Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2007

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 2007

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

The article was not promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.

Geological history of Earth

[edit]

I think that the page meets the FA criteria because the page is-

  • well cited.
  • well branched.
  • well-focused.
  • the page follows wikipedia's manual of style.

Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 05:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: No, the article is not ready to be FA. It is not well cited, in fact I think it is poorly cited and many statements cry for citations.<addressed> For example, 'The oldest rocks on Earth are nearly 4 billion years old'. How should we know this?</addressed> In fact there are no citations upto Devonian Period, then after a few paras, again the following paras don't have citations. <addressed2>The other thing is that individual eras, periods and epochs should have links to their Main Pages.</addressed2> DSachan 09:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While this article seems impressive, I am not sure if it meets all of the criteria to be featured. I believe that it is on the right track, and with appropriate revisions and modifications, this article can soon become featured. I suggest putting this article up for comment so that experienced users can take an in-depth look at what needs to be done to make this article of featured quality. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 03:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.

Ronald Reagan

[edit]
previous FAC nominations: 1 3 4 5

Ronald Reagan is finally ready for FAC. This article has come a long way, has been edited by a number of good people, is a currect good article, and is updated. It follows the MoS, and complies with all the criteria for FAs. This article is ready. Happyme22 04:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After Reagan's "Time for Choosing" speech, California Republicans became impressed with his political views and charisma.. - "became impressed"? -umm, how about "California Republicans were impressed with Reagans political views and charisma after his "Time for Choosing" speech and nominated him for..."

:..quickly steamrolled to the nomination. - I always think of "steamrolled" as a transitive verb, maybe "powered on" (too informal?) or "charged" or something

to cease the unrest -rep with "quell", "stop" or "deal with"
Thanks so much for you suggestions. Happyme22 01:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - could use some more work with neutrality. I tried to work a little bit on the legacy section, but it still seems more like a listing of "look at all these great things people have said about Reagan" than "here is a balanced assessment of Reagan's presidency by historians." I actually would like to see that section expanded, because I imagine a lot of interesting things have been said pro and con about the impact of the Reagan presidency on America and the world, and because I imagine those are things readers besides me want to know about too. I also think it might be nice to have an overarching "political philosophy" section (or similar) that could be merged with the religion section, which is now inexplicably nested under later life, even when it discusses his childhood. That would also be useful for readers looking for a general overview of what reagan was all about. Calliopejen1 07:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for you comments. I will ponder those changes, and see what I can do. Happyme22 01:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I'll get on that. Happyme22 00:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - reluctantly, for this is in general a great article about a key figure of recent decades. However, as argued here, the current lead is too simplistic, omits crucial facts and thus fails MoS compliance. This is the lead for which I am arguing and while I can accept tweaking of it, I regrettably cannot in good conscience vote to promote the article with the current lead. Biruitorul 03:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a legitimate reason to oppose the article, for the current lead is written how WP:LEAD suggests. Happyme22 22:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The crucial section on reaganomics is badly written, not neutral and poorly sourced. It's poorly referenced since it mostly draws from primary sources (raw government data), or from unreliable sources as the Heritage Foundation; the best of the scholar/academic literature must be used instead. It is not neutral because the two paragraphs devoted to "economic data" are divided in "facts" and "criticism"; the first presents mostly apparently favorable aspects (the "facts"), and the second discusses the non favorable ones (marginalized as "criticism"). (oh, I'd never expected that from a Reagan fanboy :). In the end, it is a "pick and choose" list of confusingly related data, and lacks the perspective of a writer that has broadly studied the whole subject (reviewing the main reaganomics article would be a good exercise for this).--BMF81 11:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does the section sound more nuetral now, or am I missing the point? Happyme22 23:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with BMF81 on the need for a better treatment of the criticism of Reagan's economic policies. David Stockman's views, in particular, should probably be taken into account since he was a very prominent critic at the time (and had inside knowledge). Haukur 17:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We originally had a quote criticizing Reagan himself by David Stockman, but chose, by consensus,to replace it with one by Don Regan, fmr. Chief of Staff and Sec. of the Treasury, for the quote by him seemed to focus more on Ronald Reagan himself, and that's what we were aiming for. Happyme22 22:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Regan quote isn't bad but I think it's weird to omit the juiciest part of it: "From first day to last at Treasury, I was flying by the seat of my pants." Have you read The Triumph of Politics, by the way? I strongly recommend it. I couldn't help but feel sympathy for Stockman, a somewhat naive ideologue who gets stuck in a world of compromising congressmen, "lemon socialism" and public relations. Haukur 23:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does the section sound more nuetral now, or am I missing the point? Happyme22 23:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have indeed made improvements but I still see some problems. I'm especially concerned with this sentence: "The policies were derided by some as "Trickle-down economics," due to the facts that the combination of significant tax cuts and a massive increase in Cold War related defense spending caused large budget deficits, the U.S. trade deficit expansion, and contributed to the Savings and Loan crisis, as well as the stock market crash of 1987 (known as "Black Monday")." First of all "derided by some" is not great writing but I'd be willing to let that slide. I think the major problem is that you're trying to condense too much into a single sentence and the causal relation gets tied up in knots. The large budget deficits and the trade deficit (etc.) were criticized in themselves not because they had necessarily anything to do with "Trickle-down economics". Indeed, some people who did believe in trickle-down economics (even if they didn't necessarily use that term) were critical of the deficits and the "trickle-down" philosophical criticism didn't necessarily refer to the deficits. My paragraph is probably even less clear than the one I'm criticizing but I hope you grasp what I'm trying to say :) Haukur 23:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per above criticisms. -- CJ Marsicano 18:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At well over 100k, and having so many extremely specific sub-articles related to Reagan, it's rather questionable whether this is an article of FA-quality focus or a genuine exercise in summary style. And before anyone even tries, let's not get into a bunch of hair-splitting of what "article size" actually means. Keep in mind that the attention span of most people have not changed just because certain technical limitations have. Peter Isotalo 14:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - While this is a great article, and I felt it deserved a GA pass, it needs some work for FA status. After just a quick read through I noticed the ""Reaganomics" and the economy" section needs a thorough copyediting. Chupper 03:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.

Parapsychology

[edit]

This article has recently became a Good article and in my opinion it fits the criteria of a Featured Article. The article is very well written and is engaging, The article covers the topic of parapsychology very well and neutrally without negating any facts or failing to mention specific topics within parapsychology, the article is sourced by reliable citations throughout, I along with a few others recently spent the past few weeks rewriting the article and it is neutral and stable. All in all a great article. I would appreciate constructive criticism that I or others can use to improve the article to FA criteria if you feel it isn't already currently. Please take the time to add a review to help us improve this article. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Support While imo the article firmly meets all the other criteria, I feel that it is not quite stable enough for FA status. A few significant changes are still being made on a daily basis. I think we need to give it some time to settle after all the work that has gone on. VanTucky (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support I'd love to see this article reach featured status, but I don't think it's there yet. It's still very, I don't know how else to describe it, heavy. I think the text can be slimmed up without losing any important details and things that take a lot of words to say can be said with a lot less. I think all of the content is there for a featured article, but I think it can use some style improvement. I would definitely like to see some constructive criticism from those involved in previous FA articles as well. --Nealparr (talk to me) 01:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree about the "heaviness" of the article. If you check out other featured articles, it could be more detailed, not less. VanTucky (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By heavy I don't mean less detail. I mean the amount of words used to illustrate a single detail. --Nealparr (talk to me) 13:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article is still actively being edited, and a couple of sections of it are incomplete. I would probably support FA nomination in the near future, but right now it is premature. This draft is too new and the article still needs time to stablize. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 18:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Shouldn't we run this through peer review first? Also, I think we should strive to get people who were not involved in the creation of this article to evaluate whether or not the article deserves featured status. Right now, all of the votes are from the "inside". Antelan talk 11:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose per above. Looks good, though. --Kaypoh 10:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaypoh, FA nominations aren't a "me too" vote type of thing. If you're going to oppose then you need to offer some novel criticism supporting your opposition. Right now the article actually is very stable. Wikidudeman (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's very stable now, I strike my oppose. If I find any problems with the article, I will un-strike it. Sorry, I'm a little new to this. The article needs a PR, though. --Kaypoh 14:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidudeman, please cite policy with a link before striking out other people's contributions. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Annalisa Ventola. This article is still being edited and expanded. We should not give FA status to an article we know to be incomplete. This is not to denigrate any of the hard work people, including Wikidudeman, have put into it. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't strike it out. He did that himself. [[1]]. Wikidudeman (talk) 07:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, What more improvements are to be made? It hasn't been edited in 3 days aside from my adding of the navbox. Wikidudeman (talk) 11:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake- sorry. I think a few sections need to be added, and probably some general editing. Let's just give it a few weeks, and then think about FA status again. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 18:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that withdrawal would be a good step at this phase, re-working, and re-approaching later. (When you do, be sure to address the problems with WP:DASH and WP:MSH, and please prune the large External link farm per WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:NOT). The criticism section frequently says "critics say"; I suspect there are better definitions available for these critics, like professional scientists, physicians, or whatever; one of the sources uses the wording "mainstream scientists", so I suspect that "critics" can be better defined. There is too much uncited text, and a keen eye needs to run through the prose. Statements that will become dated need to be refined, example: Contemporary parapsychological research has waned considerably. Not quite ready, and doesn't seem balanced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it up just to see what other editors have to say. Usually FAC's are the best way to get good reviews of the article. I appreciate your reviews and will try to make the relevant changes, Also if you are able to, please make some improvements yourself. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, in what way do you see it as imbalanced? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.

Oregon State Capitol

[edit]

I feel this is a very comprehensive article that is stable as mainly only a few editors have been involved in expanding and sourcing the content. It has been copy edited to ensure it is well written, and has numerous images to complement and not dominate the content. I think it meets all the criteria of an FA class article. Aboutmovies 17:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose A little more copy-editing needed.
"The government first began using the building" - the "first" is redundant
corrected
"Near the rotunda are eight painted medallions that represent the eight different portions of the Oregon State Seal" - the "different" is redundant
corrected
"One mural depicts Captain Gray’s discovery of the Columbia River in 1792, while another shows the Lewis and Clark Expedition." - "while" should only be used when emphasising that two events occur at the same time
"The suite’s reception area includes a table made of 40 different types of tree species." - "40 different species of tree" might be better
corrected
"One shows Lewis and Clark and Sacagawea, while the other has pioneers" - "while" shouldn't be used here
"Ellerhusen created five marble relief sculptures on the exterior, while a metal sculpture..." - "while" shouldn't be used
"The older main portion of the building is 53 feet six inches tall, while the newer wings..." - "while" shouldn't be used and the height needs a metric equivalent
metric issues corrected
"in order to create a living history" - the "in order" is redundant
corrected
"Throughout the grounds are native trees and shrubs. Some of these plants include Blue Spruce, Oregon-grape ... several cherry tree species, several magnolia tree species, and many others." - "some of", "several" and "many others" are redundant.
corrected
"The Oregon state capitol from 1876-1935." - the hyphen between the years should be replaced by an en dash
corrected
"There the legislature met on the second and third floors, while the building also housed the other state offices." - needs rephrasing
corrected
"Salem used seven fire trucks to try to put out the fire, while three came from Portland." - needs rephrasing
corrected
"The Breyman Brothers Fountain is located on the far west end of the park." - "located" is redundant, "at the far west end of the park" may be better.
corrected
Epbr123 23:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Epbr123: I have addressed most of your concerns, please look at the re-phrased items to see if this works. I have not addressed the "while" concerns as frankly "while" should only be used when emphasising that two events occur at the same time is a subjective opinion. While has several meanings including although, on the other hand, and the meaning you attach to it. All three are correct to use, and in the items you cited the term works within those meanings. Aboutmovies 18:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I don't agree. If you are using "while" to mean "although", it doesn't work well within the stated sentences:
  • "One mural depicts Captain Gray’s discovery of the Columbia River in 1792, although another shows the Lewis and Clark Expedition."
  • "Additionally, Ellerhusen created five marble relief sculptures on the exterior, although a metal sculpture by Tom Morandi sits above the buildings south entrance."
  • "One shows Lewis and Clark and Sacagawea, although the other has pioneers and a covered wagon"
  • "The older main portion of the building is 53 feet six inches tall (16.3 m), although the newer wings added in 1977 are 68 feet eight inches (20.9 m) tall" Epbr123 18:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Yes, that's why while was being used. One statue versus the nearly identical (in size and material) one on the opposite side of the same entrance (twice). One set of sculptures at the front entrance versus those at the back entrance. And finally the dimensions of the old part of the building versus the newer part. Maybe a few less "while"s, but I don't think they all need to go. Aboutmovies 20:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose—I agree with Epbr's take. Tony 00:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An outside (i.e. non-WikiProject Oregon) editor has done some work on the article (I'm one of the principal editors so I'm waiting for the dust to settle) that addresses some of the above concerns, so it might merit another look? Besides the minor syntax issues, is there anything else we should work on? Katr67 18:31, July 26, 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: It looks like most of the "whiles" were removed in that edit. For what it's worth, I generally agree that those instances of "while" were not ideal, though I wouldn't have considered it grounds to oppose FA status. I don't think that "while" is terrible or technically incorrect in those sentences, but it does sort of clutter the sentences with extraneous concepts, along the lines that Epbr described, making the text a bit difficult to follow. It's a minor, incremental point, and not something that keeps the article from being "well written," which is the relevant standard here. I'll read the article more carefully, as it's grown a lot since I've read it, and be back with my general impression shortly… -Pete 17:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the standard is, can you tell us if we are there yet? Katr67 19:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And per FA reviewing guidelines: "Be aware that references on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, consider accepting it." This being in regards to your comment "while" should only be used when emphasising that two events occur at the same time for which I cite the Oxford American Dictionary: Heald Colleges Edition (1980) where on page 1063; 2. although 3. on the otherhand as other meanings for the word while. Also the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus (2006)on page 1188 synonms for while include albeit, although, though, howbeit, and more. Aboutmovies 19:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we had agreed that "while" wasn't being used as a synonm for "although" in those sentences. Epbr123 20:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe "while" is a non-issue now. Can we stop discussing it (perhaps take it to your user talk pages) and get an honest assessment of the article as it stands now? This is the third time I've had to ask this. Am I missing some point of protocol? Katr67 20:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

structural issues

[edit]

The intro should receive some attention; it should be divided into an additional paragraph or two, so that each paragraph concerns only one topic. The fact that the Federal Government partially funded the current government should be moved, so that it's alongside the other bits about cost and funding. Also, the intro should mention that the capital city was changed several times in controversial votes, and that multiple buildings were used.

The section entitled "History" should be renamed. The entire article is essentially a history. That section specifically recounts the controversies around the location of the capitol, and the fact that it was moved around among several cities. A title more like "Shifting locations in the early years," or "Early controversy over location", or something along those lines would be better.

Sorry, I see that I misunderstood. I think "Previous buildings and locations" would be the best title for the section (since it includes the sub-sections on the first, second, and third capitols.)

-Pete 01:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.

Pennsylvania Route 39

[edit]

Currently, this article is an A-Class, good article. It is well documented and includes well written information about the route. It has a detailed intersection guide, and includes historical information. --Son 20:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Grammar problems:
  • There's a double space between Pennsylvania Route 39 and the abbreviation.
  • When becoming Hersheypark Drive, PA 39 runs opposite to its alignment before reaching the eastern terminus.—Routes do not run.
  • Grandview Road is not a major intersection by terms of WP:PASH.
  • The intersection of Hershey Road and Hersheypark Drive was upgraded in 2002 when the Giant Center opened, the Hersheypark parking lot was renovated, and the main entrance of the parking lot was moved off Hersheypark Drive.—ungrammatical.
  • [Other people will want to know] who maintains the road. The maint parameter of {{Infobox road}} takes care of that perfectly.
  • Any references to PennDOT must be placed in the publisher of {{cite web}}.
  • "west-east" sounds very awkward. Same with "north and south".
  • There must be an en-dash for things like "east-west".
  • Paragraphs must contain at least three sentences.
Comment. I'm an editor of a newspaper. Paragraphs do not necessarily need 3 sentences. --Son (formerly myselfalso) 06:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did some copy-edits and fixed some citations. I will do some research to verify if the highway had a earlier history. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 03:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still not good enough:
  • I see occurrences of "routes running". Routes don't run, nor do they travel.
  • A unique feature to Linglestown is the flag pole that is located in the middle of the road at the intersection of Mountain Road and PA 39.—ungrammatical.
  • Linglestown Road ends at the intersection with Jonestown Road, only feet from the I-81 interchange.—only feet? Please be more specific.
  • Why is Route 39 in the legislative route section in quotes? PennDOT sometimes refers to PA Routes as Route x, though not as much as PA x.
  • In that same section, there is a space between Pennsylvania and the period.
  • There are red links in the article. Please get rid of them.
  • Junction list problems:
  • Quadrant route shields aren't sized properly.
  • Why is the former route of PA 39 intersection still bolded? Does that intersection need to be glorified?
  • The North Progress Avenue intersection notes have some problems with font size and bolding.


  • Why don't I see any images in the category over at Commons? And even more, why are most of the images uploaded locally to Wikipedia?
Comment. How is this important to the article? --myselfalso 21:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not important to just the article, but to other Wikimedia projects as well. What if I write an article about PA 39 in the Chinese Wikipedia? (→zelzany - review) 21:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the image is available for articles about the route on other wikis has no relevance to whether or not this article is a featured article. If the image is uploaded locally, that's a problem with the image, not the article. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, I'll do it. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 21:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the Other development on PA 39 section can be considered original research.
Comment. Still searching for 2 citations; one was a dead link. --myselfalso 21:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{cite map}} has some incorrect usages.
  • It is recommended that paragraphs have three sentences or more. At the very least, please do not have any paragraph have only one sentence. Even more, writing newspapers and encyclopedia articles need different styles of writing. Newspapers have one sentence in a paragraph sometimes, encyclopedia articles don't.
  • In regards to the format of this FAC, {{done}} tags are not to be placed anywhere, as I've heard that they clutter the page and give undue prominence to the tag rather than the objection. This article still needs a lot of work; good luck. (→zelzany - fish) 17:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose after several fixes I made to this article, I realized it can't pass until a major source for "PA 39 was established in 1936" can be cited. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We just need to find the state law from 1936 that establishes it. --myselfalso 21:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff from pahighways.com said he got the source from the Official 1935 and 1937 state highways maps. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 20:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a link to those maps? --myselfalso 23:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll e-mail him about that, but I think he has those maps himself. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 23:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he could upload the maps to his site. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those maps would establish that the route was numbered between 1935 and 1937, not in 1936. --NE2 20:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now.
    • Some of the wording is awkward: "When becoming Hersheypark Drive, PA 39 is routed opposite to its alignment before reaching the eastern terminus." "PA 39 intersects Hersheypark Drive at the parking lot for Hersheypark, as well as the Giant Center."
    • Why are there so many non-breaking spaces in the text?
See the automated peer review on the talk page. --Son 17:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"There should be a non-breaking space between a number and the unit of measurement", not after every number. By the way, please do not strike through my comments. Several of them that you struck through have not been resolved. --NE2 08:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --Son 20:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't fixed. For the second time, please do not strike through my comments. --NE2 21:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there are any left, fix them. There shouldn't be, though. --Son 22:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There still were some; I fixed them. This is the third time I'm telling you not to strike through my objections. --NE2 22:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make a big deal about this and you're violating WP:OWN. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 01:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do "own" my comments on pages like this. Striking them out inappropriately can lead to the "FA director" thinking I have no more objections, when I still do. --NE2 01:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's still no excuse to make a big deal about this, if you think they didn't do your objection correct, simply comment below the striked text. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 01:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <del>...</del>) rather than removing it. Contributors should allow reviewers the opportunity to do this themselves. If you feel that the matter has been addressed, say so rather than striking out the reviewer's text." The reason for this is that, had I not returned, it would have looked like my concerns were satisfied, when they were not. --NE2 01:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The history of Legislative Route 39 does not belong in the history, since in Pennsylvania the Legislative Routes and Traffic Routes were totally different systems. It's like having the history of US 30 in the article on PA 30. I removed it, so this is not an objection unless it's put back (which it was).
    • The decommissioning of PA 894 needs a source. So do the years in "1970s to present", and many of the details in the route description, for which the main references are to several maps. For example: "Truck stops were built around the exit, and the area is heavily utilized by trucks. West Hanover Township plans to upgrade the interchange to incorporate traffic lights at both lanes of travel on and off of I-81, as well as traffic lights at the truck stops." "A shopping center, anchored by a supermarket was built in 2005."
I believe it is already sourced at the end of those paragraphs. It is certainly mentioned within other sources throughout the article.
Which source shows that West Hanover plans to upgrade the interchange? Which source shows that the shopping center was built in 2005? --NE2 08:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All have been fixed. --Son 20:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can see; where are the sources for those? There are also other similar statements; you should go through it and make sure everything is referenced. --NE2 21:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source for the interchange upgrade is Source [24]. The shopping center is Source [25]. --Son 22:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably reference those sources in both places. But why is that described twice? Maybe the current and future projects should be merged into the description, since they are essentially part of the road as it is now. --NE2 22:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is too much focus on the present; what changes of comparable importance to those listed in "Current and future projects" happened in the past?
The focus on the present/future will quickly become part of the history of the road. Though the statement I am about to make is Original Research, in the case of PA 39 (which I've lived along side since 1995) the expansion is very significant, as there isn't too much to the history of the road; it was mostly farmland in the east, and mining in the west. It wasn't until the 70s that the west began to develop and it wasn't until the 00s that the east began to develop. I, at some point, plan on adding in a traffic study of PA 39 (and PA 743) that occurred some years ago. --Son 17:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not know if this works: "At the parking lots of Hersheypark and the Giant Center, PA 39 intersects Hersheypark Drive." because you can't intersect a road at a parking lot. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 07:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you fixed that. Yes, it should have said "Near the parking lots..." instead of "At the parking lots...". --Son 17:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A little more copy-editting needed.
  • "PA 39 passes through Linglestown, which is a village that has a committee which is part of the governance of Lower Paxton Township, which it is located in." - needs rephrasing to avoid the repetitive use of "which"
  • "has become some what built up" - "some what" should be one word
  • "There are two major sections of the road:"– sentences shouldn't start with "there" when the "there" doesn't stand for anything
  • "east-west" needs an en dash
  • "and the parking lot was restructured. [8]" – remove the space before the citation
  • "because of warehouses built in 2003 and 2004. [24]" – remove the space before the citation. Epbr123 16:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done all of the copy-edits you requested. Is there anything else to fix? -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 19:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Epbr123 20:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for elaborating. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 20:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a and 2 (MOS breaches). The whole text needs a massage; find someone else to do it.
    • It's disruptive to have to hit the link to learn what "AADT" stands for. Spell it out on first occurrence.
    • "demarcating the center of Linglestown"—why use a plain word when an ugly one will do: "marking"? Same for "utilizing" --> "using". "Prior to" --> "Before". This is a persistent issue throughout the text.
    • "Fall"—no cap, and breaches MOSNUM on seasons.
    • "four mile stretch"—hyphen the first two words; MOS.
    • "Hershey Road was at one time mostly farm land,"—Avoid vague chronological references: look it up and tell us the period. That's what WP is for.
    • Provide metric equivalents (MOS), including in the table. (BTW, why is "Dauphin" awkwardly spread through the whole table? Remove it and tell us that it's all in Dauphin. That's basic.)
That's something to bring up at WP:PASH and WP:USRD, which determines the standards for the major intersections table. --Son 23:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a list - and its used to reference the location the exit is at, nothing more - the list is there to augment the article by itself - its layout is helps the reader picture the general location which is why the county and city are there. Also the exit lists need to be the same - they are standardized per WP:ELG (Manual of Style) master sonT - C 23:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:ELG explicitly permits removing the county column when the route is in one county. This is pretty much common sense too; the sentence "The entire route is in Dauphin County." could be added above the table. --NE2 00:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A shopping center, anchored by a supermarket was built in 2005"—Where is another comma required? Or better, switch the phrases around so that the sentences requires only one comma.
    • This is fussy, but why write "retrieved on", when "on" is idle?
There is only one instance I could change this; the rest were built into the cite templates. I'd suggest taking that up with them. --Son 23:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that would take an admin to change the structure of {{cite web}} for example, so we can't do anything about that because it would mess up *alot* of articles in wikipedia, even millions that use it. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 01:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony 12:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I made the fixes. --Son 23:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It explicitly says in the instructions 'not to cross out reviewers' points. Uncross my text, please. You made just those corrections? But they were examples of why the WHOLE text needs attention. Who's doing the rest of it? Tony 07:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I asked him several times not to strike through mine, and he simply ignored me. It's an uphill battle... --NE2 22:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, let's stop striking one's comments unless they've been adressed. Just leave a note under it. (→O - RLY?) 22:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please see WP:MOSNUM on the use of non-breaking hard spaces in compound items in which numerical and non-numerical elements are separated by a space. Throughout the Highways and Roads WikiProjects, we find terms like US 322 and US 422 which can be separated by wrap to the next line. The template {{nowrap}} is an alternate to non-breaking hard spaces. This should be fixed throughout by using either nowrap or nbsp. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.

House demolition

[edit]

Self-nomination. I "adopted" this article exactly a month ago after it had been the subject of extensive edit-warring between other users. I rewrote it from scratch to provide an exhaustively referenced overview of this controversial practice, including its uses in war and peacetime, its means of commission and legal aspects. The article provides a convenient jumping-off point into a number of related articles and brings together a number of previously disconnected themes, covering a period ranging from ancient Greece to the present day. It's illustrated with a reasonable number of good quality on-topic images. It has now been stable for two weeks, following the successful resolution of another bout of edit-warring (on a subject which has been decanted off into another article, so the edit-warring shouldn't recur). I've brought it here at Raul's recommendation and look forward to seeing what the rest of you think of it. :-) -- ChrisO 22:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is good, but it has to gome to grips with the definition and history of a "house" (i.e. the historical use of the tactic was carried out against homes which had a vastly different social and economic purpose than modern homes). The present division of the article further obscures a historical view of this issue by organizing it by purpose. If someone wanted to know when the first known instance of house demolition was, the current organization would keep them guessing. Savidan 05:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have a bit of an organisational gripe as well - House demolition goes on everyday in the civil context and yet the lead tells me it's primarily a military tactic - I didn't realise compulsory purchase orders were administered by the military! - joking aside I think a. because, on a global scale, civil house demolition is more common, you need to rename the article to differentiate. House demolition (military tactic), House demolition by the military or similar will be fine by me or b. Make the distinction in the lead and talk about civil demolition first. There also seems little historical context. When was the first documented example? - did the greeks/romans/persians/aztecs do this sort of thing? regards --Joopercoopers 09:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scope and name of the article have been discussed extensively on the talk page. This article talks exclusively about military demolition of houses (the purposes for which can vary). It's quite evident that in popular use "house demolition" (or house razing, as was originally in the first paragraph) refers almost exclusively to the intentional demolition of houses for military purposes. (Google for it and 8 of the top 10 refer to the military tactic, particularly in the middle east.) A Compulsory purchase order (or its US equivalent, Eminent domain) is a civil use, may not necessarily refer to houses but to any land, and is covered by the demolition article. Raul654 16:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This article talks exclusively about military demolition of houses ..." No it doesn't. It has an entire section on civil government "punishment" demolitions. Rmhermen 19:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article intro says that house demolition is primarily used for military purposes. In practice, it's not so easy to draw a clear line between civil and military uses - house demolitions have often been carried out by military authorities for ostensibly civilian purposes (such as the so-called "administrative" house demolitions in the West Bank). There is, however, a clear distinction between what one might call involuntary house demolitions in the context of armed conflicts and punishments, and the ordinary run-of-the-mill civil demolitions that take place every day when old buildings are torn down and replaced. -- ChrisO 02:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this page should be retitled. I jumped straight to the page from this one and was expecting info about how houses are demolished in everyday circumstances. To me, "house demolition" does not necessarily mean what you discuss. The google test seems flawed, since controversial topics that are often linked to (e.g. middle east razing) will rise to the top, whereas dull things that only construction workers care about don't get so much attention and won't necessarily be at the top of the ghits. I think "Involuntary house demolition" would be an apt title. Calliopejen1 09:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm finding it hard to accept that if you approach someone on the street and told them they were about to read an article about 'house demolition' that they'd instantly think of the military tactic (despite what google might imply). It's a great credit to its authors to see it at FAC particularly in light of the hard fought compromises won on the talk page, and I have no other gripes about the article other than the name - the talk page discussion has reached the wrong conclusion IMHO. I came to the article expecting to maybe read something about the UK gov's controversial Pathfinder programme which has demolished 10,000 dwellings in Merseyside [2] and more in other UK cities as part of a regeneration programme. --Joopercoopers 13:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.

Batman Begins

[edit]

previous FAC

Very through Article on the movie Batman Begins. Article is now stable enough to be re-nominated for FA.Mercenary2k 02:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done One of the sentences no longer starts with Realizing

    • I saw two statements, "...ironically of Wayne Enterprises property" and "His use of fear toxin is an example of his sadistic nature.", that could qualify as POV unless there is a statement from the creators that that was their intent.

 Done Removed both of them. Don't think they were necessary.

    • Shouldn't the plot summary find some way to explicitly mention that Wayne takes up the moniker of Batman during the drug bust?

 Done Added it.

    • A mention of Crane being apprehended and then escaping in the plot might also be good.

 Done Mentioned it.

    • Katie Holmes's Razzie should probably be separated from the other awards in some way (possibly brought to the end of the section) for people unclear on the negative nature of the award.

 Done Made it clear what exactly a Razzie award is. Mercenary2k 10:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I would like to say that I am one of the original contributors to the article, so I am not sure if my recommendation to oppose would count (and I know a recommendation to keep wouldn't fly). The article is incomplete in several ways, in my opinion:
  • The Plot section has over 1,000 words. The section needs to be severely trimmed to around 600-700 words.
  • The images in the Plot section and the Cast section, per the application of fair use these days, do not have sufficient fair use rationale. The arguments for the images seem to be too subjective for FA status. I do believe that the Batmobile and Batsuit images are absolutely appropriate, though I am not sure about Gotham City, as no real detail is reflected with the corresponding description of the city.
  • The Filming subsection does not have a clear end to it. It tapers off with a series of mentions of filming locations.
  • The Reviews subsection is enormously underdeveloped. There is a serious violation of WP:NPOV here because there is no specific negative criticism about the film. The film was not universally well-received, so negative criticism needs to be reflected. In addition, the existing positive criticism in the subsection is vague and does not specify exactly what was liked about the film -- the strong acting, how the story unfolded, the real-world redefinition of Batman and his universe? The Reviews subsection basically needs to be fleshed out.
  • The lead section fails to cover any aspect of Production, and it should cover the Release section as well.
  • I also believe that there are prose issues to be dealt with if this article is to achieve FA status, but I think that the above issues should be handled before the article undergoes copy-editing.
I would consider this one of the weaker Good Articles, and I believe that the FAC process was too premature for the tasks that still need to be completed to expand and improve the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.

Boeing 777

[edit]

I am nominating this article because I fully believe it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. I have read this article, and am fully assured of it's quality, and, without reservation, am satisfied that the article Boeing 777 is featured content.N734LQ 08:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 16:08, 30 July 2007.

Dungeons & Dragons

[edit]
previous FAC

The editors of this good article have performed a commendable job of addressing all prior objections to FA status, and I believe it now meets the FA criteria. Please take a look and see if you agree. I'll try to address any issues that arise, unless somebody beats me to it. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I found only one problem, and I fixed it. One of the section headers was self referential. I just made it so it wasn't. Otherwise, it looks like a great article. Much improved over the last one. I could find no serious objections. Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks like a great article to me. An excellent amount of references and good footnoting throughtout! Well done, editors! My only comment would be the Lead, I was told the Lead should be the summary of the article and not contain any references, footnotes, etc...that these should be in the body of the article.Mike Searson 23:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixes needed - why not put related products section as subsection under miniature figures (or combine into one called accessories) - as it is it isa stubby section all by itself and overlaps with those to subsections...and its very stubby. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm not a fan of the See Also section - Character classes and creature lists should be mentioned in the currently very brief paragraph where the 3 core rulebooks are mentioned. (that para is too small as is anyway). You could put the list of iconic characters in this paragraph too and then delete the superfluous see also section. occasionally there is a need for the section bu this isn't one of those times. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After thinking about this I'm not sure I agree. The "Related products" section meets the Wikipedia:Summary style requirement, so the brevity is appropriate. The "See also" section has plenty of precedent, and there is no specific requirement for removal of such a section. Class is already linked in the article, but I agree there may be a need to discuss and link the term "monster". On the whole, however, I think that making these changes would only be addressing your personal style preferences, which appear to differ from the majority. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The second paragraph needs something about the fact that it's usually played by a group of people sitting around a table listening to descriptions of their perceptions, knowledge, and choices from the DM and describing their actions in response. Otherwise, there's nothing in the intro to allow unfamiliar people to visualize how it goes. Even the game play mechanics section seems to leave those details assumed. BenB4 08:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Ben -I'll second that. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to address this concern. — RJH (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The use of Image:Players hndbk v35 cover.jpg (fair use, copyrighted image) is replaceable by an image a Wikipedian could take of all three books photographed together. The use here of this copyrighted imagery is therefore unnecessary, and fails WP:NFCC #1. Further, Image:S3ModuleCover.jpg has an invalid fair use rationale in which it indicates "illustrates a relevant point in the text of the article", yet this module is not discussed in the article. Thus, the use here is decorative and fails fair use criteria. --Durin 21:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: Image:Players hndbk v35 cover.jpg: How is photograph of the three core books together fair use, but a single book isn't? I think it's a good idea because it would be a better illustration (I'll see about taking such a photograph myself soon), but I don't know how it's better from a fair use standpoint. Presumably for purposes of identification and illustration you'll want a clear and complete image of at least one of the books (I'm picturing a fan of the three books with one on top). The book with the clear image would contain the same image as an image of the book by itself. That the cover would be surrounded by other imagery doesn't seem to change the core copyright concerns. Re: Image:S3ModuleCover.jpg: it's representative of a module. "Here's what a typical module looks like" seems like reasonable fair use, in much the same way that the image of a bunch of miniatures is, or the use of the first book's cover in Harry Potter. It's not decorative, it's representative. It's not realistically possible to describe what a module, a very common part of the D&D experience, looks like without an illustration. If my reasoning in incorrect, could you explain why so that I can make better fair use decisions when I contribute imagery to Wikipedia in the future? — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • While technically a photo of the three books together still carries copyright burdens from the original authors, the marketability infringement of such an image is so reduced as to make claims essentially moot. It is similar to photographing a scene with a McDonald's restaurant in it. It very definitely pushes such a work more into the grey area. Yeah I was thinking of a fan of the three books, or alternatively standing up the three books kind of like a three-way mirror in a clothing store. As to the module image, simple depiction is pretty weak. It's far better to actually discuss the module. If there's no need to discuss the module, there's not much need to have the image. --Durin 12:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure I agree with your arguments, but I'll see what I can come up with for alternative illustrations. — RJH (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. Just taking a photograph of the 3 books together, and considering its use is just to show the 3 books, it's a derivative work and still fair use. It doesn't reduce the amount of fair use on Wikipedia either, as it's just like scanning all three works into one image. It'd also be less useful. - hahnchen 20:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Image:Players hndbk v35 cover.jpg image has been replaced by an image from the commons. Image:S3ModuleCover.jpg has been commented out in lieu of a more suitable image. Would a fanned image of a module cover and its contents serve? — RJH (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This user declined to repond, despite two requests to do so. For future reference I'll assume this issue has been satisfactorily addressed. — RJH (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Some short paras could benefit from mergers. But my primary objection is that I'd like to see more academic studies cited: Gary Alan Fine's Shared Fantasy is a classic that I'd expect to see, but there are others - yet as far as I can tell all of article's citations come from publications by developers or fans, with a few newspaper articles thrown in.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the feedback. This isn't something that can be remedied in the time frame of the FAC, so I'll take a pass on further attempts to address concerns. — RJH (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I recall commenting on this last time around. There are two sentencing describing the awards that this game received. I would like to see a little more critical acclaim. Axl 20:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have some specific suggestions? Origins seems to be the highest award in the industry. I'm not sure whether EnWorld awards could be considered all that notable. Awards for D&D-related computer games don't seem applicable. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Durin, several paragraphs go un-cited. Some adjectives could be removed "An elaborate example of a D&D game...". Note:I Reviewed this article for GAN and failed it instead of putting it on hold, It was my 1st time... -FlubecaTalk 02:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding "elaborate example", I assume you're dismissing "elaborate" as a removable adjective. Given that the photograph is exceptionally and unusually elaborate, it seems an important adjective lest we mislead readers into believing that is a typical example. — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:08, 30 July 2007.

Natural selection

[edit]

previous FAC

The previous nomination seems to have failed due to having no-one to deal with complaints, however, I'm willing to do what's needed, and evolution has calmed down a lot since it returned to FA, so I'm going to nominate this excellent article, and do what I can. Adam Cuerden talk 23:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments It's good to see this here. I did some work on this article around the end of March and was planning to bring it to FAC eventually, but got derailed by meatspace ;) Two things I remember from my mental to-do list:
    • Reorganize the last paragraph of 'types of selection'. It's basically just a list of definitions, and I don't think the terms all have (or need) their own articles, but this is a case where tedious, mushy prose is trying to do the work of a nice bulleted list.
    • I never liked the 'impact of the idea' section, from the title on down. I intended to rewrite it, but I no longer have any of the relevant source material, which tends to be the work of historians and thus is primarily in dead-tree form. In particular, the mention of influence specifically on 19th-century thought seems to imply by omission that there was relatively little influence on 20th-century thought. The first paragraph in general needs to be rewritten, I think. I'm also not sure how notable the Lotka stuff is; I may just be clueless but I'd never heard of him before I started working on this article. Opabinia regalis 04:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a and subprofessional formatting. Could be fixed, so bring in someone else to copy-edit the whole thing.
    • The use of the term "favorable" in the opening paragraph is problematic.
    • Why is "1859" linked? I can't find a single thing that's relevant in that article.
    • "adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches"—Isn't "specialise" intransitive only?
    • Captions need to be brief (MOS).
    • Ugly combinations of italics and roman quote marks.
    • "less-fit genotype"—Hyphen necessary? "more-fit" --> "fitter"?
    • "Very low-fitness genotypes"—The hyphen is awkward in this triple epithet. Try "genotypes of very low fitness". Tony 15:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will work on it! Adam Cuerden talk 10:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks great; it's one of my favorite subjects. I think it would be better with the antibiotic resistance diagram up top instead of the finches which I like for the historical aspect, but frankly their picture doesn't convey any information to the average novice who won't know why and how the beaks are different. The antibiotic resistance diagram seems to capture the essence of natural selection far better. BenB4 13:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems to be one of those discussions that will go back and forth forever - the antibiotic resistance image was originally at the top, and then some people came and complained. Spamsara 11:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as is of course, since I nominated it last time. Samsara 11:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Prose needs a lot of work, with an eye toward making it accessible to readers without a background in biology. (I find it confusing and hard to read, and I have a degree in biology, with an eco/evo focus, from a top university... This shouldn't be the case.) Also finding some small errors of fact or statements that sound like errors of fact, such as implying that Mendelian evolution only holds for single-gene traits (it works for multi-gene traits too, with some possible adjustments for gene linkage etc.) and saying the fitness of an allele is zero just because one particular individual with that allele dies. I'm going through the article bit by bit and trying to make improvements. Calliopejen1 10:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you could make a picture that shows the food typically eaten by that species next to the head and beak, that would probably solve your problem. I remember seeing such an image in some textbook(s). Here is another variation on that theme: [3] 82.71.48.158 19:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the article has been at FAC for almost a month, yet still needs cleanup of basic [WP:MOS]] items. There is someWP:MSH repetition. Incorrect use of WP:DASHes and hyphens. Far too much uncited text, particularly for a science topic. Incomplete ref formatting (example: MRSA Superbug News. Retrieved on May 6, 2006. ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:08, 30 July 2007.

Lupin III

[edit]

self-nomination. In the past month, I worked significantly to improve the article. The article underwent a major overhaul and numerous edits to improve clarity, style and tone, include inline citations, remove unnecessary material, and improve the structure and overall quality of the article. III&diff=135742470&oldid=135689712 this is how the article looked on June 4, 2007 if you would like to compare the changes the article underwent over a period of four weeks. When I worked on improving the article, I kept the four criteria of featured articles in mind, so I hope the end product embodies the criteria of featured articles --AutoGyro 05:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both the group picture and the individual character pictures say that their fair-use rationale is to "identify the characters." In the spirit of minimal use, it would probably be best if we could narrow those down somewhat. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed the main image to the international Lupin III logo that TMS provides with Lupin the 3rd licenses. Proper fair use summery and copyright license tag were used. --AutoGyro 15:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I cannot see supporting this article under one major sticking point: the useage of fairuse images on the front page. Already, there has been a very heated debate on a few areas of Wikipedia over the useage of such images on the front page. The lack of an image to me to help illustrate the lead is a complete and utter disrepect to the subject matter. Either let articles have a stab with the fairuse image, or don't nominate it at all. It's not fair when Avatar: the Last Airbender got the OK to use a fairuse image on the front page, when other works like Scooby-Doo were imageless (or in this case, there was a fight over which image to use). Thank god Excel Saga had Nabeshin to save the day. --293.xx.xxx.xx 11:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: While I do respect your opinion, this is not a nomination for front page status, but a nomination for featured article status. Many featured articles on Wikipedia have only fair-use images. Madlax, for example, is a featured article within the anime and manga project that has only fair use images in it. --AutoGyro 13:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Well, guess my objection can be slightly modified to the point of "Lack of Images." Howabout that? Theirs a lack of images period. It could be helped with say, a cosplay of Lupin III (Nabeshin doesn't count).
        • Comment: I added a few more images. I did add Shinichi Watanabe's image to the article because he is the director of the 1999 television special Fujiko's Unlucky Days, which gives the article a few more images and one image in the public domain. At any rate, while images are a part of Featured article criteria, the criteria do not state whether or not the images cannot all be fair use images, just that if they are, they must include proper tags and fair use rationales! Thanks for your vote and I hope you can contribute to the article and help on with its continued improvement :) --AutoGyro 05:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I personally don't like articles about cartoon shows, but if you're going to have them, this is what they should be. BenB4 10:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article is good, it's definitely good, but I'm not sure if it has what it takes to become featured.
    • It's not stable. AutoGyro may have jumped the gun when he nominate for Featured Status, since he is still tinkering with the article.
    • Too many images. Most of them are decorative, serving no actual purpose. The covers don't belong here, but in the article for the movie they represent. There's no need for separate images of each character, when I know there's images (like this one) that includes the whole cast. And do we really need a photo of Nabeshin?
    • Poor organization. Much of the article is dumped under "Adaptations." But the manga series are the source material for the TV series, films and musical; they don't belong in adaptations. Same with "video games" and "music," "music" is not an adaptation of anything. "Legal issues" is a one-paragraph section. Either expand it or work it into another section.
    • Troubles with the writing. This problem stems from the poor organization. Here's some examples:
      • Following Lupin vs the Clone, which was released on December 16, 1978. The first paragraph of "Animated theatrical features" goes off on a the various titles for the film but no release date is given until the second paragraph (when writing of a different movie)
      • In a tradition that began in 1989 with the television special Bye Bye Liberty Crisis, every summer since then featured a new 90 minute Lupin III television special that would air on NTV at 9:03[40] on Friday evening, usually in the last week of July or the first week of August (Bye-Bye Liberty Crisis and Seven Days Rhapsody diverted from that trend, however). This paragraph, really one sentence, doesn't flow well. It should read of how Bye Bye Liberty Crisis air in 1989, of the specials that follow and how NTV decided to turn the specials into an annual event.
      • Not including The Secret Files, The Secret Files 2 - Sound Collection and Lupin III: Trailers Collection '71 - '95 as they were only compilations of previously produced materials, only two Lupin III features were released as OVAs. If they're not OVA's, why open the section with this info?
      • "English language licensing and release information" opens with "In 2002..." I'm not sure, but does that mean no Lupin reach North America prior to 2002? I honestly don't know but, if there was Lupin before 2002, this is a strange way to start the section.
      • The third and final television series It is the third, but how do we know it's the last one? "And final" it's redundant. And on the Lupin in Space series, isn't "short-lived" used to describe series that actually made it to air but were cancelled shortly after?
    • No reception section. Articles need a reception section. Details on the series popularity, longevity and critical acclaim or dissaproval.

That's some of the points I see need addressing. I was going to bring it up in peer review but it's archived, so I might as well do it here. Again, the article is good, but not so sure it should be featured.--Nohansen 13:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Thank you very much for your suggestions! I took many of them and applied them into the article. As for the photo of Nabeshin, I added it because he is the director of Fujiko's Unlucky Days and 293.xx.xxx.xx objected based on the article not having many pictures and no non-fair use images. --AutoGyro 19:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:08, 30 July 2007.

Global dimming

[edit]

The article is already at GA status, it's passed review, and it's stable. It definitely seems to fit the criteria for FA. It's also an interesting subject that can be featured on the front page.Kgrr 19:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Needs improvements - There are no references in the "Cause and effects" section. Why are there both "Cause and effects" and "Probable causes" sections? Way too many external links, probably remove from podcasts through to television programs per wp:el. BenB4 23:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lists in two places that could be converted to prose. Spamsara 19:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:08, 30 July 2007.

Tool (band)

[edit]

A self-nomination, and my first one, so please don't bite. The article passed GA nomination on June 12, and has since then undergone a second peer review, both procedures resulted in very encouraging comments regarding FAC. (See the links in the article history at the Tool talk page for details.) Some fellow editors and me have poured a lot of effort into this article, the most challenging issues (and maybe points of special interest for FAC reviewers) were:

  • How to tackle tiresome genre disputes about a band that pushes popular genre boundaries?
  • How to address the strong focus on visual arts and influence of non-music related artists on the band? (Featured articles on other bands could not really serve as a blue-print in this matter.)
  • How can we cope with the lack of all-encompassing biographies or broad-coverage articles on the band? (Since the band refrains from authorizing any and even spreads false information at times.)

In consequence, we have written a quite extensive (that doesn't mean "long"!) article, that heavily relies on inline citations, tries to cope with the surprisingly complex subject matter by dedicating a subsection to the visual arts and musical traits/genres of the band. Of course, we have attempted to minimize the amount of fair use images in the article, and in my opinion, have come to an acceptable, since useful and insightful proportion in relation to CC images. Regarding 1c, please note that some of the sources, especially from the early 1990s, have been researched at a semi-official fansite — direct links to the transcriptions used as a source have been removed recently due to possible copyright concerns and "cite web" replaced with "cite news".

