Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Caroline Island[edit]

Self-nomination. Since creating this article about two years ago, I've developed it up to a point of rather remarkable comprehensiveness for such an obscure and unsung corner of the world. It's presently a good article, and having gone through peer review, and many rounds of being inflicted upon folks in the IRC channel for comment I feel that it's ready for the next step and for the worthy nitpickers of WP:FAC. -- Seth Ilys 03:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Superb article. Rebecca 03:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor object a few easy fixes
  1. The lead could be a beter summary, for example shouldn't the lead mention that the islands are uninhabited, and how does "near pristine" fit with the cited fact that much South islet was deforested to make way for coconut palms?
Actually, the lead does mention that the islands are uninhabited, and sources are uniformly consistent in calling Caroline one of the most untouched islands in the world. However, I've reworded the introduction to mention human impact on the islands, which is an important part of their history, and to clarify that Caroline is "relatively" untouched I also moved the "near pristine" quote down to the flora/fauna section. (I was never thrilled with it in the introduction, but your comment finally helped me figure out where it should go.) Any additional hands at polishing the intro would be welcome. -- Seth Ilys 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. For the non-geographer, an expalnation of how several islets are considered a single island would be useful.
This is well-explained in coral atoll, but I've also added a clause to the geography section noting the common origin of all the islets. -- Seth Ilys 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. The article also says that there are 40 islets, the intro on the list says 39.
The article actually said "around 40," but I've corrected to the precise 39, the number given by the Kepler survey, which was the most recent and most detailed. - Seth Ilys 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. Islet sizes are given in km2 and others in Ha, a consistent unit would be good.
Converted all areas in the main article to km2 - Seth Ilys 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
--Peta 04:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Support, thanks for fixing those so quickly.--Peta 06:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. Peta raises a good point. And, if you want nitpicking, I would like to ask that Imperial units be inlcuded after metric ones, for all of us in the United States who don't use the metric system. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to do this, but I've made another pass through the article and found a few places I previously missed. Let me know if you notice any remaining instances where I've neglected to include imperial units. -- Seth Ilys 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Everything's accounted for, and I have accordingly changed my vote. Thank you for your promptness in these changes. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 06:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there some reason the map and pictures of celebration are external jump and not in footnote/refs?Rlevse 12:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Those two links are immediately relevant to the portion of the article where they occur and I felt like it would be most useful to readers to have them within the body of article text; however, I've now duplicated them within the "external links" section as well. Does this satisfy your concern? -- Seth Ilys 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, in this case, yes. Rlevse 16:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. And thanks for your improvements to the article as well! -- Seth Ilys 17:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I threw out my object vote... I modified some of the conversions on the page to be a lottle bit more precise, so now i'm all for this article.
Daniel: It would be useful to know precisely which conversions you are referring to. Some of the figures in the article I have quoted as approximate (such as distance to neighboring islands or the overall dimensions of the atoll) because sources disagree and I would rather be accurate but less precise than precise but less accurate. Let me know which ones you find deficient and I'll be happy to improve them. -- Seth Ilys 19:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Dan: You mention that some of the metric/imperial conversions are done "approximately or inaccurately." The reasons that some of the figures may appear approximate is that the original measurements are approximate. Sources disagree, for instance, on the precise north-south dimension of the island, which I have quoted as "9 km (6 mi)" -- I have done so because then both units have the same degree of precision (significant figures). Likewise, the maximum elevation of the islands above sea level (6 meters) is an approximate figure and does not warrant a precise conversion (which is why I used the round figure of 20 feet rather than 19.7, as you have done.
Furthermore, I believe that your attempts to "correct" my area conversions are also somewhat misguided. 1.04 km^2, for instance, is actually equal to 0.40 mi^2, as can be verified by Google's calculator tools. I believe that your changes actually decrease the accuracy of the article, and therefore request that you revert them to my original figures. -- Seth Ilys 19:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Follow up: User:Simetrical has done so. Thanks. - Seth Ilys 20:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support – as reviewed in WP:PR. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I did some copyediting and passed it for WP:GA over an month ago, the article is very good Jaranda wat's sup 19:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. However I am curious about the fact that the atoll is considered pristine, what with so many introduced species stil present. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Sources (cited in the article) are consistent about naming Caroline Island as pristine, although I tried to indicate (whenever such a statement is made in the article) that 1) this is a relative assessment, and 2) there was a significant amount of human impact. I'll see if I can't tweak those bits to make it clearer. -- Seth Ilys 12:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - doesn't need anything further done to it (I fixed a typo!). Superb. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Selena[edit]

Archive1

Re self-nom This article barely failed it's FAC the first time around, and I'm trying again. Since it failed it went though a copyedit, and reached GA status. I would be around for any concerns you may have. Thanks Secret wat's sup 18:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - very accurate article; many wikipedians (especially latino music fans) would find the article interesting and relevant; well cited and organized; front page material. --GoOdCoNtEnT 20:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support My only comments are, with all that stuff about her father steering her career and controlling her love life, I wondered if the sources had anything to say as to whether he was a domineering personality, sometimes to Selena's dismay. Also, a couple paragraphs starting with "Selena released her next album..." seemed a little tedious/repetative to me, although I couldn't think of a way to reword them without making them passive sentences. About.com is referenced, although given that website copies a lot from Wikipedia itself, I wouldn't think of it as the greatest source. Other than that, good job. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would object based on the sources, but they can probably be fixed. Very good start, worthy of consideration. The first thing I look at is references, and they cause a problem for me. I should not have to click on a link to see what the reference is. Can you please convert them to a bibliographic style, and use a consistent style? For example, your first reference should be (depending on what reference style you choose) something like, Mitchell, Rick. "Selena". Houston Chronicle, 05/21/95 (with the link to the article as "Selena"). The idea is, if the Chronicle takes down the link, I should still be able to find the article. The problem is created by the use of cite web, when you are really citing a newspaper. I can't tell if most of your references are news media primary sources, or websites put up by fans. I have to click on each one to evaluate their reliability, and would prefer to see what kinds of sources you used without having to click on each one. For example, when I click on the reference for Selena and Coca-cola, I find what appears to be a fan website, which is not a reliable source. If Selena was a spokesperson for Coca-Cola, there must be a reliable source mention of it somewhere. The mention (above) of about.com as a source is a concern, as every article I've ever encountered on about.com had accuracy problems. I'll take another look if you'll improve the references. Sandy 22:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok I replaced the Coke ref with a The Handbook of Texas ref, I don't know how to convert them to a bibliographic style though, do you still leave the link, also I didn't see any refs from about.com. Finding credible refs online is very hard and I'm trying my best to look. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • If you want, I can do a couple for you as a sample. Let me know. I do them manually because I *really* dislike citeweb (it doesn't work well for medical articles), so let me know if you want me to tackle them. I'm sorry to have parroted the comment from above regarding about.com, if there is no about.com reference. Hmmm??? Sandy 23:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Working my way through the references, mystery solved. I think the editor above meant answers.com rather than about.com. Answers.com is a mirror of Wiki, so is circular reasoning as a source. Sandy 00:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the discography section could benefit from a table, similar to the one in the Alison Krauss article. Cheers, --darkliight[πalk] 22:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That's something I don't know how do to, several music FAs don't have them though like Celine Dion. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It would be a simple matter of copying from Alison Krauss' article and changing the text accordingly. See:

[table snipped from this FAC page] CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jaranda wat's sup 23:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I placed it but the table came out too big I think. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Object—2a. Here are examples from the top that indicate that a thorough copy-edit throughout is required.

    • "Born the youngest child of a Mexican immigrant couple,..."—Spot the redundant word.
    • "four number one Spanish hits"—hyphen required.
    • The link As of June 2006 takes me to stuff about the German intelligence agency, Iran, and Cape Town. Delink it.
    • "The family soon went bankrupt, and they were evicted from their home." Spot the redundant word.
    • "Taking all their musical equipment and an old bus,..."—"In" would be better than "and".
    • "There they performed whenever they could; at street corners, weddings, quinceañeras, and fairs." No, the semicolon should be a ... (you tell me). Tony 00:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok fixed all, mostly edits a annon user made not long ago, I don't know how to use an hyphen well so I might have done it wrong thanks Jaranda wat's sup 00:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The examples were evidence that the whole text needs editing. Can you network on WP to find people who are relatively unfamiliar with the text to improve it? Tony 00:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd be willing to look at the text, but after the article is thoroughly referenced. For now, there are still three personal or fan websites as references, so I have to object based on prose and referencing. Sandy 03:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Objection removed, article is referenced and prose has been addressed. Sandy 12:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I fixed it all. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 04:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Struck references above as completed: all of the references are now to reliable sources, but you should check that every statement in the article is referenced before we work on the copyedit. Sandy 05:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Taking a second look, there are still numerous statements that aren't referenced. A few examples from early on in the article (I didn't go through the entire article):
She continued her education on the road; at age seventeen she earned a high school diploma from The American School of Correspondence in Chicago and was accepted at Louisiana State University.
They initially performed at the Quintanilla family's restaurant, "Papagallos," but the restaurant failed shortly afterwards.
I also saw this in the lead, so wonder about the copy edit that was done: her 1994 album Amor Prohibido produced four number one Spanish' hits. Sandy 19:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Alot of the info comes from the same refs, might be a bit of an overkill. As for the sentence, that was when I tried to fix Tony1 objection, but as I really never used an hyphen before. Jaranda wat's sup 19:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I ref the family resturant one, but I don't agree with every sentence has to have a ref part, as it's not a contverisal article, and would be an overkill to add the same refs, people just can read the refs. Thabks Jaranda wat's sup 05:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your work, Jaranda, but there's still the need to engage collaborators in the task. Here are examples why, which are from the first part I inspected this time, at random—the opening of the "Legacy" section.
    • "In fact, the Guinness Book of World Records, in 2003 (she had previously graced the book's pages as the "most dominating artist"),..."—Stop-start structure; remove "In fact" to start with, since it adds nothing; perhaps replace it with "In 2003,".
    • "López was nominated for a Golden Globe award for Best Actress."—Do you mean for her role in that film?
    • "Over 12,000 people tried out for a role in the film.[17] This film stirred some controversy in the Mexican-American community since López is Puerto Rican and was playing the role of a singer who was of Mexican descent." To qualify as "compelling, even brilliant" prose, it might be something like this: "More than 12,000 people auditioned for a role in Selena.[17] The film stirred controversy in the Mexican-American community, since López is Puerto Rican and played the role of a singer of Mexican descent." And just why that community was upset is not quite clear.

Someone unfamiliar with the text needs to sift through it to make it really good. Nothing less is sufficient. Tony 13:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok User:Hoopydink did a decent copyedit, even though I had to revert like half of it, but most was useful. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 01:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, I'd go through the text in order to help, but I think it's still rather incomplete and not quite ready for a thorough going over. Jaranda, I know the woman is idolized, but is there *no* criticism of her anywhere? With bios such as hers, you have to carefully watch that the article doesn't veer into POV fan worship. A little more content addition, and I'll help with the copy edit. Sandy 14:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
That's a major problem, all the sites I went to has no crticism of her, maybe some older newspapers and magazines have them but they are not in the web, also her career was cut short by the murder before she managed to reach the U.S english market, limiting the critism there. I would look but it will be hard to find. Jaranda wat's sup 16:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Nothing that I can't find that is not blogs etc Jaranda wat's sup 22:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok I really need some help in getting older newspapers and magazines. I just removed an unsourced paragraph. Finding this stuff is hard to find in the internet that is not a fan site, as they don't really archive it and when they do, you have to pay like the New York Times articles, or like Billboard which clears it's articles after 3 months :(. Jaranda wat's sup 20:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    Strong Oppose she sucks, talentless, not notable we already got FAs on crappy singers, we don't need no more 205.188.116.202 23:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Striking out obvious bad faith vote Jaranda wat's sup 00:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Best not to strike out bad-faith comment, but to append a rejoinder to it. Tony 01:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I think in the above one, I think it could be safely to cross it out.
  • Support once Tony's objections are met. Overall, there are tiny fixes that should be made, but I pointed these out to Jaranda already. Mostly, I asked him to get page numbers for the book references, like the Guiness world record reference. I like the article, good job. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Huh? What book references, and what Guiness reference? Sandy 05:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I removed the paragraph, I can't find it in a non-fan site any where, maybe if someone has a 1999 or 2003 Guiness Book of World Records laying around. Jaranda wat's sup 02:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I went to the main libary in Downtown Miami to look for more refrences, and I couldn't find anything. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 06:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now. I've been asked to copyedit the article a bit, so for now I'm going to stay neutral (I'll change my vote later). Right off the bat, however, a citation could be used for the sentence in the lead "She took the award for Female Vocalist of the Year in 1987 at the Tejano Music Awards which helped land her a recording contract with EMI." Not a citation that she won, but a citation that the award was a factor in her contract. If there isn't a citation for the connection both pieces of information still warrant inclusion, but as seperate sentences. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok I reworded the sentence. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 20:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support now. I agree with Tony, the article has undergone wonderful changes. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The prose is much, much better. Well done; objection removed. Tony 09:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Four out of five citations checked as part of a citation spot check came up problematic, to varying degrees (results here). Please go through all the citations and make sure that the sources cited contain information directly supporting the statements in the article. --RobthTalk 18:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok fixed Jaranda wat's sup 20:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • To be clear: I'm waiting for confirmation that all the citations, and not just the ones I checked, have been checked and fixed as necessary before I withdraw my objection. --RobthTalk 15:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Confirmation received on my talk page. Objection withdrawn. --RobthTalk 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I really want this closed soon, I already fixed all the objections and they are crossed out and I'm personally burning out over this fac and a few other reasons. Jaranda wat's sup 04:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Jaranda is going to take a Wikibreak, so I will watch over this FAC for him. Any concerns should be brought up to me, please. While I need a little bit to catch up on any issues, I will try and get back with yall ASAP. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Further comment on my object: It is better than it was, but if it's going to be promoted, I shouldn't be able to easily find things like this stubby little paragraph with imperfections:

"In October of 1995 a Houston jury convicted Saldívar of first degree murder and sentenced her to life in prison, with the possibility of parole in thirty years."—See WP:MOS about the "of" before a year. Comma after "1995" might be nice. AmEng goes easy on hyphens, but US editors would still insist on a hyphenated "first-degree" here.

And the next sentence I saw was:

"Meanwhile, "I Could Fall In Love," while ineligible for the Hot 100 at the time due to it not being released as a commercial single, did reach #12 on the Hot 100 Airplay chart and the top 10 on the Adult Contemporary Chart. To date, "Dreaming of You" has sold approximately four million copies in the USA." Meanwhile ... while. "Due to it not being released is awkward and, indeed, ungrammatical. What is the earthly point of writing "to date"? How will our readers know when you're referring to? Just remove it and update when necessary.

And:

"People magazine published a commemorative issue in Selena's honor, this being only the third occasion on which People had released such an issue."—The same grammatical issue, in the second clause. Tiresome repetition ("People" and "issue"). Reword the whole sentence.

And:

"Stern's comments, predictably, outraged the Hispanic community"—Remove "predictably" as POV (if it's not POV, it's unnecessary).

I'm not yet satisfied that this is FA-standard prose. I want to be able to pick out a few sentences without finding these types of problems. Tony 14:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Those above examples were fixed, and fixed a little bit in the last section. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I provided the examples at random to show that the entire text needs a final, good run-through if it's to be promoted. Just fixing the examples is not the point. Can you ask someone new to look at it? Do you have a list of good copy-editors? (I do, but I keep it to myself.) Tony 03:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony, what I will do is try and place a tag for copyeditors to come and look at it. After doing a bunch of FAC's, you know that copyediting is not my strongest point, and about 9 times out of 10, I get someone else to do it for me. I'll see what I can do myself, too. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, but you know what they're like (rather passive); try active networking with a few—flatter, engage, then ask.Tony 04:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And since grammar is pretty much the only sticking issue with this FAC, at least we should get this down right. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Some copyediting was done by Reimelt recently, the others sections looked fully copyedited to me and is ok. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 06:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Rudolf Vrba[edit]

A meticulously referenced article about an important and controversial figure in Holocaust historiography. Authored the first report regarding the death camps that was taken seriously and acted upon; after the war, his accusations regarding the Zionist leadership have been used by many widely varying groups for political purposes. This article lays out all the known facts, and all the controversies regarding Vrba, giving each side fair play, and achieving a remarkable level of NPOV on a topic which is usually raised or used for polemical purposes. This is a semi self-nomination; SlimVirgin and I have essentially written it. Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment—It's generally well-written, but there are a few problems.
    • In the second sentence, don't refer to him as an inmate until you've told us that he was a prisoner at Auschwitz; as currently worded, it looks as though UBC is a prison, which ... may well be the case. :)
    • Please consider closing the gap before each reference, and between references where more than one are clustered. They're intrusive enough visually without the added space.
      • The gaps between multiple references are now closed, but the gaps between punctuation and the first ref remain. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Please go through and check the ambit of every reference. For example, does [13] refer to the remainder of its paragraph? (It's unclear.)
      • The refs refer to the quote or point (whatever it is) immediately before the ref. The refs don't refer to anything after them. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • There are snakes that need chopping up for readability: e.g., "Historians differ as to whether there is any truth in Vrba's allegations, which have revealed a fissure in Holocaust historiography between "survivor discourse" and "expert discourse," [14] the latter fiercely protected by some academic historians suspicious of the emotional, subjective approach of the survivors."
    • There are a few stubby parapgraphs; why not merge the second para of "Early life" into the first? Check other stubs.
      • Will do. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually, I already merged those two paragraphs. I'll look for other stubs as well. Jayjg (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "On Friday, 7 April 1944, at 2 pm, on the eve of Passover, [12] with the help of the camp underground, the two men climbed ..."—This succession of five commas can be reduced in number.
    • Provide metric equivalents for the 95% of humanity that doesn't use the US system. Tony 03:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The subsection header "How much did Vrba really know?" fails to follow the manual of style, and the "See [[foo]] section below" seem to violate the avoid self-reference guideline. Both of these served to break the flow of the narrative for me. These are pro-forma and perfunctory objections only, lest I be accused of going soft when I say "Excellent work!" - brenneman {L} 05:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the "see below" sections are important in an article of this length. We can try to think of another subtitle for "What did V really know." SlimVirgin (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Jay changed the subhead to "What Vrba knew". SlimVirgin (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Could you shorten the lead a little bit. It's too long. CG 10:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I feel it's about the right length for the length of the article, and it covers all the main issues the article will raise, as recommended by WP:LEAD. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • This was the first thing I noticed. The lead is indeed long, but SlimVirgin is right, it would suffer from any serious shortening. - brenneman {L} 23:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
      • It has been shortened. Jayjg (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Happy to see a referenced article: if you can correct the problems mentioned above, I'll take another look. Sandy 12:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Meticulous, well-researched. A paragon of what a Wikipedia article should be. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please fix all the footnotes and put the categories in alphabetical order. I also thought the lead was a bit long. Sandy 23:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure they're all fixed; what still needs to be done? Jayjg (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Which footnotes, Sandy, and what's the problem with them? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone has corrected them now. Sandy 15:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I've put the categories in alphabetical order. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm almost certain they've all been fixed now. Jayjg (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, the lead is far too long - think about what would appear on the main page and cut it back; see WP:LEAD. The text of the aticle isn't that extensive to require a four paragraph lead, and it goes into far more detail than is necessary for a summary. There is a bit much emotive langauge sprinkled though the text, for example death camp appears several times. What are the items in futher reading, if they were used to write the article they should be in references, if not what are they doing there? Why are awards and films stuck down at the end of the article, can't they be worked into the text somewhere?--Peta 03:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The further reading section is for material that's relevant to the subject and interesting, but which wasn't used as a reference. We can try to work the films into the text. I'm not sure I would call "death camp" emotive. Auschwitz-Birkenau was known as a death camp (Todeslager) or extermination camp, as opposed to a concentration or labor camp. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I've slightly shortened the lead section. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I've included awards and documentaries in the text. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
All the lead needs to say is that he escaped with the report, he criticsed the timing of the release and that current historians are still in disagrement about whether he was right. The current 475 word monster is too detailed.--Peta 03:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The lead section should given an overview of the whole article, one capable of standing on its own. Up to four paragraphs is recommended for an article of this length. See WP:LEAD. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The text of the article isn't that long when you take out all the citations. I would say that it is medium sized.--Peta 03:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It's about 10,000 words. WP:LEAD recommends three-four paragraphs for anything over 30,000 characters, and it's well over that. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you put your finger on what you find off-putting about the current lead? Is it a visual thing, or does it flow badly? You wrote that it was too detailed: does the detail get in the way of understanding, and if so, which details exactly? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The third paragraph goes into more detial that it needs to, the blood for trucks discussion could be shorter for example. I also don't like the long quote at the end of the fourth paragraph, that kind of analysis should really only be in the body of the text.--Peta 04:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The third paragraph is about the heart of the dispute, so it can't really be shortened. The fourth paragraph deals with how historians are responding to his allegations, and Yehuda Bauer is probably the leader of the group of historians who are critical of Vrba. The long quote from him sums up the feelings of those who talk about survivor v expert discourse, which is that the survivors know what happened to them but they are too distressed, and not knowledgeable enough, to attempt to analyse it and place it in context. And yet, of course, they do, and this leads to clashes with the academic historians, who may not have the personal experience of the Holocaust, but who do have the overview, or at least that is their argument. We could cut it out, but we'd lose the summary of an important aspect of the dispute. I like this lead because there's a paragraph devoted to each of four important points: (1) who he was; (2) what impact his report had; (3) the controversy and what it's related to; (4) what historians have said about it. It would be a shame to lose one of those, in my view, although I did slightly cut the long quote you didn't like. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I again agree that the lead is of the appropiate length, and that it follows the guideline. - brenneman {L} 03:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, excellently referenced and presented. Well done. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Balanced, heavily referenced, image support. I have no problems with a longer WP:LS if the topic warrants this. JFW | T@lk 07:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per all of the above. Outriggr 01:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "As his job involved him being present"—Ouch. Try "As his job involved his presence". I find the caption for "selection" to be too small and far too long. Can you integrate most of it into the main text? PS It's a good article! Tony 03:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you. :-) I tweaked the "involved him being present" sentence; reduced the image cutline; and increased the image size slightly. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I think this is a model article. Although it won't be of interest to many readers, it shows that Wikipedia can match the standards of Britanica. I think it also exemplifies the spirit of NPOV and NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is there an infobox possible? Why are there many references begenning with "__________"? Please use citation templates for references. Date wikilinking needs to be done consistantly. Apart from the Wikilinking issue, there is inconsistancy in using comma between dates. Avoid using words like "allegedly" (see WP:WTA and copyedit). Avoid using FA-star in templates used in the articles. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The citation templates are just a nuisance. It's far easier to write out citations without them. The line represents the name of the author in the preceding example: it's used to avoid repeating the same name over and over. Which dates are not linked in a consistent way, and can you give an example of the comma inconsistency? There's no reason to avoid using "allegedly." SlimVirgin (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Changing to Strongly abstain till issues are cleared on the talk pages. The citation templates are not a nuisance. They exist to provide uniformity to article citations and usability of the article while interacting with machines. If any new person comes in and adds reference, there should not be any problem for him/her to understand how to go about it. Also, with use of citation templates, the references become machine readable. For example, see Persondata to see how that specific template is used. It is not a citation template, but I am providing its link as the usage is well documented. What's easy is not always the right way, and I strongly suggest that citation templates be used. I am not aware of the line representation in citations, and hope that you have confirmed that it is an encyclopedic way of writing it. In "Early life and arrest" section, fourth paragraph has unlinked "June 30" (See MOSDATE). Similarly "April 10" in "Escape" section. Find other similar instances (there are many others). The article text has dates with no commas, while the references consistantly have commas (another reason why I strongly prefer citation templates). Also, all web-references need last accessed date. If possible, I would suggest separating the "Notes" section from the "Inline citation". Note: All issues mentioned by me are not objections. My objection is for the many issues mentioned, so please don't respond that a specific one is not a reason to object. Even those that are not are suggestions that will make the article better. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding your various points: (a) There's no requirement to use citation templates; one good reason not to is that they're not flexible and can't, for example, handle the need not to keep on repeating the author's name; (b) the only dates that the MoS suggests linking are complete dates so that date preferences work, and so I'll make sure these are all linked; (c) I still don't know what you mean about the dates and the commas, but I'll take a look; (d) I don't know what you mean by separating notes and inline citations. The notes are the inline citations. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I still can't see what you mean about dates. April 10 in the Escape section doesn't include a year and therefore doesn't have to be linked. Also, I can't see what you mean about commas being used in the References section but not in the text. Can you give an example of a full date with no comma? (I'm assuming you mean the comma between 31 and 2006 as in July 31, 2006, which should also have a comma when linked, if your preferences are set for the U.S. way: July 31, 2006). SlimVirgin (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is not a requirement, as I said in the note above. But using it would have solved another problem of inconsistant commas that I mentioned. Dates like "June 30" should be wikilinked. Quoting from WP:MOSDATE: "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should normally be linked in order to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format. The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present." (italics mine). As it is clear from the quote above, partial dates "should normally" be wikilinked. I see no reason why this article should be any exception. Notes and inline citation are completely different. See Rabindranath Tagore for example, that goes a step ahead by using inline references inside notes. I hope you didn't miss my pointing out of requirement of last accessdate of external links. It is something that's essential. Coming back to your arguement about use of ciation templates, you don't need to use the full template everytime, again see Rabindranath Tagore. So the flexibility part doesn't come into picture. Hope this clears up your doubts. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Then someone has changed the MoS recently because that's not what it's meant to say. Only full dates need to be linked. You may link others if you want to, but most people don't. Last access is not essential. The citation templates are not even recommended to the best of my knowledge; they are just an option, and one that many people don't like and don't use. See WP:CITE, which is the guideline for citations, and which this article, to the best of my knowledge, adheres to. Can you please point to an example of the inconsistent use of commas you've mentioned twice? By the way, what did you think of the actual article? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The citations in this article all follow a standard and uniform format. Citation templates are not even recommended, and are a huge nuisance; they're a special language that must be learned to insert citations, yet they add no particular value, and are extremely inflexible. They certainly don't allow for the kind of lengthy, complex, and nuanced footnotes used in this article. It astonishes me that two people can write an 11,000 word article on a complex topic, using dozens of high quality references and hundreds of footnotes, yet the only comment other people can make is to oppose it as a featured article because it doesn't use a fiddly citation template, and follow their preferred date style. Jayjg (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per Slrubenstein and all of the above. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Countdown (game show)[edit]

This article has recently undergone a massive overhaul at the hands of me and User:JonONeill. We've rewritten the whole thing, sourced every last statement, and added some interesting GFDL images (and, inevitably, some fair use ones). There are no FAs or GAs on game shows at the moment, so it's hard to compare it to anything relevant, but hopefully the article speaks for itself. Soo 23:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object Too many sections and not enough information for each section. QuizQuick 02:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I've removed two of the subsection headings. I can't see how any more of them are superfluous. Soo 13:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Object. This page is really quite good. I think the sectioning is within reason. I have two issues and a (stupid?) question.
  • Far too many fair-use images. Including an allegedly-fair-use scan of a page from the Oxford Dictionary of English.
    • Now only two. Soo 13:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Three, actually (the lead logo is as well), but it seems reasonable now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Over-reliance on The Countdown Page as a source. There is something about pages with pebbly background images and Comic Sans MS fonts that, somehow, for me, doesn't scream "reliable source".
    • The Countdown Page is to Countdown as IMDB is to movies. It may not be a gem of web design but that doesn't reflect on reliability. You can't record two decades of Countdown results without knowing a thing or two about the programme. Soo 13:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Maybe. But if an article on a movie, or on the movie industry, were mostly sourced to IMDB, I would raise the same objection. Also see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources. Objection stands. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Only about a third of the references are to TCP, which I find reasonable, especially considering its authority which you question on the grounds of it looking crap. In the mind of myself and probably most others, there is no question of its reliability. Jono 21:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I looked through Spreading The Word again and replaced many of the references to TCP. Needless to say, all the facts agreed, which ought to give you some faith in the rest of them. I'm sure this argument would never have been raised if the site didn't look so awful. Soo 10:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Thank you. Did you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
            • I did, it made for interesting reading. I'm still unsure of the status of TCP in that respect. A lot of the guidelines make sense in the context of scientific topics, but less so in popular culture terms. There's not much chance of finding a printed source for scores from a TV game show. Nevertheless the site has been extensively fact-checked by fans of the programme, so it's about as good as you could ask for in the field. Soo 15:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And the (stupid?) question. What's up with spelling "role" "rôle"?
Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Rôle is a legitimate spelling variant in English (the OED lists it too). --Oldak Quill 11:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Support. I enjoyed reading that article, great job working on that. I have a few suggestions and comments, although I've crossed out anything I've done.
  • In fact, Countdown was the first programme to be broadcast on the new channel. - Could the 'In fact' be removed from this sentence, I don't think it's neccessary.
  • rôle - Could this be switched to the more conventional spelling? My spell checker doesn't recognise it and I've never seen it spelt like that before. Perhaps if you don't want to use "role" another suitable word could be chosen instead? Just looks a bit weird.
    • Switched it to the more conventional spelling. Rôle is perfectly okay English, and looks cooler in my opinion, but I guess 'role' will do just as good a job. Jono 22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The letters round example could be taken to mean the consonants and vowels have to be selected in sets. For example, 6 consonants and then 3 vowels. Could they be mixed up a bit to show they can be selected in any order?
    • Sorted. Jono 22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 10 points a given for an exact answer should that be "10 points is given"?
  • 10 points a given for an exact answer, 7 points for a solution within 5 of the target, and 5 points for a solution within 10. - This could be misunderstood to mean the scores are accumulative. Could that be clarified to avoid confusion?
    • Sorted. Jono 22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 4,000 has a comma near the top, but not in a section lower down.
  • Contestant One requests two large numbers - They usually say the amount of small numbers as well, I think.
    • It's a trivial truth, but it makes sense to have it there, so I sorted it. Jono 22:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • However not all games are soluble - Should that be solvable?
    • They are synoynmous. Soo 09:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • crucial conundrum - I think on the show they call it a "Crucial Countdown Conundrum". Yay for alliteration!
    • Yeah, CCC is the convention on TV. Jono 22:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Are the examples real? If not, would it be possible to add real ones? I can record it tomorrow and get you some real examples if you like.
    • They're not real; as far as I know the greyhound round was used in the audition and the numbers game is the work of Soo's head. I don't think getting real rounds would change a whole lot, but if you can be bothered to and think that they exemplify the format in a similar good fashion, then by all means go ahead. Jono 22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • In 2002 film About a Boy - Maybe have "the" after "in" to make it easier to read?
  • This was edited out of the programme but has since appeared on many outtakes shows. - What happens when a round is edited out? I think they have a sort of pretend round where it's rigged to get the same score but with a more acceptable word for the time of day.
    • That's exactly what happened, although it's not easy to source and not that interesting, so it was kept out. If you can source it though, you can add it, as I know other people find that sort of thing interesting. Jono 22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • knickname and occured - Spelling mistakes.
  • superlative forms of one-syllabled adjectives - My spell checker doesn't like that word. Would "syllable" be an acceptable replacement in that context?
    • You can make any noun into an adjective in that fashion, but it does look quite clumsy, so I've swapped it for 'monosyllabic', which I think makes sense and keeps the sentence concise. Jono 22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Cool. Thanks for getting all those things sorted. I've changed my status to Support. Icey 00:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Abstain:
  • The prose doesn't flow well for me at all. It has too many start-and-stop type sentences (hard to explain). The Character section, for example, is really bad about this. It seems to just be a list of random statements that don't connect with one another.
    • I disagree in general, but you're right about the Character section. It has a lot of true and interesting statements with no real flow. I'll try to revise it. Soo 09:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I've had a go at fixing this but it's worth checking over by someone who isn't cream crackered. :-) CountdownCrispy 21:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I think it's better now. Soo 11:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The number of references looks very superficial. Are all of those really needed? Not to mention your main source, "The Countdown Page", looks like a GeoCities page.
    • You can always just not look at them. Who benefits from an article with fewer references? For discussion of The Countdown Page, see above. Soo 09:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Excessive citations can disrupt flow of reading (too many little numbers). It's not that I mind having a lot of references, it's just that more diversity is nice. Looking at the references and seeing too many cites from the same source isn't good. At the very least, surely there must be something more official than that "The Countdown Page". Also, New Oxford Dictionary of English Guidelines is a broken link for me.--SeizureDog 18:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Personally I would rather have a citation for every assertion than an article which is slightly easier to read. Diversity is nice, yes, and wherever possible we have referenced other sources, but TCP really is the only website of its kind; the most official thing you're likely to find is the Channel 4 page, which certainly lacks the breadth of TCP. Is there anything you actually dispute on there? New Oxford Dictionary of English Guidelines seems fine to me. Jono 19:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Final 8 seconds of the Countdown clock music": My player only says its 7 seconds long. --SeizureDog 06:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Depends whether your player rounds up or down. Soo 09:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps "<8 seconds" would be better then?--SeizureDog 18:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Rather than involving algebra, I just changed it to something a bit simpler.
  • Soo is better than me at these and has promised me he will do it soon. Jono 19:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Dunno how that one slipped the net, but it's handled now. Thanks for pointing it out. Soo 20:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll admit to not having read the entire article yet. I'll give a fully analysis at a later date.--SeizureDog 18:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Withdrawn vote due to not having time to fully assess article. --SeizureDog 06:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; External links should be after refs, but other than that, it seems fine (I'm impressed that you managed to get free images of a TV show). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 16:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Jono 16:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment only:
  1. I feel like there is insufficient information on the overall tournament structure, as opposed to individual games. The manipulation of the structure to ensure higher viewer interest is one of the key reasons of Countdown's success, at the moment "seeded knockout" looks like the only hint of this. Given some of the comments on the talk page on the subject, I suspect more could be written on the subject.
    I don't see what more detail can be provided. The eight players are arranged into the standard single elimination format, e.g. Seed 1 plays Seed 8 in the quarter-final, etc. Soo 12:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    For a start, are they seeded before the tournament begins? Judging from the talk page comments, there is an initial seeding so that projected octochamps don't knock each other out early on. Secondly, look at the link that is given to Single-elimination tournament. That article specifically refutes the idea that seeded knockouts all have 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7 etc. If Countdown is "perfectly seeded" this way, then that does deserve a mention. It would also be nice to be given a rough indication how many games you need to win to get through - do all octochamps end up qualifying? TheGrappler 16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Thinking about it, I definitely stand by this. There's obviously more to it than seeding at the quarterfinal point (is that based on accumulated points, by the way? Or by wins, then splits decided on points?). And there is a clear need to point out that it's 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, etc. The article on seeded knockouts points out alternative ways that this could be done, it's not just 1 vs 8 etc. TheGrappler 21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Okay, good point. This has now been made explicit. Soo 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Could the free use images be released on the Commons under a slightly freer license, like CC-BY? One problem with GFDL images is that if a print publication publishes them, it has (in theory) got to include a full copy of the text of the GFDL license, which is one of the problems with using a license basically meant for instruction manuals to cover images too. It's really nice to have free use images of a TV show, and since these photos are therefore quite unusual it would be nice for them to be as freely usable as possible without losing the authorship-acknowledgement requirement.
    Good idea, this has been handled now. Soo 12:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks! TheGrappler 16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Unlike many popular British TV gameshows this doesn't seem to have been copied widely overseas (I guess, judging from the absence of any information in the text). I presume this is because it is the original French format which would be copied elsewhere - perhaps some explanation of the international popularity or not of the particular format would be relevant here?
    There is something on the talk page about an American version being rejected for its intellectuality... the quoted source, though, is in my opinion unreliable in this respect... "too intellectual" reeks of bullshit to me. I've also heard of a Spanish version but that was only today; perhaps I will look into it. Jono 21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. It isn't made explicit just how closely it follows to the original format. Some more information the key differences and why they were made would be good; otherwise a statement that the format was essentially retained identically would be informative. If the format is internationally popular, based on the original French show, what are the distinctive features of the British version?
    It's evolved quite a lot from the original, but it's approaching POV territory to comment on that in the article. There just aren't any sources for an intellectual comparison of the two. This is a game show, after all. Soo 12:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Perhaps if you could mention whether certain key features have been carried over or are original inventions: for instance, the aims of the rounds, the timer, the 30 second period, "big and small" numbers, the random number generator, the vowels vs consonants choice, the final conundrum?TheGrappler 16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    I agree, I think... a few more sentences in the Evolution section are appropriate and I'm fairly confident of the DCedL format so I will sort this out either tonight or tomorrow. But as Soo says, there's no real way to have a critical comparison unless there is one already knocking about. If you're interested in it you can write an article on it and we will source that. :-) Jono 21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Oh I don't think a critical comparison is necessary :-) But this game is very formulaic - it's the very embodiment of the "formula game show" - and it would be nice to know where some of the individual elements of the formula come from. TheGrappler 21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, you're right. We've added something on the most glaring differences between the two programmes. They really are quite different now. Soo 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks a lot. The only thing that's bothering me is that "Des Chiffres...'s" looks awful! TheGrappler 20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    I've changed it to the perhaps more conventional abbreviation of DCedL, but it's a personal choice really (unless there's some Wikipedian guidance on the subject that I'm overlooking.) :-) - CountdownCrispy 21:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    Just for your consideration rather than "criticisms" or "objections" really, but hopefully worth thinking about. Sincerely, TheGrappler 01:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Also worth thinking about - Carol Vorderman appears to occupy an extraordinary and unusually elevated position in British culture, presumably coming off the back of this show. Perhaps something more needs to be made of the "brain plus looks" approach the show's creators went for when selecting her and the image and media presence she's managed to produce as a result.
    The "brain plus looks" you speak of was developed later, I think, and her cultural significance, I think, is due to her presence elsewhere in the media, like adverts for First Plus and whatever. She has something of a cult following, and I'm not sure if it correlates with her Countdown career, although obviously the former is as a result of the latter. Even so, I think it's moot, because although interesting it's hard to source, and including it unsourced would be unencyclopaedic. Jono 21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    I really don't see it as a moot point. So many gameshows follow the model of having a strong male host and some candyfloss women, yet the creator's consciously employed a Cambridge graduate. That's a distinctive feature of the show. Whatever their intentions were, it's surely not a coincidence. I have distinct memories of her publically talking about how she got the job, and she definitely fitted a profile they were seeking out. I wonder if that ever got into any biographical material on her? An alternative would be to report the early critical or media response. She can't have slipped under the carpet then. Employing a Cambridge graduate as the "glamorous assistant" was a really extraordinary move - I really can't think of any parallels. TheGrappler 21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    I've added a brief section and a reference about how Carol got the job which hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me can build upon. (Oh, and by the way, could this this candidate's section be sorted out so that's it's clear what is being said and suggested, please, including removing the duplicate of this section? I would do so myself but I don't want to accidentally delete what someone else has said.) Regards, CountdownCrispy 12:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    That's an improvement. Do you think it's worth mentioning that she is Cambridge graduate or a MENSA member? Something to convey the idea that she is pretty smart, at any rate. TheGrappler 20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    I've added a reference (in both senses of the word) to Carol's MENSA membership. - CountdownCrispy 21:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Additionally, the reasons for the show's unusually strong appeal aren't really explored. I appreciate it's probably been a long time since a TV critic took a look at this, but would it be impossible to find some kind of information on the critical response? TheGrappler 17:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    It's touched upon in the Character section, but anything further is difficult; unless you back it up with strong and explicit sources it's hard to avoid POV, otherwise it is original research. If you can suggest some sources then I will gladly add some more prose, otherwise I can't see how we can effectively add this in. Jono 21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    I appreciate the difficulty of sourcing, but I at least expected to see the early critical reception. TV critics must have reviewed the first outing of the show, surely? TheGrappler 21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    I'll look into this, but realistically it's going to be difficult to find much. Countdown is now so well established that no TV critic really bothers themself with it any more, and early critical reaction certainly pre-dates the days of Internet archives. I'll see what I can find in the university library but realistically an issue of the Radio Times from two decades ago is not easily obtained. Soo 17:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    I guess the Radio Times is near the definitive place to check for reviews of UK TV. Unfortunately newspaper archives (at least online ones) don't tend to go back this far either, but I bet on opening night they will have reviewed Countdown. TheGrappler 20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Has it always been on at the 3.30pm slot? Or has it moved about over the past 20 years?
    Made this explicit. I don't think a lot of detail is necessary, but the teatime slot is a key part of the programme. Soo 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, I think that was worth doing. Especially since it was raised in the UK Parliament! TheGrappler 20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. I've just realized there's an omission so glaring I'm tempted to move from merely commenting to oppose - while viewer ratings might not be completely stable and there's no point updating this article each time new figures come through, shouldn't this article really make include some detail on how many millions of people were thought to watch, perhaps averaged over the course of 2005? And would a similar figure be available for one of the earlier years? Some idea of the scale ought to come across - is this nearer the 500,000 mark or the 5,000,000? (Similarly, is it known whether this is one of Channel 4's most expensive advert slots?) TheGrappler 21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Another good point. We're looking into this. Soo 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    Found more info than I expected, in fact. Hopefully I've resolved this omission now. Soo 19:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    Hey, that's really nice! I'm impressed. TheGrappler 20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I notice that this image: Image:Studiodiagram.png is made up of various shapes. Would an SVG version be any use to you? I downloaded an SVG image creator thingamy and I want to make something useful! Is there anything you would like to be different on it? Like colours, layout and so on? Icey 23:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I thought about doing an SVG version of that image, but decided that my skill in Photoshop is unmirrored in any SVG program - by all means, go ahead and SVG it. That would be very helpful. Jono 09:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
      • If you haven't already made the image then it might be nice to have the desk area reflect the creamy colour of the 'carpet' in reality, and also the studio floor features a blue arrow on a very pale cream - see Image:Countdownset.jpg. As I say this is only worth considering if you haven't already made the graphic since it's purely aestethic pedantry for me to even suggest it! Regards, CountdownCrispy 17:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your suggestions. I've created a new image based on the PNG version with your suggestions and a couple of other things I've noticed in the pictures, like the clock on the floor. Here's my current draft. I'm not sure about how the raised floor goes on the left side, because I don't have a picture of that. Perhaps you know? Let me know if there's anything you would like changed on it and I'll get it sorted. Icey 20:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I think the SVG idea is a good one and you've made a good start, but it's now too realistic and looks cluttered. Its use in the article is to illustrate where the various people sit, but that's now crowded out by excessive details on the floor. The clock in particular is confusing because the article refers to the clock being the centrepiece of the set - a reader who had not seen the programme might easily conclude that this centrepiece was located on the floor! In diagrams like this, less is more. Soo 11:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Aye, you're completely right. I went a bit crazy there! Here's the second draft. I've removed the blue lines, raised area, clock and the gradient on the main clock. Hopefully that is a bit better :) Icey 18:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Excellentay! Nice one. Jono 18:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
                • I'll have to agree with Jono - whilst the first was nicer as a piece of art the second is a better diagram. Lovely work. :-) - CountdownCrispy 09:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
                  • Yep, good stuff. Thanks! Soo 11:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
                    • Cool! I've uploaded it here: Image:Countdown_studio.svg. Let me know if there's anything you want changing on it. Icey 18:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
                      • It's good. My only request is that you upload it to the Commons under a freer licence than GFDL (see the discussion somewhere above). Soo 08:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is generally good, and I wouldn't object to it becoming featured. That said,
  1. The article focuses on the mechanics of the game, and barely mentions Whiteley's distinctive style of presentation, nor the alternative style of Des Lynam. The section on "Character" would seem the natural place for a brief discussion of this.
    Yeah, you're right. I'll try to add something on this. Soo 15:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Similarly, the article doesn't mention the filming process at all (unless it's recently changed, one week's worth of shows are filmed in a single day, three weeks worth being filmed over three days in a single week), and the whole series being shot well ahead of time. It might also be worth mentioning that the applause etc is live, not canned.
    Your information is correct, but it's extraordinarily difficult to find references for it, due to the show's insistence on maintaining the pretense of being broadcast live. I'll see what I can do. I'll give the studio audience a mention, too. Soo 15:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. A small thing, but it is described as a "program" in the intro, which is unusual for British English, "programme" being more usual.
    Urgh, yes, a straight typo, and now fixed. Soo 15:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. The article states "The programme's longevity is often considered to be a consequence of its cult status" without ever explaining why it is considered to have cult status (perhaps the previous line is meant to be the explanation, but if so, the link should be made explicit).
    I've changed the order of a couple of sentences to hopefully make this clearer but, as I always say, these sorts of edit are not my forte so if someone wants to read it through then I've laid the foundations. :-) CountdownCrispy 15:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
That said, it's good work, and I hope to see it featured soon. Warofdreams talk 13:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :) Soo 15:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weakish Object. Good article, but a citation spot check (results here) on this article turned up enough cases of citing sources that were related to but did not directly support the statements in the article that I'm worried that this may be a systemic issue. Someone needs to go through, check all the footnotes, and fix any problematic ones. --RobthTalk 16:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I've fixed the particular problems you highlighted, and I can't find any others, but you might want to get someone else to check those over. Soo 16:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd have to agree with Soo regarding sources. First of all, scanning the sources there are a lot of sources other than the Countdownpage. Secondly, it is by far and away the best site. Most of the other sites made since (including my own) rely heavily on information from the CDP anyway, so using them as supporting sources is questionable. Thirdly, you can't really compare it to football, cricket, baseball or whatever where there are hundreds of website detailing games. The CDP is not surprisingly just about the only one. Soo's site is also excellent because it's one of the few that's based on viewers written records (via the coutdown webgroup) but those sites are really the only two reliable ones.

As for footnotes, I agree that they should come after external links. If anything, wikipedia should change the page headings to article, discussion, edit, history, follow and sources so you don't get all the little blue links on the main page.

Mglovesfun 19:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - A few suggestions:
  1. The first reference to Susie Dent in the main text is not linked (although she is later in the text and in the side panel). This was enough to make me search to see if she had an article.
    Fixed. Soo 23:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. The conundrum section should probably mention that the conundrums are not totally random letter order but normally a combination of shorter words
    Difficult to source, and not always true. For example, see http://www.thecountdownpage.com/final2.htm . There are more recent examples where the conundrum didn't spell any shorter words, e.g. YURICOLUS.
  3. The article doesn't mention whether dictionary corner or Carol cheat or entirely use their own brain power. I vaguely remember reading an interview with a guest some years ago saying that he was fed words through his earpiece. JMiall 23:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    I remember reading that too, I think it was in the Daily Mail. Would be hard to get hold of now. The truth is that Dictionary Corner cheat (with the aid of the production team) and Carol does it herself. Soo 23:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    See [1] JMiall 12:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support with comments, jwandersTalk 14:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC): First off, great job, both on the article itself and on your tireless ability to respond to the concerns and comments posted here. That said, I'm afriad I have a few more nitpicks to add to the list
  1. I too find the "rôle" spelling of "role" distracting and have not encountered it before. I believe someone said above that it would be changed to the more conventional spelling, but there's still an instance of the accented version in the third paragraph of the Presenters section
    That one slipped the net. Fixed. Soo 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. All of the information in the Evolution section feels like it should be in the History section. I thought, for example, that the increase in the number of rounds had been omitted until I reached the later section.
    I disagree. It doesn't make sense for the article to talk about, say, the changes in the scoring for the number round before it's even explained what the number round is. Soo 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Letters rounds, paragraph 2 reads: "Contestants write down the words they have found during the round, in case they have the same one. If a word is not written down, the player must declare this and reveal their word first, in case it is the same as the one their opponent has written. After the thirty seconds is up, the players declare the length of their chosen word, with the player who selected the letters declaring first." The sentence order here seems to imply that if a word isn't written down, it must be declared before the 30 seconds are up. The second sentences should be moved to later in the paragraph.
    This is awkward to explain concisely. See what you think now. Soo 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. The letters example might explicitly state that Contestant One scores no points.
    Done. Soo 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Conundrum section could use a opening transition, e.g. "The final round of the game is the 'Countdown Conundrom'...", or something similar
    Done. Soo 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. In Popular Culture, paragraph 2, I found this sentence very confusing at first: "Countdown has also generated a number of popular outtakes, with the randomly selected letters producing the occasional moment that was deemed unsuitable for the original broadcast." Perhaps replacing "moment" with "word" would be clearer.
    Done. Soo 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. There is no mention of what occurs if the game is tied after the conundrom (forgot this one before 15:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC))
    You were right the first time; "If the scores are level after the conundrum, additional conundrums are used until the match is decided." Soo 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support obviously ... I'm curious as to why it is still here though. Jono (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jono on the length of time this has been here - I make it six supports to one 'weakish' object, and even that last one might now be considered questionable because the suggested change/check has been made. Soo and Jono have been extremely quick to sort out any problems or act upon any suggestions in the course of this process and have created what I consider a truly comprehensive article.
Given that last statement, I will do what I'd forgotten to and add my support to this article. I've done very little major work to the article, only tidying a few little odds and ends wherever I could, so I'm pretty sure I can't be considered a major contributor. So that's seven in support now. :-)
Regards, CountdownCrispy 11:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Gregorian chant[edit]

Self-nominationThis article has been through a major overhaul. The content has been reorganized to give a more comprehensive coverage of the topic. The article has been thoroughly copyedited by several editors, and has gone through a peer review. This is a great demonstration of the advantages to Wikipedia not being paper, using both images and sound files to illustrate the essay. Thanks for your consideration! Peirigill 06:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. I'd like to see this promoted, but the prose is not yet good enough. Here are examples.
    • The opening sentence is a long snake that needs splitting. I'd love an en dash for "800–1000"—perhaps "the ninth and tenth centuries" might be safer, or are you sure of those exact boundaries? PS I've learnt a new word: "redaction"—nice.
      • DoneBridesmill 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm moving "Catholic Church" per WP:LEAD. The first sentence ought to define the term, and the context of Catholicism is essential to the definition. Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "but came to be associated"—are you contradicting the previous statement? If not, use "and" instead.
      • I think this is a valid contradiction of popular belief.Bridesmill 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Bridesmill is correct; Gregorian chant didn't arise until a good 200 years after Gregory, but popular lore (both in the middle ages and today) credits Gregory with composing or at least organizing the chant. Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "Musically, it is organized ..."—I think we've lost sight of what "it" refers to.
      • Does anyone else insist? Unless there is a serious short term memory problem, flows good here to me.Bridesmill 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Every use of "it" and "its" in the lede refers to "Gregorian chant." I've reworded the lede slightly to make that more clear.
    • "outside OF"—please no.
      • If you insist

SFriendly.gif - though I have a bit of a musical problem with that statement...Bridesmill 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

        • I have a bit of a musical problem with your edit here, Bridesmill. The B-flat isn't a "deviation" from the diatonic scale, it's a result of Guido's hexachords. "Deviation" has a negative connotation of "introduced error" that strikes me as incorrect and even POV. Moreover, a very small number of Gregorian chants include E-flats and F-sharps - not enough to dwell on, but enough that your statement "B-flat is the only deviation" is incorrect. If the concern is with the phrase "outside of," a simpler fix is to just say "outside the diatonic scale." Unless you disagree, I'd prefer to use this wording, and revert your edits, Bridesmill. Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I had the sense of 'deviation' as 'exception to the rule' rather than 'deviance'. My real problem though it the B flat - my music theory was in 1974 or so, hence I'm quite rusty, but seems to me this would be the case only in key of C; my recollection is that the rule is actually the 6th note rather than specifically B flat. If that's the case, it could read "...hexachords using the diatonic scale and (in solfege notation) Te" ?216.168.114.215 00:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid your music theory is, in fact, a bit rusty, at least as regards the medieval use. There was no "key of C" during the period when Gregorian chant was being made to conform to the system of modes. The theory involved "hexa"-chords - patterns of six notes - so there was, in fact, neither "ti" nor "te" in Guido's solfège, only ut re mi fa sol la.It was very specifically the B-flat, and no other note, that was allowed. Specifically, the "B" from the the G hexachord was the "hard B," and the "B" from the F hexachord was the "soft B." This latter was drawn as a rounded b, which is the origin of the flat sign. If anything, it was the note beneath the clef marker, not the sixth note, that became linked with the flat. This is why the E-flat was the second "accidental" to be used; there were two "clefs" in common use, one clef where the C was marked and another where the F was marked. The soft-b sign originally placed beneath the C line was eventually stripped of its meaning as a "B," reinterpreted as a flat, and placed on the space beneath the F line to indicate an E-flat. The B-flat was not an "exception to the rule." It was an application of the hexachord pattern (whole tone-whole tone-semitone-whole tone-whole tone, the intervals between ut, re, mi, fa, sol, and la) to the core notes C, F, and G (the Pythagorean tonic, fourth, and fifth of the diatonic scale). But this takes us into territory that isn't germane, and belongs not in the Gregorian chant article but the solfège and music notation articles. The original wording - minus the redundant "of" - is more accurate.Peirigill 01:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "a vocabulary of particular musical motifs"—Can you clarify "particular"? Either remove it, or disambiguate.
      • I believe this is clarified further down, to do so in lead would make the lead too big, at the same time, the point shouldn't be left out of lead altogether.Bridesmill 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Nowhere in the article do I write out these motifs. There are hundreds of them, each consisting of around ten to thirty notes. As the article states, some motifs are used only as incipits, some only as cadences, some only in between. Honestly, I don't believe that writing out the particular musical phrases is appropriate for an encyclopedia article about chant, as opposed to a monograph. Even a representative sample, such as the motifs used for the Iustus ut palma chants, takes several pages in Apel. However, they're not completely absent from the article; a few of these motifs are included in the Tract "De profundis." One cadence motif in particular occurs several times. I could draw the reader's/listener's attention to that more explicitly, if you think it necessary. Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "from which the modern five-line staff would develop"—Since you've already located the development of the GC in time, can you specify the century here?
    • "Gregorian chant also played an important role in the development of polyphony." "Important"? No, be stronger: "critical" or "crucial".
      • Strong word would be 'nice', but without ref would be hyperbole, reading the article makes it obvious how important it was.Bridesmill 16:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
        • How about "fundamental"?That's not hyperbolic... and it's even not a terrible abuse of the musicological meaning of the term. Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "It is the music of the Roman Rite of the Mass, and of the monastic Offices"—"of the" occurs three times.
      • Fixed Bridesmill 16:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
        • "Roman Rite Mass" is problematic; I'm going to change this slightly. Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "Although it is no longer obligatory, the Catholic Church still officially considers it the music most suitable for worship"—maybe a reference for this? Unsure. And can you go through the whole article to audit the use of "it"; I find the referent unclear sometimes. Here, the first "it" might refer to "the Catholic Church"; although this becomes clearly not the case as you read on, you shouldn't have to be left hanging, even for a few seconds. There are three "its" at the end.
      • One 'it' & ref for Cath.Church opinion done Bridesmill 16:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
        • If you look at the talk page, you'll see that this issue has been raised and addressed.There's a more direct (and less biased) source than the Catholic Encyclopedia cited later in the article.Is it really necessary to cite this in the lede, which is supposed to summarize the article, when this exact point is elaborated and given a citation in the main body of the article?Similarly, I'm uncomfortable with Bridesmill's citation for modern notation in the 16th century; per WP:LEAD, the lede isn't supposed to contain information not in the article, and that detail isn't in the article.I'd prefer to move that added phrase about the 16th century down to the section on Medieval and Renaissance music, and use Bridesmill's citation there rather than the lede.Is that acceptable?Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I think you make a good point, but for me, it seems like the kind of statement that, while true, is immediately called into question and begs for verification. What about a link that just sends you down the page to the appropriate section for more info and your better reference? I was also surprised to find the relevant part ("Vatican II officially allowed worshipers to substitute other music, particularly modern music in the vernacular, in place of Gregorian chant, although it did reaffirm that Gregorian chant was still the official music of the Catholic Church, and the music most suitable for worship.") in the "Texture" section. This doesn't seem appropriate. MarkBuckles 05:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Good point.I'll relocate it to the history section. Peirigill 08:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Regarding the use of "it": I'm going through the article, editing the word "it" per your instruction, and I'm finding that this is primarily an issue in the lede.The word occurs hardly at all in the body of the article.I'm revising where I think there's even a slight chance of confusion.In general, I'm not rewriting the impersonal use of "it" in phrases such as "it is believed" or "it is common for" where "it" does not have a specific referent.Please let me know if there are specific cases that you find problematic.Your request for an "audit" is addressed below, in response to your request for better copyediting. Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The quote underneath the ogg link starts with quote marks and with a lower-case letter. I'd like the author of this statement in brackets, plus the year, rather than having to hit the reference link for this.
      • Done Bridesmill 16:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Per WP:CITE, Wikipedia style doesn't prefer one style over the other, but it does require that citation style be consistent throughout the article: "All three are acceptable citation styles for Wikipedia. Do not change from Harvard referencing to footnotes or vice versa without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor."With all due respect, Tony, I don't think this particular objection is legitimate.The footnote should stay, and the Harvard reference be removed.Please let me know if this request of mine is unacceptable, and if so, why your instruction overrides WP:CITE.Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Caption for the image: can we have the year or century? Where is "St Henry"? Can you fix the funny angle of the page? (Even my computer will do this.)
      • Done Bridesmill 16:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC))
        • I had originally put more information (including the century and nationality) in the caption, but removed it per WP:CAPTION.That information is included in the body of the article, in the Notation section.I'm perfectly happy to put it back in, but the centuries should be spelled out to be consistent with the rest of the article. Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The article needs a thorough copy-edit; then we'll look at the musical side. Tony 08:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The primary copyediting issue that you raised, the use of "it," isn't really an issue in the main body of the article.Prior to Bridesmill's editing, the word "it" occurred only sixteen times in the entire article."Its" occurred five times, and "itself" only once.However, I've cleaned up these cases where corrections seemed merited.If you have other specific copyediting concerns, you would be helping me out a great deal if you could point them out.Having copyedited this article a great deal, I'm less able to identify problems than I would be were I editing someone else's work with a fresh eye.Thanks to you both for your comments! Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thx; it's customary not to strike out reviewers' points as you address them. Tony 16:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Because I'm addressing some of these points, sometimes in opposition to Bridesmill's edits, I'm going to unstrike everything. Peirigill 22:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Further comments. Is the performer of the "Alma Redemptoris Mater" a Wikipedian? Nice, but I wonder whether a tiny bit of reverb wouldn't be inappropriate: it's a dry acoustic. I guess it's not mandatory, but there's nothing in the "file info" about the recording—date, recordist, venue, whether it's a private recording.

