order of Stuart Galbraith IV's The Emperor and the Wolf which narrates the production of each of Kurosawa's films in great detail. Also, people, particularly young people, seem to assume about old films that the circumstances of their marketing was the same as today, when the most minute details of a film's production are widely disseminated, and even "The Making of..." mini-documentaries are not uncommon. For most films of the era of Late Spring, particularly in Japan, this is simply not true. So my brief answer to your question about the beginning and ending production dates on the film is... I've no idea, and neither does anybody else with access only to the English-language literature on Ozu (as far as I know it). I'm not allowed by Wikipedia to do original research, and I'm not going to make stuff up, so we'll have to leave those blanks blank. That may be unsatisfactory to you , but there it is. Dylanexpert (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the writing of the screenplay goes, Noda wrote a book on his collaboration with Ozu, and Kaneto Shindo, who visited the two when they were writing the screenplay for "Late Spring", wrote about the writing of the screenplay in his book. When I added a section on this to the article, you first of all disorganized the reference so that the volume number became the page number, then removed all the material wholesale in an edit where the edit summary gives no clue as to why it was removed. You didn't trim it but completely removed it, so now there is no trace of the information which I'd added to the article. Based on your above response to the comment, I don't think this article is a suitable candidate for featured article status. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for all your work on the article, I hope you don't take my comments as too much of a downer! Everything you've done is great, honestly, and usable somewhere on the encyclopedia. --Lobo(talk)13:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I now agree with both Lobo 512 and JoshuSasori that the reference to TSPDT should be replaced by a reference to the just-released 2012 BFI poll and I have done so. So nobody can now claim that I never accept others' changes. Dylanexpert (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article represents a big achievement, almost all of it done by Dylanexpert, who clearly has a vision of what it should be like. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
"the best-known master of the shomingeki genre" - source?
"Since Yamanaka made films exclusively of the jidaigeki type, Tsumura's statement would seem to indicate that, to this critic and perhaps to others, Ozu had become the preeminent shomingeki director." - source?
I have done a thorough search throughout the entire article and all URLs are enclosed in "ref" tags except those in the Notes, which do not allow embedded ref tags (as I learned from experience) and the external links at the end. Unless you can come up with a URL other than the ones I mentioned, this criticism is not valid. Dylanexpert (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not helpful. You must be specific about the problems. The web refs come up looking okay in the finished document and not as gobbledygook, which they would do if not coded properly. Dylanexpert (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - although I would like to see this article become a featured article, it does not meet the stability or neutrality criteria, and it goes into excessive detail on some topics and does not mention others. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The very few instances of neutrality problems in the article that have been pointed out to me, I have immediately amended. When you and others objected to the use of the TSPDT list, I agreed and substituted the reference to the BFI list. As for excessive detail, I'm afraid that you yourself offered "excessive detail" when you added that paragraph which literally specified what Ozu and Noda ate for breakfast every morning, and which was also redundant because it merely echoed the substance of Ozu's quote from the paragraph above it. (I'm sorry that I didn't explain in detail my objections to the paragraph when I deleted it, but the Edit Summary, which calls for a brief explanation, is an awkward place to do that.) Another sentence you added about Kaneto Shindo was also objected to by a Peer Reviewer, so I was justified in deleting it. You took the extreme and completely inappropriate step of making a WP:OWN objection to me on the Administrator's Noticeboard, which they quite properly identified as an edit war, not a WP:OWN issue. If there is a stability problem with the article, I think it may be because of your stubbornness. You seem to genuinely appreciate the work I have put into this project, but have a very strange way of showing it. Could you please ask yourself whether your ego may be getting in the way of this article becoming a featured article? Dylanexpert (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it has recently been promoted to GA, and I've read the FA criteria and it seems to pass those. I based the article on four textbooks on cancer pain, and have included the relevant subtopics common to all or most of those. Most of the general data is derived from textbooks. Current data - epidemiology etc. - is based on reviews. Some sources are old or primary: the old sources are all (I think) historical milestones or referred to in the main source cited at the end of the sentence or paragraph; primary sources are all referred to in the main source at the end of the sentence or paragraph. I've hotlinked to images within the text. I realise this is odd, but also think it does no harm and is helpful so would appreciate rationales beyond "that's unusual" if reviewers object to it (but will, of course, go along with consensus). This is my first FA candidate. I've notified the six editors who've made more than one edit to the article in the last year. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not well-versed enough to comment on whether this article meets FA criteria, but I'd be happy to help the nominator address any concerns that come up during the process. MastCellTalk18:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, Anthonyhcole - I've seen you around here a lot, and I greatly respect your work. to your question - while I have considerable expertise in both cancer and pain, I will flee in abject screaming terror when confronted with the intricacies of the FA process :-O LOL!
Just as a suggestion, if you want to, why don't you just feel free to give me specific tasks you'd like me to complete, or to assist with. I'll then put my results, suggestions, etc. on the article Talk Page ASAP. Whatever you like, copy and paste or tweak it to fit your needs and/or tastes. What you DON'T like, you can just leave it to rot harmlessly in situ. When you are completely finished with all editing and changes, let me know and I will give it one "final" copyedit, section by section. When I finish THAT, I'll let you know - you can then go over that "final" copyedit and re-revert whatever you don't like as you please.
Of course, if you have another strategy or want to proceed differently I will happily defer to your plan, my friend - just let me know.
Wonderful. Thanks for the kind words. As for the article, I think it's pretty well perfect :). That is, all the issues I was aware of were sorted after suggestions from Allen, James, WhatamIdoing and others in the GA process. I emailed fifteen of the authors I cited, asking them to let me know if I've misrepresented them, and the seven that responded were complimentary (though I don't know if any read more than the section on their topic), so I'm fairly confident about the accuracy. But I would appreciate another critical reading, just pointing out anything that catches your eye, seems wrong, doesn't make sense, is prolix, repetitive, missing, etc. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this is an important article, easy to read and understand, written in plain English, and nicely presented. I'm happy to support it. Two tiny nitpicks that don't affect my support:
There's an inconsistent use of percent vs % which should be fixed.
Is there a way to integrate some of the single paragraph sentences? This is one that jumped out at me: "If a patient's pain cannot be well controlled, they should be referred to a palliative care or pain management specialist or clinic." > although it's an important sentence and I wouldn't object if left as a stand-alone
I'm not sufficiently familiar with sourcing conventions for medical articles so I can't comment in that regard, but the caliber of the sources looks excellent.
Thank you Truthkeeper88. I've converted all the %s to percents, and merged some single sentence paragraphs. I'd prefer to leave the others single, as they are quite distinct ideas from those described in the surrounding text, but won't oppose merging if others feel strongly about it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I tend to agree. Although usually I'm not crazy about single sentence paras, I think it works well for this article. Also, I meant to mention that the liver issues in regards to paracetemol \ acetaminophen should be more prominent, so I'm happy to see that pulled out into a separate para. Good luck and nice job here. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the lead section, paragraph 1: "Approximately half of all cancer patients have pain, and about a third of cancer patients with pain experience moderate or severe pain that diminishes their enjoyment of life and interferes with sleep and daily activities including work and social interactions." This is a long sentence. Perhaps delete the last part: "including work and social interactions", which doesn't seem to add anything. Axl¤[Talk]19:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Acute (transitory) cancer pain is usually caused by treatment." This is also stated in the section "Pain", paragraph 2, with Oxford Textbook of Palliative Medicine 3rd edition as the reference. However the reference describes two sub-groups of causes of acute pain: cases associated with the diagnosis of cancer, and cases associated with treatment. The reference does not imply that treatment is the usual cause of acute pain. Axl¤[Talk]21:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for picking that up. It was Portenoy who said that, somewhere. I don't know why I'm citing Foley, and I can't access Foley on Google any more. I'll look for the Portenoy source when I'm back online. For now, I've amended the text. Does that match what Foley (Oxford Textbook) says now? [20] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've found the Portenoy quote:
Cancer pain syndromes can be either acute or chronic. Diagnostic and therapeutic interventions are primarily responsible for the acute pain syndromes. Portenoy RK; Conn M (23 June 2003). "Cancer pain syndromes". In Bruera ED & Portenoy RK (ed.). Cancer Pain: Assessment and Management. Cambridge University Press. p. 8. ISBN978-0-521-77332-4.
I read that as saying diagnostic and therapeutic interventions are responsible for most, but I see now that's only one reading, and the authors may have been saying only what kind of pain those interventions mostly cause, not what kind of thing causes most acute pain. Bugger. I think the new wording reflects Portenoy and your description of Foley now.
I'm going to spend the next couple of days double-checking my sources. I haven't actually done that since I wrote this thing. Can I suggest you, Axl, and others, hold off on further reviewing until I've done that? I'm building a table at Talk:Cancer pain/Sources comparing the article's claims with the source text. I'll have that revision deleted once this review is over. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment: I haven't checked all of the references, but it seems to me that the article places undue weight on the contribution of treatments to pain. The lead section mentions that treatment can cause both acute and chronic pain, but doesn't mention that cancer itself can cause acute pain. The lead also describes radiotherapy and chemotherapy as causes of long-term pain. However I believe that these cases are rare. Oxford Textbook of Palliative Medicine gives lists of cancer-related acute and chronic pain syndromes. Four syndromes of chemotherapy-related chronic pain are given, none of which are expanded upon in the book's text. The commonest of these is probably peripheral neuropathy, which you have given its own subsection later in the article. Regarding RT, the book's text states "Pain occurring as a complication of radiation therapy is less common than post-chemotherapy and metastatic pain syndromes." Surely surgery is a more common cause of treatment-related chronic pain than chemotherapy or RT? Axl¤[Talk]09:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's too much emphasis on treatment-related chronic pain; I'm thinking there's not enough on treatment/diagnosis-related acute pain; tumor-related acute pain is absent; and there are gaps in tumor-related chronic pain. I can't access the Oxford textbook via Google at the moment and it's not in my local med library; can you tell me what four chemotherapy-related chronic pain syndromes it lists? I'll continue comparing the present article text with source text on Talk:Cancer_pain/Sources, and when that's done I'll see what I can find in other textbooks. Feel free to add/remove stuff at will, or take a break from this and I'll let you know when I think I'm there. I really appreciate your efforts. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The chemotherapy-related chronic pain syndromes listed in Oxford Textbook of Palliative Medicine are:-
Chronic painful peripheral neuropathy
Avascular necrosis of femoral or humeral head
Plexopathy associated with intra-arterial infusion
Gynaecomastia with hormonal therapy for prostate cancer
However none of these are expanded upon in the book's text. I take this to be an implicit indication of the author's lack of weighting of these syndromes as part of cancer pain as a whole. The book lists and describes many tumour-related syndromes that aren't mentioned in this article. Axl¤[Talk]21:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're a rock. I've found an NCI page that gives the prevalence of chemo-induced peripheral neuropathy as 30 to 40 percent of patients on chemotherapy, so that's fairly significant. I've put it in the article for now, but will keep my eye out for a review or meta-analysis.
I would be very grateful if you could jot down for me any tumor-related causes covered in the Oxford book that you notice missing from here. I've seen some in other textbooks over the last couple of days too.
I've seen so much that needs fixing in this article (I'm still proud of it but realise it could be much more useful) over the last few days that I've decided to withdraw the nomination. Thanks again for your thoughts and help. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 30–40% prevalence of CIPN is probably true (here is a better reference), but this does not distinguish between painful and non-painful CIPN. This reference quotes 20% painful CIPN for standard regimens and "nearly all" for high-dose regimens. Axl¤[Talk]10:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I'm not sure if I'll be able to do a full review, but this is a very impressive work you've put together here. A few small comments at a glance:
There are a lot of short sections/paragraphs, I know some of that is unavoidable, but if there's a way to cut down on that I'd suggest doing so.
"In Canada, for instance, veterinarians get five times more training in pain than people doctors" "people doctors" sounds a bit odd to me, is there a better way to say this?
Thank you. I've changed "people doctors" to "physicians"[21]. The use of cannabinoids in cancer pain management is not yet, as far as I can tell, part of clinical practice (though I believe some are using marijuana to treat nausea) and that meta-analysis you point to is very tentative, so I'd prefer not to bring it into the article yet. I'll have another look at the short paragraph situation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I guess you're probably right about the lack of cannabinoid evidence, I did another search and the first source I came to said there is "very little experimental work" on the topic. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I have two concerns with this article. The first is the massive overuse of section headers. I suggest previewing the article with {{TOC limit}} removed and asking yourself: is this what the organization scheme of an encyclopedia article should look like? I think the answer is "no", and I think the solution is not to limit the TOC depth, but instead to reduce the number of distinct sections. This issue is compounded by the fact that so many of the sections aren't even complete paragraphs; they're merely one or two sentences long. See Mucositis and Hypophysectomy for examples.