In all, I'd like to say that over the years that I've worked on the article it has become the best established and most concise article on the band that I know of. Obviously, I do believe that the article is fit for FA status, but, I know there may lie stones in the way to that goal, please point them out so that they may be cleared away. Thank you for reviewing this nomination. Johnnyw talk 20:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Their aspirational work features exceptionally long or complex releases, controversial lyrics and cover art, and unorthodox music videos, which results in a rather ambivalent relationship between the band and today's music industry,[1] at times marked by censorship, and the band's ongoing struggle for privacy.[2]" - This reads like a press release, and violates POV. LuciferMorgan 23:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see plenty of POV pushed in it.
  1. "Aspirational" suggests all other bands aspire to do such work, and definitely violates POV. By this POV statement, you'd get the impression this is a band nearly everyone aspires to be like.
  2. "Unorthodox music videos" - this is yet another mere opinion, and I feel that the writer of the article needs to get rid of the numerous adjectives within the article. "Unorthodox" is an opinion, so needs to be attributed to a critic who feels this way.
  3. "Ambivalent" is yet another opinion. Facts are great, and any opinions should be sourced and attributed. LuciferMorgan 00:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Thanks for both comments.
      • Regarding "violates POV", "reads like a press release": I think you are mistaken regarding the violation of NPOV, but will skip the explanation of every single point made in that summary to address your second concern, which in my opinion seems valid enough and is actually the source for your concern regarding the violation of NPOV: Since I at the moment think that factuality of the points made above remain, it think it is rather a problem of tone, than of facts. I'll try to town it down notably, please give it a second glance when you read this. Also: I welcome any specific suggestions regarding these changes. Johnnyw talk 18:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"On March 31, 2005, the official website announced - to the shock of many fans and friends - that "Maynard has found Jesus" and would be abandoning the recording of the new Tool album temporarily and possibly permanently." - You cannot assess whether "many friends" and many fans were shocked, or not. This is mere speculation, and it needs removing - please stick to the facts. LuciferMorgan 23:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Removed dubious claim per suggestion, see diff. Johnnyw talk 13:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Tool has a reputation for "odd"[36] and "some of the most innovative album packaging in the industry."[100]" - Yet more opinion. Please state which critics hold these opinions. For example, it's Mike Osegueda who believes they have a reputation for "odd" album packaging - that's an opinion, not a fact. What is deemed as odd differs from person to person. LuciferMorgan 00:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your other points, LuciferMorgan, but regarding: "Tool has a reputation for "odd"[36] and "some of the most innovative album packaging in the industry."[100]" - I wonder why you have to state the critic who says this if it is attributed in the footnote? It seems redundant to me. Thanks for your time. daveh4h 00:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't redundant, because it's an opinion. Let's get it straight here: you're carting around opinions and writing them as though they are fact, and that's simply untrue. The video is not "odd" (that's a misleading statement), but simply deemed "odd" by Osegueda (a statement which isn't misleading). The way it's written suggests everyone deems it a commonly held fact, which is not true. This is reflective of the whole article, which is full of misleading adjectives and statements being carted around as fact.

Based on criterion 1. d. which says ""Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias; see neutral point of view", I Oppose. This article has a long way to go in order to meet this requirement. LuciferMorgan 09:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I understand that there are problems like this throughout the article, and it certainly is an opinion, but it is an opinion that is attributed in the footnote. I asked about this particular case to use it as a model elsewhere in the article. If it were stated in a more general way and less as definitive fact, would it be acceptable to only attribute it in the footnote? I am not necessarily speaking about this specific example, but I am thinking about other areas we may run into this. I am left with the impression that if it is an opinion, the person who holds that opinion must be stated, even if it may be a widely held opinion. I've no problem with this, and it makes a good deal of sense actually, but just want to make sure. daveh4h 13:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Let's not forget that this is not a POV being pushed (or at least this has not been verifiable yet). Neutrality needs to give sources due weight. To cite some of the sources that appear to be representing a rather personal POV might make this impression, but does not necessarily entail a violation of NPOV. In this specific matter (it's about album artwork, not the music video as you state above, just to avoid confusion): out of 4 album artworks, 2 have been Grammy awarded, 1 nominated, and the last distributed by Wal-Mart and others with a full sized censored cover. These facts led to incorporate the comment of the critics you deem as merely opinions catered as facts. Please consider this. Is it a check of style you deem necessary or do you allege an inaccuracy (POV, etc.) of the article?Johnnyw talk 13:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I allege a misrepresentation of the information at hand, so the article does not present "views fairly and without bias". Critical reaction is the opinion of critics, not facts. A point of view is being pushed, and that point of view is presented as though commonly held fact. "Has a reputation" suggests everyone thinks the artwork is "odd", and that's simply not true - the truth is that Osegueda stated this opinion, not that Tool "has a reputation". This article severely violates POV with its many adjectives been thrown around as fact (when these adjectives are opinions). 1.c. also says the article should "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and this article doesn't do this either since the views are inaccurately represented. LuciferMorgan 13:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Osegueda's view, in combination with the second view about the innovativeness are used as example, and I will attribute them to address your concerns. Still, these are not POV-pushing, but substantiate the fact that these two views are actually spread throughout the industry ("Tool has a reputation"), which is supported by the Grammy Awards mentioned in the same paragraph. As a reminder, the Grammy self-description [4] sees the Grammy as the "recording industry's most prestigious award, (..) awarded (..) to honor excellence in the recording arts (..) truly a peer honor, awarded by and to artists and technical professionals for artistic or technical achievement (..)". I think the paragraph follows the principle of due weight. And as of yet, I fail to see which other notable POV is not represented, as you haven't given an example, although I see that better attribution could prevent misunderstandings by other readers. Thank you for considering my objections. Johnnyw talk 16:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rephrased the bit, adding an attribution to the AP, dropping the "odd" statement, while containing the essential idea. See the diff for details. Johnnyw talk 17:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your insistence it is "spread throughout the industry" - no actually, it isn't. There's a POV statement. Critics opinions always differ, so please don't misle everyone and make out Tool are loved by everyone in the industry. As concerns the Grammy Awards, please don't quote their propaganda - yes, a Grammy Award makes them a Grammy Award winner. This is fact. That your assertion (which is your own opinion may I add) that these two views "are spread throughout the industry", "supported by the Grammy Awards", that's all it is: assertion. I'll repeat it yet again: stick to the facts. The National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences is one musical body, not an entire industry, and even their Grammy Awards have been criticised and admired.
As concerns "I fail to see which other notable POV is not represented, as you haven't given an example", I've given plenty already though you fail to agree. If you can't see the POV pushing in your own writing, then that's not my problem. I have selected mere examples to show a problem within the whole article.
As concerns your "rephrasing", it is simply not good enough. The releases have been met with positive critical reception: music journalists such as of the Associated Press have since attributed to the band a reputation for innovative album packaging. - yet again you are using phrases like "such as" to suggest it's a widely held opinion, and therefore POV pushing. Jonathan Drew of Associated Press holds this opinion yes - this fact cannot be argued with. Why do you have to keep using weasly phrases like "music journalists such as" instead of just simply keeping to the facts and not emphasising certain viewpoints? The way you word things still comes across as though it's a press release, whereas this is meant to be an encyclopaedia. LuciferMorgan 01:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWhile I think this is not much work to do, I agree with LuciferMorgan a complete trimming is necessary to comply with the FA requirements. Things like "Many illustrous examples describe their sound as..." is not admissible. Even if you did find five "illustrous examples" (and provided a bunch of footnotes sourcing the illustrous part for each one), and listed the five refs describing what you say, how would you agree on "many"? That's the problem. You have to imagine someone who really hates Tool, and you, and maybe also wikipedia, coming to criticize your work with all the bad faith in the world, and be prepared for that. This particular sentence could be rephrased as "Their sound has been described as..." I admit it has less punch, but it's definitely more encyclopedic. Same thing for "Beyond this fundamental aspect..." Get rid of the fundamental. Drop the adjectives, and stick with the dry, boring, unquestionable facts. It might sound sad, but I promise you it will be worth it when you see Tool with all the other FAs out there.--SidiLemine 11:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I happen to like Tool and saw them live when they did Cardiff last Winter, so if someone with all the bad faith actually did come along imagine that... LuciferMorgan 12:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll give the article a good trimming over the weekend, starting right now. Thanks for all your comments Lucifer and Sidi, I think I had a little misunderstanding there earlier, when I was insisting on what I believed was right (the due weight argument), and see now that my arguments were heading in a wrong direction. Some phrasings are dangerously misleading, even if sourced, this won't stay as it is. Johnnyw talk 15:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not trimming that's needed, but statements in the article to be more to the point. Writers on Wikipedia have a bad habit of writing "their music has been described as X", but if you write Critic Y said their music was X then who can dispute this? Nobody could, as critic Y actually did make that statement - it improves the clarity of the article, and leaves the article unopen to accusations of bias. LuciferMorgan 15:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I concur with LuciferMorgan and SidiLemine on this. After reading only a few sections, I did find quite a bit of opinion, while may be sourced in the footnotes, I, as a reader, found myself stopping to go to each source to find out who actually said what. More attribution is needed. I will read it again after this weekend when the nominator has had a chance to weed through it again. ♫ Cricket02 17:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many small changes have been made. While I will review the article again after giving it a couple of hours rest, I still hope you'll already find many statements better worded. The latest diff (since 07/27). Johnnyw talk 13:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The latest diff includes the changes mentioned above, copy-editing by dave4h (thx!), and some fixes in the dashes used in the quotations, as pointed out by Epbr123. Thanks for all the constructive comments. Johnnyw talk 20:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citation source 101 is Rockdetector, which I deem to be an unreliable source. I'll explain why if I need to, but could you find alternative sources to cite the two cited statements. For the Billboard related cite, an official Billboard news item would be deemed reliable. LuciferMorgan 23:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced both, although I couldn't find an official news release (online) regarding the Sober awards (it was 1993, after all), I found several sources, and used one we already used in the bio, a guitar magazine. The others were the FAQ, and some other transcribed music magazines that are located at fan sites. For the Osseus, a news post by the band was easy to find. Johnnyw talk 00:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carey stated that he would like to thank his parents (for putting up with him) and Satan, while bassist Chancellor concluded:..." – "while" should only be used when emphasising that two events occur at the same time or when emphasising contrast
  • "Vicarious premiered on US radio stations on April 17, while the record was released as announced on..." – again, inappropiate "while"
  • PDF sources need a "format=PDF" parameter in their citation templates
  • According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images, it is recommended not to specify the size of images. The sizes should be what readers have specified in their user preferences.
  • "it is more likely that the band made this up in order to create a unique backdrop"– the "in order" is redundant
  • "Justin Chancellor said in a recent interview" - avoid using "recent" as it will eventually become outdated
  • Some full dates in the footnotes need linking
  • See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dases regarding the correct use of dashes. Page ranges in the footnotes need en dashes rather than hyphens. "and something else - I don't remember." - this needs either a spaced en dash or unspaced em dash. Epbr123 09:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "while", "pdf", "image size", "in order", "recent", "date format" addressed, please see diff. I am currently going through MoS#Dases, to address the last point raised. Thanks for pointing these out. Johnnyw talk 13:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question As can be seen in the latest diff (since 07/27), I replaced a wrong dash with a comma, and en dashes are now used in closed page ranges. But: do I need to correct the dashes etc. in the footnote quotes we used, even if they are direct copies? Thanks again, Johnnyw talk 13:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the dashes in the quotes need to be corrected as well. Also, em dashes need to be unspaced, eg. "issues—specific", not "issues — specific". Epbr123 14:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to welcome you all to review your points of criticism, since I hope that all points have been addressed. This is the latest diff including changes since July 27. Johnnyw talk 22:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 16:08, 30 July 2007.

Moses

[edit]

It fits all featured article criteria and provides the details of his life without missing any events provides 105 references has a link to a 90mb page detailing Moses in rabbinic literature also it has many revelant pictures all around a perfect page i am surprised it hasn't been nominated in the past--Java7837 22:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Java7837 22:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article surpasses the good article criteria by far--Java7837 22:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This article fits the featured article criteria also it has a good section about notable historians that mentioned Moses a section on the possible egyptian origin of his name also it has the Template:Prophets of the Tanakh and Template:Prophets in the Qur'an on it. Also there is a link on the Moses article to Mosaic authorship it has a very good section on further reading. I do not see how this article could be improved.--Java7837 23:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • CommentI used ref name when links where used more than once also references do not now list link but instead link to it also there is a further reading section so i do not think list 71 references in alphabetical order is logical besides this makes adding references to the article a major hassle--Java7837 04:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose References need to include the author, publisher, publishing date, access date, language (if not English) and format (if a PDF file). Epbr123 10:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Criticisms section has no references. "Moses in Mandaeism" section has only one sentence. "Moses in Jewish thought" also has a tag saying that it requires expansion. --Kaypoh 13:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaypoh, virtually nothing is available online about Mandaeism besides it is like saying Hindu viewpoint of Muhammad what can you write other than that Hindus do not consider Muhammad a prophet. --Java7837 15:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Then maybe you should remove the "Moses in Mandaeism" section. It was renamed to "Moses in other religions" but has a "requires expansion" tag. If the "Moses in other religions" and "Moses in Jewish thought" sections do not require expansion, remove the tags. If the sections require expansion, do it. Also, I see no references in the "Moses in Mormon thought" and "Horned Moses" sections. Someone added two references to the Criticism section. Good! Maybe you could also add a reference for the last sentence. I'm not sure if the short Criticism section requires expansion. --Kaypoh 09:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Though heavily referenced, there are still large sections missing citations. The sections discussing him in other religions are too small. They need to be greatly expanded.--Ghostexorcist 19:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - A Featured article, in my opinion, does not have tags saying "this section needs expansion" as this one does. I also note that there are generally too few references in certain sections, as above some of the sections are too short, and that the first image has the name of the artist last-name first. This article is very good, but still has several problems which keep it from FA status. John Carter 19:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:08, 30 July 2007.

Al Gore

[edit]

Al Gore is important because he is the 1. man who try to kill global warming seriously.--Tamás Kádár 08:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we have to work a little bit on the page.--Tamás Kádár 09:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. I meant Vice president, but because of boredom i kept on typing President. Luxurious.gaurav 09:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the grounds that there are controversial assertions that are uncited, and there is a lack of criticism of Gore present. I have to say however, that several of the votes on this seem to be "I don't like it" votes. Trotting out "global warming is a fraud anyway" certainly doesn't make your opinion on the article seem fair and objective. VanTucky (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my case, i don't know anything about Gore, as i am an Indian (though i came to know something after reading the article). So there is no question of me opposing because of any personal reasons. Luxurious.gaurav 09:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, I'm British. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 18:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest that you add link to transcript of Al Gore's November 27, 2000 speech "a vote is a human voice": http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/27/gore.transcript/index.html. Took me an hour and a half to find it today and it's important enough to be able to refer to and retrieve. "Two hundred years from now, when future Americans study this presidential election, let them learn that Americans did everything they could to ensure that all citizens who voted had their votes counted. Let them learn that democracy was ultimately placed ahead of partisan politics in resolving a contested election. Let them learn that we were indeed a country of laws." Thatvisionthing 22:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, nominated for the wrong reasons. An article should be nominated for how well written it is(which this article isn't), not soley how important somebody is. Using the logic of this nomination, everyone here should instantly become a featured article, which shows why you shouldn't nominate articles such as this one. --RandomOrca2 02:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 15:55, 26 July 2007.

Pauline Fowler

[edit]

This is an article about the longrunning character on the British soap opera EastEnders, who just left the show last year after a 22-year run. Many of the soap opera articles on Wikipedia are a bit of a mess, so we've been revving up Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas to try and get a handle on things, and this is our first major project. Many editors have worked on this particular article, so that we could have a solid example of what a soap opera character article should look like. To my knowledge this was the first ever soap character article to reach Good status. It has also gone through a Peer Review, and, with the community's permission, I'd like to see if it's ready for FA. --Elonka 02:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your courteous reply, Elonka. I note the change you have made in the lead, but I am afraid it still appears to fail the guidelines in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). I would draw your attention to the examples given (section 2.1), particularly the second example. The comment "Notice how the prose is careful to label the subject as fictional, only to proceed to describe the character as if he were real for the remainder of the paragraph" does unfortunately exactly apply to the 3rd para of the lead, even as amended. I believe that if you look at that example, you will see that the pattern of a single out-of-universe label, followed by in-universe for the remainder of the paragraph, is exactly what this MOS page cautions against. If you feel you can address this issue, I will be happy to give the article a fuller review in the next few days. A brief look at tonights edits suggests you're dealing with the problem, however. J.Winklethorpe talk 22:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Winklethorpe, I have had a go at rewriting the lead. Hopefully now it is in accordance with the manual of style. Please let me know what you think. Gungadin 16:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy the rewritten lead now satisfies WP:WAF. I'm now going to frustrate you with what I've quickly found is a typical effect of FACs—I'm going to criticise something you've done to satisfy an earlier FAC point. In the 3rd lead para "traits that consistently typified the character. She was most often portrayed as an opinionated, sombre, battle-axe—a family orientated character who often alienated her kin due to overbearing interference." I think you could change the second "character" (actually the third use in that para), as it stood out to me as a repetitive use. I think "woman" would be fine, for example, without returning in-universe - you've already used "portrayed" to establish an out-of-universe tone. I've struck the comment relating to this paragraph, and will strike the rest once I've had the oportunity to thoroughly read the article.
A quick look at the refs brings up the following:
*Bill Treacher—Eastenders describes itself as "An unofficial tribute to British actor Bill Treacher" and appears not to cite any sources that would lead me to believe it meets WP:RS
  • If the new ref completely replaces the old, then remove the old ref.
  • If ref "Eastenders—Tim Teeman watching BBC One" is from TimesOnline, where's the link?
  • I assume the muliple page numbers in certain refs are refering to different instances of the ref? Thats is, the first page no is for the first use of the ref, and so on? While I can't find a specific entry in the MOS, I'm pretty sure that creating separate refs for each entry with a different page number is the approved method; it will certainly reduce the difficulty in finding which page nos are refered to, and prevent possible corruption if some instances of a ref are deleted without the main ref being updated.
  • Unfortunatley none of the contributing editors have her autobiography at present, but thankyou for suggesting it as i'm sure it would contain some useful insights. Hopefully it can be used to extend the article in the future.Gungadin 16:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the main question is whether you feel it might contain any "major facts and details" that aren't in the article, that prevents it being comprehensive. As I'm unlikely to buy it to check, if the editors state they are content, I'm content. J.Winklethorpe talk 21:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt that it contains anything we don't know about. I don't mean to sound pretentious, but between myself, Gungadin and AnemoneProjectors, we know pretty much all there is to know about EastEnders, so if there were any big revelations in her autobiography, we'd probably know about them. She has given press interviews that contain a lot of criticism for the show, which are mentioned within the article, so I guess any criticism she has was in those reports, and most behind-the-scenes stuff is in the books we do have access to, like Inside Story. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
  • “Over the years Pauline's character altered somewhat from her original outline….” Is there any information on why this happened? Editorial decisions, character development? Was there a long-term plan to make her a miserable battleaxe, or was it an incremental thing? You’ve got some good commentary later on about Richard’s resistance to later character changes. Also, you could lose “somewhat” without harming the sentence in any way.
    • I have included some information that hopefully explains why Pauline became a battleaxe. Please let me know what you think.Gungadin 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good commentary from reliable sources.
  • The Jacquetta May quote is a great bit of commentary, exactly the sort of thing I would expect to be getting from this article.
  • “The audience had witnessed Pauline and Arthur rowing many times, but they were generally seen as the most stable couple in the show” on the face of it, this is a contradictory statement. Presumably there’s an explanation/expansion you can add (it was good natured bickering, or something?)
  • Details on scriptwriters decision-making – again, a good piece of info.
  • Ref "Eastenders—Tim Teeman watching BBC One" is on TimesOnline, but was originally published in The Times. I think it would be better citing the original source, and including the url as a courtesy link. In the article itself, Teeman should be identified as critic for the Times, not TimesOnline
  • “As a final tribute to Pauline and Wendy Richard the BBC aired…” – this paragraph appears to focus on the actress, rather than the character.
    • The show was called Goodbye, Pauline, and was more about the character in an in-universe sense than the actor. :) -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 07:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the show was more about the character, then great. Make the paragraph about the character, too, and it'll be good. Did the "character commentary and tributes from televison critics and EastEnders actors" contain any worthwhile insights? I think this would be a good place to sum up to overall opinion and impact of the character, and it sounds like that programme would be a good source. Personally, I'd move a lot of the stuff from "reception" to this point. J.Winklethorpe talk 07:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Her husband, Arthur, has been made redundant in 1984 and at age 43, he has no prospects for steady employment, so Pauline's unexpected pregnancy comes at a very bad time.” A bit of a run-on sentence
  • “her deviant son Mark” is “deviant” a bit strong – sounds like he’s got some sick hobby. His article uses “delinquent”
  • The rest of that sentence is a long run-on.
  • “she cannot curtail his deviance” – there’s deviance again. It could just be me that thinks it’s a rather strong word, but a dictionary gives me “a state or condition markedly different from the norm”.
  • Reception section – I have several issues with this section, which are my POV, although I believe other reviewers may share them. I would have preferred to see material in this section integrated throughout “Character development and impact”. Both popularity and criticism are a matter of impact, and indeed may have influenced development. The essay Wikipedia:Criticism explains why separate criticism sections are often a bad idea.
  • I’m afraid I have to echo the comment above about the relative size of the Storylines section. Of the c5800 words in the main article (i.e. excluding refs etc), it takes up c2500, so approximately 43%. I’m not suggesting you lose all that wonderful detail you’ve built up (and I appreciate it is the result of a 22 year run), but I would urge you to consider the use of summary style. To be honest, I stopped considering the prose too closely in that section as it got very heavy going. J.Winklethorpe talk 23:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your comments, I feel that the use of a separate article for Pauline's storylines (as you suggested above (WP:SS)) would be a bad idea, as it would be solely an article of storylines, without any real world context (as that appears in othe sections of the Pauline article) and be deleted straight away. A lot of the storylines important to the character did not make as much of a cultural impact, and therefore can't really be written about in an out of universe style. Also, according to a current discussion on the WikiProject EastEnders talk page, it would be derivative work, and therefore a copyright violation. Therefore, I think it is best off where it is - and I'm sorry that it cannot be condensed any further, but 22 years' worth of action (over 4000 episodes) (I feel) merits a slightly longer storyline section than other fictional characters. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 07:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, I hadn't considered that a split-off article would have those issues. Nevertheless, I still feel it's unbalancing the article. While I sympathise with your view that it cannot be condensed any further, I think it's fair to say that anything longer than a sentence can be condensed to some extent. For example, here's the super-condensed version of "Marriage to Arthur": "The marriage of matriarch Pauline to the emotionally weaker Arthur endured despite frequent arguments. It suffered serious strain when Arthur confessed to an affair, and was thrown out. Although they reconciled, Arthur was wrongfully imprisoned for embezzlement by Willy Roper, who went on to seduce Pauline. She uncovered his deception, and secured Arthur’s release, but he died shortly after." (Edit:probably not the best example, as the source is in a different section, but I was looking for something self-contained.) I'm in no way suggesting that this hasty summary should actually be used, but I think it demonstrates that summarising is always possible. WP:WAF has several examples of featured articles about characters that may serve as good comparisons. I'm happy to listen to further discussion - my mind isn't made up on the issue. J.Winklethorpe talk 08:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A slight technical hitch (my hard drive's died!) means I may be slow to respond. Apologies for any inconvenience. J.Winklethorpe talk 08:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do appreciate that some users have an issue with the storyline length. I think you have done a good job of condensing that paragraph above. It works when you are concentrating on one plot like that, but that would not be possible to do in the storyline section, because it is ordered chronologically. We could not summarise eleven years of one collective plot in a single paragraph as you have done, because of all the unconnected storylines that occurred in between. The entire section is written in present tense, which works when the plot is read in a chronological order, but will be confusing for readers if we suddenly refer to 1996 in present tense, and then jump back to 1985 to describe another storyline in present tense. This issue was discussed at length before we submitted it for FA. We submitted it for a Peer Review, and brought the specific issue up at WP:FICTION and the storyline length was not considered to be an issue.Gungadin 01:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • What I think I'm going to do is try to summarise where I'm at on this issue, and leave it there. If it passes FA, then I was clearly wrong :)
          • I refered to WP:WAF having good examples of FAs on characters, such as Padmé Amidala, Palpatine, and Captain America. They all looked like top class articles to me, and the community agreed. What is notable is that none of them resorts to such a high proportion of in-universe plot description, with no supporting commentary within it. Captain America avoids it altogether, and the Star Wars profiles do a good job of keeping it focused and integrated. I appreciate that Pauline Fowler is somewhat different from a comic book or film character, but I think some broad conclusions of the best way to approach a fictional character can be drawn, the main one of which is that such a high proportion of plot summary prevents an article representing "our very best work". I think that the section needs radically reducing, or, even better, having its' material integrated into section 2, with supporting commentary to bring it up to the standard you've achieved in that section.
          • I think there is some really good stuff in this article - sections 1 and 2 are good, and there is some good material in 4. I appreciate that what I'm calling for would be, in effect, a total overhaul of the article, but the fact that the problem is difficult to solve can't affect my review of the article under the featured article criteria. So my oppose rests on this point, and more weakly on my dislike of the reception section. I would imagine your best course of action at this point is to wait and see how other reviewers respond, and ultimately how Raul weighs my oppose. J.Winklethorpe talk 12:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Winklethorpe, have all your issues been addressed now or are there still outstanding issues you'd like to bring back to our attention, just so that they can be fixed (and hopefully your oppose can be withdrawn!) -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the slow response, I have computer issues :(
  • I'm afraid my oppose still stands, based on my last 2 points. The first, on the Reception section, is a weak point, and I would not oppose on it alone (i.e if it was all that was left, I would likely move to a neutral position). The 2nd, on the Storylines section, is my main point, and the reason for my oppose. The rationale behind it is (hopefully) explained in my post above (12:01, 15 June 2007). J.Winklethorpe talk 11:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Phirazo. Dalejenkins 15:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support fantastic article for a fictional character. Informative, well written, well referenced, satifies all criteria. Good work.Lemmington 19:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the article is very good, but 14 unfree images are way too many. I understand the necessity to use unfree images in this case, and I would support the use of a small group of carefully chosen images with strong and specific rationales. I don't support the overuse of images with very weak/generic rationales that do not even begin to explain their individual necessity to the article. You need to demonstrate that the images serve more than a decorative purpose and that they are essential to the topic, and use no more than absolutely necessary. Rossrs 10:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments. I have reduced the number of images to 8 and i've also been more specific with the rationales. Please let me know what you think.Gungadin 20:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you've done a great job (in reducing the images to only the most relevant) and I'm withdrawing my oppose. Thanks. Rossrs 22:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to clarify, does that mean you now support this? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, at least not yet, but now that the images have been fixed, I will go back over the article in more detail. Rossrs 11:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oppose - I have to echo the comments of User:Winklethorpe - Reading through section 2 about the character development, I felt that I gained a good, clear general idea of how the character evolved and there were some excellent examples given within the context of storylines, as well as pertinent quotes. The "storylines" section looks very much like a too-detailed rehash. To be honest, I felt frustrated after reading through the development section, and thinking how well it had been presented, to find that Pauline was 14 again, and that I was presented with her entire life history. At this point, I did lose interest. This is an usually good article for a fictional character, but somewhat spoiled for me by the repetition and excessive detail of the storyline section. If biographies of real people, historical figures etc, are to be written in a short, sharp style, I believe the same rationale should be applied to a fictional character. Rossrs 12:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have spent several days tagging television character articles that are poorly referenced and poorly written, so this article was a breath of fresh air to read. Deserves to be promoted and held as an example to the many others in desperate need of improvement. On a side note i'm interested to know why "family" needs to be put in the character infobox, the text as well as having its own section? Seems unnecessary.Legalbeaver 14:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. Here are examples from the top that indicate the need for thorough copy-editing, preferably by fresh eyes.
    • "second longest-running"—remove awkward hyphen, I think.
    • "the show's" x 3. Even one would be awkward.
    • Punctuation needs an audit throughout, e.g., "Her storylines focused on drudgery, money worries and family troubles, which were all confronted with steely determination and stoicism; traits that consistently typified the character." Semicolon --> em dash. A few more commas for ease of reading, too?Passive is vague here: "all of which she confronted ...". Steely determination and stoicism? I guess they're a tiny bit different. Remove "consistently" as redundant.
    • All of those hyphens, and then one is omitted where needed: "family orientated".
    • "frequently featured"—Fowler would call this a "jingle".
Nice pun! Epbr123 22:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I don't understand your comment about the use of the phrase "frequently featured" - could you please explain this, as from what I can see, it looks like you're picking faults with coincidential alliteration. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is more than a "difference of opinion", because this article wants to be part of what should be considered the "elite" of Wikipedia (grain of salt). Explain how I am to understand the character based on that weak geniology list (which is fictional by the way, the person isn't real)? I don't know those characters at all. I don't know how they impacted this character. That list doesn't explain that. It says "sister (deceased)". First, labeling births and deaths is kind of bad already, because they are not real. That section is treating this character and her fictional relatives as if they were real. They are not. Nor do they lend to the understanding of the character. That's like having a "list of favorite colors" section. How does that better my understanding of the character? It doesn't. Neither does this family list. It's fannish. No random reader is going to know anything about those characters, unless they are familiar with the show itself already. Knowing the father of this character does nothing for my understanding, and articles should not be written for just the "fans of the show". If someone who does not watch the show reads this article, and they don't understand what something means, that is the fault of the articles, and it obviously should be not featured if it lacks comprehensiveness. You already have a template at the bottom, with a link to all the characters, there is no reason to have a list that does the same thing except adds more in universe information, with no real world context whatsoever.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have to question the necessity of a lot of the plot. With "Heartache", why do we need to know about every detail of Arthur's predicament? Seeing as the article is about her, it seems that those details could easily be summed up in "Arthur cheated on her, they went through a rough spot, and *minor details of the rest*" in a much less space than it currently takes up. That's just one example. Even if it is a long running series, there really are a lot of things that can be condensed and cut. TTN 23:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

**Just because it's better than the other articles doesn't mean it satifies FA criteria.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC) (been moved up to direct association with initial comment  BIGNOLE  (Contact me))[reply]

  • Oppose - the storylines section reads like a rehashing of the plots of the episodes, only with more detail directed at the character. It could summarized a little more concisely. It takes up a third of the entire page, and it's written as if it actually happened (which is stated at Wikipedia: Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#The problem with in-universe perspective). One thing that should not happen on fictional pages is that fictional characters should not have fictional biographies written about them. That stuff should be trimmed an integrated with the "Character development and impact" information to help provide it with a real world context. Sorry, I don't follow the shows, so this indepth coverage of her fictional life, as if it actually happened, means absolutely nothing to me because I don't follow the show. I shouldn't have to follow the show to be able to understand what happens to her in it. I mean, you have one section that talks about the major points of her fictional life, but it's done in a manner that has an OOU tone, and is accompanied with outside sources that discuss the events. Then you have a new section which basically says the same thing, except in an in-universe tone, with no real world information whatsoever. The lead is 5 paragraphs long. Not even Superman's lead is that broken up, and that's a fictional character with almost 70 years of history to account for. The paragraphs need to be concise. Also, they seem out of place with each other. You talk about the character in the news in the second paragraph, then not again until the last paragraph. You have things in the lead that aren't anywhere in the body of the article. I haven't even read this thing word for word yet, but there's a problem when you can skim and article and find so many problems. What about this sentence, The character was killed off in a shocking and dramatic storyline...? Shocking? Shocking to who? To audiences, or the reporter publishing the ratings? Wasn't the reporter, that word doesn't show up there. It reads like it's supposed to be a teaser for that episode. Someone should go through the article and look for more peacock terms. The article is very well deserving of its GA status, but it's not FA (currently) in my opinion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Trampikey, do you want me to give a more detailed reason as to why I support this article, is that what you were stating above in response to my Support vote? I didn't do anything too differently than some other editors have done in this featured article nomination debate by stating either Support per...or Oppose per... As stated above by me, I didn't state anything too detailed in my support vote because my thoughts were similar to another editor's and it seemed too redundant to repeat. Given, that doesn't mean that should be a reason not to respond in a more detailed way, but I didn't feel that it was needed by me to repeat. Flyer22 09:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not at all, there's a gap between our comments because originally Bignole replied to your comment "Just because it's better than the other articles doesn't mean it satifies FA criteria.", to which I replied "It was a reiteration of the user's support, not a rationale.", then he moved it up to underneath Legalbeaber's support comment, so now it looks like I was criticising your comment, when in fact I was defending it! Bignole should have left the comment there but struck out. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 10:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A well referenced article. I'm a little uncomfortable with the list in the family section. Perhaps those with copyediting skills who have commented above might like to improve this article themselves. The JPStalk to me 11:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks for clarifying, Trampikey. I had suspected that you weren't replying to me. I should have checked the editing history of this page first to be sure on that matter before replying to you on that assumed concern. Flyer22 18:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These fixes needed.
  • "the Fowler/Beale family around which the soap was originally structured." - I think this misleads readers into thinking the soap was originally just about the Fowler/Beale family, which is clearly false. The Watts family arguably had a bigger role than either of those two.
    • I'm sorry, but your assumption is not true. The Watts became popular, but the show was originally structured around the Beales/Fowlers as mentioned by the show creators.Gungadin 16:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine then. Epbr123 22:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is clear that her family is her life" - what is clear? Sentences shouldn't start with "it" when the "it" doesn't stand for anything
Yes, sorry. Epbr123 22:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..from the beginning of the programme, with Pauline depicted as the matriarchal force.." - the "with" is ungrammatical. It's best to use a semicolon instead, ie. "..from the beginning of the programme; Pauline was depicted as the matriarchal force.."
  • "..that held the Fowler family together, while Arthur was depicted as weak..." - "while" should only be used when emphasising that two events occur at the same time
  • "30.15m watched the 1986 Christmas episode in which Pauline discovered.." - comma needed before "in which"
  • "has also been praised, with Teeman commenting" - ungrammatical "with"
  • "In July 1989 Pauline begins to go through some poor health" - the "some" is redundant
  • "signing the fund money into various different accounts" - the "different" is redundant
  • "In order to keep Martin within her grasp" - the "in order" is redundant, "within" should be replaced by "in"
  • "at loggerheads for a long while, with Pauline adamant that..." - ungrammatical "with"
  • "a spoof version of EastEnders, with black comedians taking" - ungrammatical "with"
  • "Although Joe is obviously drawn to Pauline" - the "obviously" is redundant
  • "and frequently clutches her head in obvious pain" - the "obvious" is redundant
  • "who frequented a pub called Rub-a-Dub" - "pub" is a slang term
  • "I thought in my heart of hearts it was wrong. [35]" - remove the space before the citation
  • I don't think "gay", "lesbian", "cremated", "cornerstone", "seduction" and "symbolised" need wikilinking. Epbr123 15:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who says it's ungrammatical? I think the article reads well. Yo've nitpicked a hell of a lot of tiny errors that you could've just fixed yourself. In response to your fourth point, they did happen at the same time. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 15:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to see this article has passionate editors. See here regarding "with" and "while". Epbr123 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose More comments - Character developement and impact can easily be merged with "Storylines" (with the latter merging into the former) As I said earlier. It's the same information, one just has real world material attached to it. Exit? Marriage to Arthur? Other Storylines? These are topics covered in "Storylines". Merge them, and get rid of the extraneous details about the fictional life. Per WP:WAF, you shouldn't treat fictional characters as if they are real, that includes writing up sections as if they were a fictional biography. Relevant information is better suited in the "Character development" section, everything else can be viewed by watching the show. (struck, as this just reiterates what I said in my initial oppose) The same goes for the infobox. Per WAF, in-universe information essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction. First appearance, last appearance, great (though the title of the episode, if EastEnders has titles, would probably be beneficial). DOB. Not great. She isn't real. She wasn't really born on that date. Knowing when she was born does not let me know anything essential about her. The same with "Deceased". This is purely fan information. She isn't really dead, because she isn't real, she's fictional. And in the great world of Soaps, no one is ever truly dead (in the fictional world in general). The fact that her occupation is never mentioned again in the article says to me that it isn't essential to understanding the character. The same goes for the listing of the family. I have no idea how these people being listed here give me some greater understanding of the character, considering they are not real either. I don't know them. They are not some cultural icon that I can easily identify and go "oh wow, so that's who her son is..." That brings me to the "Family" section. Entirely in-universe, list form at that, provides no essential knowledge of the character. Not only that, but the family tree is already in the template at the bottom of the page. Now I come to the lead paragraphs. They're so sporadic. First you talk about the characters first appearance, then jump to popular culture (which is the last thing talked about in the article itself), then you go into characterization, then fictional life, and lastly back to popular culture. Move all the pop culture stuff to the last paragraph, and put it together. This:The character's final appearance was a death scene, dying in the middle of the Albert Square gardens on Christmas Day, December 25, 2006, from what was later revealed to be a blow to the head. The episode was watched by an estimated 10.7 million viewers--could easily be shortened to "The character's final appearance on the show was watched by an estimated 10.7 million viewers". The details of it being her death and how she died is not important to the lead. The important part is that it is her final appearance, and it was watched by 10 million people (though, it would be nice if you could get an average viewership number to compare it to..I mean, if 10 million is the average viewers for the show, then it really isn't that significant). Also, "arch-enemy"? How comic book of us. That word is not used anywhere else in the article, and neither is Den Watts' potential for being "the worst enemy" of Pauline. That's a characterization that needs a citation. Speculating as to the nature of whether a character is the worst enemy of another character is original research, unless a source can verify that he was either written or considered the worst enemy of Pauline. Otherwise, the sentence needs to be rewritten to reflect what can be verified.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've already opposed once. What's the point in opposing twice? Your new criticisms should be added underneath your last ones. You don't get two votes. You are also coming accross as extremely patronising. There is no need for comments like this " Also, "arch-enemy"? How comic book of us".Gungadin 16:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right, I didn't realize I had already put "oppose", I thought I had merely said "comment" for all of them. I struck the second "oppose". As for the comic book remark, it was sarcasm, I just thought it was a funny word. The questioned use of it is clear in the rest of what I said.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I realise you were being sarcastic. Some of your points are valid, but you are only serving to demotivate editors by being condescending. This is not a particularly productive approach in my opinion.Gungadin 16:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really condescending since I wasn't like "how could you use such a term, it's childish!" I didn't downplay the use of it, I thought it was a funny term, my point is that it isn't used anywhere else, or in the least the character is never described as such in the rest of the article when his name pops up. You see him mentioned with feuds that occur, but nothing that refers to him as the worst enemy of Pauline. This is why I said "us" instead of "you", which would have been pointing the finger at the editors of the article and saying "you silly minded fools". I think it's a funny word, but I'll strike it if it bothers you. I have no problem with it's use, if one can verify the necessity for it. The same goes for any synonym of it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, I realise that the lead is not your main concern, but I have attempted to fix it per your suggestions. I have condensed it and removed superfluous information. Please let me know what you think.Gungadin 17:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks much better. This sentence: Pauline Fowler (née Beale) was a fictional character in the BBC soap opera EastEnders, played continuously by actress Wendy Richard[1] from the show's first episode on February 19, 1985 and appearing in 1958 episodes during her twenty-two years sint on the show.--probably needs to be broken. I would stop after you identify who portrays the character. Then pick up with, "The character has appeared in 1,958 episode in twenty-two years, beginning with the series pilot." Do they identify thousands with a comma in the UK? I couldn't figure out why it says "1958", instead of "1,958". The same goes for "programme"? Is that the UK spelling? (if you cannot tell I live in the States, so I'm not up on every variation between the UK and USA). What is "née Beale"? It doesn't show up anywhere else. Is it a nickname? Probably needs a citation. I added a comma to the lead, but I was looking and the part that says, "Throughout her time..." could probably be removed, since "Pauline frequently.." basically says the same thing. That, or remove "frequently"..doesn't really matter which I don't think. As for the rest, I would include a brief summary of the character's popularity (and criticism) since there are sections for it, and also a brief summary of her appearances outside of the series.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for looking over it again. I've tried to include everything per your suggestions. nee Beale isn't a nickname, it's the character's maiden name (nee means born). I'm guessing you will say that it shouldnt be in the article as she isnt real and wasn't really born :) Former names seem to be included in every soap opera character article, it's been like that long before I began editing here. I guess because the characters frequently change their names and may be known more widely by other names. Perhaps nee should be changed to "formerly or previously Pauline Beale", but that would need to be addressed at the WP:SO to get a consensus for a universal change on all soap pages. I've removed that information on the number of episodes, because it wasn't sourced. In the UK we say programme as opposed to program. Program is used here to refer to computing programs etc.Gungadin 21:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It looks better. If it's her "born" name, then it needs a citation for when it was used. I'm your casual readers, as I have no clue about this series, so everything in it needs to be able to make sense to me. Does "nee" have a page, or is it on Wikitionary? You could link the word "nee" to Wikitionary if it's there and then cite the "Beale" maiden name. As for "program", I was just making sure it wasn't a typo.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 15:55, 26 July 2007.

Robert Benchley

[edit]

Article on one of America's greatest humorists. Peer reviewed, copyedited by three different people, I think it meets the relevant criteria.

Two notes before we dive in:

  1. Yes, the Yates and Benchley texts lack ISBNs. That's because the versions I used don't have ISBNs assigned.
  2. Yes, the redlinks are around 16% at the time of nomination, about 6% higher than MOS guidelines typically recommend. These are a priority right now, and will likely be widely dealt with before most of you see this comment, but that shouldn't stand in the way of this article as a whole.

So let's have at it! --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some things need doing before I can support.
  • The lead is rather short. The lead isn't just about what he is most remembered for, it's also for what he did thye rest of the time.
  • I'm really bad at leads, any help you can give me here would be excellent.
  • Robert Benchley ... to Charles and Maria Benchley, an unplanned birth. and Upon learning of Edmund's death, Maria Benchley was believed to have cried out "Why couldn't it have been Robert? suggest a rather uncomfortable family life for the poor boy. Is this true? If so it is worth fleshing this out, rather than simply implying it; if it isn't these statements need to be put into some kind of context.
  • The statement is true, but there's nothing to indicate that it was a bad childhood. I'll try to make that a bit clearer, but there's not much else about his childhood written.
  • damaging his academic credentials toward the end of his term - but the next line talks bout his enrolment in Harvard. He can't have done that badly. Is theres ome point to talking about his grades? How bad were they, really?
  • It doesn't go into detail, but, for whatever reason, I don't see it as that jarring. His credentials simply weren't damaged enough to retract the acceptance, apparently.
  • Following his acceptance, Benchley enrolled at Harvard University in 1908... This sentence is awkward. Besides, he could hardly do so afterwards, could he? Probably best just to drop the Following his acceptance, bit.
  • Done.
  • In the education section, it might just be worth mentioning what he studied, rather than just what he did in his spare time. I know no one actually goes to uni to learn, but we can still pretend otherwise!
  • I'll look into this a little more, my books don't really mention it, as his academics really were a bit of an afterthought. In a way, his classes were what he did in his spare time when not going all over the place.
  • A theatrical production by the members of the Round Table was put together in response to a challenge. - A challenge by whom? What was the nature of the challenge? Where such challenges commonplace?
  • Good catch. I'll adjust this and let you know when I have the details set.
  • Done. I've actually expanded it a bit, since I could.
  • This character, labeled the "Little Man" and in some ways similar to many of Twain's protagonists, - don't drop Twain's first name if it is the first time the he comes up.
  • It wasn't when i initially wrote it. Fixed.
  • The Algonquin Round Table setion - most of this is covered in the article on his life, the rest should be moved there.
  • I'm not 100% on board with this yet. It's generally considered a major enough part of his like to not seem to gloss it over, and one person suggested breaking it out like this already. I can be persuaded, though.
Then it needs to be expanded to explain its importance/significance. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overall I found the article interesting, however, and this is due to the choppy nature of the man's life, some aspects of his autobiography are kind of disjointed, but with a bit of copyediting and my problems addressed I think I'll be able to support it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. Stay tuned! --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Pretty good, but:
    • The lead could stand to be expanded. It does not provide a full summary of the article as recommended by WP:LEAD. For example, there is no mention of his early life and education, which has almost two text pages in the main body. The lead NEVER mentions his work at Vanity Fair, which according to the article seems a pivotal point in his career.
    • Additionally, the image in the infobox uses a "U.S. only" PD tag. This indicates that the image MAY not be free usage in other jurisdictions. This may need to be fixed.
      • Well...uh...it's public domain in the United States. That's what the image is. I've double checked at commons, and this is the proper tag. Not sure what's up here.
    • The Works Cited section seems to have links to Amazon.com listings. This implies that Wikipedia is endorsing a commercial site as the source of books. Just leave them as plain text if the content of the books themselves is not availible online. I see no reason to link to a place to order a book. Everyone should know how to use a library to find a book. If these books are being used a references, I don't see why they are referenced the way that they are.
      • We disagree on this, and this is a common thing I've done in numerous other FAs. As references, they're entirely valid.
These are relatively minor fixes. Overall, a pretty good article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, I look forward to your response. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. The whole article needs attention.
    Jeff seems to be busy, I'll try and answer these. Most seem to be caused by taking bits out of context. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "best known"—My US Encarta dictionary says it has to be hyphenated.
      • With respect, your US Encarta dictionary is either being misinterpreted or is just wrong. Either interpretation of that: "was an American humorist best-known for his work" "Peter Benchley was best-known for the book" is not-grammatical and, well, just-looks-silly. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "His legacy includes his written work, as well as his numerous short film appearances." What else does his legacy comsist of, since you've subsetted it with "includes"? And what is it with this "as well as thing (marked version of "and")?
      • Oh, his participation in the Algonquin Round Table, the humorists who follow his style, the films which he wrote, not just appeared in, etc, all of which are detailed in both the lead and article. Note that "includes" is specifically requested by another reviewer, apparently we can't please everyone. 'as well as' changed to 'and'. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "he actually was the great-grandchild"—Remove "actually", which is poorly located, anyway.
      • You're taking that out of context. The sentence, shortened, reads "Although he lied a lot, he actually was the great-grandchild" - compare "Although he lied a lot, he was the great-grandchild". The "actually" is a needed contrast, emphasizing that there was truth among the fiction.
    • "Robert Benchley was born on 15 September 1889 in Worcester, Massachusetts, to Charles and Maria Benchley, an unplanned birth." Awkward sentence structure. And it should appear at the start of the paragraph, shouldn't it?
      • Chronological order. Ancestor, then birth.
    • "Robert's older brother, Edmund Benchley, was thirteen years older, and died in 1898 in the Spanish-American War, when Robert was only nine. (Upon learning of Edmund's death, Maria Benchley was believed to have cried out "Why couldn't it have been Robert?!", a comment for which Maria spent a long time atoning.) This had a considerable impact on Robert's life, as his later writings would show distinct pacifist leanings." "a comment for which Maria spent a long time atoning"—Vague, attitudinal rather than factual, and unreferenced. "Older" x 2. "Upon"—Why not just plain "On"? "as his later writings ..."—The causality escapes me. This is a bombsite.
      • One bomb at a time, please. :-)
        1. That whole paragraph is referenced to Benchley, 26–30; Gaines, 4.
        2. The causality of his brother being killed in a war causing pacifist views escapes you? Surely not; death of immediate relatives is the classical reason people oppose war, see Cindy Sheehan for example. I made the reference clearer in case you lost it due to the intervening parenthetical remark. In Benchley's case, his opposition to war caused him great professional problems, see below in the article, and the relationship to his brother's death has been commented on in biographies, this isn't original research.
        3. http://www.bartleby.com/68/67/4267.html

Those for whom simplicity and conciseness in language use are the highest and only virtues argue that on should almost always replace upon, but this is nonsense. Both are useful words, offering variety at the very least, and occasionally upon offers a precision on lacks or can usefully provide a slightly more elevated tone. Both prepositions are Standard, and both are high-frequency words.