  • Yes, the performer of all the chants is a Wikipedian, namely me working with a broken microphone and recovering from a bout of bronchitis.If someone would like to instruct me how to add reverb using GarageBand, or wants to take it upon themself to add reverb, they're welcome to do so. Peirigill 16:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Then my eyes strayed onto the first para in the first section:

"Unaccompanied singing has been part of the liturgy of the Christian church since its beginnings. The singing of hymns is mentioned in the New Testament, and other ancient witnesses such as Tertullian, Pope Clement I, St. Athanasius, and the abbess Egeria confirm the practice,[4] although in a poetic or obscure way that sheds little light on how music sounded in these first centuries."

Does it change the meaning too much to start with "Unaccompanied singing has been part of the liturgy since the beginnings of the Christian church"? Sorry to be snapping terrier about "it" and "its", but here the pronoun could refer to "unaccompanied singing" or "the Christian church". Of course, after thinking about it for a few milliseconds you realise that it's the latter, but crystal clear prose typically avoids such ambiguities. There's further ambiguity in "although in a poetic or obscure way that sheds little light on ...". Here, "that" could refer to the confirming of the practice by the specified witnesses; it's the way I first comprehended it, only to do a reverse after finishing the sentence (realising that the referent is "a poetic or obscure way"). Have you got a few copy-editors who are unfamiliar with the text to collaborate on this job? (Lack of familiarity is an inherent advantage, of course.) Tony 12:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I spend a few hours making exactly this kind of edit... Unfortunately, that resulted in an edit conflict, so it'll be a little while before I can post all the changes. Peirigill 16:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Stray, facetious afterthought: Tony, if you object to "outside of," does that mean you eat hors œuvres? Peirigill 16:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Certain classes of Gregorian chant have special musical formulae for each mode, allowing one section of the chant to transition smoothly into the next section"—I'm uncertain of the meaning of "special", which is rather broad in meaning. I wonder whether you mean "specific". Or perhaps "particular". Tony 12:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Technically, we're talking about species of formulae, so "special" is precisely the right word, as opposed to the usual, vaguer meaning of "special."I'll take the surgical solution and just remove "special" altogether, and make the problem go away. Peirigill 16:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Image I can't find where the image is discussed above; Bridesmill has uploaded a straightened-out copy, however to my eye it is not nearly as sharp (can I see some artefacts at the top even in the thumbnail?) Looking at the file sizes it seems to be 85-ish KB vs. 125-ish KB. As it is now I prefer the older image. Mak (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I see what happened - hazards of jpegs - will fix later 2day.Bridesmill 16:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
      • My preference was for the original, at a large enough size that I could read the music and words clearly enough to sing the chant.Shrinking it made for better page layout, and rotating it made for less awkward composition, but both make it nearly impossible to read the score.I guess the "pretty" outweighs the "musicological" in this case, but it would be nice to have both.Peirigill 16:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree with Peirigill that once the image is restored to its original resolution/filesize it would be nice to make the image large enough to read, making it not simply a pretty picture, but also demonstrate its use as a musical artifact. I have seen instances where images are made larger in the lead in order to increase their encyclopedic and pedagogic value. Mak (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Added a sound file to accompany the lede image, and inserted a slightly larger, cleaner, more aligned copy of the image. Peirigill 01:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Outside of" and "inside of" have crept into the oral mode, particularly in North America. The preposition is absolutely idle, and professional editors in North America will remove it, solely for that reason; any serious editor will remove redundancies. Same as "she brought along food for the poor". Tony 16:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • English is a Germanic language, with a rich heritage of compound prepositions.I'm not giving up "in between" regardless of what anyone says.To my ear, "outside of" implies a metaphor ("outside of this group") whereas "outside" implies physical location ("outside the house").Mandating that the only good prose is that which reduces language to its most sparse strikes me as aesthetic as Orwellian Newspeak and as arbitrary as outlawing split infinitives (another fine Germanic linguistic convention) on the grounds that Latin prose didn't allow for it.But you're the one with your name on the style guide, and you're the one with veto power; so be it.I'm not arguing the point - I hope my "hors d'œuvres" comment was understood as a jest; I've already been accused of violating WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN during this FA review, and trust me, I have no desire to repeat that experience - but I don't want you thinking that my position is completely unconsidered. Peirigill 16:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
"In between" is fine in the right context, because it can mean more than "between". I'm unsure that your metaphor argument is substantive; can't "outside" be metaphorical? Sparse, no; plain and elegant, yes. Since you can't split infinitives in other Germanic languages, the concept was specifically English in the first place. It's a long-shot to compare my plea to drop the "of" to the outmoded ban on split infinitives. And thanks for the note about the style guide, but I don't mind being challenged, and my word should count just as much as that of other reviewers. I continue to learn. Tony 03:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Stray afterthought #2... Re: "she brought along," it's not the case that "she brought" and "she brought along" are absolutely identical.Just ask our comrades on the German Wikipedia whether "bringen" (to bring) ("sie bringt es," she brings it) and "mitbringen" ("to bring along") ("sie bringt es mit"), she brings it along) are absolutely interchangeable. I'm reminded of an Iowan friend of German blood who would say, "We're going to the store.Come with!"It was a disconcerting phrase, but one that makes sense as German-influenced dialect; "come!" means "get over here!" whereas "come with!" means "join me!"A small but important difference, that implies a personal connection.I don't mean to push this example too far; clearly, in standard English, "she brought along food to the poor" is for all practical purposes equivalent to "she brought food to the poor," and I wouldn't challenge such an edit.But it does seem to me that a trace of that personal connection lingers in the phrase "brings along," which seems to imply that the food was hers to bring, or that she carried it herself.It's not true that the phrases are absolutely equivalent in connotation or even in denotation. Again, I hasten to say, not to challenge your editorial policy.Just food for thought. One thing about being a medievalist is that you start paying attention to the long-lost connections between languages like this.Peirigill 20:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but only when they're substantive; I'm unsure that your ascription of additional meanings to "along" would strike a chord in others. Tony 03:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Lots of copyedits of the kind I hope Tony was requesting have been added. Peirigill 16:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice, flows better IMHO; though the "This results in melodies that fall within the diatonic scale, but allow both B-natural and B-flat." in the lead, not sure if its adding anything - the 'Modality' section expands on it in a very clear & understandable fashion, but summarized (as it needs to be) in the lede, to my ears it only confuses - also, it is providing expansion, explanation, or assessment (depending on how you look at it) which is not the place of the lead. Bridesmill 17:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Phrasing this point has been a thorn for some time (see the talk page).Here's the crux: the lede should mention hexachords, and give a very brief, non-technical description of the word, since hexachords are discussed in detail in the article.The lede should also mention, in some precise but not overly technical language, that Gregorian chants (generally) can be sung using the white notes (including B-natural) and B-flat.In practical terms, that's more important than the hexachords are.The role B-flat and B-natural play in Gregorian tonality comes up in the discussion of modality and of Communions... and it occurs to me that the "soft b" should really be mentioned in the notation section, as well. Now, how to word all of this succinctly in the lede? The B-flat isn't really an accidental.In fact, it's not technically even a B-flat.As you pointed out, Bridesmill, B-flat is a modern term, anachronistic in the context of Gregorian chant, and yet it's the only reasonable way to discuss the note without getting far too technical for the lede.I still prefer my original phrasing, but I tried to incorporate your phrasing into the last edit, and felt I had to split the sentence into two in order to meet Tony's stylistic requirements.I agree that "diatonic - but not really" isn't the best way to say express the situation, but I also think introducing solfège is both overly technical and misleading.Is there a better solution that
  • mentions and briefly explains hexachords,
  • indicates that Gregorian melodies primarily use the diatonic scale,
  • mentions that B-flat is also permitted, and
  • makes it clear that the B-flat and B-natural can coexist in the same melody, or at least doesn't imply that one "B" has tonal "priority" over the other?
Peirigill 22:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Does it really need to mention it any deeper than the brief explain of hexachords, given that as you say (and I agree) the Modality section does a stellar job of explaining how this fits in with our modern understanding? I'm afraid that any more either risks getting too technical for a good lede, or too brief and confusing. You're right about the solfege - that just thows a 3rd monkey into the works.The lengthy version which meets your wishes might be: " Instead of octave scales, six-note patterns called hexachords underlie the modes. These patterns use elements of the modern diatonic scale as well as what would now be called the B-flat " Anyone else with an opinion?Bridesmill 22:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Inserted this version, minus one "the." Peirigill 19:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support (of somewhat involved editor) with all due respect to Tony's copy-edit reservations, I believe the article is well and clearly written , very thorough, covering all important aspects of the topic without too much "cruft" creeping, good solid supporting articles, especially on neumes and other types of chant in the Catholic tradition. The images, although few, are of high quality and free, as well as adding significantly to the article. It is neutral and factual, and well sourced with inline references, using the most important and well respected sources for the topic. The article is not and never has been subject to edit wars, and the number of recent edits are mainly copy-editing, so I would say that the article is stable. In addition it follows the Manual of style. I believe that's all of the criteria. I also feel that, aside from simply meeting the criteria, it is also a very good article on a somewhat difficult topic. Mak (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I know I've been working on tweaking this the last few days, but most of this is very much picking nits among perfectionists rather than being an active contributor. A very good article that explains the subject understandably, links well into background, does not get 'too' absurdly technical, is well documented, in short - better than most FA's currently out there IMHO. Bridesmill 22:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Further comments. Here's a jingle I don't know how to fix: "was common practice until the beginning of common-era practice". I'm uncomfortable referring to organum as harmony, which I've always thought of as involving triads, whether sounded or implied. Organum is essentially anti-triadic, isn't it? "Individual composers" is odd if not placed in the context of anonymous composition that characterised the invention of GCs. Tony 03:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried a fix on that one.Maybe try "usual" or "predominant" instead of "common" -- in general I don't like sticking the two words "common" and "practice" together unless the usual, very specific musical meaning is intended. Antandrus (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Harmony doesn't have to involve triads.(Check out Antandrus' article on bicinia.)The usual definion of harmony is "two or more pitches sounded simultaneously," especially in the context of independently moving lines.Organum qualifies.The difference between chant and organum is the difference between melody and harmony."Harmony" can mean different things in other contexts, but here the broader meaning of harmony should be clear. Peirigill 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
"Individual composers" is odd.I think it's trying to get at the idea of a deliberate composition of a unified Mass, which you'd expect to be composed by an individual, as opposed to most Gregorian Masses, whose songs are musically unrelated.I'll revise it. Peirigill 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The independent bass line existed in Renaissance times, but it became a standard feature in the baroque.I'll reword the article to split the difference. Peirigill 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support.Well-written, thorough, and informative.I really have to struggle to find nits to pick.A question on content:are there any examples of early, early Christian liturgical music in ancient musical notation?I don't think so, but maybe one of you know better.Ancient musical notation survived until around 300, at least that is the date of the latest scraps of which I'm aware.Isidore of Seville famously mentioned around 600 AD that it was "impossible" to notate music, so there was a gap of around 600 years during which chant was an oral tradition only.Later on in the article, it could be mentioned that the chant made its way into Protestant services as well:for example, Christ lag und Todesbanden is the Victimae paschali laudes, fitted with a D# as the second note, at least in Bach's version, and there's lots more chants that ended up as Protestant hymns.Nice article, excellent work, and thank you to all who helped with the writing and copyedit.Antandrus (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there are any notated ancient Christian songs before medieval plainchant.The Ugaritic notation's all pre-Christian, and the Greek songs are all pagan, so far as I know.You got me on the early Protestant stuff.I know that the earliest attested vernacular hymns were German versions based on Gregorian, but that was c. 1100, well before Luther. Peirigill 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
There is in fact at least one Greek Christian hymn. You can see it included on this cd (track 16) and this CD (track 17); I think I have both but I'm in the middle of moving and it may be a while until I can find them. I think there is a bit of a discussion in the liner notes about how it is the earliest known notated Christian hymn. It is notated in the same way as other (mostly older) ancient Greek music, which used a letter notation. Rigadoun 19:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Cool!Here we go, from Grove:

"There exists only one certain monument of early Christian music, and a possible second. The first is the so-called Oxyrhynchus Hymn, a substantial fragment of a hymn to the Trinity discovered at Oxyrhynchus in Lower Egypt in about 1920 by Grenfell and Hunt (1922); it was copied on the back of a papyrus towards the end of the 3rd century by a Greek-speaking Christian (seeillustration). Its Greek letter notation allows for an accurate transcription. It is a diatonic piece of slightly less than an octave in range, with its final on G, and with most syllables of its text set to one or two notes. Scholars have held widely divergent views on how characteristic of early Christian music this seemingly isolated fragment was. The possibly contemporary example of Christian song is the simple Sanctus melody that is best preserved in the Western medieval Requiem Mass. Kenneth Levy (1958–63) has argued persuasively that this melody, and indeed the entire dialogue between celebrant and congregation of which it forms a part, dates from the 4th century. It is narrower in range than the Oxyrhynchus Hymn, as befits a congregational acclamation, and slightly more syllabic, while its diatonic tonality differs from that of the Hymn in that it has a half-step below its final."

"Even if this Sanctus is accepted as authentic music of the 4th century, and its rough similarity to the Oxyrhynchus Hymn is noted, the two provide little evidence on which to generalize about the character of early Christian song. Only a number of broad reflections on the subject are possible. It can be said with some degree of certainty that early Christian music was largely diatonic. The one or two preserved examples aside, it appears that the music of the entire Mediterranean basin and Mesopotamian area, over a period of many centuries, was basically diatonic, even if sometimes embellished chromatically and microtonally (see Crocker). No doubt Christian music inevitably participated in this tonal environment." (James W. McKinnon: 'Christian Church, music of the early', Grove Music Online ed. L. Macy (Accessed 11 July 2006), <http://www.grovemusic.com>)

It doesn't sound like it really fits into the Gregorian chant article, though... would it go under Notation, Modality, or History? Peirigill 21:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Restructuring the early history, following suggestions by Sarabil701, created an obvious and integral place to mention the Oxyrhynchus hymn.Yay! Peirigill 19:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Re: Tony's interpolated comment: "!--Is this a reference to neumes? If so, most readers won't have a clue. Refer them to the image above, and specify square noteheads?--" Yes, it's a reference to neumes.Square notation is mentioned at the top of the article (in the lede image caption) and discussed in the Notation section.Should I assume that the reader hasn't read the article up to this point?If not, the reader should have a clue.If so, then I shouldn't assume the reader will know what a "neume" is, either.I was taught to assume an intelligent but uninformed reader: assume they know nothing until you tell them, but you only have to tell them once.... Hm.I'm worried that "the square noteheads of square notation" is going to cause the same problem as "common practice in common-era practice."Peirigill 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think all of the objections have been addressed.Several of us have continued to fine-tune the writing even after Tony withdrew his objection.Still, a week has passed without further comment on this page.Is this a concern?Peirigill 21:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - text reads well and is comprehensive.--Peta 03:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm wondering why this nomination is still here. The contributors have worked very hard to make it excellent. Tony 04:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I went over this with a fine-tooth comb and found virtually no problems. Comprehensive, NPOV and excellently referenced. Moreschi 19:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - In the rhythm section it says Mocquereau's approach was "promulgated" by the Ward system. I had changed it to "popularized" but it's back to "promulgated". For me "promulgated" is a legal term that seems out of place here. Two other nits I puzzled over: the comma after "monophonic" in the lead made me parse it as a noun at first, and I read "significative letters" as "significant letters." Gimmetrow 02:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The primary meaning of "promulgate" is to officially declare in a public way that a law is in effect; the secondary meaning is to make something widely known.The primary meaning of "propagate" is to cause plants or animals to reproduce; the secondary meaning is to spread ideas to many people.Justine Ward was disseminating a performance style that had just been mandated by Vatican decree, and thus "promulgating" it, but I'm sure she saw herself as sowing musical seeds in the dear little children, and thus "propagating."Neither word is perfect, but both are acceptable.I only included Justine Ward and her impenetrable, moralizing pedagogy under duress, so I'm certainly not going to fight about which 50-cent word has the least objectionable primary connotation.;-)"Propagate" it is.
    • I'm not sure what to tell you about "monophonic" and "significative letters."These are technical terms in musicology.I really think that they're the correct terms to use, and that the opening sentence is grammatical.Would it be less confusing if the opening sentence read "unaccompanied, monophonic" instead of "monophonic, unaccompanied"? Peirigill 11:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VI[edit]

I think this article is close to the level of Final Fantasy VIII. Both articles have similar styles and whatnot; the prose may need work, but I'll leave you guys as the judges of that. I'll keep this nom short, since I basically explained everything on the FF8 nomination below. — Deckiller 15:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Co-nom/Support: Pretty much what Deckiller said above and what we both said below. This article's pretty solid, I think. There might be a few spots where things could be better, but that's what you guys are here to determine. Overall, like Deck, I feel that it's about level with FFVIII below. Ryu Kaze 15:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Co-nom/support. Improved a lot since it was last nominated and failed. Then, the censorship section was overdone, now it has been toned down. Then, there were only three references, now there are thirty-five. It's definitely on par with FFVIII (and in a way I feel it's better, but that's just me). Redundancies and weasel words are pretty much gone. Crazyswordsman 16:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • And talk about consistency; FF8 is 43 KB long, and this article is 45 KB long o.O — Deckiller 16:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Wow. We have identical twins, just about different things! Like I said, we should have put them up together, heh. Crazyswordsman 16:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Technically they are close to being nominated at the same time. Just one nomination is older than the other.--ZeWrestler Talk 21:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - It is truly amazing to see how the article has changed since I nominated it last year. The quality of it has improved dramatically and the editors who lead the recent round of improvements to it should be commended. Great job guys. --ZeWrestler Talk 21:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support The development section doesn't have a single inline citation. Once that's fixed, full support. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll see if we can fix that sometime soon. Ryu Kaze 23:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Alright, I got us some references in there. Ryu Kaze 00:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The reception section is pretty skimpy considering this is commonly listed by critics as one on the greatest games of all time. This article is well on its way, but it's lacking significant discussion of what the critics particularly found so great about it --someone who had never played this game would not have a sense of what made it so special and historically important, ie, the unusual depth (and length) of story, the unique visual aesthetic, etc. Also, am I correct in my recollection that this was the first RPG to juggle such a large cast of playable characters? I would love to see an FA on this, but considering it's one of the most beloved games of all time, I feel this article is incomplete without giving the reader a sense of what set it apart from other games of its era. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 22:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Problem is, it would be difficult to reference. Crazyswordsman 22:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, we do make mention of FFVI having the largest FF cast, but the problem with what critics thought of the game is how old it is. There's certainly reviews buried in 12 year old issues of gaming magazines somewhere, but most of us don't have those and the most we've been able to find online were some scores that were given out back then (which I was surprised to find even that). Nonetheless, I certainly understand the concern with this section and felt much the same. It's just that given our limitations, I'm not sure what we'll be able to do about it. Of course, that just makes the information all the more valuable. Ryu Kaze 23:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, I found a retroreview by RPGamer and a review from IGN for the Anthology version. They make some comments about the effect rendered at the time of the original release, so that'll have to do, I think. I'll try working them in. Ryu Kaze 00:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Alright, I've gone back and made a ton of edits to the Reception area. I believe it should now address your concerns, Lee. Thank you for your input and please let us know if there's more that could be done. Ryu Kaze 01:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Reception and criticism looks much better now, Ryu. I'll see if I can find anything to fix later tonight.— Deckiller 02:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Looking better -- speedy work! I'd still like to see a smidge more in the "gameplay" section acknowledging what was new to FF in this game (the esper-system, and possibly the degree of customization allowed for by the equipment/relic system). Also, if I'm correctly remembering that this was the first FF to allow the player to use hi-tech weaponry, that's probably deserving of a nod. Incidentally, has anyone tried a proquest/magazine database search at their local libray? I'm not sure how commonly game magazines are archived, but I'd be willing to give it a shot, if no one else has. I believe in particular, old Nintendo Power magazines are not especially rare. Overall, good work, though. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 18:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Thanks for the fast response. I'll see if there's a way to fit in the stuff about Relics, as I believe you're right with regard to their innovative inclusion. As for hi-tech weaponry, there's only one character who uses any (Edgar), but I'll see if there's any way to fit it into the flow. Thanks. I'll leave you a message on your talk page after I've addressed these matters. Ryu Kaze 19:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Okay, Lee, I've made several changes and accomodated everything you mentioned. Ryu Kaze 20:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support wonderful game, and the article is more deserving of the FA than ever. igordebraga 15:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Object – The Game Boy Advance section should probably have a future game tag. The Reception and criticism has absolutely no criticism whatsoever. Additionally, the PlayStation section needs work:
The only notable changes to gameplay involve the correction of a few software bugs from the original, the addition of new bugs and the addition of a new "memo save" feature, allowing players to quickly save their progress to the PlayStation's RAM. The rerelease included other special features, such as a bestiary and artwork gallery.
I believe the addition of a cutscene is also notable. What bugs were fixed, what bugs were created in the process? Source, if possible. ♠ SG →Talk 16:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
There's one in the story section. Crazyswordsman 17:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll add the future game tag, but I'm not seeing quite how the Reception and criticism section is lacking in criticism. It features two paragraphs of it. Two paragraphs of substantial size, in fact. Criticism isn't just negative views of something. Criticism can be positive or negative. It's merely the act of analyzing something and passing judgement on it. Even were it only negative, though, there's quite a bit of negative criticism in the second paragraph.
I'll see if I can find out what added cutscene you're referring for adding to that sentence you quoted, by the way (you weren't referring to the FMVs were you? Those are mentioned earlier in the paragraph and aren't changes to gameplay anyway), and also see if I can get us a source on the bugs. Ryu Kaze 19:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
SG, I've added the future game template and gotten some references for the bugs, as well as added a few other references throughout the article. Ryu Kaze 20:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Great work. Nothing but support from me. ♠ SG →Talk 00:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Awesome. Thank you very much! Ryu Kaze 01:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Crazyswordsman 03:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This article has come a long way. Tarret 00:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This article is good, even someone who didn't play the game like me can follow it easily Renmiri 01:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much. ^_^ Ryu Kaze 01:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Ren. Crazyswordsman 03:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment many thanks for your supports. — Deckiller 03:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly, I have to object. It's well written, and the flurry of activity recently has only served to improve it further. But that's a problem in and of itself: the last time this was brought up for FAC, I had to concede that the article was just being too much, and too quickly, following the initial FAC posting. At this point, the article does not appear to be stable, one of the listed requirements for featured articles. Obviously, this is no fault of the editors who've toiled away at the thing, and I'm loathe to respond this way, but there you go. – Seancdaug 20:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • During an FAC, changes made in accordance with other things brought up wouldn't count toward an instability problem I would think. It would either be leave things that people are saying is wrong with it, or fix them. Unless you mean all the work done immediately prior to the FAC, in which case no one would have nominated it for FA in the first place without that. All that work was performed for the purpose of getting it ready for the nomination. Looking at it with these newest changes, it's very likely to remain as it is unless another problem is brought up here that needs to be addressed. Ryu Kaze 21:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Like Ryu said, addressing concerns during an FAC doesn't count towards instability. The article was pretty much stable for several months, and edits made in good faith don't necessarilly make an article instable, especially when only three or four editors are touching it. Crazyswordsman 22:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Sean, the stability criteria was designed for instances where the article was undergoing massive swings of changes based on an edit war, not improvements. — Deckiller 02:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I respectfully disagree. The stability required was designed to ensure that the article was stable. Period. Featured articles should be the kind of article that we can cite in a scholarly manner, and feel reasonably safe that, when we come back in a few months, little of substance will have changed. In particular, Crazyswordsman, it's not an issue of good vs. bad faith, and I appreciate that the changes have not only been made in good faith, but have served to improve the article. There's nothing wrong with an article being edited and adjusted to improve it as needed. And, quite frankly, I'd prefer that such positive changes be made even if it results a period of relative instability. But until the article reaches a point where it is obvious that it will "not change significantly from day to day" ("and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars," not "because it is the subject of ongoing edit wars"), it's cannot be cited as a reliable, scholarly source. And if it cannot be cited as such, for whatever reason, it's not ready to be featured. It tears me up to vote like this, and I don't want to slap you guys in the face for all your hard work and the superb article you've produced, but there's still the one additional factor of time, and and that's pretty much out of anyone's hands. Again, I'm really horribly sorry, everyone. – Seancdaug 03:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I can understand that viewpoint, which is why Raul often waits several days when a objection based on a stability viewpoint is raised. — Deckiller 03:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Well, we're still waiting on Lee Bailey to come back and review some recent changes anyway. Ryu Kaze 12:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Seancdaug, after rereading the stability requirement that is currently in place, all I can say about the argument is that it is a matter of interpretation, which would inevitably be left up to Raul. Is there anything beyond the stability requirement that would cause you not to support this article? --ZeWrestler Talk 13:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
              • No, that's pretty much it. – Seancdaug 15:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This has gone a long way. I also looked at the edit summary and saw Crazyswordman, Ryu Kaze, Hibana, and deckiller's hard work to make this of FA status. Extreme support here. -ScotchMB 01:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much for the support and nice words. Ryu Kaze 01:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Kudos, buddy. Crazyswordsman 03:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per Renmiri; I've never played the game either and I've always been a bit mystified as to the frenzy it invokes among FF fans; the article explains it well. I imagine that's a large part of what brings people to this article - "what's the big deal about this game, anyway?" - and that's definitely answered. Great job, guys. -RaCha'ar 15:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks :) — Deckiller 16:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I imagine every FF game will one day be featured! Did a thorough read of the article and liked it. Nice work. Thunderbrand 16:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks! — Deckiller 16:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry to hold things up! The changes that have been made here are all for the better -- good work again. I had a few little nagging qualms about the respresentation of critical response, so I went looking for sources, and found some old Nintendo Power issues that cover the game, as well as a reference to EGM's coverage. I was going to quickly add these things in order to avoid slowing things up, but by the time I re-touched the relevant sections, I felt iffy about it, especially considering that stability issues have been raised above. I decided to split the difference and place what I came up with in my sandbox, here. The article is really well done in any case, so please consider my vote a Weak Support without any changes, or Full Support with some reference to mention of the game's critical standing in the lead -- my version does not have to be taken literally, but take whatever's useful. Sorry to be extra-picky. ^_^ -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much, Lee. Your research into this matter is also very much appreciated. I'll certainly be adding some of that info to the article. I realize Sean has some concerns over stability, but making the article's content the best it can be comes first. Thanks again! Ryu Kaze 20:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Like I said earlier, the stability requirement is subject to interpretation which in the end Raul will look at. --ZeWrestler Talk 21:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thanks from me for everybody's input. I don't have much time during the week to monitor the article and debates, so I'll just make this a universal thanks for everyone's input from today. Crazyswordsman 00:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Objections all satisfied now, and as I read this over, it looks very much like an FA to me. Thanks for a great CVG article. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 12:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
And thank you for your constructive input and the aid you offered with those additional criticism references. Ryu Kaze 13:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks from me as well. Sir Crazyswordsman 01:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, good job at bringing out the interesting aspects of the game and its significance in the broader world. However, I noticed that one of your references, #54, is broken-GameFAQs doesn't allow you to link to FAQs directly. The same guide is hosted elsewhere, [2] if you prefer.--BigCow 20:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, Great game with a great article that has more than enough to be the FA. GShton 03:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've been lazy in thank yous, so...many thanks all! — Deckiller 15:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - You guys are the greatest, thanks for working so hard on making game-relatd articles up to FA status. --PresN 03:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support - add spoiler tags. Would it really harm the article to add spoiler tags to the plot? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks to both of you. About spoiler tags, I understand your point, but most of us at WP:CVG feel that spoiler tags are redundant and excessive. One of this disclaimers on Wikipedia specifically mentions that spoilers will be given without warning. Sir Crazyswordsman 12:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Also, they're in the most obvious section they could possibly be in: "Plot". Plot details will obviously be in a section marked "Plot". Anyway, thanks to both A Link to the Past and PresN. Ryu Kaze 13:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

AK-47[edit]

I feel this artcile is well written, using accessible language, follows the appropriate style, is informative, and generally fulfills the criteria for being a featured article. I have made significant additions and I know feel that the subject is thoroughly covered, without going into excessive detail or becoming boring.CynicalMe 06:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Support Very well done. --FBISeal.png Shane (talk/contrib) 06:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose for now, because of: change to support, but see below
Check mark.svg1 No inline citations as far as I can see (2c). A lot of people (and I'm one of them) think that inline citations are important to see which source the information comes from. This is my major reason to oppose FA-status.
Check mark.svg2 In the section on the Design Background: [the] Sturmgewehr 44 (StG44) was not the first rifle to use these features; it was preceded by earlier Italian and Russian designs. Which designs? Name and/or links please.
Check mark.svg3 The legal status in nations outside North America ought to be adressed, even briefly.
Check mark.svg4 Would it be possible to get pictures of the different models of receivers next to each other? Would make it a lot easier to visualise the changes. Not a big issue thought.
Check mark.svg5 Image:AK-components.jpg uses an outdated PD-tag and ought to be updated btw.
WegianWarrior 07:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
5. I've updated the fair use on the image. Its late night here, so I will tackle the other issues in the morning. Thanks for the input. CynicalMe 07:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
2. I've added another image which shows 2 rifles, 1 with a stamped receiver, and one with a milled, side by side to illustrate the differences. CynicalMe 07:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, I've added numbers to your objections to make it easier to refer to them. Hope that was ok. CynicalMe 07:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Addressed legal status a little bit. Its hard to determine how to find an encyclopedic and NPOV way to say "aint legal in most countries". Again, I'm open to suggestions. CynicalMe 08:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
2.5 Also, the history behind the Sturmgewehr 44 is fleshed out more in that article. I didn't think too much of the background was rel. for inclusion. CynicalMe 12:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Supporting, even if issue 2 has not been adressed (please fix this, or consider rewording/removing the statement). I've also taken the liberty of adding {{fact}}-tags to statements in the article I feel need citations. Keep it up =) WegianWarrior 06:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll take a look at all of those issues ASAP.CynicalMe 06:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I think I covered everything. Please advise. CynicalMe 07:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • ObjectMuch improved. Tony 04:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)I was hoping that the fourth word at the top wasn't a sign of the quality of the prose in the article. Someone who's relatively unfamiliar with the text needs to go through it thoroughly to bring it up to the standard required of FAs. I've copy-edited the lead; here's the subsequent half-paragraph:
Check mark.svg"During the Second World War, Germany had developed the concept of the assault rifle. This concept was based on the knowledge that most military engagements in modern warfare were happening at fairly close range with the majority happening within 100 meters. The power and range of contemporary rifle cartridges was simply overkill for a vast majority of engagements with small arms. As a result, a cartridge and firearm were sought combining the features of ,,,"
    • Check mark.svgOpening sentence—put the theme at the start: "The concept of the assault rifle was developed by Germany during the First World War." See how much easier it is to read?
    • Check mark.svg"were happening" might be better as "occur".
    • Unsure what "fairly" means—we need precision here, so remove the word? What "close range" means will be clarified later, anyway.
    • Check mark.svgComma after "range".
    • Check mark.svg"With" is a tired back-connector; why not just: "... close range, mostly within 100 meters."?
    • Check mark.svgRemove "contemporary" as redundant?
    • Check mark.svgWe have "majority of" twice.
    • Check mark.svg"Sought" is too vague. Try something like "military authorities in [the major European powers? Russia?] saw the need to develop ...".

Don't just correct these examples. Network to find copy-editors who are interested in helping on this topic. (See the "history" pages of similar FAs/articles.) Other contributors here seem to be succeeding in this respect. Tony 09:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Will do. The more people that get involved the better. I've seen the same text so many times it gets difficult for me to even notice glaring errors and typos. CynicalMe 12:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, made changes to the prose throughout. CynicalMe 13:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I've made more inline citations. Please advise. Also, again, I've taken the liberty of adding little checkmarks next to objections for my own reference, to make sure I am addressing everything. CynicalMe 21:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

How about adding in which military forces it is in use today?

Most actual "armies" have moved on to weapons based on the AK-74, like Russia has, or developed their own weapons. Most current users of the AK-47 per se are not going to be organized armies. CynicalMe 07:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed all of the concerns and objections thus far. I would greatly appreciate it if the editors who suggested them would go over the article again and tell me if they find it acceptable now.CynicalMe 22:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Very well written article. I also would like to thank CynicalMe for his contributions and diligent maintenance of the article. (Igny 21:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC))
Thank you. CynicalMe 19:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit vague on the process here. What happens next, if no more objections are raised? CynicalMe 16:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support stumbled on this other day. Very well-done. igordebraga 15:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - very well done! Not that I know that much about guns, but interesting nonetheless. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There have been very few comments for the last few days. I think it is safe to assume that concensus has been reached. CynicalMe 23:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Well written artical, information, easy readable, enough information

Don't have any comments at all, nice job!

Thank you for this article! Carpetsmoker 06:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Nicely written, well-referenced, interesting to read, good length, nice use of images. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The Philadelphia Inquirer[edit]

I somehow began working on this article several months ago. I knew almost nothing about The Inquirer when I started, but found the paper's history fascinating. There was no "complete" news media article to base it on, but I believe I managed to get it to FA quality. I look forward to reading your comments.Medvedenko 02:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Seems in order, has references and notes, and seems to cover reasonably well the aspects of a newspaper. It you wanted to be truly comprehensive though, you should include a list, past and present, of which comics have run in the newspaper, of course :) . RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I didn't read the whole article so I'm not going to vote, but the three HUGE sections into which the article is divided concern me. I don't think it's a matter on which one could object in and of itself, but, as a personal preference, I like articles which have a slightly more modular level of ToC organization than exists here. --DanielNuyu 09:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I added subsections and it does seem to make the article more presentable.Medvedenko 19:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great job, Medvedenko! --Kitia 21:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor object. The prose in the second paragraph of the "corporate ownership" subsection is a little bit strange - it seems to meander all over the timeline, and is a bit confusing. More generally, some of the prose is a bit fragmented - it could do with a little bit of a copyedit. It is nonetheless a fantastic article though. Rebecca 03:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Danaman5 did a nice job fixing up the paragraph before I got a chance. Also thanks for all the nice comments. Medvedenko 19:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --evrik 19:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I find it suprising that a city's newspaper becomes a FA before the city itself, but this is much more well written. Paragon12321 02:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support GShton 15:53 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VIII[edit]

I believe this article is FA-worthy. First, it is comprehensive because it covers the major points of the gameplay, story arcs, setting, criticism, development, and so on. Second, it has been the target of numerous copyedits from four or five different editors (and one or two other good copyeditors did absolutely nothing to this article, which either sends us a false message or shows that it's fine). Third, the story section is balanced in that it covers all major story arcs without having to go into excess detail on the main article (or a parent article, for that matter). Additionally, the article has been surprisingly stable outside of the major edits by Ryu, myself, and several others. Sure, it gets the occasional fansite and a "cruft" injection every now and then, but it has shown stability even after the major editing push concluded. The pictures portray a well-rounded visual of the game, and the captions are succinct.

I know that some of you will have issues with the length, which is actually secondary to comprehensiveness. The length is 41 KB, which is significantly less than some other game articles. We tried to strike a compromise between inclusonism and deletionism here, and we hope you can understand that we editors go through a lot of stress trying to play monkey in the middle. So, I ask you, look at the content and the prose, not the superficial stuff. If this nomination turns into an inclusion/deletion battlefield, it will be withdrawn, because the editors of this article do not believe in tailoring the article to meet someone's personal beliefs and opinions — stuff that is not clearly stated in the criteria. In other words, please keep your objections and supports based on the criteria, and not wikiphilosophy. This is absolutely nothing against any user or group of users; we just want to nip this in the bud. Thank you, and let the nomination begin! — Deckiller 01:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Co-nomination/Strong Support: Like Deckiller, I've been one of this article's dedicated editors. Together the two of us — and a few other skilled copyeditors who have offered input — have attempted to make the article cover all major aspects of the game and its notable relations, as well as ensure that it covers the storyline's major arcs while remaining concise.
I'd also like to second Deckiller's request that the focus of comments be on the criteria for FA and the content of the article rather than any wikiphilosophy related to length. It's very trying for us as editors to be caught in a war between opposing philosophies seeking to make an article they didn't personally work on be the example of their standard. We believe that as the article stands, it is a fair compromise to both schools of thought. While touching on the major story arcs and their resolutions, it doesn't go into exhaustive detail on every sub-plot; however, while being succinct, it also doesn't cater to a "one size fits all" ideal with regard to length. There is no one size fits all, for not all plots are the same size. These matters should always be examined on a case-by-case basis, and I respectfully ask that this be done here. Ryu Kaze 01:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I will say I have been following the article for a while and the editors have done an outstanding job :). If it isn't a FA right now, it is awfully close... RN 02:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comment! — Deckiller 05:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Fantastic article - one of the most comprehensive and informative (relatively speaking) I've seen in a FAC nomination in a long while. Kudos to the main editors Wisdom89 05:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Many thanks! — Deckiller 05:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you, Wisdom89. Ryu Kaze 12:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment some recent issues have been addressed regarding images and image boxes, but there are previously settled debates, so it's not exactly a stability issue per se. — Deckiller 06:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for now. Too glitchy. -Silence 12:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not getting any glitch with regards to the first image, and the second one isn't happening now. It just appears to have been something random, and hardly reflects the quality of the article itself. Ryu Kaze 13:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I must say that the standard of writing is a definite cut above that of similar FACs, and sets a new benchmark. I've made several minor changes to the first half, plus one inline query. The rest could do with just a few microfixes. Tony 13:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I'll see if I can make any adjustments elsewhere along the lines of yours. Ryu Kaze 13:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Many thanks. Ryu and myself balanced off some of the minor issues in the story section. — Deckiller 15:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This really is a well-written article, although I'm sure finishing touches here and there could make it a bit better. The only problem I have - the fact that the gameplay section isn't very aesthetically pleasing at the moment - doesn't factor into the FAC process. I definitely liked the battle image in its previous position (at the end of the Limit Breaks section), and it wasn't the "glitchy" image in question as far as I know. --Tristam 20:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your kind, yet constructive words. — Deckiller 02:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I don't see why not. Meets all the standards of FA -ScotchMB 23:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support! — Deckiller 02:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support—With such glowing support from Tony, one hardly even needs to read the article to make sure it's readable. But it is; I checked. And it's about as well referenced as one of these articles can be. So yeah, I support. Nice work. --Spangineeres (háblame) 03:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot! — Deckiller 03:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Deckiller and Ryu have worked hard on this and they should be rewarded. Crazyswordsman 03:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Many thanks. I'm sure FF6 is right around the corner, as well :-) — Deckiller 03:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Good content, nicely balanced information, informative and not excessive, nice job guys. Darthgriz98 03:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks :) — Deckiller 03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — today's changes were geared toward adding a few references to the gameplay section for safety reasons. — Deckiller 03:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I also added a few "games" and "the players" into the story section to give it a more fictional feel. That should be good enough for the section. — Deckiller 04:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thanks to everyone who has offered support and constructive advice. Ryu Kaze 12:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Heh...another great FF article! Thunderbrand 14:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you! Ryu Kaze 14:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • ^_^ Thanks! — Deckiller 15:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Very well wrote...deserves a spot in the FA! Dspradau 14:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot! — Deckiller 15:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, excellent article. Well done! :) - Mailer Diablo 19:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks! ;) — Deckiller 19:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Seconding Deckiller's thanks to you folks. Ryu Kaze 20:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Truly Amazing to see how this article has evolved in the past year. --ZeWrestler Talk 21:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comment; hopefully, the rest of the FF articles can reach the same level. — Deckiller 02:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - This article is of a quality similar to Final Fantasy X. I rejected the nomination for FF VII, but I think this is much better. Congrats! --Sean WI 22:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much, guys. Ryu Kaze 23:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks ^_^ Your comments and supports mean a lot of us; it's a dividend and reward. — Deckiller 02:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you go through the account of the story and fix the tone where it becomes overly informal, e.g., "That's the current status. Now onto the mission objective."? How do you negotiate to apologise? Tony 13:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The mission objective example is from one of the citations. I'll give the section a runthrough once I get home from work tonight, though. — Deckiller 13:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Like FFVI, this article is good, even someone who didn't play the game like me can follow it easily Renmiri 01:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support. ^_^ Ryu Kaze 01:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Rem; that's exactly what we were hoping, that the article can be easily followed :) — Deckiller 03:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Never played (but I have some interest), but the article is fantastic, and richly illustrated. igordebraga 15:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much. It's comments like yours and Renmiri's that tell us we did a good job. If somebody who has never played the game can follow the article or finds it interesting, that makes me feel proud of it. Ryu Kaze 19:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Looking good. Definitely one of the better written examples of CVG coverage on Wikipedia, and richly deserving the status of featured article. – Seancdaug 20:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Ryu Kaze 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Many thanks, Sean. — Deckiller 02:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Great job on this article, and it looks like it's sailing through to FA status. --PresN 03:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support - add spoiler tags. Would it really harm the article to add spoiler tags to the plot? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks to both of you for the support. Concerning spoiler tags, as mentioned on Final Fantasy VI's FAC, they're both redundant of the site-wide content notice and our purpose as an encyclopedia, and in this particular case, entirely unnecessary given that the spoilers are in a section marked "Plot". Why place a banner under "Plot" that says "Plot details follow"? That's obvious. Ryu Kaze 13:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I still would like it if there was spoiler tags for peoples' convenience. And how would it interupt the flow of the article anymore than the header does? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
        • On the matter of convenience, how are they more convenient than the "Plot" header which can be clicked on from the table of contents, and says the same thing the more long-winded banner does? As for flow, they're redundant because the section is already entitled "Plot". Additionally, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, defined as a comprehensive body of information, and includes an encyclopedia-wide notice of spoiler content already. Even these latter two matters aside, it's already obvious that a section entitled "Plot" will contain plot details. That's what it's there for. Ryu Kaze 04:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay guys, the Spoiler RfC is that way. :-) — Deckiller 04:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm always impressed with the Final Fantasy article authors. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Ryu Kaze 13:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks :) — Deckiller 13:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Beautiful article, well referenced. Combination 22:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Gracias :) (going into other languages now!). — Deckiller 22:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Arigatou (continuing the other languages thing)! Ryu Kaze 00:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Llywelyn the Great[edit]

Self-nomination. I think that this article meets the criteria for a featured article. It has undergone a Peer Review and the suggestions made there have been incorporated. I have also had it copyedited. Rhion 21:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support Quite a nice article IMO! I have one minor organizational issue (with the section titled issue) that I'll go fix right now. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written, with a wide variety of references. Good work! -- Underneath-it-All 21:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - a good example of an article on which several knowledgeable people have cooperated over a long period. Deb 17:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Image:Gwynedd Arms.PNG The line on the lower right corner looks a bit strange. Can you please change it? Making the background transparent would also be good. WP 05:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I have adjusted the line on the lower right - thanks for pointing it out. Making the background transparent at this stage seems to be beyond the capacity of the rather elderly version of MS Paint I have.Rhion 06:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support NCurse work 19:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Paul-L 12:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Easily covers a lot of the subject and fully deserves FA status --Skully Collins 07:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support with comments from a slightly involved editor. I participated in the peer review for the article, and was impressed by what an engaging and perspicuous treatment Rhion had given. I believe FA requirements for documentation, quality of prose, lede, images and captions have been met. I would suggest that the sections on "Historical assessment" and "Children" either be expanded or incorporated into some other section of the article. Both of these sections feel too short as they stand, consisting only of a couple of sentences and a quotation or table. The tables might be profitably converted to prose, along the lines of "Llewelyn was survived by nine children, three legitimate and six illegimate. Elen ferch Llewelyn (c.1207-1253), his oldest legitimate daughter, first married John de Scotia," etc. You should also rename the "Llewelyn in literature" section to something like "Cultural allusions." It's not just literature, since you include tourist attractions and computer games, and the MOS says you shouldn't have the article's title ("Llewelyn") appear in any of the section headers. Peirigill 19:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. I have added a rather different assessment by another historian to expand that section, and converted the "Children" section to paragraphs. I'll check again for typos in the new sections once I find where I've put my spectacles. Rhion 20:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Rennell Island[edit]

I respectfully self-nominate this article on a naval battle from World War II for Featured Article consideration. The article was peer reviewed, reviewed under the guidelines at WP:WTA, and received key edits by Wwoods and others. Cla68 18:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, excellent article (as usual!) Kirill Lokshin 18:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Another excellent war article. You guys are awesome. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 19:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support on wheels. A great article! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, beautifully written. - Mailer Diablo 19:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, enthusiastically; I wish there were more folks doing philosophy or cinema articles with the care and attention to detail that many of these war articles get. Anyway, a very high quality article. Reimelt 20:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, a nice and well-written battle article. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written, informative article! Good work! -- Underneath-it-All 21:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Rebecca 04:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Maps should be converted to SVG format if possible. WP 05:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Dwaipayan (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Spectacular.UberCryxic 16:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Shane (talk/contrib) 18:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This is an excellent article. --Nick Dowling 10:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll support when you replace the map that spells "Sydney" as "Sidney". Tony 13:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. If that's just it heh... fixed :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Cla68 15:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. ^_^ -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support another great one from the MILHIST project.Rlevse 21:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

John Brooke-Little[edit]

John Brooke-Little was a great heraldic author and supporter. He did more in the last half-century to promote heraldry than any other individual to promote its understanding. This article has been previously nominated, peer-reviewed and very much improved. It is currently listed as a "Good Article," but I think that it has what it takes to be a FA.--Forlornandshorn 04:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. It's about time that this man got his due.--Dave Boven 15:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Lots of work since the last FAC, and the points raised then seem to have been addressed. Dr pda 19:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Much great work has been done since this was last up for FA. It looks like editors have taken all of the advice to heart and have produced a very nice and well referenced article. Interesting character! --Holymoly888 20:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This is the article that I most wanted to see featured. Thought I'd come out of retirement one last time to give it my support. So long and fair well!--Eva db 14:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great article on an intersting topic. (And hey, I fixed a typo. I can pretend I was of real help in this.) Reimelt 15:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Technically, the book cover may not qualify as fair use as it is not used to illustrate the book itself, but the topic of the book. Reimelt 15:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Sandwich Eater 20:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Fixed some minor ref mark issues. Well referenced without over-referencing. Some "also"s seem redundant but that can be fixed. The last few sentences of the first paragraph of "heraldic career" were complicated to parse, will fix if I can. Gimmetrow 22:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Bicocca[edit]

A somewhat obscure battle, but one that's quite important in terms of the evolution of warfare. I respectfully await all comments. Kirill Lokshin 05:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Who knew that a collaborative (and civil!) project would spawn numerous amazing war articles? RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 06:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Another great article from Kirill! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 07:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Rlevse 12:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great article.UberCryxic 15:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support plange 17:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment concerns about the age of some refs (e.g. Hackett, Oman) and the likelihood that their views are obsolete. Given the frequency with which Oman is cited, this is a fairly major issue. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    They may be old, but I don't believe they're obsolete. Oman is considered the canonical historian for this period even now; and, as far as I could find out, there hasn't been another detailed reconstruction of the battle published—at least in English—since Oman's. Kirill Lokshin 12:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    I've added citations for a few key points from Bert Hall's 1997 book. The majority of the narrative is still sourced to Oman, though. Kirill Lokshin 16:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace[edit]

This is a self-nomination. I've been working on this article to finish out the Star Wars prequel trilogy since I finished getting Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones and Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith article up to FA status. I've written this article to follow suit in the same style as the previous articles, it was recently named a good article and has received a peer review which unfortunately did not receive much notice. Instead I decided to simply put it up for FA. I believe that if Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith are worthy of FA, this article is as well. The Filmaker 00:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support per my own nomination. The Filmaker 01:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This is a great article Soundoflolllermania 01:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support On par with the other two FA's, and a thorough copyedit before submission this time! I helped contribute to this article, just so that's clear :)Judgesurreal777 01:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Pedant 01:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. The Wookieepedian 01:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. per nom. Awful movie, excellent article. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 01:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—I'm delighted that at least some FACs dealing with popular fiction are coming to us better written. This one is pretty good, but needs a final run-through by a copy-editor so that it really does represent WP's best work. I will support this after it has been cleansed of these micro-problems. Here are examples from the lead.
    • "in hopes of finding a peaceful end to the dispute"—No, singular "in the hope" is idiomatic. But why not "in the hope of bringing the dispute to a peaceful end"?
    • "It is there that the Jedi encounter a young slave boy unusually strong in the Force." Spelling out what is currently elided after "boy" ("who is") would make this sentence an easier read, wouldn't it?
    • "Its release on 19 May 1999 came almost 16 years after the previous film released in the series,..."—Starting a paragraph with a back-link such as "Its" is usually risky. Why not "The release of the film on 19 May 1999 came almost 16 years after the previous film in the series,...". Note how it's not necessary to repeat "release(d)". Then continue "The release ..." in the next sentence. But get rid of "after its release" in "The Phantom Menace was the highest grossing film of 1999, and the fourth highest grossing film of all-time after its release." How could it gross anything before its release?
    • "It is the highest grossing Star Wars film ever, without adjustment for inflation." Either "even without adjusting for inflation" or remove the clause altogether. See what I mean?