My second concern is the Legal and ethical considerations section. While it certainly seems reasonable for such a section to exist in this article, the current version of it is completely unacceptable in nearly every way that it is possible for a section to be unacceptable. It doesn't contain any content which is specific to cancer pain; the word "cancer" appears in it only once! Five of the six paragraphs are written from a single source, which is not nearly enough variety for a topic as complex as this. Those five paragraphs are also severely underlinked. Furthermore, much of the material is written in a tone that is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article: "The doctor should not insist on treatment the patient rejects..." This is an opinion being presented as a fact. This entire section will need to be rewritten from scratch in order for this article to pass FAC. --Cryptic C62 · Talk01:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful critique. I don't know what to do about the section headings situation. I'll give it some thought. As for the ethics content, there are other sources out there, but the source I used covered everything they did. I'm not sure what underlinked means, or why it's a problem.
I want to go through my sources once again, as Axl found an error and I think I've just found another, and Axl has pointed out some missing content that I agree the article needs. Thank you everybody for your advice and help. I'm withdrawing this nomination. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria as I understand them. Until very recently it was one of those wonderful articles that had arisen through many thousands of editors making one or two changes. Since then I nominated it for GA, which it passed following review from Binksternet, and has also had a peer review from Finetooth (with continuing useful comments from Binksternet)- both these processes have improved the article immensely.
In it's first FAC it coped well but was ultimately rejected… It's had another PR since, and it's been quite deeply rewritten (the local library are getting sick of me) and I'd like to send the article back into the fray. One of the interesting things about the process has been so see how much it's worth going straight from the biographies in many cases, rather than building up from lots of newspaper stories… Fayedizard (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The article has some good material, but there are a few issues and it doesn't seem quite as comprehensive as it could be.
The sentence that begins, "Hawking attended St Albans High School..." has a couple of minor problems: there is a period in the middle and 'At' is capitalized. I could have fixed it, but it seems like this sentence could be split in two and the parentheses eliminated.
"...after the disease had stabilised and with the help of his doctoral tutor...": reads like mangled English.
My understand is that "steady state" is not a theory about the creation of the Universe; rather it's a theory meant to explain why the Universe has no beginning, yet is expanding. This contradicts the assertion in the text.
I assume that he eventually earned his Doctorate, but it never says when. I'd also like to know what his thesis was about and where we went to work after graduating. In fact, his full career and places of work should probably be documented.
"Hawking's work with Brandon Carter, Werner Israel and D. Robinson": when was this?
Hi Bob, and thank you very much for your very sensible comments - I've adjusted the grammar, of course, and I've added a couple of light bits to cover your other suggestions. The major thing about his career after graduation is that he's been at Cambridge since graduation appart from regular trips to CALTECH - we can talk about adding a sentence to that effect if you like, although I'm a little cautious about it sounding more negative than we'd like... I've put in some date information about the no-hair result - I've intentionally not put an exact date because the section focusing on when the work was done rather than when the result was published; again, I'm very open to opinion on this. Regarding steady state, I think that's definitely something for more conversation. My understanding is that the theory that states that the universe has no beginning is the ' no-boundary proposal' that is discussed later in the article - and the source is fairly straightforward about Steady State and Big bang. Can we go into more detail? Fayedizard (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing my concerns, Fayedizard. I crossed out my issue regarding steady state as it perhaps seems like a nuanced point anyway, although I think the link should be changed. However, since this is a biography, I would still like to see more information on his career per FA requirement 1b for comprehensiveness. Many of the fine details are covered in the International Who's Who entry, and I see some other corroborating sources.[23][24][25][26] For example, the article doesn't mention his elected fellowship and later professor fellowship at Gonville and Caius College at Cambridge. I assume he's tenured since he holds the Lucasian seat? It could also mention the year he became a Fellow of the Royal Society (1974) at the somewhat early age of 32. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bob, apologies for taking a while to get to this, I've changed the steady state link to Steady_State_theory as recommended. Tenure isn't a feature at UK universities I'm afraid (there are related concepts, but that's a longer and deeper conversation). I was a bit confused about mentioning the year he became a fellow - that's already in the career section... (it was in several places, but it's only in once now) but I might have got confused about what was being asked. The other thing that's confused me is the "professor fellowship", which I understand you got from this source? My understanding is that Cambridge does not have "Professor fellows" as a distinct thing. Hawking is a professor of Cambridge and he is a fellow of Gonville and Caius College at Cambridge; they are separate honours. On the other hand - you're supported by a source here... I'm going to go through my bookshelf tonight (library books in this case, I don't have shelf permanently dedicated to biographies of the man) and see what I can come up with. It would be great to get another opinion on how reliable this is, and if it's supported elsewhere. Fayedizard (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Going back over the Ferguson Bio, Hawking appears to have followed a normal (non-teaching) academic career path - phd, fellowship, fellowship, readership, professor without chair, chair (again, and unhelpfully, this use of fellowship is different from cambridge fellow). I can put in the dates and such of these, and would be happy to if that is consensus, but my reluctance is due to this sort of thing crowding out the more important aspects of his work - the spectacular thing about is career is that he holds *that* chair, and the range of discoveries he has made. Fayedizard (talk) 12:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've popped in the details of his fellowships and career path - it turns out that the second fellowship was specially created - good call! Fayedizard (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
Okay I'm going to do some of these and hand some off to you. "He is an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and in 2009 was awarded ...": nonparallel. See WP:Checklist#series.
"(see Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems)": Work that into the prose rather than tacking it onto the end.
"if the universe obeys general relativity and if the universe fits any of the Friedmann models, then the universe": two universes too many.
"to stay at Cambridge. and in ...": ?
"thermal radiation": I'm not sure what this means.
"known today as Bekenstein–Hawking radiation": known today as Hawking or Bekenstein–Hawking radiation
"a period of growing fame and success for Hawking, his work was now much talked about ...": comma splice
"While originally the no-boundary proposal predicted a closed universe, discussions with Neil Turok led to the realisation that the no-boundary proposal is also consistent with a universe which is not closed.": repetitive
"Since this contradicted the idea under quantum mechanics of microcausality": "under" doesn't sound right. Maybe: the quantum mechanical notion of microcausality
Hi Dank, it's a pleasure to find your name on a review. No problem with any of your copyedits, and no problem with any of the suggestions - I've made a single edit to cover all the changes (that had not already been done) and I believe it caught them all. Do let me know if I've missed anything and I'm looking forward to the rest of your comments.Fayedizard (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I went though looking at the changes - although some edits are not necessarily ones I would have made, I'm happy that all of them improve the article :) Thank you so much for your review :) Fayedizard (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I haven't went through the article so no problems found yet but will give few issues if found any. For now, I see that Images are having captions which I believe that are of a bit of low standard for a FA. It doesn't seem to be fitting in the criteria. Here are the problems I see
In 1962–75, it is stated, Hawking in Cambridge. There is nothing in the picture from which one can determine that he is in Cambridge other then little view of the Background which is not enough. At least mention the event or anything else. Also, during 62-75, was the Professor looking like that? The pic is used in that section thus it should be a pic about him during that years thus I'm not quite sure that it is of him in those days or not (most probably it is not) and If not, it should be moved to relevant section.
In 1975–present - Caption is Hawking with string theorists David Gross and Edward Witten. For which event did they gathered? What is the relevance of the picture with the content in the sub-section?
In Recognition, the caption is too big. There is no need for inclusion of The Medal of Freedom is the United States' highest civilian honour. as it already appears in the main article Presidential_Medal_of_Freedom with which the caption is linked to. Thus remove the last extra line.
In Space and spaceflight - Hawking in 2007, experiencing weightlessness, can you change it a bit or link vacuum?
Hi TheSpecialUser - thank you for your comments, I've dropped the first picture, extended the caption to the second, reduced the caption for the third, and done a small rewrite on the space one - let me know if I've read the comments correctly? :) Fayedizard (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That section represents his popular work (I have changed the section header to reflect this). His technical work is already discussed in the career section, including references to his papers.TR06:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the world's most recognisable scientist today, I am shocked by how short this article is: less than 50 kB. Is there really so little to say about this iconic 70-year-old man? To compare with an equally well-known physicist, J. Robert Oppenheimer, that the latter article is 110 kB. Even Edward Teller (though only 60 kB) appears to be much longer, wordcount-wise.—indopug (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is being nominated because I feel that it is ready. Having gone through a good article nomination, a copyedit, a peer review, and another copyedit, this article clearly meets the criteria to be listed on this page. The prose of the page has been improved dramatically since the page was first created, as has the comprehensiveness of the article. I believe that the article gives a thorough summary of the literature available on its subject and is therefore fit for a featured article nomination. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined05:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My first comment is there are not enough blue links in the lead, Extraterrestrial life is one possibility. Also we have mention of Harrison and Dick without mentioning who they are. I thought they may be referring to the Science fiction writers, but perhaps they are the ones in the references. Also Science fiction writers have written on many of these ideas, but do not seem to be credited. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I intend this to be about the scientific study of the topic, not about science fiction. I will add the blue links, and mention who Harrison and Dick are. They are the ones in the references, I didn't know that they were the science fiction writers (perhaps both of them are the same people?) Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined15:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Psychologist Albert Harrison[28] and astronomer Steven J. Dick do not write science fiction. Graeme Bartlett might be thinking of science fiction writers Harry Harrison and Philip K. Dick. Wer900, to avoid this problem, please attribute authors (Psycholgist Albert Harrison...) on their first use. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In reply to "I intend this to be about the scientific study of the topic, not about science fiction", remember that the Contact scenarios and considerations section begins: "Scientific literature and science fiction put forward various models ....". I would anyway challenge the claim that this article is about science. The authors may be scientists and they may be published in the scientific press, but science normally involves not merely theories but also experiments to verify or refute the theories. There's little of that here. Speculation that they might come bearing gifts like an Encyclopedia galactica, or that ETIs may dispense with biology and live inside computers, are fantasy, not science. Much of it adresses people's notions of how ETIs might address current human preoccupations (thirst for knowledge, fear of nuclear war, ...). Imo it's great for Wikipedia to have such a summary of the literature, but we should be clear that that's what it is, speculation and all. Note how many verbs in the article are subjunctive or conditional. --Stfg (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I keep stumbling over the first sentence of the lead. It doesn't really seem to say anything other than the fact that there will be an impact to human society. I think it could be expanded a little. For example:
"The cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact is the widespread change to human values, beliefs, interests, and institutions that will likely follow as a result of communication and interaction with an extraterrestrial intelligence. These effects may extend throughout society to permanently alter science, technology, politics, religion, and law, to name but a few."
I'm not convinced it's necessary, but no objection provided "will likely" is changed to "could" and "permanently" is removed (statement of the obvious). --Stfg (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's slightly better now, thanks. (The prior introduction seemed a little drab and one of the FA criteria is for engaging prose.) Note that 'ecology' is a subset of 'science'. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ecology may be a subset of science, but "science" here is the way in which we uncover the way the Universe and everything in it works, while ecology is the actual interaction of living systems. The way the Universe works won't change with extraterrestrial contact, only our perceptions and understanding of it, and if you include extraterrestrial technology, the ways in which we apply it. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined17:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you've reversed it. By "science", I mean the study of nature, not nature itself. By "ecology" I mean the ways in which living systems actually interact, not the study thereof (although there could be implications for the study of living systems itself, those are of secondary importance and not explicitly stated in the sources). Hence I write both "science" and "ecology." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wer900 (talk • contribs)
Okay, well the fact that it took you a paragraph to explain that the usage is different from the definition in the Ecology article, leads me to suspect there may be an issue here. But I don't particularly want to get into a lengthy debate about this point, so I'll bid you good luck. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with RJH here. Wer900, you said "science" here is the way in which we uncover the way the Universe and everything in it works, while ecology is the actual interaction of living systems". Well, the actual interaction of living systems is part of how the universe and everything in works. --Stfg (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done this before, but some editors have expressed concern that, the article being on a speculative subject, every statement that is made should be sourced. In addition, anyone could add their own inter. Therefore, I feel it is appropriate to put citations after every sentence. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined17:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the reference to Xenology has been split into references to the individual book chapters constituting it. As Freitas himself states, the work is a compilation and expansion upon his previously published work. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined18:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's comments Problems remain in the citations, which makes me think that Nikkimaria's review has not been fully acted on. References 20, 33 and 49 use pp. for single pages and there are other formatting inconsistencies. Reference 43, which is cited many times should be broken down into individual pages if possible. The nominator should note that the article will not be promoted until a clear consensus that the FA criteria have been met is reached here. This requires clear and unconditional statements of support. Requests for promotion such as the one made here are not appropriate. Spotchecks of sources for verification and to rule out close-paraphrasing are still needed. Graham Colm (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I have resolved the reference problems, done some spotchecks of my own and made the necessary minor changes, and removed a brief (~8 words) passage of close paraphrasing which was placed because no other paraphrase of the same text occurred to me. As for Nikkimaria's review, the citations were off following a resolution of the Foundation for the Future references, so I had no choice but not to fully act upon the review. I also split the references to Contact with Alien Civilizations, as requested by you. I am almost done polishing the references, with only minor date inconsistencies needing to be ironed out. I think that external spotchecks can begin immediately. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined20:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Small suggestion: you could use the old version of the article to locate Nikkimaria's comments by FN number, and still apply amendments to the current version. --Stfg (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question
The lede sentence: "The cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact is the change to human society and institutions resulting from communication with an extraterrestrial civilization." seems to assume that this extraterrestrial contact is going to take place.