Kenneth G. Wilson (1923–). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993.

    • "Benchley married Gertrude Darling; they met while Benchley was in high school in Worcester, engaged during his senior year at Harvard, married in June 1914,[5] and their first child, Nathaniel Benchley was born a year later. A second son, Robert Benchley, Jr., was born in 1919." Now we're no longer on first-name terms with him, suddenly. This list is poorly formatted and organised, and the first sentence is too long. Tony 09:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mouse, despite your taking up resisting my suggestions as a sport, I'm still not satisfied with the writing. It has improved a little, though.
"Benchley did some copy work for the Curtis Publishing Company during the summer following graduation (1913) while doing other odd service jobs, such as translating a number of French catalogs for the Boston Museum of Fine Arts."

Let's get rid of "some" and "a number of".

"he was hired by Curtis as a full-time staff member, preparing copy for their new house publication, Obiter Dicta."

"preparing" is uncomfortable. Is it causal ("... member to prepare")? Or "... member; in this position, he prepared ...".

"The first issue was soundly criticized"

No, you mean "roundly". "Sound" (Ger. "gesund") means healthy.

" but Benchley and Curtis were not a good match"

Vague: they fought? their skills were disparate? There's a subsequent causal "as" that I'm suspicious of.

Why do we need a link to the article on China in "Chinese-American"? Tony 03:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed several in that collection that I was able to fix. I didn't "fix" where doing so would require knowledge that I don't have. As for the last question: Well, linking where possible is a nutso Wikipedia habit. Consider the very first sentence (after stripping away the boldface and the dates): Robert Charles Benchley was an American humorist best known for his work as a newspaper columnist and film actor. Do WP's writers really suppose that its readers will, say, think Ooh yes, "American"? Just what does that mean? Let's look it up!? I'd instead write Robert Charles Benchley was an American humorist best known for his work as a newspaper columnist and film actor (no links). But in the past when I've stripped away such linkcruft my edits have been reverted. -- Hoary 08:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 15:55, 26 July 2007.

Shield of the Trinity

[edit]

Ver informative article and of great encyclopedic value. It is very well writen and it has alot of good images . Bewareofdog 04:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the main author of the page, I haven't attempted to strictly conform to featured article standards, since that would appear to involve expending a large amount of effort in jumping through technicalistic hoops, without a correspondingly large improvement in article quality as a result. By the way, the 1982 Michael Evans journal article is pretty much the only source I have been able to turn up (after moderately intensive research) which is mainly devoted to the "Shield of the Trinity" diagram -- otherwise, the diagram seems to fall between the cracks of different subject areas, and information about it is dispersed in small little dribs and drabs here and there... There's also an article Das "Scutum fidei christianae magistri Hieronymi Pragensis" in der Entwicklung der mittelalterlichen trinitarischen Diagramme by František Šmahel in a book "Die Bildwelt der Diagramme Joachims von Fiore: Zur Medialität religiös-politischer Programme im Mittelalter" (edited by Alexander Patschovsky, 2003), which I haven't been able to access; that might throw some light on the use of the diagram beyond England and France, but I doubt that it would alter the conclusions of the article in any very significant way... AnonMoos 19:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In case I wasn't clear, that's one of the reasons why the article now has a "selected references" section -- if instead there was an unannotated alphabetized list of all sources consulted for the writing of the article, then people attempting to find more information on the subject would be driven nuts by the fact that a great number of such references would have only one or two sentences on the Shield of the Trinity diagram (often rather tangential to the discussion of some other subject). I only included in the "selected references" section works which have some substantial connected discussion of the diagram and/or documentation of its historical attestation. AnonMoos 15:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 15:55, 26 July 2007.

Pipe organ

[edit]

Nominated for FA status because WikiProject PipeOrgan has attempted to prepare the article for an FA review after an organized push. The article is currently at GA status and has been peer-reviewed (archive). —Cor anglais 16 19:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as co-nominee. A lot of collaboration between myself and Cor anglais has pushed it into this state, much improved from the GA. I'll try and help with any issues, although am unavailable until 2 July. –MDCollins (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object. In question are 1a, 1c and the requirement for formatting of a professional standard.

    • The latter is breached by the significant overlinking. Trivial words such as "air" and "seventeenth century" and "church", and those little-known countries, the US and the UK—why dilute your valuable links with these?
    • "The size of an organ ranges from only a few dozen pipes in a portable instrument to tens of thousands of pipes in a large installation, prompting Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart to name it the "king of instruments". [The reference is: Morrison, Richard. "No one has ever been poisoned by this instrument", 2006-03-18, The Times. Retrieved on 2007-05-06." Two things: (1) was it the range from very small to very large that prompted Mozart to coin this word, or just the large end of the spectrum; (2) I wonder how authoritative a journalist's writings are, as appear on an Internet site. Is it not possible to cite that original work? I also wonder who originally reported/recorded this statement of Mozart's.
    • "ranks. These ranks"
    • Churches are christian, and synagogues jewish; do we need to point this out in the lead? You can't have a buddhist church.
    • "where they are intended for the performance of classical music, especially for orchestral transcriptions". It's a bit laboured to associate their location with their stylistic purpose, and indeed to state the intention rather than the use. And aren't some organs in theatres, where they are used for playing music of other styles? And why do transcriptions get such a big rap? Some people would describe them as the bane of the organ literature (deal with them lower down?). This sentence is a mish-mash that needs recasting.

I've looked only at the top. Needs work. Tony 08:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It turns out that the attribution of the "king of instruments" quote to Mozart was wrong anyway - I've now corrected it (to Guillaume de Machaut) and referenced that to a standard academic work on the pipe organ. So that does deal with one of Tony's issues. I agree with him on the somewhat belaboured nature of the passage beginning "where they are intended" - and I'm not convinced either that performance of orchestral transcriptions is the main intention these days anyway (it might have been a century ago). Barnabypage 20:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've attempted to address the issues brought up by Tony and Barnaby that haven't already been addressed. I think the second sentence of the article is much improved, but, as always, please copyedit mercilessly. Also, re. overlinking: I was under the impression that all first mentions of centuries should be wikilinked in an article (ex. seventeenth century, third century BC)… is this not the case? —Cor anglais 16 04:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I don't have time to copy-edit more than what I've done. Please locate collaborators to help with the prose. Do you know some copy-editors in this field? Tony 15:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC) And I reiterate that there are significant problems throughout in the prose, particularly, but not solely, ungainly repetition (e.g., how many times does "stop" appear at the start of the section by that name? Ten before you reach the fourth sentence), and little inconsistencies that crop up all over the place (Renaissance era/period). MOS breached in the final periods in the non-sentence captions, BTW. "Twentieth century" still linked—not even piped to something relevant (forgive the pun). Tony 15:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
update: Hi, I've tried to have a go at removing the excess linkage, and tidy some of the prose. More to follow.–MDCollins (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but not sufficiently improved. Do you know how to locate collaborators who are good at copy-editing and interested in musical topics. Noetica would be good, but he's pissed with me and staying away. Try emailing him and others you locate through the edit-history pages of worthy articles. I took this section at random.
    • Why the italicised opening? Better to locate elsewhere so as not to dissipate the focus at the opening.
    • "The wind supply is stored in one or more reservoirs, which maintain a constant wind pressure." --> "reservoirs to maintain"? (Causal?)
    • "The pressure differs depending on the design of the organ and the division the wind supplies." Make it "The pressure depends on ...". "the division the wind" is hard.
    • Stops are as high as 100 inches? (And where's the metric equivalent?)
    • "Calcant"—Which language? Was this a pan-European term?
    • "before the advent of electricity". Does anyone not know what electricity is? Why is it linked?
    • "Because paying calcants was expensive, organists would usually practice on smaller instruments such as the clavichord or harpsichord." Logically, it wasn't a size issue, but the fact that the clav and hpschd required no external energy. Sorry to be picky.
    • "Though the majority of all organs, new and historic, now make use of this modern technology, a few organs that can be mechanically pumped still exist, and modern instruments have been built with this capability." "Although" is nicer in a formal register, as is "most" (except here, "almost all"). "a few ... capability" contains several problems.

(1) Lots of work to do on this unsatisfactory writing. (2) You have the opportunity of recording audio examples. Could be good if worked in succinctly. But perhaps that's for a later revision. Tony 12:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose
  • "are collected together in an area called" – the "together" is redundant
  • "The pneumatic system opens and closes the valves within the windchest," – "within" should be replaced by "in"
  • "Pipe organs are found in churches, some synagogues, and..." – the "some" is redundant. If it's being used to indicate that not all synagogue have organs, not all churches have them either.
  • "By using couplers, all of the resources..." – the "of" is redundant
  • "electrically-controlled stop actions" - shouldn't be hyphenated
  • "historically-inspired instruments" - shouldn't be hyphenated
  • "remained grouped together under a single stop control" – the "together" is redundant
  • "in order to make specific literature easier" – the "in order" is redundant
  • "The most famous composer of organ music is [[Johann Sebastian Bach" – "most famous" is a peacock term
  • "The organ is also used as an orchestral instrument, most famously in Saint-Saëns' Organ Symphony, as well as Joseph Jongen's Symphonie Concertante for Organ & Orchestra..." – "most famously" is a peacock term, and the "as well as" doesn't read well
  • "It was instruments of this grand scale that..." – sentences shouldn't start with "it" when the "it" doesn't stand for anything
  • "There are different types of action;" – sentences shouldn't start with "there" when the "there" doesn't stand for anything.
  • It's best to use citation templates. Epbr123 23:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your concerns - I have endeavoured to address them all. You say it is 'best' to use citation templates, but Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation templates says it is basically preference. The editors on this article have been happy formatting them (in the style recommended) without the need for the templates - do you find them a necessity? The article is consistent at least.
–MDCollins (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, leave them then. Oppose withdrawn. Epbr123 23:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article that really should have some recordings in it. Also, on a more minor note - there is a citation-needed tag. Raul654 15:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor note fixed, I've removed the offending passage.
–MDCollins (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 15:55, 26 July 2007.

Póvoa de Varzim

[edit]
FAC#1
FAC#2

As it is the city's feast day, is a nice day to try. Currently GA, FA on Portuguese wikipedia, and also FA on the Spanish.

  • support per nomination. --Pedro 20:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: A wonderful article. Couldn't find anything objectionable. DSachan 10:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This article is very well-written and comprehensive but lacks citations in multiple areas. If the citations and a few minor issues are fixed, I would support this.
    • You need to have both standard and metric measurements.
    • "In the coastal plain, a Roman villa was constructed, the property of a Roman family — the Euracini, who mixed with the Castro people who returned to live on the plain — Villa Euracini probably developed in this way" - This sentence should be rewritten. It is long and unwieldy. There is also no citation for this paragraph
    • >s>full dates should be wikilinked (March 26, 953)</>
    • missing citations for the paragraph that begins "The natural wealth of Varazim's coast"
    • must have a citation immediately following direct quotations, such as "the people who most worked and better knew the sea"
    • Need a citation for the 1892 tragedy
    • should be consistent in use of square meters or m2
    • Need citation for "threatened by holiday-makers, dune-based sports, and coastal constructions"
    • Need citation for paragraph beginning "in the urban sphere,"
    • Need citations for these sentences: "The city possesses a microclimate and is considered the region least subject to frosts in all northern Portugal due to the winter winds that, normally, blow from south and southwest. Snowfall is truly rare."
    • Need citation for "Most of Póvoa de Varzim’s population growth and commercial development are occurring in the eastern parts of the city."
    • Need citation for "This neighbourhood has triggered the development of neighbouring areas, such as Agro-Velho, Barreiros, and Parque da Cidade."
    • Need citations for last 2 paragraphs of cityscape section
    • Is Ruralscape a word?
    • Ruralscape section needs citations
    • Several paragraphs in culture are not cited
    • Arts and Entertainment Section is completely uncited
    • Citations that are not in English should have their language specified
    • External links should be in a structured list (one link per line). I think there are too many links here.

Good luck. Karanacs 14:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. done.
  2. done. referenced and reworded.
  3. done. full dates wikified.
  4. done. added reference
  5. done. added reference
  6. done. added reference
  7. done.
  8. done. added reference
  9. done. added references
  10. done.
  11. done. removed sentence. although true today, it won't be with the new projects on the coast. So the best is to delete, as it is obsolete.Added ref for previous sentence.
  12. done. I've rephrased the sentence to follow the Urbanization plan reference.
  13. done. added reference to the 1st. Deleted the last sentence, redundant with festivals section.
  14. done. changed to "Countryside"
  15. done. added 2 more references.
  16. done. all paragraphs with references.
  17. done. added 3 references. That section is mostly enumerating venues and events.
  18. done. language added
  19. done. Only five remain (the most important city hall, libraries, the 2 main news weeklies, and a map). it seems very clean now, thanks for that tip.
  • As I address objections, I'll correct my post. --Pedro 19:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It took some days, but everything was fixed. -Pedro 19:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of your changes look good, but there are still sentences that use peacock terms that aren't sourced. For example, if you describe something as "noteworthy" or "well-known," it should be sourced. Look especially at the paragraphs that have no citations -- I didn't do a thorough check of all of them, but at least several had these types of descriptions and no source. Karanacs 18:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There was that problem in "leisure" and "Countryside" and in "sports", although these weren't really peacock terms if you read in the context of the paragraph. Nevertheless the problem is corrected. The "noteworthy" term was in countryside, I've removed the word, used a description and added a source. Added a couple more references throughout the article. --Pedro 18:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very informative and well-sourced article. e me impressiona artigos bem escritos sobre Portugal... igordebraga ≠ 02:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I applaud the effort Pedro continues to put into this article and the improvement over time, but the prose is subpar. Now on its third round at FAC, the article still requires an independent copyedit by a native speaker of English. Sample sentence: Between 1308 and 1836, the municipality was made up of a single parish territory of which, over time, grew to approach the medieval borders. Here is a sample paragraph:

Poveiros have migrated to other places and this attenuated the population growth. One should notice that the Poveiros tended to create their own associations abroad, there are Casa dos Poveiros (Poveiros House) in Brazil (Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo), Germiston in South Africa and Toronto in Canada. In Rio de Janeiro, the community was known by not wanting other peoples of other origins, including Portuguese born in other towns, within their community. During the emigration period of the 20th century, many Poveiros emigrated in Brazil returned, as many refused to loose Portuguese nationality.[70] Due to fisher classes affairs, the fisher areas of Vila do Conde, Esposende and Matosinhos suffer from strong Poveiro cultural influence. In a 2005 study published by the Expresso, Póvoa de Varzim was considered the seventh most developed, in terms of quality of life, among the Portuguese municipalities and the most developed in Porto district. The newspaper Primeiro de Janeiro honoured Póvoa, on the same occasion, as the "city of future" in the Porto district, in fields such as environment, cultural heritage, music, sports, and literary events.

There are still MOS issues: citations are not correctly formatted (see WP:CITE/ES, all websources need publisher and last access date), common terms are wikilinked (see WP:CONTEXT), and dashes aren't used correctly (see WP:DASH). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Pending a more thorough copyedit. I've tried to improve the prose, but it is still very much Portuguese-inflected and sometimes grammatically incorrect. I congratulate the effort which has gone into this article, and I know that it is extraordinarily difficult to achieve "brilliant prose" when one is translating :) (as I presume this article was adapted from pt.wikipedia). I would like to note that my only objections are to the prose and the few incomplete references (such as "Póvoa de Varzim, Um Pé na Terra, Outro no Mar" and "Borges, Júlio. A Paisagem Poveira.") Otherwise, the article is thorough and comprehensive, well-referenced (it's probably impossible to find English sources for such an article) and makes excellent use of images. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong support brilliant article on a city. Shining example ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 16:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 15:55, 26 July 2007.

Age of Mythology

[edit]

Self nomination - this article recently passed GA, and I believe it meets the FA criteria too. It's been peer reviewed by the video games peer review, and there has been a good deal of WikiProject collaboration on it.

I'd be more then happy to make any changes suggested to the article. Thanks for considering it, Giggy UCP 01:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I've only had a brief look over it and will have a proper read later, but at the moment I have a few questions/comments:
  • Are their any images that can be found that are not going to be copyright? For example do people play this game in competitions, or at LAN parties or whatever? (sorry am not very familiar with all that) If so then a photo of a large group of people playing in a tournament or something would add significantly to the article.  Done
  • Some sections of the article have no inline citations, is there a reason for this?
  • I believe the reception section should be expanded. It's not comprehensive enough for my liking. Surely more could be said about it's sales, criticism (good and bad) and awards?
Thanks. - Shudde talk 04:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Shudde. I'm going to look for a non copyright photo, or otherwise attempt to take on myself. I'll also get to the citations when I get the chance, although I don't think there are any statements that need sources but don't have one. Thanks again for your critique, Giggy UCP 04:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the article so far, Giggy! Here are some comments:

  • Needs copyediting for grammar and spelling, eg then vs than  Done
  • Some of the expression needs to be fixed, eg the opening sentence of the Gameplay section is too choppy, use if i.e. and etc. in the buildings section, ...
    Could you clarify on your comments re. the buildings section? Giggy UCP
  • The wikilinks for the four ages are a tad misleading, as they don't really correspond to their linked articles (I think the terms in the game are more fictional than historic). In particular the classical age links to a disambiguation page  Done - Links removed (except Archaic Age, which is historically relevant)
  • Likewise the wiktionary link for "favor" doesn't really explain its meaning and role within the context of the game. Is explained later though. Perhaps remove wiktionary link?  Done - Link removed
  • If my memory serves me correctly civilians can also fish with nets, along with fishing boats? Nope, not true :D. That was in Age of Empires and Age of Empires II!
  • Why is "Isis is considered the best Egyptian major god?" Citation? Comment removed. Not cited anywhere, just a popular multiplayer statement that made its way in there.
  • Need to wlink "Set" earlier  Done
  • Each civilization has a finite number of "population slots;" which can be raised by building more houses and Town Centers. Fix grammar.  Done
  • The units section needs more explanation added. What's an "attack bonus", or "pierce damage"?  Done
  • What's the point of the picture of the players at the tournament? No text refering to any tournaments.  Done
  • There probably needs to be more explanation of the different game modes, eg capture the flag, timed games, wonder games.  Done

Recurring dreams 07:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Nearly every nonfree image used in the article (and there are several) have the same copy-pasted fair-use rationale - that the image is used for "illustration and identification." Each image needs to be justified by significant critical commentary, and that needs to be explained on the images' description pages. If you can't come up with a good way to justify them, then the image should be deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Will get to this ASAP. Giggy UCP 01:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just about  Done – not too sure if it is good enough, but I added proper fair-use rationals, proper description of the image and why the image constitutes fair-use in the article other than just "no free alternative" or "informative purposes". Sebi [talk] 09:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll read the article when I can. In the meanwhile, automated peer review brings up the following:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • is considered  Done
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

I'll give more "human" suggestions ASAP. · AndonicO Talk 00:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like the suggestions I left on your talk page to be taken care of before I can support. For the sake of understanding and centralized discussion, I will summarize them here.

  • Passive voice should be active voice ("the person is fighting" becomes "the person fights" etc.)  Done as far as I can see
  • Look in civilizations; there's a "you".  Done
  • Try to add the work and the publisher. Usually involves CNET and one of the websites it it owns.  Done (As best I could, anyway)
  • Try to flesh out development and reception. checkY - [6]

After this and other problems are taken care of, I'll support. Clyde (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Aside from the issues above I would like justification and likely an eventual cutting down of the gameplay section. As it stands the list-alike section goes extensively into irrelevant aspects of the game such as "In Age of Mythology, most cavalry receive an attack bonus against archers" which do not help the reader get a general overview of the information surrounding the game. Wikipedia:Summary style applies to what I have just said and as such I feel the article fails this important MoS guideline. There are a lot of featured video game articles such as the recent Supreme Commander that can be used as examples and inspirations. 74.13.94.166 02:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - This article is not up to standard. I feel that the gameplay mechanics reaches down to too low level, at some points it reads like a game guide. Aesthetically, I think that section could be improved with some boldening of unit classes, although whether you feel that it'd make it too listy is your call. The article is not comprehensive, there was an Age of Mythology soundtrack that was released, so the audio work was definitely a key part of this title, yet there is no mention of it other than some passing mutterings in the reception section. Here are some relevant links: [7] [8] [9] [10]. I don't like the feel of the reception section at all, summarising just three sources is not good enough. Instead, it should try and touch upon and flow through all aspects of the game and use multiple sources to back that up, it's useful to link to aggregation sites such as Metacritic or Gamerankings. - hahnchen 15:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry the lack of boldening is my fault. I thought it was encouraging to break up the flow of the section, and encouraged listy cruft. However, if you think it will help the article, let's see how it looks.--Clyde (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - I wasn't aware of a soundtrack, thanks for pointing that out. I've added information about it. [11]. As for the boldening, I agree with Clyde. Giggy UCP 23:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I also added information concerning Metacritic and Game Rankings. Thanks for your comments! [12] Giggy UCP 23:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This still does not satisfy my concerns. I don't want to sound like an elitist bastard (I am), but I'm surprised you've chosen Avalanche Online as your sole source for a review, which seems to be pretty amateurish and more of a forum than anything else, especially given that I linked to Music4Games which is probably the most dedicated and professional news source on video game audio. I don't like the style of the reception section, giving a synopsis of three reviews is not significant enough, and I feel that the flow of the prose is totally shattered by a fetish for review scores. Whereas I don't mind a smattering of scores in the prose, I think it's totally unnecessary to list the score breakdown for each review criteria, the GameSpot synopsis just focuses on numbers. I'd much prefer a run through of how well the various aspects of the game were received by a wider range of sources, rather than the entire game's reception by a small number. In relation to the layout of the units, I would prefer if it was just a list, because it already reads like one and would be more elegant if chopped and formalised into a list. Another minor point are the image resolutions. I'm sure that quite a few images could be {{non-free reduce}}d, I'm no fair use fascist and won't insist on making images so tiny that you can't make anything out, but Image:Age of Mythology ingame screenshot.jpg, Image:AoMGreekScreenie.jpg, Image:Age of Mythology Editor.png and Image:Age of Mythology Liner.jpg are worth checking out, I'd stick to 800x600 maximums when dealing with screenshots, but it's hard to balance out showing the graphical prowess of the game and Wikipedia's fair use restrictions. - hahnchen 00:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that the bonus 4 mission campaign by Ensemble, Age of Mythology - Golden Gift should get a mention. - hahnchen 01:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Numerous problems:

The second sentence is WAY too wordy: rephrase to "...in North America and a week later in Europe."
In the second paragraph of the lead, there is an unreferenced claim, "Age of Mythology is the first "Age of" game to utilise a 3D graphics engine, allowing rotation of the map". IAW WP:MoS, this also needs to be referenced later in the article and IMHO expanded upon.
The third paragraph needs only one reference at the end of the paragraph for both sentences.
Paragraph four is never referenced or expanded upon in the main article and should either be fixed or deleted from the lead. It also needs to be rewritten IAW WP:DATE (either include the exact date, which would be preferable, or un-wikilink September, unless it is somehow important to the article).
Problems throughout include multiple uses of numbers when they should be spelled out (there are quite a few). Well-known is highly subjective (and in any case should be hyphenated), but should not be used in an encyclopedia.
Awkward/choppy phrasing throughout, example: "Minor gods are slightly less significant gods (according to history) such as Bast and Hel. All gods have unique technologies, myth units, and a unique god power. God powers are special one-time use abilities that can massively damage an opponent, or can benefit the player. For instance, if a player chooses the minor god Thoth in the mythic age, they can summon down a barrage of meteors to destroy opposing civilizations. Or, if the player choose Hephaestus, the player can create a Plenty Vault, which provides a steady trickle of resources; however control of the vault can be taken away if another player has more units and buildings around it." ...and while we're on the subject, this is not "according to history," it is according to mythology and this is WAY too detailed without definitions of what a "Plenty Vault" is, looks like, how the opposing entities can actually take control of it, etc. In short, keep it simple...much simpler than this.
The Favor section is awful, choppy, and not very descriptive. Rephrase/reword/significantl upgrade.
Now the biggies:
Passive voice throughout: example: "Food, wood, and gold are also gathered by villagers" should be "Villagers gather food, wood..." (In addition, this sentence is very short). In short, anything that has the word "by" in it is likely passive voice. Read this for more information.
Citations missing for many paragraphs with specific claims including numbers. If you plan to keep these, please give us some reference.
ALL dates need to be wikified, including the references. Please fix

In short, there are so many problems, I don't have time to list them all (I am not going to waste 4 hours on something that will not pass FAC review in its current form). Should all of these problems be handled, I will be happy to come back and clarify some more. — BQZip01 — talk 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - The article is in good shape; it just needs a few things clarified:
    • The Gods sections needs some cleanup; it almost seems like it was thrown in there. It could be a little bit better written.
      • "Age of Mythology’s gameplay differs from that of other real-time strategy games in that players are able to choose gods for their civilization to follow." what other games do/do not do this?
      • "Each major god possesses a major god power, which is a powerful piece of “magic” the player can summon once in the game." could be "Major gods posses their own accompanying power. Each one is unique in the way it is dealt, but generally extremely destructive and can only be used once in the game."
    • The Favor section should be rewritten, as it has an overall colloquial tone.
    • "Age of Mythology was granted a score of 9.2 by GameSpot reviewer Greg Kasavin..." should be "Gamespot's Greg Kasavin gave the game a 9.2 out of 10; gameplay was ranked 9 out of 10, with Kasavin stating that "you'll get the impression from Age of Mythology that the designers spent their time further adjusting the gameplay conventions that they themselves have already helped pioneer."
    • A copy edit should be conducted (by fresh eyes). You may wish to contact the League of Copyeditors.

Once the outline above is addressed, I'd love change my position to support. NSR77 TC 22:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The first 2/3rd's is just a rehash of what happens in the game, units, etc. It's like an instruction manual - that's not what an encyclopedia is for. From "Development" on is relevant and encyclopedic and seems well sourced. But that is only 1/3 of the article though. It is a great game though. --Merbabu 15:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 15:55, 26 July 2007.

Ammonia

[edit]

previous FAC

  • I think it has met the changes required in the previous attempt to be a FA. And seems of a high standard required for FA status.

Ziphon 09:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a question: does the article still have text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition? I don't know what the deal is with inclusion of text from the Britannica and featured article status, but I would prefer if it were wholly written by us rather than copied from another source. Recurring dreams 13:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked at this -- it does have such 1911 EB text, and some of it is sourced to other references(!) -- the first EB paragraph, for example, which you can see by looking at the first revision all the way back in the edit history. BenB4 07:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I think the article still needs some improvements. While the article has nearly all the information one could ask for, some of the prose is not exactly "brilliant and compelling", with some paragraphs that don't seem cohesive. Some pieces of information seem to be in the wrong sections, and the organization of the sections themselves are not too clear (why having basic properties separate from properties? Why is the use as a solvent not under Uses? Why is the discussion of planetary atmospheres under Interstellar Space?...) There are still many unreferenced factual statements, including raw data such as the solubilities and redox potentials which should always be sourced IMO. Finally, the lead, and especially the first paragraph, is pretty bad IMO; it includes relatively trivial details such as the U.S. OSHA exposure limits and heat of vaporization while omitting a more general discussion of the more chemical properties, uses, importance, etc. of ammonia. --Itub 13:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I had posted similar comments on the Ammonia Talk page earlier today: Regarding the featured article candidacy: Much of the opening paragraph is about hazards. I realize that it is easier for non-chemical editors to comment on hazards than on the chemical technology, but still the overarching message might, IMHO, be on other aspects, some possibilities being its technological centrality (% of worlds energy dedicated to its manufacture, % of cmpds with N content), its remarkable properties (b.p. -33 °C, but can be handled with beakers), and the puzzle of nitrogenase. NH3 is fairly benign, as chemicals go and comments otherwise are disproportionately chemophobic.--Smokefoot 17:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In addition to agreeing with the above comment I would like to point out that there is limited discussion of ammonia being a base which is somewhat incomplete and misleading. "The nitrogen atom in the molecule has a lone electron pair, and ammonia acts as a base, a proton acceptor." This sentence seems odd to me in that it would seem like a perfect opportunity to discuss the Lewis base nature of ammonia (which is completely ignored) but only and to the exclusion of Lewis base theory defines it according to Bronsted-Lowry. Failure to address Lewis base activity except subtly in the complexation chemistry section kills the FA candidacy for me. I think that these can be fixed and it is not too far away but it still need some work.--Nick Y. 18:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The lead should be changed acording to the comments above. The section about Synthesis and production should give the Haber Bosch method earlier and not first describing the production of hydrogen.--Stone 07:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 15:55, 26 July 2007.

Oasis (band)

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

The article was not promoted 02:39, 24 July 2007.

Northeastern United States tornado outbreak of 1989

[edit]

previous FAC

Last FAC closed early, renominating on Raul's advice. -RunningOnBrains 10:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure in that these can be easily fixed. Please count my support only after these are fixed. Thank you. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 11:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose—1a. Listy table, then stubby sections. That's all it comprises. It's just a disjointed, not particularly well-written story—this happened then that happened then this happened ... No wider picture or analysis. Most unsatisfactory, as is the director's encouragement to resubmit so soon. "Ram 'em through, as many times as it takes."
      • Comment The FAC was re-submitted because it was closed out of turn, there was no actionable criticism left, and only reviewed by one editor. If this failed a full debate/critique, I of course wouldn't renominate until all criticisms were addressed. If reviewers feel the prose is insufficient/stubby, I can expand it greatly from newspaper articles, but it may take a few days.-RunningOnBrains 11:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Big ugly list/table. Can't it be at the bottom, so as not to obstruct the flow of the article at the top? Ugly, lewd colour scheme; not only that, the blue seems illogical. Fourth column forces the text into tiny chunks verticalised. Some units have no metric equivalent (same for the main text).
    • "This final section of the path is plotted as a skipping tornado, but may have been three or more tornadoes." But?
      • Fixed, I believe.
    • "may have been three separate tornadoes"—Two lines later; is this referring to the same phenomenon?
    • "The National Guard was called in to aid in cleanup and keep order, as some looting was reported in the devastated area." So the National Guard was called in to aid in cleanup because looting was reported? That's what it says. Tony 15:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just started looking through the article. We could use a bit more background on the storm; the main article starts with when the damage began - where did the storm begin? If tornadoes are rare in that area, what were the circumstances that created them then? Matt Deres 16:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actual meteorological data on this event is hard to come by. I contacted National Weather Service offices in several states, and only got a response from one, who said in so many words that all meteorological data about that day was lost. The only real records that exist from the pre-digital age are traces of radar returns, and they did not have those on file. I have been unable to find any scientific studies on the event either. -RunningOnBrains 02:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I have not abandoned this article, I am currently doing newspaper research, and should hopefully be able to significantly expand this article by some time next week. -RunningOnBrains 22:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

Chew Stoke

[edit]
previous FAC

This article about a small English village has been a Good Article for over a year and I believe all the comments made in the the last FA nomination have been addressed. It is supported by appropriate images and all facts supported by verifiable references. — Rod talk 10:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response - thanks - fixed. — Rod talk 18:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please identify publishers on all references; we need to know that reliable sources are used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response I agree about the need for reliable sources& have done this where possible, adding several isbn numbers - however 2 of the books (nos 7 & 10 in the list) are published by the authors & therefore no further information is available.— Rod talk 07:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be nice to have a floating table in the history section, giving the population of the village in each of the censuses from 1801 to 2001. Bluap 15:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response - I've added a table of 1971-2001 population data but can't find free data for earlier years.— Rod talk 16:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response I've added the data from 1801 to 1931 (from www.histpop.org). There wasn't a census in 1941, leaving just the 1951 and 61 data to be found. However, this raises another issue: in the demographics section, all of the information is about a region that is much larger than Chew Stoke. I would re-write that section, starting with the data from the parish itself, and then mentioning the detailed demographics for the larger area. Bluap 20:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Thank you for the extra data and pointing me to a (free) resource I didn't know existed. I have changed the table to horizontal rather than vertical and rewritten the text of the demographic section to reflect the new data.— Rod talk 21:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a rather long horizontal table now that involves a lot of scrolling for me to see the later figures,. Have you considered whether splitting the table up into three horizontal segments (one after the other), using one per century? If this makes the data to difficult to compare, it might be appropriate to include a simple line-graph to indicate the figures as well, but I'm not sure hopw this might be viewed by others.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response I didn't realise this would require horizontal scrolling (what screen resolution are you using?) - I've now split into 3 rows as suggested - but don't know how to do the line graph & the missing data may make it look funny.— Rod talk 09:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I'm using what i think is a quite standard resolution: 1024 x 768 and I'm also using the MonoBook skin with Firefox 2.0.0.4 under Kubuntu Linux. I don't have any wierd choice of fonts, and the horizontal scrolling seemed necessary when I both allowed websites to choose the fonts and made that choice myself. Still, it looks quite good now on the three rows.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought that having individual cites for each number looked rather ugly, so have combined the old census data into a single citation. (This makes the table a bit narrower.) Bluap 15:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it reads very well. Would it be an idea to put the "civil_parish" field and data into the InfoBox at all, even though the value of the field would be "Chew Stoke" (or whatever the official name of the parish is). As a final suggestion, which might not work, have you considered placing Chew Stoke within the context of surrounding civil parishes a bit more - perhaps even including a compass-table as in the largely stub article Pott Shrigley? It wouldn't be necessary, but it might add to the section and place Chew Stoke in an expanded context a bit more. I think this article is definitely one to use as a model in trying to improve other articles.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Thanks for the comments - I've added civil parish to the infobox & done a compass table of nearby parishes - I wanted to align this to the right of text in the government section but couldn't get this to work - any ideas?— Rod talk
Response: Sorry, I'm not sure how to do it. May be contacting the original author User:Lupin of the table might be an idea?  DDStretch  (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Thanks it's now aligned & has a caption.— Rod talk 20:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Reads well and has every indication of being well researched. A good example for articles on other villages to follow. Probably too parochial a subject to make it to the main page, but an excellent article just the same. Gaius Cornelius 15:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • Why so many sub-sections in the History section? It results in stubby paragraphs, like the fist one.
    • Who is a Robinson? Some kind of historian? archaeologist? village elder?
    • The term "boasts" and "x had a remarkable y" and "Points of interest" all sound travel-guide-ish.
    • "References" 42 to 47 are just ext.links to businesses.
    • "Many residents commute to Bristol or Bath for employment." Any reason why we should believe that? I'm not necessarily looking for a reference here, just an explanation. What evidence is there for this? --maclean 01:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Concerning the "who is Robinson?" question: Robinson, if you had followed the subscripted footnote, can be clearly seen to be the author of the work which provided the evidence and the verification for the claim made in the sentence. The form of words is quite common and typical in any kind of serious writing. I don't think it needs altering in any way.
Concerning the references 42 to 47: They give verification to the claims that the village has particular kinds of industry in it. I don't see how else such claims could be easily verified. Again, I don't see them as being given with the aim of being any kind of advertising pitch at all.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Questions and Concerns Thanks
  • History section - the subsections and short paras in "recent history" each relate to specific periods or dates and therefore combining them may lead to single paragraphs which discuss several different events/eras but I'd be happy if someone wanted to do this.
  • Robinson - as described by User:ddstretch this refers to the Author of the book on Somerset place names.
  • travel-guide-ish words. I have changed "boasts" to "is the site of" and "remarkable" to "long lasting" (over 200yrs one family in same occupation). I changed "listed buildings" to "points of interest" following someones previous suggestion - but I'm happy change it back or use another term meaning "points of interest" if someone can suggest one.
  • References 42-47 as described by User:ddstretch these are to the only small/light industry (apart from agriculture) in the village & are not intended as adverts - happy to remove the links if required.
  • Commuting - I do not have a reference for this (but will go away & look for it in the library next weekend), but this is based on personal communications with many of the residents, it perhaps reflects the limited employment opportunities and (most likely) the attractiveness of the village for people working in the two local major centres of employment.
I hope these explanations & changes are useful but if you need more please let me know.— Rod talk 20:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
    • Comprehensiveness: The Geography section is dominated with transportation issues, with nothing about its geographic setting, natural features, village layout, etc. In the Government section please give some examples of what services the Chew Stoke Civil Parish provides. In Demographics is there information on the average age, household size, etc. (I understand if this info is not available, just asking)?
    • Prose: Stubby paragraphs (last paragraph in Geography and transportation, first and fourth paragraphs in History, the entire Industry section), random people and businesses thrown in (Robinson still not identified - yes I see the footnote but this is not a reference problem it is a prose one, he is introduced as just some random person. Give him some authority: "According to local historian Stephen Robinson, it was known..." or "According to the author of Somerset Place Names it was known as...")
    • References: See further comment below. In the Industry section, 6 footnotes are being used as an excuse to place external links to businesses. Also, if specific business are to be named, at least relate them to the village (eg. are they the largest employers, small businesses, chain franchise, headquarters, etc.)
    • Actually I like "listed buildings" better than "Points of interest" which sounds like a hodge podge of neat features (reminds me of when Trivia sections proliferated). The predominant theme is "historical buildings" or "heritage buildings" (move "Bridges" to the Transportation section?). This point is not part of my objection (I leave it up to you to decide) but I would either integrate the topic into the History section, or name this section (minus the bridge) "Historical buildings" or "Historical sites". --maclean 20:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Thank you for explaining your objections which I have tried to address:-
    • Comprehensiveness: I have added more about the geography, features, layout etc of the village (and moved the bridge into this section). I have given some examples of the (minimal) remit of the parish council. The Office of National Statistics census data doesn't go down to the parish level and can only provide the data you suggest at "Chew Valley North" level which includes Chew Magna - however I suspect the profile is similar - but can't support this.
    • Prose: I have combined & reworded some of the paragraphs to overcome the stubby paragraphs & given the authority you suggest for Robinson.
    • References: these business were described as small business but I have now removed this level of detail - and the references that went with them.
    • Points of Interest: I've now changed this to historic buildings (having removed the bit on bridges).

I hope these meet your objections - but obviously if there is anything else just let me know.— Rod talk 22:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I still find the Geography section lacking. From what you have wrote, as well as other Chew-related articles here, and Google Earth, I have written something like I am looking for here. I included info about its geographic situation, its layout and tried to be descriptive.
  • I sympathsize with the lack of sources for small villages, I've found (with the areas I work with) that there is a 1000 people barrier, under which sources disappear. But the Industry section is really lacking.
  • If that is all the parish does then it is fine. They are defined as a civil parish in the first sentence but is only followed-up (expanded) by this one sentence in the Government section (not interested in local politics, eh?). But it is much easier to include when they do so little. --maclean 00:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Thank you for your suggested text for the Geography section, which I have largely adopted (with a few tweaks). I'm not sure what else to add about industry as the only employment is the small workshops, I recently removed from the article, & service industries with people working in the shop, pubs or school - any ideas appreciated? I will try to look further at the remit of the parish council & include something additional.— Rod talk 09:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to reference check
  • I have changed the references to romanbristol and weldgen to a book source & briistolhistory.com with both provide the same info. The history of bell making I've removed as 2 other refs provide the same info.
  • HRH visit - I've removed the bit about the timecapsule as I can't find another source for it - but kept in the visit & referenced to the Government News Network
  • The Parish Council response to planning application submitted by Westbury Homes (Holdings) Ltd. Also points to the Chew Stoke forums - but is not available anywhere else & is a major issue (& has been focus of discussions in the area for years) so I think that one needs to stay in, but I have added a reference to a report in the local paper.
  • I've removed the GENUKI ref as the Queen Elizabeth I item is covered by what is now ref 17.
I hope this meets your concerns?— Rod talk 14:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final Analysis: As my available time is about to be reduced I can no longer provide consistent full evaluations, so here is my final analysis:
    • The prose is a little rough around the edges with a few non-universal terms (ramblers?) but nothing a careful copyedit can't fix.
    • It has a really weak Industry section.
  • I leave it up to the proponent, Raul654, and other reviewers to determine if these points are (a) relevant to the criteria, and/or, (b) satisfactorily addressed. -- maclean 19:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. In particular, unidiomatic wording and weird turns of phrase. Needs a thorough copy-edit throughout by someone new to the article.
    • Why are obsolescent US miles given first?
    • "The village has a long history, illustrated by the range of listed buildings, and now lies at the northern end of Chew Valley Lake close to the dam, pumping station, sailing club and fishing lodge." It's the range that illustrates its long history, is it? Rather than force unfamiliar readers to hit the link, consider piping thus: heritage-listed buildings. Has the village moved over time ("now lies")? Whether it has or not, it's an odd thing to write.
    • "A tributary of the River Chew runs through the village, possibly called Strode Brook, as it rises in the village of Strode, although it is not named on any maps." Possibly called something needs a reference, and is an odd way of putting it, here. "As" is not good here (means either "at the same time as" or "because/since", and we don't want to have to read further to find out which).
    • "The village has a population of about 1,000 and has"—has, has
    • Again, "mile", but this time not even graced with a metric equivalent. Get with the times: the UK has adopted the metric system.
    • "The village has some light industrial units, but is largely agricultural, with many residents commuting to nearby cities for employment."—What is a unit, here? "with" could refer back to the previous phrase, and again, we don't want to be forced into retro-disambiguation. "many residents commuting to nearby cities for employment"—odd expression. Try "... agriculture; many residents commute to jobs in nearby cities"?

It's not part of my oppose, but I continue to dislike infoboxes such as this one. It doesn't even look good. Why use bold, and why the grey background? And there's an ugly red pimple on the face of Britain. Tony 05:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Tony thank you for your comments & suggestions.
    • Copyedit - I have put a request on Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading for someone who has not edited theis article before to look at this.
    • miles v kilometers - Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements suggests that miles should be given before km as they are most commonly used - certainly all the road signs etc around here use miles. Perhaps this is for wider debate than this specific FAC as several other UK articles which are already FA use this convention.
    • Long history - I have changed the text as you suggest
    • Strode Brook - I've changed the wording - is this better?
    • Population has, has - reworded
    • Mile - the only occurance of mile without the Km conversion is a direct quote saying what is written on a milepost.
    • Industry - I have reworded but am having problems with this section as there is little else to say.
    • Infobox and map - again this seems to be the accepted convention for writing about english settlements - the ugly red pimple is supposed to help readers get an idea of where the village is.
I hope this meets some of your concerns - further advice appreciated.— Rod talk 10:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A replacement for the old compass table was edited into the article. I think the new compass table to be far too large and ugly. I have reverted it to the old compass table, but some formatting issues may have arisen. My thoughts are that if the new compass table is the one that articles are obliged to use, then it is better to not have one at all, but to list the adjacent civil parishes in the text. Apart from that, I think the suggestions I made have all been addressed and the article has been improved. I'm not sure what the "odd suggestions" coming from Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements might be (as mentioned by maclean), and wonder if maclean can expand upon them as at the moment it is difficult to know what the oddness is that is being referred to.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also concur with DDStretch; I would urge for WP:UKCITIES to be applied a little more tightly (I think this would strengthen the article). As for "Infobox and map", I'm finishing off a localised map for Somerset as we speak, which will aid in contextualisation. Jza84 19:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ResponseI don't mind which compass table is used, but have rearranged & renamed some of the sections to make it more closely fit with WP:UKCITIES. Thanks for the Somerset map it does help to put the vilage in context. — Rod talk 14:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The history section has no information on the time between the Middle Ages and the 20th century, besides the section on the Bilbie family.
    • "It is likely that there was other occupation during Roman times in the village, as there is in the surrounding area, although no definitive evidence has been found." What source is this statement taken from?
    • In the "Middle Ages" section: "Farming, both arable and dairy, continues today." The question is rather what it was like back then.
    • "On 10 July 1968 torrential rainfall led to widespread flooding in the village, which water reaching the first floor of many buildings." Huh?
    • "The damage in the village was not as severe as in some of the surrounding villages such as Pensford, however, fears that the dam of Chew Valley Lake would be breached caused considerable anxiety in the village.[8]" That sentence contains the word "village" three times. The over-use of this word can be found in the whole article.--Carabinieri 17:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ResponseThanks for your comments.
  • There doesn't seem to be anything written, in multiple sources, about the period between the middle ages and the 20th century - therefore I am not able to expand this section.
  • I have removed the sentence about probable roman occupation as I can't find the source it directly - although I have plenty of source detailing other roman sites in the valley.
  • as with point 1 there doesn't seem to be much description available to cite for middle age farming & life in the village in those times.
  • I have reworded the sentence about the 1968 floods to say "with water reaching..."
  • I have removed 2 occurences of "village" in this sentence and approx 20 from the article as a whole (leaving 12 in the main text)
I hope this meets some of your concerns and I apologise for the lack of data relating to the village in the middle ages.— Rod talk 19:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick response. If, in fact, nothing is known about the village's history during this period, then this should probably be stated explicitly in the article. Because as it is, the history section just seems really incomplete. Perhaps one could also add a bit of information about the region in general as long as it also pertains to Chew Stoke. Also:
  • The "Economy" section is both really short and unsourced. A reference should be added, and merging it into another section (demography?) might also be a good idea.
  • "Farming has been important in the area for hundreds of years." Wasn't this true for almost all of Europe excecpt for a few large cities until industrialization?--Carabinieri 01:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response sorry for the delay in responding this time I was caught in Summer 2007 United Kingdom floods yesterday. I have added a comment about the paucity of writing about phases in the village history also:
  • I have moved te economy section into demographics as suggested and referenced the comment about commuting. I should point out that that this section (once called industry) has been reduced significantly during this FAC as the URLs for the light industry units at "Fairseats farm" were criticised as link spam. There is very little employment in the village and this means that the section has always been short.
  • I have reworded the piece about the age of the farmhouses reflecting the history to show that this is not unique to this village.— Rod talk 09:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response The standard secondary source for the history of UK Parishes is the Victoria County History. Unfortunately, this is a work in progress, and the volume covering Chew Stoke has not been published (and probably not even started). I am sure that there are manorial rolls etc that cover the history of the village, but they are primary sources, and using them directly in Wikipedia would be original research. The only options I can think of for secondary sources would be the report for the country of the Royal Commission for Historial Monuments in England (written around 1950, and possibly not covering the history of the village), or articles in local history (or family history) magazines. Given the lack of a VCH history of the village, I wouldn't be surprised if there were no suitable secondary sources at all. Bluap 19:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been asked to re-assess the writing. I went straight to the lead and the short first section on Prehistory.