Looking further down, I see lots of little redundancies (e.g., "he had written"—reword this flabby sentence; "in order to" should be just "to") and other little faults (there's a semicolon that should be a colon; did the production plan to leave, or the producer?). So don't just fix these examples—network to find others who'll help out with fresh eyes. What about Deckiller? Tony 02:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC) PS Looking at the history page, I see that Judgesurreal and The Wookieepedian are prominent contributors in addition to the nominator. I always announce here when I've worked on an article and want to support its nomination; perhaps you should have too. Tony 02:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I've fixed all of your said concerns and I've fired off a message to Deckiller. I am however unsure of what you mean by "there's a semicolon that should be a colon; did the production plan to leave, or the producer?" Are these two seperate concerns? Or is the former causing the latter? The Filmaker 03:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've started the copyediting process. There are some phrases that look awkward to me, but that's subjective. The major concerns are redundancies and passive writing. — Deckiller 03:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think I'll stop for now. It looks pretty good overall, but I think someone else should do a runthrough to make sure. — Deckiller 05:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Quite well-written and informative. It also follows the format of the other two prequel trilogy articles, and is well-referenced. There's efficient use of images as well, though I think a shot of Jar-Jar could have been used in the Reaction section to give readers an idea of why some people have drawn the conclusions they did from his appearance. Overall, though, a great article. There's definitely been a lot of good work done here. Ryu Kaze 12:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Small note: some of the images could use a little more fair-use rationale. Ryu Kaze 12:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Rationales have been fixed. :) The Filmaker 19:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I think the article is looking great now. — Deckiller 13:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Neutral — I just noticed that I missed two sections of the article when copyediting. — Deckiller 20:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Yet another fantastic SW article. Kudos. Start part IV! ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 23:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Per nom. Hezzy 18:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object -- prose still needs a little work. Please avoid "easter eggs" -- in the lead, "young slave boy" is a wikilink to Anakin Skywalker, and again in the DVD release section. There is some low-value WP:NOR / WP:AWT stuff here -- "It is commonly suggested that the title refers to Darth Sidious or the Sith in general. The title could also refer to the origin of Darth Sidious' name, which is the adjective "insidious". The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following definition..." Who makes this suggestion, and who has suggested that the OED definition of insidious important to understand the film? There's a lot of this in the "Cast" section, where we see awkward sentences like "An astonishingly smart astromech droid, he saves Queen Amidala's ship when all other droids fail." Whose judgement is this description of the character relying upon? Ours? Why do we think that is the best way to describe that character? There are at least four items referenced to the "Star Wars Message Boards" forum, and one to "Star Trek Episode 80: The Forum". Neither are reliable sources. I suspect that very little of the WP:NOR and non-WP:RS material could not be sourced properly with some effort, and anything that can't should be cut from the article. Jkelly 19:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Your concerns have been addressed. The Filmaker 01:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support-- Another excellent Star Wars movie article. Teh tennisman 23:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Prose still needs work in the cast section — after that, I think it's up to decent standards. I still suggest that someone go through the article and see what I missed. — Deckiller 23:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I went ahead and removed the OR/RS issues. The section can be made MUCH tighter if we just say "the title was not explained by Lucas", or "Lucas states that the title means...". — Deckiller 23:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've copy-edited it; I don't want to do any more of this type of article, so I'm counting on the prospect that the main contributors are going to collaborate to ensure that they enter this process in better shape. Even though, by this stage, this one wasn't in too bad a shape, numerous changes were necessary; please see my inline queries. Tony 03:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I run through your inline queries and fixed all of them. :) The Filmaker 20:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment about sources -- I noticed that all of the sources for this article are from the Internet or DVDs. Not that these are unimportant, but there are several important print works that focus on this film not used. Listed below is a sample of printed works with useful information. I think to ignore such sources calls into question the comprehensiveness of this article. Sorry to be difficult. Dmoon1 03:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Bowen, Jonathan L. Anticipation: The Real Life Story of Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace. Lincoln, Neb.: iUniverse, 2005. ISBN 0595347320.
    • Delaney, Robert. "The Myth of George Lucas Surrounding The Phantom Menace." In Kurt Lancaster and Tom Mikotowicz, eds. Performing the Force: Essays on Immersion Into Science-Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Environments. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 2001. ISBN 0786408952.
    • Hanson, Michael J., and Max S. Kay. Star Wars: The New Myth. Philadelphia: Xlibris, 2001. ISBN 1401039898.
    • Kenny, Glenn, ed. A Galaxy Not So Far Away: Writers and Artists on Twenty-Five Years of Star Wars. New York: Owl Books, 2002. ISBN 0805070745.
    • Koschorke, Albrecht. The Holy Family and Its Legacy: Religious Imagination from the Gospels to Star Wars. Trans. Thomas Dunlap. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003. Chap. 23. ISBN 0231127561.
      • That doesn't necessarily make an article uncomprehensive, it just means it uses a different type of reliable sources. If you own this works, feel free to reference them. — Deckiller 03:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I didn't say the article is uncomprehensive; if I thought that I would have objected. I just think sources like these (and there are probably others out there) ought to be incorporated to have all the bases covered and avoid charges of uncomprehensiveness by someone pickier than myself. BTW, all of these can be accessed at Google Books. Dmoon1 20:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Sounds good. This probably falls under the Filmaker's expertise, since I was just here to copyedit with Tony :) — Deckiller 04:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support once again. Tony's followup copyedits all but cement this one, IMHO. — Deckiller 04:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong object why oh why do we need another fantasy/scifi featured article? It was bad enough when we voted for that wierd space food article... Furthermore, the article is way too long winded and filled with mindless(and mindnumbing) details. Have any of you ever considered the minute fraction of the world's population that has actually watched the movie ??? WoodElf 12:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • This objection is inactionable and should be disregarded. The Filmaker 12:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Not to mention, we already HAD a Star wars FA just a few days ago! And it is YOU who should be disregarded, Film maker. One look at your user page and it is clear you would support any article remotely connected to Star Wars. WoodElf 12:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Please assume good faith do not degrade me for my interest in Star Wars. The reason why I support the article's nomination is because I am nominator of the article. And I did not say you should be disregarded, only your objection, as there is nothing I can do to convince you to change your objection to a support. Finally, you seem to be confused on what a featured article is. A common misconception is that featured articles are the articles that appear on the main page, this is not true, featured articles simply articles that are considered to be the best articles on Wikipedia. What you are looking for is Wikipedia:Today's featured article and it's requests, which are the articles that eventually appear on the main page. The Filmaker 13:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
          • okey dokey then . :) WoodElf 15:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
            • To Filmaker: You don't need to worry about convincing WoodElf to change their vote. As it stands, the reasons for her/his objection is inactionable so won't be counted. | To WoodElf: Please be WP:CIVIL in debate. If you don't think the article is of high enough quality, qualify your objection to let it stand. --Oldak Quill 02:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support good article, although (just like the film) isn't quite in the level of Revenge of the Sith. May the Force be with you. igordebraga 14:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object The cast section lets down the article - if it was addressed I think it would greatly improve the article. The FA's Halloween and Night of the Living Dead are examples of where the Cast section is far superior than the one in this article - this one should follow their lead, as they talk about how the casting took place etc. LuciferMorgan 19:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The format of the cast section has already been voted through twice before when Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith were up as featured article candidates. It also purposefully parallels the Blade Runner FA. Finally, the article, like the articles on AOTC and ROTS, does discuss the casting of Anakin Skywalker. As much as I wish there was more to fill the section out with, I have been unable to find more information from reliable sources on notable casting events. Not all film articles have to be formatted the same. The Filmaker 20:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Week Support WP:LEAD, but otherwise ok. :) --Shane (talk/contrib) 18:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • What problems specifically do you have with the lead? The Wookieepedian 18:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The cast sections in Casablanca (film), Richard III (1955 film), and V for Vendetta (film) are frankly a pile of crap and if the user who commented wishes for a basic list, just go to IMDB. It's obvious you'll all pass this article you biased clowns, even though it's below FA standard. Be objective for a change all you Star Wars members. Lists make disjointed prose, which is mentioned in 2. a. of "What is a featured article?", but obviously none of you can be bothered. I'd also like to say the Blade Runner FA was passed in September 2005, so that doesn't count at all as it'll be up for review sooner or later this year. LuciferMorgan 21:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil and do not personally attack users, as you did by saying "biased clowns" and so on. Also, please do not make such generalizations; not all of us are "resistant to change". As a matter of fact, I agree that the cast section should be in a more paragraph format (as per FF8). — Deckiller 21:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow. And that's 9 comments below a link to WP:GF and 7 below WP:CIVIL. It is one thing to state your opinion, it is another to attack users after they object to it. The Filmaker 21:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I honestly cannot see how your arguement applies to 2.a, although you could be more clear on what your objection to lists are. And the fact that the Blade Runner article is almost a year old is hardly a suitable reason for it to not "count at all". The listed Cast section has been passed in featured articles numerous times and provides the same amount of information as it would be in paragraph form. The Filmaker 21:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
      • True; it's more of a subjective objection in this case, but we may want to take it into account if it starts a pile-on (and heck, it might be a decent idea). — Deckiller 21:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I never said I didn't take it into consideration, I've taken into consideration as far back as the Revenge of the Sith article, most people have an (incidentally) biased outlook on lists i.e. refering to lists as poor writing without having rationale to back their claim up. I truly believe that if we convert the Cast section into prose that there will not be enough significant information to allow prose reach beyond "Liam Nesson was cast as Qui-Gon. Ewan McGregor was cast as Obi-Wan." I was barely able to scrap out any information on the casting of Anakin Skywalker for the paragraph at the bottom of the section. If the section is converted to prose, it will be flat. The Filmaker 21:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
          • That's a very good point — plus, any other info would be excess filler and fluff, info sure to be full of redundancies and equally iffy prose. Perhaps it's best that it remains as it is for conservative reasons. — Deckiller 22:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
            • I know I'm biased, but I think the solution in Richard III (1955 film) works beautifully, because It gives information about the casting process, then outlines info about who each character is, and a little info about each actor. But then, I'm biased. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Support: Good article, and come on, it's Star Wars. --BoaDrummer 09:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Emu[edit]

A big Australian bird, text rewritten and fact-checked by me, copyedited by Tony1 and some helpful anons. I should add that imperial conversions are provided in the body of the text, but were mostly left out of the lead for the sake of brevity and clarity.--Peta 04:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Excellent. Well-written, well-referenced, and a fascinating read. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and great photographs, especially the three toes. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support brilliantly written, excellently sourced article for a curious critter.--cj | talk 05:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support excellent prose, beautiful presentation of the subject. Gnangarra 05:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support 'for sake of brevity and clarity' is important and to be noted. Well done what is needed is in there. SatuSuro 05:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Exceptionally written (short and sharp) and very interesting. Excellent work. michael talk 06:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The baby emu picture has a deprecated image tag, though. Jeronimo 06:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Fixed.--Peta 06:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. It needs a good copyedit, grammar and spell check. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 11:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Mabye you could point out some problems, I can't find any spelling issues and it has been copyedited by at least 2 other editors today.--Peta 12:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The pair mate every day or two - grammar
source of food by Indigenous Australians - capitalisation
a unsuccessful
Aside from those, I would support. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 22:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Fixed.--Peta 11:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
No it isn't. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 23:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Now it is. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 08:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. The above "copyedit and spell check" complaint seems to be obligatory for every FAC these days, regardless of necessity. However there are a few things that need refining:
    • Why is "emu" frequently written with a capital E? It's not even a genus name.
    • Third para of "physical description" needs a source.
    • Mating delay claim needs a source (as the article itself acknowledges in an HTML comment.)
    • Second para of "reproduction"; last sentence needs source.
    • Same for third para.
    • Same for first para of "Ecology and Behaviour".
    • In cultural references, what is "NSW"?
    • From the same section: "thus, incidentally,"; surely this is a contradiction?
    • The last sentence of the article is somewhat clumsy. It's not terrible but it's nice to finish an article on a good note, I think.

Solve these and you have my support for a fine and interesting article. Soo 12:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

      • The convention on Wikipedia is to use capitalisation for the species common name for birds and mammals. The capitalisation is consistent thoughout the article . I got rid of the delayed breeding thing- it was from an old version of the article and I have never been able to confirm where it came from. All the other things you mention have been addressed, additional inlines have not been added where there is already one in that paragraph and the information is from the same source, too many inlines make the text harder to read, and if anyone goes to the effort to check the source they will find the extra detail there anyway.--Peta 13:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support It's good to see a well-written article that doesn't have prose bloat. Reimelt 14:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Comment A few nitpicks:
    • Per WP:MOSNUM, units of measurement should be preceded by a non-breaking space (&nbsp;).
    • "The resultant heat is prevented from flowing to the skin by the insulation provided by the coat,[5] which allows the bird to be active during the heat of the day." Is the word "the" before "insulation" necessary? Is it the insulation or the coat that allows the bird to be active? The current grammar suggests it's the coat; I don't think that's what you mean. How about "allowing"?
    • "The first demonstrated occurrence of genetically identical avian twins was demonstrated in the Emu." It's time for Tony's favorite game: spot the redundant word!
    • "Emus are largely solitary; they roam the continent searching for the best feeding areas, and while they can form enormous flocks, this is atypical social behaviour that arises from a common need to move towards food sources." Would this be better as two or even three separate sentences?
    • "their wanderings are more random." Does randomness admit of degree?
    • "Emus are also able to swim should they need to." Awkward; ends with a preposition. How about "when necessary"?
    • "Emus may serve as an important agent for the dispersal of large viable seeds, which may contribute to the maintenance of floral biodiversity in some areas." Do they or don't they? How about "Emus help disperse large viable seeds, contributing to floral biodiversity." If the areas are significant, identify them.
      • It would be nice to conculde that, but the reference does not support that it just proposes that they might and says more research need to be done.
    • "Europeans killed Ems for food and to eradicate them." Nonparallel structure and a typo.
      • I think I fixed this.
        • Not quite, but no matter. I fixed the typo and rewrote the clauses so they're parallel (see below). Feel free to revert to the nonparallel structure if you don't think my edit works. Peirigill 07:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "Threats to small populations include the clearing and fragmentation of areas of habitat, deliberate killing, predation of the young and eggs by foxes, feral and domestic dogs and feral pigs, and being struck by vehicles." Nonparallel construction. Also, if the predation is by "foxes, feral and domestic dogs and feral pigs," then this series of threats should be separated by semicolons, not commas: "clearing...of habitat; deliberate killing; predation...by foxes, feral...dogs and domestic pigs;" etc.
    • "The isolated Emu population of the New South Wales North Coast Bioregion and Port Stephens is listed as endangered by the NSW Government." Why is "New South Wales" both not abbreviated and abbreviated in the same sentence? Do you need to specify "NSW Government," or will "state government" or even simply "government" suffice?
    • "They are typically fed on grain supplemented by pasture." This flows awkwardly for me, since "pasture" can mean either grass for grazing or the land it grows on. My first mental image was of emus chewing clods of soil. Maybe it's a difference between Australian and American English, in which case I'll defer, but I'd prefer to see "supplemented by grazing" or specific grasses named instead of simply "pasture."
      • Pasture is the plants.
    • "Emu leather has a distinctive patterned surface, due to a raised area around the hair follicles in the skin; it is used in such small items as wallets and shoes." Does "it" refer to leather, surface, area, or skin? I know it's obvious, but hey, if Tony won't let me get away with pronouns whose antecedents are remote...
    • "The Emu is popularly but unofficially considered as a faunal emblem—the national bird of Australia.[21] It appears prominently on the Coat of Arms of Australia and thus, appears on the Australian 50 cent coin." This seems contradictory; surely, the Coat of Arms constitutes an "official" emblem? As a non-Australian, I don't know why prominent appearance on the Coat of arms "thus" implies appearance on the coin. Is the Coat of Arms reproduced on the coin? This should be made clearer.
    • "and other groups in NSW...including a pre-federation New South Wales 100th Anniversary issue." Again, the state is both abbreviated and not abbreviated in the same section.
    • "There are 613 gazetted places." "Gazetted" is not a familiar term in my American English, but I assume it means "published in a gazette." I'm not sure why this is significant. If this is simply normal Australian English, that's fine, but I'm stumbling over it.
      • Its like the Federal Register in the US, it is spefically mentioned to indicate that they are official names.
    • "for example in Western Australia Emu branded beer has been produced." This could really use a couple of commas.
  • Pathetically minor objections, but I had to find something wrong with something Tony copyedited. ;-) I had my editing phaser set on "kill." It's generally an excellent, interesting article. Peirigill 23:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Done.--Peta 01:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I fixed one lingering typo. In a separate post, I suggested some rewording in parallel structure. Nonparallelism probably isn't so dire that it violates 2a, so feel free to revert it with my blessing if you don't like the result. Peirigill 07:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Now I see that the good reviewers have come out of the woodwork; I'm afraid that I was only one of several copy-editors at various times. Thanks for you comments. "Gazzette" as a verb is standard English. Tony 04:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Now that's high praise indeed. Thanks, Tony. Plus, I learn a new word in the bargain. Peirigill 07:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose because someone removed the Simpsons reference. Just kidding. Support. I'm particularly impressed by the quality of the references and the very neat, concise structure of the article. In the long run it would be nice to have a couple of videos or soundfiles directly embedded into the article, though the links should do for now. But: Someone liked semicolons a little too much. I removed quite a few of them.--Eloquence* 05:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The account of the 1932 "Emu War" in Western Australia given here differs from the one given in Handbook of the Birds of the World, which says that the army's attempt to kill the Emus was basically a failure, with one report saying that only twelve were killed in a month. As told in HBW it is a fascinating story.Rhion 07:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right, I've fixed the article.--Peta 07:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Weak object
      • "***"In the wild, Emus live for about 10 years, while captive birds can live for more than twice that period." I need a ref to this.
      • "The pair mate every day or two, and every second or third day the female lays an average of 11 (and as many as 20) very large, thick-shelled, dark-green eggs" 20 dark-green eggs?! wow. A picture of the egg(s) would be really nice.
      • the "Physical description" has paragraphs that seem choppy, carelessly taken from a book, and it seems that this bird doesn't have a beak. ---Pedro 18:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Fixed point 1, I have not been able to get an egg pic so far, on point three I'm not sure what you are getting at - the section covers some interesting and unusual points about emu anatomy, it wasn't copied from anywhere - of course they have a beak, mentioning it is about as interesting as sayng a cow has four legs.--Peta 11:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Peta remember that not everyone had a close encounter of the third kind with that bird, so we need the bird's anotomy more or less well covered. See Parrot article for beak: All members of the order have a characteristic curved beak shape with the upper mandible having slight mobility in the joint with the skull... What about emus? Beaks are different from bird to bird. --Pedro 22:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
            • I alos haven't come across a single description of the emu beak. I'm not about to just make one up.--Peta 00:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- very good work, great use of images, easy to read and informative. Jkelly 19:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent article. Well written, detailed but not excessive. Nuff said.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.252.122 (talkcontribs) 14:41, 29 July 2006
  • Support Well written article.--ppm 20:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Esther (1961)[edit]

Self-nomination. I've done quite a bit of work bringing this article back from the dead, and with help, it's gone from start-class to A-class despite not having a lot of information to work with. Hurricanehink suggested I put it up for FAC, which definitely has to count for something. :D Any comments? --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good :) Support. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: this article is quite short for a featured article. I'm not sure how comprehensive a 15 kB article can be (knowing nothing about hurricanes, I can't suggest much), is there nothing else that could be included? I think you could probably expand most sections (a couple are just a few sentences long). You could add sections detailing aftermath and recovery - did every community recover from the economic and cultural damage done by the hurricane? How did the (inter-)national news cover the story? Have any works of fiction (film, literature, &c.) mentioned/used the hurricane? How did the authorities handle the situation and what did politicians say? --Oldak Quill 12:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, there was little in the way of aftermath. The hurricane did little in terms of impact. What's in the article has about all of the existing information of the hurricane from the Internet. It might be a little short, but it is comprehensive about the topic. --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Additionally, you have to consider that the storm occured four and a half decades ago, so there isn't as much information about the storm available as for modern storms. Titoxd(?!?) 17:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - article is well organized and cited but it is too short and lacking; if it is expanded, it defintely should be featured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoOdCoNtEnT (talkcontribs)
  • Support There isn't a minimum length requirement for featured articles is there? I thought the article seemed very comprehensive for a storm that occurred 45 years ago. --Nebular110 21:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Not comprehensive. Sections like "Impact" seem underdeveloped. If there isn't any information on the internet, then try and read some books instead. --Maitch 04:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • This objection is too vague to be actionable - what exactly is missing? Raul654 04:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 14:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object This is a "sentence" in the lead: The first, on Nantucket Island, as a rapidly weakening Category 3 hurricane, and the other, in Maine, as it was losing its tropical characteristics. Please identify the subject and predicate: maybe it's just me :-) Sandy 03:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I just fixed that. :) --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I just came by for a second look, saw this: The depression moved northwestward into a region were conditions for development were favorable and began to rapidly intensify, becoming Tropical Storm Esther the next day.[1] Sandy 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Another look today: Hurricane Esther was also one of the first targets of a Navy experiment in modifying or weakening hurricanes by seeding them. On September 16, a Navy plane flew into the eye of Esther about 400 miles (645 km) northeast of Puerto Rico, and began to drop silver iodide crystals into the storm.[11] Is the "also" necessary? Is the "began to" necessary? They both seem redundant. I also saw a very short section (Lack of retirement): does it need a separate section? I hope the text can get a thorough copyedit by someone unfamiliar with the text. Sandy 11:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support It is very detailed and it covers most hurricane topics (history,preperation,impact and aftermath). It is however not as long as most featured articles or other articles on hurricanes (see Hurricane Ivan. User:wwicki 15 July 2006.
    • It might not be as long as Ivan, which isn't even an FA, but Ivan did a lot more and was more recent. Compare Esther to Irene or John, which are FA's despite not having a very long article. This article covers about everything that Esther did, making it comprehensive despite not being very long. --Hurricanehink (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, one can see that that John and Irene are short,recent and detailed. However it is still shorter than the absolute majority of the featured articles.There are no seperate standards for articles about hurricanes to become featured. It says on the featured artcle criteria that the article must be of "appropriate" length. That isn't defined any further. If it isn't defined it is always an option to comparing it and the articles on the other two hurricanes mentioned above to most FA'S which would make them all seem short. I'm just saying we should take this into consideration. You are right about not comparing it to Ivan though. User:wwicki



The below is copied from Irene's FAC, where it was mistakenly placed: —Cuiviénen 16:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. It's better-written than most FACs, but still needs a run-through by a copy-editor who has the advantage of unfamiliarity with the text. Here are examples from the top.

    • "Esther spent its lifetime as an offshore storm"—Having just announced that Esther was a storm, here there are three redundant words, not all of them contiguous.
    • "The hurricane caused $6 million (1961 USD, $37.4 million 2005 USD) in damage"—Good to provide the inflationed equivalent, but can it be done more smoothly? What about: "The hurricane caused US$6 million in damage (~ 37.4 million 2005 USD)".
    • "an area with the potential for"—Better as "a potential area for".
    • "Intensification within the tropical storm continued at a quick pace, and Esther reached hurricane strength early on 12 September.[1] Esther then turned westward in response to a high pressure ridge over the central Atlantic. The hurricane continued to intensify rapidly, becoming a major hurricane on 13 September.[2] For the next four days, Esther intensified more slowly". There are three references to intensification here. Can the middle one be removed as assumed in the context? That is, "over the central Atlantic, becoming a major ...".
    • "Another trough pulled Esther northwestward then northward"—Get rid of the two "ward"s?

Tony 00:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

      • Good points. I'll fix those soon. Titoxd(?!?) 00:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
        • This is Irene ;) --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
          • That explains why I couldn't find those sentences... :P Titoxd(?!?) 02:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
            • LOL, poor Tito :) --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Would anyone object if I moved the above set of comments up to the Esther nom, where they were clearly meant to be? —Cuiviénen 16:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
                • Not at all. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
                  • Please do. No wonder the edit history on Esther confused me. Sandy 03:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Done, the only thing I didn't do was to remove the 1961 USD reference, as we do need the years to run the GDP deflator, and it is not always clear if the source we are using for the number is already adjusted for inflation to another year with just a quick glance. What does everyone think? Titoxd(?!?) 02:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Just wanted to note that references on this were quite good (I had the results of a citation spot check all typed up, but then my power failed and I lost it). So, good work on that. --RobthTalk 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

P. K. van der Byl[edit]

Some months ago this article underwent a previous FAC nomination. It was at a much earlier stage then, and it is now replete with references. Subject was a senior government Minister in Rhodesia during the time it had unilaterally declared independence. It is largely a self-nom, although many others have worked on it. David | Talk 10:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. I corrected some minor issues while reading the article, but have some concerns about the abundance of fair use images. I suppose that can't be helped considering the subject is dead, but not dead long enough. I am also slightly bothered by the use of "op cit" repeatedly in the references section. This stems from a lack of use of the "name" atribute in the <ref> tags. The article is well written and well referenced; good job. —D-Rock 11:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Supportive Comment. I cannot formally Support this article since I contributed significantly to it when it was first created. Although, my earlier writings are now largely submerged. I feel that the article satisfies the requirements for FA status. It is comprehensive on its subject, well written, well referenced, well illustrated and stable. The subject is an interesting character of some historical significance. PK's life and times offer major insights into the de-colonisation process in Africa. This should make a readable and useful FA. Bob BScar23625 13:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I added names to the references to remove the "op cit" all over the place, as Dbiv pointed out. Image:Udi2-rho.jpg lacks a fair use rationale; frankly, I don't think we should include it, it would probably stretch fair use too far. Generally, many of the images lack fair use rationales, but with the others, I think they could be provided. Will support if that is addressed. Well written and thoroughly sourced. Mangojuicetalk 15:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Response : I have expanded the rationales for the two images of PK that I am responsible for. There is no copyright issue with either. I think it extremely unlikely that there could ever be an issue with Udi2-rho. That picture was circulated by the government press office and has been used in many articles and books worldwide. Any copyright involved has long gone. Bob BScar23625 16:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me retract part of what I said. As a signatory to the unilateral declaration, it's reasonable to include that picture to illustrate the event. I changed the caption to fix the tone. Mangojuicetalk 20:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree that a fair use claim is appropriate (the historical nature of the event is particularly helpful in this respect). However, "Any copyright involved has long gone" is plain wrong - there are images over 90 years old with their copyright well and truly intact and extant. The fact that a photograph is widely used doesn't mean that it's copyright has expired. What more troubling is the lack of source information. TheGrappler 15:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support now, fair use image issue is resolved. Mangojuicetalk 11:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Object Introduction seems way too short. Also, there seems to be almost no information on the last ten years of his life. QuizQuick 00:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Response: I'll have a look at the intro to see if it can be improved. The reason there is little info on his last decade is that P.K. was essentially a private citizen during it, having no political or public role and just living out his retirement in South Africa and Britain with his friends and family. David | Talk 08:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Support. Intro is much better, and I see your point about the end of his life. QuizQuick 21:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it can, and I have just added it. David | Talk 11:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice additions, thanks. TheGrappler 14:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for now - images absolutely must identify sources (the uploader ought to know where the image was found; it's even better if they can identify the original source), and, if clearly under copyright, a thorough effort should be made to identify copyright holders. Sometimes it is true that a photograph is so obscure that all source information has been lost. Official photographs, though, really ought to have their status made clear. Similarly, it's worth thinking twice before claiming that an image is "promotional". Wikipedia:Publicity photos is an interesting read. "Unique historic event" may be worth claiming for the signing of UDI; this seems far far more appropriate than "publicity". TheGrappler 15:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Continue to object. One of the images lacks a copyright tag. As described on the fair use tag for the cartoon, "the publication name either visible on the image itself or written in the image description above" - currently it's neither on the description nor the caption. Image:Udi2-rho.jpg lacks an image tag. Image:PK2.jpg states it's coming from a government press information kit - is it? Is there a way to cite which particular kit, when it was issued or somesuch? Similarly, is Image:Pk1.JPG really from a political poster? These two designations look pretty arbitrary. Using a crop from a political poster to illustrate a politician is something of a no-no, like using a crop from a magazine to illustrate a person then claiming "it's okay, it's a magazine cover", or using a crop from an album cover and saying "it's okay, album covers are fair use". You're claiming fair use of a political poster but what you're actually using is a photo of the politician. My suggestion is, if you want to use Image:Pk1.JPG, upload an uncropped version.TheGrappler 12:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
What's under consideration is the article and not the images. As far as the cartoon, the publication name is Umbowo and it is on the image - you will see it in the top left. Image:Udi2-rho.jpg now has copyright tags. David | Talk 12:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—2a. It's not nearly as bad as last time (then, it was amateurish), but still needs improvement. Here are examples from the top.
    • "van der Byl opposed attempts to settle with African nationalists in order to prolong the period of white rule"—Ambiguous: opposing or settling would have prolonged white rule? (I genuinely can't tell.)
    • "Nevertheless" in the lead is wrong: it doesn't announce a contradiction with the previous text. The same for "However," in the subsequent sentence.
    • "... he so offended Rhodesia's closest ally South Africa that his powers had to be reduced." This begs too many questions, such as by whom, and in what way. Better to relocate this to the body of the article, where the details can be provided on the spot.
      • Since you're being pernickety about correct use of English, you don't mean "beg the question", you mean "raise the question". To "beg the question" is to assume the answer to some undecided issue. David | Talk 10:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "Third class degree"—shouldn't this be "third-class degree", with hyphen and lower-case initial?
    • "He went on from Cambridge to Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration in 1947-1948, and is counted in the Class of 1949 although he did not obtain a degree[7], and also studied at the University of Witwatersrand[8]." "and is counted in the Class of 1949" is unclear; readers will be confused by the "1947–48" that comes just before this, and the present tense may be awkward. A few more commas would make for easier reading, for example, before "although". I suppose Witwatersrand is in South Africa, but I wouldn't expect most readers to know that. The sentence is just a little long; can you split it?
    • "He was usually known, by friends and opponents, as "PK"." Remove "usually" and the commas for a crisper sentence. Do we need to be told about the upper-class accent yet again? "Upper-class" is hyphenated as a double epithet (unless this is American English).

Can you find a copy-editor who's unfamiliar with the text to iron it all out? Tony 10:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've interpolated further responses.

    • Taking these points in order:
      • Is it not fairly obvious that the African nationalists were not white, and therefore settling with them would hardly be the best way of continuing white minority rule? I really can't say.

What is obvious to you may not be so to many of our readers. In any case, we don't want to have to disambiguate any of the meanings, whether one meaning is more likely than another. That's basic to clear prose.

      • I'm working on a revised opening.
      • This is a 'teaser' for when the subject is discussed later in the article. Per WP:LEAD this sort of thing is allowed, and excessive detail in the opening paragraphs is not a good thing.

While we don't want excessive detail in the lead, neither do we want vagueness.

      • "Third class degree" is rarely hyphenated.

I accept this.

      • The situation itself is unclear. The Harvard members' list counts him in the class of 1949 but says he did not get a degree. My reading of it is that 1947-1948 marks the time he was physically present at Harvard.

Whatever the truth, there's a problem if your meaning is unclear.

      • Witwatersrand is indeed in SA, as any reader following the link would find out.

Our readers shouldn't have to hit links to work out what you mean.

      • The unusual accent which PK had was such a significant part of his public perception that it does merit a mention both in the lead and in the text. David | Talk 10:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't want to be told twice about the accent, especially so soon after the lead, and given that no further detail is provided on the second occurrence.

A few snakes to chop up so that they're not as hard to read:

  • "The Ministry had links through the government which ensured that anyone who asked awkward questions could be subject to detention or expulsion, and such action was taken against several foreign journalists (for example, John Worrall, correspondent for The Guardian, was expelled in January 1969)."
  • "Van der Byl's exploits as a big-game hunter (he shot his first lion in a garden in Northern Rhodesia at the age of 15[10]), a womaniser and a patron of the arts helped to reinforce his standing and many in the Rhodesian Front believed him to be "a 19th century-style connoisseur, a man of culture and an aristocrat-statesman" in the words of Michael Hartnack, a South African journalist[30]."
  • "In April 1972, van der Byl insisted that Rhodesia would not implement any part of an agreement made with the United Kingdom in November 1971 unless Rhodesia's independence was acknowledged, regardless of the answer from the Pearce Commission who were then investigating whether the settlement proposals would be approved by the people of Rhodesia."

Then I'll withdraw my objection. Tony 14:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Have had a go, as suggested. Please let me know what you think. David | Talk 23:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support As this is looking finely balanced, I will switch from Supportive Comment to outright Support.I feel that the subject matter is interesting and the presentation is at least as good as other FAs. I feel that TheGrappler is being too sensitive over issues of image copyright. Bob BScar23625 16:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
A little ingenuous to announce this when you're one of the main contributors to the article. Tony 14:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony. My early contributions to this article have long been submerged. That said, I have declared my interest above and you are free to strike my Support if you feel it appropriate. Bob BScar23625 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you mean "disingenuous" (?). Bob has been perfectly fair about all this - see this edit to my talk page. David | Talk 14:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Bob has been utterly fair and I have no complaints about his conduct. I hope I never get labelled a prickly editor, so it's with a little regret that I'm replying to this at all. I certainly hold high standards, and one of the standards from WP:WIAFA is precisely this: It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article. The images in this article have changed significantly during the nomination period. Each time I have objected and reobjected because new problems have turned up or I've noticed existing ones. Part of my most recent objection was that an image did't even have a copyright tag! That's far from being oversensitive, it's just pointing out that otherwise the image will have to be speedy deleted in 7 days! Similarly, the newspaper cartoon could really do with the newspaper name being listed explicitly in the caption. That license tag is mostly used for front covers where there's no need to caption the title, since it's in big letters anyway. Here it's tucked away in a corner, and it's not obvious whether it's the title or name of cartoonist. Quibble or not, good textbooks almost invariably caption the source when they include cartoons like that, even if copyright issues have expired. Currently, and in obvious violation of the instructions on the license tag (look at the bit in bold text labelled 'To the uploader) there's no fair use rationale given for that image's use in this article. Same goes for the Rhodesia Herald image. Image:Pk1.JPG has no source information and should by rights be deleted with 7 days (if I had been really sensitive I'd have {{nsd}}'d it); if it really is an election poster it's like none I've ever seen before and I am within my rights (at FAC of all places!) to point out that it looks a bit dodgy. If I was being sensitive, I'd be arguing that "this fair use claim is not a strong one and we're pushing our luck by using it" - but all I'm asking is that, in line with WIAFA 4, our basic and established copyright policies are followed in what is our "very best work". I don't want to make people jump through hoop after hoop but our image use policies give a very basic set of steps to be followed and in this case they clearly still haven't been. This shouldn't, ideally, even be an issue at FAC, because it should have been caught and corrected long before it was nominated. Unfortunately it hasn't, but I don't blame the editors in particular because I appreciate WP's practice as a whole has been sloppy. WIAFA 4 makes it clear that it ought to be sorted out before this passes FA, just like citation and copy-editing issues should be.TheGrappler 16:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

TheGrappler. Your comments re Image:Pk1.JPG are accepted and the Copyright status and Free Use rationale have been updated. Bob BScar23625 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Excellent, that's a great improvement. I'm impressed that the copyright holder has been identified. TheGrappler 00:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There are several wikiguidelines applicable to this article. These are tested by a simple peerreviewer script, of which I have put the output on the talkpage. I would strongly suggest to follow these guidelines. Most is simple technical edit-work, deploying specific ways for quotations, notes, etc. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Support. TheGrappler is absolutely right that images need to be fully squared away before this is promoted; as far as I can tell, however, that point has now been reached. (If someone else turns up a problem, don't treat this as a disagreement with their objection--I may have missed something.) This is a well researched, well written, and informative article. --RobthTalk 21:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the following is confusing: "His propaganda strategy became increasingly unsuccessful abroad, where PK alienated many of the foreign journalists and politicians that he came into contact with." What or who is PK? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - very informative, even though the man was so terrible. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - A very interesting, detailed and well refrenced article. Bravo to those who put the effort into it. michael talk 03:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

IG Farben Building[edit]

Historically and architecturally important building in Frankfurt, Germany. This article started as a major rewrite by means of a translation of the original German FA article. I've since added some facts and inline citations lacking from the German version and had it peer reviewed Here. I think it meets the criteria. --Mcginnly 16:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • SupportObject Prose and underreferenced. A personal (angelfire.com) website is an oft-cited source. Object removed, nice job! Sandy 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Switched to support after copy edit. Sandy 02:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Its six square wings retains a modern, spare elegance despite the mammoth size of the building.
  • In 1975, the U. S. renamed the building as the "General Creighton W. Abrams Building".[1]
  • After the U. S. forces returned control of the I.G. Farben building back to the German government in 1995, it was sold to the state of Hessen, which purchased it on behalf of the University of Frankfurt.[1] Sandy 17:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comments Sandy. I've made some more grammatical adjustments. The problem with referencing, is that there are plenty of German sites I could reference but the guidance prefers english citations on the the english wiki. Angelfire.com confirms much of the german source material so I've referenced it quite a bit. It may be a personal site but it's factual content can be verified. Perhaps you'd have another look and let me know what you think. I would gladly reference German language sites if you thought it appropriate.--Mcginnly 23:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem with the references is apparent in the lead. built from 1928–1930[1] or 31[2] [3] One reference states that it was "built in only 24 months", 1928-1930, while the other states 1928-1931. (And you've got the references backwards, I think. Reference 1 says 1928 - 19321931, but you have it to 1928 - 1930.) From the lead, the reader finds a problem with these informal sources, calling into question the integrity of the remainder of the article. These sorts of things need to be worked out with research for an FA: I can't support an FA which relies on a personal websites; even less when those websites offer conflicting information. Sandy 23:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Corrected my typo in dates, above. Sandy 23:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Completion dates can always be problematic with buildings. Is the moment of completion when workmen leave the site or when the building is occupied? On this site it is quite possible the main block was completed in 1930 and the casino in 1931. The sources don't make this explicitly clear, there is disagreement amongst them. I have amended the lead to read built from 1928-1930/31 and cited the various sources inline with each date. Whilst only 2 sources state completion as occuring in 1930 these are from the fritz bauer institute and the university of frankfurt, so I am inclined to included them as reliable sources rather than just plump for the majority who say completion occured in 1931. I've also corrected the erroneous link. Angelfire.com is now cited much less than before. The other point here is that this is a translation of a German FA which cited only 2 sources. My understanding is that it is only necessary for the references to be reliable. Is the angelfire site considered unreliable? If it is then it's been mirrored in a number of locations including greatbuildings online here and also here, which would usually be considered a reliable source. Yes it's been written by an ex-soldier who has eye-wittness experience of the building, but it's generally well researched and represents a US Army POV. Nonetheless if you give me a day or two I'll endeavour to improve the referencing situation.--Mcginnly 09:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've completed re-citing the majority of the article to encompass other english sites and 2 comprehensive german sites all from reliable sources. Please let me know what you think. --Mcginnly 11:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Back for a second look, after referencing work.
  • I'm not sure what is going on in the References. The in-line citations should be Notes, and what is the list at the bottom? Is that Further reading, or References? In-line citations (Notes) should be in a separate section from Further reading or References that are just below them.
  • Please list bibliographic info for each reference, so that the sources can be located should the websites become unavailable. For example, your first reference includes information about author, date, etc., that should be included in the citation listing: Autor: Linke, Vera Fachbereich: Soziologie - Wohnen, Stadtsoziologie Kategorie: Hausarbeit Jahr: 2002 Archivnummer: K20840. Another example would be:
Johnson, Dirk (Summer 2005). Modern Languages: Professor Johnson Continues Research in Germany. Retrieved on 2006-07-17.
  • Prose: In the first sentence of the article, a typo is found: The Poelzig-Building or the IG-Farben-Building (also know as the Poelzig-Ensemble or Poelzig-Complex, and previously as the IG-Farben-Complex, and the General Creighton W. Abrams Building) was designed by Hans Poelzig and built from 1928–1930[1]/ 31[2] as the corporate headquarters of the IG Farben conglomerate in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. That is too much information to wind through, and doesn't encourage the reader to continue reading. When you add in the confusion over the dates, it is off-putting to the reader from the onset. Further, the name of the article is IG Farben building, but the reader encounters a different name first. The lead needs to be restructured and made more user-friendly. This is only a sample from the lead.
  • Conflicting terminology: IG Farben, IG-Farben, I.G. Farben, and the Farben building. Some refer to the company, some to the building, some to name changes, but the reader is left confused. Is it possible to standardize terminology?
  • Random reference check: in the Recent years section, there are two very long paragraphs with no references. The reader doesn't know the origin of this information, and we can't ask them to "take our word for it". In the Building section, In 1928 IG-Farben was the fourth largest company in the world and the largest chemical company. with no reference.
The article really must be referenced for FA, and another copy edit for the remaining prose items would help. Sandy 23:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I've added the refences (min 1 per paragraph now, plus the potentially contentious claims, biggest largest etc.) and really read and re-read it. Another pair of eyes would be appreciated for punctuation typos etc. but fingers crossed we might be 3rd time lucky. (thanks for you feedback by the way, I agree with DVD/RW, this level of thoroughness has improved the article no end).--Mcginnly 22:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - have a look through Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Whether a reference is in English, German or Albanian isn't that big an issue; what matters most of all is that the source is reliable. If it happens to come from the personal website of a world famous architectural historian, that's great, but most personal websites are not. TheGrappler 05:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per my suggestions that have been attended to at Peer Review. One thing that doesn't look right is the sourcing for the building construction dates. It looks very confusing as it is. Good luck with the FAC. Newnam(talk) 22:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support upon cleanup of Newnam's criticism. Apart from that, it's very good. —Nightstallion (?) 16:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I've done that, I've kept the 2 completion dates with the 2 most reliable sources as inline citations. If there's ambiguity in the sources I think this should be reflected in the article. --Mcginnly 16:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. My concern at peer review was the lack of refs, but they have now been supplied. I think SandyGeorgia is doing a great job with reviewing it at this stage, as Newnam did at peer review, and this process will further improve this excellent article. DVD+ R/W 02:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Response - I've finally found a reliable citable source (In German) for the completion date confusion. The buildings were completed in 1930 but the parkland and grounds in 1931 - so the complex (as a whole) is listed as complete in 1931. I've amended the article accordingly. --Mcginnly 10:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Could a properly cited reference be given for the plaque? I'm not certain that "Quotations" is an accurate section heading. Also, while the "References" listed were indeed references for the original German article, they do not appear to be being used to support any of the information in this article as it stands. As such they are really "Further reading" and not "References" at all - instead, the section labelled "Notes" is actually the "References" section and should be headed as such. I'm pretty sure that "Article based on this edit: of the original German featured article: IG Farben Haus." is a WP:SELF-reference that ought to be avoided. Besides, this article is now no longer based (at least in reference terms) on that article; it already appears as an interwiki link, and I can see no convincing reason to maintain a link to the version that it was at some point translated from. TheGrappler 13:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I've amended the headings as per your suggestions - the plaque is now in a section entitled Translation of commemorative plaque, it was intended as a form of footnote, quotation was the nearest standard heading section I could think of, but a non-standard is more appropriate in this case. I've kept a mention of the tranlsation (but not the version) in line with guidance on Wikipedia:Translation into English which states Please do indicate in the references section of the newly created article that an article in a foreign-language Wikipedia was among your sources. For example, the references section of the article "Paragraph 175" begins, "Much of the content of this article comes from the equivalent German-language wikipedia article (retrieved September 30, 2004). The following references are cited by that German-language article..."--Mcginnly | Natter 03:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Additionally, Image:Poelzigplan.jpg lacks source information. If it under the GFDL license then the author must be credited: saying that the source is the German Wikipedia is emphatically not good enough. This is actually a copyright violation! GFDL images are "free" but only to a certain extent: the author does not give up all rights, and one reserved right is that the author needs to be credited. I recommend translating the information at de:Bild:Poelzigplan.jpg and including it on the Commons image.

TheGrappler 14:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

      • Amended as per your suggestion. --Mcginnly | Natter 03:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Meets all criteria and is a very thorough and complete page. Giano | talk 14:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The architecture is interesting enough, but it's about so much more than that. I've copy-edited the text, and left two inline queries—one about the need for a reference, and one about a term. Tony 03:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I've provided the citation you requested. Regarding the term 'building conclusion' pertaining to the top storey, I wouldn't say it's a 'technical term' such as Entablature or Cornice. It is however, a common term to discuss where a building ends and something else starts (the sky in this case). "The empire state building concludes with an aerial" would be ok I'd have thought. It can work horizontally as well to describe processionary routes through buildings:- "Canary wharf underground station's procession of palm-like central concrete columns, conclude with a gently curved glass dome over the escalators." --Mcginnly | Natter 03:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: This article well documents a structure with strong social significance at many levels including but not limited to war, commerce, organization, construction, and style. --M0llusk 18:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per above —Minun SpidermanReview Me 15:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice article on an interesting building. Burschik 06:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus[edit]

Come a long way since last FAC, with major issues, such as reference consistency etc, being fixed. The article would be great on the main page & in the 0.5 CD version due to the dinosaur's popularity. The wikiproject dinosaurs team has worked hard on the article & are continuing to improve the article... Thanks, Spawn Man 02:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC). SFriendly.gif

  • Nominator support: As per above... Spawn Man 02:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: I think it is about as comprehensive as one can get, and reads well. Cas Liber 06:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This popular dinosaur is not only well-described, some of the 'character' of the beast is transmitted through the article. - Ballista 06:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object underreferenced:there are numerous paragraphs that are not referenced at all.(Other minor points:it would be easier on the reader if you would put your citations in a bibiliographic style, rather than links to websites, and don't forget to alphabeticize your categories.)Sandy 00:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
My I ask what you call these? Scotch mist? - Spawn Man 04:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC):
Those are references.How many references you have listed is a different issue than whether you have inline citations referencing every statement that needs one.Sandy 03:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Response: As I stated below, I have referenced many sections, now almost 90% referenced. When I got Dinosaur featured, voters there said only 80% & above could be allowed. I have also gone through & copyedited all grammar points that I could find in the text, such as extra commas, rewording, deletion etc. Spawn Man 23:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Back for another look.Random paragraph:

Susan Hendrickson, amateur paleontologist, discovered the most complete (more than 90%) and largest Tyrannosaurus fossil skeleton currently known, in the Hell Creek Formation near Faith, South Dakota, on August 12, 1990. This Tyrannosaurus, now named "Sue" in her honor, became embroiled in a legal battle over its ownership. In 1997 this was settled in favor of Maurice Williams, the original land owner and the fossil collection was sold at auction for USD 7.6 million. It has now been reassembled and is currently exhibited at the Field Museum of Natural History. Based on a study of her fossilized bones, Sue died at 28 years of age, having reached her full size at 19 years of age. Researchers report that a subadult and a juvenile skeleton were found in the same quarry as Sue; this lends evidence to the possibility that tyrannosaurs ran in packs or other groups.[45]

The source for this paragraph is the Guinness Book of World Records, p.90.If I go to Guinness, will I find a description of this lawsuit over ownership?Will I find the discussion of Sue's age, her full size at 19 years, and the juvenile skeleton?Is everything in this paragraph in Guiness?Or, does Guiness just say she is the largest fossil currently known?

Prose problems in this paragraph, as the example of need for more copy-editing: comma needed after "the original land owner"."It has now been reassembled", redundant."Researchers report" is vague:is that exact statement in Guiness?I'd still like to see tighter references and copyediting.Sandy 15:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Object per Sandy Tobyk777 01:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Categories are now alphabetized.--Firsfron of Ronchester 01:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
And I've added a few citations.... Spawn Man 04:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Response to the above 2 objections: Actually, now I've added lots of citations in addition to the end References above. I used my vast collecting of dinosaur fact books, so it's mostly done now... I counted & out of the whole article, only 2 or 3 sections of 2-4 sentences are uncited. That's around 80-85% of the article.... Spawn Man 05:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC) SFriendly.gif
Once the refs are put into proper bibliographic style and not just URLs I will support.Tobyk777 15:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Second response to above comment: I am not thouroughly experienced in what you are requesting. Would you be able to explain it a bit more or perhaps even show me an example on one of them? Reference always seem to be my down fall when I try to fix them halfway through someone else's footnotes... Thanks, Spawn Man 22:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Refrneces 26 28 and 30 are still wrong.Use This page for an example of perfect refrencing.Tobyk777 01:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
That page has a reference to "44 ^ Sevral (sic) episodes from Dark Angel, Season Two (2001–2002)". Is that really how you want us to format? With incorrect spelling and references to TV shows?!--Firsfron of Ronchester 03:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
There arn't any spelling errors in that refrence.I don't want you to refrence a TV show, but since that article was refering to a TV show when it made that citation, it makes perfect sense to refrence a TV show.An article about a show would obviously refrence the show it's on.Now, that aside, we are getting sidetracked.I just gave that article as an example of perfect refrencing.(If you hate what's being refrneced or the subject of the article it doesn't matter because it was just an example of a format.) All I have been trying to say here before all of this irelevant conversation was that you need more bibliographic info than just a url.Tobyk777 05:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The word "sevral" is misspelled: the proper spelling is "several". I cannot base a Featured Article Candidate's references on a bunch of misspelled references.--Firsfron of Ronchester 05:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
He was just giving it as an example FoR.... Spawn Man 21:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but he said it was an example of perfect references. Clearly, it's not. I've based most of our references on the examples WP gives on WP:CITE.--Firsfron of Ronchester 21:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • My concens have been adressed. Change vote to Support Tobyk777 23:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your support... Spawn Man 05:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. The "Other giant theropods" section is irrelevant in this article and should be removed. And could you expand the "Appearances in popular culture" section? T. Rex is one of the most popular dinos and should get a large culuture section. CG 06:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Response to above comment: I've deleted the section mentioned. The reason T rex has such a small pop culture section is because it actually got so big it was moved to its own page. I have summarised its main movie appearance & what types of media it has appeared in. Any more than that & we might as well move the whole trex in pop culture page back into the t rex article. Thanks for your comments, & I sincerly hope you could be able to vote now... Spawn Man 07:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC).

SFriendly.gif


  • Object—2a. The density of problems in the lead suggests that the entire text needs a good massage by someone who is relatively unfamiliar with the text.
    • Join the first two paragraphs; that will solve the problem of "It" at the start of the second para.
    • "Tyrannosaurus is now a prime subject of ongoing scientific research and popular culture, although there have been published reports of larger predatory dinosaurs (such as Giganotosaurus and Spinosaurus)." No, "although" as a contrastive works only against the second item, "popular culture"; avoid parentheses unless required. Try this: "Tyrannosaurus is now the subject of ongoing scientific research; it holds a special place in popular culture, although there have been published reports of larger predatory dinosaurs, such as Giganotosaurus and Spinosaurus."
    • 3000 lb? What about the 95% of the human race who use the metric system?
    • Rather than "interesting", make it "important". "Tyrannosaurus finds" is a bit loose. Perhaps reword. Better still, start this para with the current second sentence. Link to USA is not required. (Put up your hand if you don't know what it is.)
    • An en dash would be so much nicer to seperate the ranges (12–13 rather than 12-13). While we're on ranges, instead of "4 tons[6] to 8 tons", make it "4–8 tons".
    • "Compared with", not "to", for contrasts.
    • "unlike in mammals" is a bit awkward.

This should be a FA, so please fix it throughout. Tony 10:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to Tony's objection: Thanks you very much for your comments (not so much for the oppose.... ;)) I have tried my hardest & completed all of your tasks to my fullest extent. If you can still see anything wrong, please don't hesitate to tell. I sincerly hope you could be able to support the article now.... Thanks, Spawn Man 22:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC). SFriendly.gif
Tony gave samples:did you fix those samples only, or have you thoroughly copy-edited the entire text, and referenced *everything*?If so, I'll have another look as well.Sandy 02:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I only fixed the stuff he said. How am supposed to know what he considers good grammar? I mean I thought "Compared "with", not "to", for contrasts", would have also been fine "Compared "to", not "with", for contrasts". So how am I suypposed to guess if my evaluations are different? Spawn Man 21:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Response: I have now gone through & copyedited all grammar points that I could find in the text, such as extra commas, rewording, deletion etc. I sincerly hope you could be able to support now, as I feel I have met both yours (Tony) & Sandy's requests. Thanks a bunch... Spawn Man 23:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC).