Isn't this event more hypothetical than a given? Do we have any way of knowing this will ever take place and, if it does, what the impact will be? Isn't this fantasy and speculation not based on science? Is it testable by the scientific method? MathewTownsend (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As RJH has stated already, this is really a form of scientific conjecture based on what we know about the laws of nature, human history, and the technical limitations that humans have. It is not exactly a scientific experiment, and through the usage of the subjunctive and conditional tenses throughout I am trying to illustrate to the reader the uncertainty of the subject.
The lede is okay, I think. It is merely giving a definition of the topic, and definitions are not "maybes." I will, though, change it to the following:
The cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact is the change to human society and institutions which would result if humanity were contacted by an extraterrestrial civilization.
Some sources say that the impact could be trivial. However, even if it is trivial, or nothing happens at all, what else may the "cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact" result from other than extraterrestrial contact? Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined21:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
humm, ten years ago we thought the expansion of space was slowing down. Now we think that space is expanding infinitely and galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light! (according to Brian Greene). So eventually we'll see no galaxies in the night sky, the sky will be dark, and we'll be alone. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Wer900, you've pointed out that the first sentence is tautological. The problem is the bolded repetition of the article title, not a requirement of WP:LEADSENTENCE. On the article talk page, Tamfang suggested "The effects on human society and institutions resulting from communication with an extraterrestrial civilization could include, among others, sweeping changes in science, technology, religion, politics, and ecosystems." Looks good to me. How about it? --Stfg (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to lie, when I went through the process the first time with "What Lies Ahead", I became very discouraged to ever nominate an article for FA status for a long time. After taking a creative writing class my senior year of high school and studying other FA articles such as "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)", I believe that my prose has greatly improve. I have put a lot of work into "Government Hooker", a song I feel is one of Lady Gaga's best. I believe the article currently satisfies the FA criteria. —DAP388 (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ISBNs Several of the ISBNs have bad checksums and so the clickthroughs won't work. Removing the '978' may be a start towards fixing the problem. Mr Stephen (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the only thing I see is on your footnote, " In 2000 this award was made retroactive to all US military personnel who served in the Korean War." Any source for this? Everything else looks good. GregJackPBoomer!18:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because it is a key event in the history of Argentina, and I have worked a lot with it. I worked first with Argentine books, as those made the most comprehensive study of this topic (not surprising), but I checked some books in English as well. I have also trimmed down some parts to related articles, but trying to keep this as an article that could be understood on its own, having in mind that most readers from outside Argentina or even South America are unlikely to have even a clue on who were this people or the events described.
All the issues pointed during the previous nominations were addressed by then. This article has been promoted to A-Class by the Military History wikiproject. Cambalachero (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment: the ISBN for Mariano Moreno by Miguel Ángel Scenna is showing an error, you should double check if it's correct. Also, try to standardize to 13-digit ISBNs if you can. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is correct, I have just checked the book. I saw the explanation at Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs, and everything seems to be fine: 987 is used on most Argentine books, no invalid characters, 13 digits, begins with 978... and, as said, that ISBN is exactly the one written in the book Cambalachero (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, well, I guess there's nothing you can do then. I'd recommend adding OCLCs for books without ISBNs, but I don't think that's a requirement. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it may be helpful to give a page number for source 228. A non-Spanish person may want a page to insure verifiability. JZCL17:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The link for "La Reconquista..." broke since I uploaded the file, but it shouldn't be a problem, the description does something better than that, it points the museum where the physical portrait can be find, and the license does not involve any particular web page. Cambalachero (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Based on the information you've added for the first image, it appears that its licensing tag is incorrect - reproductions of 2D works should be licensed based on the creator of the original work, not whoever reproduced it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upcoming in August 2012, it will have been 20 years since one of the worst tropical cyclones on record in U.S. history. As the 20th anniversary of this storm was rapidly approaching, I went on a quest to improve it to reach FA, with the hopes of it being a TFA on August 24, 2012. After spending countless hours, days, and month on the sandbox for the article, it was moved to the mainspace in place of the original Andrew article. Today, after more than 9 years after its creation [33], I think it is finally ready to become a Feature Article, because, in my biased opinion, appears to among the best quality on Wikipedia. Agree? Disagree? Please comment in the space below. Finally, this is a nomination for 100 points in the WikiCup.--12george1 (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: 12george1. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Hurricane Andrew was a destructive tropical cyclone during the 1992 Atlantic hurricane season that was, at the time, the costliest hurricane in United States history" sounds a little to long I'd cut the first part out. YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"On the following day, a Hurricane Hunters flight failed to locate a well-defined center, though Andrew remained a tropical cyclone." not really needed, after all, it is only the lead, it should only mention the important information. YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" before making landfall on Elliott Key, and later in Homestead, Florida." no need for "Florida" after all the location is described in the wikilink. YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Throughout the southern portions of Florida, Andrew brought very high winds; a wind gust of 177 mph (282 km/h) was reported at a house in Perrine, Florida." see above. YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"and was replaced with Alex for the 1998 season." I'm sorry but I don't think think this is notable enough for the lead as it is borderline trivial IMO. YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Based on a Dvorak T-number of 2.0, it is estimated Tropical Depression Three developed late on August 16, while about 1,630 miles (2,620 km) east-southeast of Barbados.[1]" not back up by source, the NHC report mentions "both the TSAF unit and SAB calculated a Dvorak T-number of 2.0 and the "best track" (Table 1 and Fig. 1 [85K GIF]) shows that the transition from tropical wave to tropical depression took place at that time." it does not say the number of the depression, so I am afraid the number "Three" has to be removed. YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Initially, moderate wind shear prevented strengthening, though a decrease in shear allowed the depression to intensify into Tropical Storm Andrew at around 1200 UTC on August 17.[1]" no need for "around" IMO per Tony's FAC guide. YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"By early on August 18, the storm maintained concentrated convection near the center with spiral bands to its west as the winds increased to 50 mph (80 km/h).[3] " wikilink rainband to spiral bands. YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Shortly thereafter the thunderstorms decreased markedly during the diurnal minimum [4]" wtf is diurnal minimum. Yes, I, YE knows what it is, but the average Jose Smoh does not :(. YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"On August 19, a Hurricane Hunters flight into the storm failed to locate a well-defined center[5] and on the following day, a flight found that the cyclone had degenerated to the extent that only a diffuse low-level circulation center remained; observations indicated the pressure rose to an unusually high 1,015 mbar (30.0 inHg)." long sentence, i'd suggested breaking it up. Also, since you don't wiklink [[wind shear] again in the MH, I'd delink Hurricane Hunters. YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I delinked "wind shear", but I would not have to delink "Hurricane Hunters" if I removed that statement from the lead that you requested I do earlier.--12george1 (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The hurricane accelerated as it tracked due westward into an area of very favorable conditions, and began to rapidly intensifying by late on August 22; in a 24 hour period the atmospheric pressure dropped by 47 mbar (47 hPa; 1.4 inHg) to a minimum of 922 mbar (922 hPa; 27.2 inHg).[1] does it meet any of the rapid deepening criteria? YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the rapid deepening article: "The National Weather Service describes rapid deepening as a decrease of 42 millibars in less than 24 hours." So yes, that is considered rapid deepening.--12george1 (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"At 2100 UTC on August 23, Andrew made landfall on Eleuthera with winds of 160 mph (260 km/h).[8] " what was the storms intensity at landfall in real time? YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"At 0840 UTC on August 24, Andrew struck Elliott Key with winds of 165 miles per hour (266 km/h) and a pressure of 926 mbar (27.3 inHg)." abbr units as you do in the rest of the article. YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"As the high pressure system to its north weakened, a strong mid-latitude trough approached the area from the northwest. This caused the hurricane to decelerate to the northwest, and winds decreased as Andrew approached the Gulf Coast of the United States.[1] " wikilink to extratropical cyclone please. YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Hurricane Andrew weakened rapidly as it turned to the north and northeast, and within ten hours weakened to a tropical storm." wow, a lot of "and"'s, I suggest you re-word this sentence slightly. YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Initially, forecasters predicted tides up to 14 feet (4.3 m) above normal along the East Coast of Florida, near the potential location of landfall.[16] However, the National Hurricane Center later noted that storm surge up to 10 feet (3.0 m) would occur along the East Coast of Florida, as high as 13 feet (4.0 m) in Biscayne Bay, and a height of 11 feet (3.4 m) of the West Coast of Florida. Rainfall was predicted to be between 5 and 8 inches (130 and 200 mm) along the path of the storm. In addition, the National Hurricane Center noted the likelihood of isolated tornadoes in Central and South Florida during the passage of Andrew on August 23 and August 24.[17]" I'd cut back on this borderline encyclopedic info if I were you. Also, per consistency, abbreviate the units. YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Evacuations were ordered in nine counties, including Broward, Charlotte, Collier, Lee, Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Palm Beach, Sarasota counties. In addition, officials in Lee County recommended an evacuation for the county on August 23, which was about 20 hours before tropical storm force winds were reported there.[18]" no need for "which was" IMO. YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"As Andrew was approaching, an estimated 20,000-30,000 tourists were in the Florida Keys (Monroe County).[20] Ultimately, the sheer number of evacuees led to likely the largest traffic jam in the history of Florida, mostly along Interstate 95.[19]" why is it likely and not certain :| YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"While the hurricane was approaching the gulf coast of the United States, the National Hurricane Center issued a hurricane watch from Mobile, Alabama to Vermilion Bay, Louisiana, about 43 hours before landfall." why is gulf coast not capitalized. YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The highest sustained wind speed in relation to the storm was 146 mph (235 km/h), recorded at the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, before instruments failed there, too." I'm sorry, but "too" sounds a little informal IMO. YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" On the west coast of Florida, sustained winds were no more than 39 mph (63 km/h), measured on Marco Island," "no more" sounds a bit weird too me IMO. YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Overall, precipitation from Andrew peaked at nearly 14 inches (360 mm) in western Miami-Dade County. Heavy rainfall in other areas was sporadic, though precipitation was reported as far north as Central Florida.[13]" see the second part of comment #22 please.
"Initially, forecasters predicted tides up to 14 feet (4.3 m) above normal along the East Coast of Florida, near the potential location of landfall.[16] However, the National Hurricane Center later noted that storm surge up to 10 feet (3.0 m) would occur along the East Coast of Florida, as high as 13 feet (4.0 m) in Biscayne Bay, and a height of 11 feet (3.4 m) of the West Coast of Florida. Rainfall was predicted to be between 5 and 8 inches (130 and 200 mm) along the path of the storm. In addition, the National Hurricane Center noted the likelihood of isolated tornadoes in Central and South Florida during the passage of Andrew on August 23 and August 24.[17]" I'd cut back on this borderline encyclopedic info if I were you. Also, per consistency, abbreviate the units. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC) (this comment is number #22, I removed the number system since they were not being formatted right but feel free to revert).