I try to be generous in revisiting nominations when asked, but I found far too many issues in this very exposed opening to even consider supporting this one. Here is my copy-edit of that portion, to demonstrate my point (I've had to guess a few things). Although a few of the changes are personal choices aimed at making it more stylish, most would gain the agreement of professional editors generally (it is required to be of a professional standard). There was one breach of the MOS.

I balked before at "industrial units", and it remained. I've substituted "sites" without knowing what it means. I suppose they're factories and the like. "Units" is far too vague (sounds like the units of production that factories turn out). There are still dictionary terms linked, which I complained about last time: why bother our readers with a blue spattering of "apples", "pears" and the like? Please remove them.

To satisfy myself that the prose is problematic generally, I cast my eyes down at random. "The area of Chew Stoke is surrounded by arable and dairy farms"—um, arable farms? Why would you farm land that isn't arable? The two adjectives are very strange bedfellows, even if arable made logical sense. "While much of the area is cleared for farming"—"has been" is a little more comfortable, yes? "An older centre is located along Pilgrams Way which loops onto Bristol Road and features an old stone packhorse bridge, pedestrian only now, and a 1950s Irish bridge, used as a ford in winter." Starting a dependent clause, "which" must be preceded by a comma: MUST. "Pedestrian only now" is bad per se and in relation to the rest of the sentence ("restricted to pedestrians"?).

The article has merit, so why is the prose still bad? Tony 14:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the specific issues you raised have now been addressed, although I'm not certain what was the breach of MOS you hinted at.
On the point about "arable farms", I don't know how it works in the rest of the world, but we do have both arable and dairy farms here in the UK. The distinction isn't to do with farming land that isn't arable, it's to do with using the land to raise livestock—most often cows—as opposed to growing crops. Perhaps what we call a "dairy farm" would be called something else in other parts of the English speaking world? --Malleus Fatuarum 23:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right: I've looked it up—crop-related word. The rest wasn't hard to fix, because I did it for you. It was, of course, an example of why the whole text needs attention. THe MOS breach was the lack of a space before "km". Tony 13:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response The whole text has received attention from a number of copyeditors, and has been greatly improved as a result I believe. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

Itanium

[edit]

Nom restarted (old nom) Raul654 16:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments from Universe=atom:
    • Section 5 needs references, as there are currently none in a potentially challenge-able subject.
    • "...10 of the November, 2006 list of..." (section 6) Comma needed after 2006.
    • "...with 10160 Itanium 2 (1.5 GHz) CPUs." (section 6) Comma needed in thousands' place in numbers.
    • "The groups are: [point-wise list here]" (sub-section 2.1) A colon should never follow a verb, as it currently does. It should be changed to something like "The groups are as follows:" or "There are several groups:"
    • "Intel has released two processor families using the brand: Itanium and Itanium 2." (intro) Two mistakes are here: The same colon one as the previous one. Also, the two brands should not be in bold.
    • "As of 2007 Itanium is the fourth-most..." (intro) Comma needed after 2007.
    • "As of 2007 Itanium is the fourth-most deployed microprocessor architecture for enterprise-class systems, behind x86-64, IBM POWER, and SPARC." (intro) Reference needed.

I will add more points later if I can find them. If all of them are taken care of, I will vote "Support." Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 11:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly Support Very well written. --akc9000 (talk • contribs • count) 20:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as the article's GA reviewer. Huge improvements. Giggy UCP 03:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Citations are sparse. Spamsara 11:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Some citations aren't placed immediately after punctuation marks. Only full dates or dates with a day and a month should be wikilinked. The phrases "the majority of" and "a number of" are too wordy and could be replaced by the words "most" and "several". "Currently, modern chipsets for Itanium are manufactured by HP" - I don't think it's necessary to use both the words "currently" and "modern". Why is Itanium italicised in some places but not others? "The architecture is based on explicit instruction-level parallelism, with the compiler making the decisions about which instructions to execute in parallel." - this could be better phrased. I think it would be useful to get the article copy-editted by someone who hasn't seen it yet. Epbr123 23:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea why this was restarted. Please remove the dots from non-sentence captions, as per MOS. I suppose it's OK overall. Tony 05:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC) PS Check through for glitches like "2x128"—space it and use a multiplication sign, not an ex. Click on it below the edit box. Tony 05:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

Futurama

[edit]
previous FAC

Futurama seems to be a FA, it has fixed all the criteria from the last FA nom. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 01:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to add fair use rationale as appropriate and I'll have a look at the inclusion of those pics, the discussion of the Fox Logo is uncited anyway so it might be better to remove that discussion and the associated pic. I'm wondering how you think the Alien decoder image should be dealt with, would it be more appropriate to list it with some other status or as a fair use? Stardust8212 13:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Image:Alien decoder.PNG, the appropriate copyright tag is {{PD-font}}. Anomie 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip, I changed it. Stardust8212 21:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Image:Doop logo.png and Image:Kleins-beer (futurama).jpg have been removed from the article. A fair use rationale has been added to Image:Logo 30th century fox.jpg and Image:Alien decoder.PNG is now tagged as {{PD-font}} as suggested. Hope that helps. Stardust8212 23:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Greatly informative article! Although about the images: If... If the Alien Language decoder chart must be replaced, it can be replaced with a framegrab of just some random Alien Language text from the show, perhaps the letter from Leela's parents in "Leela's Homeworld". Just enough to satisfy for fair-use, to show a sample of the symbols. As for the others... The DOOP logo and the Earth flag are both justified, in my opinion, especially in their own respective articles. The Klein Bottles pic is informatory of the nerdy humour in the show, and the 30th Century FOX logo is most certainly an icon of the series. The only problem I really have at all with the article is that Bender is described as being 'alcoholic'. I believe it should be noted that Bender needs alcohol, or else he becomes the human equivalent of drunk. The word 'alcoholic' has rather different connotations. Other than that, fantastic article. Wish I had written more of it. - ТģØ(Đ {ŧª∫Қ ↑¤ Мә} 05:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see one {{fact}} tag so far.--Rmky87 13:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: There were actually two, both have been dealt with. Please let me know if you see any other issues. Stardust8212 00:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Not enough inline citations. In the days where the standard is to reference most sentences, the fact that most paras are not referenced sinks this article. Stubby paras ('Robots', 'Sewer Mutants' (do they really deserve a section at all?)), and 'References to Futurama in popular culture' would look better in paragraph form, not a list.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, I fully agree with your comments about the stubby paragraphs and I have merged them together and I will have a look at the pop culture section later. If you don't mind my asking, specifically which paragraphs do you feel require more citations? I would be more than happy to work on those issues. Stardust8212 21:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'References to Futurama in popular culture' has been paragraphified. - ТģØ(Đ {ŧª∫Қ ↑¤ Мә} 22:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At minimum, you want one citation per paragraph (or more if different sources were used), and for more controversial information, don't hesitate to give inline citations for individual sentences. For popculture, here are some good 'how to do it': Excel Saga (it's the oldest, and it certainly should have a few more citations by modern standards), Serial Experiments Lain (better, missing only a few) and a current FAC, Lupin III (which seems nearly perfect with regards to density of refs).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some have now been added, I will try to add any more as I notice a need. Stardust8212 00:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — This article had some good content but the presentation needs some improvement. Here are some suggestions:
  • In the second opening paragraph try "In the United States, the series aired from March 28, 1999 to August 10, 2003 on CHANNEL, although its timeslot was regularly interrupted and pre-empted by sports events, and eventually went out of production."
Done Stardust8212 00:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try getting rid of all the "List of .... in Futurama" in the "Cast and Characters" section. Instead try "See also: Recurring robot characters, recurring human characters, recurring alien characters..."
Update: I'm not quite sure how to do this within {{see also}} but I did move it to the bottom so it is hopefully less intrusive. Stardust8212 00:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Cast and Characters" section needs to be introduced. For example, "The show revolves around the adventures of a cantankerous professor and the employees of his delivery company."
  • The "Cast and Characters" list has quite a lot of text and could be trimmed or moved to a sub-article. Some of the details in the list are trivial and provide no real insight into the characters.
  • The "Galactic politics" is not that compelling. I have two possible solutions: remove the section altogether or incorporate it into the "Society and Culture" section.
Update: It has been merged and somewhat reduced. Stardust8212 00:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Linguistics" section is interesting however the ask/axe talk may be a bit too much detail. Also it might work better if placed at the end of the "Setting" section.
Done Stardust8212 00:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Hallmarks" section is alright, but could use some trimming. Remember you don't need to describe every detail of the show in its article, it's okay to leave some stuff out.
  • Incorporate the "Ratings" section with the "Broadcast" section and reduce the size of both.
  • Always remember the audience of the article: The show is internationally syndicated so the audience may not always be in the United States. Also not all of the article's readers will be fans of the show.
Sorry, I'm not sure if this is referring to something specific or... Stardust8212 00:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't referencing a specific section, but some of the issues above (the characters one, the United States one) may stem from forgetting the wide audience the article might attract.
  • The "Show Status" section might benefit from some trimming but this is not essential.
Completed some minor trimming here. Stardust8212 00:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Futurama in other media" could be spun off into a separate article and briefly mentioned in this article.
  • The "References to Futurama in popular culture" would work better before the "Awards" section.
Moved. Stardust8212 00:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the good stuff:
  • Good opening paragraph.
  • Good description of the setting.
  • Good "Society and Culture" section.
  • The "Humor" section is important, it was missing when I reviewed the article a year ago as a GAC.
Cedars 03:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the helpful comments, I'm trying to address each of them, let us know if you notice any other issues which can be improved. Stardust8212 00:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

Battle of Khe Sanh

[edit]

Incredibly well written and detailed article, with excellent use of multiple sources, diagrams pictures and maps. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. There are still unreferenced paras, not to mention sentences. 'Battle in popular culture' list is not pretty, needs to be rewritten into a normal paragraph. For the record, this is the first article that I have seen uses question marks ("Why else would Hanoi have committed so many forces to the area instead of committing them to the Tet Offensive?") - rather unusual style (this is not an objection).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've acted on Piotr's suggestion about the "Popular culture" section. Two statements are now tagged within the paragraph. --Fsotrain09 20:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could not agree with you more. As a matter of fact, I believe that the entire paragraph should be removed as irrelevent. The author RM Gillespie 15:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The major issue in my eyes is length. 59 kb is way too long, especially given how many {{details}} and {{see also}} statements there are. By applying summary style, and limiting those sections to three paragraphs or so, pushing the size down to a reasonable read should be quite doable. Also, I visited Khe Sanh a while back and the article doesn't give a good sense of the physical location. In particular, the firebases were set out in a string along Route 9 south of the DMZ. The way the article is written it makes it seem like the fort battles are happening around Khe Sanh, which is actually explicit (and misleading) in the lead ("Khe Sanh Combat Base (KSCB) and the hilltop outposts around it"). Some basic orientation is needed so the reader has a sense of the physical features and distances involved. - BanyanTree 09:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that I did not know about this nomination until today I am quite impressed by the response. I do not understand your claim about the confusion of locations. I Corps Marine positions were along route 9 (Gio Linh, Cam Lo, Con Thien, the Rockpile, etc.) The Battle of Khe Sanh took place "around" the Khe Sanh Valley, as any cursory examination of the maps contained in the article would reveal (that is, after all, what they are there for.) As to the article's length, I wrote it to give a detailed, unbiased account of the action and did not consider length as any kind of qualifying measure.RM Gillespie 15:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me structure my response, which I probably should have done before:
        • I've never bothered with the procedure of finding "readable prose", as I think of articles in terms of "good read", "lengthy read", "torturous read", etc. So my sense of appropriate size automatically includes markup. I probably should have just used the qualitative terms rather than quoting numbers. Sorry. Let me just say that the article is too long for the number of subarticles it has.
        • OK, now that that is out of the way - spatial orientation: I read through the entire article, including looking at the thumbnailed images, and was obviously entirely confused about what was happening where. If you are going to rely upon maps to inform the reader as to what is happening where, you need to make them much larger so readers don't have to click through in order to see what the little blobs are. Even if you did this, I don't see why giving indications in the text wouldn't be a positive, e.g. "11 km northwest of the main camp".
        • Sections referring to main articles. The most obvious example of bloat are the details, including quotations, about the Lang Vei survivors, which don't appear to have further affected the battle. The article shows classic symptoms of being the focus of a dedicated editor, in that Operation Niagara, Battle of Lang Vei, etc are less comprehensive on their subject, in at least some respects, than Battle of Khe Sanh. Pushing all those details down into the most relevant article and then determining the minimum amount of duplicate text needed to maintain a coherent narrative would significantly reduce the length and help the narrative momentum.
        • I'll add a third concern related to the flow. As it reads now, the article strikes me as largely consisting of a "The Americans were attacked, and then the U.S. troops were shelled, and then the Americans were attacked again, and then the U.S. bombed stuff, and then the Americans were attacked" narrative. This may give a sense of how the Americans felt, but I would really appreciate any sense of the experience of the North Vietnamese. I don't mean the overall Tet strategy, which is already addressed, but something that fills in all the blank spaces when the Americans were waiting to get attacked. It seems unbelievable, given how much detail a 1992 book like We Were Soldiers Once ... And Young has on tactical level decisions by PAVN officers (albeit in a separate battle), that no PAVN soldiers have commented on their experience at Khe Sanh
        • There are some non-structural concerns I could raise, but I figure that the ones above are plenty to work with. - BanyanTree 03:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's see: 1) I did not write this article to then have to parcel it out amongst others. If another editor wants to expand the pertinent sub-articles by utilizing the information, all well and good. 2) All of the images in this article arpe thumbnails and may be greatly expanded in size. 3) As to North Vietnamese sources, there are none. Every bit of information concerning the battle related by the official North Vietnamese history of PAVN is given in the article. So far as the author can discern, there are no other works (translated into English) concerning the battle. Went through all this with editors to obtain an A rating. If there had been other sources, I most certainly would have used them. RM Gillespie 10:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RM, respectfully, you might want to re-read WP:OWN. All of us editors agree to "parcel out amongst others" whatever we contribute, and we give up proprietary rights. Please assume that Banyan and the others make their critiques with good intentions. Thanks. -Fsotrain09 18:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think RM is saying that he owns the article. I think he's saying that now that the information is in the article, he doesn't see the point of splitting it up. Which seems a fair comment to make; the quality of other articles shouldn't have any bearing on whether this particular article is considered of good quality. That said, I think the use of {{details}} probably does give the wrong impression, if the articles being pointed to aren't actually much more detailed. This can be fixed by somebody taking the information in this article and using it to populate the others, but not necessarily reducing the content of this article. -- Hongooi 18:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

The Apprentice (UK)

[edit]

previous FAC

Already at GA status, seems to fit the criteria for FA. Dalejenkins 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • "After completion of a task, the teams report back to the "boardroom", a studio mockup of a real company boardroom" - I found that really interesting, but mentioned twice. Is that necessary?
It's not really possible to avoid using the term "boardroom" in the Format section, and it was thought necessary to give a few words of explanation there as to what exactly "the boardroom" is. For completeness it's also necessary to mention it under Filming Locations. I can't think of any other way, except to give a forward reference which would be almost as long as the explanation. Matt 17:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC).
OK. Mark83 19:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "is then subjected to a detailed dressing down by Sugar" -- "Dressing down" is a bit too colloquial and also simplistic.
    • "The team's project manager is required to choose two poorly-performing team members to accompany him or her" -- Not true. The project manager chooses two team members, supposedly the poorly-performing ones, but occasionally the best performing are selected due to personal animosity etc.
I disagree with this addition, as this could fail WP:NPOV. Dalejenkins 17:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just changed this actually before seeing your comment. I'll leave off for now so that we aren't tripping over each other. Matt 17:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well. What about something like "The team's project manager is required to choose two poorly-performing team members, which they believe bear the most repsonibility for the team's failure, to accompany him or her...."
I don't understand. Who's disagreeing with what? Your suggestion leaves the meaning of the original text essentially unchanged ("which they believe bear the most responsibility for the team's failure" is more-or-less already implied by "poorly-performing"). The objection to the original text, which I believe is valid, is that the two team members chosen by the PM are not necessarily the two that he/she believes were "poorly-performing" or "bear the most repsonibility for the team's failure". In practice PMs may (and do) choose based on personality issues. I changed the text to make that clear, as the original reviewer suggested. Matt 23:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC).
    • "teams..periodically rearranged ....to unsettle the candidates" -- Original research??
I assume the OR objection is to the words "unsettle the candidates" (which have been removed). The word "periodically" was also removed, but I have restored it because the sense of the sentence is lost without it, and it is an incontrovertible fact that the reshuffles happen periodically. Matt 00:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC).
    • Last few candidates undergo interview -- Expand perhaps? The two interview episodes I have seen featured the same interviewers and their relationship to Sir Alan Sugar was well described - it would add to the article to include their names and positions. Perhaps also a short summary of the more dramatic moments - e.g. Paul in the 2006 series - his standing with Sir Alan went from very high to very low as a result of the interviews if I recall correctly.
Various people have been involved in the interview process, it has changed every year. The specifics have been explained in the episode section of each series page, and I think this infomation belongs there. The dramatic moments also belong in the series articles too, as this is the "Format" section and not the "Noteable moments" one. Dalejenkins 17:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All very good points. Mark83 19:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in the same vein as Big Brother's Little Brother and Strictly Come Dancing: It Takes Two" -- why is this included? Seems to be an arbitrary selection of "similar" shows.
    • "5.7 million viewers tuning in to see Michelle Dewberry triumph over Ruth Badger to win the job with Sir Alan Sugar." -- Triumph? Tone down perhaps? And "win the job with Sir Alan Sugar" is a bit redundant at this stage of the article.
    • Amstrad linked mulitiple times - link the first instance and no more.
    • "the team house was located in Chiswick.[37] It moved to Hampstead Heath" - Everyone will know a house did not actually "move" - it could perhaps be worded better. If you think this point is bordering on/is facetious please ignore.
    • "Media Watch has voiced concerns over inclusion of company names and products in the programme" -- for example... perhaps?
    • Under "viewing figures" : "The Apprentice has received high rating figures in its run, as the following table shows" -- A bit redundant, the table speaks for itself.
    • Regarding cultural references - I think the HIGNFY one is a bit weak. It's a popular show, but is one mention in a promo really noteworthy.
The promo involved was set around mocking the candidate's taxi-ride home, if it was a passing reference I would agree totally-but I feel this is more major. Dalejenkins 17:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree about notability, however I have not seen the piece in question and I am not able to challenge your judgement of it. Mark83 19:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "An official soundtrack is due for release on 11 June 2007.[78]" is out of date.
    • Does "Online store Getting Personal is the official retailer of general The Apprentice merchandise." not read like an advertisement?
    • 2 Apprentice infoboxes -- overkill?
As they have seperate purposes and are vital(the first being under Wikipedia policy, the second under WikiProject Television policy [I believe]), I disagree. Dalejenkins 17:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.Mark83 19:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. The "The Board" image has no source. As it's claimed to be promotional material it should contain verifiable evidence that this image "is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media". --Abu badali (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image was formally on the Apprentice website, but it has since been re-vamped and is no longer included. Dalejenkins 09:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which specific parts of the text do you feel are too "chatty"? If it's just a few phrases here and there then I'm sure they can be fixed without too much trouble. Matt 00:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

Virginia Tech massacre

[edit]

previous FAC

The previous FAC was speedily closed because the article was not stable, but it appears to have reached that point now; there are only a few edits, mostly reverts, each day. HHermans 14:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose Overall a well-written article, with some quibbles. I have a somewhat hard time believing the article is stable when it hasn't yet been 4 months since the event (I'm sure there will be additional changes/responses on-campus during the fall). I would recommend "paragraphizing" the embedded list under resistance. The amount of coverage on responses was somewhat excessive, condensing the many 1 or 2 paragraph "Response" sections into larger units would also take care of the criterion 2(c) Table of Contents and criterion 4 unnecessary detail concerns I have. Madcoverboy 15:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Too soon, not stable enough. Agree with Madcoverboy. — Wackymacs 16:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Too many footnotes in the lead. A well-written lead should be a summary with few if any footnotes; which should be in the body. Has one or more cite needed tags. Lists could be made prose. Footnotes are often unnecessarily in the middle of a sentence, not at the end. I haven't even gotten to reading the text, just looked at format.Rlevse 16:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Stability is a measure of edit wars and rapid changes by many editors, not topic life (unless it has the currentevent tag). Otherwise, every living biography would be "unstable" because the people haven't died yet. I think four months is enough time provided the article architects keep it updated in perpetuity. Zeality 18:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article clearly meets every criterion. Opposing on the grounds that more information is likely to be released later seems a bit silly to me; more information about anything could come out in the future. Zeality is right in hir comments about living people biographies. Atropos 22:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment THe only problem I see is the citation needed tag. No article is "complete" by the definition of a wiki, and four months has been enough time to make this article stable. The Placebo Effect 02:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support People still come out with new items related to the Columbine shooting and the DC Snipers years after the event. I don't think that will hurt the article at all, since the fall semester is just weeks away. Anyways, the article looks good, 127 citations for this short article and sums up the events well. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per most of the opposes above, plus what is currently fn 88 only displays a number, no information at all.Sumoeagle179 12:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A well-written article, which is balanced and NPOV in its presentation. A lot of effort has clearly gone into polishing it, as early contributions were all over the map. MeegsC | Talk 14:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Please fix the lead (WAY too many references which are unnecessary if referenced later in the article per lead guidelines. Other than that, it appears to be an excellent article. — BQZip01 — talk 21:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Conditional on fixing lead as requested above. ike9898 13:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have a concern with the last sentence in the Media response section, regarding the "first published book". A Google search for "Anatomía de una mente torturada" only turns up one link to the Spanish Wikipedia. The sentence also poorly phrased, so if the book is a hoax or other untruth, it would be good if it were removed. If not, it needs rewording and perhaps a source. Harryboyles 11:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

The Care Bears Movie

[edit]

Since early last summer, this article on the Bears' first movie has been at GA status, albeit with a lot of improvement and cleanup. Everyone might go against such an objective, because their main article has to see a star before too long. (Remember Avriette (talk · contribs · count), my first friend on WP?)

Anyway, I'd love to see this on WP as a Main Page Christmas gift. Everyone in Care-a-lot will be smiling the whole day through. If anything can be sorted out further, let me know and I'll come back next week to check it out.

NB: This is officially my first FAC since my unsuccessful experience with Care Bears Movie II. --Slgrandson 19:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Oppose Common words such as "nurse" and "diary" do not need linking. Some full dates in the footnotes need linking. There is some incorrect dash formatting. Epbr123 18:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

Scotland national football team

[edit]

Self-nomination: I've been editing this article since I started contributing to Wikipedia a couple of years ago and have come to the point where I think it is worth a nomination at FAC. It went through a peer review fairly recently and I think most of the issues raised then and subsequently have been addressed. I believe it meets all the featured article criteria. Kanaye 16:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support — Looks pretty good to me. My only minor gripe would be that the article is a bit listy; but as that seems to be the case for most football-related articles I wouldn't say it's a major problem. Chwech | hum-dee-hum-hum 20:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - this article is good but not good enough, yet:
    • Most importantly, the article uses only one freely-licensed images, compared to four fair-use ones.
    • Doesn't the Tartan Army phrase refer to the fans more than the team itself?>
    • "Wembley Wizards" perhaps important, but the sentence as it stands sticks out like a sore thumb.
    • Perhaps should be explained why Scotland did not play in a World Cup until 1954 (especially the no-show in 1950)
    • Scotland winger Jim Baxter, famously, played "Keepie uppie" during the game as he tormented the English players by juggling the ball at walking pace. is not very encyclopaedically written. Also phrases such as crashed out (used later on) should be avoided.
    • While the 1978 World Cup was important it does not deserve four whole paragraphs - this could be merged down to two.
    • Vogts' reign was disastrous and the team plummeted in the FIFA World Rankings - more unencylopaedic tone, framed in inherently POV language. Instead spell out what happened (briefly) - how many places did they fall?
    • The record Scottish Cup final attendance need not be included here as they are not relevant to the Scottish national side.
    • The supporters section could do with being a bit longer, I feel.
    • I would prefer to split the top scorers and appearances off into a separate article e.g. Scotland national football team records (which could also deal with record scorelines, attendances etc.) and replaced with prose. This perhaps would make the article less listy as well.
    • Perhaps a history of the team's colours as well, like most club articles? Even a short section would be good, I feel. Qwghlm 22:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply
    • They all have solid fair-use rationale. I'm not an expert on the use of images but I don't really see the problem.
    • It mainly refers to the supporters but is also used for the team. I could add a reference if needed.
    • Binned.
    • Expanded the World Cup record section to include relevant information.
    • Done.
    • Done.
    • Done.
    • Removed.
    • What specifically would you like to see included?
    • The article is no more listy than Everton F.C. or Norwich City F.C., which are both featured. Could prose realistically communicate as much information as the tables already do?
    • I'm not sure there's much to be said on strip colour. The WikiProject manual of style is silent on the issue. Kanaye 00:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments:
    • Just the one free image compared to four non-free isn't good enough for a featured article, in my opinion. I feel the Kirin Cup is not a significant enough event to warrant the use of a fair-use image either - they should only be used in exceptional circumstances (Gemmill's goal and the 1967 victory over England meet this criterion).Finding other free images to add in is the other - Creative Commons-licenced photos of players or managers, or a photo of the Tartan Army, would help redress the balance as well. Flickr is a good resource to start looking, as are other Wikipedia pages.
    • A footnote & reference for the Tartan Army nickname would be a good thing. As it stands this article somewhat contradicts the Tartan Army article, which doesn't mention it at all in the lead and says the usage as it applied to the team is controversial.
    • I count five lists (excluding squad) for this article, as compared to four for both the Everton and Norwich ones :). It was just a suggestion and not a deal-breaker, I just envisaged something along the lines of Arsenal F.C.#Statistics and records, which looks nicer in a prose-style article like this.
    • Never mind about the supporters section. I think a photo however (see above) would improve it, and would not be that hard to find.
    • I am perhaps following the manual of style for clubs instead of national teams. That said, it is possible to wax on at length about the England strip. If Scotland really have just played in navy for their entire existence it might be too boring for inclusion - but there have been plenty of variations on the strip (the white pinstripe version for example, or the Umbro diamonds on the sleeves in the 70s) and also variety in the away kits as well.
  • In summary - the first two are deal breakers and need to be sorted. The other three are not but are desirable in my opinion. Qwghlm 09:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply
    • "Tartan Army" nickname has been cited.
    • Added free image to supporters section.
    • Deleted the Kirin Cup picture.
    • I agree with your other recommendations and will add them duly, but they will likely take a while to implement and I don't feel the current article is deficient without them. Kanaye 14:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply The Wembley Wizards match is significant because it is the only game from Scotland's first 80 years that is remembered as anything more than a statistic. It is the only single football match I know of that has its own Wikipedia article. What was it about the sentence that made it "stick out like a sore thumb"? And how could the match be mentioned differently without going into too much detail? Conval 11:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It just didn't flow with the rest of the paragraph at all, in my opinion, but I have no objection to its inclusion as long as it reads well. Qwghlm 15:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I have put in another version of this sentence which is less abrupt and hopefully reads smoother. Please take a look and see what you think. If you still think it jars, be ruthless in saying so. It would be a shame not to mention the Wembley Wizards: but it is not worth losing FAC status over it. Conval 15:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FACR does not stipulate how many images have to be freely-licenced, but I would say to have an article dominated by unfree fair-use images, when it is possible to include freely-licenced ones as well, runs against the spirit of Wikipedia. In this particular case, it is almost certainly possible to get a picture of the Tartan Army, and probably a picture of the team playing a recent match, or a famous player or manager at e.g. an autograph & photo session, that can be appropriately CC- or GFDL-licenced and used, and help redress the balance. Qwghlm 15:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Colours section mentions alternative colours used previously, but does not actually describe the colours usually worn, other than as an aside introducing the Rosebery colours. Oldelpaso 21:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added a few sentences to the Colours section to readdress the balance. All of Qwghlm's recommendations have also been implemented. Kanaye 22:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image looks distorted to me, and doesn't have the perspective usually found in panoramic photographs Lurker 14:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can see what Lurker means, but images of this type (inside of football stadiums) seem to invariably look like that, even in glossy magazines, so I believe it is an unnavoidable problem and will only change my stance on this if someone can show me a comparable image which isn't slightly distorted. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the second paragraph of the Tartan Army section needs sourcing and removal of 'point out'. A better source than one short sentence in a BBC article for 'were rewarded with a similar accolade at the 1998 World Cup in France' would be nice. It could tell us what the accolade was.--Nydas(Talk) 12:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Improved. 1a, 2 (MOS). Needs a good, thorough copy-edit throughout. Please don't just fix these examples.
    • "The team has played international football longer than any other nation in the world along with England,[8] who they played in the world's first international football match at Hamilton Crescent, Partick, in 1872." A comma or two would ease the reader's task in a longish sentence. "whoM" has mostly dropped out of the language, but not here. What do you mean by "along with England"? Are they vying with the Scottish team for the length of playing, or are they included in "the world" (hardly necessary to single them out, in that case).
    • "Although a part of the United Kingdom, Scotland maintains its own representative side that competes in all the major professional tournaments, though not at the Olympics as Scotland lacks membership of the International Olympic Committee." We have "Although" (preferred in formal language), and "though" (there are other examples, too). You could drop the first "a". Comma before "as". "Is not a member", not the ungainly "lacks membership".
    • Chaotic and clumsy: "Some of Scotland's most famous results include, in the 1978 World Cup, beating one of the favourites, the Netherlands, 3-2 with Archie Gemmill scoring a famous goal,[10] and in 1967, defeating the World Cup holders England 3-2 at Wembley Stadium." MOS insists on en dashes for sports scores.
    • The "lack" word intrudes into the final sentence in the lead, too. Better way of wording it. Tony 08:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made changes throughout the body of the article to reduce redundancy and informality. Still pondering how to rewrite some parts of the lead. Oldelpaso 10:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should be better now, though I make no claim to it being brilliant prose. Oldelpaso 08:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Football may be one of the world's most exciting games to play or watch but it hard to translate that sense of passion into prose and I think you have done a decent job. I have several suggestions. I think Geograph has better images of Hampden than the squashed one on show here. If you want assistance in uploading one of them I'd be happy to help. Secondly, it pains me to say so, but I think the sentence 'Scotland have competed at eight World Cup Finals, but have never progressed beyond the first round of the finals competition.' should be in the lead para. 'Notable players' seems redundant as a section - would it not be better to have it as second main article under 'Records' where many of the more notable players are referred to? (There maybe some stylistic reason why it's there?). It's a pity there isn't a colour photo of a player in the modern strip (- this may have been mentioned above.) Finally, there is no mention of the changing nature of the clubs the players have come from, especially the role of the 'anglos'. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I would love to change my oppose as is this is a great article, but there are a few issues:
    • "Scotland's qualifying campaign was unspectacular. They were far from impressive and lost 1–0 to Romania away from home but a 1–1 draw played out between Bulgaria and Romania in the final group match saw Scotland through." Using terms like "unspectacular" and "far from impressive" is a bit POV'ish. Could you rephrase those two sentences by explaining what the terms are supposed to express or just by removing them
    • "The tournament in Sweden approached but expectation within the Tartan Army was limited" Of course the tournmanet approached and it passed. "limited" is also very vague. How about: "As the tournament in Sweden approached, Scotland's fans were not very optimistic" or something similar?
    • "Scotland lost 2–0 with Paul Gascoigne scoring a spectacular goal and Alan Shearer also netting". Again "spectacular" isn't completely NPOV.
    • "Allegations have been made against the Tartan Army that they carry a strong anti-English sentiment,[70] being open and highly vociferous in their support of England's opponents.[71] Tartan Army members say that many England fans express the same sentiments about the Scottish team.[72] It has been suggested that there is nothing unusual in traditional rivals wishing to see one another defeated and that these matters should be seen in the context of good-natured sporting rivalry." That paragraph is really weasilish. Is it needed at all? Can't it be shrunk to two sentences and added to the previous paragraph?
    • The "notable players" section doesn't have any content. Why not move the link to the list of Scottish international footballers to the top of the "players" section and delete the "notable players" section? Obviously, the article will only mention notable players.
    • The "colours" section gives a nice historical perspective on this topic naming other colours worn by the squad. It would be nicer if the "stadium" and "supporters" sections would do the same. Has Hampden Park always been the stadium Scotland used. Have the Scotland supporters always had that nickname? Have they always had the reputation described in the section?
    • Having a section that just lists the current squad doesn't make a whole lot of sense. This information will inherently change and an encyclopedia should be to some extent timeless. Additionally, there is no reason why the squad as of July 3, 2007 should be more notable that the squad on say March 17, 1966 or January 21, 1989. I know such all articles have a section like that and that the wikiproject recomends it, so I probably won't be able to force a change in this policy. I wanted to remark that I don't like this nonetheless.--Carabinieri 19:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

Religious opposition to the Harry Potter series

[edit]

This article has undergone substantial revision and a peer review since it was given GA status. I think it is now ready for FA consideration. Serendipodous 08:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support - need response for the observations before i decide to vote

  • Concern - Will the article stay 'stable' between now and the release of the seventh and final book. Just a concern and i wanted to hear the nom's opinion before i withdraw the concern
The release of the final book is unlikely to change things substantially; a para or two might be added if it causes enough controversy, but the Harry-Haters bandwagon has pretty much left the station by now. Serendipodous 12:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: The second line should explicitly state that the controversies covered in the article are legal and socio-religious in nature before dwelling upon legal issues
OK. Serendipodous 12:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: Avoid starting sentences with 'Many' and 'however'. I think the lead can be re-worded better with some copyedits.

OK 12:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Is the controversies limited to just legal and religious? I don't know a lot but was there any political, literary controversy with respect to the books. if so, please add the same to the article.
The problem, and this is one that this page has faced down recently, is defining the difference between "controversy" and "criticism". The Harry Potter page contains a number of criticisms of the books, from a variety of quarters, but, strictly speaking, none of these criticisms have necessarily become controversies. We decided to take the tack that a "controversy" was an active dispute, whereas a criticism was merely one person or group airing its opinion into space. Serendipodous 12:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rowling, her publishers, and Warner Bros, the films' distributor, have both been accused and accused others of infringing on various copyrights." - sentence doesn't seem to be right. please re-word

Done. Serendipodous 07:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Nancy Stouffer" section: I have serious concerns on this section. When i read the section here, it leaves me with a lot of doubt on JKR's defense but when i read Nancy's wikipage - i realized that 'Larry Potter' did not appear in the 'The Legend of Rah and the Muggles' book and that his last name (potter) doesn't seem to appear in the original book. These details were left out of this article thus tending to make the section, anti-JKR.
Reworked; let me know if it needs anything more.Serendipodous 07:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • shouldn't reference [5] be moved into the para
Well, it's not really a reference; it's a link to the site. It doesn't really explain anything except that the site is there.Serendipodous 07:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 redinks - either create atleast stub articles or remove wikilink: Connie Neal, Muggles for Harry Potter, KidSPEAK! and Rosman Publishing.
removed Serendipodous 07:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems well-written and once my observations above are addressed, i shall vote on the article. -- Kalyan 12:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, some of the prose is pretty clunky, especially in the lead, for example 'These controversies have been both legal and socio-religious in nature.' There are lot of dodgy words used in the article such as 'claim', 'noted', 'actually', 'countered', 'supposed' etc. Try to use more neutral ones. Finally, the article doesn't have a good worldwide overview, with the American perspective always taking prominence. The National Post spoof website is described as Canadian, whilst the Onion is not similarly described as American, for example.--Nydas(Talk) 10:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reworked lead; removed most contentious words (kept one "actually" since it is not used in the fashion decried in Wikipedia:Words to avoid). I also included several cues to people's nationalities. Serendipodous 21:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still concerned about the comprehensiveness of the article. Why does the Vatican play second fiddle to US fundamentalists, when it is obviously far more significant than Chick Publications or Focus on the Family? Has there never been any reaction from any other religious groups? Why is the American Library Association mentioned in three different places? Also, the prose is still not stellar.--Nydas(Talk) 23:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well no one in the Vatican has taken the books to court- yet. The ALA keeps track of banned books, and most of the book challenges have emerged in the USA. I've been looking for challenges in other countries but apart from that one Russian incident, I haven't found any. The Bishop of Durham did forbid the filmmakers from turning Durham Cathedral into Hogwarts, but that's not really a challenge. There was a recent case where a London teacher's assistant sued her school for discrimination, but again, that's not really a challenge either. Still, might fit. OK; I've added official criticisms from the Anglicans and the Orthodox. I love the line at the bottom of that Greek article: "Greece has no tradition of children’s books about sorcery and magic, a long-established genre in English literature." So, I'm assuming he's excluding The Odyssey? Serendipodous 08:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the section about US fundamentalists should come after the much more significant objections from the Vatican - and possibly other official objections. Book challenges seem to be a feature of the US education system; they're confined to unimportant towns, but they get as much attention in the article as the Greek and Bulgarian Orthodox churches condemnation of the books. I think there's been some condemnation in Russia as well. Sources may be hard to find, but would it be possible to find out anything about the effect of these criticisms? Book sales, official responses, that sort of thing. The Putin-Dobby controversy may also be worth discussing.--Nydas(Talk) 12:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. After a quick purusal, I can't see any references to any actual litigation over the whole "Putin-Dobby" affair. One page pointed out that these "lawyers" never actually revealed who they were. As far as I can tell, no trial ever took place. To my mind, this has "urban legend" written all over it. Serendipodous 19:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. The article seems generally well-written but would benefit from a copyedit and fact check. Even just running it through a spell-check would help fix mistakes like "publically" and "religoious". I've done a bit, but don't have time to do more now. I'm more concerned about the factual accuracy of the various claims made, though. I've only checked two sources, but there were problems with both: we had one person's first name wrong, and our article's claim that "the Russian government ... publically complained that the film's depiction of Dobby the house-elf was a caricature of Russian president Vladimir Putin" is not supported by the source given. -- Avenue 14:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, either I'm completely blind or the site edited that page after the fact, but I'm pretty certain that's what I read. Seems a bit odd as it is now, like an irrellevant afterthought, so maybe it was altered. Anyway; on the bright side, spellchecked. Serendipodous 14:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a few more spot checks on sources, and haven't found anything else that's odd. It still seems to need a copyedit though. -- Avenue 22:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per Avenue, a fact-check is in order: the National Post is not a satire site, but Canada's national conservative daily. I suspect this may be an embedded vandalistic prank. But that needs to be fixed and the whole needs a good going-through. semper fictilis 18:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Odd thing is, I got this right in the other mention at the Parodies page; National Post has a satirical column, called "Post Morten" and the article appeared in that column. Made the change. Serendipodous 18:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just read through and noticed only one glaring problem. While I udnerstodd the intended meaning of this sentence after reading the citation, it is poorly worded and implies that somehow the ludicrousness of divination in Harry Potter is considered sexist. ("Also, the books tend to treat such practices in a very condescending, tongue-in-cheek manner, as ridiculous pastimes with little bearing on "real" magic, and have been criticised as a result for being sexist.") While there have been accusations of sexism, the link does not suggest that they connect at all to divination being "ridiculous" magic. —Cuiviénen 20:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Cuivienen: Fixed. Well whether the FAC fails or not I'm glad I managed to shake out the major flaws in this article. Serendipodous 22:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wonder about the scope of the article. "Controversy" seems pretty broad. For example, some people have accused the series of being sexist - should that be included as a controversy over the series? (An example of what I mean: [13]) Another example: the criticism by Harold Bloom and A. S. Byatt of the Harry Potter series was well-publicized - should that be included as "controversy"? Right now the article seems to focus exclusively on legal controversies, which is fine, but perhaps the article should be titled "Legal controversy over the Harry Potter series"? zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is one of samantics, and it is rather fuzzy, as a lot of samantics is. Basically, a controversy is a dispute or a conflict of some kind. AS Byatt or some other critic expressing their opinions, positive or negative, about the series isn't really controversy so much as criticism, and is thus included in the Criticism section of the Harry Potter article. I admit that it's a fairly pedantic destinction, but if we didn't make it this article would never end. Serendipodous 12:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea how to clear this up. Not very nice though; perhaps a better idea would be to split this article in half; one article tackling the legal issues and one tackling the reliigous controversy. Serendipodous 13:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with the previous comment. This article is mixing up 2 different kinds of controversy (or disputes to use the new terminology which I don't think fixes anything). One is controversy over the actions of the author and publisher and the other is controversy over the content of the books. They really are not related. I would suggest having one article entitled either "Criticism of the Harry Potter Series" or "Controversy over the Harry Potter Series" that would have the religious stuff as well as the literary and feminist criticism from the Harry Potter article (which could then just have a criticism summary paragraph), and a 2nd article entitled "Disputes over the Publication of the Harry Potter Series" or some such that would cover the plagerism alegations as well as the restraining order stuff. I am sorry to be suggesting such a radical reorganization, but I think when you start spitting semantic hairs this way about the scope of an article it is a sign that you may have a fundamental problem with the organization of the material, and I really think you would end up with 2 better more focused articles. Rusty Cashman 08:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. I'm getting kinda tired of "criticizm"; if we look hard enough, we can find people criticising HP for anything at all. I had to fight off a contributor who kept on inserting the opinions of the John Birch Society that Rowling was a closet Communist. Others have claimed that she's a social conservative. A "criticism of Harry Potter" article would never end. And why should Harry Potter, of all the works of literature on Wikipedia, have an article specifically for listing the various reasons people think it's bad? If Harry Potter had been less financially successful, I doubt we'd see people clamoring to complain about it. These two sections have one thing in common: they both have resulted in controversy- ie, they both have resulted in disputes or arguments. AS Byatt or Ursula Le Guin expressing their own opinions as to how and why HP sucks is not cotroversy. Still, I've now split this article into two: Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series and Religious controversy over the Harry Potter series. Serendipodous 09:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I look at what you have done I like having the religious controversy in its own article, and I think that one might be close to FA level. You have a problem with this FAC now because it is not clear exactly what is being voted on. I would suggest closing this FAC and starting a new one for Religious controversy over the Harry Potter series. Alternately you could clarify what this FAC was for now so that people know what they are voting for. As for whether "Criticism of Harry Potter" should ever be its own article that is purely a function of whether the criticism section of the Harry Potter article ever grows so large that it interferes with the rest of the article. One more minor issue. I think the new names are a little long. You might want to just go with "Religious controversy over Harry Potter".Rusty Cashman 18:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT i helped work on this and it is readable, clear and concise. --munkee_madnesstalk 15:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion. The article has been split into two, but the FAC is attached to neither. When the FAC is archived/promoted, GimmeBot won't know which article applies. Please clarify so the FAC page can be cleaned up and archived correctly; the FAC needs to be renamed and attached to one of the two articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Religious controversy over the Harry Potter series Serendipodous 16:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I made all the changes to correct the FAC nom; please doublecheck that I made the correct change at WP:GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. It's listed under "Literature: Miscellaneous" Serendipodous 16:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. Look at the opening sentence:

"The Harry Potter book series by JK Rowling has engendered a great deal of controversy with various religious conservatives who maintain that her works contain occult or even Satanic subtexts, and have attempted to remove the books from schools or libraries for this reason."

    • Don't particularly like "engendered" here.
    • The meaning and function of "with" are unclear.
    • Her works have attempted to remove?
    • "Schools or libraries"?