SFriendly.gif

Looking at it (I haven't edited much on this article), I have reduced some of the material on Sue and the scientific research sentence is redundant. Hopefully it reads better now Cas Liber 01:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. It's a worthwhile topic, and clearly a lot of interesting material has been brought together in this article. However, I am not at all convinced by the structure. It makes reference to the question of feathers, which is a general issue of therapods, but does not treat warm-bloodedness in the same way. If I had my way, I would have both referred to briefly, pointing to the relevant article elsewhere - if necessary, spin out the material into a stub. The "environment" section similarly is far too detailed, bolstered with facts that seem very tangential to the subject, and no particular link is made (how was the evolution of Tyrannosaurus shaped by the environment? do we have enough evidence to even make an intelligent guess?). Finally, I was unimpressed by the "Dinosaur Cards" references - are these reliable? Are Gibbons, T. and Gibbons, L. really two different people, or did initials get mixed up? Sadly oppose for now.- Samsara (talkcontribs) 23:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Response to above oppose: Hey don't dis the dino cards man ;). No their initials did not get mixed up. Smith is the worlds most common last name, so who says two researchers can't have the same last name? They might be related.... For the rest of you requests I'm not too sure what you're talking about? Tony1's requests (above) were clear & precise. Yours I'm afraid went over my head. Would you be able to explain, perhaps in bullet points & simpler language, what exactly you want done? Thanks, it would help a lot to get the article featured. And unless you don't want it featured, I don't see why it couldn't hurt... Thnaks, Spawn Man 23:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Shorten the section on feathers, make a separate article from the original material
  • Also make a short section for the warm-bloodedness debate
  • Make the "environment" section relevant to the article or toss it, certainly shorten it
  • Find better references for all points supported by the dino cards
Samsara (talkcontribs) 23:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
1st response to above comments: Have you seen a dinocard? Probably not. Have you personally read each of the references on the refs section. Probably not, me neither. So why just object to the dino cards? Why not the rest? Why not get refs for the refs, just to make sure that they're all legit?? Please assume good faith Samsara (that was a good movie...), & I take it as a personal attack when someone attacks my references & my work... Thanks, Spawn Man 00:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe you can sympathise with Talk:Fedora_Core#POV no matter what you write?. At the end of the day, this is not about me and you, it's about what the people reading the article are going to think about Wikipedia. FA us about the "best of Wikipedia" and everybody's initial reaction is going to be the same as mine: "collecting cards, WTF?" Regards, Samsara (talkcontribs) 01:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Response to above Samsara comment: They provide acurate information. Infact, the information was already there & I only used the cards to provide a reference to the text. In fact, none of the text was taken from the cards, they were only used to cite the text facts. Also, they are not "collecting cards". Collecting cards are silly little toys that have wierd monsters on them ending in "mon". In fact, thses cards are only called cards because they come in segmented packets. They are A4 sized documents on dinosaurs. Not small pocket sized ones. Spawn Man 01:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I know the ones exactly. I've told you what I think someone not familiar with those cards will think when seeing that reference, and I believe in my judgement as much as the first split-second. Good faith is assumed but the article is still lacking, and, what's worse, we are wasting each other's time in unnecessary crossfire. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 01:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Another Response: I have provided additional refs for some of the card's cites. I have also added a warm blood section useing info from Dinosaur & from my books... Thanks & I sincerly hope you would be able to vote now due to these changes.... Spawn Man 02:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Addendum to response to above comments: Samsara, I have come across several articles where husband/wife teams have co-written articles. I can't comment for these ones but Rich/Vickers-Rich are one example for dinosaur researchers, I have others in botnay and other areas. cheers Cas Liber 00:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I'm aware of that. It's always worth checking for a spelling mistake, though. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 01:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Question to Samsara: May I ask why you are objecting now Samsara? I have done all of your requests to my fullest extenet & provided many new references for un supported dino card refs. Although the dino cards are researched & legitimit, I have still complied. If you feel there is still work to do, so can't fully support, why not change your vote to neutral? Thanks, Spawn Man 23:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
See my two questions on talk; there are also some remaining items on the todo list that I would like to see completed before it goes to the front page. Sandy has also raised concerns about the Guinness reference, which btw, appears twice. Why feature it before it's ready?
As for the dino cards, I'll need to find a quiet moment to see if there remain any statements supported solely by those. If not, we can take them out. Otherwise, we'll have to work on finding more orthodox sources. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 16:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
There are still entire paragraphs supported solely by Dino Cards references. Do these not give primary references (meaning articles in peer-reviewed journals)? - Samsara (talkcontribs) 16:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I have added several new sections and I am slowly working my way down the article, citing things properly. I don't expect support until that task is done, mind you, but if you wouldn't mind reading over the new sections, it would be much appreciated.Sheep81 01:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I do not feel the article in its current state is FA-worthy, but that with a little rearrangement and revision it can be. I have been working on this article on my userpages for awhile now. I am not done yet as prior commitments have taken up most of my time this summer. However, there are a few sections I feel can be transferred directly to the article. I have expanded the lead to three paragraphs which summarize the article and copy-edited them using Tony's guide as my basis (they may still need work of course). I have expanded the Characteristics section and used primary scientific sources as references instead of the current tertiary sources. In my opinion, if we are going to use summary style on the pop culture section (which we should), then the pop culture section in the Tyrannosaurus article should only summarize the information on the main "T. rex in pop culture" article, not introduce a whole lot of new information. So I've done that also. Sheep81 01:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't deny primary sources (in the form of scientific papers) are preferrable to tertiary ones. However, some readers may actually prefer quick web-links with exciting graphics as opposed to sometimes dry, incomprehensible (to mainstream people) scientific jargon of pdf files. Can we at least keep a few of the web-links and such from well-respected online journals like Smithsonian Online, etc?--Firsfron of Ronchester 02:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I was mainly referring to the trading cards and such.Sheep81 02:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
They're not trading cards gad dammit! Spawn Man 03:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
All right, I apologize. Whatever they are, they're not primary or even secondary sources, so they shouldn't be used as references in an encyclopedia article. Right? Plus they aren't online, so it's not like they are any easier to find than the primary sources are. In fact they are probably harder to find. By the way I have expanded the classification section! Sheep81 03:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. I doubt even legal deposit libraries have them. They don't seem to have an ISBN, and I doubt they ever get reprinted. In fact, I am only familiar with these in a subscription context, where you'd be waiting several months before you get the actual card you want. Am I right? - Samsara (talkcontribs) 16:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
As Sheepy put above, he has put numerous new references to support the dinocards... Spawn Man 05:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Support now, incidentally. Sheep81 10:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Support. There are now at least 60 footnoted references, all, from what I can tell, in the proper format listed at WP:CITE. With many additions by Sheep, copyedits by Ballista and Cas, refs added by Spawn Man and myself, and additional material by Samsara, I feel I can now fully support. It should be noted, however, that I am a member of WP:Dinosaurs, so take my vote with a grain of salt.--Firsfron of Ronchester 02:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't listen to him, WPDinosaurs has never seen him before! ;)...

SFriendly.gif Spawn Man 05:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Object - copyright status of Image:Sue'sBrain.jpg needs to be cleared up. It's claimed under a Creative Commons attribution license, but I can't see an unequivocal attribution. Is the Field Museum the owner of the image's copyright content or is it just the holder or host of the image? Additionally, there's no particular source information - where did this image file come from? Is there a URL or a book it came from? (In theory this picture should {{nsd}}'d at the moment!) If it's being claimed under a CC license, I'd expect to see some information that makes clear that the copyright holder actually did release it under this license - obviously I'm assuming good faith and believe 100% that the image uploader has correctly identified the copyright status. Nevertheless we get a never-ending barrage of images which are claimed to be "copyrighted but the holder has released all rights" - with no hint of proof attached - and, WP:AGF or not, these usually end up getting zapped at WP:IFD. If it is a free image it needs to be proven to be free. TheGrappler 14:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Well you're in luck. We can prepare & said that if the brain picture caused any objections, it would then be repalced by a good looking skull image of her skull which if free. Hope you will be able to support now that your problem is resolved. The image didn't really add that much anyway... Thanks, Spawn Man 01:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Objection removed, thanks: but can somebody tell me whether that image is free? I'll take it IFD if it isn't... it claims to be free but I can't see any evidence, which is all I'm asking for. TheGrappler 23:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I actually have no idea the lisence, all I know is that it was causing problems. Take it out for drinks for I care. Thanks! Spawn Man 23:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC). BTW, Is this a support or now just a neutral?
Put it this way, I'm not objecting. But I don't feel qualified to state that anybody else's currently "live" objections are incorrect, or that I have studied the article and references in sufficient depth to state full support. I do feel qualified to state, however, that the images used in this article are appropriate, and now have excellent copyright status. TheGrappler 00:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment The sensible thing would be to remove the dino card references altogether as per the arguments that have been brought forward. Then we would see plainly that the following sections are still supported solely by Dino Cards:
Modern carnivores are seldom strict predators or scavengers. Lions for example, sometimes scavenge prey that hyenas have killed (and vice versa). Scavenging behavior depends upon prey availability, among many other factors.
Some other evidence exists that suggests hunting behavior in Tyrannosaurus. The ocular cavities of Tyrannosaurs are positioned so that the eyes would point forward, giving the dinosaur binocular vision. A scavenger might not need the advanced depth perception that stereoscopic vision affords; in modern animals, binocular vision is found primarily in predators. Bite marks in other animals and even other tyrannosaur fossils suggest predatory behavior.
When examining Sue, paleontologist Pete Larson found a broken and healed fibula and tail vertebrae, scarred facial bones and a tooth from another Tyrannosaurus embedded in a neck vertebra. If correct, it might be strong evidence for aggressive behavior between tyrannosaurs but whether it would be competition for food and mates or active cannibalism it is unclear. However, further recent investigation of these purported wounds has shown that most are infections rather than injuries (or simply damage to the fossil after death) and the few injuries are too general to be indicative of intraspecific conflict. In the Sue excavation site, an Edmontosaurus annectens skeleton was also found with healed tyrannosaur-inflicted scars on its tail. The fact that the scars seem to have healed suggests active predation instead of scavenging a previous kill. Another piece of evidence is a Triceratops found with a third of its horn missing and a tooth mark along a piece of frill. Again, these were inflicted by a tyrannosaur and they too appear healed.
Scientists who think that Tyrannosaurus was able to run slowly point out that hollow Tyrannosaur bones and other features that would have lightened its body may have kept adult weight to a mere 5 tons or so, or that other animals like ostriches and horses with long, flexible legs are able to achieve high speeds through slower but longer strides. Additionally, some have argued that Tyrannosaurus had relatively larger leg muscles than any animal alive today, which could have enabled fast running (40–70 km/h or 25–45 mph).
or it may have used ambush tactics, to attack faster prey animals.
The vertebrae named Manospondylus by Cope in 1892 can be considered the first known specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex. Barnum Brown, assistant curator of the American Museum of Natural History, found the second Tyrannosaurus skeleton in Wyoming in 1900. This specimen was originally named Dynamosaurus imperiosus, in the same paper in which Tyrannosaurus rex was described. Had it not been for page order, Dynamosaurus would have become the official name. The original "Dynamosaurus" material resides in the collections of the Natural History Museum, London.

:In total, Barnum Brown found five Tyrannosaurus partial skeletons. Brown collected his second Tyrannosaurus in 1902 and 1905 in Hell Creek, Montana. This is the holotype used to describe Tyrannosaurus rex Osborn, 1905. In 1941 it was sold to the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Brown's fourth and largest find, also from Hell Creek, is on display in the American Museum of Natural History in New York. :It is the most complete and best preserved juvenile example known to date. Jane has been examined by Jack Horner, Pete Larson, Robert Bakker, Greg Erickson and several other renowned paleontologists, because of the uniqueness of her age. Jane is currently on exhibit at the Burpee Museum of Natural History in Rockford, Illinois. (OK, got these re-referenced - working on it...)


I'd say that's quite a chunk! - Samsara (talkcontribs) 15:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, much of this could be confirmed in the book, Sue, which I have. I will have a look.Cas Liber 20:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I've been asked to take another look at the prose after my previous object.
    • What does the start of the second sentence of the article mean? "The only universally accepted species is Tyrannosaurus rex from what is now western North America,...". (It means the closely related Tarbosaurus is from Asia, some consider this to be another species of Tyrannosaurus, in shich case Tyrannosaurus is found in Asia and North America, cheers Cas Liber 21:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC))
    • "Some scientists consider the Asian genus Tarbosaurus to be a synonym of Tyrannosaurus, although others continue to separate the genera." "Synonym for". Rather than "separate", do you mean "distinguish"? Is a reference for this assertion required?

(Synonym in taxonomy carries a different meaning to straight grammar. It means the genus is consdered the same (though in this case the species are different. If two scientists name something different things, then the later one loses out and is described as 'a junior synonym of...' However, I think it can be worded better) Cas Liber 21:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    • "Although other theropods have been identified which rival or exceed T. rex in size,...". Why not simplify it: "Although other theropods rivaled or exceeded T. rex in size,..."?
    • Having announced the abbreviation, why not use it throughout?
    • "Fossils of Tyrannosaurus rex have been found in North American rock formations, dating to the very end of the Cretaceous Period and it was among the last dinosaurs to exist prior to the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event. Over thirty specimens of T. rex are now known,..." This sentence, like many others here, is not FA material. Abbreviate the name (sometimes it's in italic, sometimes not); the punctuation and sentence structure are poor - move the "dating" clause to after "rex" and nest it in commas; cut "and" and insert a semicolon; "prior to" might be OK in this context, but consider the simpler "before"; "More than" is preferred to "over" by many style manuals, and I can see why (no potential ambiguity, therefore easier to read). Consider using numerals for numbers 10 and above; "have now been identified" at the end of the quote.

This is the lead, and looking down I can see lots of micro-problems in the prose. Can you get a good copy-editor to go through it thoroughly? Tony 13:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"Abbreviate the name (sometimes it's in italic, sometimes not);" Tony, can you give some examples of where T. rex or Tyrannosaurus is not in italics, aside from already italicized footnotes? I looked thru and I couldn't find any. The word "tyrannosaur" by itself should not be in italics. As far as abbreviating the name, this cannot always be done. When referring to the genus (which is Tyrannosaurus), we cannot abbreviate it as T. rex (rex is the species-level name, Tyrannosaurus rex is the binomial). In cases where we are specifically speaking of the genus (which is what this article is actually about, despite its possible monotypic status), we can't just always substitute T. rex for Tyrannosaurus or tyrannosaur.--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


  • FRUSTRATIONS!!!: I am totally confused & angered by the fact that this article is going to be denied FA status because of minor punctuation complaints such as "comma needed after "the original land owner"?!!! I would bet the world that at least 50% of all FA's have a comma missing! I feel I should go & ask for a review of all FA's based on minor punctuation marks. For example, who cares if "Compared to" is replaced with "Compared with"?! Come on people, the only real problems here are the refs, which are practically fixed & the information, which is also practically fixed. Stop making minor complaints about punctuation & stick to the real issues!! Spawn Man 22:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Not wanting to leave it there, I went out to find other ounctuation mistakes in several randomly picked FA's:
Leo KannerNo period after this sentence. Shocking!
  • Bhutan ..."Its traditional economy is based on forestry, animal husbandry and subsistence agriculture however these account for less than 50% of a GDP now that Bhutan has become an exporter of hydroelectricity[3]. ←Punctuation after the ref!
  • I could go on for a while, but I can't be bothered wasting my time searching through 1,000+ FA articles so I can try & get some sense into somebody's head... And yes I do take it personally, I'm moody... Spawn Man 23:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Stop taking it personally.

SFriendly.gif - Samsara (talkcontribs) 23:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

And another thing, if Tony & Sandy think they're so much better at copy-editing than everyone else, why the hell don't they do it? Almost all of the WikiProject Dinosaur team has been copyediting & there's always something else to correct. Show us how it's done o' Tony, great copy-editor of yore! Spawn Man 23:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure Tony and Sandy and the rest just want to make sure this article is FA-quality, Spawn Man. And you can see Samsara's been actively adding/reworking the material alongside us, so we've had some help. Don't worry: we'll get there, it just takes time. :)--Firsfron of Ronchester 00:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
SpawnMan, please don't be upset, and please don't take it personally.The Asperger syndrome article you pointed out above?That's why it's in WP:FAR.Tony spends an enormous amount of time copyediting for other people.People are here to help, we can't copyedit and reference every Wiki article ourselves, but we can show you what you can do achieve FA.

SFriendly.gif Please don't make the mistake of comparing your article to other FAs:featured articles can deteriorate over time, and that's why they end up in review.Sandy 02:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Boy Scouts of America membership controversies[edit]

Self nomination: I think this is a very well-written and thorough page. Supported by a strong consensus of a diverse group of editors, quite stable, and impeccably referenced. I hope you all agree. --Alecmconroy 05:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - Previous FAC loacted here. Fieari 21:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think the Scouts' entitlement to federal funds and access to military facilities should be mentioned quite early on (I don't think it is currently). Also, you may want to add a section about media coverage and commentry on the situation. I'm not sure if I'm happy with the great division between support and oppose, it would be preferable to structure it along issue lines. --Oldak Quill 10:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I moved the "Litigation over the policies" section up in the article. --Jagz 18:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

*Comment Why put the ACLU logo there? WP 10:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved the ACLU logo. --Jagz 18:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support. The topic, albeit narrow, is covered in good detail. It's not the absolute best of the candidates, though. --Gray Porpoise 19:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Would it help if I made the photo of President Bush larger? :) --Jagz 20:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object. 1, 3c, and 5. --FBISeal.png Shane (talk/contrib) 06:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
1) There are many controversies in the world, this one does not standout as something that is important to the world, but just the US-Centric
3c) I don't want to have to look at so many sections. (Reason for Section 5)
5)Each "main" subheading should be a paragraph with the {{seealso}} going to another article containing the facts of the main headings. Concise.
K. Obviously, if your 3c & 5 views are prevalent, we have to address that. I'm confused by #1 though-- I didn't realize that FAC depended on the subject matter having world-wide importance. When you look at the list of featured articles, there are many that are less notable than our subject: the video game chracter Wario, 1981 computer game, a fictional food found in the tv show Babylon 5, etc. --Alecmconroy 07:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Scouting is a worldwide movement and the Boy Scouts of America is part of it. --Jagz 15:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
They are correct in that there is no requirement to be international. Many FAs are country-specific.Rlevse 15:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this person may be confused about FA requirements. Subject matter does not and has never been a requirement for FA. "Our Best Work" doesn't have anything to do with the topic of the article. There should be as many headings as is needed for the topic, and you only need the {{seealso}} tag if there is in fact another article that goes into more depth. There doesn't have to be one. Fieari 17:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Nope. I suggest running this by the WP:GA committee *first* before I would vote in support of it. --FBISeal.png Shane (talk/contrib) 18:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That would be easier than having to justify your comments. --Jagz 19:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I feel that this article is now ready for featured status, after many vast improvements have been made to it. Fieari 17:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In my opinion, this article's topic should be no hindrance to its reaching featured status. Fg2 00:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I helped edit this article so I support it and think it is a particularly well-balanced coverage of the subject. Given the controversial nature of the article, almost everyone will be against some of the issues discussed but that's okay because we have freedom of speech in the US, so this article should be acceptable at least on that basis. --Jagz 22:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; excellent writing, well ref'd. However, you have duplicated references (The Impact of the Boy Scouts of America’s Anti-Gay Discrimination occurs three times in the list of refs). Instead of using the <ref> tag for every reference, the first time the ref appears, use the tag <ref name="name here"> or whatever instead of just <ref>, and then for follow up comments using the same ref simply use <ref name="name here" />, with out the rest of the ref (the name and URL for example). This will shorten your list of references by removing duplicates. Thanks! smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 13:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

*Object - This article glosses over the issue of admission of girls as scouts and women as leaders, which was headlines and fought in court many times, before the issue of atheists and homosexuals ever gained traction. Reading this article, one would think that nobody tried to crash scouting's party before the gays and atheists, and that is absolutely not the case. Give Peace A Chance 00:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

In order to keep the article to a reasonable length, we only included current controversies. Since women are now allowed as leaders, it is not included in this article. The admission of girls is discussed in section 5.1. --Jagz 01:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
One clear consensus that came out of the first FAC was that the article should try to keep a clear focus on just the current gay/atheist controversy. There are a lot of controversial aspects about the BSA, and no one article could cover them all. There's the exclusion of girls, the former exclusion of women, the former segregation of races, exclusion of people who disagree with the BSA on a wide variety of issues, the unitarian controversy and more. I think it's important this article keep focused just on the one main gay/atheist controversy and leave all those other issues to other pages-- one page could never cover them all in appropriate detail. --Alecmconroy 06:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
You are making my point. You think that it is more important that it stays focused on the gay/atheist controversy, and so the article is written that way...biased. That's why I object. Saying that we could never cover all the controversies, there is only room for 2 is a copout. Scouting is a 100 year old organisation!! Suddenly in the 1990's, court cases involving gays/atheists start garnering more press attention and we're simply to pretend that there was no controversy for the organisation's first 85 years? Hogwash. I will withdrawl my objection if someone inserts a paragraph near the begining giving these controversies context, simply mentioning, not even elaborating, on the fact that other groups, not gays/atheists, tried to force their way into scouting first. I think the article is good in almost every respect, except for its lack of context. A few other things ARE mentioned at the bottom, as an afterthought, it seems. Give Peace A Chance 02:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I moved the discussion of the admission of girls up in the article from section 5 to section 2, Litigation over the Policies. It is also now mentioned in the article introduction. --Jagz 02:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support My concerns are addressed, and I think that the reader gets a better sense of context now. I have not contributed to the article myself, but may still jump in and tweak a word or two, though I think its a very good article overall. Give Peace A Chance 02:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support this has come a long way from the first attempt at FA.Rlevse 22:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sequence alignment[edit]

I've been working slowly but steadily on this article and its daughters for about a month now, and it's been significantly improved in technical detail, comprehensiveness, and referencing. The subject is a central topic in bioinformatics that is nevertheless commonly misunderstood by students and casual users of common sequence alignment tools. It's had a very helpful peer review and I'm interested to see how it fares here. Opabinia regalis 03:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support—My, this is well written indeed. Why can't all FACs be like this? Just a few points.
    • Programmers use ", then" in their code, but when writing for a broader audience, avoid it as a marker of sequence unless absolutely necessary.
    • Do use "the" consistently—not the telegram language that so many scientists use.
    • Just a few more commas might be considered, although it's partly a matter of personal style. After sentence-initial adverbial/prepositional phrases, and before "such as", "because", "but" and "including" are possibilities.
    • Consider using em dashes for some nested clauses that already contain commas.
    • I've removed a few idle "alsos".
    • In a few places, you over-favour "or" over "and" in lists.
    • Avoid "Note that ..." in this register. Tony 04:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks! I've made a few minor changes given your comments. I'm both a scientist and a programmer, so I get both sets of idiosyncrasies. Also, thanks for taking care of my extraneous "alsos". Opabinia regalis 04:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Image:RPLP0 90 ClustalW aln.gif should be in PNG. WP 09:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    I actually replaced that image with another one in PNG format that illustrates two different coloring/characterization schemes and is a less raggedy alignment. Opabinia regalis 01:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the following passage, "A variety of computational algorithms have been applied to the sequence alignment problem, the most intuitive of which is dynamic programming." (emphasis mine) sounds biased. I haven't found where in the article it is explained why dynamic programming maps onto the problem in a more intuitive way than other methods. Regards, Samsara (talkcontribs) 09:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    Hrm, I think you're right. Reworded. (edit conflict: that was fast, thanks!) Opabinia regalis 01:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Samsara (talkcontribs) 01:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Opabinia, you've really done some great work on these topics in a short time. --Aranae 01:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't know much abuot the subject, but it looks like a good article. Viva La Vie Boheme 16:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Nice article ont he subject matter. --FBISeal.png Shane (talk/contrib) 01:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - one minor nitpick, the reference tags appear both before and after the punctuation, they should just be after.--Peta 02:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks, I think I got them all. Opabinia regalis 03:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support It's good to see a technical topic elucidated so well in W'pedia. Reimelt 21:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hasekura Tsunenaga[edit]

Little known story of Japan's first official emissary to the Americas and Europe, between 1613 and 1620. Mainly self-nom PHG 01:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support as per nomination.PHG 03:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Nice start, and lots of work, but you need to expand the lead, simplify the table of contents, expand short sections or combine them into others, and reference the article more thoroughly.The references also need some cleanup (there's a large block of white space).There are also some prose problems.Picking a random section What became of Hasekura is unknown and accounts of his last years are numerous. Some say he willingly abandoned Christianity, others that he was martyred for his faith, and others that he practiced Christianity in secret. The fate of his descendants and servants, who were later executed for being Christians, would suggest that Hasekura remained strongly Christian himself, and transmited his faith to the members of his familly. This needs to be cited (as to who said what), the first sentence has awkward phrasing, and there's a typo. Sandy 01:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. The lead has been expanded. Reference cleaned up. The above has been rephrased for clarity. PHG 02:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment I think there have been over 50 edits in response to Sandy's constructive criticism. It may be worth a second look to see if you can now support the proposal. Fg2 07:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment In the first paragraph of the lead section, you say that a person was an example of international relations. This should be rephrased. In the second, the article says, "... Hasekura was unable to reverse the course of his country's increasing isolationism... ." True enough, but it would be more significant if he had been in a position where one might expect him to have done so. As a mid-level samurai in a tozama han, he would not have been able to affect the policy of the shogunate.
Early life: "Oxu" should be romanized according to the Wikipedia system (Ōshū). Within the quote in the 1613 embassy section, the old Portuguese romanization might (or might not) be appropriate. Other places likewise (including "Date Masamunni, King of Woxu in Japan" where I linked Woxu to Mutsu Province). The word "daimyo" should not be capitalized in Early Life. The link to Taiko goes to the wrong article; you should check all links and fix ones that lead to the wrong articles or to disambiguation articles. (A later example of a link that goes to the wrong article is "factory.") Hideyoshi's surname should be included. In "his son also almost automatically was supposed to be executed" can you rephrase "almost automatically"?
Background: Not sure what a "definitive base" is. "... coast in Chiba, near Tokyo.": the names are modern, in contrast to Oshu; you might want to establish a convention of using either modern or period names; mixing the two can cause confusion. A title such as "retired shogun" can tell readers who Tokugawa Ieyasu was. Copying and pasting into MS Word can help you uncover misspellings such as "abandonned."
The 1613 embassy: The word "Galleon" (second sentence) should begin with a lowercase letter. "Bakufu" redirects to Shogun, but Tokugawa shogunate would be a better target. Can you link Toshima-Tsukinoura? I suppose it's on the Miyagi coast but I don't know just where. Near the end of the article, it's described as "near Ishinomaki"; probably that means "in present-day Ishinomaki" since every part of Japan is in some municipality. "... Sebastian Vizcaino who, in his own words, only had the quality of a passenger.": can you clarify this?
Mission to Europe: The word "godfather" should have a lowercase letter (and link to the right article). The "picturesque details" have a mixture of periods after quotation marks and periods before. The reference in parentheses has the comma after parentheses. The style should be consistent throughout the article.
Return to Japan: "Sakoku" isn't normally used as a period in Japanese history, but rather as a policy. It should begin with a lowercase letter here (as it does below). "Folding screens," a red link, should point to Byobu. "Enfukuji (Japanese: 円長山円福寺)," "Komyoji (光明寺)," "Sendai City Museum (仙台市博物館)": do the kanji serve a purpose, or can we remove them? Same question throughout. More discussion here.
Re-discovery: "The travels of Hasekura had so well been concealed by the Bakufu" I don't have access to Reference 18, so I wonder if it says that the Bakufu concealed the travels, or if it instead names another group (e.g. the Sendai han) or avoids stating who did the concealing? Ishinomaki is linked twice, on successive lines, the first time indirectly. "A 2005 Spain-produced animation film" is awkward, and presents the nation as the producer; this should be straightened out. Yohei's name is in italics but shouldn't be.
I hope these individually minor suggestions can be cleared up in a couple of hours, so that this outstanding article can become featured. Fg2 06:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the feedback. All comments addressed I think (I kept some of the Kanjis where I felt it added information on an obscure subject, such as temple names etc...). PHG 07:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Thank you for an excellent article. Fg2 07:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I really liked reading this article and think it's thorough and well written. I had never heard about Hasekura before, but after reading this article I feal like I should have. But now I do. And so should everyone else ;). Make it be featured. Shanes 19:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor minor object. Strong support. This should be finished quickly. The article is great, but I'd like to bring a few formatting issues to light that could make the article even better. 1) Inline references should always come after the punctuation or full stop. Would you be able to correct that? 2) All of you quote sections within the article need to be finished in a full stop. Some of them end in a bracket or with the ref inside the bracket. Can you fix this too. 3) The "see also" section is usually placed above the footnote & references sections. Could you swap them over? 4) And finally, the first picture in the "Spain" section, the one of him praying, looks out of sorts there, & it disrupts the text there majorly & stuffs with the format of the quotes. Could you find a way to move the picture around so it doesn't stuff with the text? JSYK, I've already tried moving it to the right side, but it looked just as bad there too.... So if you fix all these minor things you have my support. Thanks,

SFriendly.gif. Spawn Man 22:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Done for 1), 3), 4). For 2), I am not so sure what format should be followed: If you could show me the way for the first few quotes, I could harmonize the rest of the article accordingly. PHG 03:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Did it for you. Good work. Very long, so I guess it must be really good... ;). Thanks, now supporting. Spawn Man 06:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent work. -Ash_Crow 03:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I came across this article a month or two ago, and thought it was great then, certainly someone I should have known about and feel guilty for my ignorance. It has since been cleaned up, and would make a wonderful featured article. — Nicholas (reply) @ 10:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Baden-Powell House[edit]

After an interesting previous nomination of the article, many good recommendations for further improvements, notably by TheGrappler, have been with his help (thanks!) included in the article. The perception is that it is at high quality now, and therefore I hereby re-nominate the article.

  • Support, self-nomination. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Strong support. Much better than first time, and a very quick turn-around too.! Rlevse 21:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Only a comment at this point. The use of the Elizabeth II quotebox is contrary to the proposed WP:QUOTE guideline. It draws "special attention to the opinion of one source, and presents that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it". Tuf-Kat 00:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Response to the comment. The mentioned WP:QUOTE explicity states: quoteboxes may be acceptable in certain circumstances, especially when the quote is itself notable, and a major part of the article's topic. Considering that the HM The Queen's address at the opening of the house does not pose a controversial opinion, I don't think that endorsement of it will be relevant. And the subject of the speech is the prime subject of the article, so I propose to keep the quote on that ground, unless others support Tuf-Kat's comment. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Object—2a.
    • The first sentence is not long, and IMV should also tell us where the House is (in South Kensington, London, not in Manchester or Toronto.)
    • Rather than saying that refurbishments "take place", it would be more natural to say "Over the years, there have been several refurbishments ...". Later in that sentence, does "it" refer to "the Scout Movement itself", "the largest part of the cost", or (somewhere a long way back from this clause), the House? "Costs" better as singular here.
    • "Upon": yes, this is a matter of personal style, but why would you want to be old-fashioned? "On" please, to be plain and simple, the way most readers like it. It's like "whilst" and "amongst".
    • "to build a hostel for Scouts to stay at a reasonable cost while visiting London"—well, you need "at at" to be correct, don't you. Reword. In any case, the second "a" is redundant.
    • "For this the committee purchased"—A few commas would make it smoother to read (e.g., after "this"). But in any case, you need "For this purpose,".
    • Can you say an empty site of a property?
    • We don't need to be told again that it's in London.
I won't go on; that's the first three paragraphs. The entire text needs auditing for poor expressions and redundancies by someone who is not familiar with the writing of the text. Tony 01:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment worked your comments to assist submitter. Rlevse 04:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Response to objection and comment See below. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Support --evrik 02:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for now, based on prose problems (2a). The article appears to be well referenced, so if you can solve the prose problems, I will change to Support.
    • I picked a random paragraph from the middle of the article, and found copyedit issues: This painting was a personal favorite of Baden-Powell, and has been used as typical picture of him on numerous articles and publications throughout the scout movement.[8] I shouldn't be able to find a typo on the first sentence section I pick to examine, as this gives rise to concern about the overall copyedit status.
    • Here's another random sentence I had a hard time winding my way through: Run by The Scout Association, Baden-Powell House continues to provide the envisioned base for Scouts visiting London, and a Scout conference centre, in the middle of the London visitor area, actually neighbouring the Natural History Museum, Science Museum, Royal Albert Hall and the Victoria and Albert Museum.
    • By the way, please put categories in alphabetical order. Why do you have a red link in See also? Sandy 02:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Support Objection removed, prose corrected, nice work ! Sandy 02:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment copyedited the two paras you mention. Rm'd the parent cat. Don't know about the red link (just helping here). Rlevse 03:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Response to objection and comment Thanks Rlevse and Danaman5 for stepping in here. I'm in another timezone and cannot act as quickly as you did, and you're English is better as well. I have re-edited a few sentences to get the intended meaning into it. All red links have been created. The red (now blue) wikilinks are to subjects of note, worthy of an article of their own, which I therefore simply created. The prose improvements pointed out both by Tony and by Sandy have in my humble opinion been taken care of. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC).
Do you mean that the whole article has been copy-edited, or that merely the examples here have been addressed? Tony 01:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The examples pointed out have been given prime attention in copy-editing, and other improvements have been made as well, as I interpreted the comments to be regarding the prose of the whole article. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 14:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Comment - Why do most of the images, such as this one, have text indicating they are public domain, but a tag indicating that they are GFDL licensed? Two images are claimed under fair use without rationale. Pagrashtak 06:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Response to comment Thanks for pointing out: all texts have been adjusted to better reflect the intention of the image producer. And proper fair use rationales have been added to the two pictures and the article. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Well, I have to say that this is now a lot better: well done, contributors. However, I still found a few glitches, and see WP's policy on not starting titles with "The". Objection removed. Tony 02:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for you kind words, and your assists in this, Tony and Sandy. And for your support on the nomination. The said section is retitled, now, of course. 07:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Support:Although I have contributed to the architecture section. However the remainder of the page is vastly improved since it was last a candidate. Giano | talk 12:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Libya[edit]

Self-nomination I believe this article should be become featured for several reasons. Firstly it has already been promoted to Good Article status. It is very well referenced and I have used many sources both written and from the internet to improve it. It contains all neccesary sections for a country article and very good pictures worthy of a featured article. The writing style is encyclopedaic and of a good quality. For those reasons I nominate 'Libya' to become Wikipedia's next featured country. Jaw101ie 11:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - meets Featured criteria. User:Jaw101ie 11:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia articles. Please provide independent, reliable sources, and please update your sources to include a full bibliographic style, so that your sources can be better identified. Sandy 15:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • More, on prose. Please go through and check for redundancies and smooth prose, before Tony gets to the article. After the 1969 coup, Qadhafi closed American and British bases on Libyan territory and partially nationalized all foreign oil and commercial interests in Libya. He also played a key role in promoting the use of oil embargoes as a political weapon for challenging the West, ... See Tony's guide. Sandy 16:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Object switching to object, since the article also has possible POV issues. This doesn't sound like "Libya turning a new leaf in its relations with the west". Prose needs to be cleaned up, refs beefed up (I also see an entire paragraph in Economy with no refs), and a more balanced view presented. Sandy 16:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Based on explanations provided, I am striking my POV objection (above), but I cannot support the article as an FA until it is thoroughly referenced. I don't think we should compare its level of citations to another African nation's FA (see Mingus ah um comments below): many past FAs are not adequately cited. Current FA articles should be thoroughly refernced. We can't ask Wiki readers to just "take our word for it". Sandy 20:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Back for another look: The references now have a formal format, so the reader gets a better sense of the quality of the references. I did see some minor cleanup needed in the references, for example missing parentheses, Special Report 2006, (May 2, 2006, 10 Most Censored Countries, Committee to Protect Journalists, Accessed July 19 2006
          • While the article is much improved, and better referenced, there are still sections that are unreferenced. It's not the number of references that matter: it's whether the reader can find a source for all statements. Just as an example: Upon Libya's independence in 1951, most of the Jewish community emigrated from Libya. Another series of pogroms began after the Suez Crisis in 1956, forcing all but about 100 Jews to flee. When Muammar al-Qaddafi came to power, all remaining Jewish property was confiscated and all debts to Jews were cancelled. Although the main synagogue in Tripoli was renovated in 1999, it has yet to re-open for services.
          • Prose: Qadhafi himself is a devout Muslim, and his government is taking somewhat of a leading role in supporting Islamic institutions and in worldwide proselytizing on behalf of Islam.[58]Libyan Islam, however, has always been considered as traditional but in no way harsh. A Libyan form of Sufism is also somewhat common in parts of the country.[59] How is Qadhafi taking "somewhat" of a leading role? What is "somewhat" common? The statement has a reference, which gives me no idea how common it is or in which parts of the country it is practiced. Libyan culture is, to a certain extent, similar to that of its other neighbouring Arab states. To a certain extent? Why? These are examples of tightening up of prose that is needed. Please put spaces between references at the end of sentences and the beginning of the next sentence. (For example, look at ref 58.) Another sentence: Tourism is also on the rise which has brought demand for the building of more hotels and increasing capacity in airports such as Tripoli International.[44] Please try to network and find someone who can help with a thorough review and copyedit.
          • The article has improved, but there is still much to be done to be FA. Sandy 00:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Note: While I have not yet decided whether I support or object this nomination, I would like to point out that the Chavez-Gaddafi link is an extremely minor point when one considers that, outside of Pakistan, Libya is the only "rogue" nation to truly make peace with the US under the Bush administration. He has casually cooperated with everything the US insisted upon. Have there been ups and downs? Of course, but... please remember, this is still shocking--absolutely shocking--to Libya watchers around the globe. When one looks back on the last thirty years, it is impossible not to consider this "a new leaf." --(Mingus ah um 01:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC))
        • Note that, regardless of whether the ‘new leaf’ phrase is POV, it’s evidently unhelpful for the reader. A different phrase, more indicative of the direction and extent of whichever change is meant, might be more helpful in place of it. —xyzzyn 20:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I have changed the wording of the sentence. I think it should now meet everyone's standards. --(Mingus ah um 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC))
            • As far as I’m concerned, the new sentence reflects the media consensus and is therefore Good™. —xyzzyn 22:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. A well-written, comprehensive article, worthy of FA status. However, I do share Sandy's concerns about the bibliography. If the Wikipedia references are replaced and the bibliographic style is fixed, consider this a strong vote to support. - htonl 16:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object there are a lot of concerns on the talkpage regarding lack of info on Qadafhi and Idi Amin, Jews in Libya, etc. Tchadienne 17:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • At this point I'm too annoyed with this user to be impartial. Tchadienne 00:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Note: The second issue (the history of the Jews in Libya) has been addressed, and I, for one, do not believe that the asylum granted to Iddi Amin is worth mentioning on the national page... Many former African dictators have spent their years in exile in other African nations. While this is notable in, say, Gaddafi's page (as he was the individual who granted Amin asylum), I do not believe that it says much about the nation itself. --(Mingus ah um 19:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC))
      • Thanks for fixing the strikes: I wasn't sure what to do, as my objection has not been addressed. What about the other strikes on the page (below this comment)? Sandy 00:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Please do not use the strikes against me. I repeat again, I thought that this was similar to a "to do list". That was the reason I foolishly struck others comments. My apologies. Please remember you are evaluating Libya not me. As for Rlevse comments below, it was he who struck them not I.--Jaw101ie 00:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
        • No problem, thanks for letting me know. Sandy 00:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Mild Object Same ref concerns, but in the meantime I changed the see also's in the middle of the article to further reading tags. ALSO: object to inconsistent date format, the article switches between DD MMM YYYY and MMM DD YYYY. They should all be the same, preferably MMM DD YYY.Rlevse 20:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Well-written & comprehensive. Kahuzi 21:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Object There are too few citations for an article of this length (Culture, Demographics, Geography). Some sections need copyedits (for grammar and tone). Much of what I pointed out (grammar and citations) has been changed and improved, although some picture captions are not in complete sentences (Wikipedia:Captions). Hintha 00:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent article Joziboy 00:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Object Quite close, but it needs more citations. Some sections are well sourced, but "Municipalities", "Foreign relations", "Culture" and "Religion" all have significant sections unsourced. I'm also a little worried that we are relying on Herodotus for the Phoenicians being the first to establish trading posts. Additionally, the "Municipalities" section appears to describe an old system, it only briefly stating that the country has recently been redivided. This needs to be updated, or if the old system is still also in place, the situation needs to be clarified. Warofdreams talk 18:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) I'm now happy to support; all of my suggestions have been taken up, and various other improvements have been made to the article. Warofdreams talk 10:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: The Municipalities section has been updated. -- (Mingus ah um 22:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC))
  • Support While there is always work to done, I do believe that this article meets FA standards. There could be more citations, but, at the same time, it should be stated that the only African nation featured article (South Africa) has less citations then the page currently in question. Furthermore, one of the more significant objections (the absence of any reference to the history of the Jews in Libya) has been addressed within the article. Finally, as I have noted above in my response to Sandy, I do not believe that the POV issue raised here is actually a real issue. I encourage those of you who have objected to reconsider your vote. --(Mingus ah um 18:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC))
  • Object, overall the article is quite good, but there are balance issues
  1. The desert section is too long
  2. Religion is a demographic feature of a population and should appear in the demographics part of the article
  3. No mention of media in the culture section, don't people from Lybia have media?
  4. Foreign realtions is a bit bloated with historical infrmation, really it should stick to the last 10 years with a little bit of historical context
  5. Some of the language is clunky, it could use a good copyedit.
--Peta 05:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The desert section is too long? Umm... How familiar are you with Libya (it's history, it's geography)? For many historians, the nation is defined by two things Tripoli and the desert. Most of the history section effectively discusses the history of Tripoli; the desert deserves its due. Furthermore, this is an article about a nation. I don't see any problem with an extended section devoted to religion (albeit, I have no problem with creating a sub-section in demographics if that is what people desire) or a foriegn relations section which actually addresses the fact that a single individual has dominated the politics of the nation for over thirty years. Your arbitrary selection of ten years is irrelevant in a world where a nation can be governed indefinitely. --(Mingus ah um 09:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC))
      • I maintain my objection until the issues of balance are addressed; Foriegn reation is longer than necessary, and the desert section has too many images and is poorly written, and religion is a demographic indicator- this data should be in the demographics section. There is also no information on education in the country, which sould also appear in the demographics section.--Peta 00:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for now. References must be sorted out; things like Encarta should be replaced, if possible. Sites that copy/summarise information released by governments (I mean particularly the various references to works by U.S. government departments) should be replaced by direct references to that information, if possible. The municipalities section calls itself outdated and should be replaced by currect data, if appropriate. Microformatting (apostrophes, dashes etc.) must be adjusted (made consistent, at least; made correct—cf. WP:DASH—, preferably). —xyzzyn 07:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Why should Encarta be removed? There's a particular encyclopedia which is cited on wiki more than any other private source (that I know of); would you like to see those references replaced, or is it somehow different when the publication has been around long enough for its earlier copyrights to expire? And why are you averse to government documents? Academics who deal with political history delve through those far more than any other type excepting, of course, primary sources. Yes, the muncipalities section should be overhauled, and soon. But I find your first two objections absurd. --(Mingus ah um 09:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC))
      • I am opposed to Encarta because I do not consider it reliable enough to justify referencing it in place of proper sources. Their article on Libya has not been written by Dr Anderson—she only reviewed it. There is not even an indication of whether she reviewed the current version of the article or an older one (they do seem to update it occasionally). There is no indication of the actual author. As for government sources, I have no objection in principle, but I would rather see the sources themselves referenced explicitely than copies made by someone else. For example, instead of this, cite that. Thank you for finding at least one of my objections the way I intended it. —xyzzyn 16:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Xyzzy... The traditional bound encyclopedias never gave any "indication of the actual author," yet the legitimacy of these sources is never called into question on wiki. Encarta has chosen to identify its version of a "peer reviewer" (in this case, Dr. Anderson), and, by doing so, they have taken a far more open stance than the traditional encyclopedias toward identifying the qualifier/s of their information. I don't see how that is problematic. As for the other suggestion, sources can always be updated, but, when it comes to citing the facts, a secondary government source is no worse than a primary government source. This is a featured article candidate, not a thesis. --(Mingus ah um 19:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC))
          • Those are not secondary government sources. They are copies of government sources, with uncertain reliability. Why link to them? As for Encarta, it’s not a traditional encyclopedia and it’s a Microsoft product, so I’m skeptical; however, if the big problems (copyedit, images etc.) are solved, I’m not going to insist on this point being addressed. (I. e. I’m not going to insist on it, at all, but would still welcome some other source.) —xyzzyn 20:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Image:Libyseal.gif should be SVG or PNG, Image:Libya ethnic groups.jpg should be recreated as SVG, other maps could be converted to SVG, if possible. WP 10:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
            • I've given one format to all references relating to the library of congress and connected them all to the official site. Basically I changed the re-direct from "this" to "that", the latter being the more reliable. Thanks for pointing it out. --194.125.72.206 00:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Nice. There are some others left, though. The oil reserve data reference doesn’t look so great. I suggest using this table from OPEC’s Annual Statistical Bulletin. (Not a government, but reasonably reliable, or at least notable, in matters like this one.) The Factbook references could be collapsed to a single one, because the Factbook page is reasonably short and the URLs are the same in both cases. This should probably be that (and cited more appropriately). Also, which material, exactly, from the Background Notes is used in the article at the moment? (There’s a template at the end that says there is some.)xyzzyn 08:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
              • OK, there are two more references to countrystudies.us instead of the LOC. The BBC’s country profile and the PBS page can perhaps be replaced by something else (but I don’t insist on that). The reference to Hagos, whoever that is, looks awfully opinionated; is there really no other source? The ‘Education Libya’ reference looks bad, but I don’t see a good replacement at the moment; maybe this? Also, the reference for Tripoli International Airport is not a New York Times article, but an advertisement published in that newspaper. It should be replaced by a proper reference. By the way, is there a context to the 97% Islam figure in the religion section? (Where are the atheists etc.?) —xyzzyn 13:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I have tried to convert Image:Libyseal.gif to Image:Libyseal.png, q. v. Comments and help welcome. —xyzzyn 17:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Traced Image:Libya ethnic groups.jpg to SVG, at Image:Libya ethnic.svg. —xyzzyn 20:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • They both look great! Just, please try to make the black background in the seal transparent. I am in the process, right now, of drawing up the current municipalities map. It should be uploaded in about an hour. -- User:Jaw101ie 22:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Black background? Sorry, I don’t see any. GIMP and Firefox render the background transparently. Are you using Internet Exploder? Its PNG functionality is (was?) known to have severe bugs. —xyzzyn 22:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes I use explorer. I've just uploaded it and it's fine. The black has changed to white but that's o.k. because the white blends in very well with the grey of the infobox. Consider it fixed. Thanks a lot for all the help -- Jaw101ie 23:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Your map looks good, but there might be a bit more text in the section. I made some suggestions elsewhere. (A the moment, I get the ‘Yeah, municipalities. So what?’ feeling, when reading the section. I don’t know if there is more to say on the topic in the main article, but something to put them into context would be nice.) —xyzzyn 08:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Its funny you should mention municipalities. The word sha'biya (شعبية) doesn't actually mean municipalities. It means "something belonging to people". There's a bit on the municipalities mentioned in the Politics. The real role of the municipalities is more political than geographical. In each of the 32 municipalities (sha'biya) There are many smaller people's congresses (mu'tamarat sha'biya). There are about 50 in each municipality. Members of society meet in the people's congresses. The concerns of the 1500 urban wards are then taken up in the 32 main municipality congresses. The leaders of the 32 municipality congresses then meet annualy in the Central Peoples congress held in Surt annualy. This gives Surt a certain distinction not given to other municipalities.
So you see the municipalities are more political than geographical. If anybody wants to sum this up in a encyclopaedic fashion and put it in the municipalities section, feel free to do so. Nearly all this information is in the Politics section. --Jaw101ie 11:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: It seems that the candidature is going down the drain really. It's a shame, because this article is FA standard. What's even more of a shame is that some of the objections brought up are somewhat strange. I completely agree with (a. increasing references, b. fixing municipalities, c. possible copy edit wouldn't hurt). I am in the rather speedy process of doing these. The others I see as more conforming with that ticklish topic I like to call taste. I urge you all to:
a) Be objective
b) See: What is a featured article?
c) If your objection does fall under taste, please reconsider whether it should be here.
d) Ask yourselves does Libya meet the criteria of a FA (see (b) above). If not, where exactly is it lacking and as WP states "provide a specific rationale that can be addressed".

ANOTHER NOTE: We are all within our rights to ignore objections that do not conform in any way with "Wikipedia:What is a featured article?" when it comes to reaching a concensus.