"Storm surge from Andrew caused more than $500 million (1992 USD) in losses to numerous boats and a hotel, which had its lobby flooded with 2 to 3 feet (0.61 to 0.91 m) of water." see above
"Following the storm, more than 1.4 million lost electricity and another 150,000 were without telephone service.[29]" 1.4 million what? pokemon? humans? YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In addition to houses, the storm damaged or destroyed 82,000 businesses, 32,900 acres of farmland, 31 public schools, 59 health facilities/hospitals, 9,500 traffic signals, 3,300 miles (5,300 km) of power lines, and 3,000 watermains.[29] " I'd change "house" to "home damage", but I am not sure if that makes the prose a whole lot better. YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" At the Homestead Air Reserve Base, most of the 2,000 building on the base became "severely damaged or unusable".[31]" "building" to "buildings". YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Some officials in Florida considered Andrew the worst storm in the state since the Labor Day hurricane in 1935.[34] " No expert on grammar, but I'd capitalize the "h". YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Outside of Miami-Dade, effects were relatively minimal, except in Broward, Monroe, and Collier counties. In Broward County, property damage reached about $100 million (1992 USD) and three fatalities were reported.[1] " Miamie-Dade what? county? country? state? city? YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Other than at Everglades National Park, effects in Monroe County were significant, especially in the Upper Florida Keys. Strong winds damaged billboards, awnings, commercial signs, several boats, planes, trees,[37]" the first part sounds a little weird, but I can't find a better way to word it myself. sadly. YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"There, the hurricane-force winds damaged roofs, although most homes fared well during the storm; however, the main exception was large trees falling onto houses." sentence seems a tad long. YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Houses in the Morgan City, Patterson, and Berwick areas suffered minor damage, mainly limited to shingles being torn off; some large trees fell, causing severe damage to mobile homes. Similar damage was experienced in regions of Franklin, Charenton, and Jeanerette, where mobile homes were toppled and debris from homes were scattered." I'd change "regions" to "counties" as "regions" tends to refer to larger area such as the boughs of Alaska. YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In Washington D.C., President Bush proposed a $7.1 billion (1992 USD) disaster aid package to provide disaster benefits, small-business loans, crop losses, food stamps, and public housing for victims of Hurricane Andrew. However, the United States House of Representatives considered allotting a bill costing $1.8 billion (1992 USD) more than Bush's proposal.[52]" did the bill pass? YEPacificHurricane03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" In Washington D.C., President Bush proposed a $7.1 billion (1992 USD) disaster aid package to provide disaster benefits, small-business loans, crop losses, food stamps, and public housing for victims of Hurricane Andrew. However, the United States House of Representatives considered allotting a bill costing $1.8 billion (1992 USD) more than Bush's proposal."
Those are both just proposals, but it doesn't say whether either of them happened or not. That is my biggest beef with the article, but shouldn't be too difficult to fix. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask, it was more of a comment, how the aftermath's extent of federal government actions is two bill proposals. Could you find some more concrete stuff of what happened? I'm mostly just leery about the words "proposed" and "considered", since nothing, at least based on how it reads, actually happened from those bills. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why hasn't this article completed a GA nomination and review first? If it had, it would have eliminated a number of the issues brought up above. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Suggest a prose check so that the prose is the best possible, since this is a FA candidate. e.g. The word "however" is used three times in the first paragraph, twice in adjacent sentences. It's used 10 times in the entire article. Seems like all, or almost all "however"s could be removed. MathewTownsend (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – People are going to eat me for this, but since day 1 of this FAC, I've thought its being rushed for something that may not even happen. (25 has more chances than 20 anyway in my book.) I feel like this FAC should be withdrawn and brought though the project and for that matter GAN. B->FAC is rare nowadays and unlikely. If I did that, I'd be eaten alive. Mitch32(There is a destiny that makes us...family.)19:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, how is that actionable? There is nothing on WP:WIAFA that requires that articles should have GANs filled out before FACs. While GAN provides a useful extra pair of eyes on the page, it would be a pointless process for articles that are ready for FAC when they are published (or in this case, when an FAC is trying to get an anniversary TFA). Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)16:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actionable in the theory that this FAC should be withdrawn. I don't like the idea that we should just have gone from B to FAC on the late 20th century's most notable hurricane, just for an award that might not even happen.Mitch32(There is a destiny that makes us...family.)17:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But you have not identified anything that is actually wrong with the article, which is what an oppose requires to be actionable. Withdrawing the FAC simply to ensure it has a GAN before it goes to FAC is a pointless bureaucratic exercise. There is no requirement that articles go through GAN, PR, A-Class Review, or any other WikiProject verification process before going to FAC. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)18:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 62 has Center written in British form, and overall, a lot of the citation formatting for the NHC seems inconsistent. I know some probably are using cite report, but I am getting confused reading some of this formatting. Mitch32(There is a destiny that makes us...family.)22:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, feel this has been rushed. The article is built as if it covered a typical land-impacting storm, and feels exceptionally dry for one of the top-two most severe US hurricanes in recent history. The article is based on two types of sources: government documents and a handful of newspaper articles. The lack of rich detail and qualitative accounts from the many books, hundreds of journal articles, and even contemporary accounts is glaring; the Martian who's just stumbled on the article has no idea that the hurricane was of historical proportions, its name still being discussed in households around the country. The aftermath section, for example, is almost entirely political, relying on quotes to get the point across. That shouldn't be the case. I know the 20th anniversary is right around the corner, and like everyone here, I would have loved for the article to be on the main page on August 24. As it stands, though, I don't feel represents WPTC's best work. The foundation is there for sure—the numbers and meteorological stats are all there. They just need to be applied to the real world, how it was impacted and how it reacted. Juliancolton (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If people feel strongly about getting it on the Main Page for the anniversary, and George doesn't mind taking on some co-noms who are good at research (and I see several on this page), I'll be happy to help. (I don't mean that I want to co-nom, I just see some likely candidates here.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Had there been others to help me with this, it wouldn't be so "rushed". The least you guys could have done was give it a GAN in a reasonable amount of time. I decided to step up to the plate and fix this article, yet none other than Hurricanehink even lifted a finger. For the sources, since this is a high-impact storm, there will be claims such as that thousands of people died and none of the newspaper or government documents contain crap like that. The way you typed that and how you go on and on makes it seem like it is worse than this: [36]. As for the amount of impact, in The Bahamas and Florida, they are summaries of their respective Effectsarticles. For Louisiana, I started working on another sub article for that state. However, I got too bored when I realized once again, none would help me, and secondly, I had to focus on other articles to survive the WikiCup. You say it doesn't represent the WPTC's best work? But apparently this article and that one do. "Where in the hell is the cavalry on this one?"--12george1 (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did give you a 19 KB review, but otherwise, I did not help nor offered to help, as I tend to work on EPAC seasons/storms. However, I would not mind fixing a few things here and there, but that might be weird given that I gave the longest review. No offense anyone, but I suggest to all WPTC is to focus on at least moderately high important articles (for me, it's active era EPAC stuff, though ill admit some of the articles are do are not very important) instead of sitting around and doing nothing/working on less important topics. I am somewhat dissipated in lack of assistance for this article, this is not a typical landfalling hurricane. Does anyone here notice the topic on the IRC channel "FAC: Andrew - be nice and please help out (link is)" Still, I think this article is very good, though I recently noticed a few ref errors that I did not catch above. YEPacificHurricane23:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about instead of complaining about it being rushed...review the article and place your specific comments here so that George can improve the article and it can pass as a featured article? I mean, that's the least all of us could do considering he's the only one that got off his lazy butt to work on anything. That's the reasonable action here. TropicalAnalystwx13(talk)01:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by GabeMc:
Lead
Wind shear is mentioned four times in the first paragraph. Is this level of detail appropriate for the lead? I would reccomend trimming the play-by-play in favour of a more readable summary.
"The hurricane emerged into the Gulf of Mexico as a Category 4 hurricane", "a minimal Category 3 hurricane" Do we need to keep repeating "hurricane" when mentioning the category?
UTC is used in the lead but not linked or described.
Clarify: When mentioning Andrew in the Bahamas it is referred to as a cyclone, which being in the sub-tropics is accurate, but perhaps confusing to the reader as the distinction between hurricane and cyclone has not yet been established.
Clarify: "In the Bahamas, Andrew brought high tides, hurricane force winds, and tornadoes, which caused considerable damage in the archipelago, especially on Cat Cays. At least 800 houses were destroyed ..." Where were the houses that were destroyed? Try: "In the Bahamas, Andrew brought high tides, hurricane force winds, and tornadoes, which caused considerable damage in the archipelago, where at least 800 houses were destroyed" Or similar.
Spotchecks
Spotchecks for Hurricane Andrew using numbering from revision [37]
There are roughly 109 cited sentances and we choose 15 randomly
1 In neighboring Alabama, the storm's rainfall peaked at 4.71 in (120 mm) in Aliceville.[1]
Source says: it's a table, but it matches :)
2 President Bush also visited Louisiana and said, "[it] hasn't been as devastating [as in Florida]", but also noted that "The destruction from this storm goes beyond anything we have known in recent years". After his visit to Louisiana, President Bush declared only Terrebonne Parish as a disaster area,[2]
Source says: Page not found :(
3 As the high pressure system to its north weakened, a strong mid-latitude trough approached the area from the northwest. This caused the hurricane to decelerate to the northwest, and winds decreased as Andrew approached the Gulf Coast of the United States.[3]
Source says: "the high pressure system to its northeast weakened and a strong mid-latitude trough approached the area from the northwest. Steering currents began to change. Andrew turned toward the northwest and its forward speed decreased to about 8 kt." - bits of these feel a bit close paraphrase - but I can see how you would say it all that differently...
4 Outside of Miami-Dade County, effects were relatively minimal, except in Broward, Monroe, and Collier counties. In Broward County, property damage reached about $100 million (1992 USD) and three fatalities were reported.[3]
Source says: It's a table and it matches up.
5 After the season had ended, the World Meteorological Organisation's RA IV Hurricane Committee retired the name Andrew from the Atlantic tropical cyclone naming lists and replaced it with Alex.[4][5]
Source says: " Alex has replaced Andrew in 1998" - 'Alex' not mentioned in second reference?
As you said the first source covers the fact Alex has replaced Andrew in 1998, while the second covers the fact that Andrew was retired. So whats the problem?.Jason Rees (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6 A tropical wave moved off the coast of Africa on August 14. Under the influence of a ridge of high pressure to its north, the wave tracked quickly westward. An area of convection developed along the wave axis to the south of the Cape Verde islands, and on August 15, meteorologists began classifying the system with the Dvorak technique. The thunderstorm activity became more concentrated, and narrow spiral rainbands developed around a developing center of circulation. Based on a Dvorak T-number of 2.0, it is estimated Tropical Depression Three developed late on August 16, while about 1,630 miles (2,620 km) east-southeast of Barbados.[3]
Source says: "Satellite pictures and upper-air data indicate that Hurricane Andrew formed from a tropical wave that crossed from the west coast of Africa to the tropical North Atlantic Ocean on 14 August 1992. The wave moved westward at about 20 kt, steered by a swift and deep easterly current on the south side of an area of high pressure. The wave passed to the south of the Cape Verde Islands on the following day. At that point, meteorologists at the National Hurricane Center (NHC) Tropical Satellite Analysis and Forecast (TSAF) unit and the Synoptic Analysis Branch (SAB) of the National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS) found the wave sufficiently well-organized to begin classifying the intensity of the system using the Dvorak (1984) analysis technique.
Convection subsequently became more focused in a region of cyclonic cloud rotation. Narrow spiral-shaped bands of clouds developed around the center of rotation on 16 August. At 1800 UTC on the 16th (UTC precedes EDT by four hours), both the TSAF unit and SAB calculated a Dvorak T-number of 2.0 and the "best track" (Table 1 and Fig. 1 [85K GIF]) shows that the transition from tropical wave to tropical depression took place at that time." - looks good to me...
I think this matches... but I confess I'm not entirely sure...
12 Much of the damage in Florida was caused by high winds. Although effects from Andrew were catastrophic, the extent of damage was limited mainly from Kendall to Key Largo due to the small wind field of the storm.[3]
Source says: "Florida was extreme from the Kendall district southward through Homestead and Florida City, to near Key Largo" - can't find any mention of 'wind field' - am I missing something?
13 By early on August 18, the storm maintained concentrated convection near the center with spiral bands to its west as the winds increased to 50 mph (80 km/h).[11]
Source says: " CONCENTRATED CONVECTION PERSISTS NEAR THE CIRCULATION CENTER AND SOME DEEP CONVECTION IS NOW OBSERVED ALONG A SPIRAL BAND TO THE WEST OF THE CENTER. THE INTENSITY IS SET AT 45 KT...", which I think matches....
14 As Andrew was approaching, an estimated 20,000-30,000 tourists were in the Florida Keys (Monroe County).[12]
Source matches.