Tony 09:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That's fixed. Anything else? Serendipodous 09:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was an example of why the whole text needs copy-editing, not just one sentence you can tick off like that. However, it has improved, I see. Why are dictionary terms—unpiped—been linked, such as "murder", "apathetic" and "tyranny". We do speak English, you know. And why, for the love of god, is "United States" linked, more than once, too. Such an obscure nation. Why is "witchcraft" linked in two successive sentences: likely to irritate readers. In this trivial overlinking, it fails the requirement for a professional standard of formatting. Tony 14:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. De-linked. Anything else? Serendipodous 08:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment. Can't tell if it's biased against Christianity, or if the fundies are just making the rest of us look bad. If possible, can the lead image either be removed, or it's caption changed to show that it's from a fundie group, and not an ordinary denomination? I believe "conservative Christian" is misleading when it is something very distinct from fundamentalist Christianity, and the publisher of the comic is fundamentalist, and not conservative. Michael talk 10:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any notable Christian voice to speak out for Harry would be welcome. I've included Connie Neal,John Granger, Peter Fleetwood and the Dean of Gloucester (not to mention Rowling herself), but if there are others, I'd be happy to discuss them. Serendipodous 22:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey [14] would be a good one.--Pharos 02:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that in the article you need to make a few things perfectly clear. 1), that there is a big whopping gap between conservatives and fundies, and 2) that almost all Christians will condemn Harry for occultism, etc, but other than the fundies, almost all will praise it for the good morals the books contain. These things need to be stressed to avoid giving the reader the wrong view or idea.
Be very careful with your wording. The article needs to be corrected in a few places with regard to this. I'll stay at 'comment' for now, but will be tempted to throw an oppose up if things aren't fixed. That said, if they're corrected to my satisfaction, I will support the FAC. Michael talk 03:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not qualified to make such distinctions; I don't know anything about the finer points of the Christian right, and I don't know how I could locate a secondary source that would back your claims up. I can't sub "conservative" for "fundamentalist" in all cases because there is no such thing as a "fundamentalist Catholic" (There may be Fundamentalist Orthodox or Anglicans I have no idea) Serendipodous 06:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Until all terms are accurate and clarified; "conservative" and "fundamentalist" are not interchangeable. Michael talk 07:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They may not be interchangable, but not only Fundamentalists are opposed to Harry Potter. And I have no idea how I could possibly find a reliable source that asserts that "almost all Christians will praise Harry Potter for the good morals the books contain." How could I back that up? Serendipodous 07:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The caption for the lead image stated "Christian conservative" when this was obviously wrong. It only took me a few minutes to follow a few links and find that the comic was nothing to do with Christian conservatism, but the work of a fundamentalist nutjob running his own little company. With a glaring mistruth like this right at the start, how many others are there? There must be other instances of terms being used without qualification.
I request that all terms used throughout the article be checked to ensure that they are used in an accurate and neutral manner. Distinctions must be made, and if they cannot be (by a reputable academic source), than this article cannot become featured. The article is, essentially, a collection of opinion from various people from newspaper articles. How accurate is the opinion given? Is it from a minority, or is it widespread? Are there polls that provide evidence from the population at large? Indeed, Christian opinion in the article is nothing more than individual opinion, as I can't see anywhere where a Church has officially decreed an accepted line regards HP. Michael talk 07:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you basing your entire position on one line in a picture caption? Because if you are I would request that you read the entire article before coming to those conclusions. If I'm not allowed to use the phrase "Christian conservative", how should I describe the opinions of the Greek Orthodox Church, or the Vatican? Serendipodous 07:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As those of the Vatican, or the Greek Orthodox Church... Further up in this FAC there also problems regarding fact check, which was my point, and raised my ire as to the accuracy of it. Go through the article, check and double check every reference to ensure that the terms you are using are 100% correct. This is what I mean by "fundamentalist" and "conservative"; are you going by your references or just putting in a term that might *seem* right but are technically incorrect?
Then, look at the second point I made above, about the article being simply the opinion of people and not the church. There are so many holes there; no evidence is given of widespread Christian opinion, no polls are given, just quotes from various Christian leaders and notables. All the article is, is a collection of quotations from various leaders, and not the view of a Christian majority, or the church.
In addition, there's more to religion than Christianity; what's the Islamic, Buddhist or Hindu take on Harry Potter? Lots of holes here! Michael talk 07:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked for Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist objections to Harry Potter. As far as I can tell, there aren't any. This fad is strictly Christian. Google "Harry Potter" and "Muslim" and you'll get the opinion of a single Muslim commentator, and nothing else of note. I've also looked for polls, and I can't find any. I would consider conducting my own poll, but that would constitute original research, I believe. Serendipodous 08:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google is not research. There's one of the roots of the problem. There isn't enough—indeed, in this article there isn't any—academic sources provided on the issue. It is simply a collection of quotations, that continue systematic bias (through a lack of non-Christian information). And I found two Muslim pages using Google, but, again, Google is not research. Michael talk 08:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given your resources and way of research, you will not be able to easily satisfy my criteria, so this FAC will obviously fail. I know that the FAC director may overlook my qualms, but such a thing would be grossly inappropriate given that this article is built on a poor foundation (inaccurate terminology, non-academic sources, lack of information [polls, general view of religious populations], based on quotes, and systematic bias). Upgrading it to a FA would be reckless. Michael talk 08:21, 4 July 2007 (U:TC)
Well it's all well and good to dis the internet as a reasearch tool, but then, you could go off to your local library, find the October 1997 issue of the South Dakota Baptist's Monthly and use it as a citation, and I would never be able to verify it. At least with online sources others can check them. Google has a scholarly function, though in this case if you google scholarly articles, you get pretty much the same range of opinion you get with a normal Google search. Serendipodous 08:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it most amusing that the article is essentially structured OPINION, OPINION, OPINION, OPINION, OPINION, and then, in a little place somewhere, titled 'Evangelical support of Harry Potter' we have the FACT; thereby effectively debunking the rest of the article. How is this not imbalanced? All this negative comment from some Christians (opinion), when only 7% of the US population (fact) thinks negatively on the books. Absurd. Michael talk 06:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what are you saying? That something that has had a global impact out of all proportion to the number of people involved does not deserve to be mentioned? That's like saying that because Al-Qaeda make up a minute fraction of all Muslims, they don't matter. All of these opinions have been featured in news headlines. It may not be fair or representative, but that's the way the world works these days. Richard Dawkins doesn't represent the opinions of most atheists, but he's the guy who gets the air time. Serendipodous 06:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dawkins is a man. This is a subject. Regards "fair and representative", you arguing against this? You have essentially a collection of quotes from a minority of religions and religious leaders, which is masquerading as though it is representative of a population as a whole. It's the type of nonsense that would be accepted in tabloid newspapers—not in an encyclopedia.
If you gave Dawkins the same treatment, you'd throw an article together about how, for example, a bunch of loudmouths from a particular religion or group raved on about him, then include a little bit somewhere: "only 4% of people disagree with Dawkins". Michael talk 06:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What am I supposed to do? This article isn't just about American evangelicals. I can't put that statistic in the lead for the same reasons you cite; it would create a misleading impression that it was representative of the population as a whole. This controversy has been cited in the news and is worthy of encyclopedic entry. I will not delete it, and that's pretty much the only way I can answer your criticisms. So what would you do?Serendipodous 06:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would delete it until appropriate academic references become available to cover this topic in an accurate and neutral manner. That cannot be done, and it suffers from inherent and systematic bias because of the nature of the comments, the media frenzy, and the lack of academic sources. Find some statistics, a study, and rewrite from scratch. I've exposed gaping flaws, which you have acknowledged. I won't lie, I do believe it should be deleted. Michael talk 06:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realise what would happen if this article were deleted? Every religious loony who's spent his life seeking devils under the bed will suddenly flood Wikipedia with his or her own take on this topic to fill the vacuum. I'd much rather have this article than someone claiming Rowling is a Satanist. Serendipodous 06:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article shouldn't be a buffer zone against religious loonies. If POV-pushes start jumping onto HP articles and telling us that we're all going to hell, then it'll be semi-protected and they'll be blocked.
I am sorry to have ripped the article to bits, I am, considering the work that you have put into it. But you have understood the points I have raised. Michael talk 06:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is reporting a debate; it isn't about demographics. A debate between two people can be worthy of inclusion in the correct context. Not in a high school playground perhaps, but in a Presidential debate yes. In a debate you of course will presenting opinion, first one side, then the other. This debate is important and had wide-ranging consequences for literature, particularly in the United States. In that sense, it doesn't matter what percentage of the world's population is involved. EDIT: I just changed "Religious" to "Christian" because I don't think we're going to find other religious views on this, nor do I think they are notable enough to be worthy of inclusion. Serendipodous 10:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Both of the images in use on the article are copyrighted, fair use works. Neither has a fair use rationale specifically for use in this article. This needs to be corrected, and the rationale must indicated why the image is of particular use to this particular article. --Durin 15:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Well-written and well-sourced. Amusing pictures that fit within the theme of the article. This is definitely FA material. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 05:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can I again remind the writer that my stance has not changed, and the flaws I have exposed remain unfixed (and that supporters have been keen to overlook and ignore). The article is glossy, beautiful; but a closer look exposes it.
Take, for instance, this sentence: "Various Christian conservatives maintain that her works contain occult or even Satanic subtexts". "Various" is technically wrong, because it isn't various—its a tiny minority (as statistics show); and it's not "conservatives", as many conservatives enjoy and like HP (as statistics show), its fundamentalists. The wording is essentially deceptive. Michael talk 06:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only among Evangelicals. There is no such thing as a Fundamentalist Catholic, since Catholics believe in Papal infallibility and thus accept the Pope's ruling on issues of religious law, whereas Fundamentalists consider the Bible the only authority on such matters. Yet Catholics have also criticised Harry Potter. I changed "various", but for the record, it doesn't mean "many", it means, "a variety of different kinds of". Serendipodous 07:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Tony's prose concerns, and based on the three or four name changes since it's been at FAC, it just doesn't seem stable and ready for FA. I suggest stabilizing the article before going for FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, it is stable. It's current title has removed any and all objections that could possibly be raised about it. This being a controversial topic, I've had to bend myself in pretzels to accommodate every angle, and I doubt I'll ever please everyone, but, unless Michael gets his way and it's deleted, I don't see any drastic changes in its future. As far as Tony goes, well I'll take his concerns under advisement the moment he comes back and actually tells me what they are, since I've addressed all the concerns he's listed. Serendipodous 07:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Although this is a decent report (Serendipodous mentioned "reporting a debate"), I have serious doubts on whether this is a great encyclopaedic article. I get the impression that a strawman has been drawn and placed into the "opposition". I say strawman because the number of persons objecting to the series is small. Take, for example, the evangelical groups which one assumes are the core of the opposition. The article mentions Focus on the Family (a small non-profit org), three book burnings by small churches in middle America, and a low-budget video company. That's it? The rest of the "religious" groups tend to be somewhat worried about, feel neutral about, or even supportive of the series. In fact, one member of Focus on the Family supports the series as well as a major evangelical magazine. This looks more like an article searching for a controversy. --RelHistBuff 14:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy exists. Just look at the headlines Laura Mallory generated last year. The number of people involved may be small, but as I said above, their impact is out of all proportion to their numbers. The books were the most challenged in US schools between 1998 and 2002. The ripple effect of this is still continuing today, though it has died down somewhat. Serendipodous 14:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

Boosey & Hawkes

[edit]

This is my first attempt at nominating an article for "Featured Article" status. I've been working on this article for a while and, with the help of other editors and a reviewer, have got it to "Good Article" status. I believe it to be generally accurate and well-referenced. I'm interested to see if it can be taken to the final stage. Cheers, Jacklee 17:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
    • "Boosey & Hawkes is a British music publisher. It claims to be the largest specialist classical music publisher in the world. Until 2003, it was also a major manufacturer of brass, string and wind musical instruments." The first two sentences should be combined to something like "B and H is.... that claims to be..." also if possible please cite the statement "claims to be the largest specialist classical music publisher in the world".
      • Rephrased the opening sentence of the introductory paragraph.
      • Comment – Is it necessary to provide a footnote for the above claim? The introduction summarizes material that is in the body of the article, and a citation is provided for the claim where it appears in the body.
Jacklee 16:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "With subsidiaries in Germany, the UK and the US, the company also sells sheet music; provides ready-made production music for television, radio and audio-visual use; commissions and produces music for radio, television and advertising jingles; and administers copyrights owned by media companies." Could be: "the company also sells sheet music; provides ready-made production music for television, radio and audio-visual use; commissions and produces music for radio, television and advertising jingles and administers copyrights owned by media through itself (or something) and it's subsidiaries in..."
      • Comment – With respect, I don't think there is much difference between the current and proposed phrasing. I would suggest leaving the paragraph as it is. Jacklee 16:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Paragraph in "after the merger" that starts "By 1950, Boosey & Hawkes was..." needs more footnotes I think.
    • As does the paragraph following it.
      • Comment – All of the material in those paragraphs was obtained from the 26 April 2007 Telegraph newspaper article, which is cited. I suppose Helen Wallace's book Boosey & Hawkes: The Publishing Story (2007) could be cited as well, but since she also wrote the Telegraph article I'm not sure how much difference citing the book would make. Jacklee 16:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember I've only listed the negatives, there are plenty of positives so don't get disheartened, and remember my suggestions are only suggestions, you may disagree or have your own ideas. Good luck :) SGGH speak! 17:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to make suggestions for improving the article; I've responded to them above. Cheers, Jacklee 16:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Tony 04:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A further copy-edit is needed to remove some of the redundancies, eg. the "both" isn't needed in "Leslie Boosey and Ralph Hawkes met in the 1920s when they were both on the Board of the Performing Right Society", and "several" isn't needed in "Despite several offers of about £115 million from a number of parties". There are also too many "also"s. I think "most famous" may be a peacock term in "The company was lampooned by The Goon Show as "Goosy and Borks" in their most famous episode, "Lurgy Strikes Britain"". Epbr123 19:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is a huge gap in the company's history that spans from the mid-1970s to the early 2000s. I also found the following to be problematic:
    • "Boosey & Hawkes is a British music publisher that claims to be the largest specialist classical music publisher in the world." There has to be a way to find out whether this claim is true or not.
      • Comment – Well, I don't have a way to find out at the moment. This is a claim that is made by Boosey & Hawkes on their official website, but the basis for the claim is not stated – it's not known whether they are largest in terms of music scores published, sales or otherwise. Jacklee 23:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What exactly does "Franco–Flemish origin" mean? As far as I know, Flemings speak Dutch by definition. Does this mean the family is from French Flanders? Just wondering.
      • Comment – This was information from Grove Music Online. I assumed it means that the family has both French and Flemish ancestry, but you might be right too. Jacklee 23:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The company was seriously affected by the House of Lords' decision in Boosey v. Jeffreys (1854) which deprived English publishers of many of their foreign copyrights." Could you be just a bit more precise? What does "seriously affected" mean?
      • Comment – I'll look up the case in the library and expand this part of the article slightly. I tried looking but wasn't able to access an on-line version of the case. Jacklee 23:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is there so little information about Hawkes' company before the merger? If more is simply not known, then I think this should be stated explicitly. Otherwise, the disproportion in coverage seems really odd.
    • I would remove the link to German Wikipedia's Ernst Roth article. I think a red link or a short stub would be more appropriate.
      • Question – Is there a policy about linking to foreign Wikipedia articles? I can take out the link, but I noticed that the German article on was quite extensive, and so thought it would be useful to readers (well, at least those who read German – and I'm not really among them) to refer to it. Jacklee 23:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Sheet music sales soared during the War, enabling Boosey & Hawkes to buy Editions Russes which held the rights to the most valuable works of Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff and Stravinsky." I think a short apposition explaining what Editions Russes was might be appropriate. I'm assuming it was another sheet music company, but that's not completely clear.
    • "The company also purchased the lease of the Royal Opera House in London in 1944,[7] rescuing it from becoming a permanent dance hall and providing a venue for world-class ballet and opera in the capital." "World-class" according to whom? That borders on POV.--Carabinieri 00:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment This rather like saying the phrase "Shakespeare is considered to be one of the great writers in English" is POV. Anyone with a passing acquaintance with opera and ballet would agree that the ROH is world-class. --Alexs letterbox 10:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment – It was the Daily Telegraph article that used the epithet "world-class". Agree with Alexs letterbox though. Carabinieri, thanks for taking the time to comment. :-) Cheers, Jacklee 23:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

Green Wing

[edit]

Nom restarted (old nom) Raul654 16:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why has the article been renominated again. Sorry, but I'm a little confused by what has happened. ISD 18:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't been renominated. As FA director, I sometimes restart nominations whose discussions have grown to unwieldy lengths, whose objections have been may or may not have been resolved in the text, etc. In those cases, I delete the FAC commentary, and start the nomination over fresh, which is what I did in this case. Raul654 14:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A matter under contention on the talk page. Tony 05:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Tony, I don't follow you. What matter is under contention? ISD 06:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Unjustified restarts: my queries were ignored as usual. ShadowHalo 05:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

Russia

[edit]

Self nomination. I've been working on this article for a while now, and I believe it is up to FA standard. The article has been overhauled in the last couple of months. The article is pretty stable. Comprehensive article without being excessively large. Well written. History section is well referenced [15].--Ilya1166 06:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I haven't looked over it thoroughly, but my first impression is that it is excessively large. Loading the page on my crappy Thailand internet connection took forever, and it is about double (or maybe 1.5x) the length I would like to see. I much prefer the length of the Peru article (see below). Calliopejen1 07:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it wasn't excessively large, considering that the Belgium article (a Featured Article) is 106 kilobytes just like this article.--Ilya1166 08:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Prose size is 66KB per Dr pda's pagesize script; pls see WP:SIZE and WP:SS. By the way, references are only 8KB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that the article is too long. However, on that note, I also believe that the number of citations should be much greater for an article of this length. Just scrolling through the article and stopping at random points, I could find statements needing citations. Here are some examples from each of its sections (keep in mind these are completely arbitrary and most of the article looks like it needs to be cited):

:*History: "Almost 90% of the invading forces died as a result of on-going battles with the Russian army, guerrillas and winter weather."

  • Geography: "Russia has thousands of rivers and inland bodies of water, providing it with one of the world's largest surface-water resources."
  • Politics: "It maintains diplomatic relations with 178 countries and has 140 embassies."
  • Economy: "The economic development of the country has been extremely uneven: the Moscow region contributes one-third of the country's GDP while having only a tenth of its population."
  • Armed Forces: "About 70% of the former Soviet Union's defense industries are located in the Russian Federation."
  • Demographics: "Free higher education is the main reason why more than 20% of Russians age 30–59 hold six-year degrees (this number is twice as high as that of the United States)"
  • Culture: "Russian architecture was influenced predominantly by the Byzantine architecture until the Fall of Constantinople."
Looking through the article, I would guess that to be fully referenced, it may need somewhere between 50 and 100 more in-text citations, or more. I do notice the works of literature also referenced (which isn't wrong), but keep in mind that I don't know which facts come from which book and what may be unsourced or not because of that. The references needed may be something to be discussed by other reviewers. Okiefromokla•talk 18:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reduced some of the data and images and added a lot more references. Also, the comment "Russia has thousands of rivers and inland bodies of water, providing it with one of the world's largest surface-water resources." doesn't need to be referenced because there is a referenced comment following that which says that Lake Baikal alone contains over one fifth of the world's liquid surface fresh water.--Ilya1166 04:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to try to cut out less important facts to reduce the size of the article. Check out my changes and see what you think. This may have the beneficial side effect of cutting unsourced content, as well. Calliopejen1 05:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the works of literature referenced for the history section is how it's set out in the History of Russia article, a featured article.--Ilya1166 15:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Another problem I'm seeing throughout the culture section - it's just a lot of lists (though obviously in prose form), of prominent ballerinas/writers/whatever. I would rather see more synthesis about literary movements (etc) with a name or two used as a representative example. Calliopejen1 08:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the content of the article has now been sufficiently reduced, (106 kilobytes down to 90 including the extra references) and what remains is maybe to reorganise the culture sections and add a few more references.--Ilya1166 09:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to continue cutting stuff, which you can revert later if you want. I still think it's far too long. For comparison, according to Dr pda's pagesize script, Belgium is 34 kb of text (5102 words) and 31 kb of references; this article remains at 55kb text (8613 words) and 9kb of references. I don't think this is going to be at featured article level for a while, especially considering the lack of references. Calliopejen1 09:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and I'm done editing for a while. I've just been discovering several (sourced!) plagiarisms/copyvios in the culture section; it appears that all the sourced literature and ballet stuff was pasted wholesale from britannica. It's not tons and tons of content--just a couple paragraphs--but this is definitely something that should be taken care of by the time of a featured article nomination, especially if the contributor links to where it's been lifted from. I would advise editors of the article to check for furhter plagiarism and to reword the ballet section further. Calliopejen1 10:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose article is fine but definitely not good enough to be featured. Article is edited more or less by one user and edits by other users are reverted. Flora/fauna section was removed for no specific reason instead of expanding - easy way out? Culture is squeezed too much. Copyrighted material should be removed Photos from other countries are used to illustrate Russia which means that there is not even some basic material provided by contributors but rather using whatever can be found on Wikipedia. Avala 13:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calliopejen1 was right to remove the Fauna section (I was the one who originally added the table and I agree, if ecology in russia is to be covered, this is not the way to do it, no other country article goes about covering fauna like this) and I did not have a problem with him condensing the article by removing large sections.--Ilya1166 15:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you like to link to Australia article - Australia#Flora_and_fauna and Russia being the largest country sure should have a flora/fauna section. Avala 15:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it shouldn't have a flora/fauna section, I think it should, I'm saying that having a gallery of images of fauna is not the way to do it.--Ilya1166 16:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if it should have and doesn`t have it at the moment it is not ready to become featured.Avala 18:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Insufficient density of citations - many claims and even entire paragraphs (and sections (!) like '1927-1953') have no citations. History section can use improvements: for example, the end of the 'Imperial Russia' and begining of the 'Soviet Russia' repeat parts of the history of the rise of the Bolsheviks and Soviet Union, and chronology is mixed. Also, there is no mention of the Polish-Soviet War - certainly a major conflict. That said, the article is looking quite well, and some effort can indeed bring it up to FA-level. But first, do try to pass a GA-treshold.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I mentioned earlier, the references for the history section are located in the Bibliography - this is based off the History of Russia article which is a featured article and doesn't use in text citations but a bibliography.--Ilya1166 16:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Standards change, and today History of Russia would not be featured; if challenged with WP:FARC it would loose a Featured status unless inline citations would be introduced. Without inline ctiations, the article is not even fulfilling B-class requirements.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and severely object the extensive section on the Soviet Union, propagating the conflation of the two countries. A reasonable text would deal with the role of Russia within Soviet Union. Also, to ascribe all Soviet achievements to Russia is "Great Russian chauvinism". `'Míkka 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The article relies too much on Britannica, whose claims I find mistaken at times (especially as to the climate section). Russia must be featured right in the lead not only as a territory, but also as a state. As the state of Russia is based on the Constitution, it is worth mentioning briefly when it was adopted somewhere in the article. The 1993 Russian constitutional crisis certainly deserves a place in this article much more than details of the Soviet history. As to the economy section, the 1998 financial crisis is also of tremendous importance for modern Russia and deserves to be mentioned there far more than some vague statements the section contains now. By the way, I don’t know why the sentence about the stabilization fund occurs twice. Major international treaties to which Russia is a signatory are probably worth mentioning. The education section is outdated; as of now, few undergraduate courses require five years. The statements about religion are messy and poorly referenced; the Russian Orthodoxy as a religion and the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate are not the same thing. Far from every self-identified Russian Orthodox is an adherent of the ROC, other Russian orthodox churches exist (though they are marginal and need not be mentioned specifically) and a lot of Russians are orthodox, but unchurched. Claims about the number of adherents of the Russian Orthodox Church, if relevant at all, require reliable non-partisan sources. The claims about alleged reform-mindedness of Gorbachev and his motivations are controversial and hardly relevant, as the article is not about him. The arbitrary reference to the journalist we have now is not enough to justify them in any case, so they should be removed. I also agree with Mikka, the article is not about the Soviet Union. As to filmmaking, well, it is now mostly about the Soviet Union. I am not sure that this is ok, but if so, then the award-winning masterpiece The Cranes Are Flying and award-winning bull**** Moscow Does not Believe in Tears should be mentioned as well. But I would rather suggest to concentrate on other films, which are still popular in modern Russia (Seventeen Moments of Spring, the disgusting Gayday’s and Ryazanov’s comedy films, etc.). The bibliography on climate is outdated and completely in Russian. I am not sure that this is useful in English-language Wikipedia. Either make them (or better, some recent English-language sources) inline references or delete them. Many external sources about language are also hardly relevant. Comrie et al. (1996) and Cubberley (2002) are fine and more than enough. Carleton (1991), Matthews (1960), Иванов (1990) -- way too special, Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996) -- unrelated, Жуковская (1987), Востриков (1990), Новиков (2003), Филин (1982), Цыганенко (1970), Шанский (1961), Шицгал (1958) -- too special, non-notable and unimportant, Михельсон (1978) is a book for children, if I recall correctly. As to other bibliographies – Fairbanks & Charles (1999), Goldman (1983) – are five-page articles so important? The bibliography requires much work. The article needs better wikification; it lacks many relevant internal links and contains many trivial ones. It also needs better inline references, to academic sources rather than newspapers and tertiary sources, whenever possible (use Google Scholar). I am also not sure that the scrollbox with footnotes is a good idea.Colchicum 18:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some better references for language; this is enough, I think:
Comrie, Bernard, Stone, Gerald & Polinsky, Maria. The Russian Language in the Twentieth Century. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. ISBN 019824066X.
Comrie, Bernard. The Languages of the Soviet Union. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981. ISBN 0521298776.
Timberlake, Alan. A Reference Grammar of Russian. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003. ISBN 0521772923.
Wade, Terrence. A Comprehensive Russian Grammar. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0631207570.
Colchicum 19:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't think that tertiary sources (such as Britannica and Encarta) are ok for a featured article.Colchicum 13:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sources are my main concern. There are way too few citations and way too much unsourced material, including 7 paragraphs (outside of the history section) that have no citation within them at all. In addition, I don't believe the article is an example of Wikipedia's best prose. Taking the "Foreign Relations" section as an example, there are too many sentences that start with the word "Russia," as in: "Russia is this. Russia does that. Russia is this way. Russia once had this." This is just bad writing. At the very least, the word "Russia" should be interchanged with the phrase "the country" (or something) to make it less monotonous. Furthermore, several picture captions have periods when they are not complete sentences, or no periods when they are complete sentences: this needs to be fixed throughout. Finally, regarding the article's bibliography being a source for the history section, it has been discussed in the previous comment but I will try to explain it better: using the bibliography as a citation for the entire section makes readers have no idea what information is sourced, or where, and what information was simply inserted by random editors over time. I would suggest either finding all those books in print form, citing the article completely using in-text citations picking out which information is found within which book (you can regard that as sarcasm), or just finding online sources for the information and using the list of literature as a "further reading" section instead. Also, I think the removal of the Russian books would be prudent. Okiefromokla•talk 18:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reference #71 is broken.--Rmky87 15:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Ilya1166 15:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

Toronto Maple Leafs

[edit]
  • Maybe - This article should be of Featured status. The Leafs are one of the NHL's, and maybe one of the world's most storied franchises. There is a huge fan base not only in real life, but on the web too. There are tons of Leaf fansites all over the Internet. So this should certainly be a Featured Article, along with the other Original Six NHL teams. It may need some more work, like the intro, but soon it can be a FA Ebuz610 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Two images need fair-use rationales (and each is used in multiple articles, requiring a rationale for each use) - Image:Mahovolich4Kelly8.jpg and Image:LeafCaptainSittler.jpg. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This article needs a lot of work before it gets to FA status. The lead needs expanding and cleaning up (see WP:LEAD), there are entire sections without references, the references are uniform, there aren't nearly enough references for a team with this much history, the article isn't nearly in depth enough, overall needs a thorough copyedit. Please consult New Jersey Devils for the standards of an NHL team article which you might follow before proposing this article in the future, and then expand even further on that because, as you say, this is a quite storied franchise. By your own standards, you have a lot of work to do. At the moment, this is questionably a quick remove.
  • Delist. I bleed blue, but this article in no way meets the featured article criteria. The lead is too short, the history is too long (and suffers from recentism), the writing is poor, the references are severely lacking, the franchise records section seems to picked at random.-Wafulz 16:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll just offer suggestions, rather than piling on. Look at the New Jersey Devils article, and use it is a template. Given the Leafs history, the move by another user to pull the full history into a child article is good, but the main article will require a decent overview of the Leafs history as well. The recent history needs to be reduced. Much of it can be moved into 2006-07 Toronto Maple Leafs season and 2007-08 Toronto Maple Leafs season. It needs citations, a lot of them. It also needs pictures. Check the player articles for good pictures of players in a Leafs jersey. It will take some work, but I have no doubt that editors can get this to FA level. Once it is rewritten, I would probably suggest a peer review before a second FA nomination, just to get a better gauge of what touch-up work will need to be done. Resolute 21:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

GoldenEye

[edit]

previous FAC

This article meets all the requirements since the previous FAC. Vikrant Phadkay 15:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose (delist) I am opposing this article for the following reasons. I am suggesting that it be delisted because I believe that the editors need more than two or three weeks to resolve the following issues.
  • (1a) - While I do not expect "brilliant" prose in wikipedia articles (that is very difficult to achieve), I do expect that the prose will be grammatically correct, professional and easy to read. That is not the case yet with this article. The editors need to have someone come in and work with them who hasn't contributed to the article (fresh eyes). Some of the problems include: wordy sentences, dangling modifiers, poor diction and a tendency to write list-y sections rather than coherent, flowing sections.
  • (1b) - The article is not comprehensive. This is the most serious problem with it. The article is supposed to cover all aspects of the film, but it has very little discussion of the film's themes (relegated to the "Reception" section) and none on the film's cinematic style (e.g. cinematography). An analysis of the artistic elements of the film, except for the sound, is missing from the article.
  • (1c) - The missing "Themes" and "Cinematic style" sections should be written using the peer-reviewed work of film scholars. There is plenty of material available on Goldeneye. Currently, the article does not "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge" on this topic. Here are some examples that I found in a five-minute google scholar search. It would appear that the editors did not really engage in any serious research for this article:
  • (2b) - I found it slightly odd that the "Production" section came before the "Plot" section. Is there a reason for this?
  • (3) - Eskog has already outlined the problems with the images.
  • (4) - The cast list takes up a lot of the article and the reader learns very little from it. Is there any way to shrink or remove this section?

I urge the editors to do some research, revise and copy edit the article, take it to peer review and then resubmit it to FAC in a few months. Awadewit | talk 15:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article would have been submitted to Peer Review before the previous FAC, but due to the huge backlog there, any submission is likely to go unnoticed - • The Giant Puffin • 16:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry. I am still working actively here. Vikrant Phadkay 16:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article is not yet ready for FA status. Several of the main concerns from the previous FAC have not yet been met. The article does not discuss any of the film's themes, such as the collapse of the USSR, beyond a brief paragraph. This sort of thing needs its own section, especially as GoldenEye was the first Bond film for 6 years, during which several important events happened and times changed. There is also a general lack of scholarly sources, a list of which provided above by Awadewit is probably just the tip of the iceberg. The vehicle and gadgets section also needs further improvement, as some of it has no real life context at all. The paragraphs about the BMW Z3 and Omega watch are fine, as they describe the real life information. There also needs to be more mention of the film's cinematic style, and the artistic aspects (beyond the soundtrack) of the film. - • The Giant Puffin • 19:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

Flagstaff, Arizona

[edit]

Article listed as a good article on April 16, 2007. Subsequently has gone through several rounds of editing and tweaking, based on the suggestions of the reviewer. I think the article meets the featured article criteria. This would be the first Arizona city article to attain featured status. Dr. Cash 22:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I think the article meets criteria. LordHarris 22:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Needs copy-editting by someone unfamiliar with the article. For example, these could be better phrased, "and is currently involved in work involving observations of near-Earth phenomena such as asteroids and comets." "Douglass identified Flagstaff as the best location for the now famous Lowell Observatory, with, "its good 'seeing,' dark skies, and high elevation."" Epbr123 23:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Demographics section is mostly just repeating census stats. It can be boosted by providing a comparison with the county/state/country averages. On my screen resolution the demographics table extends into the Economy section where it is pushing the image (train crossing) down and over-top of text. Can we move that image to the left? In the Geography section, how about a description of the urban geography be provided (road network, downtown, suburbs, industrial parks?). If they are in the desert where does their drinking water come from? "Flagstaff's attractive, forested setting..." you're making Flagstaff blush :) Any crime statistics available? --maclean 05:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think a description of the road network is appropriate under a geography or cityscape section. In the recently added cityscape section, the description of roads is monotonous and uninteresting, but if it were kept, it should be in the transportation section. But I hope it isn't kept. In addition, the roads described are roads that connect flagstaff with places outside the city, which makes no sense for a cityscape section. Also, mentioning "suburbs" is not appropriate for flagstaff: the recently added "cityscape" section details the towns that lie 30 miles away. This should be removed. Okiefromokla•talk 16:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For now. This has obviously undergone a huge amount of work in the past 5-6 months since I've looked at it and I think it is very close to featured quality. As a 12-year resident of Flagstaff, I feel that it illustrates the city very well but at the same time there are several things that seem to missing and a few things that could be improved/expanded upon....
  • I agree with maclean, there are several paragraphs that seem somewhat flowery. For example: Lovers of the outdoors are drawn to the community at the base of the majestic San Franciso Peaks to revel in unparelled beauty.
  • The reference cited for "largest contiguous Ponderosa Pine forest in the continental United States" actually says that "The forest stretching from near Flagstaff along the rim to the White Mountains region is the largest ponderosa pine forest on the continent."
  • The opening paragraph in the lead states that the city's name comes from the flagpole made by the Boston Party in 1876, but then the first paragraph in the history section seems to imply that that event occurred earlier on the Beale Expedition. This could use some clarification.
  • It seems like there could be more information on the early history of the town, in particular the lumber/timber industry which played a huge role in the development of Flagstaff. Some information about the Riordan Family and their contributions to the city could be added.
  • Ample coverage is provided to Lowell Observatory and Pluto but what about the city's role in the Apollo lunar program? Some information regarding the USGS, Eugene Shoemaker, and the astronaut training done in the area would add to the article.
  • The sports section mentions that NAU is home to an olympic training center but makes no mention of NAU Lumberjack sports teams themselves.
  • An interesting piece of info that could be added would be the tradition of dropping a fiberglass pinecone off the roof of the Weatherford Hotel on New Years Eve.Nebular110 16:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article is far from featured status.
  • Reference Problems
  • Most of the first paragraph in the climate section needs to be cited (but see comment immediately below).
  • There is too much reliance on one source for much of the article's important content. Specifically, source #4 from the flagstaff city website. For instance, most of the climate and economy sections appear to be cited with this particular reference. Find other sources and don’t cite too many whole paragraphs with a single source.
  • This sentence, "Flagstaff has garnered a reputation as a magnet for ..." Can there be a reference here? Not everyone knows that flagstaff is a magnet for all these things. Also, just say "Flagstaff is a hub for..." or something like that. Flowery language has no place in an encyclopedic article. ("flowery language" needs to be checked throughout this article)
  • Prose Problems
  • The use of parentheses enclosing prose should be removed throughout. There are instances of this in the lead, the history section, economy, arts and culture, and transportation.
  • Bolded words throughout the article should be removed except for the name of the city.
  • There should be no single line or 2 sentence paragraphs, as in the geography section, media, education, etc.
  • Also, there are a very many instances of smaller paragraphs, especially in Media, Demographics, Sports, and History that should be combined with other paragraphs of similar or the same topics surrounding it.
  • There is superfluous language throughout. There's no way I can list all the examples, so I’ll give a few. (if this problem could be cleaned up throughout, it would be ok - just use common sense)
  • Example: "The city may be commonly referred to in everyday language as, Flag" - the "in everyday language" is superfluous, it adds nothing to the sentence but added reading time and an un-encyclopedic tone. Plus, this fact probably needs a reference.
  • Another example: "green alpine forest and barren tundra" - The descriptive words "green" and "barren" are unnecessary - tundra is barren and forests are green - this is like saying "the transparent water bottles drip brown Pepsi on the green grass." Unnecessary.
  • "predominantly clear air radiates daytime heating effectively." Seriously - do we need to know that clean air radiates daytime heating in an article about Flagstaff?
  • record low temperature was a "bone-chilling" -30 ... once again, don't use descriptive words that point out the obvious; its un-encyclopedic, monotonous, and even patronizing to the reader.
  • "Despite the town's small size, Flagstaff has quite an active local cultural scene" - The words "small" and "quite"
  • Many instances of commas used inappropriately and too frequently. see WP:MOS
  • "... to the use of several repeaters that provide access to the local television and radio stations in the valley" ... what valley? Remember to assume readers don’t know anything about flagstaff or Arizona.
  • Content Problems
  • There should be a topography section, or something of the Flagstaff region's topography in the geography section. Some topography info is already in the lead, which is inappropriate since it is not in the body of the article (see WP:LEAD).
  • Needs more pictures, preferably one for every section, at the very least.
  • The Arts and Culture section is too long. Do not describe in detail specific events and places - make it a brief summary of them. This section should be about half the size it is now, maybe a little more than half.
  • In Sports, include something about the city's high school and collegiate sports.
  • Parks and outdoor recreation needs to be combined into the sections of sports and geography. Both are short sections and it makes sense to do this, as the outdoor rec section obviously contains elements of both and shouldn't be stand-alone.
  • Please make the Government section longer - include info about crime and political trends.
  • The education section should be more comprehensive as well; include brief info about the city's library system, and maybe enrollment figures of the colleges mentioned.
  • Consider combining Transportation and Infrastructure into one section entitled "Infrastructure" ... most city articles don’t have separate sections for these and the infrastructure section is short anyway. Okiefromokla•talk 22:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

Stephen Colbert

[edit]

Previous FAC

Self nomination - The first FA nomination was done without addressing the previous peer review. This time, the article is well-cited and covers everything you could possibly want to know about the guy. I've done a lot of meticulous work with the wikilinks and citations recently trying to make it as good as it can get. The only potential problem I see from the start is the "Awards and honors" section: is it fine the way it is, or does it need to be changed? I certainly know the temptation by Colbert fans to add trivial facts there. - Boss1000 18:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose on fair use grounds. First, Image:Carellcolbert ds.jpg lacks a fair use rationale for this use. Second, all but one fair use image suffers from the problems of being used for illustration purposes as opposed to critical commentary. Observe;
  • I note that Image:Colbert-truthiness.jpg is appropriate as the image is depicting the moment that the word "truthiness" was announced, and this image is complementary to the inline text. The other fair use images do not significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the topic and thus do not contribute significantly to the article subject, and therefore fail WP:NFCC item #8. All but Image:Colbert-truthiness.jpg should be removed from the article unless the inline text make use of the image in some way (at a minimum), rather than "Colbert on...", "Colbert with..." captions on images being the only reference in the entire article. Note here that the issue isn't whether such images constitute legal fair use. The question is whether such use complies with Wikipedia's overarching philosophies on the use of fair use images. --Durin 19:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when does a copyrighted image have to illustrate a specific scene? It only has to "contribute significantly to an article" and "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot." Image:Stephen Colbert TDS.png illustrates his role as a correspondent on the show by showing a typical scene and, more specifically, shows how it was filmed in studio using a greenscreen (as discussed in the text). Image:Colbert report.jpg illustrates a paragraph about how The Colbert Report satirizes other political talk shows as well as the use of right-wing patriotic imagery. I'm not sure how Image:Snapshot200604292346073on.jpg could be interpreted as not being a specific scene, unless he makes regular appearances at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. 17Drew 03:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed he was correct, mostly because we've "gone over" the same thing with fair use and lists. Even if it's not necessary to change them all, it is still something that can be improved upon, I think:
Image:Strangerswthcandy.gif - "Chuck Noblet is enraged to find that he has a new student: Jerri Blank."
Image:Stephen Colbert TDS.png - "Stephen Colbert reporting in front of a greenscreen as a correspondent on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart"
Image:Carellcolbert ds.jpg - "Colbert working again with Steve Carell in the segment "Even Stephven" from The Daily Show" and "Colbert has appeared in several recurring segments for The Daily Show, including "Even Stephven" with Steve Carell, in which both characters were expected to debate a selected topic but instead would unleash their anger at one another."
Image:Colbert report.jpg - "The set of The Colbert Report also highly satirizes cable-personality political talk shows."
Image:Snapshot200604292346073on.jpg - Changed to Image:Colbert_Dinner.JPG to better illustrate his proximity to the President. Also: "Stephen Colbert telling jokes several feet away from George W. Bush at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner".
Image:Wigfield.jpg - Removed because it doesn't add much. If it doesn't hurt to keep it there, I'd like it to put it back, but I fully understand the rationale behind removing it.
I hope these changes satisfy your judgement. - Boss1000 05:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The 'personal life' section should be worked into the main part of the article - how can his personal life be seperate from his biography? Doing that would also slim down the ToC (by essentially removing a level). Contrarily, you could remove the sub-sections from the biography scetion and get the same result. I haven't yet given the article a full read, so I'm not voting at this point, but what I've seen looks very good. Matt Deres 16:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had seen a section on personal life in various other articles on people, and where it was previously did not fit at all. It's somewhat of a "current day" section in this case. Also, I don't see any problem with the length of the TOC; the subsections make it easy to navigate the substantially long article. - Boss1000 21:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note how none of those articles have a Biography section though. A Biography section should be unnecessary. Instead, it's common to do sections such as Early life/career, Career, Personal life. Diane Keaton, Damon Hill, and Gwen Stefani are all good examples of such a layout. I agree that the table of contents isn't overwhelming. 17Drew 21:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about now?
1 Early life
2 Career
2.1 Early career in comedy
2.2 Strangers with Candy
2.3 The Daily Show
2.4 The Colbert Report
2.5 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner
2.6 Other work
3 Personal life
4 Awards and honors
5 Filmography
6 See also
7 Notes and references
8 External links
The hardest one to place is the "Early career in comedy" section, but I think it fits best under "Career". - Boss1000 23:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry; I did not mean to imply that the ToC itself was a problem, my issue was with the layout, which is most plainly illustrated by that ToC. The version I commented on looked like this:

1 Biography

1.1 Early life
1.2 Early career in comedy
1.3 Strangers with Candy
1.4 The Daily Show
1.5 The Colbert Report
1.6 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner
1.7 Other work

2 Personal life 3 Awards and honors 4 Filmography 5 See also 6 Notes and references 7 External links

What I was looking for was a layout that could be expressed more like this (my second suggestion, which was probably better anyway):

1 Early life 2 Early career in comedy 3 Strangers with Candy 4 The Daily Show 5 The Colbert Report 6 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner 7 Other work 8 Personal life 9 Awards and honors 10 Filmography 11 See also 12 Notes and references 13 External links

Or like this:

1 Early life 2 Early career in comedy 3 Strangers with Candy 4 The Daily Show 5 The Colbert Report 6 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner 7 Other work 8 Awards and honors 9 Filmography 10 See also 11 Notes and references 12 External links

With the stuff from the Personal Life section worked into rest of the article where appropriate.

The current version you have is also fine. Please understand - my voting decision will probably not hinge on something as subjective as layout; this is just a suggestion based on what I think would work better (subjective though that is). Accuracy and completeness are much more important. Matt Deres 02:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with mine or your first; like you said, it's just layout. Interlacing "Personal life" throughout the article in your other suggestion is harder than you might think, first because it doesn't quite flow anywhere else, and second because there's no more information out there (to my knowledge) about Colbert's wife or his kids. We're lucky to have a picture of her. What I mean to say is that there's not a lot to link it to anything else in the article (dates, too); all I know is that his wife was also in the business, and that's just from being implied from other facts and a small mention in an interview. - Boss1000 04:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a chance to read through the article now and I don't have any objections. I actually shifted the text into Word and played with a few different layout and you're right, it doesn't incorporate elsewhere very well. I'm sure there's a way to do it, but since I can't figure it out, I can't exactly call it an actionable objection, and it's pretty minor to boot. Support Matt Deres 13:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps in the future we'll have more information and be able to fit it in. - Boss1000 14:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

Sale, Greater Manchester

[edit]

previous FAC

I think the concerns raised during the previous nomination have been addressed. Epbr123 16:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was closed earlier today. (7/7) —treyjay–jay 03:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Above and beyond standards for featured place articles. BenB4 09:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I haven't looked at the rest of the article, but I started copy-editing the history section. It is unclear enough in places to make copy-editing difficult and the structure ruins the flow of the article. I know it is is difficult to combine a timeline of a town's development with the individual aspects of that development, but this doesn't make any sort of logical division, covering some aspects from start to finish and dotting mentions of other aspects around without any chronology at all. Some points from the History section:
    • the first documented reference to the township of Sale dates from the 12th century, suggesting pre-Norman habitation (townships were a Saxon development) Firstly, it would be interesting to know where is it mentioned. Secondly, Pre-Norman habitation has already been established at the beginning of the paragraph, so a "suggestion" is not necessary (aside from which, the logic here seems faulty: townships were a Saxon development but unless no townships were created after the Norman Conquest it does not necessarily suggest pre-Norman habitation).
    • After the Norman conquest of 1066. I've changed this as the Norman conquest wasn't completed in 1066. Do you have a date for the division of Sale?
    • ...and several others. Are they so unimportant as to not be worth naming?
    • Sale was a farming community until the 17th century, a time when the garthweb weaving industry also developed. What "time" is this? From prehistoric times until 1600? Or does it mean that the garthweb industry developed at the beginning of the 17th century (in which case the "also" is redundant)? Some context for why the garthweb industry developed in Sale would be useful too. Are the conditions for growing hemp and flax particularly favourable in the area? Was there high local demand for saddles?
    • Sale began to grow in 1765... As the development of the garthweb industry is mentioned in the previous sentence, this doesn't seem likely unless the industry could develop with a fixed population.
    • Why were people wanting to commute to Manchester on the canal? Some context would be helpful here.
    • There are two sections on town halls divided by a section on the railway and canal which itself has an unconnected mention of the Napoleonic Wars inserted in the middle.
    • Town Hall is capitalized in the text and lower case in the image caption.
    • Was the Town Hall the only building damaged during the Manchester Blitz? The coverage of the Second World War seems cursory.
Sorry not to be more positive, but I suggest you withdraw the nomination and work on the article before resubmitting it. Yomanganitalk 16:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

Sky Blue Sky

[edit]

Self-nom. Wilco's most recent album, released in mid-May. While this is a bit recent, I feel that the article covers everything that has been reported about the album by major media outlets. Recently promoted to GA and hopefully comparable to other album FACs. I await your thoughts. Teemu08 03:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 9 is blank. Pagrashtak 16:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Teemu08 20:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a; the writing is not yet at a "professional" standard. Here are examples of why the whole text needs a massage.
    • "Critics noted the straightforwardness of the lyrics as compared to previous Wilco albums, which received both harsh critique and praise." Flabby and ungrammatical. "Critics noted the straightforwardness of the lyrics compared with those of previous Wilco albums, which had received both harsh critique and praise." Try to find another word for "noted": was this positively viewed? "praised"? Or maybe it's impossible to find a substitute ...
    • "he figured that"—way too informal. That sentence needs recasting, too.
    • "weedy attributes the lyrical directness to HIS listening to material"
    • "the amount of studio effects"—ungrammatical (number). Or "the reliance on studio effects"?
    • "Many of the album's songs were recorded in only one day, with the band reaching a consensus on how each song should sound." "in a single day". The consensus bit—hard to get the message (is it unusual? is the reason for the speediness of the process?) Tony 03:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

Kent

[edit]

I think this passes the FA criteria. Epbr123 15:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A good and well written piece which I learned a lot from myself.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixes needed - I'll list these as I find 'em.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its location between London and the continent, has lead to Kent being a front line of a number of conflicts,.. - drop first comma and "led" please! Also syntax of second clause is awry but I am not sure how to make it sound better presently.
  • occupied since the Palaeolithic era .. - say "times" instead of "era", which is a specifically defined thing - Mesozoic, Paleozoic etc.
  • During the Neolithic the Medway megaliths were built and there is a rich sequence... - unwieldy sentence. place first 3 words after "built" and then semicolon and next clause.
Made changes to try to resolve the first bullet point, but perhaps others have better suggestions. I've also made the edits to change the text as suggested in the second and third bullet points.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a, 2a (inadequate lead) and the requirement for professional formatting.
    • "Its location between London and the continent has led to Kent being a front line of ..." This is ungrammatical ("Kent's being" is correct, although you may prefer to reword). It happens again in the next sentence: "The entire country relied on the county's ports to provide warships through much of the past 800 years, with the Cinque Ports during the 12th–14th centuries and Chatham Dockyard during the 16th–20th centuries being of particular importance." --> "England has relied on the county's ports to provide warships through much of the past 800 years; the Cinque Ports in the 12th–14th centuries and Chatham Dockyard in the 16th–20th centuries were of particular importance to the country's security." (Notice I've avoided the jingle "country/county", fixed the tense, broken the snake with a semicolon, and guessed a more specific ending.)
    • "Kent is known as the Garden of England due to its abundance of orchards and hop-gardens. Cement, papermaking and aircraft construction have also been major industries in northwest Kent, although these are now in decline." One-sentence paragraph stub. More elegant to say "is known as the Garden of England for its abundance of".
    • The ugly infobox stretches for kilometres down from the top and squashes the text. Do we really need the members of parliament—some 20 of them—listed vertically in this box? Why do we need to be told twice at the top that it's in southeast England (spelt differently in the infobox)? It's very irritating. What's wrong with a picture at the top and a smaller infobox further down, with info rationed?

