Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2008

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Featured log

December 2008 edit

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:23, 31 December 2008 [1].

Wonder Stories edit

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk)

This is an article about one of the earliest science fiction magazines. Amazing Stories was recently featured and would be a good comparison. Another point that may be of interest is that as result of some recent discussion at the FAC talk page and elsewhere about short articles, I decided to include a couple of other magazines in this article. The details are given in the article so I won't repeat them, but essentially the article covers between two and five magazines, depending on which bibliographer is counting. If I didn't include Science Wonder Quarterly, I'd end up with a very short article on that magazine that would need a good deal of material copied verbatim from this article. Anyway, I look forward to comments; thanks for all input. Mike Christie (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • What makes http://news.ansible.co.uk/a239.html a reliable source?
    It's the online version of the science fiction news and gossip fanzine Ansible (magazine). David Langford, who publishes it, has won multiple Hugo Awards for the magazine, and it is widely respected. Langford controls the content, so there is editorial control. If you don't think it passes I can cut it; I might be able to replace it, but I might also just cut the whole paragraph -- the 2007 reissue is not the same magazine, it just uses the same name, and I don't think it has to be mentioned. Mike Christie (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it might be related to the fanzine, but wasn't sure. I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean reliable for non-controversial information. It wouldn't be safe for a BLP, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • The intention is for them to convey a lot of information that would be very tedious to put into text. The volume numbering, for example, which is of interest to collectors, doesn't have to be mentioned at all in the text if I have those charts. The transition dates for the editors, the exact months when publication was skipped, just when the magazine was monthly and when it was bimonthly -- all those things are easy to read from the chart. I have done this in a single chart, e.g. in If (magazine); but for Amazing Stories I split them up per a PR comment, and I think that looks better. Do you think the information is unnecessary, or is it that the presentation could be improved? Mike Christie (talk) 12:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally don't see the use of such information, at least in it's split-up form, and would advocate a single list. Also, to improve accessibility, it should really say on the image pages and in the caption what the numbers mean; it took me a while to figure out that it was 12 issues in a volume and unlike many publications it didn't correlate to year. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added more information to the image descriptions. For the article itself, the first caption does say that the numbers mean the volume and issue number; I felt it would be annoying to the reader to repeat it on every caption. Long captions are ugly, too. I can do it if necessary, but my instinct is not to do so. Mike Christie (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just realized I didn't respond to the comment about usefulness: I do think this is useful information to some readers; I'm aware it won't be to many readers, but I don't think that's a big problem. I did originally have it as a single list, but was strongly advised at PR to break it up, so I'll wait and see what other reviewers feel about it. It's very easy to rejoin the images if that's preferred. Mike Christie (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My rationale is that since it's a more niche item of interest it makes more sense to keep it together rather than sprinkled through, otherwise readers are going to think it's more important than it is... I leave it up to others. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content

  • Lead:
    • "Startling itself only lasted to the end of 1955 before falling victim to the general decline of the pulp magazine industry." - the way this is phrased, it makes it sound like Starling was suddenly and violently affected by the decline of the industry; I'm sure this was much more of a long-term trend. Can that be made more clear?
    • I'm concerned about a bit of overuse of weasel words, in particular "some". "Some well-received fiction", "in the opinion of some science fiction historians"...
    • "Some well-received fiction was published by both Lasser and Hornig, but Hornig's efforts in particular were overshadowed by the success of Astounding Stories that had become the leading magazine in the new field of science fiction"
    • "and for a period in the early 1940s was especially juvenile in presentation" - juvenile in presentation, to me, implies garish graphics and lots of whiz-bang covers attempting to attract young boys. Do you mean it's design and aesthetic or the quality of it's stories, or both? If so, it might be better to explicitly make it clear.