15 Hurricane Andrew weakened rapidly as it turned to the north and northeast, falling to tropical storm intensity within ten hours. After entering Mississippi, the cyclone deteriorated to tropical depression status early on August 27. Accelerating northeastward, the depression began merging with the approaching frontal system, and by midday on August 28, Andrew ceased to meet the qualifications of a tropical cyclone while located over the southern Appalachian Mountains.[3]
I'm struggling to find mentions of 'ten hours' in the source - Mississippi is mentioned a few times, but I can see how it might support this... I'm likely missing something here though...
That's the end of the checks - you might want to comment on 2,3,5, 8, 12 15 - I'm sure most of this is just a bit of clarification required (this is also my first time spotchecking so any feedback would be cool :) Fayedizard (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
After putting a couple years of work into this article (on and off, of course), I believe this article is ready for its close-up. This is on the long end of articles presented here (60 kilobytes of prose; not unprecedented at all though), but I think this article needs it. It is a very large city—among the largest in the world—with a very long and significant history. I did my best to condense out a lot of extraneous information, add more vital information, and pepper the piece with relevant sources (compare this to an April 2010 version prior to me working it). I hope you'd agree that the prose is "well-written", "comprehensive", and "well-researched". The article is incredibly stable; save for one mildly disruptive editor (who was indefinitely blocked in May, and probably was a sockpuppet), the article sees very few edits (other than from me). Honestly, I'd write several paragraphs and then be able to pick up where I left off many months later as no one really makes changes there (compared to two of my past FAs, Israel and Jerusalem, which couldn't maintain FA status without constant supervision). Given the wide scope of the subject, I imagine someone will find some issue with the article that I overlooked (but I love the challenge of broad articles). Unfortunately, a peer review in May was the epitome of fruitless, but I hope you take a look for yourself now and agree this is ready for the FA star. -- tariqabjotu21:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I'm sure this will be a great article. Some issues to address (up to end of "religious and ethnic groups" section):
History. Refers to "artifacts ... found in Kadıköy that date back to the Chalcolithic period." No-one is likely to know when that period is, and the linked article doesn't readily enlighten us. Do the sources give us a particular millenium?
Not sure about wikilinking "final caliphate" to "Ottoman caliphate". Should the link not be of the word "caliphate" alone? Otherwise, I am expecting the article I'm linking to, to be about just this one caliphate. Yet there is a separate link to "caliphate" earlier in the sentence. It is a bit confusing to a person with little knowledge of what these things are.
I'm not sure I understand the issue. From what I understand, it seems you like you're "expecting the article I'm linking to [from final caliphate] to be about just this one caliphate". But that's what it does. The final caliphate is the Ottoman Caliphate, as opposed to the final caliph (the final leader, Abdülmecid II). -- tariqabjotu14:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"reforms that aligned the city along Western European standards". I have no idea what this means.
It's explained in the following sentences: "Bridges across the Golden Horn were constructed during this period, and Istanbul was connected to the rest of the European railway network in the 1880s. Modern facilities, such as a stable water network, electricity, telephones, and trams, were gradually introduced to Istanbul over the following decades, although later than to other European cities." That being said, I understand if that's not clear (especially as the connection of the city to an international rail network and construction of a bridge isn't exactly a European innovation). I'll change that and let you know when I've finished. -- tariqabjotu14:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Climate: "more favorable". Eh? Everyone likes different weather - I don't see what makes one place "more favorable" than another - just describe the differences.
Cityscape: "While officially part of Istanbul, much of the Asian side of the Bosphorus functions as a suburb of the economic and commercial centers in European Istanbul, accounting for a third of the city's population but only a quarter of its employment". This doesn't really make sense. What is meant by "while officially part of"? It is part of Istanbul. All cities have areas that are suburbs, and areas that people travel to work in. There is nothing unusual about this, it is how cities work. At the very least, the sentence should omit the phrase "While officially part of Istanbul", and simply state "Much of the Asian side..." etc.
I'm gathering you're Australian so maybe this is just my American perspective of cities kicking in. As the suburb article suggests, suburbs in Australia, New Zealand, and the UK are residential areas inside a city (yes?), but in the U.S. and Canada, they're residential areas within commuting distance (and, as implied, outside) the city. I was trying to draw the distinction between cities -- I'll specifically say U.S. cities here, as that was my frame of reference -- where highly residential areas from where people commute are outside the boundaries of the city. This is far from the case in Istanbul; in fact, some of the city limits of Istanbul are in fairly rural areas, beyond where one could reasonably commute to the city center. That being said, there are areas in U.S. cities as well (e.g. Brooklyn and Queens) that are far more residential than commercial. But then again, they aren't considered "suburbs" and one could apply the same sentence ("While officially part of New York City, Queens and Brooklyn, etc, etc, and people from those boroughs often refer to just Manhattan as the City."). I can change this to a wording that's better understand outside North America though. -- tariqabjotu14:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a good idea to include a reference under Toponymy to what the people of Istanbul call themselves. Seriously, is it really "Istanbulites" (stated later)?
It's actually İstanbullu/İstanbullular, but I don't think that word is accepted in English. Furthermore, if you think "Istanbulite" sounds strange, that would be even more bizarre and probably wouldn't be understood by the average reader. I can find sources for both words and put them in somewhere. -- tariqabjotu14:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if that was genuine surprise or a sarcastic surprise suggesting I'm wrong, but I am genuinely surprised to see that. That may be about the only English-language book written by a non-Turkish author that uses Istanbullu. Even many Turkish authors use Istanbulite in English (that's the source I was going to point to in fact). -- tariqabjotu14:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Architecture: "grandiose" is a negative term - keep it only if the reliable sources use it.
Is it? "Grandiose" is used at one point in the vicinity of the pages, I referenced, but the overall tone is that there is nothing negative about them. "Grand" is probably better, but also unnecessary. -- tariqabjotu14:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tariqabjotu for rapid and considered responses, and thank you Dank for weighing in. I will try and come back to other elements of this soon. I'll have another look at the 'caliphate' issue - i suspect i wasn't reading sufficiently carefully. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Administration: "as well as seventeen designated towns up to 52 square kilometers (20 sq mi) in size". Can you reword this, to clarify whether the seventeen towns total up to 20 sq mi, or that any one town can be that big. Not sure of the significance of the physical area as a fact, incidentally. May not be needed?
I decided to just remove the piece of information as I imagine this'll be extraneous information when I tackle your other task below. So, done. -- tariqabjotu05:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Administration: I feel this section lacks any sense of history, in contrast to, for example, the education or culture sections. How was Istanbul governed prior to this current arrangement? There also seems to be a paucity of independent third-party sources in this section - almost all of the facts rely on the official websites. Has no-one written anything independently about the city's politics and administration?
I'm not sure history is very important here, but I can provide some information about the structure before the 1980s. I remember coming across such information and intentionally not writing about it. But, okay, that can be done. About third-party sources, I can diversify them, but I can't imagine how/why someone would write a book on present-day government. Maybe trolling through some news sites. Either way, I don't think there's actually a problem with official sources being used to reference statements about governmental structural and very general information about its responsibilities. -- tariqabjotu00:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On historical stuff - I'm thinking one short para tops. But to me, there is quite a high level of detail here about current arrangements. As I hinted above, some other stuff might be able to trim (eg. physical size of suburbs or districts), but I expect it would be very hard to trim, I accept that. On sources - there's a lot of academic writing about contemporary politics generally, but I accept there may be little about sub-national level. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a great source that provides a window into the reality of Istanbul's administration, not just how it works on paper. Is also a useful source for it being a two-tier structure. I think, given the person is a professor and the paper is published by LSE, it qualifies as reliable. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i realise this is a bigger issue than the others I've raised. If I find some time I may try and help, but like you that may be a few days off. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I just wanted to let you know that I will eventually get around to this, likely before the weekend (maybe even tomorrow?). I just have a lot of things competing for (and requiring) my attention, as I have two major and complex travel plans I have to attend to. -- tariqabjotu04:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent re-write is great. It has taken the section from being pretty average and given it a core of historical perspective and scholarly analysis that puts it on a par with other early parts of the article. My main query is mostly one of clarity. It now has this sentence: "With personnel representing different departments, its partner committee, the Metropolitan Executive Committee, makes some decisions but primarily advises the Municipal Council." I am not sure what "with personnel representing different departments" refers to, not what the "its" is in the second clause, nor what is meant by "partner" here. Can you try a redraft of that sentence? But this is looking much much better.hamiltonstone (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying not to abruptly introduce the Metropolitan Executive Committee, but obviously I wasn't successful. To answer your question though, the personnel representing different departments refers to the partner committee (i.e. the Executive Committee). Anyway, I've reworded the sentence. -- tariqabjotu15:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Demographics: "even though its metropolitan area—roughly equivalent to the city proper's population...". This somehow needs to be reworded, as an area cannot be equivalent to a number of people.
Actually, this is looking more complicated than I thought. You will need to explain what makes this a reliable source. And I'm not sure the current wording is clear either. I will try and apply my mind to clarifying this. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not changing the sentence further. It now means exactly what it is intended to mean, provided the reader reads the entire sentence – something I expect them to do. The metropolitan area is roughly equivalent to the city proper, and the metropolitan area ranks below twentieth in population. That's what I meant, and that's what it says.
As for the source, you're twisting my arms here. As there is no one worldwide organization that carries out censuses or defines the boundaries of cities, pinpointing such a golden source is hard to come by, if not impossible. If the aim here were to get the reader to a source that provides the most accurate and up-to-date information, that relies on the respective cities' legal boundaries rather than some arbitrary limits, and that uses data from some point in the last five years, I would go with the source that I intentionally selected for the article. I maintain confidence that the writer of that site based his/her/their information off the plethora of references it has stated it has used. If the aim here, however, is to use a source that—albeit outdated, inconsistent, and arbitrary—flies under the banner of an ostensibly reliable name like "Oxford" or the "United Nations", well, that can be done as well. So consider it done. -- tariqabjotu06:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now that is a significant improvement, thanks. The other reason I found it tricky to read, was that I had never heard the term "city proper" before - so I was puzzling over the distinction between a city proper and a "metropolitan area". But your latest edit gives a good cue to the distinction, and the wikilinks resolve it for the reader if they are still unclear. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Demographics: migrants from "eastern Anatolia". Why not just "eastern Turkey"? Anatolia is a more obscure terminology for a lay reader, and should only be used, I think, where it is specifically connoted.
Demographics: why is the paragraph on historical demographics located after the current data? In most other, later, sections, the historical stuff seems generally to come first. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the chronological approach doesn't work well here. I mean, can you imagine waiting until the third paragraph to hear about the population of the city? No other section seems to have such crucial information, but, as you'll notice, the chronological approach isn't strictly following in the Economy and Transportation sections either. -- tariqabjotu00:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Understood your point, and wasn't going to press this, but I do like it in its re-ordered form, as it has added benefit of reinforcing just how important this city (and article) is. Good compromise. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Public services: Image caption states "The Silahtarağa Power Station, now the art museum SantralIstanbul, was Istanbul's sole source of power between 1914 and 1983." However text states it "was the sole source of Istanbul's electricity between 1914, when its first engine room was completed, and 1952" and that it was shut down in 1983. Presumably between 1952 and 1983 there were other power stations constructed? Can an editor check sources and correct whichever text needs amendment? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in when you include publisher locations, and in whether you abbreviate state names
Example? I didn't put the locations for websites, because that is the most useless piece of information ever, if one could pinpoint a location at all. And are you suggesting I spelled out some state names, or omitted state names? I generally omitted the state or province or whatever from very well-known and unambiguous cities (like Los Angeles, New York, and London). Otherwise, I put it in. I'll take a glance at them again later. -- tariqabjotu04:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is a magnificent article and I just have a couple of minor suggestions.
I think for clarity you should specifiy "military forces" in the sentence "Various economic and military policies instituted by Andronikos II, such as the reduction of forces, weakened the empire..."