Heck, you people developed the language; I'm just an ignorant colonial. Tony 15:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the grammar to anyone who understands it (in my experience its the non native speakers who have a better understanding of! ;) )
As for the infobox, i understand you comments, but presumably the infobox is a generic one for all english / british counties used on, at a guess 40+ pages. perhaps valid comments are best addressed at the infobox's page, as for the sake of consistency across similar articles, we at the Kent article are "lumped" with the England / UK wide standard. Pickle 03:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to look over the article as a member of the League of Copyeditors. Some suggestions:

  • Some mention of the significance of the Cinque Ports should be added in the history section, especially since they are mentioned in the lede. A paragraph would do.
  • The lede mentions that Kent is called the Garden of England. Now, anyone who has read Emma would know that it is not the only county so called (there's a discussion between Mrs. Elton and Emma on this very point). I don't expect to see Emma appear in the article (that book's set in Surrey anyway) but if other counties are still so called, some modification to let the reader know that Kent shares that nickname should appear.
  • The paragraph in the Geography section on the River Medway is confusing, especially the language "Here it breaks . . . " Where? Avoid such odd turns of phrase. It sounds like one of those 1940's guidebooks, "The King's England." In fact, I hope you are sure that copyrighted language has not been copied.
  • The lede mentions that heavy industry in north Kent is declining, but the economy section mentions the same industries, and does not mention a decline. And in the economy section, past and present industries are interwoven. Perhaps have a separate part of the section for industry which is no longer present in Kent?
  • I find the water transport subsection to be deficient. There are ferries which operate out of Dover and I believe elsewhere in Kent, to the French coast. Shouldn't they be mentioned?
  • Some mention of attractions in Kent might be in order. Leeds Castle, the coastal towns such as Ramsgate and Margate, Canterbury. And how about sport? Cricket, and aren't there still a couple of Football League teams?--Wehwalt 22:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too, have been asked to have a look. Unfortunately, I don't have much time right now, but it seems that plenty of good copyeditors have taken notice, anyway. I don't think that this article is ready to be FA. I've checked the "history" section, and found it to be a bit lacking in language and references. The section seems to assume that the reader has a good deal of knowledge about the subject, and I found the literature to be a bit uninspired. I'd go as far as to say that most of it can be written twice as long, in which case there would be much more room for useful context. —msikma (user, talk) 19:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 20:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

Zoo Tycoon 2: Extinct Animals

[edit]

As an upcoming video game article, a page like this is naturally going to be frequently vandilised and edited, and was locked for some time recently before new information was released, and will be locked again when E3 has finished.
Anyway, this article is well-set out with Wikitables and references, external links and appropraite WikiMarkup. Alot of work has been put into this page, so, again, I feel that this is a good candidate. Please comment on your opinion below. ----- Cuddly Panda (talk · contribs) 08:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object due to stability(criteria 1e) and comprehensiveness issues(criteria 1b). With the expansion pack currently scheduled to be released in about three months, this article can be expected to see a significant volume of changes and updates in the near future. Until the inevitable updates are made and information that is not currently available, such as critical reception and sales volume, is added this article will not be ready for FA status. Keep up the good work and consider trying for FA status after the expansion pack is released. --Allen3 talk 10:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Due to the fact that the game hasn't been released, nothing is known about the gameplay; this article will change rapidly in the near future. In addition, the lead is quite short, and the footnotes should not have raw URL links. HHermans 10:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:00, 16 July 2007.

Psychoactive drug

[edit]
previous FAC

This page was nominated once before at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Psychoactive drug/archive1. There was no mention of that FA review on the talk page, so I was not privy to its existence before nominating the article. However, I still think this article should be FA reviewed because it's very high in quality, and I and the other editors cannot see where more work should be done. We'd appreciate any and all comments. Jolb 16:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there should be no cite needed tags - all should be reffed.
Drugs as status symbols is very stubby -also need refs for all points. Another example is in modern secondary schools, where teenagers often boast about their drug use, be it real or not. -should be expanded and rewritten - not encyclopedic sounding.
I'm not a fan of see also sections. Most of these should be able to be worked into texts, not listed as isolated links at the bottom. Msny are in the text already in which case they can be removed.
The article presumes all centrally acting drugs are psychoactive which I'm not sure is the correct definition. I'll check later.
The Venn diagram looks pretty but I have never seen it before and seems to make alot of arbitrary assumptions - why do antidepressants overlap with antipsychotics?? Cannabis is a propsychotic agent so why does it overlap into pink antipsychotic circle. I'd be inclined to dump the diagram but I'll see what others saycheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These things are addressed on the talk page of the article, but I'll briefly go over them here. The "antipsychotic" circle encompasses all drugs that tend to alleviate obsessive-compulsive thought patterns, including anxiety and depression. Only those drugs which are not overlapping another circle are pure/true "antipsychotics". As for cannabis, its primary constituents are THC (the "propsychotic") and CBD (an "antipsychotic"). It is the CBD content which pushes it up towards the antipsychotic circle. Perhaps it is up too high? This is adjustable. The diagram has been in the article for the past couple years (evolving and improving), has received numerous accolades and almost made it as a featured picture, so I wouldn't be so quick to "dump" it. --Thoric 15:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made some of the changes you asked. I removed the citation needed, and I reworded the unencyclopedic wording in the "Drugs as status symbols" section. That section is still stubby, however... should it be merged into another section? Jolb 05:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there must be mention of the status of psychoactive drug use from ancient Greek and shamanic cultures right through up to the present day - it should be much bigger. religiosity aside what we're talking about is views on drug use, which, come to think of it, would be a better name for a section.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
..actually I'd make it a subsection of history
another thing which should be under history is a more comprehensive mention of historical measures of prohibition -currently in Legality and ethics
I'd summarise salient points of Arguments for and against drug prohibition and place as a 3-4 paragraph subsection of Legality and ethics
contact high looks really trivial and I wouldn't bother mentioning as a link
  • Comment. ... There was no mention of that FA review on the talk page, ... I just checked the articlehistory, and the previous fac is there as it should be. I do wish when editors move the old FAC to the new FAC[16] they would remember to update the articlehistory link[17] and the archive link.[18] Checking "what links here"[19] when making any article move is always good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Venn diagram under "Subjective and behavioral effects" is very inaccurate. MDMA is an antipsychotic? Psilocybin is a stimulant? No! You can tell it's a bogus classification because there is no way for a substance to belong to two opposite categories without belonging to at least a third. Someone obviously spent a lot of time on it, but it must go. BenB4 10:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which psychoactive drug cannot be placed on a spectrum of stimulant-depressant or hallucinogen-antipsychotic? Psilocybin most definitely is a stimulant and a hallucinogen. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. --Thoric 17:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider refraining from personal attacks. I have shown several obvious problems with the chart at Talk:Psychoactive drug#Diagram disputed -- the most glaring of which is that alcohol is not categorized as a stimulant as well as a depressant -- and I will not support this nomination until all of those problems are resolved. The diagram may be salvageable, but I doubt it. I recommend removing it, or perhaps moving it to a new article such as Classification of psychoactive drugs where its nuances and deficiencies can be explained in detail, and the other classifications which have been suggested in Talk:Psychoactive drug can also be included. BenB4 18:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you wanted to keep the discussion to the talk page? BTW, alcohol is not a stimulant. --Thoric 19:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As stated there, peer-reviewed medical publications say it is, as does Effects of alcohol on the body#Moderate doses. BenB4 20:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A lot of one- or two-sentence sections, lists, and a dubious chart. (Is there a reference for the classification on the chart of atomoxetine and THC)? There is very little content here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of one- or two-sentence sections? The shortest section has three sentences. I also find it strange that the article received GA status with "very little content here." Jolb 17:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, GAs can be reviewed by one person only so the process is far less rigorous than here. Also, there is a significant difference in how prose and style is graded.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article seems largely incomplete. Many sections are very short (1-3 sentences). I don't understand the purpose of the 'drugs as status symbols' section -- seems to me like it's content could go with either the 'recreational drugs' or 'ritual & spiritual use' sections. I also found several spelling/grammatical errors, some of which I fixed, but a good thorough copyedit would help this article a lot.
The Venn diagram seems mostly accurate, although there are a few issues that should be addressed Why is alcohol only on the depressant side? it should be a bit more in the middle, between stimulants and depressants. There are probably others, but this one is the most obvious. I recall seeing a similar Venn diagram published in the scientific literature before, so it's not just pulled out of thin air, and does make sense. It's unclear what the source(s) used for creating this Venn diagram are, and that should be clearly evident. If it's been part of the wiki article for several years now, and 'evolved' over time, then there's a good chance that it is now original research, and should be removed and replaced with a diagram referenced from a reliable source. Dr. Cash 18:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:00, 16 July 2007.

Toronto

[edit]

This article had been greatly expanded during the course of the previous year. The article is listed as a good article, and I think with its current quality, it is capable of achieving a FA status. The following link shows the difference between the "July 5, 2006" version and the "July 5, 2007". [20]. This article had compiled numerous editors' efforts, and it is extremely well-written, and certainly comprehensive. It is well divided into 11 main sections, and several sub-sections. Even so, the article is factually accurate that no other sources could provide. The article features 64 reference sources, 4 external links, as well as links to other wikis. The article is currently stable, and is not experiencing any edit wars.

This article is very easy to navigate. For example, the infobox on the top-right of the article, summarizes Toronto in a visual, organized way. Also, with the colour-coded Climate chart, it visually enhanced the whole article.

Not only is it easy to navigate with the table of contents, infoboxes, navigational templates, charts, and population tables, this article provide numerous images to enhance the article. It is ensured that at least one or more visuals (that is, images or tables or charts) are located in different sections to help readers to further understand about the City of Toronto.

Editors have been trying to resize this article, and had been creating sub-articles about Toronto lately. These links are placed within their relevant sections for easy navigation.

Smcafirst 17:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I've worked a great deal on this article over the years, and while it is decent, it still needs a fair bit of work to be an FA. The article is too long, being 89kb in total. Structurally it is not very well organized. There are many very short sections, and a lot of one sentence paragraphs. Some sections are too short, such as the economy and politics sections. Others are too long. The cityscape section, for instance, should probably be spun off into a separate architecture of Toronto page. The pictures are also an issue. There are too many of them that don't add much, and a number are of fairly low quality. - SimonP 18:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Partially Fixed. I am currently working on resizing the article. So far, I have used your advice to move parts of the Cityscape section to Architecture in Toronto. I am still currently working on it, and the article already downsized to about 86 kb. [21]
  • Oppose. References 30-34, 36, 38-40, 57 are malformed. The writing in the article falls short of brilliant prose as well:
    • Fixed. All reference tag fixed up. Most malformed tags are replaced with {{cite web}} [22]
  • Lead section: "As of the 2006 Canadian census" - redundant (no other country is going to do a census on Toronto)
    • Fixed. Changed "As of the 2006 Canadian census" to "As of the 2006 census" [23]
  • "Toronto is heralded as one of the most multicultural cities in the world and is ranked as the safest large metropolitan area in North America by Places Rated Almanac. Over 100 languages and dialects are spoken here, and over one third of Toronto residents speak a language other than English at home." Needs inline citations.
    • Fixed. Edited grammar, removed non-cited information, and added cited information. [24]
  • The third paragraph is choppy and could use some pronouns. Also, the following sentences could be merged to avoid a contradictory tone: "Toronto is consistently rated one of the world's most livable cities by the Economist Intelligence Unit and the Mercer Quality of Living Survey. In 2006, Toronto was ranked as the most expensive Canadian city in which to live"
    • Fixed. Fixed up choppy paragraph, remove sentence about professional team sports (this is explained in the sports section, and thus should not be in the beginning), move the skyline description sentence to the infobox (this sentence does nothing to the overall paragraph, and suits as the skyline image descriptions more.), and reworded some phrases. [25]
  • "Toronto has a number of sister cities, which it selects based on economic, cultural and political criteria." Should be "which are selected".
    • Fixed. Reworded as suggested above. [26]
These are just problems with the lead and references. I'll examine more later. I'm also going to agree with problems with images- the birds-eye-view image of the financial district should be in "Economy" and the current shot of Bay Street in that section should be removed. The image of Highway 401 doesn't offer much value, and there are too many photos in "tourism" (we don't need a random shot of people on the sidewalk with an equally random caption). However, I'm going to compliment the climate chart because that looks amazing. My only grief would be to somehow incorporate the eyars that the records were broken.

-Wafulz 18:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fixed. "Taste of Danforth" image temporarily removed. ("we don't need a random shot of people on the sidewalk with an equally random caption"), but I did not remove the economy TD Bank Image, since it is important to Toronto's downtown, and I did not find any images relate to Bay Street in the image (so this is not taken care of just yet). The 401 image is also deleted, please see Link 9 on Coloane's comment.[27]

Smcafirst 21:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I dont really like the gigantic climate box. Seems distracting to me like "Ooooh, what is that massive box with all the colors?"--trey 19:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I don't understand the fact that Toronto had too much original research. According to WP:OR, Original research means : "a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position". I don't see a lot of this going on. Most of the reference are well-published by Statistics Canada, and City of Toronto's government. Smcafirst 14:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. I have copy-editted (proofread) the "Infrastructure" section, removed some irrelevant information to further shorten the article (The rail network section was way too long) [28]Smcafirst 14:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
    • First off, The table of contents is gigantic and intimidating. See Erie, PA or Minneapolis, MN for corrections to this.
      • Comment. Many Canadian cities' articles uses this type of Climate table to illustrate the local climate, and some even pass the FA status, like Hamilton, Ontario. I do have to admit that our climate table is a bit larger than others, but are not really that intimidating when comparing to others.
I am talking about the table of contents.—treyjay–jay 19:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref: largest city in Canada and the provincial capital of Ontario, located on the northwestern shore of Lake Ontario
      • Fixed. There are references to each points listed above now. See Reference #3 (for largest city in Canada) ,4 (capital of Ontario) ,5 (northwestern shores of Ontario)
    • Ref: it is the fifth-most populous municipality in North America.
      • Fixed. There is a reference to this published by the government of Toronto: See reference #6, and also #1 (For the Statistics Canada data).
    • Ref: Toronto is considered a global city.
      • Fixed. There is a reference to this: See reference #10
    • Ref: Toronto's population is cosmopolitan and international,
      • Fixed. There are 3 references for this: References #14, 15, and 17
    • POV/OR: clean environment and generally high standard of living
    • Ref: In 1813, as part of the War of 1812, the Battle of York ended in the town's capture and plunder by American forces.
    • Ref: The city grew rapidly through the remainder of the 19th century, as a major destination for immigrants to Canada
    • Ref: Toronto was twice for brief periods the capital of the united Province of Canada first from 1849-1852, following unrest in Montreal and later 1856-1858 after which Quebec became capital until just a year prior to Confederation, since then it has been Ottawa.
    • Repeat: The city began to rapidly industrialize in the middle of the 19th century.
    • OR/Refs Needed: The city began to rapidly industrialize in the middle of the 19th century. An extensive sewage system was built, and streets became illuminated with gas lighting as a regular service. Long-distance railway lines were constructed, including a route completed in 1854 linking Toronto with the Upper Great Lakes. The Grand Trunk Railway and the Great Northern Railway joined in the building of the first Union Station in downtown. The advent of the railway dramatically increased the numbers of immigrants arriving and commerce, as had the Lake Ontario steamers and schooners entering the port and enabled Toronto to become a major gateway linking the world to the interior of the North American continent. Horse-drawn streetcars gave way to electric streetcars in 1891, when the city granted the operation of the transit franchise to the Toronto Railway Company later re-named the current Toronto Transit Commission, now with the third highest ridership of any city public transportation system in North America.
    • Ref: Topography has no references
    • Ref: Climate has 2 (really one)
    • POV: Defining the Toronto skyline, the CN Tower is Canada's most recognizable and celebrated icon.
      • Fixed. POV statement removed.
    • POV/Ref: centre of tourism in Toronto.
    • Ref: Architecture is original research with no refs
    • Ref: Architecture is wayyyyy to long. Combine subsections, as well. This is too in-depth. Use summary style.
      • Partially fixed. See SimonP's reply above (the first comment), parts of this section is now moved to Architecture in Toronto.
Still gigantic compared with other sections.—treyjay–jay 19:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref: Toronto is a major scene for theatre and other performing arts, with more than fifty ballet and dance companies, six opera companies, and two symphony orchestras
    • Refs: The production of domestic and foreign film and television is a major local industry. Many movie releases are screened in Toronto prior to wider release in North America
    • Ref: Tourism for the festival is in the hundred thousands, and each year, the event brings in about $300 million.
    • Ref: Toronto is major centre for gay and lesbian culture and entertainment, and the gay village is located in the Church and Wellesley area of Downtown.
    • Language: I see British and American English. Pick one and use it.
    • Issue: Tourism is FULL of POV, OR and has a problem with the prose in between pictures.
    • Ref: and the fourth largest media centre in North America (behind New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago),
    • Ref: All of the Big Five banks of Canada are headquartered in Toronto.
    • The city's strategic position- whats so special?
    • Demographics has too much census data. Create a table and compare with Canada or Ontario.
    • Ref: The Toronto Public Library is the largest public library system in Canada, consisting of 99 branches with more than 11 million items in its collection.
    • Health and medicine needs expanded, compared with architecture.
    • Transportation can be combined.
    • Stubby paragraphs and bad prose thruout. Not very brilliant.
    • No crime?
      • Comment. Crime have been briefly expressed in the introduction.
One of my points. The lead should summarize the article, and not contain things not mentioned elsewhere.—treyjay–jay 19:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No utilities?
    • What does the government do for its people?
    • Dont mention things in the lead that are not included elsewhere. See WP:LEAD.
    • An article this long should have over 126 references.
      • Comment. How can you count the "exact number" of reference for a certain length of a particular article. Even so, there should not be a line drawn of the number of references. A single source, that is useful (like the ones from the government) might serve a few paragraphs (if more).
I use a mathematical equation based on length.—treyjay–jay 19:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've noticed a pattern. Every section begins to get smaller from the beginning.
Also, you have the seal listed as PD in the United States. I am not sure, but doesn't the Crown Copyright copyright canadian things? Not sure? —treyjay–jay 02:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you totally fucked up my comments. Formatting is off now ect.—treyjay–jay 19:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Mix Precipitation (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Oppose—1a. I don't even like the opening sentence: "Toronto is the largest city in Canada,[3] and the provincial capital of Ontario,[4] located on the northwestern shore of Lake Ontario". Try: "Toronto is the largest city in Canada[3] and the provincial capital of Ontario;[4] it is located on the northwestern shore of Lake Ontario". Tony 03:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:00, 16 July 2007.

2007 Canadian Grand Prix

[edit]

Modeled on 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix. Already GA. Seems well enough set out. Buc 10:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Oppose - As the person who has done a lot of work on this article, in my opinion I don't think that the article currently is good enough to reach FA. It just isn't full enough yet. It was good enough to reach GA but I think you can get a lot more out of the topic. Look at 2007 British Grand Prix. There you'll notice I've managed to write a lot more on the subject about a race that wasn't even as interesting as this one. On the other hand I don't know how stringent the criteria is, hence why I don't want to either oppose or support at the current time. T. Moitie [talk] 17:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to oppose. Blnguyen is right. T. Moitie [talk] 08:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its up for peer review, I want to make sure its top of the range before I nominate. T. Moitie [talk] 17:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I confused you here, I was talking about the 2007 British Grand Prix in a line of conversation up there. T. Moitie [talk] 19:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The race report simply is not comprehensive enough. There is no description of how Hamilton built up a lead in the first stint, there is then only a mention of a safety car and Kubica crashing, but it is not mentioned that Kubica's crash immediately after the first safety car caused the second deployment. Also the further safety car deployments need to be mentioned and eplained, and how they mixed up the race situation needs to be explained. There were numerous driver battles that are not mentioned at all, also Trulli and Rosberg doing a synchronised spin isn't mentioned etc etc. Also the race report is shorter than the qualifying and practice which shows why it is not substantial enough. The significance of Hamilton's debut win should be discusssed, and so should the fact that Ferrari did very poorly and that both Massa and Raikkonen conceding a lot of ground in the points race with Raikkonen. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Not ready:
    • "The testing started on 17 May at the Paul Ricard circuit" - Such a cold opening. What testing and what has it do to with the GP? It should be something like "At a test session at the Paul Ricard circuit on DATE, with the track set up to replicate... " etc.
    • "Ferrari saw the best of the next 2 days results" - Not good. If have a drag race would I "see" the best result?
    • "Kimi Räikkönen and Felipe Massa released statements to the press saying that they believed that everything will be different in Canada because of the very different conditions " -- Nothing necessarily wrong with having preview quotes, the problem is a lot of teams and drivers say an awful lot of things about the upcoming race(s) - why cherry pick what Ferrari said?
    • " Fernando Alonso leading the push on both of the 2 practices" -- Leading the push - I know what that means but its not encyclopedic langauge. And should be "2 practice sessions".
    • "but Kubica suffered from a fuel leak resulting in no time in the first practice" -- "Resulting in no time" again I know what that means, but strangely worded. Should be "leaving him unable to post a timed lap" etc
    • "the problem came back up" - Not good. "The problem reoccurred" etc. would be better
    • "This resulted in a red flag from 10:33am till 10:50am local time." use of word till not good.
    • Similar general problem to Malaysia GP FAC - description of various teams'/drivers' weekend as "promising" "poor" "strong session" "bad weekend" -- all POV. State where they came/what they achieved and let the reader decide. e.g. "Ralf Schumacher continued his teams run of bad luck" - sounds like we're sympathising. In contrast things like "Consistent with previous form, the Hondas of Barrichello and Button failed to make the cut into the top ten;" is fine - that isn't a judgement.
    • didn't > did not.
    • "He just made it through to Q2" -- (about Coulthard) -- "just" not encyclopedic - if it was close give the margin.
    • "resulting in a red flagged session" - red flag not explained and/or linked.
    • "after which he was pushed down by better times to 19th" -- "outqualified by X drivers" would be better.
    • "Unfortunately for him,"!! Another example of POV (see above)
    • 1st sentence of "Race" section. Way to many "Alonso"s in there. Far too complicated structure and no full stop/period.
    • "and safety car had to be deployed, " - should be a safety car or the safety car.
    • "Trulli witnessed the crash in his rear-view mirrors and lost concentration due to the worry about the Polish driver's condition; due to this, he crashed on the exit of the pitlane after his second stop." -- cite please. Mark83 10:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Nothing necessarily wrong with having preview quotes, the problem is a lot of teams and drivers say an awful lot of things about the upcoming race(s) - why cherry pick what Ferrari said?" Ok so what do you stuggest?
      • "resulting in a red flagged session" - red flag not explained and/or linked" I've re-phrased it rarther than explained.
      • "Unfortunately for him," Another example of POV (see above)" I don't think this is POV because of the "for him". How can having to make an engine change not be Unfortunate for the driver?
      • "Trulli witnessed the crash in his rear-view mirrors" After some research I've found this to be untrue so I've removed it and added a ref.
      • All other requests have been met. Buc 19:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As for my "cherry picking" comment - I suggest either removing the Ferrari quotes or providing a representative sample of other teams' preview quotes. e.g. The Ferrari drivers are obviously talking about their battle with the McLarens, so at the very least you would need their thoughts.
        • Red flag - but it needs to be either explained or linked - this could be the first F1 article someone reads (e.g. if featured on main page) and they will not necessarily know what a red flag means.
        • The article is still not there.
  1. "with the track set up to replicate, set up to replicate the"
  2. Regarding Paul Ricard - it says on the 17 May - and then talks about "previous 2 days" and last 2 days which is confusing. Should be 17-20 May if those were the dates.
  3. "On lap 37, Trulli and Nico Rosberg are battling for position" is a lapse into present tense when the article is in past tense.
  4. "Both spin off the track in almost synchronised fashion touching each other" - they didn't touch.
  5. "This was an amussing occurrence" -- see Wikipedia:Words to avoid
  6. Numerous spelling mistakes in last para.
  7. " BMW Sauber showed good results from Nick Heidfeld" -- similar point as before - you don't "show" a result.
  8. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) regarding times.
  9. "Heidfeld drove very well to take third position, " -- that's POV without a full analysis - did the Ferraris make errors? Did Heidfeld qualify with a heavy fuel load??
  10. As for "unfortunately" - I take your point and WP:WTA agrees, but states "Avoiding the adverb altogether and just stating the fact may be even better:" Mark83 19:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All Done Buc 08:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for 9. is there, but needs a little work. The point was that there had been 5 whole races without a none McLaren or Ferrari driver on the podium and he was the first driver the entire season to achieve a podium and not drive for either team. To extend that point, you could talk about how McLaren and Ferrari have the most competitive cars on the track (not POV, very very verifiable fact). T. Moitie [talk] 22:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sorry, I profoundly disagree. Q3 produces skewed results. You cannot say P1 best, P2 a bit worse, P3 a bit worse still. For example consensus on Saturday was the best Q3 lap was Lewis Hamilton's. However Martin Brundle said on race day (and The Times said on Monday) that when fuel was considered, Alonso put in a better qualifying lap than Hamilton. No one can argue that the McLarens and Ferraris are by quite a margin the best cars so far this year, but Heidfeld could have been fuelled significantly lighter to produce a flattering quali position - whereas the Ferrari drivers could have put in much better laps, but the fuel/weight penalty would make the laps look comparatively bad. Mark83 22:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify - when I say Saturday - I meant the British GP, not the article subject. Mark83 22:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This article still fails 1a in my opinion. I am not a grammatical expert and will admit that I find it hard to distinguish between very good and "brilliant". However I can tell a difference between adequate and very good/brilliant. This is only adequate prose. Now I could keep on highlighting examples, but frankly I have put in quite a bit of effort already. The text needs a thorough review. e.g. "Qualifying saw Hamilton take his first pole position, in a McLaren one-two on the front row.[16] Heidfeld had an improvement drive to take third position, in front of the Ferraris of Räikkönen and Massa." -- "one two on the front row" is redundant - a one-two only can be the front row - a one-two on the second row is a three-four! "Heidfeld had an improvement drive" does not make any sense. Mark83 23:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:00, 16 July 2007.

San Juan, Puerto Rico

[edit]

The article has undergone a mayor reconstruction by me and two fellow users. The article passed GAC a month ago and it underwent a Peer Review wich is now archived. Any concerns presented here will be attended by me or by any member of WikiProject Puerto Rico. Thanks for your time. -凶 16:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. I've noticed several issues with the text:
  • The lead could be a little longer; the first and second paragraph are a little too small for my liking.-Done
  • In "Old San Juan", there's some oddly placed footnotes. Are they part of the previous paragraph?-Done
  • Do we need to know when the satellite photograph was taken? I'm not sure it's worthy of mention; I've not seen the date noted on any other photo.-Done
  • "East of Old San Juan lies the upscale tourist oriented neighbourhood of Condado, which occupies land that used to be owned by entrepreneur Pablo Ubarri Capetillo, a Spanish railroad developer and Count of San José de Santurce under the Spanish colonial period." It's hard to follow this sentence. I'd recommend splitting it into two.-Done
  • "San Juan constitutes the most populated city in Puerto Rico." I think "is" is sufficient.-Done
  • Second World War should be World War II throughout the text.-Done
  • Overall, the content is definitely there, but some of the prose is a little awkward. I'd recommend a copyedit personally.
I'll add more as I go through the text. If you happen to disagree with any of my comments, let me know! CloudNine 19:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me start by saying thanks for taking of your time to review and help us improve this page, on behalf of our WikiProject I must say we are grateful. I took the liberty of placing checkmarks in the points that were attended by me already, now I will be absent for a few hours since I have a dinner appointment but when I come back the lead will be expanded. -凶 20:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead has been expanded. -凶 17:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Very nice article. I have contributed with some minor copyediting and left left a few minor suggestions to be taken into consideration, but as it is I believe that it has the makings of an FA. Tony the Marine 19:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I also support this article, which has really improved.Pr4ever 20:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak object. The article is very well written, and well presented. I do feel that the coverage of the city's education system is very thin however. About the only reference I find to tertiary education is that the University of Puerto Rico is historic, and any mention of secondary (high school) education system in the city is non-existent. For tertiary education, a look at this directory reveals the presence of a "University of the Sacred Heart" with 5000 students, and a "Universidad Metropolitana" with 10000 students, as well as some smaller ones, and they really ought to be mentioned in the article. In fact, I think that the education sector of a city as large as San Juan is significant enough to warrant a separate section, or even a separate article with a summary section. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added a new section on "Education". -凶 02:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Although there is not coverage of secondary education, decent coverage of the tertiary system is what is important in an article on the city, and a separate article on the education system will be good to have at some point. I support featuring this article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Universe=atom:
    • Why is there no "See also" section? A major city like this should definitely have one.Done
    • Reference #46 is in Spanish. It should be labeled so, especially since it appears 27 times in the article.Done
    • Why is it so that Ref #45 has only the title? Why is there no access-date, publish-date, or publisher (all of which are available on the website)Done
    • The format of several references needs to be changed. Most references have only the title and the access-date. Why is there no publish-date or publisher? These should be included (exception: if they are not available even on the website). References that should be added to because of this include #1-4, 6-11, 13-20, 22, 23, 27-30, and 32-47. Done
    • Perhaps the beginning of section 9 ("Sister cities") can be added to by putting, for example, "The following cities have been identified as sister cities..."Done
    • Section 2 needs some more references in its beginning.
    • Grammar mistake: "A year later, the settlement was moved to a site then called Puerto Rico, Spanish for "rich port" or "good port", after its similar..." (section 1) Comma should be before quotes end.Done
    • Grammar: "...settlement was given its formal name, "San Juan Bautista de Puerto Rico", in honor of..." (section 1) Same thing as previous one.Done
    • Grammar: "...by 1746 the name for the city..." (section 1) Comma required after 1746.Done
    • Grammar: "San Juan as a settlement of the Spanish Empire, was used by..." (section 1) Comma required after San Juan.Done
    • Grammar: "For these reasons San Juan became a target of the foreign powers of the time." (section 1) Comma required after reasons.Done
    • Grammar: "The English returned in 1797 ,during the French Revolutionary Wars, led by Sir Ralph Abercromby who had just conquered Trinidad." (section 1) Comma mistake related to spacing.Done
    • Grammar: "This event happened on April 6, 1917 wich was the day that the United States declared war on Germany." (section 1) Major grammar mistakes: the word which is misspelled. Also, comma is always required after years.Done
    • Grammar:"In May 1898, United States Navy ships, among them the USS Detroit, USS Indiana, USS New York, USS Amphitrite, USS Terror and USS Montgomery, commanded by Rear Admiral William T. Sampson, bombed San Juan during the Spanish-American War, though the city was not occupied." This article is supposed to be written in American English. So, the serial comma should be followed.
    • Grammar: This mistake appears several times throughout the article, all of which should be fixed.
    • Grammar: "Camp Las Casas located in the distric of Santurce served as the main training camp for the Puerto Rican soldiers prior to World War I and World War II, the mayority of the men trained in this facility were assigned to the 65th Infantry Regiment of the United States Army." (section 1) 4 major grammar mistakes in just one sentence: (1) There should be a comma before the participle phrase (located in the distric of Santurce); (2) The word district is misspelled; I can not believe that this was not noticed before; (3) The word majority is also misspelled; (4) There should be a semicolon (instead of the current comma) after World War II because it connects two independent clauses.Done
    • Grammar: "This regiment has been active since 1898 and its still active in the present." (section 1: just one sentence after the previous one) This sounds like slang would. There should be a comma after 1898. Also, why is its used. First of all, if it were to be used, there should be an apostrophe there. Second of all, it should not at all be used but instead should be replaced by it is.Done
    • Grammar: "Camp Las Casas was eventually closed down and on 1950 a public housing project by the name of Residencial Fray Bartolome de Las Casas was constructed on its former location." (section 1: just one sentence after the previous one) There should be a comma after down and one after 1950.Done
    • Grammar: "As a result the city is now composed of a variety of neighborhoods." (section 2) There should be a comma after result.Done

There are more other grammar mistakes in this article, but I do not think that I need to mention them since they all have the same types of mistakes that I have given. Hopefully, they will be recognized and fixed. On a good note, however, if all the points that I raised are taken care of, I think that this article will be worthy of FA status, and I will vote Support. Thank you. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 14:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I already attended the points with green checkmarks by them, however I didn't get what you meant by saying the serial commas should be followed, can you please explain what you mean further? -凶 02:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In WP:MOS, it says that "If the presence of the final serial comma does not affect ambiguity of the sentence (as in most cases), there is no Wikipedia consensus on whether it should be used." So do as you please with that. Also, where on the Style Guide does it say that numbers should be written out at the start of a sentence? I've seen you make this recommendation a couple of times, Universe=atom, and I have to say I haven't seen it. EDIT: Also, the WP:MOS says that "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quote marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation (this system is referred to as logical quotation)", so "**Grammar mistake: "A year later, the settlement was moved to a site then called Puerto Rico, Spanish for "rich port" or "good port", after its similar..." (section 1) Comma should be before quotes end" this is incorrect. --Estrellador* 08:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Manual of Style also states that a particular national variety of English should be followed if the article is related to theat variety. For example, the article British Empire would obviously be written in British English, and the article History of the United States would obviously be written in American English. Similarly, San Juan, Puerto Rico would obviously be written in American English (because Puerto Rico is an American territory). In American English, the serial comma is used, and in British English, it is not used. It should definitely be used throughout this article, which, as it can be seen, is not being so. As for the numbers in the beginnings of sentences, Estrellador*, it is a common known fact that numbers in that position, even if they are years, should be written out. For more information, consult any external grammar manual. As for the comment on the comma & quotation marks, I had thought that it had been like that. If that is not so, as Estrellador* pointed out, ignore that point. Thank you. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 12:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the clarification, Universe=atom, and the number-starting-a-sentence thing is in the Manual of Style: "It is considered awkward for a numeral to be the first word of a sentence: recast the sentence or spell the number out." so fair enough.--Estrellador* 16:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose, the article has a good start, but there is a good deal of work remaining, which may or may not be doable during FAC, and I don't feel it's close to FA or should have attained GA with substandard prose. For a comparable article, I suggest looking at El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda. El Hatillo is but one small municipality, affording no sources in the English language, and yet has a more comprehensive article than San Juan, the capital and largest city of PR. Surely there is as much to say about San Juan, if not more, than can be said about El Hatillo?

1a—prose

This is an area that requires more work; perhaps an independent copyeditor can be engaged. However, since the article is not yet comprehensive, copyediting would be secondary to completing the article. Some samples of problems to be addressed:

  • Foreign phrases should be in italics, not quotes.
  • Listy prose; for example, Sports is basically a list, which tells us very little about the place, significance, importance of sports in the Puerto Rican culture.
  • Informal prose: The first edition of World Wrestling Entertainment's pay per view New Year's Revolution was held here in January 2005. Held here?
  • Random samples of prose issues, which are throughout:
    • The Santurce Crabbers won the National Superior Basketball League championship on 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2003 during this period being recognized as a dynasty.
    • In an attempt to decrease vehicle dependency and road congestion, the City constructed a metro system dubbed “Tren Urbano”, or Urban Train in English, the 10.7 mile (17.2 km) long line connects to 16 stations.
    • A daily ferry service known as the Cataño Ferry, (“La Lancha de Cataño” in Spanish) which operates a route across San Juan Bay between Old San Juan and the municipality of Cataño.
    • ... in Santurce.[25]There are several technological ... (check spaces)
    • Due to technological advances after World War II in the development of the airliner coupled with the island's climate and natural setting, has transformed San Juan into the springboard for tourism around the island, and has made the rest of the Caribbean known throughout the world during the last fifty years.

Other reviewers have listed the extensive prose problems, so rather than list more, I suggest that WP:LoCE be contacted, or an independent copyedit be done after 1b is addressed. The current prose is sub-standard even for GA, and I'm surprised it was passed.

1b—comprehensive

This is another large issue; the article is seriously lacking in comprehensiveness. No crime in San Juan? No municipal services, police, fire, etc? One paragraph on education, no education issues, no secondary schools, no stats? (See El Hatillo article for comparison, or glance through New York City or Boston.) No discussion of health care ? No hospitals? More disappointing than the lack of basic information essential to a city article is the lack of any sense of the culture of San Juan. Sections dealing with the culture rather than imparting a sense of the culture are mostly lists of who's who in Puerto Rico. One short paragraph on Economy? What does a historical list of mayors add to the article? No discussion of political issues, just a list of Mayors? The article content should be seriously beefed up before the copyedit issues above can be addressed.

1c—factually accurate

All hard data should be cited, example: In 2007, the government of Puerto Rico announced a large expansion project to the bayside piers called the San Juan Waterfront at a projected cost of $1.5 billion, which will include docking space for 60 megayachts, 900 total hotel rooms, 1,850 housing units, over 400,000 square feet of commercial space and a new recreational park.

1d—neutral

Watch wording on things like ...

  • East of Old San Juan lies the upscale tourist oriented neighbourhood of Condado, ..
  • San Juan enjoys an average of 82°F (28°C) during the year, ...
2—WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, citation formatting
  • Please see WP:UNITS and fix throughout, or employ {{convert}}
  • Full dates, and month day combos should be linked, see WP:MOSNUM
  • Low value words (example fertilizer) should not be linked, see WP:CONTEXT—common words are overlinked, while some other terms (example, Museum of Contemporary Art of Puerto Rico) should be red-linked or stubified.
  • Please read WP:LEAD; once the article is completed and copyedited, the lead should be a compelling stand-alone summary of the article.
  • Citations are incorrectly formatted; pls see WP:CITE/ES. All sources should include a publisher and last access date, as well as author and date when available.

Please don't use those green check marks to indicate items completed: reviewers strike their own comments as they are addressed, and those only clutter the FAC page. Also, I note three Supports above from authors of Puerto Rican articles, in spite of numerous deficiencies in this article. I hope editors will strive to produce the kind of article Puerto Rico's capital deserves rather than supporting an article with deficiencies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, way to assume bad faith, I sincerly hope you were offended by the comment I made on Talk:History of Puerto Rico because if you heard what I have to say about this insult the result would be an immediate block. To assume there is fan vote here and to suggest I'm doing a half assed work here just pisses me off, to leave something clear I work with what is given to me, I took this task out of good will since I haven't lived anywhere near the city since I was three, there is no way for me to get sources on this specially now that I will edit out of Orlando in the near future, so if the users that live in the island don't provide me with information I can't take these articles to Featured Article by myself. I already realized that with me out and the other users working on the page busy, this FAC will fail so you win, kept up this work that way even more users will have a negative image about the administrators at Wikipedia and with time the vandalism will be to much even for them to control. When I come back I will probably go bact to editing pages about organizations and biographies where I can stay away from people like you. -凶 19:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:First of all: User ? (Dark Dragon Flame), please do not accuse user SandyGeorgia of assuming bad faith just because the truth was pointed out. I scrutinized those comments, and all of them turned out to be true. While I had been reviewing this article, these points had slipped out of my hand. This article can still be improved further, and, as SandyGeorgia said, what SandyGeorgia pointed out are only examples from the entire article. As I pointed out in the paragraph after my comments, I had said that the grammar mistakes in the comments were only from the beginning of the article, and the rest of the article was still filled with them. As I look over the article now, I still see tons of grammar mistakes. Please do not interpret my oppose wrongly; perhaps you can apply for FA status in a few weeks after this article has been professionally copy-edited. Thank you. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 13:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I feel I should abstain myself from supporting or opposing since I contributed to the article, but I believe SandyGeorgia's suggestions are a welcome addition to the article. I would suggest postpone this nomination until some of these suggestions are addressed. The article does not necessarily have to include all of them, nor does it have to be identical to El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda (although comparisons are useful), but adding this information and more copyediting could greatly improve the article. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 13:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There's plenty of work to be done, and I don't think it's possible to complete it within a timeframe of an FAC. CloudNine 16:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused—Cloudnine, you indicated (above in red) that the article was being revamped, but later you said it couldn't be accomplished within the timeframe of FAC. Should I continue to revisit the FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah; in my opinion the article should be removed from WP:FAC, but I was under the impression it's not ok for me to do so. I revamped what I could (especially as I don't really have any connection with San Juan), but it's not enough really. CloudNine 15:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it might be good to un-"red" the comment above, since it may cause Raul to leave the article at FAC when he promotes/archives (it gives the appearance ya'll are trying to get it done within the FAC). I just had a peek, and the article is still very far from ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:00, 16 July 2007.

Komodo dragon

[edit]

After months of on-and-off editing, I believe this article has reached completion. It's got nice prose, a lot of citations, and a nice amount of pictures. I pretty much exhausted my library resources and opened two peer reviews, which can be found here and here. I've also asked Wikiproject Reptiles and Amphibians to take a look at it before. Pass or not, I still hope that there are things that can be remedied in the text. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 20:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This has come a long way since its peer review. I have some minor formatting issues and other points to make. Some of the paragraphs are singel sentences and can be merged to make decent lenght ones (particularly in the conservation section). Attacks can be expanded slightly, I recall hearing about a tourist that dissapered and theer are a number of non-fatal attacks per year, how many I am uncertain but it is worth mentioning, particularly in how it affects their conservation status (large carnivore conservation is always a hard sell where humans or their stock are a prey item). Discovery, conservation and capitvity should be made subheadings in a relationhsip with humans, and the bit about the attack on Sharon Stone's husband is kind of trivia-ish. Finally the lead needs a bit more. This is all easily achievable. Good work. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixes needed - Good work so far and FA is achievable but a few things need tweaking:
  • Lead needs to summarise comprehensively points in article and be 2-3 paras long. In terms of style I'd put the scientific name 2nd after the initial common name, then have a subordinate clause with alternate names.

*Naturally, Komodo dragons are found exclusively in Indonesia, on .... - I'd drop the "Naturally" and palce a semicolon after Indonesia and make the next two clauses into a sentence. I'd not use "exclusively" as teh connotiation is evolving into something quite different to the original meaning. Try "only" or "solely".

*All units of measurement should be abbreviated with the   between number and unit.

*For shelter, dragons dig holes, that can measure from 1-3 metres (3-10 feet) wide, with their powerful forelimbs and claws - lotta commas in this one. Try and rephrase if possible

*Because of their slow metabolisms, large dragons may only eat 12 meals a year. - lose the 's' on metabolisms, and the meaning is unclear - strictly limited to 12 meals or can get a way with only eating 12 meals...

*In eating, the largest animals generally eat first, while the smaller ones follow a social hierarchy.. - lose the first "In eating" and maybe lose "social"

*By use of body language and rumbling hisses, the largest male asserts his dominance, and the smaller males indicate their humbleness. - Again too many commas and the clasues can be streamlined -how about "The largest male asserts his dominance and the smaller males their submission by use of body language and rumbling hisses." Wouldn't use "humbleness"

*Against two dragons of equal size, fighting may occur in the form of wrestling. - ick. Try "Dragons of equal size may resort to wrestling"

*The loser who is cast down will usually retreat, but if they cannot make a quick escape, the victor may kill and eat them - try "Losers usually retreat, though have been known to have been killed and eaten by victors"

*.. evolved to feed on the dwarf stegodons (a relative of the elephant) that.. try "evolved to feed on an extinct dwarf elephant, Stegodon that..." - Stegodon not in common English usage so shoukld be italicized

*Unusually, the Komodo dragon has been observed.. - I'd drop the unusuallu - the sentence speaks for itself.

  • ..hard scratches to the back, and licking.. - lose the comma here.
    Note: Since I'm a Yankee, I use the serial comma.

*The female will lay her eggs in the ground or in tree hollows (thereby lending them a certain degree of protection). - commas better than parentheses here.

*Final para in Parthenogenesis subsection - commas better than parentheses here.

*Komodo dragon is gradually getting accustomed to.. - "becoming accustomed"..

*Although very rare, Komodo dragons have been known to kill humans. - dragons are rare or attacks are rare?

*On June 4, 2007, a.. - lose the first comma

*In the In captivity section, many zoos have their own articles so try and find more specific wikilinks

  • Finally, if there is any material on dragons in local folklore or mythology that would be good to add. If there is - creat a Dragons and humans section with Folklore and In captivity as subsections. Also, I don't see any material on classification. What are its closest relatives. Is it related especially closely to Megalania or Australian species or what.
  • Note: Surprisingly, there's not much mention about Komodo dragons in folklore other than their obvious namesake. Also, it says in the article that the Komodo dragon is in the monitor lizard family.
  • PS: I'm not a fan of See Also sections and all should be able to be linked within the body of the article and the list removed if possible.

More to come.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed most of these concerns, but I'm very unsure about how to expand the lead. I suppose I shall drop by some WP:AAR member's talk pages and see if they can assist me. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 03:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Aren't reptile and amphibian common names capitalized like bird common names? I was pretty sure they were. Anywho, you can easily expand the lead, just summarize more of the article. A sentence or two for each section perhaps. Sheep81 09:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was actually a bit of a debate on that. I originally moved it to Komodo Dragon, but I later looked at my sources and noticed that most of them had Komodo dragon. Whatever the case, Komodo must be capitalized because it is the name of the place where the Komodo dragon inhabits. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 17:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:00, 16 July 2007.

Malaria

[edit]

Just saw it and thought I'd nominate it. It already has reached "good article" status; however, it may be a bit long. ~ thesublime514 • talk • sign 20:47, June 26, 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy. And the writing could do with a spruce up. For example, in the lead, "Commonly-associated"—read the MOS. "Currently" sounds very temporary; remove it. "Malaria transmission can be reduced"—oh, scientists should know better: "The incidence of ...". By, by, by. "Most adults from endemic areas have a degree of long-term recurrent infection and also of partial resistance; the resistance reduces with time and such adults may become susceptible to severe malaria if they have spent a significant amount of time in non-endemic areas. They are strongly recommended to take full precautions if they return to an endemic area. Malaria infections are treated through the use of antimalarial drugs". Perhaps you can remove "a degree of" and "also" (I'm unsure; try without). "spent significant time in". "They" is initially unclear. "If returning to". "Treated with". Tony 03:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Yes, it needs refactoring work. For instance, the "causes" and "pathogenesis" sections can't really be separated in this case imho, and there is another major section uncomfortably squeezed in between that should also be merged with the two I just mentioned. That would be a start. Spamsara 11:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:00, 16 July 2007.

Apple TV

[edit]

Well written article with detail, references, good prose/flow, photographs - Already a 'Good Article' and has been copy-edited several times. I think this meets the FA criteria. Thank you in advance. — Wackymacs 20:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Josh, it's not badly written, but not there yet. In the lead, I see "The final product name was not announced at the time, referring to it instead by its codename iTV." And there are lots of stubby paragraphs. Needs thorough scrutiny; should succeed. Tony 14:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Forgive what may be a brash tone, but I just had a whole list of issues deleted. Overall, it's a good start, but not nearly as fleshed out as it should be (e.g. too much attention to unimportant details, not enough of what the device actually is).