Thank you all
--Jaw101ie 11:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: The Municipalites section has been fixed. I have redrawn the new thirty two municipalities from the Arabic Wikipedia and numbered them alphabetically in English. I urge all of you to remove your Municipality objection as this has now been corrected. Also note that the references have largely increased both in number and quality of bibliography. The next concrete objection to fix is a thorough copyedit.
  • Support Tchadienne 13:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Duke University[edit]

I think this is an excellent article, with many in-line citations, references, etc. QuizQuick 16:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Great article! I couldn't find even one red link. Unbelievable work... NCurse work 21:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Informative, easy to read. K-UNIT 22:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wikipedia as an inline citation for a Wiki article? Sandy 23:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Support. Sandy 15:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I think QuizQuick meant just citations, not inline. You were probably being sarcastic, though. I can't tell. In any event, I am a biased voter since I have contributed significantly to the article, but I would Support it. So maybe my vote doesn't count. This was not a self-nomination, so it surprised me that it was nominated. -Bluedog423 00:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The final citation is a link back to another Wiki article, which is circular reasoning. The statement should be referenced, or just linked, but not cited with a Wiki link. Sandy 00:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry I just meant citations. Anyway, I'm a Dukie so I too, am a little biased toward this article. :) :)QuizQuick 01:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC) 01:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Just a purely aesthetic recommendation: could you put an image in the big white space before the History section? Either move a sufficiently broad image up from below, find a new one, lengthen the Duke template, or shorten the TOC a little bit... that white space hurts my eyes. ;-) zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Fixed - This seems to be a common issue with most university articles. For example, Featured Article Michigan State University had just as much white space (or more) as the Duke article did. Except for the fact that on the TOC one line "Residential College in Arts and Humanities" juts out more so that reduces the white space, I suppose. So, theoretically, lengthening one of the names of the sections would work. In any event, I lengthened the Duke template considerably (and found new acreage info), so the white space is significantly reduced now :) -Bluedog423 04:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Circular references back to Wikipedia can never be justified. Now, you can link to a wiki article in a note, that doesn't serve the role as a reference (e.g. a footnote that gives extra information, that can't fit in the main body of the article). But, this article is actually using Wikipedia as a reference to prove facts are true, which is not ok. What happens if those articles cite this article, as their reference? Ideally, we should use third party sources. For non-contested facts, we can use Duke University. We must never use ourselves though. Also, while it's ok to use Duke as a reference for uncontested facts, we aught to state in the footnote that we're citing Duke. Some notes give the title of the page, but don't name the organization that is the source (namely Duke, or a unit within it). --Rob 05:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Fixed problem. Found new, primary sources. -Bluedog423 15:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, I fixed references and added "Duke" when it was from a Duke source, but was not noted (e.g. "Residence Life and Housing Services" was changed to "Duke Residence Life and Housing Services") in order to address your second point. -Bluedog423 16:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, alumnus names should be listed in the alumni section along with their companies or accomplishments, not alluded to. This was something brought up and fixed for the recent FAC for Cornell, and I think it should be applied to all such sections.mercuryboardtalk 06:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Fixed problem. All alumni listed now. -Bluedog423 15:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment - While I tend to agree that alumni should be listed, FA University of Michigan does not list any of its alumni when talking about founders of companies; probably because the names are not entirely recognizable on their own. So it seems as this is not entirely vital. In any event, maybe times have changed and standards have increased, so I included all names anyways. -Bluedog423 20:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The first dollar sign should be the only one linked. An automated peer reviewer came up with some further suggestions:
Fixed dollar sign issue. -Bluedog423 05:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

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

  • Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently and last year might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
Fixed - 13+ words/phrases clarified -Bluedog423 19:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
Fixed - added &nbsp; between all numbers and units-Bluedog423 19:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
Didn't see this problem anywhere. Am I missing something? -Bluedog423 19:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
Problem not evident. -Bluedog423 05:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Fixed - one recently added cat out of order, one lang out of order -Bluedog423 05:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
Don't see this as an issue. University articles usually quite long. -Bluedog423 05:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 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. For example,
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
Fixed a few - don't see as issue anymore. But could still be some -Bluedog423 05:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 33 additive terms, a bit too much.
Fixed - eliminated 20 additive terms. -Bluedog423 05:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
Fixed - clarified 12+ vague terms of size. -Bluedog423 05:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
Fixed - eliminated 5 such temporal terms
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
Fixed - didn't see as major issue but there were around 5 that were blah blah. [2] (i.e. extra space before footnote)

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas. Thanks, Andy t 20:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I'll try to go through the automated issues and correct any mistakes. However, I have doubts about some of them. For example, it says, "headings generally do not start with the word 'The,' " but this article clearly has no heading that starts with "The." I had seen that javascript before and made sure of that particular facet in the past. This mistake (which seems like one of the easier things that it checks in the script) puts further doubt on the other issues. Another example is the footnote issue. I don't notice a single footnate that is in the form blah blah [2]. I supposed it is possible that there may be one with an extra space afterwards as in blah blah. [2] so maybe it caught that. But not sure. I guess that's why it says they "may or may not be accurate." In any event, I'm sure there are some that are certainly reliable and will check up on everything. -Bluedog423 21:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Watch out for present tense. What if I were reading this article 50 years from now? Indicate when facts were reported. Not the major ones like that there's two undergraduate schools... I'm talking about statistics that change from year to year, such as acceptance rate, class composition, etc. Is it necessary to list all the fraternity chapters? How relevent is this for a main article? A summary of the system and some of its criticisms may be more appropriate. I'd like to see Notable alumni changed to just Alumni and perhaps mention how alumni can keep in touch with the university. More importantly, a quick find resulted in many instances of "about" and other approximations. When the actual number is available, give it, cite it, and specify when it was accurate if necessary. Is it necessary to devote an entire section to construction? Could that information be merged into the other parts of campus, and linked to the main article with a See Also: at the top of the section? —mercuryboardtalk 06:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, that's some good advice. I have made several corrections. 1) I deleted the specific fraternity/sorority chapters; 2) changed "Notable alumni" to "alumni" (I had originally changed it to alumni when the article was overhauled a couple of weeks ago but somebody else changed it back); 3) Added a mention of how alumni are active, including alumni giving rate. I'm not sure a mention of Reunion weekend and Homecoming is appropriate, though, since these are mundane events that every university takes part in. I'll keep them for now though; 4) Combined several sub-sections in the Campus section (including construction projects and individual campuses); 5) Minor edits. I still haven't closely looked at present tense or approximation terms, so that's the next thing to do. -Bluedog423 15:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Fixed vague terms of approximation - Eliminated many (16+) terms of vague approximations such as "about". As of now, I can only spot six of these terms that refer to size/numbers (there are more "abouts" in the text, but not in reference to size). These 6 are as follows (two of them say the same thing, I guess I will delete one of them): 1) "20- to 50-year overhaul of Central Campus, wherein the first phase (scheduled for completion in the Fall of 2008) will cost roughly $240-million." Construction costs can never be given exactly since they don't know until it's completed. 2) "West Campus, the heart of Duke University, houses all the sophomores, along with some juniors and seniors" The exact number is not published anywhere and changes drastically from year-to-year depending on sophomore class size, number of people studying abroad, etc. (e.g. this year's sophomore class is about 125 students larger than the previous class); 3) "Central Campus, consisting of 122 acres between East and West campuses, houses around 850 juniors and seniors and about 200 professional students in apartments." Exact numbers cannot be found. Also, I think it is appropriate to approximate since the number changes from year to year and the approximate number is more informative as it gives an average of sorts. 4) "Epworth is only about one-third its original size after a fire." I don't think anybody measured the square footage of the building in the early 1900s to compare it. 5) "Lastly, Central Campus provides housing for approximately 1,050 students (of which about 850 are undergraduate juniors or seniors)." Same as before. 6) "Approximately 400 student clubs and organizations run on Duke’s campus." Exact number cannot be found. If you have any suggestions to help these particular instances, please say so or correct them yourself. Thanks! -Bluedog423 17:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Fixed present tense problems - At least, I think so. There could be more instances. Gave exact year when it could be noted, especially in academic profile part. -Bluedog423 17:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Weak Oppose Support - This should go through a peer review first then if all works out it should be ok. Also, on the talk page there are still some stuff to do from the to do list. I think maybe this was nominated in haste. -ScotchMB 14:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I agree with what you all said. It seems as if nobody has any organizational or structural issues, so that's good. While I personally would not have nominated this for featured article before going through peer review, I don't think that this itself is reason to oppose it. Rather, it is just more likely that an article that hasn't had a peer review will have flaws. However, it is still possible to be a Featured Article without peer reviews and has happened several times in the past. So, instead of saying, "peer review first," it would be much more helpful if you cited specific flaws/problems in the article. Thus far, there seem to be only two, minor, easily fixable issues. 1) Don't use wikipedia as a source. Find new ones. OK, new ones can be easily found. 2) List the specific names of alumni in alumni section instead of just position. That's it. Easily done. After those two small fixes, would it be eligible for FA? I don't really have time to go through future opposes and it seems like nobody else (including the nominator) is really looking at these, so future issues might just have to wait. Although I'll try. But it's good to hear what everybody has to say. Thanks! -Bluedog423 16:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I can explain my comment and process, if that helps. A long list of references and citations doesn't impress me: I check them to make sure they're valid and reliable sources. That's my first pass. If the article isn't well referenced, I don't move on to checking prose and other issues. Not enough hours in a day to do it all :-) So, I haven't opposed or supported, because as soon as I see a minor problem with the references in an otherwise potential FA article, I wait to see if that is resolved. A peer review would help make sure the basics are in place. :-)) Sandy 17:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
        • After reading Bluedog's comment and reviewing the article, I feel it is good enough to be on the FA. Thanks Bluedog for helping me realize what is right. -ScotchMB 02:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Summary - 6 supports; 1 oppose that has not been crossed out, but has been already addressed and fixed. 3 supports, 1 oppose, 1 weak oppose (Mercuryboard also opposed but striked through reasoning for opposition); other "oppose" reasoning has been fixed; "weak oppose" reasoning was lack of peer review/nominated in haste. -Bluedog423 04:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • FAC isn't a vote; just worry about addressing objections and you'll be fine. --RobthTalk 15:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok, sounds good. I don't really understand the final decision. Who has the final say of if it is promoted to FA status? A certain administrator? It says much reach "consensus." I guess that doesn't imply unanimous? Thanks. -Bluedog423 15:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
        • The FA director, Raul654, judges whether all valid and actionable objections have been addressed; if they have been, the article gets promoted. --RobthTalk 04:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak object. A citation spot check found two problems out of five footnotes tested (results here). Both problems involved statements in the article being related to, but not actually directly supported by, the sources given; please go through the footnotes looking for issues of this sort and fix any you find. Thanks, --RobthTalk 15:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Will try to fix the two problems, although one is challenging since it's a colloquial term and not officially recognized. -Bluedog423 15:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Fixed problems - footnote 49 fixed by adding a reference that states it directly. Gothic Wonderland issue fixed from here: [4]. See talk page for details. Will also try to go through others. -Bluedog423 16:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks. Objection withdrawn. --RobthTalk 04:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Withdrew my previous objection. Still, I'd like to see this go through a thorough copy-edit from somebody unfamiliar with the text. Tony1 is very good. —mercuryboardtalk 05:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok.....Will try to find someone to do a thorough copyedit.-Bluedog423 05:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I have requested a copyedit from three four different people. One declined, and two three have yet to respond, although I asked two of them at least three days ago. I will continue to search...-Bluedog423 15:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Someone will look it over tomorrow. -Bluedog423 20:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, Wikipedia may not be used as a source. There's at least one left (for the Rhodes Scholarship) that's got to be changed. —mercuryboardtalk 23:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Oops, that one was vestigial. The other Rhodes cites were replaced by the Bloomberg source and the Rhodes Trust source, but apparently forgot to delete that last one. Fixed now. No other ones evident. -Bluedog423 23:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Object: I just did a copyedit; here are problems I couldn't solve:
  • "Construction projects have transformed", but there's no mention of the difference between the old and the new.
  • There is mention of the difference between the old and the new in the Campus section. It seemed notable enough to mention that construction has taken over the campus the last five years in the lead without going into much detail. I feel like if details were mentioned that would take up far too much space in the lead. Am I wrong about this? Is one more sentence/phrase appropriate saying that "more than blah number of buildings have been constructed" or "more than $835 million has been spent since 2001." Or saying that the science and engineering departments, the medical center and other professional schools (business, law, divinity) have been majorly renovated/upgraded? I'm not sure what should be included/what is the best way to resolve this issue. -Bluedog423 05:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Not mentioning all the changes is fine, but if you don't, I feel a different verb would be better. I've switched it to update, though I'm not sure that's the best choice. --Spangineeres (háblame) 15:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "because of support from the church" -- which church?
  • Clarified that it was the Methodist Church. -Bluedog423 04:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "The university grew up quickly." Doesn't connect at all--how is this related to the topic sentence (trust fund/endowment)
  • It was meant to suggest that the $40 million gift allowed for many construction projects in a short period of time. Maybe it's not clear enough that a large chunk of the money went to Duke and it wasn't just a random trust fund. Clarified paragraph. -Bluedog423 04:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Duke researchers mapped the final human chromosome"--this appears twice. Also, the Rhodes scholar thing appears twice; I deleted the number the second time.
  • I deleted the first mention of the mapping. -Bluedog423 04:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Duke's endowment was valued at $3.8 billion in 2005 making it the sixteenth-largest endowment in the U.S."--Why is this stuck at the end of an off-topic category?
  • I thought saying how the endowment ranks among U.S. institutions was a significant enough piece of information to add in the article, but did not know exactly where to place it. Looking at FA University of Michigan as a guide, they place "research" and "endowment" in the same section (suggesting a similarity), but name it "Research and Endowment" instead of just "Research." That article, however, has a lot more to say about the endowment than just the one simple sentence used here. I guess I just was not sure an appropriate place to put it. What would make the most sense? Renaming the section "Research and Endowment," putting the sentence in the second paragraph in the lead, or putting it under the "Profile" section? Or another option all together? -Bluedog423 04:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I decided to move the endowment sentence to the profile section, which seems to be where the majority of facts and figures are presented. -Bluedog423 05:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Duke Chapel, the center of religion at Duke,"--seems misplaced, and what does "center of religion" mean?
  • Agree wholeheartedly. I was confused by that phrase before, but never took action to do anything about it. Deleted "center of religion." Knowing that it is centrally located on campus, is frequently used as an icon for the university, and is one of the most visited attractions at Duke should be sufficient. -Bluedog423 05:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Duke initiated a five year strategic plan"--The quote following this should be paraphrased somehow; there's nothing special about this quote.
  • Paraphrased quote to the best of my ability. It was difficult to a certain extent since the source just names buildings and it is hard to rename them. Would it be better to reduce the number of buildings mentioned? I think every project mentioned is quite major and thus I would not like to see any of them deleted. There are numerous other more minor projects mentioned in Construction projects at Duke University that didn't make the cut. In any event, I paraphrased the quote. -Bluedog423 05:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "calling the lighter powder blue "Carolina blue" and the darker blue "Duke blue"" Could we get a citation for this?
  • Found citation for it. I wasn't sure if it'd be more appropriate to cite a link that briefly mentions someone wearing Carolina Blue or Duke Blue in a reputable newspaper article (e.g. Herald Sun or Raleigh News & Observer), or using an article that clearly distinguishes the two colors in a more extensive manner. The article I chose is written by a website that uses the different blue shades as its main premise, so I decided that was the best choice. -Bluedog423 05:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Not too bad; doesn't seem to be missing anything. Some places feel like a jumble of university trivia. Other than that, nice job. Fix up these issues and I think I'm ready to support. --Spangineeres (háblame) 03:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Great, thanks for the extensive copyedit! I will attempt to fix the points you brought up now. Another user who has contributed significantly to seven different FAs said he would also "take a look" at some point. I am going out of town tomorrow morning and will not be back until July 19, so if I don't fix all of these tonight, please keep the nomination up and will get to all the points as soon as possible. Thanks. -Bluedog423 04:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixed all your points except for the first one. See potential options mentioned above. -Bluedog423 05:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Weak Support' good article, and has come a long way since an earlier GA nomination. I think that the lacrosse team should be on the main page, as to someone such as myself who is not from the east coast, the Basketball and Lacrosse teams are what the schools athletic department is known for. Football is not. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me petition 02:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support! I'd have to say that I disagree that Duke is more well-known for its lacrosse program than football, however. Lacrosse might be more well-known now due to the current rape scandal, but basing the popularity on the number of people that follow the programs' on-the-field results, football is far more well-known. I would suggest that Duke is more well-known for its women's basketball team than men's lacrosse team as well. In regard to revenue, a quote here [5] states, "Men's basketball earned the most for the university, with revenues of $7.8 million and expenses of $2.9 million. Football generated $8.2 million and spent $5.8 million. Women's basketball produced $124,905 in revenue and spent $1.2 million." It does not mention lacrosse, but can be found in the report, I assume. In any event, I think those are the top three, but I'm not sure. Attendance could be another measure of popularity. The football team averages nearly 20,000 people a game [6]. Football is by far the most popular/largest revenue generated sport in college athletics, and it is for this reason, that Duke football is more well-known. Men's lacrosse, at its home stadium, I believe, had a record attendance of around 6,000 people vs UVA two years ago. That is nowhere near the numbers football generates as its average. Women's basketball has been sold out (9,314 people) about 6 times in its history (all in the last 4 years). If you want to take it by on-the-field success, then lacrosse is far superior to football in the last 10 years. However, this measure is not proportional to how "well-known" it is. Seveal other sports have been even more successful. Women's golf has won the most national championships (four) and does not have its own section. Women's basketball, likewise, has probably been more successful in recent years than men's lacrosse. Looking at it even another way, you can track television appearances. Women's basketball probably gets around 4-5 national televised games a year excluding the NCAA tournament, which they make every year (and usually do well in). Football gets about 2 regionally televised games a year. Men's lacrosse gets no tv coverage except for HUGE games such as at #1 Johns Hopkins last year, which was televised on ESPN. Also, the national semis and finals are televised if they make it that far, which hasn't happened very often. So, in regard to attendance, revenue, money spent, and national presence on television, I'd have to say football and women's basketball beat out lacrosse. Additionally, football has far more history than lacrosse (e.g. Duke hosted the 1942 Rose Bowl and the famous Iron Dukes are the subject of several books, whereas the entire lacrosse history involves making the national championship game last year and the current scandal which is already linked to). -Bluedog423 03:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Those numbers about generated income and attendance are skewed due to the fact that regardless of the success of the Football team, it will outsell a Lacrosse game. Lacrosse in general doesn't get much tv coverage. I would agree that Women's Basketball is bigger, but I disagree about football. The Arizona Cardinals had the worst home attendance last year, but I'm sure it out sold many other sporting events in other sports in the area. The Lacrosse team was known for becomming a good team up untill the scandal. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me petition 22:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • All actionable objections have been addressed - 7 supports -Bluedog423 22:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Aleksandr Vasilevsky[edit]

An article about one of the greatest Soviet WWII commanders and the Chief of General Staff during the Great Patriotic War, who until not too long ago was laying in embarassing stubiness. After an extensive overhaul and a peer review by the MILHIST project, I think it is ready to undergo the FAC procedure. Your comments are welcome. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support as the main overhauler (is this good English? heh...) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, all the issues raised during the peer review have been resolved. Kirill Lokshin 16:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: Can you please discuss your sources? Most of the inlne citations appear to be to Vasilevsky's own book: how have you achieved balanced and verified statements? The peer review didn't seem to attract many editors. Sandy 17:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Answer. This is actually an interesting question, and the solution did not came naturally. As for the period roughly before 1937, all we have are his memoirs, since Vasilevsky was still pretty much an unknown regimental commander. I started a thread on Village pump (which can be found here) and I understood that for non-controversial statements, it is pretty OK to use the person's memoires. Besides, the

two Russian bio dictionaries I used, namely Stalin's empire by K.A. Zalessky and Actors of our History by A.P Shikman, all published after 1991, confirm those statements. The Soviet Military Encyclopedia does too. So, overall, the plan was to use the dictionaries to source the most critical statements and the memoirs for everything else - namely for details, relationship with his parents and so on. These three sources are used 20 times in the article, but the fact they're located on a single line creates the impression they're less used than they really are.

  • As for WWII, which is actually the most controversial part, this is mainly sourced with other books. If you look, starting from ref number 30, which corresponds to the start of WWII, there are much less references to his own memoirs. Only those that pertain to details were kept- the fact his family was brought to Moscow, his wound in Sevastopol and so on. All military information is sourced mainly through Shtemenko's book, and through Zhukov's memoirs as well. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough answer. I'll spend more time examining the article now that I understand the references. I take it the images are all fine because of the Russian copyright issue? Sandy 17:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. :) As for images, yes, they're fine because they're Soviet (not Russian, which are copyrighted). Incidentally, I would like to state that I uploaded only one of them, the other were already either here or on commons. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support fully. --Irpen 20:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support, Rlevse 21:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - seems to be a good, well-referenced article on an important person abakharev 21:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Vald 15:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for now. I'm encountering a lot of prose problems, throughout. I'm confident these can be cleaned up if you have another set of eyes look at the article and do a thorough copyedit. Here are some examples from only the opening of the article -- these indicate the need to run through the entire article:
    • After the war, he became the USSR Defense Minister, a position he held until Stalin's death 1953.
    • His father, Mikhail Aleksandrovich Vasilevsky was a poor priest of the nearby St. Nicholas Church.
    • Vasilevsky reportedly broke all contact with his parents since 1926, as did three of his brothers, because of his VKP(b) membership and his military duties in the Red Army.
    • His father spent a major part of his time working to earn money, with children working in the field.
  • I hope you can get someone unfamiliar with the text to run through the entire article. Please ping me after a copy edit, and I will re-evaluate. Sandy 01:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I just completed an extensive copyedit of the article, and believe I found and corrected most of the prose and grammar issues. Cla68 17:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The changes seem to be moving in the wrong direction; these prose problems are worse than before:
  • At the beginning of the October Revolution and the Civil War he was conscripted into the Red Army, with which he took part in the Polish-Soviet War.
  • He was then appointed commander-in-chief of Soviet forces in the Far East, executing Operation August Storm and subsequently accepted Japan's surrender.
Perhaps you can find another person to run through it. Sandy 17:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Those two sentences have now been corrected. Cla68 17:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Those were only examples from the top of the article, indicating the need to review the entire text. Sandy 18:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
As you suggested, it looks like others have joined in the effort (below) to accomplish what is needed. Cla68 04:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm back for another look: I inserted a few comments inline, so please check.
  • After completing his studies in the seminary and spending a few years working as a teacher, Vasilevsky intended to become an agronomist or a surveyor, but the outbreak of the First World War changed his plans. Did the outbreak change his plans, or did he change his plans?
  • I could not suppose that my country would change, and I would. [reference to the 1917 Russian Revolution and Vasilevsky's emerging communist beliefs.]"[6] On my browser, I'm seeing a change in font size here? Is the insert part of the quote or an ed insert? This is not clear.
  • "There was a time when I led soldiers to battle, thinking I was doing my duty of a Russian patriot. As a Russian patriot?
  • Now I understood that we have been cheated, that people needed peace. . . . Now I understand? Was this a present tense quote? Now implies present tense.
  • which had been relocated to Ukraine, had elected him as their commander (as, at the beginning of the Russian Revolution, commanders were elected by their own men). Is that "as" necessary inside parentheses?
  • Zhukov would later characterize Vasilevsky as "a man who knew his job as he spent a long time commanding a regiment and who earned a great respect from everybody."[23] Earned "a" great respect?
I stopped there: more copyediting is still required. Sandy 11:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I answered your concerns added inline and fixed these mistakes. Frankly, those represent half of the text, so if you could go through the other half as well, it would be nice... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Object—2a.

    • "etc" adds nothing to the first sentence.
    • "and" is required before "former Chief of Staff".
    • "conscripted in"? No, "into".
    • "he quickly rose in ranks"? No, "through the ranks".
    • "he showed great skills regarding organization and training"—Better grammar would be: "he showed great skill at organizing and training". Avoid repeated "skills" in the subsequent sentence.
    • Comma after "and", not "unnoticed".
      • Comment A thourough copy-edit was performed by several users, please tell what you think of the current version :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the first five sentences. The density of problems indicates that the whole article needs a thorough copy-edit by someone who's unfamiliar with the text. Tony 02:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I read the whole thing, and the English is poor. I fixed a few things, but this needs a very thorough copy-edit by someone who knows the subject well. Everyking 11:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I just completed an extensive copyedit of the article, and believe I found and corrected most of the prose and grammar issues. Cla68 17:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I remember reading it a long time ago and thinking it really needed lots of improvement. But now I believe it has become a great article worthy of FA status. Shanes 19:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Having never read through it before, I just did an extensive copyedit on the article, and ran through it two-to-three additional times to make sure I caught everything. I think it deserves FA status now. If one or two others would like to run through it just to make sure, all the better. But I think it's there.--ScreaminEagle 22:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I went down to the middle of the article, to read a paragraph. I shouldn't have to click on a word to get the basic gist of what it refers to: In April 1919, Vasilevsky was again conscripted in the Red Army and sent to command a company fighting against "armed bands" and helping with prodrazvyorstka. In a print encyclopedia, I can't click on prodrazvyorstka. Sandy 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Good point. :) I explained the words that are potentially unclear for a non-Russian reader, such as praporshchik, prodrazvyorstka and STAVKA. Please say if you have further comments. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I think I should stop being a pest, but this article just does not have brilliant, compelling prose (yet). Again, picking out a section at random, I find:
          • Among Vasilevsky's strong critics was Rokossovsky, who criticized Vasilevsky's decisions during the Stalingrad counteroffensive, especially his refusal to commit the 2nd Army to the annihilation of Stalingrad pocket, and for general interference with his work.[64] Is "Stalingrad pocket" a term I should know?
          • According to him, Vasilevsky was the only one responsible for the successful Soviet counteroffensive at Stalingrad and Zhukov played no role whatsoever in it. *Only one* responsible? The rest of the soldiers did nothing? Perhaps this is a translation problem, but there must be a better way to phrase it.
        • The article needs another thorough once over, by someone who doesn't know the material. Sandy 23:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I fixed these two objections and explained some operation names that might be potentially unknown in the context (Operation Bagration for instance). Honestly, I think it's there. There are still some imperfections... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support—good article: very thorough and well-referenced. I've given the copy a minor polishing. Please check that all full day-monh-year dates are wikified, but solitary dates and years are not. Michael Z. 2006-07-18 07:00 Z
  • Support --Ghirla -трёп- 07:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support An excellent informative article. TSO1D 15:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written and referenced article. —dima/// 18:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --mno 01:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment—I've been asked to re-examine the text. It is noticeably better than it was, particularly at the top. But In choosing one subsection (Childhood and early years), I should not be able to find problems such as these, if the prose is uniformly "compelling, even brilliant" as required by 2a:
    • "Vasilevsky was the fourth of eight children in the family."
    • "was a priest of the nearby St. Nicholas Church"—"To", not "at", is idiomatic.
    • "His mother, Nadezhda Ivanovna Sokolova, was the daughter of a priest in the village of Ugletz, also in the Kineshma uezd." The last clause has apparently been tacked onto the sentence with no care. Why does "uezd" start with lower-case "u"?
    • "a majority of his time working to earn money"—No, time is not countable, so "most of" is required.
    • "nation-wide"—Isn't this a single word?

And there's more:

    • In the quote (which, IMV, shouldn't be in italic, because it's already highlighted by "quote marks", and because italic face is harder to read), I can't make sense of: "I could not suppose that everything would change: the country would change, and I would." Presumably, this is translated from the Russian. Can you check it, and if accurate, perhaps provide a [square-bracket paraphrasing that makes sense]?

I'm afraid that I can't yet strike out my objection; it would be good to see this nomination succeed, so another run-through, by a different person, is essential. You see what I mean, don't you? Tony 09:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I fixed all of your remarks. However, can you help me and point out some more problems if there are any, please? :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 10:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. KNewman 19:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor object on three points.
    • 1) Doesn't seem comprehensive: the year (or more?) he spend in a major war (Polish-Soviet War) is summed up in one sentences: In December 1919, Vasilevsky was sent to the Western front as a deputy regimental commander, participating in the Polish-Soviet War. Considering that PSW is a FA, I think this should be expanded to at least a paragraph, telling the readers in which battles he particpated and units he served/commanded. I assume that the following sentence refers to the events post-Treaty of Riga: Until August 1921, Vasilevsky fought against various anti-Soviet paramilitary groups in Belarus and in the Smolensk Oblast. Still, I wonder what those groups were? <-- Fixed -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • 2) The language needs NPOVing.
      • Good job, although it would be nice if we can link to some of the battles mentioned in the PSW campaignbox (Russian counteroffensive seems like what is covered by the Kiev Offensive article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • "Overwhelmed with patriotic feelings..." (unreferenced and sounds hagiographical); <-- I put this as a quote (and it is a quote) and referenced it." -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • "armed bands" (unreferenced POVed term, why not 'freedom fighters' or tsar loyalists or whatever?), <-- I replaced it with paramilitary groups. It is neutral IMHO. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
        • True, but it would be nice to have a little more detail on those bands/groups/whatever. Where they white loyalits? Hungry peasants? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Both. He speaks both about white forces and "kulak bands" (in a NPOV way, "peasant uprisings" as I put it). I also added the ref to it. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • "Stalin's Great Purge had eliminated a significant number of senior military commanders" (it should state clearly they were executed, this phrasing suggest they might have been forced to resigned), <-- all were not executed, some were sent to camps (e.g. Rokossovsky) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • "To his amazement, Vasilevsky was appointed to the General Staff in October 1937" ('to his amazement' doesn't sound too encyclopedic, but this is minor issue), <-- I'm open to suggestions on this one, but I think it is OK as it is.. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • "Stalin, surprised, suggested that he reestablish his family ties at once, and help his parents with whatever needs they might have" (sounds like straight from Stalin propaganda piece - Stalin, the caring father...). <-- That's what is written in his memoirs, and I added another reference on a book published in 2005. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, if this is a direct citation, I guess it's better. The POV of the source is rather clearly visible, though, I am not sure if this should stay in text. What purpose does this para has other then show how 'nice' was Stalin?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, this allowed Vasilevsky to bring this family to Moscow, where they remained during the war. As he says, it was quite a recomfort for him. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • "When Soviet forces entered the Baltic states," - shouldn't it be 'reoccupied'? <-- Object: this is POV. "Entered" is neutral, "occupy" is not. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • "After the war, Lasch claimed that Vasilevsky did not respect the guarantees made during the city's capitulation". What guarantees? <-- Explained -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Good start, but was Lasch the only affected? What happened to other soldiers and civilians?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I added the reference to evacuation of East prussia and mentioned German soldiers and officers remained in camps, too. Since it is a biography, I can't fit the whole WP there. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • 3) Last but not least, the references need formatting. Footnotes should be merged with references, cite.php style would be nice, ISBN numbers as well, information on what language are the references (currently they all suggest they are English books, even if printed in Moscow...). There is not a single reference verifiable with Google Print or even English academic journal, instead the main reference is autobiograhy by Vasilevsky himself, written and printed in communist SU. The second most often used reference is little better - Shtemenko book was printed in '89, and is only a second edition anyway. I am not saying those references are completly unreliable, but most important and controversial facts should be verified with modern English academic publications.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC) <-- I sourced some critical statements with English books available on Google books. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Reply. For the first point, I'll see what I can do. However, bear in mind that for balance sake, one cannot spent too much space on what is a minor episode in Vasilevsky.
For the second, I will fix some of those but I strongly object some of those, such as "reoccupation" - it is not NPOV. It seems someone once suggested that military vocabulary should be used in this cases.
As for the "sounds like straight from Stalin propaganda piece" - it is written as it is in Vasilevsky's memoirs. I will add a quote if necessary, but it's written in this way (and the memoirs were published in 1973, long after Stalin's death.)
For the third, this is the format used by most articles I have seen, for instance Shielded metal arc welding, so I don't see what is wrong with it.
As for references, I suggest we stop paranoia. Incidentally, two of the three dictionaries that source the most critical details were published after 1991. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • As most of my concenrs have been adressed, I am downgrading my objection to minor. I still think that references need work: we would benefit from adding more Google Print references, original titles and language notes to the current ones, perhaps some external links, too. Note that some of the books have been translated and are available on Google Print, for example, Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-written, looks good! —Khoikhoi 18:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Night of the Living Dead[edit]

Self-nomination This is an article about a an important horror film from the late 1960s and its influence. Much of this article was plot and unsourced trivia; it is now comprehensive and well sourced. This article has a peer review and the issues raised there have been addressed. I'm sure there are still some wrinkles that need ironing, thanks in advance for your input. Dmoon1 03:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Note on size: The article's prose is only around 34 kb; please see the note on the talk page for further details. Dmoon1 16:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support (noting I've made a few minor contributions myself). I've watched this article improve immensely over the last few weeks. I think the whole article could use a combing over by a good copyeditor for consistency of language and its prose could probably be tightened up to shave a couple KB off its length, which is why I'm qualifying my support a bit. Otherwise, it's an exceptionally well-referenced article about an important film, well-illustrated, free of POV, free of fancruft. - dharmabum 07:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks; please see the note on the talk page about the size; it's only around 34 kb. Dmoon1 16:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I miscommunicated in my comments; it isn't an objection based on the page size limits, but that the prose could just use a bit of tightening. I'm striking out the part about the KB as I can now see it makes it look like my objection is based on a loose WP guideline rather than in the interest of journalistic efficiency of language. - dharmabum 22:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Pretty snappy. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 07:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Dmoon1 16:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I commit my strong support to this article, and I feel it matches all the criteria for a featured article, and indeed is better than most of the featured articles. As for its length, I cannot stress this enough, all featured articles I've come across exceed the 30kb limit and I feel its always a weak reason to object to an article gaining featured status, though it's something that frequently comes up. LuciferMorgan 10:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks.
    • Overall size is 53KB, prose size is 30KB. Sandy 11:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Please put Notes before References. I am not clear on the copyright status on the images, since the tags ask for more specific tags: can anyone comment ? Sandy 11:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The film is in the public domain due to a screw-up: see Night of the Living Dead#Copyright status. User:Angr 12:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, my question was about the Wiki tags, which I don't understand well. Why do the tags on the pictures say, Please verify that the reason given above is valid! Note: if there is a specific licence tag for the reason supplied here, please use it. Don't those need to be explained? It's a Wiki question, not a general copyright question ... Sandy 17:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Screenshots from the original film are in the public domain, but there is not specific licensing tag for PD films. I will add a statement to the images similar to a fair use statement. Dmoon1 17:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The notes were originally before the references, someone changed it. I have just changed it back. Dmoon1 16:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Support Looks good! Sandy 23:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks for raising these issues; glad they were addressed. Dmoon1 14:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Everything you really need to know on the topic is included in the article, it is well-written and follows a good structure. Briancollins 15:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Dmoon1 16:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: article looks great, articles about popular culture are an important aspect of any encyclopedia. - Tutmosis 17:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Dmoon1 17:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an excellent article. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 17:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Dmoon1 17:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Image:Boscosyrup.jpg is almost certainly not a promotional image. It wasn't created for a press kit. I don't dispute that this image could be Wikipedia:Fair use, but the template needs to be changed. Otherwise, everything looks very good. Jkelly 18:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing this out. When I first tagged the image I wasn't sure which licensing tag to use so I slapped the promotional tag on it. I have changed the tag to {{fair use in|Article}}. This should properly cover the work. Dmoon1 18:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing it. I am quite impressed with this article. I notice that we don't seem to have a copy of the film in .ogg format. Is there some reason other than that nobodyt has bothered to do it? Jkelly 18:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why we don't have a copy of the film in commons or someplace. My past attempts at downloading content like sound in .ogg format have not been very successful (my computer just doesn't seem to like .ogg). Dmoon1 19:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll see if I can do it myself. Jkelly 19:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks; would you have any objections to using the B&W picture of Romero? I prefer it to the more recent picture of him simply because it is from the same time that he directed the film. I would rather have no picture at all than the current one, even though it is free. Dmoon1 19:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
If it isn't important enough to show what Romero looks like to have a freely-reusable image there, it certainly isn't important enough to have an unfreely-licensed image with a claim of "fair use" there. Jkelly 21:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Okey-dokey. It's not a big deal. A long time ago I tried to find one of Romero on the set (which would be more relevant to the article) but couldn't. Your rationale makes sense. Dmoon1 21:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support My only comment would be the phrase "Ben's torch accidentally..." in the plot section. Ben's torch isn't conscious and can't do anything accidentally. Perhaps Ben accidentally started the fire? Anyway, ROTS is slightly longer, so I wouldn't worry about the lenghth. Quality article. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support. I fixed this phrase. Dmoon1 04:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Wonderful article. I remember when I went here last year and this article was so small but now it is worthy for a FA status. Kudos to the nominator for his hard work on editing. -ScotchMB 23:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Dmoon1 04:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: References need to be organized better.
    • 1) reference 1 and 4 can be safely removed from the lead. 2)The full reference for: "Assault of the Killer B's: Interviews with 20 Cult Film Actresses" should be in the "References section". This way #21 can be shortformed like #40. In fact, you can blend the footnotes 21,14 and 40,64 together once you've done this. 3) Do the same thing with Higashi's reference. (Note: Of course, these footnote #'s will all change when the changes are made). --P-Chan 14:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Also never place materials in the reference sections that you are not using as references! You seem to have blanketed the entire article with references and I can find very few, if any, holes. (That's excellent). That said, there are 14 entries in the "Other References" section. Where do all of these references correspond to in the article? If there are not needed, you can turn some of them into a "Further reading" section. --P-Chan 15:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your input here and in the peer review. I combined references where relevant; some do not warrant combining. The reference section of this article is formatted the same way as the other featured articles I have written. "Notes" section includes material directly quoted or paraphrased in the article, "other references" includes relevant material that was not directly used in the article, like a bibliography. I see no reason to re-format the references without a better justification than differences in personal preference. Thanks again. Dmoon1 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
        • "Other references" includes relevant material that is not directly used in the article? What do you mean by that?--P-Chan 16:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Material that was consulted and used in the writing of the article, but not directly quoted from. It's the same thing as a bibliography. Dmoon1 16:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Good work on the article! -- Underneath-it-All 21:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Dmoon1 02:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—2a etc. I was going to just "comment", but then I uncovered too many things that need fixing. On the whole, it's a good article, so please attend to the whole text soon.
    • Please go through it and weed out the redundancies. For example: "Reviewers at the time criticized the film's graphic contents"—The context clearly provides some of this information, so we don't want it to be spelt out. Remove "at the time" and "film's". You can probably remove "As of 2006"; another remake would be a major turn, and would warrant updating the article anyway, wouldn't it?
    • "The film constitutes the first in a tetralogy"—Yuck. Use "is" or "was".
    • Why link "guerilla" in "guerrilla-style" if it doesn't explain the cinematic meaning of the term?
    • Telling us that Ben was an African-American at the top, without explaining why this is worth mentioning until way down, is inappropriate—makes it sound as though race is important per se. Either explain the relevance on the spot, or don't mention his race until you do.
    • In a similar vein: "curtailed the ability of Image Ten to hire a retinue of well-known actors and actresses"—Nowadays, we're quite happy not to make the gender distinction: just "actors" will do. "A retinue of" is redundant.
    • "Twenty-three-year-old"—Avoid the quadruple bypass by placing this not at the start of the sentence, but before her name: "Commercial and stage actOR, 23-year-old Judith O'Dea, was cast" Tony 02:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks Tony. I've attended to these examples and will go over the rest of the article tonight. Most of the prose problems were fixed earlier with your valuable How to satisfy Criterion 2a. Thanks again. Dmoon1 02:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Redundancies were weeded out the over the past few days along with some mediocre prose. Another editor made minor copy-edits as well. Please let me know what else you think needs to be addressed. Dmoon1 05:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Important film; excellent article. (Ibaranoff24 18:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC))
    • Thanks for the support and fixing up some of the images. Dmoon1 14:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Abstain. What's the deal with the spoiler warning? What is the reader supposed to make of it, stop reading the article? Why should we feature something we warn the reader about? I'll support if the whole warning is removed, as is appropriate for an encyclopedic article that aspires to be of high quality. Shanes 18:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - the spoiler warning is appropriate. Wouldn't want people who haven't seen the film to read the ending, now would we? (Ibaranoff24 20:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC))
    • I think this is a discussion to have here or here, not at FAC; this guideline is in dispute, but it is still a guideline and this objection verges on WP:POINT, IMHO. Dmoon1 20:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm curious about the spoiler tagging done in this article. Does it cover only the Plot section, or is the warning meant to cover all the rest of the article. What does the editors deem safe to read? Sometimes I see an end_spoiler tag being placed where the editors believe that there are no more spoilers below it. First I thought the editors here just wanted to spare the readers for that end_tag and that the warning was just covering the Plot section (as surprising as it might be that the plot section contains the plot). But I believe there are quite a few spoilers further down, so maybe the tag covers all the rest of the article and that readers who don't want to get anything "spoiled" shouldn't read more than the intro. Is that the case here? Shanes 00:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, that's the case. There is information about the plot scattered throughout the article, so it would be dishonest to place an "end spoiler" tag at the end of the plot section when there is more plot information further down in the article. This is one of the problems with the spoiler tags and between you and me (and whoever else reads this), I don't care for them at all. I think they are rather silly. If you were to read an article in an academic film journal or even Entertainment Weekly, there would not be a spoiler warning on the front cover. If you don't want to know about the contents of the movie, then don't look at the article (that's my opinion). I just slap those things on film articles I write because it is expected. However, I still contend that FAC is not the place to debate this issue. Dmoon1 01:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree with you in that, and I also agree that I was making too much of a point by opposing based on the tag only. I withdraw my object vote. Shanes 01:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
            • No problem. Dmoon1 01:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Irene (1999)[edit]

Yes, another Hurricane Irene is up for FAC ;) I've worked on this a lot lately, and I just finished. On behalf of the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject, I think this displays Featured Article status, so I'd like to nominate it. Comments? Support. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Support. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 18:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Support. Good job. --Shane (T - C - E) 19:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I went through it with a fine comb, and I've fixed everything I could see, which wasn't much. Support. Titoxd(?!?) 17:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Support Very nice. There were only two minor things that I found and I fixed both of them. Great job! --Nebular110 21:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Object Just a tad too many images I think, to be encyclopedic. Think of eliminating those that aren't really, really needed. 63.23.111.36 00:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Which ones would that be? Titoxd(?!?) 00:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Better? The cow one wasn't needed. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Darn, I liked the cow one (it's true). :P íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 14:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I did too ;) --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - when nominations are made 'on behalf of' a wikiproject, could members of the wikiproject say that they are members when commenting? Worldtraveller 09:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL, ok. Wikiproject members are me, Titoxd, and Icelandic hurricane so far. --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Worldtraveller has raised an important point concerning the transparency of this process. Declaring one's membership doesn't for one minute mean that your comments will not be taken as seriously. Tony 12:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I only laughed because I didn't think it was necessary, no biggie. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Just in support of the need for a copy-edit, the version I skimmed had the following lead sentence: "Hurricane Irene was a hurricane that produced moderate damage across southern Florida during the 2001 Atlantic hurricane season." I changed the link, but it made me wonder. -Fsotrain09 02:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak object, will have another look after a copy edit. For example:
    • While moving through the Florida Keys, Irene produced a storm surge of up to (of or up to, pick one, having both is redundant) 2.3 feet (0.7 m) in Key Vaca, while Key West reported a surge of 1.5 feet (0.5 m). The hurricane produced strong winds, peaking at 79 mph (127 km/h) with a gust of 102 mph (164 km/h) at Big Pine Key.[1] The hurricane It also produced heavy rainfall in the Keys, including 12 inches (305 mm) of rain in Key West. The rainfall flooded numerous roads throughout the Keys, prompting officials to close 50 miles (80 km) of U.S. Highway 1. Sandy 03:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmm... it wouldn't be a good idea to replace "The hurricane" for "It", as the antecedent of the pronoun would become unclear. I've copyedited the paragraph differently, though, so have a look at it. Titoxd(?!?) 18:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I thought I already had. The few issues brought up above have all been remedied. —Cuiviénen 03:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Talbot Tagora[edit]

The article went through an internal WikiProject Automobiles and general peer review, and I guess the issues raised during these were resolved. This article covers probably close to all that can be said about the subject, and every bit of information is referenced. Please see whether you find that it meets the FA criteria. This is a self-nomination by Bravada, talk - 19:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support This article might just be the best referenced of all the Automobile articles, is free of any POV and rather comprehesive. The only problems are that the sections seem rather short and choppy which makes the article somewhat unactractive in terms of layout. Overall, however, it seems to meet the FA criteria. Signaturebrendel 23:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Work on finding non-fair-use photo or add fair use rationale; and as another user has pointed out, ensure references point to supporting source. Outriggr 20:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "Weak" object Neutral. I agree that it is a very good article, but I am objecting mostly on the grounds that it is hard for me to consider an article on the failed launch of a not-especially-notable vehicle as "Wikipedia's very best work" (criterion #1). Areas for improvement:
  1. PSA is not spelled out in full nor disambiguated in the intro paragraph, and is linked numerous times in the article;
  2. image does not have fair use rationale;
  3. the sentence "These were deemed too extravagant by American Chrysler management and were later changed to more conventional - both front and rear wheelarches were changed to squarish and the license plate was placed on the front bumper as in most cars." regards, Outriggr 05:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Outriggr, thanks for your review of the article! I let myself number your points to be able to answer them in a more convenient manner:
  1. OMG, thanks a lot for pointing that one out. I don't know how it got away through all those peer reviews. Anyway, corrected now.
  2. If you click on the image, it's description says "...promotional photograph (...) uploaded to illustrate the article on the subject..." - I take it is not a FU rationale then. I am clearly confused as to what is an FU rationale and would be most grateful if you could expand on that.
  3. I am too involved with the article now and a non-native English speaker to add to that, so I really don't see at the first glance what is wrong with the sentence. If you could please bear with me and explain it in more detail, or even propose how it could be amended (not to mention being bold and actually editing it), I would be most grateful again.
As regards your major concern, well, we do have featured articles on computer game characters and an "an open-source OpenGL multiplayer 3D tank battle game", on a guy who claimed to be ""Emperor of these United States and Protector of Mexico" and on a constructed langauge with not more than 2500 speakers. I believe what should take precedence is the quality of the article, not one's perception of the "notability" or importance of the subject. If this article became FA, it could show that even some lesser topics can be covered in a really good way, and it could also serve as a good example for all articles on "ordinary" car models. This was my rationale for putting it up here. Bravada, talk - 09:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Bravada. To respond to your points,
  1. I am no expert on what constitutes fair use rationale, but have seen this subject brought up in FA reviews before, and I am not sure whether the sentence accompanying your image constitutes this "rationale".
  2. The sentence has a dash in it that seems misplaced. How about, "These [objects] were deemed too extravagant by American Chrysler management, so were changed to have a more conventional style: [assuming this next part describes how they were changed:] both front and rear wheel arches [two words?] were changed to a squarer shape, and the license plate was placed on the front bumper as in most cars."
  3. I guess my unstated point is that for articles that are on very narrow topics, like computer game characters, etc., "brilliant prose" is (or should be) a real necessity in making the article feature-worthy. Such prose would be hard to achieve in this article and I hope you won't hold it against me that I don't think the article has that shining prose. Outriggr 00:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, Outriggr. I will change the sentence following your suggestions in due course, or if you can do it first, I would be most obliged. As concerns FU rationale, you left me totally confused now - can you give an example of a proper FU rationale then? Coming to your third point - I can say that this article surely can't be accused of featuring "brilliant prose", as I wrote the overwhelming majority of it (though thanks to suggestions from other users it is far more bearable now). Nevertheless, I believe that FAs should be judged by the same standards REGARDLESS of the topic. This means that an article on the USA and on Talbot Tagora should be up to the same standard when they are FAs. If "brilliant prose" is required from the USA article, it should be required from the Talbot Tagora one. However, if there are FAs passed not displaying "brilliant prose", no other article should required to do so. Bravada, talk - 00:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I am certainly not the arbiter of what makes a good FA; just trying to contribute to the community. Regarding fair use rationale, here is an image I found from an FA that illustrates that: Image:Arrested_Development_cast_promo_photo.jpg. Let's see what other people have to say about your nomination! I will change my vote to neutral, as I admit that I can't spell out my opposition in a way that semantic police will not describe as against the spirit of the FA criteria. Outriggr 01:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The image in Arrested development is more likely to be 'fair use' because it's VERY difficult to find photos of cast members that are under an open license. Pictures of cars (even very specific car models) are two a penny. It's not a comparable situation.SteveBaker 04:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
From the introduction: "It suffered a rather miserable fate, falling far short of sales expectations, which ended with an untimely demise as soon as in 1983." -- This seems a bit NPOV, was its demise 'untimely' or was it 'richly deserved'? That's a value judgement (and judging from the "What Car" review you quoted, it seems like 'richly deserved' is closer to the mark...but I don't think these kinds of judgement calls belong in the article. The quote from the reviewer is plenty damning. As for the Fair Use of the image - I have to say that there is no way you can consider this fair use - the copyright notice on that very image says "in the absence of free images that could serve such a purpose;" - so are you telling me that there are NO free images of a Talbot Tagora?! How hard have you tried? Someone told me a week ago that there were no free images of an AMC Matador. I went to eBay - found a car for sale - emailed the owner and asked nicely if I could use his photo for Wikipedia - and not only was he happy to provide it under any license I would name - he was actually flattered to be asked...and that was the very first person I asked! I've done the exact same thing to get photos for Mini and Mini Moke - I've NEVER been turned down by anyone I ever asked for permission to use their photos. So - no - there is no conceivable circumstance under which that image can be used under 'Fair use' unless maybe you are discussing the advertising brochure itself! SteveBaker 02:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Steve, thanks a lot for your review! Apart from those issues, what is your opinion of the article in general? As concerns images, finding a good image of Talbot Tagora that is not a manufacturer's or press photo is not that easy as it might seem, but I will do my best to do so as fast as I can. The sentence you mentioned is a clear example of what happens when an article has too little editors - I clearly got carried away and nobody noticed later on. The demise might be deemed "untimely", as no car that gets killed after only 3 model years and was made in less than 1/3 of planned annual production volume can be said to have departed timely IMHO, but I absolutely agree this is far from what one would expect from a good WikiPedia article. I'll try to improve that myself, but I would also appreciate that if you, as a native speaker and author of Featured Articles, give me a suggestion on how it could be done. Thanks a lot again! Bravada, talk - 12:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
PS. BTW, I think you meant POV, not NPOV, or am I misunderstanding your comment?
Sorry - yes - I did mean 'POV'. There are currently no Talbot Tagora's on sale on eBay - but there are about 150 images showing up in response to that search term on Google images. (That's an amazingly low number! People must be embarassed to own these things!) There is also a Simca/Talbot owner's club: [7] - which says that 'Club Simca France' has members with good examples of the car. Anyway - shooting off an email to the web site owners of the half dozen nicest photos ought to produce some results. Members of car clubs are fantastically vain about their cars and the idea that THEIR car would be the one that everyone sees as the idealised perfect car shown at the head of the Wikipedia article is absolutely irresistable to them! SteveBaker 19:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. In a citation spot check, four out of five references checked came up problematic (results here. That definitely needs to be addressed. Second, this needs a copyedit. --RobthTalk 19:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • (Responding to a post on my talk page.)Citations look good now, although I haven't checked every single one; given how many were problematic in the ones I checked, it would be good if the nominator would check to make sure all the rest point right to a page containing the cited information. As to a copyedit: the problems here are varied; some outright grammatical errors, a substantial number of cases of choosing a vaguely wrong word (e.g. "Following the Horizon and Alpine experiences"--"following the model used for the production of the Horizon and Alpine" would be better there), a few clauses that just don't make sense (e.g. "which was now obviously available."--what does it mean to be 'obviously available?'). A number of sentences and paragraphs need to be rewritten. From the lead, for example, "The car was first presented in 1980 and ultimately launched commercially in 1981. It fell far short of sales expectations, which ended with it being cancelled as soon as in 1983." would be better as "The car was first presented in 1980 and launched commercially in 1981. Its sales fell far short of expectations, and the model was discontinued in 1983.", or something similar. A good copyeditor needs to go through this. It shouldn't take too long, since this is a short article, but it needs to be done. --RobthTalk 02:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Support Looks pretty good, though another picture or too would be welcomed. Karrmann 01:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ubuntu (Linux distribution)[edit]

This article has been in the wings for quite some time, waiting for the verification of certain facts, but it now seems thoroughly referenced, well-illustrated and with a bit of polish, could be an FA (your suggestions welcome). Archived peer review - Samsara (talkcontribs) 10:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Who is the distro designed for/who uses it? What unique features does it have? Could you speak some more about Kubuntu/Edubuntu? Could you provide a pronounciation in IPA? --Oldak Quill 11:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The IPA pronunciation is there if you look carefully. We kept the "fake English" spelling there, too, because it does the job and IPA is over most people's heads. I'll see if I can summarise more of the features in the intro. I think the main differences between Linux distributions nowadays are stability, footprint (will it run on a slow computer with not much RAM?), support and package availability, rather than fancy admin tools (they all have them now). Maybe I can let the intro reflect this a bit more. Thanks. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 12:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - While this article is not terrribly long, it *is* comprehensive and the editors on it have spent a lot of time making sure it covers all aspects of the OS, that it is referenced and written well. pschemp | talk 13:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Re-reading the article today it seems very well written. It's layout is sensible, it appears to reference every point and it explains technical ideas clearer than other articles. Regarding the point "Could you speak some more about Kubuntu/Edubuntu?" can I suggest that most of the information in these is kept in their own articles? The Kubuntu article does not go into enough detail (i.e. no history) and the Edubuntu article is a stub. Putting more on them in the Ubuntu article would only weaken these other articles. Raoul Harris 13:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well said. I completely agree with that. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 14:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:Could you rmv the hide/show feature in the navigational templates below. I don't like this feature and these templates are too small to be encumbering. CG 15:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support- Well written and well sourced. I added image of Kubuntu in versions sections as an extra visual example. --ZeWrestler Talk 16:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, although the subject is a little boring :) I've copy-edited it; please see my inline queries. Tony 02:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support- Very well written. I see it as an FA article. xompanthy 09:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Enta Da Stage[edit]

Self nomination/Support I think the page is thorough enough to be included on the featured articles list, though it might need minor editing. Only one Hip Hop article is on the featured list, and we need some more. And considering that there's very limited info on the album (unlike Illmatic), I'd say I did a good job. --PDTantisocial 08:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As there are no official Wikipedia guidelines regarding the role of the FA director or how a article is promoted to featured status I am giving this article my support abstaining. Please see the discussions [[8]] and [[9]] at the featured article talk page for my reasoning. --Jayzel 12:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That's what I was sayin' when I said there wasn't much info on the album. Plus, why would you need references for a tracklisting? It comes with the CD, you want me to scan the tracklisting from the album notes and use it as a reference? --PDTantisocial 21:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The album singles section, I got the info from the liner notes of the Diggin' in Dah Vaults album, I can't find anything about it online, so I don't know what to put for a reference. The chart positions I wouldn't think need a reference, Illmatic is a featured article and it doesn't reference the chart positions, anybody can find that shit. --PDTantisocial 22:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Threw in references for the chart positions, album singles and the samples. --PDTantisocial 01:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I doubt that the tracklist needs to be referenced, seeing as Illmatic is a Featured article and contains no such thing Chubdub 14:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as per nom Chubdub 15:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you kindly exlpain this. I am a new member of Wikipedia, and therefore, don't understand how the images within this article fall under copyright infringement. P.O.N.Y. 11:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Blackmoonr.jpg is fair use because it is an album cover, Blackmoonstayreal.jpg is fair use because it from the music video "Stay Real," Blackmoonhowmanymcs.jpg is fair use because it from the music video "How Many MCs...," and Blackmoonpic2.jpg is fair use because it is part of an advertisement. I could not find a rationale for Beatminerz.jpg. 69.116.150.174 19:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment The Beatminerz picture is promotional. --PDTantisocial 23:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
But still fair use. Highway Batman! 21:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • First, this did quite well on a citation spot check (results here). I have to object, however for two reasons. First, this needs a copyedit. A sampling of a few sentences from the lead shows a number of issues:
    • "features the debut from popular underground duo": 'from' is wrong; should be 'of'.
    • "...Dru-Ha, Duck Down Records co-founder.": 'Dru Ha, the co-founder of Duck Down Records', or 'Duck Down Records co-founder Dru-Ha' would be correct.
    • "Though critically acclaimed, the album was unable to produce significant sales,": "was unable to produce sales" is a bad phrasing; perhaps "sold relatively few copies"?
    • "despite of two Billboard Hot 100 hits": 'of' is wrong.' 'despite having', perhaps?
    • "Nonetheless, Enta Da Stage preceded the aforementioned releases": Why is this "nonetheless"?
  • These and similar issues throughout need to be fixed. Second, a number of statements that need citations do not have them. Examples:
    • "Though not as widely heralded as similar groundbreaking New York albums of the mid-'90s like Nas' Illmatic, The Notorious B.I.G.'s Ready to Die, Wu-Tang Clan's Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) and Mobb Deep's The Infamous, Enta Da Stage was critically on a similar plateau." (What exactly does it mean to be "critically on a similar plateau, by the way?)
    • "...was one of the pioneering releases during the return of New York's street hip hop resurgence of the mid '90s, after the West Coast's reign of the early '90s."
  • Someone needs to go through this and work on both of these issues. --RobthTalk 11:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I've gone through and fixed your objections. 69.116.150.174 01:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
So far so good, but my point was that not just those specific cases but a number of similar cases throughout the article need to be fixed. Go through, look for unsourced statements that a reader might want a source for, and pick over the language to make sure every sentence works. --RobthTalk 04:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Support Looks fine to me. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 22:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Very good job wwith this one. —Cuiviénen 16:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Alison Krauss[edit]

The old nomination drew a numbner of objections, which the nominator had addressed (or so he says), but had trouble getting follow up critques. As such, I have restarted this nomiation. (Old nom here). Raul654 22:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Old nominator here I'll continue to strive to fix any issues anyone may have with this article. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks generally good.
    • Per summary style, put some content under all section headings. For example, under "Biography" put a paragraph or two giving a quick overview pointing out the encyclopedic highlights over her life.
  • I could remove the "Early life" sub-tag, but I was following the style of the already featured Mariah Carey (and basically Kylie Minogue, though it's called "Recording and performing career" there). Would removing the early life tag be sufficient (as that seems like a decent lead in for a bio).
    • It's not really supposed to be a lead-in. It's supposed to be a stand-alone section that summarizes what comes next. Tuf-Kat
  • Summary style is used for split-off articles, not for completely in article sections. What is the point in essentially regurgitating the lead to lead-in to more detailed text? The only place I've ever seen the kind of lead-in you are talking about is maybe something single sentence where an entire section is a table (The following table summarizes ____ or what have you). What are you looking for, outside of essentially a thinner rewrite of the lead directly below it? Staxringold talkcontribs 02:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Summary style is how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be organization. If one of the main topics of "Alison Krauss" is "Biography", then there should be a summary of that topic. If necessary, more detail can be added in subsections, and more beyond that in subarticles. In any case, there's still supposed to be that brief summary. The reason is because the point of Summary Style is to provide different layers of coverage, and a brief summary of a major part of a topic is a useful layer. Someone who just wants the highlights of her career could then read a one or two paragraph summary of it, then go on to read the details if needed. Tuf-Kat 03:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Then I will simply point to Kylie Minogue and Mariah Carey once again as two already featured current musical artists who don't follow that style at all. Summaries provide a quick explanation of the included material, and the lead does that for the article. Furhter summaries are used for split-off material. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "Artistry" seems somewhat inappropriate as a section heading (it's kind of vague). Change to "Reception" or maybe "Reception and historical influence"?
  • Again, following the style of the already featured Mariah Carey, but renamed to "Reception and influences".
    • Some more substantive references may be nice. There's nothing wrong with the references used, but it should be possible to find some more scholarly sources. I think I've got at least one I'll be able to track down in the next few days.
  • If you can find one, great, but I the references are all reliable and I'd say the article is pretty well-sourced.
    • I disagree. There's nothing wrong with the references used, but she's probably the most notable bluegrass performer of the last decade. I think a featured article on her requires more substantive referencing - the entire section and subsections on reception and influences is cited from a few web bios, reviews, interviews and other promotional literature, except for a single pointer to a Dirty Linen article. That's not enough to adequately place her in a historical context. Tuf-Kat 01:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • First, the article cites numerous printed sources like the NY Times, Billboard, and Country weekly along with a few very solid televised refs from Great American Country and some interviews (which are about as pure a source as you can get). What would you add? What issues do you have with the citations? A preference for a different kind of source is fine but not a piece of WIAFA, and if you believe a source is providing faulty information I will find additional sources to back up the statement or remove it. She has no biography, official or otherwise, and most bluegrass books I have found deal with the generation before her while country books completely ignore her (and focus on drek like the Dixie Chicks. What could I change to satisfy this issue (I thank you for not making it a formal objection). Just as an example, a lot of the biography section was also covered in her interviews on the Great American Country interviews, but I sourced them with net versions that sourced the specific statement (and were easily accessed by other users). As for influences, there is no heavy information included in album notes, she has no biography to provide really juicy meat, and what is wrong with using interviews with Alison Krauss to cite the musical influences and style of Alison Krauss? Staxringold talkcontribs 02:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I asked for "substantive" references, not necessarily print. I'm not concerned about the biography section, but rather the Reception and influences section. As an example, "Some credit Krauss and Union Station, at least partially, with a recent revival of interest in bluegrass music in the United States" -- I know this to be true, but it's cited to her agent, which is not independent. As I've said, the sources used are fine, but they are not sufficient; Krauss is a good source for her musical style, but she is not a sufficient source to be comprehensive because she is not independent. Tuf-Kat 03:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you, that is the kind of thing I was looking for. If you feel something needs further or better referencing just tell me what it is. I'll go find another ref for that right now. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Other than that, it looks pretty good on a cursory glance. Tuf-Kat 03:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. I think Tuf-Kat is right on the money. However, this article is very good, I would supoort in a heartbeat once his concerns have been addressed. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Errr, what would you have me do though? I'm following, to the letter, the pattern laid out by another featured article for a currently active American musician. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, ok then, you do have me. I did support the Mariah Carey article, so I guess this one gets a similarly strong Support. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 17:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support; it's a good article, but the images are really bad. Especially the lead image; that looks like it was taken with a cameraphone, or worse a Fuji Finepix, from a distance and then blown up. Surely for someone as notable as Krauss we can get some better non-copyvio images? No other objections, though. Suntiger 14:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Excel Saga[edit]

Self-nomination and support. The article has been almost completely rewritten in the past month, much of it resulting from an excellent and supremely productive peer review. I have based the re-write mostly on Red vs Blue, with necessary alterations, and I think it stands up to other television FAs. The article cites several reviews, discusses production issues, international adaptations, and as succinctly as I believe possible presents the large cast of characters and the several meandering plots. Please note that I am unable to fully alphabetize the categories because Anime and Manga are automatically inserted by the infoboxes. I look forward to your approval, and I stand ready to address questions and suggestions.--Monocrat 16:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, very good article in all respects. My only complaint—and I suspect this may be more an issue of familiarity with printed versus online stylistics—is the heavy use of double (or sometimes even triple and quadruple) footnote numbers in the same place, as well as multiple footnotes within a sentence. From a neatness standpoint, I would combine all of those into single footnotes giving all of the associated citations; but this would require not using cite.php's automatic repeated footnote feature (possibly by introducing a separate "References" section and using short-form citations in the footnotes), so I'm not sure if you'd be willing to do that. Kirill Lokshin 16:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! I have concerns about them as well, but: WP:CITE seems to enjoin the inline-citation of all quotations immediately after they appear, so I have to have multiple notes in the sentences. I'm unsure, however, how I feel about have separate notes and references sections. It seem a little hard on my eyes in other articles, but I'll give it a thought.--Monocrat 17:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Waffling Support. I'd like to see more pictures- we hardly see anybody; no Dr. Kabapu, none of the ronin (no, the Daitenzin shot doesn't count) etc. Also, did I miss the link to the more detailed episode list with decent plot summaries? I'm sure there must've been one, since the recounting of the plot is minimal and broken up- almost more concerned with thematics than plot. A section on the metafictional and breaking-the-fourth-wall bits (which some of the more amusing parts, IMO) would be nice as well. --maru (talk) contribs 17:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The list to the episode list is in the navbox, I've made a link to it more prominent. It's hard to get good, humorous shots of the ronin together (the one in Characters of Excel Saga is rather non-descript), but I plan to soon add shots of Kabapu and maybe the ronin from the manga, but I lack a scanner. Regarding the metafictional and fourth-wall elements, I'm trying to fight my own tendency towards fancruft, and I think I've included most of the major ones. Still, more specific thoughts on are welcome.--Monocrat 17:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Although I do agree the insane number of footnote numbers gets distracting. Anyways, it'll be nice to see an anime article finally get FA. Good work.--SeizureDog 04:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A great article, and a great anime too. I just think that given the frenetic style of Excel Saga, it's having an extensively footnoted article is somewhat ironic. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Monocrat really put a lot of work into this, and it shows. I still think it's overcited, but that's no reason not to support. -- grm_wnr Esc 10:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as in PR.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Nice! It's quite a good article on an anime I love. A note however: You can (I think) alphabetize categories, even if some are inserted by the infobox. Just put the categories that should appear before those inserted by the infobox at the very top of the page (it'll look weird, but it should work. You can leave a message in the code noting why you are doing it). Staxringold talkcontribs 16:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip and support! Changes made with grm_wnr's assistance.--Monocrat 17:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment What is ACROSS? It does make any sense to me - some kind of group? RN 08:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Right, that seems to have gotten lost somehow. I've added the briefest of explanations to the lead, but an introductory sentence should be written for the "ACROSS" section. -- grm_wnr Esc 08:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A good example of how putting some work in can make an article much better. However, I think people have been blinded-by-footnotes, the actual article is majorly lacking in some areas.