I don't understand why this is so important. Is it not enough to say "Mehmed II repaired the city's damaged infrastructure"? The Kırkçeşme water supply network is also mentioned in the Public services section. We can't mention everything, and I think the main point has already been conveyed. -- tariqabjotu22:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The hippodrome is uniquely important to the history of Constantinople and indeed to the history of the Byzantine Empire; the factions that formed based on support for different teams of chariot racers there became political factions of major importance, and the hippodrome was often the starting place for riots and other episodes of civil unrest that threatened the political stability of the empire. As it sat more than 80,000 people, Roman/Byzantine emperors used it for political purposes (for example Theodosius I) just as they had earlier used the Coliseum in Rome. It was arguably as important to civic life in Constantinople as was the Hagia Sophia, which you appropriately mention in the section. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but I may have to address these issues after August 5 (see the comment I'm simultaneously posting below the nomination statement). -- tariqabjotu07:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I well understand how hard it can be to find the time to get an article through FAC and how schedule conflicts can arise. I no longer have my copy of Norwich's history of the Byzantine Empire where first I read this stuff, but here a few on-line sources I was able to find by looking at the references cited by some related articles, Hippodrome of Constantinople and Nika riots. These two talk about the political and social significance of the hippodrome: [39] and [40] and this one discusses Constantine's renovation and expansion of the hippodrome [41]. Here is more of a primary source: [42]. I realize that since this article is primarily about Istanbul rather than Constantinople the mention should be brief. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the CLIO article with a better source, an article at Smisonian.com. I will continue to look for a better replacement for the other source. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have one more minor quibble in this section. The phrase "During most of the Middle Ages and the latter part of the Byzantine period" seems clumsy and is a little confusing as with the use of "and" you are implying that these are two separate periods, where as they almost exactly overlap. Some historians even consider the fall of Constantinople to the Turks as the end point of the middle ages. Maybe try something like, "During the Middle Ages, which corresponded to the latter part of the Byzantine period, Constantinople was the largest and wealthiest city on the European continent... "Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took a stab at fixing it. All of my comments have been addressed and as soon as some of the other open issues are resolved I look forward to supporting this outstanding article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unless I am missing something there are no significant issues outstanding and this is an outstanding article that represents Wikipedia at its best. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"Straddling the Bosphorus—one of the world's busiest waterways—in northwestern Turkey, between the Sea of Marmara and the Black Sea, Istanbul is a transcontinental city, with one third of its population living in Asia and its commercial and historical center in Europe." - poor parallelism at the end there. I'm not the biggest fan of "with... [verb]ing" to begin with, but you have one half of that clause acting as a phrase and the other only as a noun. The entire sentence is a bit long, so I think you could split it somewhere. Also, the sentence implies that two-thirds of the 13.5 million live on the Europe side. Does that two-thirds represent the second highest population in a European metro area, or is it the entire 13.5 million?
I've reworded the sentence. The entire 13.5 million represents the second-largest metropolitan area. I thought of a way to clarify or avoid that but none of them seem good. Saying (including its population in Asia) is bizarre, since Asia is not mentioned until this point. I thought about saying in the Council of Europe, but I don't think that's a particularly well-known organization (and will easily be read as the European Union). I could go with in a European country, but something sounds off there to me. If you have any suggestion, I'm all ears. However, despite its transcontinental status, Istanbul is generally considered a European city (just as Turkey is considered a European country even though 98 percent of its territory is in Asia). -- tariqabjotu16:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"before the Ottomans conquered the city in 1453 and transformed it into an Islamic stronghold from which the last caliphate ruled" - bit of a run-on (namely with the "from which..." onward), and even after clicking on that link, I'm not really sure what "last caliphate" means :/
That's not a run-on sentence. This seemed to confuse Hamiltonstone, and I'm not sure why. I suppose this speaks to the question of how much background information needs to be provided in a summary article. I should point out, by the way, that there are many other complex historical topics (e.g. the Crusades) that are mentioned in passing, and are unlikely to meet a request for clarity. I would begrudgingly state that these types of questions reflect a systematic bias that exists throughout much of the Anglosphere -- namely, a surprising ignorance of very basic Islamic history. If even, as you say, after clicking the link, the meaning of "last caliphate" is not clear, we have a problem. I would hope, and maybe this is too much to ask, that the reader would be aware that there is no such thing as a caliph in 2012. And even if they're not aware of that, I would hope he or she would click on the link saying "last caliphate" and observe that the (very short) lead of the target article says Abdul Mejid II, who lost the Sultanate, kept the Caliph position for a couple of years, but with Atatürk's reforms, the caliph position was abolished (emphasis mine). Do I really need to repeat this statement in the Istanbul article? (Honest question.) If so, it's not going to be in the lead, but in the History section. -- tariqabjotu16:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the problem is that the sentence does not read naturally and that makes it difficult to understand the context for last Caliphate. I do know a little Islamic history and even I found the sentence awkward. It is common English usage to say "the King ruled" or "the Caliph ruled". It is less common to say "the kingdom ruled" or "the caliphate ruled". I think people would have less trouble with it if it read something like: "before the Ottomans conquered the city in 1453, transforming it into an Islamic stronghold and the seat of the last caliphate." or maybe even better than "seat", "the capitol city of the last caliphate". I think then the sentence would read more naturally and the meaning of last caliphate would be more obvious from its context, which would make wiki-linking it enough. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The population of the city has increased tenfold since the 1950s, as migrants from across Anatolia have flocked to the metropolis and city limits have expanded to accommodate them." - "as" is a poor connector here. It'd be better to have something like "because", "while", "after", whatnot.
"Because" is okay, but it sounds worse than "as" to me. Using "while" or "after" changes the meaning. In other words, I'm not changing it. -- tariqabjotu17:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's ambiguous what meaning of "as" you mean, since that could mean any of those three words I said. It's not an ideal conjunction for that very reason. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's ambiguous at all. "As" is a perfectly valid word for the intended meaning, and all other possible interpretations of "as" in this context don't make sense. -- tariqabjotu16:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why wasn't Istanbul selected as the capital of modern Turkey?
"Seven million foreign visitors arrived in Istanbul in 2010, when it was named" - technically the antecedent for "it" could refer to "visitors" or "Istanbul". I think the "it" here should be "the city" since you also use "it" later in that sentence.
I've changed the second "it" to "the city" to get rid of the repetition. No one is going to think the first "it" refers to "visitors" because (a) that doesn't make any sense and (b) "visitors" is plural. C'mon. Being meticulous is fine, but several of your comments here have been just absurd, relying on the idea that the reader is a two-year-old who can't understand anything unless it's explained with the utmost precision. -- tariqabjotu20:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just making sure - everything in the lede appears elsewhere in the article, right?
Almost everything. The Silk Road is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. The global city point may not be mentioned anywhere else. By WP:LEAD doesn't require that absolutely everything be mentioned in the body; with such minor points, which really need no elaboration, I see no reason to repeat them. -- tariqabjotu17:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Silk Road is more a concept than a real road, so I don't think there's agreement on what its termini are (especially at its western end). However, finding a source that Istanbul was on the Silk Road is not difficult. (Why Aleppo would be considered its western terminus is beyond me; it's not in Europe and it's not on the sea.) -- tariqabjotu16:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"He also attempted to promote the name Nea Roma ("New Rome"), but this never caught on." - I think "caught on" is a little bit of a weasel word.
Uh... how? What else do you want me to say? "He also attempted to promote the name Nea Roma, but only 2.1 percent of people used it"? -- tariqabjotu17:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"7th millennium BC and uncovered by archaeologists at the beginning of the 21st century" - just checking, but should 21st century be clarified that it's AD, given the first half mentions BC? It's obvious, obviously, but for standardization and featured article stuff-ery, it might be needed. Also, since it's so recent, maybe say what year?
The source is from January 2009, so it's not clear whether the find was in 2008 or 2009 -- and the precise year isn't particularly important anyway. That also doesn't fix the issue anyway, as the same reason for adding "AD" would still apply. So, I decided to just add "AD" and be done. -- tariqabjotu16:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" Conventional wisdom had until then held that Thracian tribes" - the wording is a little confusing here. Perhaps start by "Before the discovery" to make it clearer?
"During most of the Middle Ages, the latter part of the Byzantine era, Constantinople was the largest and wealthiest city on the European continent and, during parts of this period, the largest in the world." - just to clarify, it was one of the largest cities in the world? That's what the wording implies, but I wasn't sure whether it also meant largest economies, or something.
"However, the Latin Empire was short-lived, and the Byzantine Empire was restored, weakened, in 1261." - two things. First, sentences shouldn't start with "However" when they mean "nevertheless", and I think a word is needed before weakened, such as "although" (perhaps put "although weakened" after 1261?).
There is absolutely nothing wrong with starting off a sentence with "however", and it's a synonym of "nevertheless". One could argue that "nevertheless" might sound better there and draw more emphasis to the point, but that's not the point you made so I'm not going to address that. I don't really think an additional word is absolutely necessary before "weakened", but I've added one. -- tariqabjotu18:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" and its population had dwindled to a hundred thousand from up to half a million during the 8th century." - I see the note, but I don't see clarification whether you mean in the hundreds of thousands or "100,000". Perhaps you should clarify by saying "around 100,000" (since it is not exact), as well as "around 500,000". Seeing "half a million" written out doesn't seem quite right to me.
I meant "100,000"... as that's what the text says. I don't know how one could possibly interpret that as meaning "in the hundreds of thousands", especially since half a million is also in the hundreds of thousands. The word "about" is superfluous. There is no reason for us to be so explicit; people will generally understand when such a round number is given that it is not exact. "Half a million" written out looks perfectly fine to me. So, there's really nothing to change here. -- tariqabjotu18:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing else to do here. No one is going to think that the population was precisely 100,000, and it is clear that I meant 100,000 when I said "a hundred thousand". -- tariqabjotu15:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking from someone who (admittedly) doesn't know much about Islam, perhaps "imam" should be linked under the "Rise and fall of Constantinople" section?
Nope. It doesn't meet any of the reasons for linking an article. Its relevance and importance is tangential. Even if you were to replace "imam" with "someone", nothing of value would be lost. The point is someone -- an imam, in this case -- proclaimed the shahada (and note that I avoided using that foreign term). Imam is not a particularly esoteric Islamic term (to put it lightly) and is an accepted term in English. Its meaning could be easily inferred from context (although I gather from other comments here that you don't like inferring information). But if the reader still doesn't know what it means, and cares to know what it means, they can go pick up a dictionary -- as in all other situations where there's a word unknown to a reader. Sorry, but I am not linking a basic and tangentially relevant term whose meaning should either be known, inferred, or just ignored by the reader. -- tariqabjotu15:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Following the fall of Constantinople, Mehmed II immediately set out to revitalize the city, by now also known as Istanbul." - given that it's past tense, I think it should be "by then" instead of "by now".
"The Ottoman Dynasty claimed the status of caliphate in 1517" - again, pardon my ignorance, but I don't get how an empire could claim a system of government (which is what I got out of the first sentence of Caliphate).
The caliphate article gets there soon enough. The caliphate is more than just a system of government. In fact, it's barely a system of government; it's more a title and a position of power. Compare, for example, with the concept of the papacy (in its meaning as "the succession or line of popes", not "the office of the pope"). There, obviously, can only be one pope, but let's pretend that Queen Elizabeth were to claim tomorrow that he, not Pope Benedict XVI, is the real pope (just go with it). So, what's the best phrase that includes "British monarchy" and "papacy". Is it "the British monarchy claimed the status of papacy"? Well, that's what I was trying to go for here, except there really was/is dispute about who the caliph -- effectively the leader of Islam (particularly Sunni Islam) is. In 1517, the Ottomans claimed that was them, despite there not really being any religious basis for doing so. They were just the largest Muslim empire at the time, and there was no one to challenge the claim. -- tariqabjotu18:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not elaborating on this. The explanation desired would be far too lengthy, and the issue over claiming the status of caliphate is explained in the caliphate article if you manage to get past the first sentence. -- tariqabjotu15:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" More recently, in 1999, an earthquake with its epicenter in nearby İzmit left 17,000 people dead, including 1,000 people in Istanbul's suburbs." - there should be indications that the death tolls are estimates. (add an "about" would be fine)
Just curious, what year were the record lowest and highest temps? Your call if relevant in including or not.
These years (I believe something like 1928 and 2000 for the low and high, respectively) were actually originally included in the article, but I removed them since I didn't think they were so important and there was no easy way to work them in. -- tariqabjotu19:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Farther inland, between the First and Second Bosphorus Bridges, are Levent, Maslak, and Mecidiyeköy, Istanbul's primary economic centers." - this is unsourced
I've sourced the fact that Levent and Maslak are Istanbul's primary economic centers, and I've corrected the location (as Maslak extends north of the motorway that goes over the Second Bosphorus Bridge). I'm not going to source the location though, since the reader can just look at a map to confirm. So, this should be done. -- tariqabjotu19:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"serving as tranquil outposts with seaside yalıs and gardens. " - I see yali linked in the image, but I think it should be linked in the prose as well.