  • Move links from "See also" to be incorperated into the article. Mention why Apple decided for a third time to create a set top box (a "History" or "Development" section would be nice... though knowing Apple the latter would be difficult to come by). Bringing up the Pippin and why the Apple TV doesn't have games (hardware issues, general lack of games for Macs) would also be good.
  • The criticism section is a mess. Cut it down and sum up the opinions a bit more. Use multiple cites when needed. What, no mention of the cost?
  • "Hacks" is full of jargon: "Back Row", "SSH", "RemoteManagement", "AppleFileServer"? What are these and what do they have to do with anything? Explain why hacks are needed.
  • The hand in Image:Apple TV (back).jpg is distracting, and both shots could use an update from a more practical position (size comparison to a VCR...sitting in someone's home theater setup). Also, a shot of the thing's guts would be helpful (around the hacks section). Good luck. -Mysekurity 06:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
To be fair Mysekurity, none of these are valid reasons for an Oppose. Does the article actually fail any of the Featured Article criteria? What you have listed are ways to improve the article (something you might see in a Peer Review), but not reasons for Opposing. — Wackymacs 16:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about "not nearly as fleshed out as it should be" for #1, specifically a) and b)? It needs a history section, and the second paragraph of the lead is confusingly written. I think this article fails criteria #1, and I brought up the Pippin and other devices as points where the article lacks clarification. -Mysekurity 23:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, but a History section for something that came out a matter of months ago? There wouldn't be enough context for a full History section. What is confusing about the second paragraph of the lead - it simply explains when and who it was introduced by and when it started shipping... — Wackymacs 08:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A history section would encompass Apple's previous attempts at entering the living room (mostly the products mentioned in See Also), and would include the code name from the second paragraph. Explain why it matters that movies, iPod5 and iTunes 7 were all announced together (what is the tie-in?). As it stands now, the article is not enjoyable to read. It features too many tech specs and jargon. The average non-tech user (the average purchaser of Apple products) won't be able to make heads or tails of the article's content. And that is why I oppose this promotion. -Mysekurity 08:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. "Syncing" is not a proper English word afaik, and certainly not one that should be used in a heading that is supposed to be understood by everyone, young and old, developed country or elsewhere. The criticism section may be better labelled "Limitations". The first mention of "HD" should be unabbreviated. You should check for missing punctuation (there should be a full stop after "says it is no "speed demon""). Several statements seem false or are ambiguous, e.g.

  • "1080i or 1080p HD content (e.g. content originating from HD cameras) must be downgraded in quality for use on Apple TV. Users without the technical knowledge to create HD content may have to resort to downloading lower-quality iTunes store movie content." - should this be "without the technical knowledge to convert HD content to lower quality"?
  • "Another past limitation required photos to be synced to the device,[39] but this was fixed in a June 2007 iTunes update." - you couldn't sync unless you had photos, or you were offered no choice but to also sync your photos?

Given that there was punctuation missing, I'd also tentatively suggest a spell-check. Spamsara 11:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think all of the information needed for comprehensiveness is there, but it's not always clearly sourced. I've added some [citation needed] to indicate some instances where source information is absent. Also, I know this isn't a deal breaker, but it would really add to the article to have an evenly lit photograph with a balanced exposure. The photo currently at the top of the article is somewhat confusingly lit, and underexposed. I checked Commons, and no good alternative seems to exist. The best thing to do would be take a new photograph in a clean setting. Spamsara 22:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On third reading, it becomes apparent that it's not clear what kinds of computers can be synchronised with the Apple TV, and what the networking options are (wired/wireless/what kind of wireless, if any?). The only evidence I could find was in the right hand panel, where is says 802.11 connectivity, but the average reader may not be familiar with such terminology, and in any case, it should be written out clearly in the main body of text. I invoke the comprehensiveness criterion. Spamsara 04:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:00, 16 July 2007.

J. D. Salinger

[edit]

Self-nomination. This article offers a complete, detailed, and extensively sourced biography and critical discussion of the author, with numerous images, all of which have rationale for fair use. The prose is unbiased and alternates encyclopedic writing with excerpts from primary sources and quotes. -Hobbesy3 17:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose (delist) Oppose
    • Original Research/Citation Needed: has enjoyed enduring popularity since its publication in 1951, and basically every line in the lead.
    • dropped out the next spring to work on a cruise ship. Citation here
    • World War II has many un-sourced claims
    • POV: The demanding magazine
    • Cite: It was an immediate success, although early critical reactions were mixed.
    • POV: plot is quite simple
    • Cite: Salinger used profanity, religious slurs, and discussed adolescent sex in an open and casual manner, many readers were offended, and the book's popularity began to falter.
    • Cite: The novel was banned in some countries, and some U.S. schools, because of its bold use of offensive language; 'goddamn' appears 255 times, and a handful of 'fuck's, plus a few seamy incidents such as the encounter with a prostitute.
    • POV: It was also very successful
    • Withdrawal from public life seems POV ish
    • Citation Needed tags.
    • Withdrawal from public life has many unsourced claims.
    • Red links need removed or stubified.
    • More citations needed in Later years and instances of exposure
    • Religious and philosophical beliefs is jam-packed of POV and OR, remove it
    • In Relationship with Hollywood, quotes need sourced.
    • Infobox can be further filled in.
    • Maybe a GA-nom would be better (no luck it would pass it)
  • Comments - wouldn't take the above contribution over-seriously, and please don't de-list it. I think it's quite close to FA;
    • I think more citation is needed, including in some of the places identified above. I am particularly interested in citations for the paragraphs which contain a direct quote: adding more cites woudl clarify the source of the facts and opinion in the paragraph, at present it looks like only the direct quote is being referenced. This particularly true of the fairly outlandish statements in 'Religious and philosophical beliefs'. If the facts are verifiable, they should definitely be included!
    • I'd merge the 'further reading' and 'references' sections; also, is "IFILM: The Internet Movie Guide" a reliable source?
    • The article's prose is decent but could do with a close proofread.
    • Don't worry about: citations in the lead section where it summarises the rest of the article; describing the New Yorker as 'demanding' (or any of the POV concerns above); redlinks (none of the redlinks are technical terms).
Regards, The Land 20:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - For the most part I also think the article is quite good. However, the phrase "classic novel that has enjoyed enduring popularity since its publication in 1951" in the lead strikes me as very unencyclopedic. As far as I am aware, "classic novel" is not a widely understood or agreed-upon term, and the phrase "enjoyed enduring popularity" leaves a bad newspaper-writing taste in my mouth. Otherwise, hooray. Williamroy3 20:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixes, pt. 1 Thanks! I have made some of the requested changes (I added citations for the religious/philosophical beliefs section, added citations for a few disputed facts, combined the reference and further reading sections, and did some general copyediting)—with more to come. -Hobbesy3 05:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object (delist) I agree with the first reviewer. This is far from being an FA. I will detail the major improvements that need to be made:
  • The article needs several sections describing Salinger's writing. He is notable because he is a writer. There is very little in this article on his actual writings. The editors need to do a lot more research on that front - such information can be found in the work of literary critics, not biographers.
  • I would integrate the "Religious and philosophical beliefs" and "Relationship with Hollywood" sections into the relevant sections of the biography. Why do we have sections on these topics but not on Salinger's writings? It makes no sense.
  • Around half of the citations come from a memoir of Salinger's daughter. The editors need to carefully check each and every one of these. Anything that cannot be supported using a reliable secondary source should be taken out. A memoir should only be used for anecdotes and such like and it should be used sparingly. See here for an explanation of the problems of using primary sources.
  • The entire article needs a thorough copy edit (but there is no reason to bother with this until the above revisions have taken place).
  • The lead is not a stand alone summary of the article per WP:LEAD.
  • Note: I would not pass this article for GA since it fails: 1a; 2; and 3a, at the very least (WP:GA?). Awadewit | talk 00:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixes, pt. 2 Rewrote and expanded lead so that it better reflects content of main article, and made some small fixes. I definitely agree that the article needs more about Salinger's writing, themes, critical reception, etc. and will get on it. However:
      • Regarding the reliability of Dream Catcher: Although Margaret Salinger’s book billed itself as a memoir, she did enough research and formal interviews (with her mother, for example) that the book functions (at least in part) as a secondary source. While it would be nice to support some of her revelations with citations from secondary sources, the truth is that her father guards his private life pretty tightly, and the details provided by Ian Hamilton (in his 1986 bio) and Paul Alexander (in his 1999 one) are often sketchy. (Margaret’s claims are invariably more detailed and better supported than theirs.) Also, whenever this article references contentious information with only Margaret as a source, it states as much (i.e., “According to Margaret Salinger.”) Should these Dream Catcher-unique biographical details be relegated to the section of the article that discusses her book’s release? That is a less chronological and more disjointed organization but perhaps more suitable given the nature of the source. Thanks, Hobbesy3 07:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Formal interviews with someone's mother makes the book well-researched? I am not convinced by that. You say that it is well-researched, so I will assume good faith and believe you, but that piece of evidence is not convincing. I am happy that you have carefully mentioned her in the prose when necessary. I withdraw that objection. Awadewit | talk 07:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Note: Please don't strike out other editors' objections. It is akin to changing their prose and frowned upon at wikipedia (see here). Editors usually decide for themselves if an objection has been met. Thank you. Awadewit | talk 07:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed one sentence for which no citation could be found, sourced all the quotes in the Hollywood section, filled in the infobox, and removed the unreliable IFILM reference. Also, here is support (other than my word) that the Margaret Salinger bio has at least some amount of research behind it; in its review of the memoir, The New York Times called her "a dogged investigator of her lost past," and explained, as an example, that "the author tells us she tracked down income tax returns from the 1950's to confirm that her father consulted Christian Science practitioners about her infant illnesses." Apart from that, the problem with finding a secondary source is that no notable study of Salinger's life has been completed since the 1999 publication of Dream Catcher, so there is no secondary source that synthesizes Margaret's views of her father with what had previously been known about him. (i.e., the Wikipedia article presents no alternative version to several of Margaret's stories because there is no alternative; she is the first one to have mentioned that her father was among the first to enter a liberated concentration camp, for example.) Also, I reverted the strike-outs. I didn't know; sorry about that.Hobbesy3 08:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, I have withdrawn my objection regarding the memoir. By the way, I would say that the review thinks she has a personal investment in the biography (she trashes her father too much) - exactly the problem all memoirs have, be they well-researched or not. But if this is all there is, this is all there is. I have written articles from a 15-page memoir and an autobiography. You might say something about the source problems either in the article or in the "References" section. This is what I did once. Awadewit | talk 09:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixes pt. 3 I've addressed (or done my best to try and address) all the concerns mentioned here re: POV, citation needed, OR, and requests for more in the infobox and on the themes/style/influence of Salinger's writing. (The only thing I haven't done is incorporate the Hollywood section into Salinger's biography; the information there is nonchronological to the point that I think it makes sense to have it localized in a single section.) There have been frequent requests for a proofread of the article but I feel as if I'm too close to it to be a very good judge of language. Perhaps there is someone willing to volunteer to proofread the article and clean up the prose? Thanks, Hobbesy3 02:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am very happy to see a section on Salinger's writing, but I am a little concerned about the sources you used for it. As you seem knowledgeable about Salinger, though, perhaps you could explain your choices. Harold Bloom, for example, is a Romanticist (his most famous book is probably The Anxiety of Influence). I am not sure why one would use his material on Salinger. He publishes a lot of material for the public in his role as a public intellectual, but it is not taken seriously within the academic community. I would not guess that Bloom's work would accurately represent Salinger scholarship. There are articles and books written by Salinger scholars, are there not? Why not rely on those? I would be willing to proofread the article if I were sure that it was written from the best sources. I don't want to proofread something that is going to have to be entirely rewritten, if you see my point. (You can also request a copy edit from the League of Copyeditors - they have a special section for articles at FAC.) Awadewit | talk 03:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The book you've mentioned actually wasn't written by Harold Bloom; it's an anthology of critical and biographical pieces on Salinger, edited and with a brief introduction by Bloom. (He did this for authors writing in a wide range of genres, from Maya Angelou to Tennessee Williams.) The three pieces from the book that I've referenced are: a short biography of Salinger and two essays originally published in literary magazines. I've reformatted the article's references so it's clear they're sourcing pieces in an anthology. (Bloom, of course, is still the one who selected those articles; but is he truly not taken seriously by the entire academic community? Wasn't he nominated for a National Book Award?) Are any of the other sources problematic? (In my mind, The New Yorker and NY Review of Books are as notable as you get.) If you're asking for more criticism of Salinger's works, I feel as if the article now has at least as much well-sourced critical evaluation as, say, the FA on J. R. R. Tolkien, and the reality is that the majority of the response to Salinger's work was popular and cultural—as described in the sections on Catcher's release, and Salinger's literary influence—and not critical. Thanks for the copyedit link! Hobbesy3 04:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, yes I know those Bloom books. Some of them are good and some of them are not - you really have to already know the scholarship to know whether or not the collection adequately represents Salinger scholarship. What is interesting is that you have chosen not to reference any of the literary scholarship from that book, so that is still missing from your article. There is a separation between what critics who write for The New Yorker and scholars who do research and work in universities say about Salinger. Their writings are based on entirely different premises (scholars present less personal opinion in their work than critics, for example). As a general rule, it is best to think about critics' writing as part of Salinger's reception - part of the historical record - and scholars' writing as a researched commentary on Salinger's writing and his reception. Literary scholarship, articles published in peer-reviewed journals and books published by academic presses, should be the basis of any section on the literary aspects of a writer's career. Wikipedia policy states that articles rely on expert secondary sources (WP:OR#Sources); in the case of literature, that is scholars. Critics can almost be considered primary sources. Awadewit | talk 10:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • A lot of what Bloom has published for the public is fluff of the worst kind and perpetuates ideas that have long ago been overturned inside the academia. Books like The Western Canon do not sit well with most of us anymore. By the way, the National Book Award doesn't mean anything within the academy. If you look at what books win it, they are not stunning works of scholarship in a particular discipline. The MLA has its own awards which are actually much more prestigious within the academy than a National Book Award. National Book Awards suggest a level of popularization that appeals to public intellectuals (something I approve of) but not always to the discipline itself. A brilliant book on the novel in the eighteenth century, for example, might not appeal to a large section of the public, but it can still help those who study the novel to think about the genre in new ways. Am I making myself clear here? Awadewit | talk 10:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would agree that your article and the Tolkien article are comparable, but I think that the Tolkien article is lacking - I would not have passed it (note also that it passed FA a while ago - there has apparently been a recent raising of standards for FA). One of the problems with FA is that the reviewers don't always know anything about the subject matter of the articles they are reviewing - sometimes an article can look well-sourced, even if it is not. That may have been what happened with Tolkien. I know that there are reams of Tolkien scholarship that should have been drawn on for that article. Examples of FA biographies of writers that include references to literary scholarship include: Mary Wollstonecraft, Anna Laetitia Barbauld, and Sarah Trimmer. You might also look at William Shakespeare, which recently failed FAC, partly because the kinds of sources it was using in the "Authorship" section were unreliable. I don't know if that problem as been fixed or not, but you will be able to see the kinds of sources that were used; the page did not pass even though it had all of those other well-sourced sections because one section was poorly executed (among other things, but that was the main issue). Awadewit | talk 10:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Fair enough. I am working on gathering peer-reviewed journal articles about Salinger (the trouble, as the one recently-written journal article I could find explained, is that most of the scholarship on Salinger was done in the 60s and 70s and has fallen off as of late--so those older ones are a little tougher to find.) Give me a few days. Thanks, Hobbesy3 20:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:11, 7 July 2007.

Love. Angel. Music. Baby.

[edit]

previous FAC

I feel that this article has learnt a lot from the previous oppositions which were made when it was perviously nominated for FAC.This article has seen a massive expansion and a flood of sources.The grammar problems have also been dealt with and on top of that,it is a featured topic and 4 singles from the album are already FAC.So i feel that its the albums turn now.Please leave your comments.All are welcome. User:Luxurious.gaurav

  • Weak oppose I don't think that all of the issues have been adequately addressed yet, and I can still see how the tone comes off as "wide-eyed and fawning", as Geogre put it at the last FAC. It has improved some, but I don't think it's FAC material yet. It also doesn't address the impact that the album had on popular music. ShadowHalo 18:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it necessary that all albums should have an impact on popular music?And if it does not, then can't the album article be made featured?And as the reader reads through the article, he/she gets and idea that the album brought back 1980's style of music back in mainstream.So i don't think that this can be a major concern.User:Luxurious.gaurav
The reader gets the idea that this album is influenced by 1980s music. The article doesn't say anything about its role, if any, in the 1980s retro movement and the impact it made on popular music. Not all albums have an impact on popular music, but I know this album did, and the article should reflect that, just in the same way that I'm sure the Hilary Duff article would need to include how her career impacted teen pop to make FA. ShadowHalo 17:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that this album really had an impact on popular music, then that is your personal thinking.Impacts of albums should be so distinctive that it is worth mentioning.If you think that this album had an impact, then there will be many people who think it didn't.So it can be an objectionable thing to put up in the article.Impact of an album should be so strong, that other albums released after this album are influenced by that album.I don't think that the 1980's type of music was again used in albums released after Love.Angel.Music.Baby.User:Luxurious.gaurav
It's not just my opinion that it had an impact on popular music; that would be original research. There are sources out there saying that this album paved the way for Fergie's solo career and Nelly Furtado's comeback. Without including the impact that this album had on other music, I can't consider it comprehensive, and I can't support it for FA. ShadowHalo 19:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems i am getting your point.I am working on it now.Thank you so much for your guidance.User:Luxurious.gaurav
I have put up the impact section.Please have a look.User:Luxurious.gaurav
  • Minor concern. From a cursory glance for aesthetics, I conclude that the article is not in bad shape. I think everything up to "Track listing" is wonderful (everything, being picture choice/placement, the use of the audio samples box, and definitely the amount of citations). "Track listing" and beyond, however, needs some major aesthetic work, because it just appears to be a pile of all the stuff that people couldn't put into the body. If I get around to looking at the content of the article, I will report back here, but just from a quick view, if you could fix this problem you might get some more support for the FAC. └Jared┘┌t┐  18:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the things beyond Track Listings are things which are meant to be like that and has been that way always on wikipedia.It is this way how references are put.As far as Production part is concerned,it is bound to be a bit shabby because of the huge number of producers and collaborators on the album, of which we get a lot of idea while we read the article.User:Luxurious.gaurav
Most of those FAs you've named I don't find particularly strong, they're way too listy and shouldn't have been passed. Furthermore, I do not think a production section is common for an article about an album or song - it's used, but it's rather redundant and unncessary. LuciferMorgan 23:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, most of our featured album articles (including both hip hop ones, where like pop, production plays a fundamental role) have the section. It's hard to argue that the section is simply something that the reviewers missed, and I've seen it requested in one FAC. ShadowHalo 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is wikipedia's job to give proper information to viewers.We can't omit names of producers.That can be very controvesial and not fair.User:Luxurious.gaurav
I disagree. The section makes the article listy, and pop articles have a bad habit of being overly listy. It's even worse in the hip hop ones. LuciferMorgan 01:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then can you mention some other alternative for it.If we experiment, then it might go against the trend and oppositions will flood in.User:Luxurious.gaurav
  • Strong Support It's one of the best articles I've ever read. It's easy to understand (even for people who know almost nothing about Gwen Stefani like me), the pictures are good, it's well-written and well-organized, lots of references and neutral. Armando.Otalk • Ev 00:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The prose is OK, but:
    • Fails the requirement for a professional standard of formatting in the poor use of links. Opening sentence: why are album and American (piped to US) linked. Such arcan terms, we really need to interrupt our reading experience to look them up. Why not pipe the link directly to "2004", thus avoiding the parentheses? Do we really need "shit" linked? It's pretty heavily imbued with valuable, so I'd sift through the whole article and remove the silly ones, like the names of common countries. It looks messy and is harder to read when it's so spattered with blue. And only one link, please; I notice "What you waiting for" twice in two successive sections (yet others are not linked on subsequent appearance).
We are fortunate enough that we know the meaning of albums and American. But it is wikipedia's way. This article follows the way Adore is written. User:Luxurious.gaurav
No. It's not Wikipedia's way to link words like American and France, unless there is actually a chance that the links will be of use in the context. This article needs to be brought into line with Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context; and if Adore is full of of distracting low-value links, then it's not a model to follow, but needs to be overhauled as well. Bishonen | talk 10:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
OK, Done that.User:Luxurious.gaurav
    • The density of reference numbers in places weakens the flow of the text and is quite unnecessary. Lyrical content, for example, has one at the end of every sentence, some of them consecutive repetitions. Hate it.
Your views are respected, but we can't ignore sourcing things. When we source things, then it a problem, and when we don't , then there is a problem. If the reference numbers look like that then i think wikipedia administrators and graphic designers should be requested. I am helpless. I can't chenge the way reference numbers look. User:Luxurious.gaurav
Done that.Have a look at it.User:Luxurious.gaurav
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:11, 7 July 2007.

United States housing bubble

[edit]
previous fac

This article is independently getting very high praise and pointers from professionals in the blogosphere. E.g., here is Jonathan Miller at Matrix, "Housing Bubble Goes All Wikipedia On Us,"

Wikipedia adds an incredibly thorough entry on the whole housing bubble phenomenon called United States housing bubble. Hat tip to Calculated Risk.

It lays out much of the events associated with the end of the recent housing boom. Its long, but its a good read.

Here are some of the topics:

  • Controversy
  • Mania for home ownership
  • Widespread belief that housing is a risk-free, growth investment
  • Popularity of home purchasing in the media
  • Speculative purchases of homes
  • Crash of the dot-com bubble
  • Historically low interest rates
  • Differential relationship between interest rates and affordability
  • Interest-only and adjustable rate mortgages
  • Predictions and status of a market correction

Its makes a pretty strong argument for Wikipedia as a resource.

[italics added]. I think this independent blog entry by a professional real estate analyst pretty much says it all. Since these comments have been made, this ongoing story has evolved with the correction of the U.S. housing bubble, including the subprime mortgage collapse and the reaction of the U.S. Senate, and the spread of the subprime problems into near prime mortgages. No one knows how long or how far housing will fall, but history shows that no one should be surprised if this story continues for a decade or more. Waiting a decade for the last part of this history to be written is not in keeping with the "wiki" in Wikipedia, so I'd like to propose that this article appear as a featured article now. It's received much independent praise, it satisfies Wiki's FA criteria, and it's a very timely article on a hugely important subject. Frothy 19:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A sidenote - I'd like to add, regarding this article's first FAC nom, in all the years I've been FA director, that FAC nom was probably the one I hated to fail the most. Raul654 19:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you out there who have yet to read (or haven’t read lately) the Wikipedia page dedicated to the United States Housing Bubble, I would strongly recommend that you do so.

To say that the page is thorough would be an understatement.

It has been meticulously edited and formatted with many of the most compelling and pertinent data including housing cost and P/E analysis, charts, and discussion on the media and overall cultural factors that influenced the housing mania along with an abundance of exacting footnotes.

It is truly a living document dedicated to what may, in the end, be one of the most compelling stories of our time.

Thanks Frothy (and to the others) who have done such a superb job authoring this great Wiki page over the last nine months.

As noted above, this article now contains several huge new developments in this subject since that time. Frothy 19:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done on Time magazine cover because fair use covers illustration of "the publication of the issue of the magazine in question"—the appearance of this cover is cited as the peak of the bubble. Also,
 Done on Lereah Book Cover #1 because fair use covers "an article discussing the book in question", which the United States housing bubble does explicitly.
 Done on Lereah Book Cover #2 because fair use covers "an article discussing the book in question", which the United States housing bubble does explicitly.
Frothy 21:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frothy, if I understand Bluedog423's comment correctly, the request is for fairuse rationales to be added to the images themselves. See This Is The Sea image for an example; it is used in This Is the Sea, and there is a statement of fair use at the image page itself. Mike Christie (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article is very important as it identifies major economic factors in the lives of millions of our readers using top quality sources and explanations. As a example of wikipedia article making it is top notch. Frothy has done a wonderful job and many others have helped. WAS 4.250 21:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Despite excellent relevance and references, the first and most important criteria for featured article status is good writing. This article goes off on tangents regarding the collapse of subprime and alt-A without really describing what these are let alone why these matter. Some of this content needs to be split off into other pages or presented differently. The section that refers to rising interest rates seems genuinely misleading to me as it hypes the "blood bath" angle without bringing up the fact that interest rates are historically low, which oddly enough would support the bubble hypothesis. The remarks about proposed bail outs are extremely serious, but appear to be addressed here with a total lack of seriousness and even levity. Specifically, what Rep. Schumer and others have proposed is important, but described here in an intentionally misleading way. Do you want to have a featured article or a political campaign? You have to choose one or the other because you cannot have both! -- M0llusk 22:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what to make of your comments. Senator Schumer's proposal is discussed in the following context:

    "Moreover, Democratic senators such as Senator Charles Schumer of New York are already proposing a federal government bailout of subprime borrowers in order to save homeowners from losing their residences. Opponents of such proposal assert that government bailout of subprime borrowers is not in the best interests of the U.S. economy because it will simply set a bad precedent, create a moral hazard, and worsen the speculation problem in the housing market. [cited]"

    How could anyone think that does this lacks seriousness or contains levity?! How can you say that these statements constitute a political campaign?
  • And there's an entire section on low interest rates called "Historically low interest rates" explaining their relevance to the bubble. The fact that interest rates are rising is logically relevant to the section in which this subsection appears, "Status of housing market correction", whether or not rates are historically low.
  • Therefore, contrary to what you have said, the examples you cite show the article is well written. Frothy 23:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The proposal by Schumer is not progressing. I think it was withdrawn, but in any case there is no serious risk of a bailout plan going anywhere. According to this account there is an active proposal being pursued that might result in a bail out. The reality is that Schumer's plan got shot down hard. The only proposals that are making progress are those that provide a way to resolve exploding loans for homes that banks don't actually want to take back and may have been fraudulent in the first place. This section has heavy handed political points of view with little practical information. As it is written the purpose is clearly to distort, not to accurately reveal.
    • The section on rising interest rates at the end is an incoherent mess. Interest rates go up, therefore home prices fall? NO! That depends on many other factors. Then we have a Great Depression? That was driven in part by industrial and economic collapse in Europe. Is Europe currently in a state of industrial and economic collapse? So this time we get all the way to a Great Depression just through interest rates going up? Then there are some remarks about subprime funds blowing up. With more information about context that might be interesting, but wrongly valued funds blow up all the time. Exactly how rising interest rates were the sole factor causing house prices to lower thereby causing subprime funds to blow up is not sufficiently established. Maybe the rising interest rate section should discuss interest rates instead of immediately levering a weak conclusion about the relationship with house prices? And the blood bath rhetoric is inflammatory and entirely unhelpful. What blood? Who bathes? You aren't making any sense!
    • Why is there a "status of alt-a" section? That information has no direct relevance. The macroeconomics would spell bubble with or without any "alt-a" distinction. Is it a bubble or isn't it? All of these controversies can be solved by splitting out stuff. Make a Legislative Responses section and split the bailout paranoia to that if you are serious. Make sections for the details of the run up and the correction if you want to talk about alt-a. In any case, I still think this article is a mess with confusing information and stuff that does not belong. -- M0llusk 04:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have confused what the article says with what people quoted in the article say. In the case of the "blood bath" quote that concerns you, this is the opinion (unambiguously represented as such) of a PIMCO executive, an opinion that carries significant weight, coming as it does for an executive of an organization having US$0.64 Trillion in assets under their management, and whose influence in the MBS/CDO markets cannot be underestimated. Please take it up with them, not with us—whether you like it or not, this is a highly relevant opinion for housing, which is directly affected by these mortgage markets. Frothy 12:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose All of this time at FAC and between FACs, and the first issues raised still haven't been addressed. Please see WP:MSH regarding section headings (shortening them, avoiding repeition, and correct capitalization). The article has almost as much content in footnotes as in the article, and extensively relies on quotes. The article still has stubby sections: "Crash of the dot-com bubble" is two sentences. If it warrants a section, the content should be expanded. Please see WP:LAYOUT wrt See also—relevant links should be incorporated into the text to the extent possible. A red link in See also ??? If we remove the lengthy footnotes, quotes, and See also, how much content is left? The concerns from the first FAC remain. The lengthy footnotes give the impression that the text isn't well written, and that much of that content should be included in the article. Footnotes are still not correctly formatted (please see WP:CITE/ES for examples). External links is a link farm and should be pruned per WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:NOT. Would you mind not cluttering FAC with those boxes—FACs aren't promoted based on flashy marketing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SandyGeorgia, your comments about the reference format are simply wrong. These notes conform to The Chicago Manual of Style’s format, which states:

    Quotation within a note. When a note includes a quotation, the source normally follows the terminal punctuation of the quotation. The entire source need not be put in parentheses, which involves changing existing parentheses to brackets and creating unnecessary clutter.

    This is entire consistent with Wikipedia's policy Wikipedia:Citing_sources. Frothy 19:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that's not a fair account. We addressed all of these: the annotated footnotes were, by consensus, felt to be essential in a subjective controversial article such as this; and the links to relevant blogs quoted by major news organizations are also essential—not the "link farm" you call them. I could go on, but instead I invite anyone to review the record to see that these subjects have been discussed at length and resolved by consensus, a consensus with which you obviously disagree. Others continue to go out of their way to praise this article. From designing better futures:

wikipedia article on the house price bubble. It is surprisignly thorough and filled with data.

From Mr. Moderate:

Wikipedia has an excellent article on the housing bubble in the United States. I can’t recommend it highly enough.

Frothy 00:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Fair use of the magazine covers seems a bit questionable to me. In Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Examples_of_unacceptable_use, #7 says that using a cover merely because it depicts the subject is not acceptable. Since a cover is usually connected with an article, using a cover merely because the issue contains a relevant article doesn't seem much different. As I understand it, fair use of a magazine cover only works if the cover itself is notable, such as the 2006 Time Person of the Year cover, or the cover art itself is discussed critically. Gimmetrow 03:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the fair use rationale: "the appearance of this cover is cited as the peak of the bubble." The cover is not used incidentally; it manifestly conforms fair use policy as it is used in the article because it's appearance shows a mania for home ownership in the U.S., as explained explicitly in that section. Frothy 09:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article."
It's used in at least one article (because 1≥1), so it qualifies.
I referenced "unacceptable use #7", not "fair use criteria #7". Gimmetrow 22:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"8. Significance. Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot."
The use of this magazine cover to illustrate the mania for homes in 2005 contributes significantly to the article in ways that words cannot, hence it qualifies.
Your objections just appear to be grousing and do not withstand the scrutiny of the reading of fair use policy. Frothy 20:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how the magazine and book covers significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic more than words alone. Please explain, precisely, what would be lacking to the article if, say, three of these four images were removed? Or all four? Unacceptable use #7 says
An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the Wikipedia article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if that cover itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then "fair use" may apply
This is illustrating a topic rather than a person, but otherwise seems very similar. Gimmetrow 22:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Asked at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Use_of_magazine_covers_to_illustrate_a_topic. Gimmetrow 02:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the use of non-free images in this article, all of them seem to be unacceptable. The magazine covers themselves are not significant (I can understand the text just as well without their inclusion -- see WP:NFCC #8). Ditto for the book covers, which are only there for the purposes of identification (the sentence "The book was published in 2005 and again in 2006 with a different title" is not really critical commentary). Lastly, the WaPo "bubble bench" photo is a clear violation of NFCC #2 as well as #8. The article doesn't discuss the bench at all or what is so important about this specific photo (as opposed to other possibly obtainable free photos of the bench). By not using the bench photo in a transformative manner, we are potentially encroaching on the WaPo's commercial opportunities -- in other words, any other media outlet that was publishing an article or book about the housing bubble would probably have to license the photo from the WaPo; why should Wikipedia be exempt? howcheng {chat} 16:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - very confusing to read for the layperson. This is a good start, but the topic needs to be laid out in a clearer way. The lead section, and the article, uses the term "bubble" a lot, without ever really explaining what a bubble is. There are links to various other articles, but most readers will have to go and read those articles first to have a chance of understanding this one. Wikipedia articles should link to other articles, but they should also be self-contained to a large degree. It is very annoying to have to break off and go and read another article before coming back to this one. One final point, the article doesn't seem to have a proper ending or conclusion. It seems to end in mid-air, with the rest of the story left untold. Either pick a cut-off date and stick to it, moving the recent "news" stuff to a new article, or wait until the story is finished before writing the article. Carcharoth 13:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you simply read the fair use rational under this image itself? Frothy 19:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter suggestion? Instead of being antagonistic about this, how about you modify the fair use rationale to be something more akin the format we have come to expect here? Example: Image:AcornComputersLtdLogo.jpg. We do not need a several pages long fair use rationale. Forgive me that I didn't read pages on pages of this rationale. --Durin 22:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The existence of the blog photo shows that the use here is replaceable, but where do you see that the blog photo is freely licensed? Gimmetrow 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Beneath the image on the blog it says "The image can be freely copied to other sites as long as credit is given to this blog" While that is not a specific release under a specific free license, it's highly likely that the rights holder could be contacted to clarify the release license. --Durin 16:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, don't know how I missed that. I think it might be good if someone contacted the blog about releasing the image under a license allowing derivative works, such as CC-by-SA. Gimmetrow 16:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:PHX inventory July2005-March2006.png says source is from Arizona Regional Multiple Listing Service, yet Frothy claims rights to release (and releases). Conflict of rights here.
  • Many of these problematic images were uploaded by User:Frothy. I'd recommend a thorough review of all of his image uploads.
  • Also, the scrolling box for the "References and notes" section is very unappealing. Further, when you attempt to print this article that section does not print properly due to the scrolling box. --Durin 13:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These criticisms are absurd—as it states clearly on all their respective pages, I generated these plots myself based on the publically available sourced data, then released the copyrights of this "particular expression of an idea or information" under the appropriate copyright license. And how can you say that the other images have no fair use rationale when such is given explicitly and unambiguously on their pages??! I ask you to retract these all these unsupported claims unless you can back them up with explicit criticisms using the language provided on each page. Frothy 18:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps my language above was a bit abrupt with regards to your image contributions. Nevertheless, the points remain. You claim that there are valid fair use rationales for the images where I said there are not. With respect, you are incorrect. Take for example Image:Time Magazine June 13 2005 Cover.jpg. This image does have a fair use rationale, but it is not a valid fair use rationale as it is not indicative of how this image contributes significantly to this particular article. All images must have a fair use rationale for each use. Please see our policy on this at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #10(c). So, the fair use rationales as noted above need to all be updated to reflect how and why they contribute significantly to this particular article.
  • As to Image:Shiller IE2 Fig 2-1.png, I don't find my assertions here absurd. You've indicated on the upload that the original copyright holder has released rights under GFDL (since it's not gfdl-self). Yet, there's nothing on the image to indicate this release or on the image's discussion page. Further, the existence of Image:Barrons shiller 06-20-2005.gif as being marked as a copyrighted image is in conflict with your GFDL assertion. Since my position is, by your account, absurd on this would you be so kind as to provide the GFDL release from Robert Shiller or his designated agent? That would be most helpful to clear this up.
  • As to Image:EconomistHomePrices20050615.jpg in the image description you state "I recreated this image from the original graphic" A recreation from an original counts as a derivative work. As such, not all rights transfer to you, and the magazine The Economist retains rights to this graph. Could you please contact them and obtain release of their rights to this image under a free license? Instructions for doing so are at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.
  • With the book covers, the information on them is replaceable by text. Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #8 states that images must "increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot" The titles of these books are already discussed in the article, and that's what is relevant about the book covers, not the artwork or anything else on them...just the titles. Thus, text can reasonably replace the use here.
  • With Image:WaPo Bubble Bench.png, I demonstrated how a free license image of the same bench is most likely available, making this image replaceable fair use. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #1. Thus, this image fails that criteria.
  • And lastly, with Image:PHX inventory July2005-March2006.png there is indeed a conflict of sources. You indicate release of the image, but also indicate the source is Arizona Regional Multiple Listing Service. Which is it? Alternatively, if you mean the *data* is from them, the source needs to be clarified to indicate that.
  • These are not absurd issues. They are real issues that need to be address to bring these images into compliance with our policies here. This is why I made the assertion as above; if you believe these images are correct, then indeed an evaluation of all your image uploads might be helpful to clear up other problems. --Durin 19:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more time: I created these plots from numbers given in the sources cited. You can't copyright numbers. You can only copyright their representation, and as stated on these pages already, I released the copyright to the representations of these numbers that I myself created. I rewrote the wording of this release to make it extra special clear to people. As for the WaPo photo, I requested, but did not obtain, permission to get this article from the blog you mentioned. Therefore, this image from the WaPo is the only one available and constitutes fair use for the reasons provided on this page. I also clarified the rationale for the Time cover, which clearly qualifies under the language provided in it's copyright statement. They and the book covers are used to illustrate the mania for home purchases in the press, which constitutes fair use. Frothy 20:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks for pointing that out. Frothy 21:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
US copyright law certainly can apply to numbers, and if the data from which you constructed your graph was copyrighted, then you need their permission to represent that data in your graph. If the only copyright is on the Economist's graph, then you're in the clear. johnpseudo 21:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the copyright article before venturing forth on this subject: "Compilations of facts or data may also be copyrighted, but such a copyright is thin; it only applies to the particular selection and arrangement of the included items, not to the particular items themselves." Frothy 21:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)©[reply]
  • I have Shiller's original plot in front of me, and, in spite of "slight differences", Barron's plot is essentially the same, whether or not we shoose to call it "derivative". It's the same data set that Shiller published—he represented it one way, and his plot is copyrighted, Barron's represented it in a slightly different way and their plot is copyrighted, I represented a slightly different way yet, and released the copyright on my representation. It's that simple. The fact that you can identify that it's a different representation of the same data is all that's necessary. Frothy 12:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you generated a new plot, with your own colors, format, etc. that would be one thing. In this case, the plot you generated is virtually identical to the copyrighted one. That constitutes a derivative work. No, you can not copyright fact. You can copyright the format of the presentation of those facts. Some companies have entirely geometric designs for their logos. You can't copyright a circle. But, the format of that circle with other geometric designs can create a copyrightable work. Such is the case here. What you've created is a virtual clone of the original copyrighted data. This makes it a derivative work, and as such the original copyright holders retain rights. --Durin 14:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Cartesian plot of data is not copyrightable. For your argument to have force, there would have to be something distinctive in Barron's representation of this data that was copied, and there simply isn't. No one can copyright the representation "I used a red curve for such-and-such XY data and a blue curve for another." As you observed, the representations of the data are different, and therefore one's copyright does not apply to the other. Frothy 15:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry you feel that way. I'll be placing your version of the image for deletion as a copyright violation sometime in the next week. There isn't any reason to be treading this deeply into grey area vis-a-vis copyright concerns. --Durin 02:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I see no reason why this wouldn't be a featured article. This article is certainly much more detailed than Wikipedia articles about other economic bubbles, such as the dot-com bubble. I pretty much echo what all the supporters of the article have said. I disagree Carcharoth; this article should be very easy to understand to the layperson, especially if you read the article in its entirety. Of course it seems to end in mid-air, because this event is still ongoing and will most likely be updated with new information over the next couple of years as the situation plays itself out. It doesn't mean that an article shouldn't be written about it. However, it is made abundantly clear that the housing bubble is still in the process of bursting. In the intro it describes what a bubble is in the first place before going into very detailed explanations about how the housing bubble came to be. Great info about the role of subprime mortgages and how they contributed to the bubble. Clinevol98 15:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Citations are needed for all the financial calculations on the right. What does "N" stand for in the "Differential relationship between interest rates and affordability" section? Prose problems:
  1. "markedly declining 2006 market data, including...rising inventories" (declining = rising?)
  2. "deny the existence" (POV choice of words)
  3. "citing consistently rising prices since the Great Depression" (awkward)
  4. "expected increasing demand by the Baby Boom generation" (awkward)
  5. "The investment motive for purchasing homes should not be conflated with the necessity of shelter that housing provides" (I don't think it means conflated, but I don't know what it does mean)
  6. "The manager of the world's largest bond fund PIMCO, warned in June 2007 that the subprime mortgage crisis was not an isolated event and will eventually take a toll on the economy and whose ultimate impact will be on the impaired prices of homes." (weird comma and awkward end of sentence)
  7. The "The bursting of the 2001–2006/7 US housing bubble" and "The Subprime Mortgage Industry Collapse and Senate Hearings" sections are much too long, wordy, poorly illustrated, and have no flow- they seem to just be a LONG list of separate facts, events, and quotes. johnpseudo 16:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the article itself:

Assuming a home cost of P dollars, yearly interest rate r fixed over N years, …

Yes, rising inventories are generally indicative of a declining market. And how can it possibly be POV to write that someone denies the existence of something when they say explicitly that they deny it's existence?! The use of conflated is correct; please consult a dictionary. Frothy 18:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By referring to "the existence" of a housing market bubble in the phrase "deny the existence", you are writing from the point of view that a bubble exists. A more NPOV way of phrasing is to say "deny that a bubble exists". I have consulted a dictionary (conflation- blend: mix together different elements). The sentence in the article is "The investment motive for purchasing homes should not be conflated with the necessity of shelter that housing provides; an economic comparison of the relative costs of owning versus renting the equivalent utility of shelter can be made separately." At the very minimum, the use of the word "conflate" is inaccessible and ambiguous. In the last half of the sentence (which presumably is telling us how NOT to conflate the two), the investment motive is still "blended" with the necessity of shelter- in fact, the "economic comparison" being suggested seems to consider the two simultaneously. johnpseudo 19:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I see what you mean about "declining"- I guess you mean to say "data of a declining market", but it is currently structured to read "market data which is declining", which is contradictory to "rising inventories"- an example of data which is NOT declining. johnpseudo 19:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
johnpseudo, I deny the existence of leprechauns. Is that POV, or written from the perspective of someone who believes in their existence? Frothy 19:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making the claim that the meaning of the words is any different. I'm just saying that the word 'denial' draws to mind unintended psychological connotations when the words 'disagree' or 'dispute' would do just as well. johnpseudo 19:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(section break)

  • Comment. I was asked to comment on United States housing bubble and am submitting these comments in response to that request. I do not know much about this topic, so my comments reflect the naive reader. I am not an economist or real estate mogul.

The article seems well-referenced, mainly to popular news sources. Since the article covers a current event, the lack of academic studies on it is understandable. My overall opinion is that it is a good article that would be easier to absorb if some of the tangential material was cut, putting more clear focus on the existence and timing of the bubble per se. The article lead speaks of the bubble as an assumed fact, using terms like "This bubble is..." but the text of the article says that there is controversy about the existence of this bubble. It may be good to summarize the controversy in the lead.

The graphic used at the top credits Robert Shiller, and I see that there has been controversy on the talk page related to this graphic. Since I had never heard of him before, his name did not ring a bell and I was unsure why he was being mentioned until after reading the article. Is there a more institutional source for this information rather than citing one economist?

The section '"Controversy over the existence of a housing bubble" includes other material such as the collapse of the subprime market that does not seem to directly relate to the question of the existence of the bubble. Probably these things connect, but for the non-specialist it seems that we must put it all together in some way that is not clear. The section does not have clear quotes that are current stating that no bubble exists (or existed). Instead there are statements that continue to assume the existence of a bubble such as "Based on markedly declining 2006 market data, including lower sales, rising inventories, falling median prices, and increased foreclosure rates, some economists have concluded that the correction in the U.S. housing market began in 2006." I did not see any statement clearly denying the existence of a bubble. The section on "Status of housing market correction" held my attention much more than the sections that precede it, and this section seems to settle the question of the existence of the bubble in favor of believing that there was one. I think this section should be moved up to follow the lead, with the analysis sections following it.

The section title "The bursting of the 2001–2006/7 US housing bubble" conflicts with the Timeline section, which lists "2005-ongoing" as "market correction". Pick one or the other cutoff date and make the section titles map to the timeline. The word mania, as in the section "Mania for home ownership" is a loaded term that left me wondering about bias in the article. I would prefer to see a more neutral term used. The citation for "mania" appears to be one article in Time magazine, which does not seem sufficient to make such a general statement about a societal attitude. The use of weasel words such as "it is also widely believed" (that home values will yield average or better-than-average returns as investments) with no citation for this statement are suspect.

I did not understand why the sidebar "Approximate cost to own mortgaged property vs. renting." detail was in the article, used as supporting detail for refutation for the idea that home ownership is a guaranteed road to wealth. The article is about the existence of a housing bubble in the United States, and this seems extraneous to that point. The information in that sidebar is unsourced, contains a math formula that I find incomprehensible, and may or may not reflect an accurate economic model of the issue it claims to summarize. What is the source, and why is it needed here?

The sidebar for "Equivalent price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio for homes" seems somewhat more relevant and is cited to Fortune magazine, which seems like a plausible source.

The section on "Historically low interest rates" includes several unsourced sentences detailing the math issues, which made me glaze over. I would have preferred to have a simple summary of the point, with a citation to a WP:RS.

The sidebar on "Differential relationship between interest rates and affordability", which contains math which I cannot understand, takes up a lot of space. I would prefer a one-sentence summary of whatever point the material is making.

The information on "Subprime, interest-only, adjustable rate, and stated income mortgages" also seems to be going into a lot of detail that does not directly pertain to the existence of a bubble. I would prefer to read about that issue as a detailed article, and just a short summary in this article explaining what these are relevant to the bubble question. For each sentence in this section, ask: What does this have to do with the bubble issue?

In the section "The Subprime Mortgage Industry Collapse and Senate Hearings" the quote from Bill Gross is just too long, giving disproportionate weight to his views, which are unencyclopedic in tone.I does not read like objective analysis, it reads like a polemic. I would expect a refutation to balance something like this. His use of sexist language such as "hooker heels" and "good looking girls" left me somewhat offended.

I did not check the references closely, but at least some of them appears to be blogs, e.g. [34] , [35]. Blogs are not considered as WP:RS. I would enforce a hard-line policy of getting rid of all links to blogs and self-published web sites. I understand that some blogs are very useful, but credibility of the article will improve if you avoid them. If something is important you would expect to be able to find a reference to it in a WP:RS.

Joint Center for Housing Studies, Kara Homes, and Mark Zandi are red links, which I dislike seeing. Buddhipriya 22:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Fair use rationales for magazine covers are invalid. The article does not lose anything by replacing the images with the text "The appearance of a cover story on the bubble on Time Magazine was taken as a sign of its peak." etc. Valid use of magazine cover would be, for instance using the O.J. simpson Time photo here to illustrate the controversy when Time Magazine darkened Simpsons' portrait on the cover. With the flimsy rationale given here for the Time and Economist covers, virtually every Time cover would be valid. Borisblue 00:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments.

(1) Raul, why bother to have independent reviewers here at all? Why don't you just sit in isolated judgement, unmolested by these pesky people who insist on professional writing and complain about issues of logic and completeness, as I did last time this came up. Yet again, you compromise your position as director, since you are meant to be seen to make disinterested decisions about promotion at the end. You're spectacularly failing in this.