  • Many of the actual cites are silly: "the last episode was intentionally made too graphic for public broadcast and did not air in Japan.[8]" - does the footnote back up this assertion? 8. "Going Too Far." Shinichi Watanabe (Director). Excel Saga. No...
There have been some changes here, but I'd prefer if notes were used to expand on statements like that rather than on oddnesses such as 29. Note that sources disagree as to his given name: Anime News Network renders it as shown, as do the opening credits in ADV's English edition, but the ending credits render it as "Toshiro." (see ja:増田俊郎)
  • The 'critics' are entirely postings on websites by westerners. Sure, the NYT doesn't carry a manga/anime section, but the article is entirely dishonest in representing this small cross-section as the entirety of opinion.
Managed to access some of those ntusa-s I see, and they weren't just marketing propoganda? This is still the major issue, the material from Koushi/Watanabe interviews is interesting, but the article is still founded on the sand of horses'-mouth and netizens.
  • Shin'ichi Watanabe is mentioned in the article body exactly once, and as what? Writer of theme song lyrics. Other anime staff get disjointed mentions. The interview bits you give show there is material there, but it's only being used to hammer on about how the last ep is ott.
Some useful addition here, but still far from comprehensive on the out-of-universe anime side.
  • The prose hurts in lots of places, and the tense is often weird, random picks from one section: "The director, for his part, recounts that he was surprised to learn..." / "...all are notably parodied in extended sequences."
Have been improvements here. One thing I forgot to add first time round - personally I hate spoiler tags in articles, especially for significant amounts of the article. Have trouble seeing why they're needed for an encylopedia article, especially for un-narrative-y work like this - there's no punchline/ending spoiling requirement for summaries. --zippedmartin 23:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, the root of the problem, for all the citing, half the references are the manga/anime itself, and the other half are western websites. The interviews are the only meat. It's a good article, but does it "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work"? I think not. --zippedmartin 09:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Responding point-by-point:
  • The "silly" citations to the original material are directed to the ADV Vid-Notes and the VIZ "Oubliette" notes. See the beginning of the "Notes and references." I'll consider adding this detail to the notes themselves.
  • I ask that you assume good faith and withdraw "dishonest." There are three sentences that could perhaps be construed as "representing...the entirety of opinion", but most sentences are at pains to name or qualify the number of reviewers and to present a variety of views. In others, the presence of notes makes the limitation of the sample clear (to me). Moreover, I specify English-language critical reception in the lead and the main text. Is that a weakness, yes. But this is the English Wikipedia. I'll leave it to you to decide if that violates comprehensiveness. I can't read Japanese well enough to attempt the research, and Chinese, Korean, Arabic, and African language aux choix are right out. I am thus stuck with Western reviews. Furthermore, there is a paucity of what I consider "good" reviews out there (most of the reviews under "Additional reviews" are kind of iffy in my book), but I'll search more.
  • I want to avoid confusion between the director Watanabe and the character Watanabe. I have, however, added an instance of the director's full name.
  • I think we disagree on the stylistics. :) The examples you provide strike me as validly constructed, grammatically and stylistically. Nevertheless, suggestions are welcome to make the copy less painful. --Monocrat 10:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Concentrating on your biggest bullet (fair point on 'Watanabe' being potentially confusing, but there's still a content hole), it's not really about disclaimers. Just having a 'Critical reception', with nearly 30 citations, that deals soley with stuff found through google, is giving undue weight to fans with websites. It's like having a 'Reaction' section in the '2004 Indian Ocean earthquake' that's entirely drawn from blog postings... well, kinda. Is the best criticism section a wikipedia article can have an amalgamation of online reviews? I'd say not.
So, ignoring for the moment issues of content weighting and style, the central problem is a complete dearth of credible secondary sources. --zippedmartin 14:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree. These reviews I think rise above fan-websites in that they're not fan-website at all: these are (amateur to semi-professional) reviewers who review several and diverse works in even-handed and, on balance, well written postings. All but three of the reviews I cite throughout the article (these being two for the manga, and one discussing the "authorization scenes") are signed with a first and last name, for what that's worth. To see what I'm driving at, simply compare the quality of the review at TheGline.com with that from SciFi.com; the first is thoughtful and at times scathing, the other mostly banal. Crandol's reviews, bearing ANN's imprimatur, certainly are credible and immune to the label "fan site." Moreover, what I've found are the best there is. I welcome you to look, but the only promising hard-copy source I found was a Newtype-USA article way back in '02 or '03, but I can't access that—and it would probably be ADV (publisher of Excel Saga and Newtype-USA) hawking the series. Google Scholar comes up with nothing, and most hits on Google are either one-line descriptions linked to merchants or the type of fan-site you rightly decry. While the sources I employ perhaps do not survive a strict interpretation of WP:RS, I think that changes when one considers the subject matter and the irrelevance of some of that policy's criteria in this instance (we're discussing reviewers' opinions; and the reviews seem to me to fit "Independent secondary source" in this circumstance). Other than repeating myself, arguing policy, and adding other sources when I can (and I have done all three this morning), I'm not sure what else I can do to address your concern.--Monocrat 16:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As mentioned above, the "reception" section refers entirely to online, english-languages sources. There is nothing on how the series was recieved in Japan at the time it first came out. The anime aired on Japanese television, but apart from the bit of info about the final episode being unaired, there's nothing about how it performed in ratings, and what television critics thought of it in Japan at the time. The only sales information that's been included is for the english-language graphic novel in North America. Overall, this shows an overly Western perspective about a Japanese series, and represents a major lack of comprehensiveness. I would suggest looking at some Japanese sources for this article. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 00:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Original-language criticism seems not to be a FA requirement: Tenebrae, promoted just over two months ago, focuses exclusively on the English-language reception, with one throw-away line about its continental European release. Triumph of the Will (promoted last winter) also focuses on the English-language response, only briefly mentioning Hitler's approval of the film. Considering that this is the English Wikipedia, I don't think this trend is inappropriate.--Monocrat 02:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with the article's sources being written in English, persay -- if you can find sources written in English that describe the reaction to Excel Saga in Japan, that will work. But it's still a Japanese series, and the reaction to a work in its native country should be a basic part of comprehensiveness. It isn't enough to just describe what was thought of it among Western anime fans (especially when some of the sources in the article apparently criticize the anime for having too many obscure Japanese cultural references). As for your examples, I'll admit Tenebrae could have afforded to spend a bit more time on its Italian release (although it was actually an English-language Italian film, designed with export to US in mind). Triumph of the Will, however, goes to great lengths to describe the film in it's proper cultural and political context in Germany and the rest of Europe in the WW2 era.
Besides the issue of comprehensiveness, another concern I have here is that in only using English-language sources, this article ignores better and more reputable publications which may have talked about the subject in another language. I realize pop-culture topics are usually given leeway on the subject of using reputable sources, but they are still expected to use the best sources available. Shouldn't that still apply if the best sources are not in English? -- Lee Bailey(talk) 03:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but Tenebrae was dubbed into Italian for its release in Italy, and the article seems to suggest that the continental release was especially important to the director. And Triumph of the Will describes Riefenstahl's post-war attempts to mitigate the stigma on her, and the Vermacht's objections. As far as I can see, at least, it doesn't describe critical reception in Germany pre- or post-war, except for Hitler's praise, the two awards and how the film reflected on Riefenstahl. Beyond that, all films influenced by it and all the names cited seem anglophone to me. Anyway, I've spent two hours today trawling Google.co.jp (as a first pass) without success. I have also done (admittedly cursory) searches in Spanish, French, Dutch, Italian and Portugese—the languages I can sort of feel my way around, and those into which Excel Saga has been translated. But I could find only one half-way decent French review of the manga (which I cite). Any thoughts on those reputable publications? :) I'll keep searching, but I truly believe I have (at least most of) the best there is.--Monocrat 04:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the hard work you're doing -- looking over the article's history you've made some great edits -- but I still think "most of the best there is" is inevitably going to fall short if you're limiting yourself to online sources and excluding the language the series is most likely to have the best coverage in. I think it's safe to assume that major entertainment magazines would have reviewed this material in Japan extensively at the time of its release. I also think comprehensiveness demands coverage of the response in Japan to an article about a Japanese series, written primarilly for Japanese audiences. I wish I could help you more with regards to finding great sources -- perhaps see what's sourced in the Japanese Wikipedia for Excel Saga? An index to foreign language periodicals at a good university library would be a decent jumping off place, too. What it comes down to though, is whether or not you can find track them down on Google -- or read them yourself personally -- sources exist. Unless nothing was ever printed about it in Japan, which seems unlikely. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 05:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
"perhaps see what's sourced in the Japanese Wikipedia for Excel Saga?" - Japanese page has no references or external links. --SeizureDog 05:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
My mistake. I should have checked first. I believe the rest of my objection still stands, though. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 05:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, one more thing -- I think Wikipedia's fair use polices only allow for one screen capture from a tv series. That should be fixed. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 06:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:FU says nothing to that effect, and other television FAs have several screen shots. The multiple shots are used to illustrate characters and the humor of the series: one would not suffice. I think these images satisfy policy. And I stand by my stance that while I would like to and hope to include Japanese sources, Excel Saga is just as comprehensive in this regard as recently promoted foreign media FAs.--Monocrat 14:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
With regard to the fair use bit, I'm sorry if I had that wrong. I was getting this from Wikipedia's image upload page, which asks you to select from several fair-use rationales before uploading -- the one listed for screenshots is listed as "screenshots (one per article). I assumed it was a part of WP:FU -- perhaps it's an older standard.

With regard to the rest, I'm not sure I know what else to say, except that regardless of the state of other articles, the criteria for FA promotion are the criteria listed on WP:WIAFA and the status of other articles shouldn't matter as much as that. Comprehensiveness is a requirement, and for a Japanese series that's still best known in Japan, which has not been widely discussed or reviewed in the West outside of small, non-professional, online sources, ignoring the Japanese perspective is not comprehensive. There's no way to comprehensively cover a foreign television series without talking about its original ratings and popularity with the audience it was originally intended for. Anime and manga is a subculture in the west; in Japan it's a part of mainstream popular culture. It is not possible to have a reception section that claims is comprehensive which ignores the largest and most important reception the series received. The opinion of english-speaking genre fans is a small part of the big picture, especially in a series that's a satire of Japanese life and cultural conventions. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 18:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The way I interpret that upload statement is that there needs to be a rationale for each article that uses the image. :) I agree with you broadly, although I protest its actionability in this instance. Other, especially recent FAs are inseparable from the criteria: the state of other FAs being necessarily both the product of the FA criteria and a way of interpreting those criteria. Anyway, the article doesn't show it yet, but I am looking. Thanks!--Monocrat 18:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this a lot today, since I want to be as fair as I can with this article and not demand the impossible. I agree that recent FAs are useful tools, but I don't think they are inseperable from the criteria. Individual articles are passed by discussions involving relatively small number of editors, over a short period of time. The criteria have existed for over two years, and have been consistantly discussed and refined for as long. You could try to argue that a handful of examples demonstrate what "comprehensiveness" means with regard to foreign language media, but I think it's better to follow to spirit of the rule (since no two articles are exactly alike anyway) and think about what the most logical definition of comprehensiveness is in terms of this article. By that token, I think I've already made my case for increased Japanese context fairly well.
As far as actionability goes, that's a tricky thing, but I think the objections I've mentioned are in fact actionable, even if they turn out to be difficult to fix. That's the thing -- coming up with information about this would be easy if you or I spoke Japanese -- we'd probably only have to read a couple of entertainment magazines from the right time frame to find the information we're looking for. I know that's a frustrating answer since you don't speak Japanese, but on the other hand, actionability means that there's specific course of action available to fix the problem with the article. I don't think it has to mean that there's a course of action that's easily available to fix the article. I'm pretty sure if I tried to promote an article on an obscure element of physics to FA, if that article was subpar, the actionable objections to it would be things that I wouldn't be easily able to fix. That doesn't mean we don't have featured articles on those things. If you really want a specific action to fix my objection, that "action" would be getting help from someone who speaks Japanese. I'm not saying that's easy, but it's an action. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 22:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, I don't think you could ask for a better article. Ashibaka tock 15:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Although this came out well in a citation spot check, with all the citations I checked looking good (results here), I'm concerned by the degree to which this leans on primary sources (that is citing episodes of the series as sources)(As pointed out to me below, that isn't what was happening.) and the fact that, despite the large number of citations of reviews and what not, the "Characters and Plot" section is virtually unsourced. That, plus a number of awkwardly phrased sentences scattered through the article (it doesn't need to be heavily copyedited, but someone needs to go through it), leads me to object. --RobthTalk 16:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • So you think that the plot (and only the basic plot, not any interpretations or extrapolations) of a fictional work does need citations from secondary sources? Basically, some authorative source needs to state that what happens does indeed happen? -- grm_wnr Esc 16:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I think I have addressed your concern about primary sources: all such citations were in fact to the notes and commentary in the North American editions. Although previously noted, this has been clarified. Moreover, plot/synopsis sections are unsourced in recent FAs such as V for Vendetta, Gremlins, Tenebrae, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith (the last promoted just last week).--Monocrat 18:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Sources are not so much for authority as for easy verifiability. In recognition of the fact that our articles are openly editable, constantly changing, etc, we provide references to which readers can turn to check if what they are reading is accurate. And although plot summaries are a case where it's best not to be overly pedantic about it, a plot summary generally, and this one in particular does include statements that include making some degree of analysis and judgement of the work (identification of major themes and styles, analysis of relationships between characters, etc.). I have no reason to believe that the summary given is anything but accurate, but we provide sources so that readers don't have to give us the benefit of the doubt (and secondary sources, so that they don't have to watch 26 episodes to be sure). --RobthTalk 19:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't like this: Arrested Development's plot section contained far more analysis and nary a citation, and the citation in Cheers's is uneven at best and seemingly unrelated to this point. Standards change, I guess. I'm willing to address you concern, but I'm not sure what needs citation or how to cite them in a satisfactory manner, and I can tell you now it will be difficult to escape the primary sources. Perhaps we could discuss this on the article's talk page? --Monocrat 20:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. I don't want to try and drive an unreasonable increase in standards. I would appreciate, however, at least a few citations pointing to some place where a general summary of the series can be found; having never tried to write a pop culture FA, I don't really have a feel for how difficult finding citations for one is. I have to assume, though, that somebody, somewhere, has written up at least a basic description of some of the major plot devices as part of reviewing the thing. I'm by no means insisting that the middle section be sourced as thoroughly as the later sections, but a few broad citations for each major subsection, pointing to some source that proves that our description of the show is grounded in reality, would be a good thing. What I saw of the sources while checking citations suggests to me that most of the more analytic points in the plot and characters section are at least mentioned in some of the sources. --RobthTalk 21:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I've added a few citations as well as a note exemplifying a notable difference (currently footnote twelve; I can add more of those if desired, but I'm not keen on it), but I think I'm to the limit of secondary sources. What more I can get from them are ACROSS's objective of city conquest, Excel's devotion to Ilpalazzo, and Hyatt's illness. And citing these would be citing third-parties for Iago's duplicity in Othello. I don't think your desired citation exists: I won't speak to pop-culture in general, but there really is very little decent material written about Excle Saga (in English at least), and next to nothing about the manga, and I think I've collected most of it. Most of what I cite focuses only on episode reviews for a given disc, mostly discussing what the reviewer felt was wrong or right, with little heed to plot. The three overall reviews are little better. Any material pertaining to characters addresses exlusively Excel herself, Ilpalazzo, and maybe Hyatt and Menchi (e.g., "Kabapu" appears only three times in all the cited articles). It's very hard to condense the decentralized plot (for an idea of why, just take a look at the episode and volume descriptions in List of Excel Saga media).--Monocrat 22:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmm. The limited number of sources poses a problem, then, but I'd rather not see it derail an article with a number of strong points (an article about a work of pop fiction actually written from a thoroughly out-of-universe perspective? Who could believe it?!). I'm a big fan of footnotes at the end of paragraphs or sections saying "much information in this paragraph/section is drawn from source X". A few of those or of some similar form of citation scattered throughout the middle section should be enough to provide a reader with basic corroboration for the article's statements. --RobthTalk 02:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I've added a general note to the end of the first paragraph of "Characters and plot." It's not exactly a citation, but the link provides broad-stroke corroboration of the section.--Monocrat 03:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, it isn't perfect, but it at least gives a reader an idea of where to look for corroboration of our statements, so I'll withdraw my objection. --RobthTalk 16:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
        • "I don't want to try and drive an unreasonable increase in standards" - this is not an increase in standards - we require this on living and medical articles now. Pop culture ones should be no different. A general reference should probably suffice though. RN 21:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—2a. There's some good in this article, but I'm uneasy about sentences such as:
"Excel Saga first began publication in Japan in the mid 1990s, serialized in Young King Ours, and as of June 2006 fifteen collected volumes have been published by Shonen Gahosha."

Why will our readers have to work hard to comprehend this? It's kind of long and contains rather too much information. Consider splitting this snake into two, or at least using a semicolon in the middle. "First began publication" jars with "have been published". Hypen required after "mid".

Can you go through and carefully weed out repetitions, e.g., "The anime, while maintaining the satire, is very much a gag-based and often self-referential comedy, often featuring ...". "Often" and "often"? And why not remove "very much"?

Then there are inefficient wordings, such as "censured the series as a whole for frequent references"—can you remove "as a whole" without damaging the meaning?

"Graphic"—unclear. Do you mean "obscene"? Violent? Our readers want accurate, useful, easy-to-read information.

"Additionally, the manga has been translated into English, French and Italian." Haven't you already been discussing the English-language version? Hate that word "Additionally".

It's savable, but a good copy-editor is required to spend an hour or two ironing it out so that we can be proud of the writing. No point in promoting this if it ends up in the FAR/FARC sausage machine in a few months' time. Tony 10:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Understanding that they are examples and that further work is needed: I think I've acted on these points. I have reworded the first to make it less snake-like; I didn't cut it because I think there's too little information for two sentences. The second "often" you note, I think, conveys some useful information, but I'll remove it if you want. "Censured the series as a whole" is meant to clearly distinguish that clause from the prior one, so I've kept it for now. I'm working on the rest of the copy, and have just given "Characters and plot" a going over.--Monocrat 14:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
A second pair of eyes will do wonders, no matter how good a writer you are. Tony 11:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I will do this if I find the time - I'm a bit short at the moment, bur I'll try to give it a pass either later tonight or on the weekend. -- grm_wnr Esc 13:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I had a first go at it, straightening out some stylistic issues that caught my eye. What do you think? -- grm_wnr Esc 16:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, come on, sofixit. personally I'd prefer an original cover... --zippedmartin 13:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no graphical skills, so I can't do anything about the artefacts. I don't like the white bars on either side of the cover on the Amazon photo, but I won't mind if somone else changes to it. Japanese covers are also available from Amazon, though I prefer the English ones in this context. Again, I won't revert.--Monocrat 21:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. -- grm_wnr Esc 23:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Joel Brand[edit]

This is the story of a man at the center of a bizarre proposal during the Holocaust: that the Western Allies should buy one million Hungarian Jews from Adolf Eichmann, the SS officer who was arranging for them to be deported to Auschwitz. It's a complex story with many different players, and the Brand story is just one aspect of it, but a central one. The sources used are regarded as the main authorities on the story. Self-nomination. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:RudolfKastner1.gif and Image:Eichmann3.jpg are missing either source or licensing information. Jkelly 01:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed the Eichmann one; it was just that the wrong link had been given, but it is definitely PD, released by the Israeli government. The Kastner one is also almost certainly PD, as he was an Israeli civil servant in the 50s, and I believe this photograph of him was released, but I can't find definite source information anywhere, so I've tagged it fair use. I can write to the Israeli government press office to ask if they know. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Do we think that the government of Israel releases all of its photography into the public domain? Jkelly 04:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, but anything connected to the Holocaust tends to be released, and Kastner was connected. He was assassinated because it was believed (wrongly, in my view) that he had collaborated with the Nazis. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there anything anywhere that we can point to in order to provide some reason behind our assertion that this image is in the public domain? Sorry about all this image stuff, I will actually give the article a thorough read-through as well. Jkelly 05:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
We have nothing at the moment, so I'm claiming fair use. I can remove it if you prefer, and in the meantime, I can write to the Israeli government press office, and I'll also take a look around on Holocaust websites to see if I can find one that's clearly labelled PD. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I've removed it until I can find out more about it, or find another one. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I suggest the lead needs expanding to tell our readers at least somthing about who Brand was apart from the deal (summarise some of the Background section) and specify something about what his role actually was. Do we know what led to him becoming either a communist or a Zionist? "Grosz, who was low level enough to provide plausible deniability for the Germans in case anything went wrong" needs citing. Is this our main article on the deal itself? Jkelly 18:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The deal and everything that happened around it is very complex and would be an enormous article that would have to branch off into examining the roles of the various players. Jayjg and I have been working on a few articles related to it e.g. apart from Joel Brand, also Rudolf Vrba, Kastner train, Rudolf Kastner, Kurt Becher. Once they're all in good shape (and a few more have to be written), we're going to try to write a summarizing article on the complexities of the deal overall. This is an issue that historians are still grappling with, and the main authorities disagree about essential points, so writing about it is like trying to wrestle with a giant octopus.
I'll try to add something to the lead that says a bit more about Brand himself. I don't know why he became a communist or Zionist, but I'll try to find out. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The reason I asked was because of the "Himmler's involvement" section. It wasn't crystal-clear to me that this section should live in Brand's biography. Jkelly 19:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that section could probably be left out. I added it because one of the issues for historians is how high-level the meeting between Brand and Eichmann was. Although Eichmann himself was senior, he was not senior enough to negotiate peace treaties with the Allies. Himmler was, with or without Hitler's knowledge. So the presence at the Brand-Eichmann meeting of three people who reported directly to Himmler (Eichmann, Kurt Becher, and Gerhard Clages) is regarded as highly significant by historians, and lends credence to the theory that the blood-for-trucks proposal was just a ploy to strike up contact between Himmler's people and Allied intelligence so that Himmler could negotiate for peace. Perhaps I could rewrite the section to make that clearer, and also shorten it, then it might not seem so out of place.
I've rewritten the intro so it says more about Brand. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jkelly; some parts of the article seem to be more about the proposal than about Brand himself. While some of the points made in these sections are relevant, they should be eliminated, and the points relevant to Mr. Brand's story included in the article, rather than giving such a detailed view of things that, while they may have affected the deal, did not directly influence Mr. Brand.

Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs

The problem with that is that Brand is known only for this. That story is his story. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment—Some fixing required throughout. Here are examples at the top.

    • Usually no spaces around an en dash for ranges (see dash).
    • "Shortly after the invasion, Brand was asked by SS officer Adolf Eichmann to help broker a deal between the SS and the United States or Britain, to secure the release of up to one million Hungarian Jews, [2] [3] who were otherwise destined for Auschwitz, in exchange for trucks, soap, tea, and coffee to be supplied to the Nazis"—A snake that needs chopping into two. And no comma after "Britain".
    • "Historians speculate as to whether Eichmann's offer was genuine; or a trick intended to pacify the Jewish community in order to prevent an uprising, so that they would quietly board the trains to Auschwitz thinking they were being resettled; or even a cover for the SS to negotiate a secret peace deal with the United States and Britain, but not the Soviet Union." It's a very long sentence, and the last little clause raises unanswered questions. Rather than breaking it up with semicolons, why not make it two sentences: "... genuine. There are suspicions that it may have been a trick ..." Is a reference required? Remove "in order" as totally redundant. Tony 00:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, done. You're right; those sentences were too long, which is why I was struggling to control them with semi-colons. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. I'm somewhat biased, of course, as I've assisted SlimVirgin on some related articles, but this one she's written pretty much by herself, and it's very good. It gives a nuanced understanding of a complex and still debated series of incidents during the war, and the life of a man who was at the center of them. The writing is clear and compelling, and with almost 200 references from over a dozen strong sources, it's one of the best referenced biography articles on Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose A good article, very informative, but there is too much information that is not directly relative to Mr. Brand. Until that changes, I oppose. Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs
    The story of the deal is Joel Brand's story. It's the reason he's notable, and the part of the deal described in this article is the Joel Brand part. There are many others. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Fascinating article. Well documented and formatted. In response to the oppose above, the peripheral details not directly related to Brand still seem to me essential to Brand's story. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 17:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. JFW | T@lk 19:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible support. Fascinating, provocative article and meticulously sourced. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support. I might say pretty much the same as Briangotts, had he not said it already. A very good article. Picaroon9288 22:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - though I think some fine-tuning might clarify what is a very bizarre and confusing story. --Leifern 20:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting article, and evidence of some very professional work on it. AnnH 16:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Richard III (1955 film)[edit]

Archive 1

Peer Review | 2

Article has been expanded, much larger than before, more depth. This article now covers everything that is known about this film, seeing as though information is scarce. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Weak ObjectSupport : though broad and well-written. It lacks in accessibility of the article (nothing links to it). Plus there are too many lists. The award section should really be dumped into another section like the reception one. Lincher 19:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, well, I've made the awards section a subsection of reception, and added a note of intrest to the "Other Awards" section, you know, just a few stats and things. As for the lists, well, the cast section is moddeled on Casablanca (film) and Revenge of the Sith, both FAs themselves. As for accesibility, you can access this article from each of the principle cast's pages, each of it's award pages, each of Olivier's other films, and from each of the pages that sort films, like 1955 in film. Any suggestions on as to where I should place new links? ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 00:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, looking at other Film articles that are FA status...this one's not too bad, considering that there are no real themes in the film, and that it's a very obscure and not well documented film. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 01:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and in terms of too many lists...there are two. Is that too many? ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Everything has been modified toward the comments. Lincher 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

How Delightful. In that case, I'll... Self-nom ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 23:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - Broad, comprehensive, covers all that is known about the film. Easy to follow. Well Done. MAGIC...POOO! 05:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Added some music, might help. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment-Not bad, but could use some citations in the direction, cinematography, and music subsections. Also, perhaps direction and cinematography could simply be merged and expanded a little under a Production section, while music could be a subsection or its own section. Tombseye 20:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Support-Hmm true enough. Casablanca is a damn good article. Okay, I have no other complaints as I was looking over the article and comparing it to Casablanca and it looks good. My other criticisms may be just subjective at this point, so I'm backing it. Hope it makes it. Tombseye 10:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Support-Great movie starring Laurence Olivier, and also a great direction. L. Olivier had plenty of Oscar Nominations, but only one award (1948). This film is someting that represents him.
  • This FAC escaped my attention, and I posted the following under the peer review. Since it is at FAC, however, I must oppose it.

Smaller sections and subsections should be merged. The sub-sectioning of "Produciton" is really uneven.

  • How in particular do you think I should fix it? Your'e pretty vague

Perhaps make the "Cast" and "Awards" sections into prose?

  • For awards, would make life difficult. Cast Based on other FA Film articles. Actually, so is awards, and there's no real problem there.

There are, as you point out only two lists, but what lists they are!

  • Cast list is large due to fact that most principle players are billed on same tier. Take it up with the ghost of Laurence Olivier

Logically, shouldn't "Awards" come before "Influence?"

  • Done

The excessive block-quotes are unnecessary and disruptive to they eye, even in scanning the page.

  • Done

The long introductory quote in the "Plot summary" has got to go, or be significantly condensed.

  • Done

--Monocrat 22:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still unsure as to the value of the introductory quote. Perhaps it can just be rewritten?
  • That would defeat the purpose of it. It's an abridged (now) version of the prologue text, which gives good context to the story

Regarding the listy awards section: the subsection headings are unnecessary for such brief discussions, and there's no need to have Olivier's Best Actor nom as its own bullet, which is duplicated in the following text. You could also move the text at the end up, merging it with the Best Actor nom, then following with "Other awards and nominations include:". Considering that most of the awards were won by Olivier, I doubt it would be exceptionally difficult to make that section completely into prose.

  • Done...sort of. Prose just isn't wise for Awards.

And I don't really care how Olivier billed them or how many you include, what is wrong with a simple table with the characters, actors, and maybe how they relate to other characters.

  • It doesn't conform with other FAs. Besides, it's messy, and you can't fit in as much info. This film doesn't have character relations, it's about one guy killing everyone to get the crown. Sort of a lite Macbeth.

I would prefer that discussion of what Olivier wanted from actors, and follow-ups (like for Paul Hudson) to take place in a paragraph, not in a list or table.

  • Once again, conforming with other FAs.

I just don't like the subsectioning in "Production." "Adapting the play" could arguably be moved to the section's lead, and paragraphs 2, 3, and 5 could be reorganized into "Casting and filming" or some such.

  • Done

Furthermore, there are a host of problems with the copy, mechanically and stylistically, keeping it from being "compelling:" e.g., "The cast was entirely made up of British Actors. All of the actors were on the same billing tier in the film, though in reality, Olivier has the lead role;" "Otto Heller did the cinematography for the film." There's more, but it's midnight here, my mind's getting foggy, and I have a busy day tomorrow. Sorry to cop out like this, but I might be back.--Monocrat 03:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Done until you cite more examples.
I can't believe I missed this: per the MOS, if you link to an article in the text, don't put it in "See also."
  • Done

What's worse, there's a link to Cast and Crew of Richard III, which quite nicely lists everyone. There's now no reason to list the whole cast in the main article, unless you want to change the Cast article to a redirect.

  • Whole cast is not listed in main article, only stars. I know, it's confusing, due to the large amount of actors given top billing in the film, but if you look a bit harder, the complete cast and crew lists a lot more people than the main article.

In which case, the above comments stand.

  • Most have been adressed

Otherwise, simply summarize the most important roles and actors, and use Template:Main. That frees up space for discussion of character relations and the rest.--Monocrat 04:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • That other article is meant to be a bare bones reference, with complete listing. Not meant to have descriptions and other such stuff.
You cite ealier FAs. In response I'll say that Casablanca was FA'ed almost two years ago, and the more recent V for Vendetta, Ran, Tenebrae, November, and even Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith simply blow this article out of the water in terms of formatting, and possibly content insofar as they are comparable.
  • Getting this article to this point has been a mammoth task, due to the fact that it's a poorly documented film, in that, there are no making-of books, no press coverage, no interviews, so length wise it's always going to look skimpy next to the other films you mentioned.
  • Apart from blaming it on Olivier's ghost, give me a compelling reason why we need bits like "Lately adherent to the Houes of York" breaking up the flow of the list of cast? I don't see why you can't do "Cast" like Ran (film): doing so would fit summary style, and would surpass Characters in Ran. Nevertheless, character/cast lists do seem common practice for film FAs, but the formatting needs work.

That's the way that the cast is mentioned in the film. Why don't I do it like Ran? Quite frankly, I hate what they've done for that section of Ran. I want to find out who's in the film, and quick, and that certainly doesn't help. What I've done is also akin to Revenge of the Sith, the exception being that Sith gives a description of the character, rather than the star. Which is useless in my case. And possible on Sith too.

  • Why is prose unwise for awards? I really don't get it, but if there's been substantial debate about the issue, I'll withdraw the point. Also, is it necessary to have the list of awards above what prose there is?

Why are lists unwise for awards? I don't get it! The information is there, and it's easy to access at a glance, once again, unlike Ran.

  • What I meant by "relations" is stuff like whether the character was a son/adherent of Edward IV or what have you.
  • Well....that is already stated.

I also think that the critical reception could use more material and citations.

  • Reception? The things got about 5 reviews on rt.com, most of which are commenting on how well Criterion did with the DVD. I don't see what I could add there without making stuff up, honestly.
  • Regarding the copy: there are too many instances to fully list here. Broadly, clean up the text in and around your citations (unles I'm wrong, they should be flush to the text employing them);
  • resolved

work on capitalization;

  • well...apart from the prologue text...it's fine, isn't it? And the Prologue text may have some bad grammar because it is a direct copy from the film's opening. DIRECT.

Template:Details if not Template:Main should be used to note "Cast..."

  • Done

These take care of the major mechanical problems, but the stylistic one remain: Consider the entries for Hardwicke, Gielguld, and Olivier in "Cast:" There are uncited assertions of fact and (e.g., Olivier's interpretation of Richard) and interpretations ("can be interpreted as a combination of Olivier's quest for an all-star cast..."), and the prose is plain at best.

Done for Gielgud, and Olivier, but Hardwicke? What's wrong with that? Why would I cite that he came to Hollywood and did supporting roles? That's like citing that the Dinosaurs are extinct
  • Re "Criterion": surely there have been other video releases. I don't see the harm in simply mentioning them.
  • Done.

Secondly, Criterion provides you with the commentary track the documentary —prime secondary sources—but I don't see any citation of either.

  • Because, to my shame, I don't own the Criterion version. Yet. But the commentary is only for insight on the play, not really into the production of the film. According to Criteion.

If you have access to a library database, see what JSTOR and the linke can pull up for film criticism.

  • No dice in that department. As I said, few documentations, review or otherwise, survive.
  • Looking at the more recent FAs, I notice that there's no section on themes. The article on the play seems rather wimpy, so I don't know what to suggest in that department. I understand that it's about a guy who kills for power, but surely Shakespeare and hence Olivier dealt with more than that.
  • Suprisingly, no, this film doesn't really have any themes, which would go against the grain of Shakespeare. Perhaps the bard put in some themes, but Olivier's film is really just for entertainment. It's really just watching a guy pulling of some nefarious plots, and reaping the rewards. I know that description doesn't really do the film justice, it's a great film, but it's not an especially deep and thoughtful film.

--Monocrat 12:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's really hard to tell where my comments end and yours begin! :) One, I don't really about Olivier's preferences on the presentation. The list now is unattractive and disruptive to a reading of the article. I don't see anything to prevent you from adopting and modifying the style of Revenge of the Sith.
  • It's a list, just like Revenge of the Sith, however, it is divided up into who's who, and instead gives a short note of interest for each actor. It's not that different from ROTS. I based this thing on Casablanca, and wether or not it was an FA long ago or recently, it's still one of the best FA film articles around.

Two, you're the one who initially said that prose doesn't work for the awards, and I asked why. I feel that prose would be better, especially since most of the nominations and awards are Olivier's.

  • Done. The things I do for a "support".

Three, I disagree as to the availability of online reviews. Google Scholar came up with two promising articles from JSTOR alone when searching for ""richard III" olivier": C.A. Brown (Film Quarterly, summer 1967) and S.P. Cerasano (Shakespeare Quarterly, 1985).

  • That's amusing, due to the fact that one of the articles you mention states that there's not too much critical material available on the film. At any rate, I don't have access to JSTOR from my current location, so it only gives me the first page. I personally can't do it.

All of this said, we seem to be at loggerheads about a good many points. :) --Monocrat 03:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if my comments were long-winded for your tastes. I hope you stick to the cleaner discussion format. In any case, while this is not the Simple English Wikipedia, this project is aimed at a generalist readership, mixing cineasts, Shakespeareans, academics, rednecks, dropouts, and schoolchildren. I don't have a problem with large words per se, but there seems no encyclopedic value to either employing Olivier's format, nor does there seem much reason to needlessly alienate sections of the readership for whom the article would be most beneficial as an introduction. And as for nitpicky reasons to oppose, scroll down to see what Tony and TigranTheGreat put Azerbaijani people through. Regarding research and JSTOR, I suggest you contact an editor with access or that you find some method of access. Sources are there. --Monocrat 14:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's gone through a bit of re-tooling now. I'm making a stand on the Cast thing, but I've given in, as you shall see, on all the other points. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 04:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I has improved, but not to where I can support it. Things like "The King" and "His brothers" really should be in the bulletted text. However, I'll remove my objection in consideration of your efforts. Good luck. :) --Monocrat 04:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The article needs to be copyedited and polished up. Try to get an experienced copyediter to go over it for you.
  2. The Cast and Crew of Richard III (1955 film), what encyclopedic value does this article provide, that an IMDB link wouldn't? (I don't think there is an awful lot).
  3. The reception and criticism section is a little weird. There is a 100% tomatoes rating, yet there is mostly negative comments against the film. (You may want to consider merging those two sections as well).
  4. "It is the most famous adaptation of the play, though in recent times another popular adaptation has been produced, starring Ian McKellen." I know this is nitpicky, but is the Ian McKellen one actually popular?
  5. "Lately adherent to the House of York" Do you have to use the term "Lately adherant"? It's a little cumbersome and I think it would be a bit of a speedbump for some readers.

--P-Chan 06:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) (Please be neat when replying to my comments. The conversation you had with Monocrat is very hard to follow).

I'll be neater in response, becuase you are neater in statement.

  1. I don't think that it's really that bad, but do you know any good copyediters?
  2. Well, It's neater than IMDb, and it gives links to the actual historical figures.
  3. Yes, it has a 100% tomatoes rating, however, as I stated in my comments with Monocrat, Critical reception on this film is not well documented. Anyway, the major praise of the film seems to be directed at Olivier's performance, which I've now mentioned. The two sections are now merged.
  4. The McKellen version is the only other prominent adaptataion. Its fairly popular yes, certainly not in comparison to and Hollywood blockbusters, no, but in it's own right, yes.
  5. That's actually the wording from the film. If they don't know what it means, well, there going to learn, aren't they, therefore expanding their knowledge, and then the encyclopedia has fulfilled it's task: It's taught someone something new. Plus, this isn't the simple english Wikipedia.

....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 07:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are fairly nit-picky reasons to oppose. Oh well. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 11:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to the FA process!! :)--P-Chan 03:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. Try here: Wikipedia:Cleanup (submit early, as it takes a while to get any results!). For a do-it-yourself try here: User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_2a. Of course, you could just ask something you know who has contributed at an FA level. But you know, the article is so short that it should be easy to fix everything quickly.
  2. I'm sure people had some nice things to say about the film itself outside of Oliver.
  3. Yeah it's neater I'll give you that... but stuff like "Jack Curran - Horse Master" may be better for just the IMDB, as it really seems unnecessary to have an article dedicated to listing every single role. Besides you already captured all of the notable elements in the cast section of the main article.
  4. I think your response just highlighted why it may not be appropriate. (It sounds a little bit on the original research side.) "Notable" is a little more neutral, so let's try that.
  5. Dude. That's like... totally poppycock.  :) The articles should be written in a way that is clear and accessible. Maybe just "House of York" would be more appropriate?

In any case, don't take the criticism that harshly. Yes, it's nitpicky, but you know when advice gets to this micro-stage, it probably means that all the really major probelms have already been taken care of!--P-Chan 04:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice.
  1. I've got someone on it, I don't trust my grammatical skills, as highly lauded as they are by English teacher, enough.
  2. Actually, Olivier's performance is so damn good that that's all the crtical praise it needs to be a success. The film, pretty much, is Olivier. If you see the film, you'll know what I mean.
  3. Well, if that article is innapropriate, that's too bad. It's not up for FA at any rate, so if it gets deleted, that's too bad. I just thought it might be useful. It can go, and it won't be missed.
  4. Fine. Done. Hang on...yes...it has been done. Nice.
  5. Well, I've added a little (Members of) into it, for those who find it hard to grapple with "Lately Adherent". Oh, wait. Also done.

And yes, that was poppycock. Sorry. At any rate, it seems that in the 2 days that I've been away, the article has gone under quite a bit of polishing. Nice. Thanks, P-Chan, for being someone who opposes, but also helps out. Thou art truly a prince amongst...Wikipedians. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 04:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Support: It still has some minor copyediting and format issues, but at this point, I can't seem to think of anything major that would sink this FA. Thefourdotelipsis, I encourage you to still get your friend to copyedit this article. But right now, it's ok.--P-Chan 00:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
HEY PEOPLE! CONSENSUS HAS BEEN REACHED ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 03:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Support: Image:Flo-dali.jpg is cutting a paragraph of text in half. I tried to rearrange the image so this didn't happen but failed miserably :) Any chance you can fix this up please? Cheers --darkliight[πalk] 12:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 03:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou
  • Object—2a. Here are examples.
    • "It is the most famous adaptation of the play, though in 1995 another notable adaptation by the same name had been produced, starring Sir Ian McKellen." Strictly speaking, "though" should introduce a contradiction with the previous statement. I'm not sure this is the case here. And I wonder whether there's a POV problem here, in the absence of references. Is this relative fame just a matter of opinion? <--- This has been addressed, as it now corresponds to a later quote in the body.--P-Chan 03:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "Out of the three Shakespeare films directed by Olivier, Richard III garnered the least critical praise. It is also the only film out of the three not to have been nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, though Olivier's performance was nominated. In later years, the film gained popularity and, through a re-release in 1966, it is the highest grossing of Olivier's three Shakespeare films." Remove both occurrences of "out". Do you like "Shakespeare films"? Isn't there a better wording? "Garnered" implies too active a role; what you want is "received". Olivier's performance refers to his acting, I suppose, not his direction; it's not crystal clear. "It is the highest grossing"—should present tense be used? <--- The problems have been addressed. --P-Chan 02:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "Richard's evil eventually leads to his downfall." Spot the redundant word. <--- Fixed.--P-Chan 02:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "The prologue of the film states that history without its legends would be "a dry matter indeed", so the film does indeed admit that it is not portraying the actual events of the time, rather it is portraying and adapting the legend." Why "indeed" twice in six words? The word is not encyclopedic (OK in quotes, of course). A semicolon after "time" is required to make the sentence grammatical.<--- This has been addressed.--P-Chan 02:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thorough surgery required throughout before considering nomination for FA. Let me know if you want other examples, but you shouldn't need further evidence of the need to find another WPian to assist—preferably one who's distant from the text. Tony 09:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. It's relative fame. What can one cite for such a thing?
  2. Present tense should be used, I suppose, because all films are suceptible to a re-release that may alter their gross. Altered "Garnered", Put "performance" in context, altered to "Shakespearean films", removed "out" twice.
  3. Spotted and removed
  4. Fixed

More examples, please. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 10:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • You ask for more examples. OK, a few, but reviewers here are under no obligation to show you how to fix an entire article. Our function, in relation to Criterion 2a, is to provide sufficient examples of the density of problems in the writing to show that either (1) it should not be promoted, or (2) you should network, and fast, to find copy-editors to assist you. First place to look is similar articles (look at the history pages for good editors). I have a secret list of good editors, but I won't share it; you should be compiling one too.

I'm picking out bits at random to show you that the whole text needs thorough treatment. The problems are everywhere, I'm afraid.

    • "The result was that the film was released in cinemas and on television simultaneously, which in turn resulted in a poor box-office gross." Why not: "Consequently, the film was simultaneously released in cinemas and on television, which resulted in poor box-office returns." Now, this is partly a matter of style, but let's face it, "compelling, even brilliant" prose has to have style. In the end, style can be reduced to technical matters. You need to get better at them, but this won't happen suddenly.
    • "added an extra element"—sure this isn't excessive? (Can we do without "extra"?)
    • "After obtaining both John Gielgud and Cedric Hardwicke,"—"engaging"?
    • "in order to film"—spot the two redundant words.
    • "Olivier took several sittings for the famed painter Salvador Dali, to have a portrait painted." Unclear and awkward.

So, finding collaborators who are interested in this topic is your immediate goal. Fortunately, WP makes it easy for you to identify them; express knowledge of and interest in their work, and they're more likely to be flattered into helping. Tony 10:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Altered, as per request
  • Yes, we can, and will
  • Done
  • Spotted and removed
  • Changed ever so slightly

I know you're under no obligation to spot more problems, but you did say I should let you know if I needed more. I will find more WPians per your request. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 22:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Several Copyediters are now polishing the article like crazy. Your objections have been adressed. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 23:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
No they haven't! We've just started!  :) --P-Chan 23:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
That scares me. But, to tell the truth, it's in pretty good shape. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 03:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
It shouldn't, as this is totally normal stuff. Anyways, I've left a set of questions on the article talk that you might want to look at. They aren't objections, but questions.--P-Chan 04:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I should say that I highly encourage you to answer the questions on the talk. The reference checking has not been too fun, as I'm finding factual errors, which is bad. It's ok for now, as long as you answer the questions on the article talk.--P-Chan 07:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Questions have been answered. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 22:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess when I said "mission accomplished" earlier... I must have spoke too soon. Right now, all the problems that have been explicitly identified by Tony, have been addressed. I'm certain, more copyediting can be done, but, I believe, the major issues have been dealt with. In terms of the issues with accuracy in sourcing, I'll just say that I found some errors and fixed them. Are there anymore comments or objections?--P-Chan 07:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Support - So much effort went into bringing the article to the current state. All the minor and major corrections have been addressed. Lincher 12:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Weak Object for now; Support
  • contains an impressive set of cast members is POV
  • until he had to sell it to pay for his children's school fees. cite this
  • What dates/how long was filming for?
  • The rest looks prettty good, though minor things need to be fixed up, such as Laurence Olivier being wikified at least six times.Cvene64 02:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman[edit]

Hi all - I request your support in making this article featured. I'd just like to clarify a few points for ya - (1) The Awami League is a major political party, and data from its site have been used with extreme care to avoid importing POV, and has been cross-verified. Alternate sources include Banglapedia and JSTOR research papers, all of which are directly accessible. Special thanks to Ragib. This Fire Burns.....Always 17:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong support: Mujib was the leader of Bangladesh, the founding father. The article is well-written in a summary form. I do have one comment: Sheikh Mujibur Rahman is invariably known as Mujib, but the article refers to him using his last name. It is true that western culture uses the last name, but this person is referred in short using "Mujib" or "Sheikh Mujib" only. I'm not sure what to do in this case, but last names are not necessarily used to identify/refer to a person in Bangladesh. (Same goes for Ziaur Rahman, and Sheikh Hasina Wajed). Other than that, the article is a well-written bio. --Ragib 17:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes I too was conscious of that factor, although I don't think its an error to refer to him as Rahman, so I won't do anything unless someone elese thinks I should. This Fire Burns.....Always 17:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment – use dashes (&ndash;) instead of hypens. "15 August" needs to be wikified, remove instances of bold text from the body. Use "" or italics instead. Expand on "serestadar" within the sentence so as not to click on it to gain the meaning. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I've addressed your points. This Fire Burns.....Always 20:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not sure the picture of the stamp (Image:MRahmanstamp.jpg) qualifies as fair use in this article. No explicit rationale is given for this article, and according to the template - "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)" - the picture seems to be used to because of the stamp's design, as opposed to the stamp itself. Pepsidrinka 22:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I believe it qualifies as Fair use because we are illustrating the stamp in question, not Mujib. There are so many better pictures of Mujib, that we don't need the stamp except to demonstrate how he is commemorated through the stamp. I'll add this to the FU rationale. Please lemme know if you think a problem still exists. This Fire Burns.....Always 22:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Spasage 06:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object -- Marvelous work done by the editors. If this seems contradictory, it is because the topic is controvertial and sprawling. There are numerous small problems, some of which I mention below, But first to my broad concerns. Much of the article was written very recently, and hence hasn't really stabilized. For a controversial topic like this, it does not have that war-worn conviction of having gone through enough debates. A certain sense of historical continuity is missing, though the historical facts are aptly represented. A previous peer review elicidated precise little (I take full blame of not have given my input then). Though there are lot of references, more are needed, and there is a over reliance on Awami League website. Here are a few more details/questions/comments:
  1. Lead: Bangabandhu -- is it not Friend of Bengal?
  2. Early life: Sheikh Mujib was not central in Language movement -- or atleast this is a debated issue. Wikilink to language movement needed. The sentences are repatitive. And this issue is repeated again later. Also, Wasn't it Jinnah who declared "Urdu and only urdu...." etc?
  3. Early political career: What was his initial take on Pakistan? this point is not clear. Transition from Awami Muslim to Awami is crucial as a step towards secularism, not mentioned
  4. Leader of East Pakistan: Is the way "11-point plan," represented correct? I see no referece, memory tells me that it was a student thing not necessarily associated with Awami League/Mujib. Good description about Mujib's bengali nationalism as seen as separatist. But there is a more profound point here -- his comments were declaring 2 nation theory defunct.
  5. 1970 elections: Race Course Stadium -- i don't think it is/was a "stadium", its a ground. "The struggle now is the struggle for our emancipation" -- the date 7th march should be mentioned. Why is there not a single link to Bangladesh Liberation War article? Status of his family important - Kamal in war, others under house arrest.
  6. Tajuddin not mentioned at all, absolutely crucial.
  7. When was a given the sobriqet Bangabandhu? When did Joy Bangla become the solgan of the Benaglis?

--ppm 15:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Response Hi - please study my response, because some of your points are incorrect. Of course, I'll address the rest.

  1. Bangabandhu: OK, I'll make the correction; also reference to its origin.
  2. Language Movement: Jinnah declared in 1947 on his first trip to Dhaka. The Language Movement was sparked when Khwaja Nazimuddin affirmed that intention in 1948 and again in 1951.
  3. Pakistan Mujib worked for Pakistan movement; he was a student leader of the Bengal Muslim League. Will make that clearer. Although I don't think the party's name change was really a symbol for secularism, I'll also add that point.
  4. 11 Point Plan it was during his incarceration from 1966-69 that other parties added 5 more points to his 6. It was a major platform during the talks in Islamabad. I'll add the ref to 2-nation theory.
  5. 1970 election - all valid points.
  6. Tajuddin - valid.