Sorry, I misread your point, and you didn't catch that my response didn't make sense based on what you said. I thought you said that the term was linked in the prose and the caption and that it only needed to be linked in one of the two places. I might have misread it that way because the term is linked in the prose already, in the second paragraph of the Cityscape section. -- tariqabjotu01:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"While it never returned to being the world's largest, it remained Europe's largest city from not long after the Fall of Constantinople until the start of the 19th century." - was it surpassed then by Moscow, or another city? (Paris?) Might be worth mentioning.
"as the highest among the seventy-eight largest OECD metropolises" - numbers that high should be in number form, and given that's the first usage of OECD, I think it should be spelled out.
I'll spell out OECD, but I'm not changing the "seventy-eight" to "78". MOSNUM permits numbers that can be written in one or two words to be spelled out, and that's what I prefer. -- tariqabjotu20:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... yeah... it's in the first sentence of the section I linked to, with lovely examples in green: numbers greater than nine, if they are expressed in one or two words, may be rendered in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred). -- tariqabjotu01:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The names of the neighborhoods of Arnavutköy ("Albanian village"), Polonezköy ("Polish village"), and Yenibosna ("New Bosnia")—among others—also recall some of the ethnic communities that formerly thrived in Istanbul but have since decreased in population and significance. - needs source
From WP:VERIFY, any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. What here is likely to be challenged? None of these ethnic groups are discussed in any detail earlier in the section. Seriously, I don't get the Wikipedia community. A couple years ago, I was told I had too many sources in an article and that not every little thing needs to be sourced. Now, there are things like this that I have to cite. You know that any source sufficient to corroborate this point would be esoteric, simply stating that there are very few Albanians, Poles, and Bosnians left, and the last thing I want to do at 4:00 in the morning is waste time searching for crap like that. If this bothers you so much, just remove it. And, let me repeat that: just remove it. Don't ask me to remove it -- because I won't -- and don't tell me you've removed it -- because I honestly don't care. -- tariqabjotu20:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that three places have decreased in population and significance, despite the growing significance and population of the city in general? I just abide by a rule of thumb to source every statement in the article. How else can you prove everything has been verified? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I'm not touching that sentence, so your further attempts to convince me are pointless. Again, if you have a problem with the sentence, just remove it; it's not crucial to the section anyway. -- tariqabjotu01:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't want to. And because MOSNUM (you should read it some time) says Percent... is commonly used to indicate percentages in the body of an article. The symbol % is more common in scientific or technical articles and in complex listings. -- tariqabjotu20:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Istanbul is responsible for two fifths of the nation's tax revenue" - you often used percentages, so why do you switch to a fraction here?
"Mahmutpaşa Bazaar, established a year later, extends between the Grand Bazaar and the Egyptian Bazaar, which has been Istanbul's major spice market since 1660.
The Egyptian Market is the spice market. I can't imagine how the sentence could have been read to suggest the Mahmutpaşa Bazaar was the spice market. -- tariqabjotu01:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then there is definite ambiguity, since the subject of the sentence appears to be Mahmutpasa. Please clarify in the article which one is the spice market. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Originally an Islamic school, at the time of the Turkish Republic's founding the university was secularized and new law, medicine, and science departments were established" - poor sentence structure. Try something like - "Although originally an Islamic school, the university was secularized at the time of the Turkish Republic's founding, and new law, medicine, and science departments were established."
Okay, I'll probably work on this tonight (in about twelve hours). I have Internet access (unlike last week), but I'm still doing some traveling, and don't want to spend all my vacation time on the Internet. -- tariqabjotu02:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of all of this! I responded to a few outstanding things, but in general I'm quite happy with the article. Enjoy your traveling, too :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me say for the record that the replies I've just added are the final remarks I will make on your review above, even if you choose to respond to them. So, don't bother -- I will categorically ignore all remarks you make in regards to points you made above and will ignore without explanation any additional points you choose to make that are similarly inane. Half of your remarks (as I've indicated as you went along) have either been personal preferences -- rather than actual issues -- or bizarre, unlikely, or otherwise illogical interpretations of sentences. I see no reason why I should have to cater to such nonsense, and I couldn't care less if you oppose this candidacy or if this fails because I refuse to address your frivolous wishes. Frankly, if it were to fail on account of your misreading of content or the need to have every number in figures or denoted as approximate, I would have no interest in spending anymore of my time bringing articles on Wikipedia up to featured status. There are far better things for me to do with my time than aspire to meet increasingly unnecessary and impossible standards on a website. -- tariqabjotu16:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I spent a good few hours reviewing this, and you call my comments nonsense? I just told you, right above this comment, that I was quite happy with the article. For the personal preferences, that's fine, I didn't really care about that. But there is no reason to say that those "are the final remarks". You have been great in responding to most of my comments, and I was planning on supporting, but not now, considering it seems you can't be impartial to your own efforts. I really don't appreciate comments like "I'm not elaborating on this" or "No. Forget it." There's no need to be uncivil, and it's comments like that that makes me no longer want to review FAC's anymore. You refuse adding a simple wikilink that would be helpful for someone unfamiliar with the subject matter, making it clearer about the caliphate, adding a source to a sentence I removed that could've been useful, accepting the possibility ambiguity about the Bazaars, and accepting that you are flat out wrong about the earthquake's death toll. The source clearly says the earthquake killed "more than 18,000 people", so your "17,000" is wrong both in terms of its number and in terms of its exactness. You're on vacation, you could be a little nicer when responding. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find it very incivil to just "categorically ignore" a reviewer who was nice enough to give you a review on your FAC. The fact that you choose to ignore them and leave the oppose is not only inappropriate, it's just going to start drama. FAC lacks reviewers period, and while you might disagree with what the reviewer wants, it would be worth more to get a second opinion than ignore the editor who is trying to do you a favor. Sometimes details by number are important, for example, when a tornado hit Elmira, New York on July 27, It rendered 16 homes uninhabitable. You need 50 to get FEMA assistance. These numbers do matter in the long run. I feel like Hink is asking you is respectable enough just to add a word for clarity. The fact that you claim its "increasingly unnecessary and impossible standards" and yet refuse to try finding other opinions shows that you don't want to hear what is being suggested. A second opinion is a valuable thing to ask for. That's all. Mitch32(There is a destiny that makes us...family.)17:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, and you are entitled to feel that way. But if that was intended to make me feel bad about or retract or otherwise reconsider my statement, it didn't. And you can't. I have done my best to communicate the point that my decision is final, and that I am not interested in being swayed or convinced to alter my remarks. I have no need to discuss this further, so any "drama" that arises will be a tempest of other editors' creation. -- tariqabjotu20:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Areas around İstiklal Avenue were filled with grand European embassies and rows of buildings in neoclassical style, which went on to influence the architecture of a variety of structures in Beyoğlu—including churches, stores, and theaters—and official buildings such as Dolmabahçe Palace." Now, the only former Embassy (now consulate) which is in neoclassical style, is the Greek one. Most of the others are neorenascimental. Moreover, the characteristic style of the architecture in Pera/Beyoglu is Art noveau, not neoclassical. One can check it in a good guide as Freely.
I have no idea what neorenascimental means -- a Google search indicates it's not even an English word -- but my best guess is something like neo-Renaissance. This style is also mentioned extensively in the source, alongside the neoclassical style, so I've added it into the article. So, I believe this is done. -- tariqabjotu17:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Early Byzantine architecture followed the classical Roman model of domes and arches..." I would rephrase as "Early Byzantine architecture followed contemporary Roman models", or something like that. Constantine consciously tried to replicate Rome on the Bosporus, bur many elements, for example his Forum (elliptical, and not rectangular), use elements typical of the roman cities in the eastern part of the Empire (see Krautheimer, "Three christian capitals"). Alex2006 (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've said nothing that contradicts what the article currently says. If anything, you want more information added. I don't think it's necessary to go into more detail about other Roman architecture considered, but should you choose to add it, be sure it's sourced. Preferably, sourced in English. -- tariqabjotu17:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Krautheimer should be a good source. Despite his German origin and his residence in Italy (with the abject habit to write his last works in Italian :-)), his works are available in English too. Alex2006 (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's closing comments - The central tenet of FAC is achieving a consensus. This done by the nominators and reviewers working together. Comments from the nominator such as "I will categorically ignore all remarks you make in regards to points you made above and will ignore without explanation any additional points you choose to make that are similarly inane" are not appropriate. After over one month at FAC and no clear consensus for promotion, I have decided to archive this nomination. Graham Colm (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
My biggest fear has always been "not enough footnoes", not "too many". Featured Articles such as Harris Theater (Chicago) and Stanford Memorial Church have footnotes in the lead. I can rework the lead (this weekend) to remove any footnotes and notes for sentences where sources can be found in the body of the article. Please confirm that this is necessary. TwoScars (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They were also promoted 2-3 years ago. Barring a direct quote, a properly written lead would not need any footnotes as the details and hence refs would be in the body. 1-2 at most. 6-7 is pushing it. 16 or so as you have is way overkill. If you need to footnote that much in the lead, I have to ask "Why isn't that info in the body"?. But alas, I only commented here. I'm neither supporting nor opposing at the moment. Not likely to support with this many footnotes in the lead. Others can chime in. PumpkinSkytalk20:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will start working on it, while preserving the original version somewhere. About all of the info is in the body. I know I will like the "less footnotes" version better, I'm just afraid someone else is going to want me to put them back in.TwoScars (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excess footnotes and notes have been removed from the lead. The lead now contains footnotes 2, 3, and note 1. Footnote 2 refers to the NRHP form, which I believe is useful to have up front. Footnote 3 is a cite for a quote. Note 1 lists some web sites that picture the courthouse. If necessary, note 1, with a few added sentences, could be moved to the significance section. TwoScars (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed a sentence, added a sentence, removed source questioned, added NRHP form as one source and a web page from the Smithsonian Institution as another source.TwoScars (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found a place where there were two spaces in front of the word "and" in the Significance section—that is fixed. A search using Microsoft Word finds no doubled periods except in some titles. For one of the sources, I use "Unlisted (Biographical and historical record...)" as the author name, since no author is given. This enables the user to "jump" from the References section to Cited works section. The three periods will appear in every reference to that book, and the book title itself has three periods. The "cite web" for "Trunbull County Courthouse..." has the three dots/periods on the web page. Also, the 1986 book by the Blackford County Historical Society has multiple dots/periods: "Biographical memoirs of Blackford County, Ind: to which is appended a comprehensive compendium of national biography ... embellished with portraits of many well known residents of Blackford County, Indiana".TwoScars (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Registered Historic Place" is a neologism. I'd rewrite the lead sentence as "The Blackford County Courthouse is a historic courthouse located in Hartford City, Indiana, the county seat of Blackford County.", or something similiar. Instead of "joined the Register in 1980", you could say "was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1980.)
While comprehensive with regards to its design and its history, however there is no information on what the courthouse is used for today.
I created a new paragraph at the end of the Current courthouse section. It mentions that the courthouse is still used by local government, and lists the mailing address. The reference links to the Blackford County web site. I originally thought of this Wikipedia page as about a building in the National Register of Historic Places (which creates its notability) that happens to be a courthouse, instead of a page about a courthouse that happens to be in the National Register. If you believe more information beyond the new (and small) paragraph is warranted, I can certainly add more.TwoScars (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will add to the paragraph in the Current courthouse section, probably on Sunday. More current info added, including courts and some of the county offices. TwoScars (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note -- given this has been open almost six weeks with no support and no activity since mid-July, I'm afraid it's time to archive the nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because it is one of most well-written and encyclopedic geography article on Wikipedia. The article has undergone an extensive overhaul and complete re-write, from top to bottom, for the sole purpose of an FA nomination. Consensus has been reached on the changes instituted in the article. Lastly, I feel the article has improved greatly from "good" status and does meet the standards of an FA.Mmann1988 (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because... It did not pass before in the original FA nomination, but after a thorough copy-edit, I believe that it is up to FA criteria. teman13TALKCONTRIBUTIONS16:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment - your previous FAC for this article closed less than two weeks ago. Did you have leave from a delegate to renominate early, as required by the instructions at the top of WP:FAC? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed this as best I can, by deleting the extra nomination page and renaming this one. I will let this nomination proceed – we all make mistakes sometimes – but please follow the FAC instructions carefully in future. Graham Colm (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've formatted the refs as best as I possicle can. As far as the About.com source, it is published by the New York Times Company and has been used on numerous FA articles such as Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It), Hollaback Girl and Irreplaceable. As far as PopCrush, it is very reliable and written by established journalists. Also the information is crucial to this article because of the song's genre, there is not many reliable sources that can provide the information that it does. If you go on the website you can look up the writer's bios and their degrees in music journalism as well as the site's criteria for hiring journalists and their policies for articles. Tay(uhoh)07:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment
What is the significance of this? "It was the twentieth song to debut atop the Billboard Hot 100, and achieved that feat almost exactly a year after the previous, Lady Gaga's "Born This Way" (2011)." What is the relevance here of Lady Gaga? --Efe (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel that it meets the featured article criteria. I have worked quite hard on the article, and a lot has happened since the previous nomination; an independent editor gave some suggestions to improve the article, and it was passed as a WP:GA. The previous nomination was closed less than two weeks ago due to a lack of feedback, although User:GrahamColm gave an exception for the pre-mature re-nomination. Till15:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – mainly to get the review going. It's been a long wait. I have only read through the lead and the first couple of sections:
"Inspiration for "Push the Button" was conceptualised..." What does that mean?