(2) Nominator: you might have succinctly pointed out the blog-approval, but these large, intrusive boxes shit reviewers and make you look defensive from the start. Let us judge with open minds, please.

I'll return later to review the article. Tony 14:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, in your first point, are you explicitly referring to Raul's comment: "in all the years I've been FA director, that FAC nom was probably the one I hated to fail the most"? If so, I agree that that comment was unfortunate. It might be interesting to get an idea of what you think about the failed noms, but as the person who ultimately makes the final judgement, starting off with a comment like that may unduly influence things (either way). I certainly read the article with that comment in mind, but couldn't understand it. By the time I'd finished reading the article, I knew I would be opposing. Maybe it was partly because Raul's comment made me hypercritical? Who knows? Further discussion on the general point of this should probably be taken to a different venue. Carcharoth 16:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:11, 7 July 2007.

Target Corporation

[edit]

Well written, well sourced - very extensive --Trumpetband WIHTW? 19:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to first FAC nomination for convenience: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/archive1 on November 2005. Tuxide 03:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight oppose - three images need fair-use rationales, and I'm not sure that showing every historical logo really qualifies as "minimal use" since they aren't really central to any discussion within the article. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe Image:TargetLogo.png can be removed since I think merely showing it on the front of a unit in Kelly Martin's freely available photograph is good enough. I am wondering how to replace Image:Target logo (1968).png, however since it was only ever used on nine units prior to 1968. If there was a freely usable image of an old Target store using this logo, then this would be resolved. I've been meaning to ask the cofounder's son if he had one that he'd be willing to volunteer to us, for I think such an image would add greater value to the article than a fair use image of a logo. Tuxide 06:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight oppose - In addition to the problems cited by Eskog above, there is also the sponsorship section that has several uncited comments. Otherwise, the article is very well written and compelling. I look forward to seeing those two issues taken care of. Trusilver 19:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It used to be cited, and I don't know what happened to them. I'll see if I can see if I can restore the citations from an older version during this nom. Tuxide 21:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment i dont see the need for 2 images in the subsidiaries section Brent Ward
  • Comment This is Target Corporation's second FAC; previous nom on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/archive1 which was a year and a half ago. The article has improved greatly since then; [36] is the version that failed FAC. In my opinion, most of the issues brought up in the nomination were taken care of, but not all of them such as the size of the lead paragraph. Tuxide 03:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixes needed - Lead should be 2-3 paras and summarise points of article. Also, there is no mention of overseas in body of article (e.g. we have Target in Australia. how/why?). I'm not a fan of See also sections. In most cases they can be mentined and linked to in main text (in which case mention at the bottom is redundnat) or the link is obscure. All these, though, could be in body of text. I'll have another look when these are done. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Target in Australia has its own article (I believe it's Target. now). I don't know why there are there are Targets in Australia, but the two chains have absolutely no relation to each other. I believe Coles Group has acquired the rights to use the name and logo in Australia, but I don't know how or why. Target Corporation doesn't operate stores outside of the United States and that is clearly stated. There is also what is on the talk page. Regards, Tuxide 23:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK fair enough. Given that Wikipedia is worldwide, there needs to be clarification on the main article page - a brief section commneting on the name's use worldwide, otherwise simple omission could be seen as US-centric and fails comprehensiveness criteria. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody has already added this in, I'll see if I can find a citation for it. I believe the Coles Group has been using it since 1968, the same year the brandmark was made, so this could be informative. If I read your posts correctly, you mentioned having an entire "brief section" on international affairs, any idea what to name it? There are also comments on Talk:Target Corporation#Expansion as per FACfailed as per such a section. Tuxide 00:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I scanned through looking for an Australian ref the first time and totally missed it (typing 'overseas' and 'international' into cntrl-F but nevermind. Currently it has one sentence. This has to be expanded - how does copyright work here? Was there a squabble? Has there been any interaction? At least going to the Target Australia page and bringing in a litle info. Call it Target Australia' if this is the only country or Overseas if there are others. it doesn't have to be very long - I'd say 4-5 sentences minimum cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that I don't think such a section should be limited to the relation between just two companies. A corporate relations section could be informative if it included other companies. For example, Target Corporation has exclusive rights to sell brands such as Cherokee clothing and Hilary Duff's "Stuff" brand in the United States, but HBC's Zellers and the Coles Group Target sell the same brands in Canada and Australia respectively. I don't know what all relations Target Corp has with HBC, but from a North American point of view the relation between these two is more interesting. Another thing is that if we limited a section to just Target Corp and the Coles Group, I can't imagine it being any bigger than a paragraph, and I'm not a big fan of one paragraph sections. Tuxide 06:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that's just it, from a North American point of view. Deals between department store chains and clothing brands change from country to country and sometimes from state to state. I'd find it a fascinating insight into the value of corporate logos and profile to read about the details of leasing a high profile brand name and how it came about.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
North America is not a country, it's a continent but never mind that. Although I think expansion on this would be insightful—after all, the bullseye brandmark is one of the most recognizable logos in the world—I'm still not convinced that an entire section should be centered on Australia. This really sounds like part of an even bigger section like I said above, or it could possibly be thrown into Target Corporation#Subsidiaries under a new subsection since it deals with the Target Brands division. I'd have to find another featured corporate article to go off of and see how it's done there. Tuxide 18:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thinking laterally is good - essentially my Australian point is part of a bigger subject of brand and profile (and how much its worth etc.)..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIZE once referred me to Microsoft and Apple Inc. (when it was FA) as templates to use for articles within WP:RETAIL's scope. I like the TOC structure of the two of them; they have a Corporate affairs main section with something like Diversity, Logos and slogans, etc. as subsections. Currently, Target Corporation#History is way too big, and I know because I wrote most of it. Its contents can be separated into a Logos and slogans subsection, a Corporate governance subsection, etc. so that the History section only contains information on the parent company. The history about the chain expansion can be moved into Target Corporation#Target Stores (which can possibly be split from the main article). Then, the subsections can be expanded on; there is much about slogans that isn't said in the current article. Information on the brandmark agreement can go in here; I believe Dayton and Myer started using the current brandmark right on the same time (1968), and I don't know who came up with it first. Target Corporation uses Helvetica, but I don't know what the Australian wordmark uses or why they switched to that name. Tuxide 23:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good - given a logo is such a fundamental part of brand recognition it makes sense it should have its own section. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Fails the requirement for professional formatting in the ridiculous linking of simple years. Fails 1a (poor prose) and 2 (MOS breaches). Needs copy-editing throughout, preferably by someone who's unfamiliar with it.
  • The infobox and the Contents box are just so cluttered. Awful. Infoboxes weren't originally designed for use at the top; we'd much prefer a photo.
    • Any ideas for headings? I really see this as two articles in one: An article about the parent company and one about its main retailing subsidiary; thus I don't personally consider this article stable. I don't know what you would have an image of here, Microsoft has its infobox on the top and it's a featured article. This is an article about an organization, after all. Tuxide 23:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix periods at the end of captions (see MOS). Some captions are way too long. Move some info into the main text.
  • "went back to"—It's not wrong, but is just inelegant and informal in this register. "returned".
  • Redundant alsos all over the place.
  • Remove USD after the first occurrence, please. We know by then. In any case, the "D" is redundant.
  • "carrying goods over multiple years"—"Multiple" is not the right word here.
  • " In 1973, Stephen Pistner, who had already revived Team Electronics and would later do the same to Montgomery Ward and Ames, was named chief executive officer of the Target chain, and Kenneth A. Macke was named the chain's senior vice president." "Do the same TO"—informal and clumsy. Remove "the chain's".
    • Fixed my sloppy wordage that I keep putting off. "the chain" is now "Target Stores". I don't know which is correct here: "Target Stores's" or "Target Stores'" since it is the name of the subsidiary and not pluralized. Tuxide 23:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "24 unit chain"—You MUST have a hyphen here. Tony 16:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:11, 7 July 2007.

Sale, Greater Manchester

[edit]

previous FAC

I believe this article passes the FA criteria. Epbr123 13:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two opposes in the previous FAC were based on comments written on another FAC you had submitted at the same time. I have no idea what FAC that was, so I can only ask you this: have you cleared up the issues raised by SandyGeorgia? DevAlt 13:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have. I have fixed the problems with wikilinking and the sources. Epbr123 13:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't yet checked this article, but yes, Epbr cleared up my objections on the three other articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to provide the page numbers of book sources as they were found by other users. I have contacted the users, asking them to provide the numbers. Epbr123 13:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was the one who provided the sources, as I borrowed the books from my local library the page numbers will take time, which at the moment I do not have but fully intend to find. I think that the page numbers are a very minor issue that should not prevent this article becoming FA. I should point out that I am not impartial as I have heavily editted this article but I believe it meets the FA criteria. Nev1 15:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Questions/Concerns:
    • The History section stops at WWII.
    • Some of the information listed in the census table is repeated in the body of the text. Also, some is repeated in the Religion section (weak section, might make a good paragraph in the Demographics section, though).
    • What does the Fair Use logo Image:Sale FC logo.jpg add to the article that cannot go in the text?
    • Who provide Sale with utilities, such as drinking water, sewage, electricity, etc.?

--maclean 23:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Recent history is incorporated into the rest of the article. The census table is for comparison with other areas, whereas the text gives more detailed stats. I think the consensus is that images of football club logos are acceptable, as per most Featured football articles. WikiProject UK geography doesn't regard the mention of utility providers as relevant, but I'll try to include them anyway. Epbr123 00:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would that be relevant? Since privatisation, pretty much any commercial utility company can supply electricity or gas to anywhere in the UK, for instance. They're not necessarily linked to local areas like they used to be. ---- Eric 23:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a, 2a. I started copy-editing the lead, but gave up. Lots of redundancy; ideas awkwardly merged into sentences (why the population bit in amonst all of the locational information?). The lead is composed of three shortish paragraphs that don't really serve the reader well. Tony 09:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have made improvements. Is it enough? Epbr123 22:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • An editor has reverted your copy-edit of the lead, calling it "grammatically strange, and inconsistent with much of the UK... and, is hardly an advanced or incredibly scholarly edit to make by anyone or any standards". So if that's a problem, you'll have to discuss it with them. Epbr123 13:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've also raised concerns as to your ownership of this article and am somewhat displeased with your contributions to my talk page and others. Please allow others to contribute to this article, and have their concerns treated with respect on the article's talk page. You've also used some misleading edit summaries and falsifications when asserting how the content should be worded - I wanted to let you know (assuming good faith) incase you were not aware of these issues. Jza84 14:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose.
    • Comprehensiveness: The Geography section ignores the built environment (eg. village layout - a map would help greatly - infrastructure, buildings, residential/commercial/industrial neighbourhoods, etc.) Drinking water source is not identified though the River Mersey is mentioned: is that where the town gets its drinking water from? The Demographics section is limited to 2001, with no indication if the demographics are changing (eg. growing/shrinking, aging, etc.). If I'm understanding the Civic history and Political divisions sections correctly, the town of Sale doesn't have a local government itself but is instead apart of the Metropolitan Borough of Trafford, so what services does the Borough provide Sale?
    • Prose: The Demographics section consists of lists of census data.
    • Images: Unnecessary Fair Use of Image:Sale FC logo.jpg. A picture of their team in action would be more appropriate.
  • Otherwise this is a very good article and has one of the best Notable residents sections I have seen. --maclean 19:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


After the arrival of the Bridgewater Canal in 1765 and the railway in 1849, Sale grew into a commuter town for workers in Manchester.

So which was it? The canal or the railway? There's quite a big difference, over 80 years if my elementary mathematics hasn't let me down. Was the canal a commuter route before the arrival of the railway? ---- Eric 23:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


*Not fixed at all. Your change has simply piled confusion upon confusion. Are you really claiming that people in 1765 were commuting between Sale and Manchester via the Bridgewater Canal? ---- Eric 01:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • So provide some evidence that in 1766, or at least before the arrival of the railway in 1849, Sale had become a commuter town.
On the bad side, ome of the content does not remain focussed (some content goes into to much detail into another topic - drinking water supplies), nor is particularly well defined ("probably", "other areas"). Some internal links are overly repeated; most of the external links are not directly related to the article (Trafford council, Bridgewater Canal). I personally don't believe the latter parts of the second and third paragraphs in the lead are well defined or adequately sum up Sale as a whole and go into too much detail. The Sale war memorial image is a little dubious as to it's quality for an FA article.
I'd consider double checking the UK Geography settlement guidelines and contacting members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester for their input. On the plus side I think this article's length, paragraphing and referencing is at FA standard. I'd be happy to help also. Jza84 00:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
some external links and wikilinks have been removed. Drinking water supplies was requested by an FA reviewer. "probably" and "other areas" can't be removed without going into more detail, which you have objected to. The latter parts of the second and third paragraphs in the lead are needed to summarise the economy and notable residents sections. I don't think there are any guidelines against slightly poor quality images. Epbr123 08:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Drinking water supplies too detailed? Settlements live and die by access to drinking water. It is the most basic service provided to communities. Access to water is a fundamental part of any settlement's geography, how it relates to its surrounding natural environment. --maclean 10:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Information on water supply etc isn't too hard too get hold of, the question is where to place it in the article. If some editors are worried about excessive detail, it would take only one sentence: "Sale utilities are supplied by United Utilities[37]." Is it worth including? Nev1 10:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - I hardly think it is suitable, and doubt any other major encyclopedia would add this kind of material. Indeed Oxygen is needed for life, but we don't put air quality results in the articles, nor food transportation arragements, and lists of doctors. I found it a very strange statement to include when reading it. Jza84 12:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quiet, don't give them ideas. Nev1 12:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked to look again. I chose the start of the History section.

"Evidence suggests that the area around Sale was inhabited during Roman, Anglo-Saxon and prehistoric times. A Neolithic arrow head, evidence of Saxon habitation, and Roman coins have been found in the area.[12] The town is on the route of a Roman road between Chester and Manchester, now part of the A56 road. The name Sale is derived from the Anglo-Saxon word 'seale', meaning 'at the sallow tree'. This provides evidence that Sale began as an Anglo-Saxon settlement.[1] Though not mentioned in the Domesday Book, the first documented reference to the township of Sale dates from the 12th century. This is further evidence of pre-Norman habitation as townships were a Saxon development.[1]"

    • "Evidence" x 4. To start with, the first one is redundant, since you provide a reference as evidence. Just make the statement and link to the arrow head with a semicolon, not a stop ("The area around ..."). Comma after "habitation" would be nice.

Or this bit: "Its lodge, now used by Sale Golf Club, and its dovecote still remain. Crossford Bridge, which carries the northbound carriageway of the A56 road over the River Mersey, existed as early as 1538.[9]" "The lodge" is more idiomatic. The comma after "Club" is awkward. So is "still remain"—recast the sentence. "Existed as early as" better as "dates back to at least".

"The canal enabled the transport of goods and people in and out of the town easier than previously possible. The canal was utilised as a means of commuting and Sale residents were able to catch the ‘swift packet’ to work.[1]" "Easier" is ungrammatical. Why not just "more easily."? "Used", not "utilised", the ugliest word around. "A means of commuting"—why not just "The canal was a means of commuting [to where?], on the "swift packet". MOS says double quotes.

It's a little better, but not nearly good enough. Bring on board another one or two good copy-editors who haven't yet seen it. Couple of hours of intensive work required by them. Tony 14:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've instigated the changes Tony highlighted, except for "Existed as early as". Replacing it with "dates back to at least" would be repeating the phrase within the paragraph. Nev1 15:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My notes here exemplify the need for more thorough copy-editing throughout. They were examples taken at random. Tony 05:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked by the LoCE to check the article for copyediting, and I corrected the few errors there, mainly replacing slang and the vernacular with the "Queen's English" e.g. pub --> public house. Editus Reloaded 10:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed some more grammar issues, but some parts are still clunky despite my best efforts. There's perhaps some reorganization necessary, but I will need to think on it a bit first. MSJapan 17:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Sale is an English settlement, shouldn't the article use Queen's English as opposed to American English as Erythromycin has now changed it to? Nev1 20:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 01:11, 7 July 2007.

Macau

[edit]

Self-nom. I think this is a very good article along with the topic of Hong Kong. This article has improved significantly recently. Guia Hill 19:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - just started looking, wil try to give heads-up as I go:
Following the Opium War in 1841, Hong Kong was occupied by Britain and most of the foreign merchants left Macau and it became a quiet place. is ungainly and needs rephrasing.
. However it has continued to enjoy a leisurely multicultural existence and make daily, practical use of its historical buildings, in the process becoming a favourite stop-off for tourists. sounds like a travel brochure and is probaly unnecessary. mention tourism in lead somewhere thoughcheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 00:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More later. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I rephrase in this way: Most of the foreign merchants in Macau left for Hong Kong after the Opium War in 1841. Macau then became a quiet place. Please give me more opinions. For the sentense of However it has continued to enjoy a leisurely multicultural existence and make daily, practical use of its historical buildings, in the process becoming a favourite stop-off for tourists. will be erased right away according to your opinion. Thanks a lot! 70.54.9.155 01:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::Getting there but Macau then became a quiet place. is such a vague sentence as to be meaningless. Better would be a statement about economic activity falling or something I guess..cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 11:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The business and economic activities in Macau declined. is that OK? 70.54.9.155 14:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yep. better.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 01:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a world class tourist industry... better replace with "significant tourist industry" as teh former sounds like an ad.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 01:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every one on board was about to give up all hope of surviving this.. "Everyone" (typo) and can be phrased better. "had given up hope.."cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 01:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since at least the 5th century, merchant.. - drop the "at least"cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 01:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All Done!70.54.9.155 02:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


: Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore as well joined Macau as.. - lose the "as well"

I wonder whether the second part of this para where this sentence came from is veering into POV territory.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation was added.70.54.9.155 02:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good, though I will see what others thin on this bit.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 03:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the most well-known... - "one of the best known"

:Over than 150 sea crossings every day between the route of Macau... "There are over 150.."

:Residents of Macau mostly speak Cantonese natively - rewrite

:The coalescent of Chinese and Portuguese cultures and religious traditions for more than 4 centuries has left Macau.. - 4 --> four; coalescent?? umm..blending, mixing, or something else would be better. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:The biggest tournament of the year in Macau is the Macau Formula Three Grand Prix in November, when the main streets in the Peninsula of Macau basically and temporarily become a racecourse. - losethe first "in Macau" as self-explaantory, and ractrack instead of racecouse which sounds like its for horses. Also drop the basically and temproarily as also self expamnatory.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:osculation.. - oscillation, and incessant means never stopping. Would 'regualr be better adjective here?cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Done.70.54.9.155 02:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - much better, those were all the bits that stuck out most and have been dealt with well. It's nearly there. Scanning over it I still feel a bit funny about the prose but I will try and ideentify what it is that stops it flowing nicely.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 03:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The lead basically says: "Macau is a special administrative region. Most of the foreign merchants in Macau left for Hong Kong after the Opium War in 1841." Jumping into the middle leaves too much unanswered. I've restructured some for context, but you're welcome to change it. Might want to explain what "little tiger" is. I jumped down to the Culture section. "Macanese cuisine is unique to Macau, China and which consists of a blend of southern Chinese and Portuguese cuisines, with significant influences from Southeast Asia and the Lusophone world." This seems like an incomplete sentence, and the rest of the paragraph is a bit vague on what makes the cuisine unique. Compare how Indonesia, a recently-promoted FAC, lists enough ingredients to convey the flavour of the cuisine. Gimmetrow 18:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinions. I added the wiki link of East Asian Tigers at "little tiger" so that readers can figure out what it is in detail. Actually this can be skipped if you mind. The sentense that you above mentioned was changed as: With significant influences from Southeast Asia and the Lusophone world, local cooking in Macau consists of a blend of southern Chinese and Portuguese cuisines. And I also added: Common cooking techniques include baking, grilling and roasting. It is renowned for its flavour-blending culture. Typically, Macanese food is seasoned with various spices and flavours including turmeric, coconut milk, cinnamon and bacalhau, giving special aromas and tastes. Famous dishes include Galinha à Portuguesa, Galinha à Africana (African chicken), Bacalhau, Macanese Chili Shrimps and stir-fry curry crab. The most popular snack is pork chop bun. The most popular dessert is ginger milk and Portuguese-style egg tart. with references in order to list enough ingredients to convey the flavour of the cuisine. 70.54.9.155 19:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment here are the left over issues from my GA review as well as a few new ones:
  • A general comment: the article reads too much like a travel guide rather than an encyclopedia article in quite a few places.
  • The International rankings section should be removed and any notable information merged into the other sections of the article.checkY Done
  • The Culture section contains nothing about sport, film, tv, radio, music, etc.
  • You should know that Macau is not a country (I know you compare Macau to countries) and is a very small place that it has very limited products under this section. For radio and TV, I personally believe that these are not culture; and these already mentioned in the topic of communication of Macau. Grand Prix is a kind of sport and is already mentioned in this section.
  • International Music festival is mentioned twice in culture. (?)
  • The Transportation section still contains too much detail - prices, rickshaw tips, the legal age for driving and airline destinations, etc should not be included. checkY Done
  • The Legal system and judiciary section contains too much detail and should be merged into Government and politics. Names of people in specific positions are not required. checkY Done
  • The Name section should be renamed Etymology and moved before History. checkY Done
  • The Economy section is loaded with far too many Main article links - one or two links relating directly to the section is generally enough. checkY Done
  • Quite a few paragraphs are uncited. (which paragraphs?)
(Caniago 22:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose, various issues. I will point out some in the Demographics section:
  • Considered as a special administrative region or dependency, Macau is one of the most densely populated regions and is among the cities with the highest level of population congestion in the world.
Do we really need to know that Macau is densely populated both as a city and a region?
If you asked me this question, it makes no difference for you to ask why "Forbes" told us these things actually.
Forbes just says it's one of the world's most congested cities, it doesn't say anything about regions. It'd be better to go with just 'Macau is one of the most densely populated cities in the world', possibly adding the number of people per square kilometre for more context.--Nydas(Talk) 19:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Macau's population is 95% Chinese, primarily Cantonese, Fujianese as well as some Hakka, Shanghainese and overseas Chinese immigrants from Southeast Asia and elsewhere.
'Overseas Chinese immigrants' is awkward, as is 'Southeast Asia and elsewhere'. Suggest changing to 'Macau's population is 95% Chinese, mainly Cantonese and Fujianese with some Hakka, Shanghainese and Overseas Chinese. checkY Done
  • The remainder are of Portuguese or mixed Chinese-Portuguese ancestry, the so-called Macanese, as well as several thousand Filipino and Thai nationals.
'So-called' is POV language, maybe describe the differences in usage of Macanese in more detail here, rather than later. 'Mixed' is redundant. checkY Done
  • With over 503,000 people (2006 second quarter estimate) living in that region, Macau is now classified and upgraded as a large city.
'Classified and upgraded' is redundant, use 'classified' alone. This sentence could easily be dropped completely.checkY Done
  • The gap between poor and rich is relatively large. The government is making an in-depth investigation in mapping out policies and measures to make a rational distribution of resources gained from the economic growth. In order to assist the urban poor, the government has cut its administrative cost, exempted and reduced taxation to boost an overall development of the local economy and upgrading people's living standard.
Reads too much like a political speech. It's filled with nonsense words like 'overall' and 'in-depth'. How does reducing administrative costs help the urban poor? Who are the urban poor in Macau?
"urban poor" was changed to " people from low income group." checkY Done
  • Although dual nationality is not recognized by the government of Macau SAR, foreign passports (including Portuguese passports) can be freely used as travel documentation without restrictions, regardless of one's nationality.
Could be shortened to 'Dual nationality is not recognized by the government of Macau, although foreign passports can be freely used as travel documentation.' checkY Done
  • The work force in Macau SAR is mainly composed of manufacturing 16.4%; construction 8.3%; wholesale and retail trade, repair, hotels and restaurants 27.1%; financial services, real estate, and other business activities 8.6%; public administration, other communities, social and personal services, including gaming 31.8%; transport, storage and communications 6.8%.
We don't need to know exact percentages; they're probably out of date anyway. checkY Done
But don't you think the figure from late 2006 is up-to-date? don't you think other figures from CIA 2007 is up-to-date?
In a fast growing city like Macau, it is likely the size of economy sectors will change on a monthly basis. I'd try to describe the composition of the workforce in prose format, rather than statistically.--Nydas(Talk) 19:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to recent census figures, of the more than 355,000 persons surveyed, 16.8 percent had no religious affiliation/other, 79.3 percent were Buddhist, 6 percent were Roman Catholic, and 1.7 percent were Protestant. The number of active Falun Gong practitioners declined from approximately 100 persons to approximately 20 after the movement was banned in mainland China in July 1999. There are about 150 Muslims in Macau.
I personally don't think it's necessary to hedge large, rough figures with collaries like 'more than'. 'no religious affiliation/other' is poor phrasing. We don't need to know there are a tiny number of Muslims or Falun Gong members.--Nydas(Talk) 13:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC) checkY Done[reply]
Why we don't need to know there are a tiny number of Muslims or Falun Gong members in Macau? I personally think that it provides a good index to know the diversity of religion and the basic human right in Macau. Falun Gong is completely banned in Mainland China. 70.54.10.204 14:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only twenty people in a city of half a million isn't important (and is unlikely to be accurate). What about Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Mormons, Jains, etc?--Nydas(Talk) 19:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. But I personally don't understand what do you want to know actually (it seems to me you don't need to know many things). However, most opinions above mentioned are not very constructive and give no improvement for the article in general.70.54.10.204 14:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article's prose contains too many unneeded words and phrases. Featured articles on Wikipedia need clear writing.--Nydas(Talk) 19:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixes needed Some dates need wikilinking, including some full dates in the footnotes. The footnotes don't need to state when a source is in English. The footnotes need to state the publication date of sources when available. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) for correct dash usage. Epbr123 01:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing out the problem. For the part of the footnotes don't need to state when a source is in English checkY Fixed
  • Oppose: This article is too long, much like the Hong Kong article; it feels like the editors have been trying to cramp every available information into it. However, the article should serve only as an introduction. Consider moving some of the detailed discussions to one of the many "main" articles linked from this article, like Economy of Macau. There are also various style problems:
Intro: Most of the foreign merchants in Macau left for Hong Kong after the Opium War in 1841. The business and economic activities in Macau declined. - seems to pop out of nowhere. Leave it in the History section.
why this sentence should leave in the history section? what do you mean by "pop out of nowhere", you didn't explain anyway.74.12.181.96 03:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe you just need to integrate it better. The problem is you didn't mention its economy before the "decline" (leaving people wonder what it declined from), and you shifted suddenly from "Portuguese traders" to "foreign merchants". Try something like: "The economy of Macau depends on her interaction with the rest of the world (To mark that you're going to provide an intro about the economy and history). Portuguese traders began settling in Macau in the 16th century, developing Macau into an important trading post for foreign countries(Give a purpose for the Portuguese settling). However, after the Opium War in 1841, most of the foreign merchants in Macau left for Hong Kong (Maybe put a reason here, and also add something about 1841-1999)." A shorter alternative will be to just describe the characteristics of Macau's economy/history, like so: "The economy of Macau depends on her interaction with the rest of the world, most notably her neighbour Hong Kong and Portugal."Feathered serpent 02:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Etymology: a fisherboat sailing across the sea one day found itself in an unexpected rainstorm. [. . .] On the specific locale where she set foot on, a temple was built. - more like story-telling, i.e., not encyclopedic. Consider summarizing the myth with fewer sentences and omit the details like "boarding at the eleventh hour", "walk ashore in a glowing aura of light and fragrance", etc. Feathered serpent 02:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Etymology always consist the origin of words, and it is quite common to depict it with myth and story. 74.12.181.96 03:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True but it may not be appropriate for this article which is supposed to be factual. In articles like Athens, the only myth-relating sentence is: "In ancient Greek, the name of Athens was the Attic and Ionic names of the goddess Athena." And in Rome, the only myth reference is: "According to legend, the city of Rome was founded by the twins Romulus and Remus on April 21, 753 BC". Similarly this article can simply state the "The name 'Macau' is thought to be derived from the Templo de A-Má, a still-existing landmark built in 1448 dedicated to the goddess Matsu - the goddess of seafarers and fishermen", and put the mythlogy part in the Macau section of the Matsu article. You may give a summary of the story here, but it should not go beyond 2-3 sentences, something like this: "Matsu was said to have boarded a fishing boat and allowed the boat to safely arrive at the port of Hoi Keang. On the specific locale where she set foot on, a temple was built. When Portuguese sailors landed several hundred years later and asked for the name of the place, the natives replied with the name of the temple, A-Ma-Gao (i.e. Bay of A-Ma). 'Macao' or 'Macau' hence came to be used to refer to the whole region "Feathered serpent 02:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not too long indeed, it is only 68 kilobytes, for the article of Hong Kong, it is 79kb and it is an FA article, so your reason is not rational. For the part of your opinion in intro and etymology, I didn't see any problem for these.74.12.181.96 02:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When the article of Hong Kong received FA status it was 45kb only (7th Sept 2005). Many other FA articles are also only around 50kb. Ann Arbor-53kb, Sarajevo-41kb, Canberra-49kb, etc. Of course there are some FAs that are longer, but what I am trying to illustrate is that FA doesn't mean long--we need quality. It is totally fine if it is long and readable at the same time. Here, I am sorry to say it is difficult to extract information from the article. The History section is nice, with the headers and indicators, but for example, the Politics section is so tightly packed together. It is enough, as an intro, to know that Macau is one of the least corrupt, but do we need to know how Hong Kong ranks, how Japan ranks, or even that some guy is 163th? Wouldn't one "4th out of 163 in the Asia sector" be well enough for the job? Feathered serpent 02:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this editor has made only 8 edits, after their account was created on the 20th June 2007. 70.187.183.120 07:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this editor has made only 4 edits, after their account was created on the 21th June 2007. 70.187.183.120 07:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you would give me this comment if I vote "oppose". This is my IP which is the same as my account UTislander. 66.46.192.218 15:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::Comment: so? 74.12.182.133 14:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pending cleanup:

  • "Miscellaneous topics" isn't an encyclopedic section heading, and it appears to be only Sister cities.
  • See also should be minimized (see WP:GTL) by including articles in the text where possible. Articles already in the text need not be listed in See also. Many of those links, if not already in the text, should be.
  • References need a lot of formatting work. Publishers and last access dates are not given on all References and some are unformatted links (see WP:CITE/ES), example—refer to International organization participation; the section of Government, CIA [2] Also, publication dates should be given whenever available, for example, on news sources like http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/24/business/worldbusiness/24macao.html?ex=1327294800&en=150850fd9370148a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
  • Is there any reason all that Further reading can't be alphabetical by author last name?
  • External links could be pruned; no need for foreign language sources when English language are available.
  • Landmarks is a list which could be converted to compelling prose.
  • Full dates (month day, year) are supposed to be linked, example in Landmarks section, see WP:MOSNUM
  • Judging by the Landmarks section, the prose could use a serious audit.
    • Macau preserves China's largest group of historical properties in the urban area, as it had almost five centuries of regular oscillation between West and East, after the Portuguese seafarers settled in Macau in the mid-sixteenth century.
  • Why is urban area linked, why is sixteenth century linked (see WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSNUM), and I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say.
  • Incorrect use of dashes and hyphens, see WP:DASH, and
    • Macau International Music Festival - MIMF is basically conducted by the Cultural Affairs Bureau of the Macau SAR Government every year.[66]
  • why "basically"? Looking at the next line after that:
    • The 20th anniversary of the MIMF is celebrated with a touch of romanticism. Jazz, Classical music, electronica, Chinese folk-pop, rock and fado will fill Macau's autumn nights with magic. The eclectic programme of 28 performances promises to delight Macau audiences, accustomed to the festival's annual offering of some of the best music from all over the world.[67]
  • Unencylopedic prose, tourist-brochure sounding. why are Jazz and Classical music capped, others note? And you can't cite a festival's own website as claiming the best music in the world.
  • WP:LEAD is not a compelling, stand-alone summary of the article.

Much work needed to polish this article to FA standards; the above list is samples only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. would like to see more than just one image of the casinos in Macau.
  2. would like to see an image in the infobox.
  3. intorduction lacks sources
  4. Twentieth century section, Government and politics section, Transportation section Demographics section, and Culture section needs more sources.--SefringleTalk 05:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:11, 7 July 2007.

Karmichael Hunt

[edit]

Self-Nomination. I have edited this article to hopefully a very well written article. SpecialWindler talk 08:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond to queries within 24 hours. SpecialWindler talk 08:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It is a well-written article. Two things: (1) some of the "Retrieved on:" dates are 2009! and (2) does he have a girlfriend? DrKiernan 11:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (1a) - many choppy sentences which are not right, eg "Hunt joined the Broncos at the end of the 2003 season, bringing his scholarship, earned in 2001, to fruition. " with too many commas. By rewriting the sentence, you can avoid things like that. There were a few sentences with commas three or four times in the sentence with only three or four or two words in between. There were also a few contractions that I removed. I did a few examples of how the sentences can be smoothed out. Also, there are a lot of guys out there who will be tougher on your prose. Also you need to check through for weasel words and such. In instances where he is MotM, you don't need to put subjective words, just say he was adjudged MoTM. In one instance (I am from SA and don't know anything about rugby) it said ...he was good and had 18 runs....I just looked inside the source and changed it to note he had the highest nuimber of runs, which is better. There are some unusual things also which I didn't investigate closely. In one para, there is a sentence which is unrelated to the rest of the para saying that he became friends with a team-mate. Some of the idea cohesion in paragraphs do not seem good enough. Also, you are using Brisbane Broncos' website as a source. I don't think that is necesarily neutral. If you can find a 3rd party equivalent, that would be better. Also, I don't think you should use Broncos, but rather that Brisbane is a more appropriate term, but I'm not sure. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Doing... I will take your suggestions, and try and remove all the "choppy sentences", Note, that although the Brisbane Broncos website is a little biased, it still tells the facts, and is a news article. So. SpecialWindler talk 06:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done sentence that dosen;t belong in a certain paragraph. SpecialWindler talk 10:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done the short choppy sentences. SpecialWindler talk 07:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will want to have another look at this, and possibly get more structural issues and a little bit more prose, but that should entertain you for a while. Daniel 08:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for some of the little things, I will do the references over the next day. SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not totally knowledgable about the NPOV, but I basically understand that it should be nuetral/ not biased. After reading the WP:NPOV article, it seems that it has notihing on citations. But even so, why arne't they reliable sources, even if they were a little biased towards their own team, its the same as a Sydney newspaper talking about QLd. And from the Brisbane Broncos News website, I only use the information from the page and do not elaborate in what some of the biased things are. SpecialWindler talk 22:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So your saying that [39] is better thatn the above. It tells the information, below though you need a fee. SpecialWindler talk 22:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be less worried about NPOV, and more about WP:RS. It would be best to replace the Broncos News page with newspaper articles wherever possible. Recurring dreams 22:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is sources and references need to be independent and third party where possible. A club's own website (most probably written by a media manager/spin doctor paid by the club) is not an independent source. Do you think the Broncos management would allow anything critical to be published on their website? of course you may encounter some bias from a Sydney newspaper writing about Qld, but it would be far less biased than the Broncos website. Essentially the Broncos website is a self published source. I've encountered this before on Wikipedia with Liberal students using Liberal websites to citate their claims. Michellecrisp 00:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:11, 7 July 2007.

Runcorn

[edit]

Self-nom. This article has been assessed as a GA and since has been peer reviewed. Changes have been made in line with the comments made in the review. I hope it is now near FA status. Peter I. Vardy 10:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment *chuckles* Now, wouldn't that be funny if we saw this on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article. :-P Nishkid64 (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the coat-of-arms image is fair use and (1) provides no fair-use rationale, and (2) is not discussed (ie no critical commentary) within the text of the article. Non-free images cannot be used for decoration. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article looks pretty good, but I have two main concerns. As ESkog mentioned, the coat of arms image does not provide a fair use rationale, which means it fails one of the WP:FACR. Also, there seems to be a number of entire paragraphs that go unsourced. Please add sources for these sections (examples: Paragraph 2 of Economy, Demographics, paragraph in lead about New town). I think the sourcing issue can easily be fixed, and so can the coat of arms image problem. Also, I'm just wondering, but why exactly did you write "New town" as "New Town" throughout the article? It's not a formal location, so I'm a bit confused as to why the capitalization for "town" was applied. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • More citations added where possible. There have been no separate demographics produced for Runcorn since it became part of the unitary authority of Halton in 1998 so the Demographics section is really a link to the part of the Halton article which is fully referenced. Otherwise the least-referenced section is the part of the Landmarks and places of interest. I have included memorials and public sculpture because that is recommended in the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements but I cannot find any references to them; what is written is the result of my personal observations. This part can always be deleted if that is the best option. Your comments on capitalization are valid. As there has been little integation between the old and new parts of the town they are locally often referred to as "Old Town" and "New Town" as though they are separate entities which, of course, they are not. It is useful to have an outsider, particularly from another country to let us see things through new eyes. I have removed the capitalization and amended the text where this has been necessary. Peter I. Vardy 11:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. This is a reasonably good article. However, I see a few problems. Firstly, some of the prose is quite strange; I think it could really do with getting someone to give it a run through and do some copyediting. Secondly, I find the order of the sections quite strange - is there any reason "geography" and "government" went before "history"? Thirdly, some of the sections are very light; while the content of "demographics" may be similar to the borough article, it warrants at least some mention in this one, and "economy" also seems peculiarly light on detail. "Government" is also not quite as good as some other city FAs, and "Education" is a very short section for an FA. I think this article is most of the way there, but it really needs some more work to get it up to FA standard. It might be an idea to look at some of the existing FA articles on cities and towns as something of a guide. Rebecca 04:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for these comments. The ordering of sections is based on Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements but I agree this is unsatisfactory and I shall be discussing it on the project's talk page. The Demographics section caused difficulties at the peer review stage and I think the better solution might be to copy it from the Halton (borough) article with an explanation that it applies not just to Runcorn but to the whole of the unitary authority. I will have a go at expanding the Economy (here I may have similar problems to Demographics), the Government and the Education sections. When this is done I will ask for copyediting. In respect of this could you please give me some examples of "quite strange" prose and I will then know where attention needs to be given. Peter I. Vardy 17:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:11, 7 July 2007.

The X-Files

[edit]

good work --Miwanya 21:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Naked URLs are not acceptable, nor are URLs surrounded by nothing but brackets. WP:CITET should show what your citations need to look like. Retrieval dates, publisher and author information are a must.--Rmky87 21:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
    • Pop culture legacy section written in list form. Also, some connections here are pretty weak/unsourced.
    • Citations aren't all properly formatted.
    • Some non-neutral statements like "One of the most chilling episodes."
    • The article feels very long. The TOC doesn't even fit on my screen and there are a lot of images.
    • Season links in Plot and mythology section all link to same page.
    • Unofficial mythology episodes need citations...and lose the quotation marks.
    • The taglines may not be notable.

- Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 22:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose: Do we really need more than two dozen fair use images to make this article work? Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy says fair use image use "must be minimal". Not to mention that the fair use images all lack rationale for their use in this article. Certainly we can do better than this. --Durin 18:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but only because it needs some cleanup work. Yes some NPOV work is needed. I don't think the images are overused; they add a nice touch to the article, that lets you get a feel for what the show looks like as you read the description. I often wish I could see examples like that when I'm reading about other things. The pop culture section is just a list of pop culture references. I just renamed it as such to avoid confusion. The article feels long because it's comprehensive, and that shouldn't be considered a negative aspect. I changed the season links so that they anchor to their corresponding points on the episode list page. You're right about the quotes, I removed them. I think the taglines should stay. The changing taglines were significant to the show, and fans especially want to be able to see a list of them. As for the unofficial mythology episodes, maybe they don't belong, since I'm not sure how we can add citations for something unofficial. They reflect a general consensus, somewhat. I'm not sure what to do about those. Refs also do need to be converted to standard web citations... I started doing this, but there are a LOT of them. Equazcion 20:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've converted more references into standardized web citations, but many many more are left. More importantly I divided up the "History" section further, into smaller, more manageable bite-size bits. Yeah, they did feel pretty damn long. I don't think anyone was even reading them. I've also been copy-editing, and a lot more of that needs to be done. As a frequent editor of the article I feel complimented that it's a candidate for being a featured article, but still... have you read this thing? It's sort of a mess. The grammar alone is gonna take a while to clean up. Equazcion 13:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be more specific please. What kind of formatting fixes? What's wrong with the pop culture references being in list form? Equazcion 01:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Heavily underreferenced, and below standards for encyclopedic writing. This is a PARTIAL LIST of problems; there are way to many to list here:
    • The lead does not really summarize the article; it provides an analysis of the show which is not expanded on in the main article. Much of this information is unreferenced as well.
    • fans as well as the show's producers commonly divide X-Files episodes into two categories - According to whom? Unreferenced claim...
    • Anatomy of an episode section contains what appears to be an original critical analysis of the show; since it lacks any references at all it would appear that this is the original work of the author of this article.
    • Some episodes were omitted from the official mythology DVD release, even though many fans consider them to be essential to the mythology. - What fans? Where is this information published? References please.
    • Overall, the article spends WAY to much columnspace rehashing the plot of each individual episode. There are articles for each episode, n'est ce pas? Why does this article spend so much time in-universe dealing with it. There is little attention given to actual critical review and reception, instead it is largely a hige plot synopsis of the entire series.
    • Pop culture references section is simply a trivia section masquerading under a different name. This random list of facts should be pared down to important, well referenced, facts and then those facts should be incorporated into other parts of the article where they belong, not segregated into a bullet list of random trivia, which is decidedly below the professional standards one would expect of a Featured Article.
That's a start. This article needs a heap of work. I would like to see an article about the X-files reach feature quality. This one ain't it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I'm still lost about this pop culture thing. It's labeled "pop-culture references," and it's a list of references made to the show in popular culture. I'm lost as to how it's "masquerading" as anything but exactly what its label states. I suppose the information could be incorporated into a non-list section, but I think it wouldn't flow well: "blah blah blah, and by the way, around this time the X-Files was parodied by The Simpsons"? Is that how that information is supposed to be presented? I don't think it fits well that way. It seems too unrelated to the show's history. And "Trivia" doesn't describe this at all. Trivia is about the show itself, behind-the-scenes informational tidbits, not references made to the show from outside.
  • Most of your criticism is about references, and I agree, there are a lot of references missing.
  • As for the in-universe thing... I disagree. The article certainly is long but if you read it, it's mostly about what went on behind-the-scenes. There are short summaries of what happened in some episodes, never more than one or two sentences, and those are only presented in the context of a critical review or of behind-the-scenes production information. Yes the sections are labeled according to their season, but only for chronological purposes — if you read their content you'll see that they have little to do with the "in-universe" story. Equazcion 20:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:11, 7 July 2007.

FC Steaua Bucureşti

[edit]

I believe this page widely covers all criteria for a nomination. All useless information has been removed and details have been moved to independent pages. Vladi 21:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixes needed
  • Quite a few more inline citations are needed.
  • Trivia and Miscellaneous sections are discouraged.
  • En dashes should be used in scorelines and date ranges (eg. 1985–86)
  • Some footnotes are missing the publisher and publishing date.
  • Only full dates and dates with a day and a month should be linked. Epbr123 22:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once you get properly licensed images, Wikipedia:Manual of Style recommends not to specify the size of images as the size should be what readers have specified in their user preferences. Also, text shouldn't be sandwiched between two images.
  • "1980's" shouldn't have an apostrophe.
  • A word doesn't need to be linked twice in the same section. Epbr123 22:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: You're the creator of Image:Mlascar.jpg? That's what the licensing says. Looks to me like this image was taken from the net somewhere, and not of your creation? I see it at [40][41][42] and others. Also, given that you were born after this gentleman died, I don't think you hold rights to this image as creator of it. Image:CCA.jpg indicates author, but no source to verify this is under a free license. Image:Ghencea74.jpg, again this image is from before you were born. I doubt you have rights to it as creator. Image:Iovancce.jpg this image was taken when you were two years old. I doubt you have creator rights to that either. These doubts give me grounds to question Image:George becali 2.jpg. Image:SteauaBadges.jpg is improperly tagged; you do not own rights to these badges and can not release the rights in any case. Image:Ghencea.jpg has no source, and no way to verify it's been released under GFDL. In short, there's very serious issues with regards to the imagery on this article. Until these problems are rectified, this article can't be considered among our best. --Durin 22:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Severe image problems here. Image:CCA.jpg is tagged as CC, but that license didn't exist when that photo was taken and there's no further explanation of how that image is so released. Image:Iovancce.jpg looks like an official photo and may not be that user's actual work. Image:SteauaBadges.jpg is a derivative work of several fair-use images and, at best, needs a fair-use rationale - although it may not qualify even so. (Sorry for repeats from above; I was edit-conflicted) (ESkog)(Talk) 22:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A generally good standard, which would probably pass a good article nomination, but fixes are needed for FA standard to be attained.
    • Transfers from the current season shouldn't be included, this isn't Wikinews. Likewise for the "UEFA ranking" further down.
    • The list of staff is more or less a club directory. Only the most important officials should be included. Generally speaking, this means only including those individuals notable enough to merit their own article.
    • The Notable Players throughout History list appears to have no inclusion criteria. Criteria are needed for the section to express a neutral point of view, rather than being based on the point of view of the editors who added them.
    • A few things require citations:
      • The 1956 Romanian national team being composed entirely of players from the club.
      • legendary goalkeeper Helmuth Duckadam saved all four penalties taken by the Spaniards
      • Cup specialists nickname.
      • Păunescu performed poorly as a president and soon the club was plunged into debt.
      • Even though contested by many, including the majority of Steaua fans... (contested by many is an instance of weasel words).
      • ...redesigned in 1974, loosely inspired by that of FC Barcelona
      • ...it was the first football-only stadium ever built in Communist Romania
      • The geographical spread of supporters, and the development of the Ultras movement
    • One that might possibly be better resolved on the talk page, but (in the West at least) the success of the 1980s Steaua team was partially attributed to the influence of Nicolae Ceauşescu, and conscription of the best players so they had to play for the Army club (alluded to here and here). It is a little surprising that the issue is not mentioned, irrespective of whether the stories are well-founded or not. Oldelpaso 10:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—Very poorly written. Bucharest and Romania (or variants) both appear twice in the first, short sentence. Why is "English" linked? As if we don't know what it is. And you don't need to specify "English", anyway—it's obviously the translation of the preceding name. Why are simple years linked? Long snake: "The football department separated from the the entire sports club in 1998 and the only links to the Army right now are the historical tradition and their home ground, Stadionul Ghencea, which still belongs to the Ministry of National Defence but has been leased on a 49 year period to the football club." Not worth reading further. Tony 15:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:45, 7 July 2007.

Léonce Perret

[edit]

This article is a good translation of the french article which is already a featured article. Ajor 20:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see intructions at WP:FAC; articles can't be simultaneously candidates at WP:GAC and WP:FAC. Removing from FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/July_2007&oldid=984501312"