This Fire Burns.....Always 18:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see this - I've addressed most of your points. This Fire Burns.....Always 18:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. With just a brief overview, I've noticed a certain lack of references for such a controversial topic. Apart from that, I'll look over it more minutely. If I forget, please remind me :) --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 19:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Object.Comment I've done some copyediting, but:
  • In 1951, Rahman began organising protests and rallies in response to the killing, by the police, of students who were protesting against the declaration of Urdu as the sole national language, in a period of turmoil which later became to be known as the Language movement, for which he was briefly arrested. - grammatically doesn't seem right, maybe a split into 2 sentences.
  • The party had dropped the word "Muslim" from its name, in a move seen as a shift towards secularism. --- He was arrested two weeks before the election in a move believed to thwart him from mobilising voters. --- the move was seen as a betrayal of the causes of civil rights and freedom upon which Bangladesh was founded. There are other uses of weasel terms. Please either state who believed/saw, or remove.
  • In doing so, he dismissed Tajuddin Ahmed following a controversial political dispute that had occurred during Rahman's incarceration. - what dispute?
  • The "Criticism and legacy" section has serious OR, and subsequently POV, problems
  • There were many instances of would form, would remain instead of formed, remained, and other such grammatical instances. I may have missed a few of them, despite using a fine-toothed comb, so you should look it over
  • The all too-obvious problem of references.
I don't think this article can become FA till Ragib gets the book back and uses it for citing the article. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Reply We've had to do the best we could from web references - don't have a good book about Mujib or the subject for precise citations. Ragib used a book he had for inputting a lot of the data, but he doesn't have it now for citations. I checked in Amazon, and only 1-2 titles popped up. I obtained many research papers from Google Scholar, so we've done all that we could in making the references thorough. This Fire Burns.....Always 19:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I didn't manage to find the book in my univ's library or others nearby. So, I guess we'd have to do with the web references, and other stuff. There are other sources, for example, documentation from library of congress country studies which may also be useful here. I truly regret I don't have Mascarenhaas' book now ... it is a very detailed study of 1972-1975 period up to Mujib's assassination. Perhaps when I visit home this winter, I can grab the book from my father's collection and add to the article, but until then, the facts can be referred/cited from other sources, something Rama's arrow has been doing very well. --Ragib 20:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
While reading through the article, I was met with a dozen instances where a fact was unreferenced, and even though I won't oppose on the basis of this, neither will I support faced with this lack.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The info on 11 points on [10] suggests that something between what I said and is in the article is true. It WAS a student thing, but the Awami student league was involved as well as other parties--ppm 22:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll make the correction. This Fire Burns.....Always 22:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wonderful article on an important subject. But, it needs some copyedit before I give a strong support.
    • Use Commonwealth English. I've fixed many deviations in the first few sections.
    • I somewhat felt a paucity of wikilinks and/or insufficient context when it came to his political career. For example, "Despite Suhrawardy's inclination to build a larger coalition of East Pakistani and socialist parties, Rahman succeeded in expanding the organization of the League." There's not enough substantiation for the use of "despite." How does the expansion of the League contradict with Suhrawardy's inclination?
  • I've done some copyedit, will try to find some time going through the remaining sections. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support have you considered a side note on his failed negotiations with other West Pakistani Opposition parties like the National Awami Party(Wali). I think he should also be included as a Pakistani politician at least category wise. If you look at it he was a Pakistani politician for longer than he was a Bengali one. Otherwise quite a comprehensive article. Also Bhutto later on said he meant he'd break his opponents political legs. --Zak 19:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes there is a brief sentence which describes how he worked with other parties in opposition to Ayub Khan. Yes I agree that he should also be described as a Pakistani politician. This Fire Burns.....Always 19:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Support Not nearly enough citations. I'm not going to list all of the statements that need backup, but the Criticism and Legacy segment is a good example. It has four citations, out of order, for a segment that quite clearly requires at least 10-15. Users corrected lack of citations, seems good to me now. Tdslappy
Hi - first off, citations aren't a requirement. Secondly, citations are included for every fact that is in this article - there are more than 50 overall citations. Everything is verifiable. There need not be a citation at the end of every sentence or two, to have a credible article. This Fire Burns.....Always 17:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
First, the citations need to be in order. Second, a statement such as the following must be sourced:
"Some historians and scholars, especially in Pakistan theorize that Rahman maximized the sectional gulf to consolidate his support, through a continual refusal to compromise over his 6-point plan and power-sharing with Bhutto."
It would be the same as a statement "Some people theorize that George W. Bush is a space monkey." The general rule is if it is not unequivocally known (i.e. Italy won the 2006 World Cup), it must be cited. Criticisms must fall into that role, because otherwise it falls into the weasel phrase problem.
Hi - I've just added a bunch of refs from an online book source for the "Criticism" section. Please take a look. Also, the "order" of citations is correct - the "a,b,c" notation system is used for multiple citations from one source. This Fire Burns.....Always 18:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object as above. Plus I am uneasy about the title. Sheikh is certainly a honorary prefix, not his real name. Please redirect the article to Mujibur Rahman. Anwar 14:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear Anwar Saadat, just to clarify this, "Sheikh" is NOT a prefix, rather a part of his name. His daughter's name is "Sheikh Hasina". May be "Sheikh" is a prefix in some other persons, but in this case, this is a part of the name. Thank you. --Ragib 15:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support well-crafted page.Bakaman 00:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands[edit]

I respectfully submit this article on a naval battle from World War II for Featured Article consideration. The article has been through a peer review and is currently assessed at "A-Class" on the WikiProject military history quality assessement scale. The article was also reviewed under the guidelines at WP:WTA. A self-nomination with valuable input from Wwoods. Cla68 12:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, excellent article in every respect. Kirill Lokshin 12:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, almost the entire article seems to be referenced from one book (Hammel). I can't tell if that's a good or bad thing. (By the way, can you move up the first reference to Hammel? It took me a long time to find it, since subsequent references to it are listed before the main entry.) By the way, I believe Notes belongs above References? Sandy 13:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The citation numbers (by author) are: Hammel- 35, Frank- 26, Hara- 6, Parshall- 3, and McGee- 2. Although the Hammel and Frank sources are used the most, the sections with the most subjective information- the Background and Aftermath sections, use more than just those two books as sources. The Hammel and Frank books are strong on the chronological details of the battle as well as the numbers of assets involved and damaged or destroyed. Those two books also use several of the other books in the article's references list (Dull, Morison, and Stafford) among their primary sources. What do you mean by "move up the first reference to Hammel?" Cla68 14:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll go move it up for you: easier to do it myself than write out the explanation :-) Sandy 14:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Support significant objections addressed. Sandy 22:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A great article! Only thing: reference notes should go above references, not below. :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I moved the notes up above the references. Cla68 14:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support nice job from the MilHist Project as usual. Rlevse 14:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I added a source to the image file that confirms the photo is US government/public domain. Cla68 15:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • After reviewing the Wikipedia guidelines on lead sections for articles, I can see that an argument can be made that the intro should be longer for an article of this size, although I believe the lead met the standards of description, explanation, and overview that are required of a lead section, and are more important than the lead's length. Nevertheless, I went ahead and made the intro three paragraphs long by adding additional details. I believe it now unambiguously meets the guidelines. Cla68 18:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Mr. Cla68, you know you are talking to a suspected sockpuppet of the famed Willy on Wheels--The real Kitia 22:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't realize that I needed to check each comment on the FAC forum before responding to make sure it's not a suspected sock puppet in a contrary mood. Cla68 23:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A bit unusual for Willy to branch out into commenting on FACs, no? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 04:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there any further action that we should take on this "Oppose" vote since there are questions as to its validity? Cla68 12:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't bother with it, myself. (In any case, even if the comment were to be considered valid to begin with, I think the lead has been sufficiently lengthened now to render it moot.) Kirill Lokshin 15:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This article could probably do with more sub-headings in the section covering the carrier action on October 26. --Nick Dowling 12:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I added another sub-heading to break-up the long section that was under, "Carrier action on October 26." Cla68 13:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

T-34[edit]

Self-nomination: this article is about an important piece of military equipment which helped win the Second World War and influenced the design of tanks to this day. The article meets the criteria for FA, is quite stable, has undergone peer review, and been named a good article. Michael Z. 2006-07-04 23:03 Z

  • Support Balcer 23:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object on a few minor points:
  • The "See also" section should be eliminated. I think most (all?) of the terms are already mentioned in the article text, so this shouldn't be too difficult.
  • "World War II", "World War 2", and "Second World War" are all generally used terms, but I'm pretty sure that "World War Two" isn't.
  • Some of the epigraphs—in particular the Stalin quote—are of questionable provenance. They all need to be correctly cited, in any case.
And a more major one: the article is rather sparsely cited. Even allowing that citations have been given at the ends of paragraphs for everything contained there, this leaves entire sections without a single inline citation. In many cases, the uncited material is at a level of detail which really must be cited:
  • "...with some drivers reporting that their optics were so bad they kept their hatch open slightly even in combat."
  • "German commanders usually operated "heads-up", with the seat raised and having a full field of view, unless taking fire."
  • "At the outset of the war, only about five percent of all Soviet tanks were T-34 variants; this increased to fifty or sixty percent by mid-1943 and was even higher by the war's end."
  • And so forth.
This should be fixed before the article can be considered to be of featured quality. Kirill Lokshin 23:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Responding to some comments, more to follow later:
  1. See also: I've worked a couple of the links into the text. Remaining are links to two reference lists, and Vickers Tank Periscope MK.IV—the last could be worked into a new, detailed section about changing tank equipment, but is too specific to simply add. (Is a "see also" section just bad style, or is it prohibited for FA articles?)
  2. "Second World War 2/II/Two": "World War Two" shows up in Google more than "World War 2", and it is used in book titles and the BBC's web site. In my experience, spelled-out simple figures read better in running text than numerals, in terms of writing style and typography. I'll have another look at the article, and ensure that the usage is consistent and sensible. [Update: changed all occurrences of "World War Two"/"WWII" to "Second World War" or "World War II", except in quotations or titles. Michael Z. 2006-07-06 16:18 Z]
  3. Epigraphs:
    • Removed the unsupported "anonymous German soldier" quote.
    • Variations on "Quantity has a quality all its own" are very widely quoted in serious literature, usually but not always attributed to Stalin, but I don't think a verifiable original citation exists. I think it's common enough that it reflects a western view of Soviet industry, relevant to our view of the T-34's success. See also q:Joseph Stalin#Unsourced.
  4. References: added a number of references; important ones still MIA are listed at talk:T-34#Drive for Featured Article quality. [update: I think we've addressed all of the outstanding references; please let me know what still needs attention Michael Z. 2006-07-13 17:23 Z]
Thanks for the comments and support, everyone. Michael Z. 2006-07-06 00:12 Z [updated 2006-07-08 07:32 Z]
It's looking much better now. As far as the remaining see-also links are concerned, any chance of putting them in particular sections with {{further}}? It's not much different, but at least it eliminates that ugly not-quite-section at the bottom. Kirill Lokshin 07:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've moved the links to lists to the bottom of the appropriate article section, and removed the periscope link altogether. It can show up again in this article or in T-34 variants when someone writes in more detail about technical changes to the tank (that model periscope was standardized towards the end of WWII). Michael Z. 2006-07-08 16:06 Z
Support now that the citation has been brought up to par. Kirill Lokshin 17:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support as I promised in PR. Agree with Kirill (the more citations, the better). One comment comes to mind: how do we determine the notability of factories? The 'Establishing and maintaining production' section has quite a few red links. Also, consider copying the quotes to Wikiquote (and adding more there).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for no inline citation, a see also section, and the list of the tank models that should be converted to a table with split-off stubs for details on the models. It can be fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    There are inline citations (in the form of Harvard references), actually; just not enough of them. I disagree with you on the stub issue, though; unless there's some substantial amount of text to be written for the various models (and I don't really think there is), it's not a good idea to break out stubs for them. Permanent stubs are not exactly the most desirable of outcomes here. Kirill Lokshin 01:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think the production models deserve separate articles: the Soviets mostly treated them as a single tank model for purposes of maintenance and resupply, and any particular tank could be found in the field with features from several "models" after a repair or overhaul. However, see the article T-34 variants for a much more exhaustive list. If the individual model descriptions need to grow somewhat, I'd rather turn each one into a paragraph starting with a bold model name, rather than clutter the article with more tables. A separate article could be used to present a very detailed table of data for all models (along the lines of Comparison of early World War II tanks). Michael Z. 2006-07-06 00:20 Z
  • All right, support as it is very well written, but please use inline citation in the future as it makes source checking oh-so-much easier. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support Support - Good work on the article!

but a few things need to be fixed:

    • there are not enough inline citations
    • in the Combat effectiveness section there are a few, two setence paragraphs, maybe they could be blended together?

-- Underneath-it-All 04:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've had a look, and these short paragraphs each addresses a separate point (although I broke a different too-long paragaph in two). I think they should remain as is. Michael Z. 2006-07-08 07:04 Z
  • Weak oppose as per Piotrus, Staxringold and Kirill. Fix the issues raised and I'll be happy to change to support. Also, don't get rid of the quotes, I must say I like'em :) //Halibutt 07:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - good article. Useful for me as an example of a good ru-tech article. --jno 15:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - great article on the history of the Soviet Union. --GoOdCoNtEnT 16:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support providing red links are stubbed or removed. - FrancisTyers · 18:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment -- I don't think redlinks are at all mentioned in the FA specs... Themillofkeytone 15:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- Informative and well-written. Themillofkeytone 15:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support without a doubt. A major project by MichaelZ handled brilliantly. Well worth its 24 hours on the mainpage. --Irpen 06:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Very good article indeed. Afonso Silva 18:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support Looks good but article lacks inline citations so that people can have quick reference to it. The famous quotes are exceptionally notable.--MarshallBagramyan 18:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - In-depth and multifaceted.--Riurik 18:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. —dima/// 03:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Mauna Loa[edit]

Earth's biggest volcano. I've more or less re-written this from scratch over the last couple of weeks and hope it is now good enough to be considered for featured status. Worldtraveller 22:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support Very nicely done. Rlevse 12:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Comprehenseive coverage, though some phrasing, such as "Hawaiian volcanism..." could be rephrased in a less technical way. -Fsotrain09 18:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Authoritive, nicely done. It could use some citations in the Observatories section. Bibliomaniac15 21:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Introduction is too short and the sentence structures vary too much. Also, 11 inlines aren't too many. Fishboy 05:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Three paragraphs is the norm per WP:MOS, is it not? -Fsotrain09 05:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comment, Fishboy. I can't honestly see what else the lead needs, particularly now that ALoan has added a couple of sentences. I'm also very sure that 11 references is enough - unless you spotted facts that aren't cited? Worldtraveller 22:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support and welcome back Worldtraveller. Up to your usual standard. I have done a light copyedit, and added a couple of sentences to the lead. 11 footnoted reference (several used more than once) is just enough, neither too many nor too few (although there is an undersandable dependence on the HCV and HVO - perhaps some of the authoritative external links - USGS, MLSO, MLO, NOAA - are reference too?) The lead section is perfect - concise but packed with information introducing the topic. What more would Fishboy like to see mentioned? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much for the comment and copyedit! I did find myself relying on the HVO for a lot of references - I'll see if I can cite some of them to alternative sources, published papers and the like. Worldtraveller 22:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for now. Article needs a copyedit by someone unfamiliar with the text. I made some light copyediting mmyself but it needs a heavier dose. Also, references should be properly formatted, see {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}}, and Wikipedia:Footnotes. Joelito (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • That is odd - you copyedited yesterday (18:38, 6 July 2006) and I had a further go today (13:45, 7 July 2006) - but I managed to support before you objected - see immediately above! Is it better yet? If not, what is wrong? Anyway, when did a specific style of footnote or citation format become required? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your copyedit, Joelr31. Could you give an example or two of what sort of thing needs work? Worldtraveller 22:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I have removed my copyedit concerns but please format the footnotes/references. Joelito (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Comments
    1. Age of rock < 200 Kyr (infobox) What is that supposed to mean: Kiloyear?
    2. On the southern flank of Mauna Loa lies Kilauea. Sentence ends abruptly. The entire first para needs to flow better.
    3. only one person has died due to volcanic activity – could the exact cause of death be mentioned?
    4. 0.25-0.5 km³ is not the SI unit. Use cubic metres instead.
    5. The location of Mauna Loa in Hawai would be vey helpful
    6. Flora on the mountain slopes? Does it snow on the mountain? (From the pics it looks like it does)
    7. The article uses the metric system as first preference, but in the infobox it is the reverse. Please edit the infobox to maintain consistency.
    8. "S Wave" --> "S-Wave"

=Nichalp «Talk»= 18:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

    • Thanks for comments - I am in Denmark at the moment and don't have time to address these just yet. Back on Monday and will do them then. Worldtraveller 08:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I have dealt with a few of these (created kyr, copyedited the Kilauea paragraph, infobox and s-wave - although objecting about a redirect seems a bit excessive). I would leave in 75,000 km³ as it is a bit more approachable than 7.5×10¹³ m³ - think of 75 cubes, each 10km on a side! I can't find a decent map of the Island of Hawaii, but most of the southern half is Mauna Loa. See Image:Hawaii national parks map.gif, which is not ideal. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I've always learnt it as an "S-Wave", so for a scientific article gunning for FA to err is a little odd. As for the object, I've noticed that sometimes if I just leave just it as comments, nothing is done to address my concerns; therefore the late object. Can this be useful for the maps: Commons:Category:Maps of Hawaii? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Quick comment re: map - there's a graphic in the 'relationship with Kilauea' section - does that not suffice? I'll see if I can add a map if not. Will do other comments tomorrow. Worldtraveller 01:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Re: SI units, using km³ is surely as acceptable as using km for linear measurements. It keeps the numbers manageable and is standard in volcanology. I've added the cause of the one volcanic death, and am justing adding a bit about flora and climate. Worldtraveller 12:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There appears to be a contradiction in the text regarding the estimated date of the earliest eruptions of the volcano. The Introduction states: "The volcano has probably been erupting for about 700,000 years." Whereas Eruption History - Origins states: "Mauna Loa probably began erupting about 100,000 years ago, and has grown steadily since then." Both statements are unreferenced. Is there a source to refer to on this point? --Jazriel 11:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Good spot. The infobox says <200kyr, so I assume 100,000 is correct and 700,000 was a typo? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I certainly got the 700,000 figure from somewhere. I think there is a) some uncertainty about whether a given age refers to the start of eruptions or the emergence of the mountain above the sea, and b) a large amount of uncertainty inherent in the estimate either way. I'll find some sources to flesh this point out. Worldtraveller 12:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as long as someone fixes this. —Keenan Pepper 04:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Able Archer 83[edit]

I do believe that this article meets all exist prerequists for FA status, as was noted on the Military History talk page. Therefore, I have decided to place it here to see if the article has what it takes to become featured. TomStar81 08:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Nominator's Note I enrolled in Summer School this semester, so if I appear slow to respond here, have patience: it's likely that schoolwork has tied me up. TomStar81 08:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Seems ok, but some things are a bit off. The quotes need to be formatted differently, and some of the paragraphs within the article, while not being one sentence in length, are nevertheless too short. While not enough for me to object, these things should be fixed. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 17:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I will look into it first thing tomorrow, bu right now I have to get to work on a speach due wensday. TomStar81 02:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Noted and addressed. Is this better? TomStar81 22:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Stronger Support. Short paragraphs are still bugging me, but we're closer to a full support. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak object.Support The ending of the article is sudden. The external links should be before the references, and there should be a see also section for other similar articles. Perhaps a further reading section? I made some changes to the article, including removing the sentence "It is worrying to note that the Moscow Centre briefed its agents that it was probable that a peaceful practice exercise was a cover for an actual attack." -- this is an original observation, and an inaccurate one. It might have been correct to say "...that a peaceful practice exercies would be used as a covern for an actual attack," which is more accurate from the statement... but then it isn't as "worrying." I found a few other instances where the text struck me as making too much of a judgement about its subject. If the see also/further reading/external links stuff is addressed, I will support. Mangojuicetalk 15:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • On the References coming before the External links: Wikipedia:Guide to layout advocates that order. It also makes more sense to me logically. Why would you like them switched? Melchoir 18:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not going to object on that basis alone. But for the record, I don't like that order. There tend to be so many references in thoroughly in-line sourced articles like this that readers would tend not venture beyond that point. I think the sections that are of interest to a casual reader should go first, and a list of more interesting things to read on the subject fits that description. Mangojuicetalk 19:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • In responce to your objection I have added a "See also" section, and I have created an anylisis section to address the "sudden ending" of the article. Is this better? TomStar81 21:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I like the see also section; I would like it if the external links section was renamed "further reading" (and perhaps supplemented with some books). I would lose the analysis section; with the see also, it's no longer necessary as a cap. It's good info, but alone at the end it seems a bit.. odd? (Sorry if I'm being a pain here! :) Mangojuicetalk 01:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok then, I renamed the external links section per your suggestion, and put the analysis info in the introduction (IMHO, it seems to fit in there well). I will work on adding book references as well. TomStar81 02:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Looks good now. Changed to support. Mangojuicetalk 20:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: shouldn't this article be at Exercise Able Archer (1983) or something of the sort? Or did the name actually include the "83"? Kirill Lokshin 02:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Not entirely sure. A quick search on Yahoo! seems to suggest that this goes by several names, among them Operation Able Archer, Able Archer , and Able Archer 83. From where I sit it would seem that the name "Able Archer 83" is not as popular a search as Exercise Able Archer (209,ooo to 243,000 respectively). IM(H)O it should stay where it is. TomStar81 03:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok, fair enough. Minor object on two further points, though:
        • "ABLE ARCHER" should be changed to "Able Archer" throughout; Wikipedia does not follow military capitalization rules in this case.
        • The "See also" section is just poor style. The links should be worked into the text somehow and the section removed.
    Other than that, looks good. Kirill Lokshin 03:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Both of your objections have been noted and addressed. Since Mangojuice seemed to suggest either a see also section or an anylisis section I scrapped the former and reinstated the latter. Is this better? TomStar81 04:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Ok, support from me now. As far as "Analysis", I would rename the section to "Aftermath", which is both a more common section name and seems to better match the contents. Kirill Lokshin 04:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Done. TomStar81 05:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I fixed up the mistakes in the nomination text at the top. (Bold of me.) Now, this needs to be properly copy-edited; can you network on WP to find collaborators who are interested in this topic and who might lend a hand? Let's have a look at the lead.

Able Archer 83 was a NATO command post exercise (or war game) conducted between 2 November–11, 1983 that spanned the continent of Europe and simulated a coordinated nuclear release. Factors such as the deteriorated relations between the United States and Soviet Union, anticipated arrival of "super-stealth" Pershing II nuclear missiles in Europe, and the incredibly realistic nature of the exercise (which incorporated a new, unique format of coded communication, radio silences, participation by heads of state, and a simulated DEFCON 1 nuclear alert) led some in the USSR to believe Able Archer 83 to be a genuine nuclear strike.[2] In response, Soviet nuclear forces were readied and air units in Eastern Germany and Poland were placed on alert.[3] This relatively obscure incident is considered by many historians to be the closest the world has come to nuclear war since the well documented Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.[4] The threat of nuclear war abruptly ended with the conclusion of the ABLE ARCHER 83 exercise on November 11."

    • If "war game" is another term for "command post exercise", remove "or" (could be ambiguous).
    • The date-range is whacky—can you find some way of autoformatting November 2nd to 11th, 1983 (or don't autoformat it).
    • "deteriorated" is awkward; it would be normal to write "deteriorating"; or use another word, such as "poor".
    • "The" before "Soviet Union", and before "anticipated".
    • "incredibly" is not encyclopedic.
    • "to believe that Archer 83 was" would be better.
    • "East Germany".
    • "well-documented" (I think—check it); but why not remove it?
    • I'd say that the threat of nuclear war ended gradually, not in 1983, but during the early 90s.
    • Why tell us twice that the exercise concluded on 11 November? Why is the title in caps at the end?

At present, I have to object. Tony 11:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I can help out with copyediting. Let me take care of the first paragraph, and I'll see what else ought to be done. Melchoir 22:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we adressed all the issues you currently have with the introduction (Melchoir, thanks for the help). Is the introduction better now? TomStar81 02:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but what about the rest of the article? Tony 11:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll probably finish my pass through the article later today. Melchoir 19:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's much better, so I'll withdraw my object. However, can you fix this snake, perhaps by adding some commas or rewording? "Several other indications described in the 17 February 1983 Permanent Operational Assignment to discover a nuclear attack were present during Able Archer 83, furthering the impression that the exercise might be a cover for a real attack." More commas throughout would make the reader's task easier—e.g., "Because Able Archer 83 simulated an actual release it is likely the service and technical personnel mentioned in ..." (Comma after "release"). Avoid starting a sentence with "Also". Tony 14:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. I think I've gone through the whole article now. Melchoir 03:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; content has always looked good, and I'm now satisfied with the writing and citations. Melchoir 06:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Rugby World Cup[edit]

The article has Good status, has been a GA collaboration, a RU collaboration and has had a peer review, I feel its ready to be nominated for feature status. Cvene64 13:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  • ObjectSupport - Not bad at all, but several small problems. Jeronimo 06:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Table of tournaments is only half-filled (are the three upcoming events, especially the 2015 one, really necessary?).
    • "Media coverage" covers only television, not "media" in general. It is unclear what global cumulative audience means (I understand, but others may not). More should/could be said about popularity in general, and also about the attendance of matches. The statement in the lead section (about being the 3rd largest sports event) could also be elaborated upon. For starters, I think several other events claim similar popularity (Cricket World Cup, Commonwealth Games, Tour de France).
    • The hosts section is rather strange and doesn't add a lot to already given info. Perhaps it can be expanded to tell something about the bid process, or maybe just merged into the article.
    • The external links should have explanation about some of the sites. IRB.com is not clear if you don't know the abbreviation. Linking to the French RWC site seems rather unnecessary, too.
    • I'm always somewhat suspicious of articles only citing web pages, especially with a subject as popular as this. I cannot require you tou have any written material as references, but I would like to see some "further reading". Surely several good books have been written about the (allegedly) 3rd most popular sporting event in the world?
Thanks for your comments, I have made the appropriate changes;
Table of tournaments is only half-filled (are the three upcoming events, especially the 2015 one, really necessary?). Removed 2015, left the other two as they have hosts.
"Media coverage" covers only television, not "media" in general. It is unclear what global cumulative audience means (I understand, but others may not). More should/could be said about popularity in general, and also about the attendance of matches. The statement in the lead section (about being the 3rd largest sports event) could also be elaborated upon. For starters, I think several other events claim similar popularity (Cricket World Cup, Commonwealth Games, Tour de France). Attendances written about, gave link to another page so users can compare and so on, changed the lead a little to downplay the claim to third.
The hosts section is rather strange and doesn't add a lot to already given info. Perhaps it can be expanded to tell something about the bid process, or maybe just merged into the article. Removed redundant info regarding 87, expanded on secret ballod/controversial voting.
The external links should have explanation about some of the sites. IRB.com is not clear if you don't know the abbreviation. Linking to the French RWC site seems rather unnecessary, too. They are all good now.
I'm always somewhat suspicious of articles only citing web pages, especially with a subject as popular as this. I cannot require you tou have any written material as references, but I would like to see some "further reading". Surely several good books have been written about the (allegedly) 3rd most popular sporting event in the world? Well I personally didn use any texts to write the article, but if you would like me to list a couple of notable books on it under "Further reading", would that be okay? Please let me know if there is anything else that can be improved on. Thanks. Cvene64 09:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I would like to see some "paper" material mentioned. But that doesn't count as a real objection, so I changed my vote to Support. Jeronimo 19:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Well researched, citations where needed, not painfully long like so many other featured articles. Very good article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arguss (talkcontribs)
  • First, this did quite well on a citation spot check. (Results here). The prose, however, is clunky, so I have to object for now. --RobthTalk 19:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • As requested on my talk, I'll give some examples of how the prose needs to be cleaned up. One paragraph that jumps out is the second paragraph in the history section. Some examples from there that need to be fixed:
      • It is thought that the defining prospect of such a tournament was when...: Nonsensical. Perhaps "It is thought that the defining moment in the creation of such a tournament came when...".
      • ...approved the inaugural Rugby World Cup to be jointly staged in Australia and New Zealand: approved...to is not grammatical. "...approved the inaugural cup, which was to be jointly hosted by Australia and New Zealand", perhaps?
      • though the proposition was met with much opposition, namely from the British and Irish members.: 'Namely' is the wrong word here. "...opposition, led by the British and Irish delegations", would be a better phrasing.
        • The sentence containing the past two examples is run-on, and should be broken up.
      • The vote was won through the support of South Africa who had the deciding vote. They voted in favor of the idea even though they knew they would not be allowed to participate, due to the international sports boycott against the apartheid regime.: Repetitive use of words ('they' and 'vote'), poor punctuation, overall poorly structured. One better phrasing would be: "The decisive vote to approve the proposal came from the South African delegates, who voted in favor despite knowing that the international sports boycott on their country's apartheid regime would prevent their team from participating in the tournament."
    • Issues of this sort need to be fixed throughout. --RobthTalk 03:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I have made the suggested changes as well as a number of others that have dealt with the issues. Cvene64 15:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Its improved, but not done yet; all I did was glance at the lead, and I still saw several errors. Perhaps get someone who hasn't edited the article before to go through and copyedit it? It can be difficult to copyedit a text you've been working on. --RobthTalk 12:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah I know what you mean. Thanks. Cvene64 12:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support- I see no problems to prevent it from FA status. It read well and was well sourced ect. --HamedogTalk|@ 07:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support can't see any reasons to deny it FA hoopydinkConas tá tú? 15:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Per Above 11kowrom 17:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches[edit]

Self-nom. I'm a little embarassed about how long it has been since I've been on this end of WP:FAC. In any case, please take a look at this article about Charles Godfrey Leland's 1899 book, which claims to reveal the "Gospel" of a Pagan witch-cult surviving in nineteenth-century Tuscany. The article has been through peer review. It is a little shorter than some, at about 25k, but I think that it is an exhaustive treatment. Thanks for your consideration. Jkelly 19:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support Though I think the lead can use a little trimming per WP:LEAD. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Did a few minor tweaks onawkward prose. Normally would agree w. Stax on lead, but in this case it's complex & not sure how it could be shortened ans still retain flavour & significant points. Very well done balanced piece IMHO.Bridesmill 21:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Strong work. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support An interesting subject of the kind Wikipedia is a good resource for. I attempted a copyedit and apologize if I've made any errors. That said I have a few minor suggestions- Under "Contents" it lists "Diana, Lucifer, Cain" and I was wondering if a brief description of who these characters are would be in order- I see they're wikified, but I read this printed out and thus couldn't hit those links. Under "Themes" I was a little confused as to who, Diana or Aradia, is the Queen and created the heavens and stars, probably because the sentence describing this is joined with a sentence mentioning both characters, Diana and Ariadna. Under "Structure" I was wondering why lack of cohesion has been cited as a reason for authenticity. Under "Claims questioned", should that be "Leland's writings show that he had no doubt..."? I'm also wondering about the meaning of the last word in the phrase "authentic, but not representative." It seemed to me there were a few places where names of scholars and Wiccans were added without titles or brief notes on who they were, but that might be because I'm a little tired. Again, I apologize if I've made any mistakes or my suggestions aren't particularly helpful. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Your edit was good. I've attempted to clarify each of the points that you mention above. Jkelly 03:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Having gone through it with a fine-tooth comb as a peer reviewer, I'm very impressed with the state of the article, and excited at the prospect of it achieving FA status. Its representation of the available literature is superb, and I believe it is probably even exhaustive. Fuzzypeg 02:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. As I said on peer review, an excellent and informative article. Extraordinary Machine 13:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Very detailed page. Learned something while reading it... --Shane (T - C - E) 21:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Manila Metro Rail Transit System[edit]

PR: May 2006
LRT (sister article): PR, FAC

Well, this is a second FAC for me (so this is really a self-nomination). A side project at first, as I then focused my energies on the then-emerging Manila Light Rail Transit System, which is now a featured article, I have put plenty of time, effort, energy and sweat on this article, which I have worked on for over a year now. I may have not started this article from scratch, unlike the LRT, but I do feel that it's ready for FA status. Like the LRT, suggestions are highly welcome. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 09:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 09:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support but try to improve Look for things which may be criticized and put them up on debate Justox dizaola 09:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC) 2nd edit made---Justox dizaola 12:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • SupportOppose Sections like the Network (which should be easy) and the History (which could be harder) need sources badly. Also, while not grounds for an oppose, could you take a better shot than Image:Shaw Boulevard.jpg if you have the ability? It's just a very... ugly photo (not trying to sound mean) Staxringold talkcontribs 20:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Vote changed, though more detailed referencing for History and Network would be better. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Howard the Duck 13:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I am 100% supporting the nomination. --Glenncando 09:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Needs a few more images though. --Mithril Cloud 16:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Jabba the Hutt[edit]

Self-nomination This is an article about a character from Star Wars and its influence on popular culture. I revised this article using BrianSmithson's draft of the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). This article was on peer review for quite some time and the issues raised there have been addressed. It is comprehensive, well-sourced, and one of the few Star Wars articles written in the out-of-universe perspective. I'm sure there are still some wrinkles that need ironing, thanks in advance for your input. Dmoon1 01:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Two minor points:

  • Get rid of the {{main}} links; they're not used correctly here, as the sections in this article are not summaries of the linked ones (it's the other way around, if anything). Linking the terms in the text should be sufficient.
    • Done. Dmoon1 03:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If a separate "References" section is used, every source cited in the footnotes—including all the incidental websites and articles—must be listed there. Kirill Lokshin 01:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Incorporated "Notes" and "Other references" into main Reference section. Dmoon1 03:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sorry, forgot to mention this in peer review, but I think the article is rather overlinked. Consider going through the article and deciding which terms actually are relevant to the content; remove the rest. For example, in the lead, I don't think there's any need to link to words such as director, post-production, slug, literature, illicit drugs, palace, monastery, slaves, droids, gambling, torture, merchandising, caricature, or satire. Some of these are more borderline than others, but you get the idea. See Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context for more. — BrianSmithson 03:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, well done! An excellent example of WP:WAF in action, and a great article on its own merits. I'd love to see more articles on fictional characters, locations, devices, etc. looking as good as this article. -- BrianSmithson 16:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks again! Dmoon1 20:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The body of the article is excellent but the lead has some ways to go to meet FA standards. I count the word "character" seven times in the first three paragraphs, which is repetitive to the point of grating. The third paragraph is poorly written, with awkward phrases like "[t]he character has since played an influential role on Western popular culture." However, if the style issues are resolved, this article will be a decent FA candidate. --Alex S 04:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. Excellent demonstration of WP:WAF. --Alex S 04:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I have revised the lead, but it still may not be just right. What do you think? Dmoon1 05:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The first two images feature Jabba in exactly the same pose. Perhaps changed the 2nd one to one with him and Leia in the golden bikini in it? Or maybe even the scene where he's getting choked, but that might be too much of a spoiler to have an image of. --SeizureDog 16:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • How does this look? Dmoon1 16:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I couldn't believe I'd support when I first opened the article, but it's very well done IMO! My only question is this: Doesn't Jabba appear, if briefly, at the Boonta Eve Classic in Episode I? Staxringold talkcontribs 23:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support. (This scene is discussed in Appearances under the sub-section Star Wars films, BTW.) Dmoon1 04:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support sets the standard that all Star Wars character articles should (and will) follow. Prose seems fine, and the article is well-rounded. — Deckiller 23:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Dmoon1 04:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Good article. Cvene64 02:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Many thanks. Dmoon1 04:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Dmoon1 has taken this from a Star Wars-centric article to one with information that applies to the "real world" in general. His efforts have not been in vain; in my opinion, the article is not only immensely better than it was before, but worthy of FA status. This is the bar for which all Star Wars character articles should aspire. Good work! – Mipadi 15:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Various things that could do with being looked at:
    • Princess Leia strangles the Hutt to death with her chains shortly before Jabba's sail barge explodes, killing all inside. Does Leia (and Luke?) die too then? (Sorry, I really don't know the slightest thing about Star Wars, which is possibly a good thing in terms of reviewing the article!)
      • Clarified this. Dmoon1 18:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • What is the "Star Wars Databank"? Is it some kind of fictional database featured in the film? Or an official guide written by the creators? Or an unofficial guide? If it isn't wikilinked then it needs an explanation.
    • The first paragraph of "concept and creation" would appear to belong in the "characeristics" section. What is being demarked by this change in section headings?
      • Relocated Ebert and Casevos quotes to characteristics. Dmoon1 18:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Similarly, "Usage" is a strange section heading. "Usage as a metaphor" or "term" would probably be getting closer (though neither are quite right!)... can it be improved upon?
      • I struggled to find an apporpriate sub-heading title earlier and just went with "Usage". I have changed it to "Jabba the Hutt as satire", but that still doesn't sound quite right either. Dmoon1 18:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
        • How about "Jabba the Hutt as a cultural icon" (or just "as an icon") or "Jabba the Hutt as an archetype" or something like those only more awesome? Luna Santin 09:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I've settled on "Jabba the Hutt in mass media" since all of the examples given are derived from works of literature, newspaper, and teleivsion. Dmoon1 02:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • According to the IMDB here, Larry Ward (whose bio definitely needs a cleanup by the way; given that this is the actor who voiced the character in question I don't think it's an invalid complaint that that bio needs to be cleaned up before this hits the main page) went uncredited. I don't think this is mentioned in the article anywhere, but I do think it's important enough. Does anybody know why he went uncredited?
      • I mentioned that his work went uncredited, but I don't know why this happened. Many actors who were involved in the film were not listed in the credits, if you look here. I'll see if I can't do something about Larry Ward's article. Dmoon1 18:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm still not sure what Hutt would have sounded like. The description of the noise of his voice and the special effects used to produce them is interesting, but there are still some key points I'm left blank on. (1) Did he ever speak in English? (2) When he spoke in his own language, was it in any way comprehensible? (3) Was he subtitled, when speaking in English or indeed his own dialect? Much as I believe in refraining from taking recourse to fair use except where necessary, I also wonder whether a fair use audio clip might be justified. TheGrappler 16:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I clarified these points. I don't know what to do about an audio clip. My computer has trouble with .ogg files, which is what Wikipedia uses in its articles. Someone else will have to do this, if you really think it needs doing. Dmoon1 18:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks. I don't think it's absolutely necessary by any means, but it's the only failsafe way I could think of that would communicate the sound of his voice! Could you put in a brief, paranthetic explanation in the text of the Jabba article about what the Databank is? Just enough to get across that it's the "official" guide to Star Wars. I think that's an important thing for readers to know.TheGrappler 00:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I added a blurb about the Databank. I'll see what I can do about audio. Dmoon1 01:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Fantastic article, well referenced, well written, covers a broad array of aspects. Well done. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 12:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Dmoon1 16:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- Very well done. Themillofkeytone 15:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Dmoon1 16:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support-- I'd say "kudos" in Huttese, but unfortunately, my understanding of fictional languages are nil. Bibliomaniac15 21:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support. Dmoon1 02:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I feel it would do the website good in having a wider range of featured articles, as it would attract more users. Kingfisherswift 15:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support.
  • Comment. Can you replace the lead image with Image:JabbaTheHutt.jpg? It's a better picture that shows better his body (at least it's my opinion. CG 20:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think that picture is very representative of Jabba the Hutt as it is from a scene in The Phantom Menace which the character appeared only briefly; the character's part in this film is very minor. Plus, IMHO, Jabba just looks evil in the current image. In the image you have linked, it appears that his eyes are gone and he almost looks like he's smiling. Dmoon1 21:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - could the article be more clear upon the fact that the character is first mentioned in ANH and ESB before making the on-screen debut? Also, it would be nice to have pictures of the 1997 and 2004 ANH Jabba to compare to each other (and the 1977 footage). Otherwise, looks good! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 12:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I clarified that Jabba was first mentioned in A New Hope, but I think there are enough fair use images in the article. Also, adding any more images in general will cause the article to be overcrowded. (There is already a screenshot of the 2004 CGI in the "Characteristics" section.) Dmoon1 14:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and per good well constructed article. -- Wikipedical 20:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks alot! Dmoon1 22:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Good work, as usual. --Myles Long 21:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support! Dmoon1 22:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Damon Hill[edit]

A notbale amount of work hs gone into this article. I feel certain that I have done just about enough to make this an FA, because the article easily met the GA standards. Although I'm more then happy to make more edits to the article if you suggest any, that are reasonable and worthwhile :)... --Skully Collins 08:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Nominate & Support I feel this is a good article... --Skully Collins 10:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object I find the extensive large quote sections and there big oversized quote marks distracting. Rlevse 17:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • See Below
  • Minor objectSupport Good article, but a few small issues. Jeronimo 06:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The earlier mentioned quotes should probably go to Wikiquote.
  • Done, but I'm keeping the 1996 and the 1999 quotes as they are the highlight quotes, if you like, of his career --Skully Collins 10:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
If you moved the quotes to Wikiquote, you should put a link to it (like with the Commons link at the bottom), so people can find it. As for the remaining quotes, I still think they should go. They don't add a lot, and are far from neutral (which wouldn't be an issue if they were used to illustrate a discussion or so). Jeronimo 21:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Nah, I deleted all of them...it is okay now? :) --Skully Collins 10:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Not pushing for reinclusion of the quotes - and this is by no means an omission in the article - but the quote about Damon's eyes could be used to illustrate a piece on that image - TV cameras often caught that view of him before the start of a race and if I remember correctly at some point in the late 1990s a range of fan gear was produced with an image of Damon's eyes framed by the helmet's visor opening. Could be tricky to reference though. 4u1e 27 June 2006.
    • You may want to mention the fact that Hill raced two seasons with car number 0, being one of only two drivers to use that number (Jody Scheckter being the other one).
    • The key to the table in the bottom should be included (could be placed to the right of the table), making an extra click unnecessary.
  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. In this article, there is only link: '1984'. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Um - not sure I understand you from this text, but from the reference to 1984 I guess you are suggesting that simple links to years should be removed? If so I agree - I had missed that one. For F1 articles I usually link to the season summary year - Hill wasn't in F1 in 84, so there's nothing to link that one to. I will remove the link. 4u1e 00:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Done, and thanks for the suggestion! 4u1e 00:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It needed a fair bit of copyediting, but I've gone through and done the best I can. I'd like to see more images, but I understand how difficult it can be to get copyright-free F1 images, so I think the ones that are there are probably just about adequate. Other than that, I think it's a comprehensive article that covers every aspect of the career of one of Britain's most famous Formula One drivers, and it's pretty well referenced, too. Seb Patrick 08:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad Iqbal[edit]

Hi All - I know that there may be some copyediting needed, but I request your support in making this an FA. I request that you point out any problems so we may fix them asap. Rama's Arrow 01:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong support. This is an amazingly informative and well written article about a subject which, unfortunately, I did not previously know enough about.--Alabamaboy 01:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support I've read the article end to end and feel that it's a well-sourced article with good prose. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Tentative Support -- Haven't read it fully yet, but have skimmed through it, and at least there are no stylistic issues. I can see myself supporting it more strongly once I finish reading it. I have a question right now: The box at the bottom reads: "Muhammad Iqbal - The poet-philosopher of Islam". Is there a notable person who gave him this title? deeptrivia (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
No, no notable person, but perhaps it is officially recognized in Pakistan, where Iqbal has many titles. Rama's Arrow 18:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. In this case there is only one: '1926'. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Copy editing needed. Here are some from the first section alone:
  • "It is believed that Iqbal's family were originally Hindu Brahmins, but became Muslim following his ancestor Sahaj Ram Sapru's conversion to Islam, but this explanation is disputed by some scholars." -- not really cool to have two "but"s in the same sentence.
  • "One of five children, Iqbal's father Shaikh Nur Muhammad was a prosperous tailor, well-known for his devotion to Islam." -- Is Iqbal one of five or is his father?
  • "His potential as a poet and writer was recognized by one of his tutors Sayyid Mir Hassan, and Iqbal would continue to study under him at the Scotch Mission College, Sialkot" -- Is this last word a location? Then it needs to be expanded upon. Something like "Scotch Mission College, located in Sialkot"
  • "Iqbal travelled to Germany to pursue a doctorate from the Faculty of Philosophy of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität at Munich in 1907, under the supervision of Friedrich Hommel, with a thesis titled: The Development of Metaphysics in Persia" -- This time, it's pretty obvious who the thesis belongs to, but there probably is an easier way to get the point across
More referencing would probably also serve this article well. Sample statements that I believe need it, again from the first section:
  • "Despite having a large family, Iqbal and his wife were unhappy in their marriage."
  • "He was appointed to a readership in Arabic at the Oriental College in Lahore, and over the next few years became well known as a poet, as well as writing his first book in Urdu, The Knowledge of Economics (1903)." -- How do we know he was well known?
  • "Although it is not believed that there was an affair, Iqbal was very fond of her and grew to love her."
Overall, it is a good article, and I don't think there's far to go before it meets my interpretation of FA status. I'll withhold a vote for now. Themillofkeytone 19:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Your points have been addressed accordingly. Rama's Arrow 23:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support However there are some issues. Some of the smaller bits I've fixed myself.
  • The introductory sentence is very waffly and long. Also, the bit "...who is one of the most prominent and highly-regarded for his poetic..." doesn't make sense. One of the most prominent what?
  • Article is not consistent when it comes to using 'ise' or 'ize' and American or British spellings! This article should use Indian spelling conventions.
  • Some of the references are not properly formatted and some of the web links aren't using cite templates. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I've addressed all your points. Rama's Arrow 00:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Wow, what a beautiful written article on Iqbal! Amazing Job. FAO 04:52 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Can't see any problems, really. I have some slight reservations about the number of references taken from the Government of Pakistan's website, but since the article seems in no way POV and there are plenty of other refernces this really isn't an issue. A great example of how Wikipedia teaches you about stuff you never knew about. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just a quick couple of comments:
  • The title of the infobox at the bottom of the page is Muhammad Iqbal - The poet-philosopher of Islam. The intro offers a few similar nicknames, but I don't see rationale for this title. Did I miss something, or is the title perhaps a little POV?
  • The criticism section starts off praising Muhammad Iqbal before any criticism is offered. Again, this is coming off as a little POV to me. Same problems with the second paragraph of the same section. Cheers --darkliight[πalk] 11:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I've noticed that there is inconsistant referencing... some references used the "a b c d" format, while others are repeated several times. Please pick one style and stick to it. Themillofkeytone 15:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed the reference issues as well as tweaked the criticism section. Rama's Arrow 19:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The translation of the person's name overlaps the date of his birth. Harryboyles 00:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A well-balanced article satisfying all FA criteria. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The article is poorly written. It is difficult to pin down Iqbal as either progressive or regressive. Paragraphs citing his quotations and conclusions should be realigned chronologically to put them in context. I think it is fair to assume that he was secular before WW1 (evident from Saara Jahan Se Acha) but after the breakup of Ottoman Empire, he began to move decisively towards mainataining status quo under Anglo administration. Also please mind the typos (like dissention, law practise).
Contradicting statements like these have to be avoided: Historians also suggest that Iqbal was also indirectly asserting that secularism as a guiding principle for government and communal relations was a mistake and must be abandoned by the Muslim polity. Iqbal expressed fears that not only would secularism weaken the spiritual foundations of Islam and Muslim society, but that India's Hindu-majority population would crowd out Muslim heritage, culture and political influence. Anwar 14:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Your points have been addressed. Rama's Arrow 23:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Object. Per Above- User: Arniep

  • Support. --Spasage 06:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, looks good. Always wanted to know abt Iqbal's relation with Jinnah - this throws great light on the issue. One minor concern is that the "Indian" in the very second line of the article should not go to a disambig page - it should probly lead to India. --Gurubrahma 09:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - The Indian word has been reverted, re reverted many times... Infact the only reason I had refrained from supporting till now is that the article seemed to be going through many disagreements since its FAC. Guess they've all been sorted by now. Overall a very informative article -- Lost 09:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support---Dwaipayan (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- Samir धर्म 02:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sesame Street[edit]

FAC: September 2004, October 2004, August 2005, June 2006
PR: July 2005, September 2005, June 2006

Renominate. I took too long acting on corrections, due to my current ongoing internship. The previous objections seem to all have been corrected. -- Zanimum 19:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  • (Mostly) Support - The article has been separated into new articles where appropriate which saves the it from being too long for reading. The information is also written well. One slight criticism is that there are quite a lot of links to pages that don't currently exist. However, this could be improved by either removing these links (many are not necessary) or creating small articles, if appropriate. --Bearbear 09:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support While I also share the concern of the number of red links, I think this flaw is easily corrected. The article is put together well, written in summary style where appropriate, and has lost the flowery language. Good job—D-Rock 10:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • My suggestions: Add a proper detailed footnote for the The Real Thing book quote, using a "<ref>" with a "{{cite book}} which specifies the ISBN and page number. Clarify that it is "a book of humorous essays". Find a replacement reference for the Muppet Wiki (muppet.wikia.com) which is not reliable, as anybody can write anything, with no fact-checking. --Rob 23:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-written, throughly detailed, and compelling with good use of good sources, and a very balanced perspective. I would have liked to see a smidge more about the locally-produced foreign adaptations of the series -- not more than perhaps a paragraph about the commonalities and noteable differences, as well as the local development teams' relationship with the Sesame Workshop (the latter retains rather strict script approval over the foreign spin-offs' content). I'd also be slightly happier if there were some structural link in the article between the foreign-localizations section, and broadcast history section, which discusses the same topic. None of these seem like total deal-breakers, though. Good stuff. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 20:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Cornell University[edit]

Self-nom. A few dedicated editors have vastly improved this article. There have been 3 peer reviews, and it is currently a GA. If addressing concerns about POV, please cite specific examples so I can fix them. The article is currently 42 45 KB of prose. -mercuryboardtalk 15:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This article has 44KB of prose as of 24 June 2006. See Wikipedia:Summary style
Object -- egregious image problems. Article is full of images from various websites, with {{NoRightsReserved}}, {{cc-by}}, or some other free license on the image description page, but the source of the image clearly states the image is not freely-licensed, has no license information at all, or doesn't actually contain the image. There are so many that I'm not going to list them all here, but almost every image had to be tagged for deletion. Jkelly 18:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there are only four, wait until I get Sergeev's email. The cornell law library picture problem has been sovled.--Cornell010 22:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Alright, the pictures are secure, as I have contacted Sergeev and he has assented. Now, I just have to get it official through the wikipedia people.--Cornell010 02:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The Picture problems have been solved, and I even solved the hockey picture problem.--Cornell010 17:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
It does look like this is about one step away from everything being fixed. Jkelly 18:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment I'm still not thrilled with the images. The ones being claimed as "fair use" need a Fair use rationale. And there are too many of them in the "Alumni" section, which causes both crowding and the text to flow strangely.
I'm not in love with the sentence "Additionally, Cornellians are noted for their accomplishments in a variety of fields". Is there any university that doesn't make such a claim? Also, the "Organization" section looks a little disorganised. I suggest that the WP:LEAD could still be expanded a bit; it would be nice if there was at least one sentence about every section we've broken out. The article is otherwise looking really good. I'm not quite willing to support without some more polishing. Jkelly 22:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I expanded the lead a bit. What do you propose we do with that Alumni sentence? It serves as an introduction sentence as well as introducing the relevent references for the section. The references are not sorted by category as our section is, so it doesn't make sense to place them anywhere else. I re-examined all the images and updated some. Which images, specifically, still have problems? -mercuryboardtalk 00:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and what specifically is disorganized about the organization section? (ironic) -mercuryboardtalk 02:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I really don't see another way to organize the organization section (wow weird wording). I guess it is kind of strange to have organization including library and press, but I think it works, however, I agree about the lead, it does need work. To me it seems as though the 2nd-half of the third paragraph is kind of redundant, as we do not need to talk about research spending, as it is has already been established that Cornell is a research university.--User:Cornell010 04:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I see some reason for putting Library and Press under Main campus -mercuryboardtalk 05:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that will not work, as the Weill and Qatar Campuses probably have libraries, and they are not part of the main campus. Maybe we could create a seperate section for University Press as it seems more out of place than library.--User:Cornell010 11:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Good work on the lead, I'm much happier with it now. I still think that there is some trouble with image crowding. I'd recommend shifting Sagan right, moving Hughes down to Alumni, and losing the Science Guy and Morrison. I'll just accept that the Organisation section is as organised as it's going to get, but I wouldn't want to see that kind of layout become popular. I'll say Weak support, but please, please don't add any more images! Jkelly 19:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! In reference to your comments: Sagan and Hughes were both professors but neither is an alumnus. Roughly, the four alumni images are respectively related to the fields of government, business, science, and literature. It's just a sampling for illustrative purposes, but I will consider our options in lessening the number of images. -mercuryboardtalk 19:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The "Alumni" section isn't sourced after the first paragraph, and strangely lists positions and accomplishments of alumni without actually naming them, leaving it an exciting puzzle for the reader to figure out, for example, which Cornellian played an influential role in the growth of Black & Decker. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Addressed; objection withdrawn. I'll have to try to make time for a fuller read to decide whether to support. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Would something like this be a prefered direction? Or what about footnotes?--Xtreambar 01:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know if the writing style is ideal, but having the information there would certainly be an improvement, yes. Don't forget about sourcing it, too. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's the best way to go about the writing. We need a more elegant solution so the prose isn't garbage. Sourcing isn't nearly as difficult as getting these paragraphs written decently. -mercuryboardtalk 04:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We do not need very much sourcing in our alumni section as University of Michigan alumni section has only one source. - cornell010
  • Please see the rewritten Alumni section. Although the size has increased, it contains the same number of items. Each now has a name associated with it. Three references for the section are included in the second paragraph. -mercuryboardtalk 16:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What is your opinion on the parenthetical degrees notation? It seems to clutter the page and make it hard to read, and I wonder if such information is best left to the main article (and it's already in most of the individual biographical articles). -mercuryboardtalk 16:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think removing it from this article would be good. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Object It is well written, but I am confused by a few things. By largest library by volume, do you mean it has the largest buildings, ie. that if you filled it with water you could get more gallons in, or do you mean it has more volumes than all but 10 libraries? Also, what is a library unit? Who donated North Campus? Is there any more you can write on the Qatar campus? Thats seems pretty innovative. I'd echo the comments about the people behind the organizations in the Alumni section. Other than that I think this is well written, and when these are corrected, I would support it. Illuminato 15:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Clarified library, removed North Campus donation factoid. I will look into expanding the Qatar campus section. Originally, that section was a WP:SUMMARY of an article on the Qatar campus, but the consensus was to merge it back into the main article for lack of available information. -mercuryboardtalk 16:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I added a few sentences to Qatar. It's two full paragraphs now. I can't find anything else worth mentioning. -mercuryboardtalk 00:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The objection has been addressed. This user has 4 total edits, and has not edited since his registration. See his contributions. —mercuryboardtalk 00:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Apart from perhaps questioning the need for pics of four select alumni (I've never liked this practice, as it suggests a ranking of importance), this is a great article. Harro5 21:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, the pictures are not ranked. They go in order with the topics of the alumni section. For example, Ginsburg goes with the Supreme Court Justice, Wolfowitz with U.S. government officials, Bill Nye with the "Science Guy" part, and finally Toni Morrison for the literature part.--134.67.6.11 23:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What I mean is, picking Bill Nye (for example) to show with a picture says, "He is the most notable science guy to graduate from Cornell." Who decided that? Maybe with the other three there is a fair claim, but I disagree with 'showcasing', if you will, four alumni to highlight above all else. Harro5 23:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We're following WP:SUMMARY there and listing some of the more notable Cornellians. We leave a much more expansive list to List of Cornell University people. The images serve to illustrate some of the more visually recognizable people ("oh, I know that face, I didn't know they went here"). I do somewhat agree with your point, though, but in this case I think the good outweighs the bad. In the past, there haven't been any edit wars or controversies over whose picture most deserves to go up, it's just for illustrative and summary purposes. Thank you for your support! -mercuryboardtalk 01:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Thoughts at first glance: impressive, but far too many links, and perhaps some inappropriate linking. You link to Asia from "Asian Studies?" I don't know about that. Per WP:LINK, links should provide context, and they shouldn't be quickly repeated (the housing section seems bad in that regard). Under "Campuses#Main Campus:" laboratory, atheltic, and law school are all linked unnecessarily. "Alumni" in particular is way too blue for my tastes; perhaps cut it to one paragraph since you have that main article? (BTW, I'll be out of town and hence incommunicado for the next few days.)--Monocrat 19:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing up this issue. Note that Law School links to the Cornell Law School. Please see my changes. As for Alumni, it's mentioning a lot of different people, companies, and other things... although it's a lot of links, it makes sense to have so many. It was originally just a couple of paragraphs, but considering the massive size of the subarticle, we should have at least what we have as our WP:SUMMARY. The section is 7kb, the main article is 65kb, sounds about right to me. -mercuryboardtalk 20:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks better. You might want to consider delinking some of the references to the constituent colleges. Also, "Organization" > "Academic" > "Campuses" > "Student life" might be more logical and less disruptive progression. "Research" is somewhat shortish; perhaps demote it to a subsection of "Academics." In "Faculty," Nobel laureates should be with all the other accolades, not after administrative troubles; the last paragraph of "International programs" would instead make a very good beginning after some work. I'm not fond of "Organization": I really don't know what the value of "Cornell University Press" is, to be honest: only the first sentence, the first sentence of the second paragraph, and the subsequent sentence (needing a trim) seem to add any value. Discussion of the library should probably be moved to "Academics." In any case, WP:MOSHEAD deprecates using the article's name in section headings, so perhaps "Library" and "Univeristy Press" would do? I'd rather have a single heading for "Colleges and shools," otherwise keeping the table as is. And how many departments are in the school?--Monocrat 21:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I would say that linking to each college is an important way to build the web and allow easy access for more information on each of the colleges. I would also like to hear from other people on the opinion of the section order. Good find on Faculty, this had slipped by as we recently added the presidential mentions. Also a good catch on International programs. Both have been fixed. Cornell University Library and Cornell University Press are proper names, I don't know about the policy on this situation. Originally, the press had its own article, but it had no information beyond what's in this section, so it now forwards here. It's an important article/section nonetheless, see all the links from university press. I think the distinction is important between undergraduate and graduate/professional schools, and further it should be made clear which are endowed and which are contract. Please elaborate on any changes you propose in this area. Each college has anywhere from a few (Architecture, Art, and Planning) to dozens (Arts and Sciences) of separate departments, which are each listed on the appropriate college articles. -mercuryboardtalk 21:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I still think the Press information could be trimmed and just put elsewhere, moreso after looking at other university press articles. But that's a minor issue, as are the headings employing "Cornell University." I agree that the distinctions you note are important, and I like how the table handles them, but what I'd like to see is a single subsection heading "Colleges and schools," and then the table with regular column-headings. There's no need to have two subsection headings on the same line. If you were to move the Press info and "Library", then there'd be no need for a subsection at all. In any case, I'm leaning towards supporting this, but I have to give it a thorough read when I get back Sunday.--Monocrat 21:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Fairly substantial changes to address your concerns. -mercuryboardtalk 22:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Support. (Breaking indentation.)--Monocrat 18:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—2a. Here are examples from the top.
    • "immediately after the Industrial Revolution"—makes that phenomenone sound rather sudden. In which year did it occur?
    • "seven undergraduate colleges and an additional seven graduate divisions, each defining its own academic programs"—why mark the PG divisions? "seven undergraduate colleges and seven graduate divisions" is nice and neat. It would be very unusual if they didn't each define their own programs: do you need to point this out?
    • "has undertaken an interest"—?
    • "Cornell counts over 230,000 living alumni and is affiliated in total with 40 Nobel laureates." Most US style manuals prefer "more than". The second clause is verbose: "affiliated" means what here? What does "in total" mean? Don't you mean that the alumni include 40 Nobel laureates?
    • "during the 2004-2005 fiscal year"—when exactly is the US fiscal year? The months vary from country to country. Consider writing "2004–05", which is easier to read and neater.
    • "Cornell University was created on 27 April 1865, by a bill of the New York State Senate which named the university as the state's land grant institution." Remove the comma. Was it the bill or the Senate that did the naming? A land-grant institution might be unclear to most readers. Link?