It means it was developed as an idea. I made a slight copyedit to the sentence now.
"...an artist whom collaborated..."?
Is it supposed to be who? If so, I have changed it.
"Dan le sac" or "dan le sac"?
Done.
Is the firefighters' parody really worthy of mention in the lead?
Yes, the lead should be a summary of the entire article, and there's lots of coverage about it.
The lead should be a summary of the main points of the article. Although the parody should be mentioned in the article I don't think it qualifies for the lead. It is not, after all, germane to the song itself.
How about I'll trim it, so that both of us are happy?
"this was assisted by Richard Edgeler". To what does the pronoun "this" refer?
Changed.
"The song's drums and keys were provided by Austin, while Tony Reyes is credited with providing the guitar and bass guitar." An oddly phrased sentence to anyone outside the pop music bubble. What does "providing" mean in this context? Does "keys" mean "keyboard accompaniment"? Reyes is "credited with providing" – did he or didn't he?
Made a copyedit to the section.
Don't link common words like "crush" (especially to pompous link articles like Limerence!)
Unlinked.
Long verbatim sentences, like the one beginning "I really liked this guy, so I'd be like..." would be better paraphrased.
"Composition" section: most of the stuff in this section is comments by critics on the music or lyrics; very little about the composition as such.
The sheet music is very strange for the song. It doesn't show the chord progression or even the vocal range.
"An editor for The Scotsman described the track as an "earworm" hit single". What does this mean? And are you sure it was a newspaper editor that offered this description?
'Earworm' means catchy, so I've changed it now.
But you still attribute the comment to an "editor". I imagine you mean a critic, or a reporter, or a feature-writer, but not an editor. Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know what you were talking about before D: but I've changed it now.
After looking at the musicOMH review, I concluded that this wan't reliable to use, especially for a Featured Article Candidate, because it was reviewed by a 'contributing editor' and as such isn't reliable. The composition and critical response sections have since been significantly reduced since I removed the source. As such, I am asking to withdraw this nomination until those two sections are redone as they need work. Till10:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because it has been peer reviewed, it's now a GA and i think it is now up to FAC. —Hahc2103:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I haven't read the whole article, but it seems like there are a few issues with prose and linking. (The FA prose standards are often difficult to reach, even for experienced users.) I suggest having someone give it a thorough copyedit. I can recommend a few people if you have trouble finding help.
The article seems pretty overlinked, probably want to cut out a number of them. A number of repeated wikilinks, as well.
I saw "and number one con the Billboard Latin Pop Songs." at a glance, probably should recheck the article for other typos.
"It was filmed on the Universal Studios in Los Angeles" & " On Buenos Aires, it became the most attended show ever for any artist on the Velez Stadium" I think you're misusing "On" here.
"is protagonized by himself and his son Ricardo Arjona Jr." I'm not sure "protagonized" is a word.
"Natalie Torres from newspaper Dia a Dia commented that" This reads awkwardly, should probably rephrase it.
"In Guatemala City, Arjona became the first artist ever" There's no need for "ever" here, the meaning is clear without it. I think you'd benefit from Tony's exercises on the subject.
Also, I think you should provide a translation for foreign language reference titles, there's a "|trans_title=" parameter in the citation template, I think. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I think i have checked the article and fixed all above as well as other nuances i encountered. I read Tony's excercises and they helped me a lot. Thanks. —Hahc2116:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, talking about the trans_title, i'm not using {{cite web}} on most references, so i don't know where exactly to put the translated title. Could you bring some help? —Hahc2117:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's a good question, this is an mimics the appearance of the trans title in the template, not sure if there's a better way to do it though. Nikkimaria could probably give you better advice though. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many instances with "album", needs a variety (recording, it, etc)
I don't believe I have seen any FA album article that has "the singer" in its content
When was Poquita Ropa and his other albums mentioned in the lead released? The year should be placed in parentheses
"Commercially and critically successful" okay you have mentioned the album's peak positions which supports this claim, however, I see no mention from the media about it in the lead. What did they say about it? According to the lead it was a critically positive album however there are only two commentary reviews which gives a more mixed response and not a positive one. You also need to turn those reviews into your own words and not directly copy and past them in the critical reception section
What is also alarming is the release date of the album, being October 4, 2011. I'm pretty sure this era is not even finish and the fourth single was just released two weeks ago. This article cannot be passed because of continuous additions of peak positions, sales and commentary reviews which I now understand why there are only two reviewers.
"It also topped for ten non-consecutive weeks the Latin Pop Albums chart" ---> is missing a word
"It is his fifth consecutive album to chart on the Billboard 200." ---> and what was that position?
"It is also his fourth album to chart in Spain." ---> as per above
"and on several countries on Latin America." ---> typo found
"Second single "Fuiste Tú"" ---> not a good way to open this sentence
The following sentence is not well written
And the last sentence of the lead is just confusing to readers. It says "embarked on another world tour" so there are more than one? Which ones and why did he embark on two or more world tours? The "which he titled the" is not even necessary. There a great examples of FA albums please pick one and use one as a model.
Actually, i don't exactly know how many tours he has done. So, i write "another" because putting a number is misleading and incorrect.
I would like to change my oppose to a support but currently at this state the article is not written well enough for FA status. Also, this era is not even finished, give another year before nominating this article again. Best, Jonayo!Selena 4 ever23:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, some things i pointed out to you in the Poquita Ropa GAN and seems i have to remind you: This is a latin album, so, no more reviews will be available, no more peak positions will be added, it is virtually imposible to expand the article further (with exception of the Singles subsection). So, "This article cannot be passed because of continuous additions of peak positions, sales and commentary reviews which I now understand why there are only two reviewers" is completely pointless. Notwithstanding, i tahnk you for commenting, i will ask another copyedit on the article to check prose issues. —Hahc2123:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. It could receive an award or a nomination from the upcoming Latin Grammy awards, the Billboard Latin music awards, or Premios Oye! and whatnot. This is because the album was released late last year so it would be eligible for these awards. In fact, Arjona received seven nominations at the 2012 Juventud awards which is not included in the article. Aside from that, I found on the CAPIF mirror site that the album reached #1 on the album charts on the week of October 9, 2011 so that should definitely be included. Also there's the singles that might need to be updated. "Te Quiero" was just released so the chart peak position can change at any time. The pictures, including the album cover, need alt texts (they're required for FAC). The article prose isn't up to FAC quality either. For example: "Arjona wrote the song for his mother, Noemí Morales,[12] who told him she didn't like it because it make her cry" is grammatically incorrect. It should be ""Arjona wrote the song for his mother, Noemí Morales,[12] who told him she didn't like the song because it makes her cry". So all in all, it can be expanded. Not alot right now as you say. Of course, the lack of media coverage available from the English sources are baffling. I'm going to assume that you searched for the reviews in Spanish as well, correct? If so, the critic information in the lead should be rewritten to just Allmusic's review. Erick (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Hahc21 it does not matter if this is a Latin album or a Russian album, there are commentary reviews out there. This article was just released so of course there's not going to be any right now besides Allmusic. Since you are arguing about "Latin albums not getting reviews" well what about Enamorada de Ti? It was released this year in March and has over 20-50 reviews, but I understand that the album was brought to a more wider release because of it having duets with American artists, nonetheless try not to criticize Latin albums for not having enough reviews. It just take time. "no more peak positions will be added" really? Please look at Eric's response, he just found one within minutes of his review and you are arguing about no peak positions? lolz Like I said, you could really benefit from a model article take Romances for instance. A model article could guide you, I'm pretty sure you can cleanup the prose issue though not up to FA quality but enough that other editors will give it a try than just simply opposing and complaining about the prose. Best, Jonatalk to me02:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, even I couldn't find reviews for this album in Spanish (the lack of Spanish-language music reviews sites is really frustrating). And also, though Romances is FA, one reviewer commented the low number of review and that it was "US centric". Plus the Argentine albums chart mirror site was found after the article was GA. But as you say, it's still early because information can change as the year progresses. @Hahc21, your best bet would be to look for Spanish magazines at this point if not even Spanish-language reviews can be found. I am going to go look for reviews for other Arjona albums just for curiosity sake. Erick (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried but the only thing i could find is a buch of praise for Arjona without essential information over the album's content or a formal review by a music joirnalist. Seems like all is gossip and i do't want that to be on the article. Also, seems like Billboard does not have a review; i will check again. For the prose issues, i thought it was ready after one Peer review, but it seems like i was wrong. Regards. —Hahc2122:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Prose really needs work. From the first sentence: "Independiente (English: Independent) is the thirteenth studio album released by Guatemalan singer-songwriter Ricardo Arjona on 4 October 2011." If I were to take this at face value it would meen he released at least 13 albums on 4 October 2011. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The first nomination failed due to prose issues. This article was then copyedited by User:Dementia13, and other users assisted. I hope the article now meets the criteria. Regards.GoPTCN11:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all the featured article criteria. It is well-written in a professional standard;
and neglects no major facts. A thorough and representative survey was conducted which is reflected in the article itself. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate. It is neutral and stable. It also follows all the style guidelines. Lastly, as mentioned, it stays focused on the main topic, that is West Bengal's tourism, without going into unnecessary detail and also uses summary style. Thank you. Tamravidhir(২০১২) 11:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy remove. Nowhere near FA criteria. The article does not have proper layout (sea beaches, hill stations under "heritage"?). Parts of the article have poor prose, and some sections are just full of list, and no prose. What has the whole list of authors and poets to do with tourism? Or, for that matter, the film personalities or the bands? If you think there is some relation between these and tourism, you have to explain that in the prose. Some sections are without any citations. Mere copying from other articles and adding some images do not make a featured article. It is a premature nomination. Editors can continue to improve the article and nominate later. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, suggest withdrawal - good for you for tackling this article, but I don't feel it's currently ready for FAC. You might consider trying WP:GAN or WP:PR first. Specifically:
Tone and neutrality problems, for example in the unattributed use of phrases like "Kolkata (then known as Calcutta) enjoyed the privilege of being the capital of British India and witnessed a spate of frenzied construction of buildings, largely influenced by the conscious intermingling"
^John (Jack) Beven II; National Hurricane Center (1997-03-17). "Worldwide Tropical Cyclone Names 1996–2001". Miami, Florida: United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service. Archived from the original on 2012-06-22. Retrieved 2012-06-22.
^National Hurricane Center (2012-04-13). "Tropical Cyclone Naming History and Retired Names". Miami, Florida: United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service. Archived from the original on 2012-06-22. Retrieved 2012-06-22.
^Arthur Rolle (1992-10-30). Hurricane Andrew in the Bahamas (Report). Nassau, Bahamas: National Hurricane Center. p. 4. Retrieved 2008-10-12.
^Arthur Rolle (1992-10-30). Hurricane Andrew in the Bahamas (Report). Nassau, Bahamas: National Hurricane Center. p. 2. Retrieved 2008-10-11.
^Cite error: The named reference al was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Edward Rappaport (2005-02-07). Hurricane Andrew Report Addendum (Report). Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Wallet Digital Archives. Miami, Florida: National Hurricane Center. Retrieved 2012-05-08.
^Edward Rappaport; National Hurricane Center (1992-08-18). Tropical Storm Andrew Discussion Five (Report). Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Wallet Digital Archives. Miami, Florida: United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service. Retrieved 2012-06-21.
^Dennis Henize; National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office in Key West Florida (1992-08-30). "Hurricane Andrew Post Storm Report". United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service. Retrieved 2012-05-08.
J. Robert Oppenheimer, that the latter article is 110 kB. Even 
.jpg){kind=link}
![[35]](http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/storm_wallets/atlantic/atl1992/andrew/news/dn0826p2.gif){kind=link}
![[6]](#cite_note-dn0827p2.gif-6){kind=link}