I won't go on; the density of problems at the top suggests that a thorough copy-edit is required to satisfy the Criterion. I'd have thought the topic demanded not just "compelling", but "brilliant" prose; after all, it's a brilliant institution, isn't it? Tony 02:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Doubt it ;). Money =/= quality in my opinion. — Deckiller 03:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Eh. How great can they be? They let me in. :-p—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Fixed your examples, should be clearer now. As for defining their own academic programs, the sentence is reflecting Cornell's decentralized structure. I'll do a larger copyedit tomorrow, but let me know if you come across anything specific. -mercuryboardtalk 03:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Thx, I won't have time, I'm afraid—work commitments. I'll return in a few days and have a look. Try to bring on board one or two WPians who are unfamiliar with the text. Tony 03:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Further changes. -mercuryboardtalk 21:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Many more changes. When you get back, please take a look. -mercuryboardtalk 19:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just noticed that the picture of the Cornell newspaper, is unreadable when zoomed in, so it is essentially just a pic of unreabible text with the words "The Cornell Sun" at the top. You probably want to replace it with a pic with more encyclopedic value. Maybe the Glee Club? Wilderness retreats? You folks should know.--P-Chan 04:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Just changed it to a picture of Slope Day, the most widely attended annual student activity. -mercuryboardtalk 06:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. POV problems. I am giving examples. In the lead:
    • These ideals—a radical departure at the time—are captured in Cornell's motto, an 1865 Ezra Cornell quotation: "I would found an institution where any person can find instruction in any study."
    • Research is a fundamental element of the university's mission; Cornell spent $561.3 million on research and development in a diverse group of fields during the July 2004 to June 2005 fiscal year.
  • Also they exist throughout the prose. Examples include:
    • In the 2000s, Cornell has been aggressively expanding its international programs.
    • Cornell is highly decentralized, with its colleges and schools exercising wide autonomy.
  • Also, is this really required:It is a common misconception that Cornell's contract colleges are public institutions. What's the problem in just stating the facts. The editors are requested to look into these problems as well as similar problems throughout the article. For a clearer understanding behind my objections, I suggest going through WP:PEACOCK, WP:WEASEL, and WP:WTA. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Addressed your issues. Bunchofgrapes and I just gave it another thorough copyedit. Some comments. I would remove 'radical departure at the time,' but it's important that we establish context. At the time, universities were very specialized in their teachings, and Cornell was indeed radical in proposing a broad education. Do you have any elegant NPOV solution for this? My other concern is your question of 'fundamental.' See Fundamentally at WTA. It suggests acceptable use here, as it underpins a subject (rather than makes a generalization). -mercuryboardtalk 19:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't "unconventional" achieve the same effect in NPOV manner. Personally I am no fan of using fundamental, and prefer to use "central" instead. I wouldn't object to it now. I will have another look at article soon. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Fixed your final two issues. –mercuryboardtalk 18:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Changing to Support. Satisfactory improvements. Try to reduce the size of alumni section. Agreed that there are a lot of notable alumni, but I feel the section needs to be reduced a bit, though not an issue to oppose. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak object — close to supporting, but the article appears somewhat long. Would it be possible to merge some of the sections or trim the prose? Also, the last sentence in "History" cites six references after the word "Singapore". Now, don't get me wrong, it is not a crime to feature this many citations since they enhance the verifibility, but is each and every one required? I believe that the most major sources should be kept with the others being removed. Just to confirm, I am being somewhat picky, but even if these issues cannot be completely addressed, I would be willing to switch my vote to support.Eternal Equinox | talk 19:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • As Ambuj Saxena mentioned, I would also suggest a quick run-through at avoiding peacock terms. Here is an example: For the undergraduate class of 2010, the admissions rate was 24.7%, an all-time university low: an all-time university low? What is "all-time" supposed to mean in this sense? Additionally, this sentence doesn't quite make sense (or at least to me): The 11th largest academic library in the United States by number of volumes held, the Cornell University Library (CUL) is organized into twenty divisions. While I understand what it is hinting, I think it needs to be reworded. I reworded the last portion myself.Eternal Equinox | talk 19:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Could a reference be placed next to this sentence (perhaps one from the later sentences?): In addition to its three campuses, Cornell University owns and operates many facilities around the world.Eternal Equinox | talk 20:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
      • All issues addressed. I don't believe the length is inappropriate for the scope of the article. -mercuryboardtalk 20:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The following statements do not appear to be supported by the reference after them:
The Cornell Daily Sun is the oldest continuously independent college daily newspaper in the United States, having published since September 1880. In 1912, it became the first collegiate member of the Associated Press.. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I've substituted it with a much more clear and verbose reference. -mercuryboardtalk 21:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Currently 1 weak support, 1 weak object, 2 support, 2 object. Still only six opinions. Whoever hasn't re-visited the article in a few days, please review our extensive edits (over 50 in the past 24 hours alone). New comments and suggestions are always appreciated. -mercuryboardtalk 22:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Quick side-note: all this rapid editing is copyediting and similar, not the sort of thing that affects its overall stability. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
      • 5 support, 2 object, 1 weak support, 1 weak object.mercuryboardtalk 19:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • 6 support, 1 weak support, 1 object, 1 weak object. —mercuryboardtalk 16:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support seems fine to me. I see no major prose issues, but then again, as long as I can understand something, I'm happy. Some people may feel this doesn't meet the well-written standard, but I do. — Deckiller 03:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; a biased vote since I've done a lot of copyediting now, but at the same time the copyediting has convinced me that the article is both comprehensive and structurally sound. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments:
Cornell ranks among the world's top universities: That's not a useful statement. The reference quotes 500 top universities. How many is top?
The size, of course. There is a lot of (interesting) detail, but can't some of it go to sub-sections? (e.g. the percentage of students that enrolled through early admissions - is that even important?) - Cribananda 01:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The sentence exists to establish a context for the 'Rankings' section. The percent of students enrolled early is a very commonly reported statistic among college resources... students interested in applying to Cornell would want to know that, as would anybody following trends in college admissions. —mercuryboardtalk 02:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment—I'm copy-editing right now; plenty to fix. Tony 02:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC) For example: possesses a view; pledged $750M for construction (but did they follow through with the money?); outside OF, and the repeated use of "x is LOCATED in y". I should not be able to find silly things like these at this stage. Tony 02:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Knights of Columbus[edit]

This page has undergone signifigant revision and improvement the last few months. It underwent a peer review and all the suggestions made have been completed. It has several daughter articles, such as the Columbian Squires and the list of famous Knights, its neutral and stable, and all the photos are either free or have fair use rationales and sources. It is fully referenced and overall a very good candidate, I believe. Briancua 20:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I should also add this is a self-nomination, since I have done a lot of work on it. Briancua 21:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support: It's very well written, long, inline citations included, have been referred from many sources. (Wikimachine 01:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC))
  • Weak Object. Some entire sections are without inline citations, notably the "College Councils" and "Organization" sections. Also, in a few places the Pope is referred to as "The Holy Father," a title which he certainly does hold, but which is similar to "His Royal Highness" in the fact that it is unencylopedic in this context. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 03:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Both of your concerns has been addressed. 1)Each section now has at least one inline citation; 2)The only place I found "The Holy Father" (In the photo caption) has been changed to "Pope." Thanks for the comments! Briancua 05:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—2a. It doesn't get off to a good start. "... the world's largest Catholic family, fraternal, service organization"; do you mean that it's a family organization, a fraternal organization, and a service organization? If so, these three epithets don't jam together smoothly as an a, b, and c construction. The origin of the name is a rather different point that is uncomfortably stuck at the end of this opening statement, joined with "and".
      • I agree the etymology was rather uncomfortable, but it has been fixed. As the the three descriptors, that is how the Knights self identify and I think its clear enough. However, if you have a suggestion for an alternative phrasing, I'd love to see you post it.
    • We learn in passing that this "organization" is an "Order"; not smooth. Why the upper-case O?
      • I posted a topic for discussion on the talk page about whether the top paragraph should read "The Order of the Knights of Columbus," the formal name, or simply "The Knights of Columbus," as it then read. There was no responce then, so I left it alone, but I've now made the change. As to capitilization, this is going back to the 3rd grade, but I remember that when you are refering to a specific you capitalize it and when in general it remains lowercase. E.g. 'every president has been married at least once,' rather than 'the President's wife, Laura Bush, is from Texas.'
        • But tell us that it's an order before you mention it in passing.
          • Already done.
    • "are solely restricted to members"—spot the redundant word.
      • deleted 'solely'
    • "Members take an oath of secrecy during the ceremonials to ensure their impact and meaning for new members." This is a jumble. Who is ensuring for whom? Is it existing members who do this? Once? Every time? For specified new members? What does "their" refer to?
      • now reads: 'An oath not to reveal any details of the ceremonials except to an equally qualified Knight is required to ensure their impact and meaning for new members.'
    • "public in nature"—do you mean "public"?
      • now reads: 'open to the public'
    • Who are "practical Catholic men"? Ambiguous.
      • I think you missed the footnote at the end of the sentence. There it describes what a 'pratical Catholic' is.
        • Our readers should not have to hit the footnote to disambiguate the wording. Please use a wording that is generally understood, or gloss "practical" in parentheses immediately after its first occurrence.
          • There was a discussion about this on the talk page, and the consensus was to put it in as a footnote. To put it into the intro was thought to be too much info for the intro paragraphs.
            • Well, don't use it in the lead, then. Introduce it smoothly further down. If I don't understand it, why should most other readers? Tony 10:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, redundancy therapy is required by the writers. The whole text needs significant work before it's "compelling, even brilliant". I cannot agree with the reviewer above who wrote "very well written". Even a cursory reading shows the depths of the problems. Sorry. Tony 08:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

    • Thank you for your comments! Briancua 14:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
      • No problem; but please do find someone who's distant from the text to go through it thoroughly. It's a few hours' work. Tony 15:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I did seek out a peer review, but in one week only got 1 reviewer. I'll go through it again. Briancua 19:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Um ... no, you need someone who's distant from the text to run through it (see "strategic distance"). I have a secret list of good copy-editors on WP; are you compiling such a list? Everyone needs to, to match topic with potential editors they might ask for assistance. Tony 10:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: minor things that should be fixed-
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Thanks, Andy t 20:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Done and done. Thanks! Briancua 21:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support and I echo Wikimachine.Illuminato 15:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for absolutely no mention of criticism whatsoever. I'm completely certain that a pro-life and anti-gay marriage religious group has drawn at least some criticism. As a sidenote, the "Current supreme officers" list should probably be made into a small table to one side or the other. I live in New Haven and I'll try to get a free version of the HQ, though I give no guarantees or timeline. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The text has been copyedited again. I searched but could not find anyone directly criticising the Knights for their positions on marriage or abortion. I did add a little on how at some public colleges the men-only membership restriction was considered discriminatory. The Supreme Officers have been put into a table, as have the colors of the 4th Deree.
  • Support Ok, support, but I find it amazing no one has posed any criticism. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose This article reads like a promotional piece for the Knights of Columbus. While I'm not saying the article is wrong in what it states, the problem is that the article leaves out any criticism of the organization or its political stands. For example of criticisms of the organization, see these references regarding homosexuality and the organization[11] [12] and these references about how the organization used to ban Black people from the Knights of Columbus, resulting in Black Catholics founding the Knights of St. Peter Claver.[13][14] These are merely two criticisms of the organization that should be mentioned if the article is to be NPOV. Other critiques of the organizations (such as its political stands during the Civil Rights movement) should also be given.--Alabamaboy 16:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
As a side note to this, here is more info on the Knights of Columbus: "The Knights of Columbus, now numbering 1.5 million members in more than 10,000 councils, was founded in 1882. They did not accept blacks until some 30 years ago."[15] and "There was some embarrassment on the part of the church regarding the long-time segregation policy of the Knights of Columbus. The church's official explanation was that the Knights of Columbus was not a Catholic organization in an official sense and that the bishops did not have direct control over their internal affairs."[16] I thought I'd add in this info for the article's editors to use if they wish. In short, for most of its history the Knights of Columbus practiced segregation and the article should at least mention that. I should note that these last two references are from the National Catholic Reporter, and that the article came out in 1995, meaning the reference to "30 years ago" would be 40 years ago now. Best,--Alabamaboy 16:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Once you reminded me of the blackball system I went back and found the passages in F&F that discuss it. There is now a section of criticism. I honestly never thought about this as I joined in DC where almost all Knights were black. Never crossed my mind. I didn't inculde the gay man you mention but instead added the section about the lesbians who wanted to rent the hall since it had been through the courts and was better documented. --Briancua 02:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I was really impressed by the new criticism section and feel it really ballanced out the article. Many thanks.--Alabamaboy 13:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm confused. This seems to be listed as a Featured Article now, but I don't see that the discussion is closed here?--SarekOfVulcan 22:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Poetry[edit]

Self-nom. This one's been faced, featured, farced, and farced again; subject to cds, recordings and improvement drives; classed as "B" and reclassed as "A"; popped on a portal; peer reviewed; rewritten and refactored. It's a different article now than it was a month ago, and it's time to see what's wrong with it and get it fixed up right. Thanks for your input. Sam 22:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Support as nom. Sam 22:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Object. The referencing is too thin for a topic this broad and deep. Only two references and eleven footnotes, which is insufficient. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 00:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on adding footnotes, but have not heavily footnoted the sections where there are considerable main articles or see also articles that provide the best source of additional detail and support. For example, the systems of scansion article will provide a compare and contrast overview of all the major systems of scansion with footnotes to each different system; the parent article's footnotes cannot do the same degree of justice. Nonethelees, I'll stick in the scansion discussion a note to both a classic and a more recent and relatively broad work. I will add a number of references from my own library and from some of the main articles, but others should certainly add their own references, particularly to broaden the perspective. Again, though, I don't think this is the right place to develop a bibliography covering the ins and outs of Classical Chinese Verse, even though the subject is referenced in several places in the article. Sam 01:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Support. This has come alongway- I'm vastly impressed. My only quibble is that the rhyme, alliteration, and assonance section should have at least a cursory overview of those topics, instead of links to other articles. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 23:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. If those don't get tweaked by others before then, I'll tweak those over the weekend to address those points, as I'll be tied up on the morrow. As always, every bit of input helps. Sam 23:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I am working on something on rhyme, alliteration and assonance offline, but it's likely going to mean a minor refactoring of the following section. I'll likely be bringing it online in the next day.Sam 14:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. My changes in response to this suggestion are now on-line; I'd appreciate any further feedback you may have. Sam 20:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Object per RyanGerbil. Also, in the Common poetic forms section - these subsections are too short, they either need merging together or expanding. — Wackymacs 06:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

    • The "Common poetic forms" section lists examples of forms, each with a main article that gives detail and history. Thus, it is quite easy to expand them based on their main articles but will have a real impact on length without adding information that could not be achieved with a click. It is also easy to separate them as bulletted indents rather than as separate section headings, but, obviously, combining ghazal and sonnet doesn't work and won't be helpful. I'd appreciate additional input from you and/or others before choosing an option. (Footnotes and references continue to be added). Thanks, Sam 10:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I'd left a note on your talkpage that further changes were made to address these issues on the 16th; more consolidation and expansion has been done since then. I'd appreciate any further comment you may have. Sam 01:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Hmm.. Many important things seem missing, such as a mention of the famous Xanadu poem by Samuel Taylor Coleridge! — Wackymacs 08:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Many, many important things are missing, as they must be in a summary style article. I really don't want to attempt to reflect every important poem, and think that would be contrary to summary style. Likewise, we'll never add every important poet and keep it within size restrictions. So the attempt has been made to use individual poems and poets to illustrate issues, trying to use examples from a wide range of cultures, language, and time periods. Coleridge is an important figure, and I wouldn't mind at all using something from him to illustrate a point. The one that comes most to mind is the albatros in the Rime of the Ancient Mariner, which is a textbook example of symbolism that almost everyone taught in English language schools will get. (done - Sam 22:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)) Any thoughts? For Kubla Khan (the proper name of the Xanadu poem), my gut is that it's most notable as an illustration of Romanticism and of the incorporate of global themes emergering in the era of colonialism; I'd probably be tempted to use it as the latter, since Keats is more interesting as a discussion of Romanticism and my second choice there would be Goethe, part of the core German Romantic tradition, not Coleridge. Will using the Rime satisfy this objection, do you think I should use Kubla Khan instead, or are there other things you see that should be addressed? Sam 14:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Since it's a short section, perhaps "History and context of poetry" could come after "Nature of poetry?" The two could perhaps be merged into a "History and nature," or the former made a subsection of the latter. Also, per WP:MOSHEAD, the article's title shouldn't be repeated in the section headings unless necessary.--Monocrat 17:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)--done Sam 23:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm tempted to leave them apart for two reasons: first, I like the article beginning and ending on non-technical subjects, because it makes the point that poetry is not just rhyme and meter, and, second, the History of Poetry daughter article is a candidate for major expansion, and ultimately should be a full fledged article of equal size to the parent. I'd like to leave the current section so it can be developed as that article develops (but, that's the next project). I've fixed the heading; let me know your thoughts and whether you agree or disagree on the thinking. Thanks for the input. Sam 18:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
On closer review, I must oppose this nomination for the reasons below. First, a minor note: I understand your thinking on the history section, but I have to disagree. Separating complimentary content like that seems like it requires one skip other material (an annoyance) or causes one to give up reading the article altogether (defeating the purpose of the article). done -- Sam 00:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC) Other major issues:
  • Headings:
  • Delete the "(including examples)" from "Rhyming schemes;" (doneSam)
  • After scanning the article (haHA!), I'm unclear as to the differences between prosody, meter, and rhythm, especially as used in the headings: the lead of the section says the first refers to the second two (seemingly), separate concepts, but the rest of the section treats them interchaneably. In any case, wouldn't "Common metrical patterns" be better than "Common rhythmic patters?" (partially done; need to add a good example to Prosody intro; probably still need a pass-through on rhythm/meter usage Sam)
  • if you keep separate "History" separate, rename "Nature of poetry" to "Nature of the art," or some such to keep within WP:MOSHEAD; (done?Sam)
  • Numerous paragraphs in "Basic elements" are short, two- or three-sentence affairs, which I try to avoid whenever possible; (combined many done- Sam)
  • Missing citations need to be plugged up;(doneSam)
  • The epic is missing as a common form, and Horace is implied to be Greek. Granted, epic isn't practiced anymore, but it's important enough to warrant inclusion, especially since it is mentioned twelve or thirteen times in the article. And while Horace did write some in Greek, Latin was his main and native medium. (Horace fixed; see below on Epic. And epic certainly is practiced still, every now and then, and particularly by translators. Sam)
  • Why the choice of tanka over haiku? I'm not partisan either way, just curious. (see belowSam)
  • Some terms are over-wikilinked or wikilinked in quick succession, like epic and Persian and Arabic poetry; (cleaned up Sam)
  • Worse, wikilinks often seem poorly handled: "Japanese waka poetry" refers not to waka but to Japanese poetry. Moreover, I'm not fond of seeing the tanka heading and then a reference wikilink to waka (poetry)--it seems jarring. Remove the parenthetic disambiguation from wikilinks like Parallelism (rhetoric). Cut a few repetitive wikilinks and pipe the others better. See WP:MOS-L and Help:Contents/Links. (cleaned up)
There are some wording issues, but those probably won't keep me opposing it. I'll try to find some later. This is a great article, and I hope to support its candidacy soon.--Monocrat 19:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed commentary; some of these issues are ones that are hard to see if you've been drafting for a while.
I can go on for some length about differences between Prosody, Meter and Rhythm, but will save it for the article; there's lots of good stuff written on that and we can make it clearer (and, yes, Common Metrical Forms is better). There is a sentence distinguishing meter and rhythm, but it may well belong at the beginning of Prosody, a place you've identified. Epic isn't there because it is really a genre rather than a form; that is, the form of Gilgamesh and the Illiad have little in common as far as their form, it is their length and subject matter that distinguish them. The forms chosen were chosen primarily based on the quality of what I saw on wikipedia to summarize; there is an element of randomness, and I'm happy to be second-guessed on any of it. Again, thanks. IMHO, the detailed commentary is the whole reason for this process. Sam 20:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I like the changes I see so far. I'll defer on the epic as a form. You might get more mileage out of haiku than tanka, mentioning the former's origins, major poets, its depenency on the season, it's popularity, and perhaps its political uses (Emperor Hirohito's use of a New Year's haiku to subtly protest the occupation). The more I think about it, the stronger I feel that "History and context" should be moved up: the whole article up to that point tells us what poetry is, but not what it does or what it is for. I really think that section should go first, not last. Since the lead should be capable of standing on its own (WP:LEAD), I think you should put a bit of history and context into it and a few prominent poets. Speaking of which, one or two names for Arab, Persian and Indian poets wouldn't hurt.--Monocrat 21:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Works in progress; believe it or not, I have a little chart of everyone named in here and had noted that Arabic and Indian names are needed (the Shahnameh and Ferdowsi get mentioned). I'll take nominations; you may see the appearance of some pre-Islamic paeans to camels soon...But, as to the big question, while working on it, I'm becoming more and more convinced that the discussion of poetics and history should be distinct, and am wondering if the discussion of poetics in chronological form is causing some of the trouble. It's the difference between philosophy and history. But it may make sense to put the discussions next to each other. It also may be that the "contexts" belongs with the "poetics". The problem with sticking names in the lead is it makes biases too obvious - why Homer but not the Gilgamesh poet or the Vedas, each of which is arguably just as influential? Should Du Fu be chosen over Goethe (who is not mentioned at all right now)? Even Shakespeare is a footnote when the full expanse of poetry is considered in three paragraphs. Sam 21:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, started playing with it and just refactored these whole two sections. Any reactions? Sam 21:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I like it on first reading, but perhaps you should add what Eastern civilizations thought of poetry. In lieu of that difficult task, you might want to tweak your wording to reflect that these are western interpretations. (Eg: "The classical and early modern world" -> "Classical and early modern Western interpretations" or some such.) Regarding names: I know it's tough, and I had thought about biases when writing the above, but I think it's important nevertheless. In addition to Eastern authors, Homer and Shakespeare seem defensible choices for the English Wikipedia, but perhaps Pindar and Spencer would be acceptable as influential but less well known authors. Heck, maybe just use a spreadsheet to randomize your list of poets and pick the top five. :)--Monocrat 22:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not capable of describing Eastern poetics or the history of Eastern poetry well enough, so I chose door #2; it would be great for others to add more on Eastern poetics. I do know enough about Arabic to increase the coverage there, and have been doing so. Look on the Poet page, where names are used in the lead - it's not good. There are names sprinkled through the article, and I think it's best to use them to demonstrate points. I will see if there is a point or two that can be demonstrated in the lead, but don't want a list. Still thinking about Haiku v. Tanka; I'm not sure there is a reason to change, though if someone who knows both forms better wants to take a crack, that would be good. Signing off now. Sam 23:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I think part of the problem with Poets is that it implicitly raises English poetry above the West and the "world." Despite appearances, I'm not married to the point, so I'll not push it more. The article needs a copy-edit for style and flow, and I think a few paragraphs could still be merged. (Perhaps this weekend I'll lend a hand in that department.) Once those citations are taken care of, and a few more added (do all literate civilizations really have poetry?), I think it will be feature-worthy. It's almost there. --Monocrat 01:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
That is one of many problems with Poets. I found a way to get a few names in, and I think it works, since it fits well with the discussion below. I've done a pass through on links and paragraphs, and some copy-edit while I was at it. The all literate civilizations line is one I've left in there from what was there before; I have no good reason to doubt it, but can't provide a ready cite. My friends with expertise in reading development have told me that poetry is strong in oral traditions, so most pre-literate societies use more rhythm and rhyme in their daily speach than we do, which would explain why so much early literature is poetic. In archeology, I've been told that most of what shows up as the first written words, even laws carved in stone, is poetic. So, I've left it to date. I'd love to see support, though. I don't think I'm going to replace Tanka with Haiku - I think the Haiku material is more obviously unfinished and less link worthy, but feel free to either add or change, as it's not a point I feel that strongly about. I'm about to disappear for a day or two, but will be looking at this again over the weekend. I'm hoping the article will start to gather steam and support. By the way, thanks for the input. I think it has helped.Sam 21:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Summary: I think the above has all been addressed, though of course more attention is always a good thing, but still have the following as items to address: (a) more on prosody/meter/rhythm distinctions; (b) a bit more footnoting around the linguistics discussion (not my area, so any help here from a reader is appreciated); (c) more on Indian poetry and poets in particular and non-European poetry and poets in general. But, this is at 50K overall, and we should probably be cutting as we add. Sam 23:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm very happy with how you worked the poets into the lead. I personally believe that all literate and many pre-literate societies have poetry--though there comes a point where I imagine it's difficult to distinguish poetry from oral music--but it seems like too sweeping a claim to have without source. I won't remove it, though. Overall I think the prose is compelling (though a copyedit is still in order), and it strikes me as suitably neutral and comprehensive for such a broad topic. I'm a little worried about the necessity of some of the details. I hope to have more suggestions for you when you get back.--Monocrat 02:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I've done some copyediting, and I hope I haven't ruined everything. Mostly, I sought to remove some finer detail in th "Common poetic forms" sections, and to clean up the wikilinks. Some remaining issues: "Prosody" still seems a little repetitive. It might help to remove the lists of metrical patterns and lengths. (They might be at home in meter, which lacks a succinct presentation of those terms.) Perhaps a little too much attention is given to the skaldic forms, and the end of the first paragraph of "Stanzas..." seems a little confused.--Monocrat 17:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I agree on stanzas; it is interesting, but many critics have trouble talking about stanzas and lines and their role in poetry. I haven't found a satisfactory discussion on either, so it's worth continuing to try to create something. I want to indicate somehow that the lists of metrical patterns and lengths is not exhaustive, but to include enough of the material so a reader understands the fundamentals. I'll think about these issues. Sam 17:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Understood. I think that the issue about metrical feet could be solved more or less by converting those lists into prose. Simply cutting them wouldn't be too bad, either, since you list several of the most notable ones along with major works. That would also free up some space for more discussion elsewhere. In the meanwhile, I think the article has come along enough that I can offer strong support for its candidacy. Good work! --Monocrat 22:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I tried converting them into prose; even a cursory explanation of the "spondee" and "anapest", as well as all the other feet, will take up far more room than the list. I think the best solution for the time being is to keep the list, so the article fulfills the general goal of providing a basic poetic vocabulary to the reader, with the idea that when the poetic feet article is ultimately expanded it may be possible to use a more abbreviated format.Sam 20:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Looks like someone's been busy adding references. Themillofkeytone 18:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Anonymous__Anonymous 11:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as it seems a strong enough article to feature to my eye. But we do need to find a reference to the claim that rhyme entered European poetry through Arabic verse. —Saposcat 12:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)done Sam 00:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - I did not add that statement, but have seen the claim elsewhere (for example, there was a discussion along these lines in Natalie Zemon Davis' Trickster's Travels, but my memory is that she was relying on someone else's work for the claim). I've been meaning to start pulling out late late/early medeival poetry to try to see which poems start the trend; I'm guessing it will be in Spain, Italy and France. Sam 12:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I found a good discussion, though I only got to read as much of it as google books would permit. A 2003 book on Arab influences on Medieval European literature. Surprisingly little within it on rhyme, but enough to make the statement a bit less overwhelming in terms of its claim and to support it as amended. Sam 17:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. —Coat of Arms (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Doesn't look comprehensive to me, there is no section on poetry throughout the world (different forms in different countries, etc.). The template at the bottom is not above, it marks several sections that should exist in the article but don't.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I would strongly object to creating a single section on poetry throughout the world other than English language. An effort has been made to integrate the discussion of poetry of many cultures, languages and time periods throughout the article, and you will note links in the body of the article to a wide range of Arabic, Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Persian and Russian poetry, poetic forms, or linguistic issues. There is a separate need on Wikipedia for a comprehensive and detailed history of poetry discussion, and you'll note that the Main article for the first section is "history of poetry". The History of Poetry article is not yet a good article, but growing it is one of the projects when this article is done. Likewise, the daughter article on Meter is only just beginning to see enough cultural broadening to be useful. This article on Poetry in general is simply an very broad brush overview of the historical, philosophical, linguistic, and formal aspects of poetry, leaving the detail on each of these elements for daughter articles. That is why only five poetic forms are covered (two European, one Middle Eastern/South Asian, one Japanese, and one Chinese); there are literally dozens of prominent forms beyond these, but it would be beyond the scope of the article. In terms of things that are missing, there is a need for more discussion of Chinese and Indian poetics in particular, since the discussion now focuses on Aristotle, Averroes, Confucianism and Kant. However, we don't yet have articles on these topics to summarize and refer to, and I, at least, am not competant to draft them myself. It would also be useful to have more on sub-saharan poetry (right now there is one reference to sub-saharan tonal languages), but this is another place where Wikipedia resources are scarce and special knowledge is needed. If you see specific links on those templates you think should be worked in to the discussion, I'd love to work them in more. I promise you, each link on the language and culture templates has been checked and an attempt has been made to use something from every major tradition, but by integrating them into the discussion, not separating them out into separate sections. Best, Sam 14:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
A number of additional changes have been made to the sections that seemed most in need of reflecting more non-English language poetry and poetic issues; in particular, additional discussion and examples were added in the sections discussing meter and near the opening. I'd be interested in any further thoughts you have, or any reaction to the idea that we're trying to reflect a broader world view throughout the article rather than in just one section. Sam 00:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; an amazing accomplishment. Global perspective, comprehensive yet concise, well researched. One of the best articles I've ever seen here. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Amazingly well-written and comprehensive. Avoids English-language and Greco-Roman bias, well-referenced and yet not too long or too in-depth. Wonderful read, especially for such a difficult (broad) topic to write a good article on. —Cuiviénen 04:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Awesome. Awesome to the max. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The opening sentence uses jargon. In particular, it suggests that there is a clear distinction between "notional content" and "semantic content" -- and maybe there is, but I don't think it's very relevant to the average reader interested in poetry. As per WP:LEAD, "specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction." --Alex S 15:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd be happy to see it say something like "ostensible meaning." I see your point here. While notional or semantic content is a more precise way of saying it, using the terms in the intro without explanation could put off a reader. I also think notional and semantic content are quite close, and the "or" between them is not meant to create an opposition, so that is confusing as well. Thanks Sam 16:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
See what you think - I changed it to ostensible meaning, but kept the first link (which was to "meaning (linguistics)" anyways, piping it to "meaning"; I eliminated the link to semantics. I think it's better. Sam 16:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sikhism[edit]

A lot of blood, sweat and tears has gone into making this page a whole lot better than it once was. Extensive work has been done by myself, Rama's Arrow and Rajatjghai (as well as countless others) into improving the article. I believe that the article discusses the customs, principles and history of Sikhism accurately and in enough detail as is possible in a single article (without going over the top!). There is a large collection of references, from numerous sources of which most are published books. The article has been through a peer review and we have collected and addressed most comments.

Please make this a FA! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Support per nom, although some copyediting has to be done. Rama's Arrow 00:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support per nom, Highly Recommended as FA. God willing, we will all see it on the main page in a few days. Rajatjghai 02:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support per nom,Gurm 07:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm yet to read the article, but, shouldn't ==History== be moved to be the first section? The lone subsection should be merged into its parent section. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 14:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    I've merged the subsection. I'm not sure about moving History up because none of the other major religion pages seem to do that (see Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam). They seem to place more emphasis on general beliefs before history. However, if there is a general consensus to move it up, we can do that. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, I see. Somehow, I started looking for ==History== when it came to Sikhism.
    • The ==Ceremonies== subsection actually talks about customs and a bit of philosophy.
    • On a light reading, it appears that content is good, but it needs a refactoring of text, and summarisation per WP:SUMMARY. Once done, I see that subsections either would not be necessary or would be more evenly distributed across sections. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 14:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
      I've addressed your first point and will look at the second point later on when I have more time. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
      A lot of work has since been done on the article. Please check it out. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Support now. The article has improved a lot. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support per nom, Gsingh 16:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: I've seen this article evolve to its present state, and the huge amount of work put in over more than a month. I think it's worthy of featured status now. deeptrivia (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    Fixed! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Nice work—just a few comments: Why the unicode for Guru Gobind Singh? With no special symbols, it looks rather funny. Also, some of the special symbols don't work for me (appear as squares). Could be my system, but since many of the symbols do work, I thought I'd mention it. Should "emphasize" be spelled "emphasise" to be consistent, or is the former used in England? --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 20:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    There shouldn't be a Unicode for Guru Gobind Singh. There was originally because it used the ISO transliteration, but I changed them to increase readability. Can you tell me which symbols or words you don't see properly? It could be that they're missing unicode tags. Well, strictly speaking, 'ize' is valid in British English - but this article uses 'ise' so it should be consistent. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    Fixed the unnecessary use of Unicode tags and changed spelling to 'ise'. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Here are the ones I can see at the moment:
      • ik ōaṅkār
      • Rāi Bhōi dī Talvaṇḍī
      • laṅgar
      • bandī chōḍ divas
      • Vaṇḍ Chakkō (in see also)
    • There might be more that I didn't notice, but I think that's most of them at least. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 21:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
      Ah, I see. Try downloading Code 2000 as your fallback font. Might require you to select it as a preferred font in the IE/Firefox options. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
      Is there any way for this to be visible without downloading something? I don't mind, but for the reader's sake it'd be nice to avoid this if possible. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      I concur. I actually did try to download that software but its shareware. Not many people would want to download shareware. Sukh, Can you guide me to a trusted freeware instead. I do have Indic enabled on my computer, but I still see boxes above -- Lost 17:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      The visibility of the text largely depends on the user's operating system, browser and installed fonts. For example, if you have IE 6 with Office (it comes with Arial Unicode MS) on Windows XP you should be able to view it fine. On the other hand, if you don't have Office, I don't think you will. But if you have another fallback font installed, then it'll work fine. I think IE 7 will address some of these issues. See [17] for a comprehensive list of fonts. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Image:GuruTeghBahadurJi FreedomOfReligion2.jpg is improperly sourced and is very unlikely to be licensed under the GFDL. Image:Dictation of the Guru Granth Saheb.jpg is improperly sourced. Further, are the external links very helpful? If they are, why aren't they cited as references. If they're not, why are we directing readers there? Also more than a little long at 49k. Jkelly 21:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    Hopefully I can address your concerns:
    • Images removed pending further clarification on copyright status. I'm not so sure about the first image, but the style of the second image suggests that it's quite old (and possible PD). However, we won't reinsert them until source is clarified.
    • I've removed one of the external links which isn't as helpful as the others. However, the Sikhs.org and AllAboutSikhs.com are very useful sites in terms of content (the first I consider good for a casual reader, the second I think is probably the best all round Sikh resource site online). Sri Granth is a copy of the Sikh holy book in English with the original Gurmukhi. SikhiWiki is a wiki dedicated to building a Sikh encyclopedia. SikhNet is a very popular community web site that has lots of useful resources. I think the first three links are especially useful and the last two links less so, but overall I think they're all good sites. The reason they're not used in referencing is because I thought books were preferred sources for references (definately better than websites) and therefore I've tried to use them more than websites.
    • Page size is something I've struggled on. I find it very very difficult to include a comprehensive look at the Sikh religion without going over the '32k' recommended size. I mean with a bit more trimming, we could probably knock off 4-5k at the most. That still leaves a 45k page. Not sure what I can really do in that respect. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I struck my objection... but please do work on trimming some material and putting it into the daughter articles. Jkelly 22:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support per nom. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The whole article could do with a massive rewrite. Not in terms of structure or content, but merely in line-by-line clarification, reordering of sentences, elimination of unexplained jargon, and so on. Just not brilliant prose. zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Please be specific in your criticism. Your description doesn't establish what the problem really is - we need to have something to fix. Rama's Arrow 01:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote the God section as an example. Basically, there is way too much jargon, and the article is daunting if not unreadable for newcomers. In my opinion, this article should be a (comprehensive, of course) introduction to Sikhism, and the finer details - the etymology of certain terms, the nitty gritty of Sikhism's early history, and much more - should be reserved for the subarticles. The main point of the article should be answering the question "What is Sikhism?", and when the opening sentence of the Philosophy and Teachings section states "Sikhism is commonly viewed as a syncretic mixture of Hinduism and Islam," without even (before I edited it) a link explaining what "syncretic" means, the reader is lost in jargon that is only slightly relevant to the subject at immediate hand (philosophy and teachings). In short, use more topic sentences, cut out the jargon in this main survey article, KISS, and be clear and concise whenever possible. zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Support. It is much better now. :-) zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Per zahiroblue. Excessive jargon may put off readers outside South Asia. The article is either silent or ambiguous on topics like idolatry, caste, jurisprudence,... Also I detect some avoidable confusion between religious and cultural practices of Punjab e.g. Vaisakhi. There is also some confusion between religious and political aspects of Sikhism itself e.g. Sarbat Khalsa (looks like the equivalent of Jamaath) and Gurmata (equivalent of Fatwa?). What exactly is the holy language of Sikhs - Gurumukhi, Sant Bhasa, Braj, Punjabi? Do Sikhs pray daily? Do they fast? Do Gurudwaras permit non-Sikhs? Is there any formal process of conversion? Is pilgrimage mandatory? I can't find anything at all about the religion proper. Instead I learn only about Punjab's ethos. Anwar 13:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    Anwar, you make some good points. However, it must be remembered that Sikhism is *not* a religion with a rigourous set of rules. So to answer your questions (which I'll attempt to put in the article), Sikhs are encouraged to pray daily, gurdwaras permit all people (any background, religion, sex, race etc..), Sikhs do not fast, there is no formal conversion process, pilgrimage is not mandatory (and ritualistic pilgrimage is discouraged). There is a direct quote from Guru Nanak discouraging fasting, pilgrimage and rituals [18].
    Idolatory and caste discrimination is forbidden [19]. The Sikh religion does not have a complex set of laws and rules, although it does have a decision making 'arm'. We'll have to wait for Hardeep to say more on this, because I'm not too familiar with this side of Sikhism. I'll get reading ;)
    Sikhs do NOT have a holy language. The Guru Granth Sahib has an extensive use of languages used in India at the time of which 'Sant Bhasha' (consider it a religious proto-Hindustani if you will) is the most common. However, Sikhs holy books contain far ranging influences including Punjabi, Hindi-Urdu, Lahndi, Marathi, Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic and probably more.
    If there are any further points you think should be mentioned in the article, please mention them so we can add them. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    I feel I have addressed your points now. Please take a look at the article. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is getting much better. Can anyone explain what this sentence (in Pursuing Salvation) means?
    Māyā — defined as illusion or "unreality" — is one of the core deviations from the pursuit of God and salvation.
  • Specifically, what is meant by "deviation"? Is maya good or bad? Or neither? And how? zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    Deviation means "distraction" from the pursuit of God - a deviation from Nanak's method of devotion. People are enticed by illusions and lose their discipline and sense of devotion. Rama's Arrow 20:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The one part of the article I haven't gone over specifically is the history section, which strikes me as significantly too long, overshadowing other parts of the article. Most of the details should remain in the subarticle, I think. But it's almost there... zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    We've already reduced the size of the history section to eliminate details about modern politics, etc. The need for a large history section comes from the fact that the conflict with the Mughal empire, the Sikh empire and the Khalsa military order an inalienable elements of Sikhism. So that needs detailed explanations. Rama's Arrow 21:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    I agree with Rama's Arrow. We've tried to condense the information in a 300 page book into a few paragraphs. The slightly expanded look at Guru Nanak's life is very crucial because he was the Guru that established the founding principles of the faith. Some gurus barely get a mention at all. I doubt we can remove more information while retaining the required level of information. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 1. Avoid the usage of those 'characters' as section headings. 2. other means of disposing the body may be employed -- please don't leave the sentence hanging. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    Fixed your first point. I'm not sure what you mean by the second point? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
'other means of disposing the body may be employed -- how? by burial? or by way of how the Zorastrians do, leaving it to nature? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll add the word 'any' infront of it. Essentially the body isn't considered important after the soul has departed. So any of the methods could technically be employed (although I dare say most Sikhs would not prefer the Zorastrian method!). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Cryptography[edit]

Self-nom. We've worked on this article to make it more of a balance between modern and historical crypto, and to provide good references. It's challenging in a summary article like this. The article is stable; there was once a battle over the user of "cipher" vs. "cypher" but it has stabilized. I'm looking forward to specific comments especially so that this article can become featured. Previous FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cryptography/archive1. Mangojuicetalk 20:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Minor objectionSupport - Good, comprehensive article, but I think a (sub)section on "cryptography in the everyday world" (mentioned in the lead) would be a good addition to "Cryptography and Modern Society" which deals mostly with legal issues. In addition, you may want to check parts of the text for an overkill of terms and abbreviations that may be deterring to the non-expert reader - especially "Symmetric-key cryptography". Taking a few extra words or sentences to explain would be useful there. Jeronimo 21:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I tried to pare down the Symmetric-key crypto section for readability. Will address the rest later. Mangojuicetalk 21:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I couldn't come up with much to say on "cryptography in the everday world" that was more than a list of things that use cryptography. I retitled that section "Legal issues involving cryptography" to be more accurate, and I expanded a bit about crypto in everyday life in the lead instead. The only other idea I had to address this would be to have a section on cryptography in popular culture, but in my experience that kind of section becomes a nasty cruft-magnet. Mangojuicetalk 17:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I can see this is difficult. Perhaps you can give a few (short) examples of uses of cryptography such as mentioned in the lead section - what kind of encryption is used in e-mail or ATM machines? Can they be cracked? Note that this doesn't necessarily have to be full section - it could also be a few sentences spread over the article at appropriate places. But maybe it's just not suited for an article - I'll think about it as well. Jeronimo 21:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll see what I can do. The answer to your question is, unfortunately, too complicated to answer fully, but we could probably have simple statements like "AES is used in some ATM machines," without further explanation. Mangojuicetalk 14:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, I salted the article with some references back to everyday life, and applications average people will be familiar with like secure email and ATM machines. (BTW, I was wrong, AES seems to be totally absent from ATMs, they all still use triple-DES.) Mangojuicetalk 20:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Supporting now. Like the new pictures as well, BTW. Jeronimo 06:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Remove excessive links to non-full dates. You can find these by searching for '19' (or '[[19' in edit mode). Alternatively, it is easy with a single click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. bobblewik 10:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
There is still one unnecessary date link. Look for '19' as before and you will find '19th century'. bobblewik 21:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Addressed. I refactored this here, as it wasn't a response to the comment it was below. (Hope no one minds.) Mangojuicetalk 21:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't you moving the comment. I am grateful for your efforts in this article. Keep up the good work. bobblewik 22:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Rlevse 17:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks quite good to me; a few minor comments after a quick read. I'll try to come back for a detailed reading. Schutz 16:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • In section "Modern cryptography": The modern field of cryptography can be broken down into several areas of study. The following are the main ones, but they are not the only ones. Is it possible to refer to another article that would give more information about what the others ones may be ?
    • "Legal issues": This section is very US-centric. France used to be one of the rare western countries to strictly limit the actual use of cryptography, and it may be worth a mention. Also, the Wassenaar Arrangement should probabaly be there somewhere, beings the main international agreement controlling the export of cryptographic material.
    • Also, the last sentence of the section, about the EFF, is a bit short to deserve a paragraph by itself. It may be worth giving a short list of what the EFF achieved (or did not manage to achieve) ?
    • Given that this is the main page about a relatively general topic, it'd be nice to have a "Further reading" section which would indicate a few general books on the topic
      • (1): Perhaps that sentence should be revised. Basically, areas that are in any way recognized as an "area" are all subareas of the ones described. For instance, e-commerce is one area, but it's basically a subarea of the protocols area. (2) good point, I'll do my best to address it. (3): I think that gets a little off-topic. There's a lot the EFF has done, and it's covered pretty well in the EFF article. Maybe we should change that to a "see also"? (4): Good point. This used to be there, but then some of those books got used as references; will do. Mangojuicetalk 17:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
For EFF, I guess it's all or nothing: either removing the mention altogether (which I am ok with), or replacing it with a more detailed paragraph. One more comment: I was quite interested in the "Cryptography in the modern world" discussion above, and I think it is a valid point: as a reader of an encyclopedia, I think I would expect to learn how this topic is relevant to my everyday life, by mentioning topics such as smart cards (with a picture ?), SSL (with a picture of the yellow padlock in a random web browser ?). Schutz 21:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I moved the EFF link into the See Also section, to avoid these issues. I have now updated the legal section to cover international law some more; the US is still covered most, but that's appropriate as the US is where much crypto comes from. I added a couple more pics, as a way to be more friendly to a non-expert reader, and added some mentions back to everyday life. It's not really feasible to fully discuss how crypto impacts everyday life, because there are too many things, and it gets even more technical to get into it properly. So there are a few toss-off mentions of other things, now, for non-expert readers to relate to. I also addressed (1) and (4). Mangojuicetalk 20:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Support now. Schutz 21:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This could be expanded: the history section could use the names of some famous cryptographers, and I was somewhat suprised not to see a link to Cryptonomicon, probably the most famous recent book (part fiction, part math) related to cryptography.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Link to Cryptonomicon is there now, in the new "further reading" section. (Just finished reading it yesterday, funny coincidence.) There actually are many names of famous cryptographers in the article; not as many in the History section, but still several there. The names of modern cryptographers appear in the Modern Cryptography section. Mangojuicetalk 20:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The caption for the first picture in the article could be improved by providing more detail - specifically, the purpose of the Lorenz cipher machine, its time period (i.e. world war II) and a link to the Lorenz article. Jazriel 15:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Addressed. Mangojuicetalk 16:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: "It's a common fallacy that every encryption method can be broken by someone, even if we include intelligence agencies such as the NSA." -- the sentence is not clear. also, "exponential" in the same para shoulb be wikilinked. There are also a whole bunch of minor punctuation problems, like two fullstops at the end of a sentence.--ppm 17:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Addressed. I also took a pass through the article generally, and cleaned up some awkward sentences, and tightened things up a little. Mangojuicetalk 20:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • More comments
  1. "ie, a key" -- what's the wiki rule: is it ie or i.e.?
  2. "Cryptography is also recommended in the Kama Sutra as a way for lovers to communicate without discovery." -- the Kama Sutra article seems to not contain anything of the kind, hence a reference is needed.
  3. "In modern techniques, a cipher is only one part of a cryptosystem, a set of algorithms, protocols, and operating procedures for encryption and decryption that use the cipher as one of the cooperating elements." -- the sentence is saying the same thing twice.
  4. Enigma and other german machines are mentioned, but what about the breaking of them? the article Alan Turing has some pertinent info.
  5. Is it possible to incorporate some more non-US info in the "Legal issues" part? Alternatively, the chapter can be made shorter and can have an separate article .
  6. I know its hard to cover everything, but I would like to ask editors to consider a few more lines on more advance stuff like secure multiparty stuff -- maybe Yao's result on millionaires problem?

--ppm 00:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Changed your comments to a numbered list. 1: I.e. is more proper, addressed. 2: I believe that's in the Kahn book (reference at the end of the paragraph), but I found a specific reference; addressed. 3: I see some awkwardness there, addressed now. 5: The section addresses the laws of many nations, but more weight is given to the US. This is appropriate, because the US was the battleground that received by far the most attention. Part of the reason is that the US was the source of most of the crypto and crypto research at the time. I think the current distribution is appropriate. 4: I expanded the caption under the Enigma picture. The text where Enigma is introduced is more about the use of mechanical aids in cryptography, so it doesn't flow as well there. 6: I think not. The article is already bordering on too long, and secure multiparty computation is very hard to explain to a lay audience. This article is, after all, supposed to be a high-level survey. And that result is no more interesting than several dozen others I could mention. Mangojuicetalk 05:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support now. nice article.--ppm 18:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A tangled topic, with connections to almost everything, but this is currently a satisfactory attempt at an overview. And has been improved by the changes provoked by the FA process. Worth featuring. ww 19:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In the interests of full disclosure, ww has been a frequent editor of the Cryptography article. Still, ww has high standards! Mangojuicetalk 19:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I was the nominator of this article the last time it was up for FA status and withdrew it after some extensive, and very bold, revisions by another editor. I haven't had much to do with it since then. Perhaps a few of my edits survive in the current version. ww 08:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Allison[edit]

I just finished the article, and on behalf of the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject I am nominating it for Featured Article status. It is comprehensive (over 40 kb of information, but not too much unnecessary detail), good writing IMO, very stable, follows the style correctly, and has good use of images. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ;) Hurricanehink (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Just one minor nit-picking. The reference-placing is inconsistant with sometimes appearing before and sometimes after the punctuation. Also, at a lot of places, there are stray spaces before punctuation marks. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing that. I'll fix it, but how should it be; before or after the punctuation? Hurricanehink (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Preferably after punctuation, and without any leading spaces. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support, will change to support if something is done about the enormous length of dollar sums in the lead. Personally, I would list the amounts in 2005 USD (or 2001 USD, I suppose) and leave it at that, but they may not be necessary at all in the lead. —Cuiviénen 02:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Ooh, didn't realize that. OK, is that better? Hurricanehink (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; nice work. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 14:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Good Job on the article, really good details. °≈§→ Robomaeyhem: T/←§≈° 04:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, as all the little details have been fixed, and it was a great article to start. Another piece of brilliant prose by Hurricanehink. Titoxd(?!?) 03:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)