It's easier for me to keep track of comments if you keep them separated from mine below. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "falling victim": I added "finally", hoping that this indicates that the process was drawn out and not sudden. Does that work?
  • Weasel words: you mention two items in the lead. In both cases I think these are supported by specific citations when the topics are dealt with in the body -- Ashley is named in the text for the "historian" comment, and the other is supported by reference to specific stories. Hence these don't seem to me like weasel words -- I think of weasel words as ones that are not supported but which try to insinuate a point. I could make the lead more specific, by citing specific stories, and mentioning Ashley by name, but that didn't seem suitable for the lead, which is just a summary after all. Would extra specificity fix this for you?
  • "which vs. that": this is a non-restrictive clause, so it does need to be "which", not "that"; I think the problem was that I left out a comma. See [2], which is my favourite page on this grammatical topic.
  • The answer is "both": the section on Weisinger and Friend gives more details. Again I think of the lead as merely summarizing here, but I could expand it to something like "was especially juvenile in both editorial style and artistic presentation". Would that be better?
-- Mike Christie (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I leave it up to your knowledge about which/that; the 'finally' clarifies things. My only concern is still with the weasel words. I understand what you mean, but I'd just like a little more specificity rather than 'some'. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the lead to have a specific well-known story cited to support the "some well-received fiction" comment, and I attributed the second phrase that concerned you specifically to Mike Ashley. Now I make the change, I think you're definitely right on that latter one; that opinion is not universal among critics so it does need to be attributed. And the former change is helpful too, so I think you were right. Mike Christie (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that takes care of my comments. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean Support. Comment - Image in "Contents and reception" causes a heading disruption. This could be remedied by removing the heading "Air Wonder and Science Wonder". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm leaning support on what I see now. "Contents and reception" the second paragraph could use a sentence or two to flush it out. Is there a second example of this? A sentence or two would help. Since this would be my only exposure to it, multiple examples would improve my understanding. Also, I can easily fully support this once all of the above users' comments are dealt with (or, many of them :) ). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added another example -- let me know if that's enough. I left a message for Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs at his talk page; he is not much on-wiki at the moment, I gather, which is probably why he hasn't responded to my notes above. Mike Christie (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I made a little copyedit for clarity. I'll wait to see what others say, but I see no problems with the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeTony (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)—1a. I've read only the first para, and there are things wrong in every sentence. Can you find someone fresh to the text to copy-edit the whole article carefully? Know where to find someone?[reply]

  • Awkward opening: "Wonder Stories was an early science fiction magazine which, under several titles, was published from 1929 to 1955." Why not just: "Wonder Stories was an early science fiction magazine that was published under several titles from 1929 to 1955.
  • "It was founded by Hugo Gernsback in 1929 in the aftermath of the Experimenter Publishing bankruptcy, in which he lost control of his first science fiction magazine"—Is the tense right? ("had lost"?). And "in ... in ... in"; what about "in the aftermath of the 1929 Exp...", if that's correct?
  • "Within a few months of the bankruptcy, Gernsback launched two separate monthly magazines: Air Wonder Stories and Science Wonder Stories, along with a companion magazine, Science Wonder Quarterly." You prepare us for two items after the colon, but give us three. Then "monthly magazines" confuses us as to what is what.
  • "The magazines were not financially successful, and in 1936 Gernsback sold Wonder Stories to Ned Pines at Beacon Publications, where, retitled Thrilling Wonder Stories, it continued for nearly twenty more years." Third time "magazine" in a few lines, so just "These were ...". You don't want both "continued" and "more". "20"?
  • "The last issue was dated Winter 1955; after that date Thrilling Wonder was merged with Startling Stories, another of Pines' science fiction magazines. Startling itself only lasted to the end of 1955 before finally succumbing to the general decline of the pulp magazine industry." Is "Winter" a date? Change that and you avoid the close repetition of the word, too. Comma after the second "date". I think you need quotes and around your nickname of "Startling" (as well as italic face), rather than the plain italic face used for the formal title that precedes it. Do we need "general"? I'd place "only" after "lasted"—put it as late as possible in a clause. Tony (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All done, I hope, except for a couple of items as follows. The rewording of the sentence about the bankruptcy isn't quite what you suggested as that would not have made it clear that the magazines were launched in 1929. Yes, Winter is a date; quarterly magazines were then and are still dated that way. I think "Startling" doesn't look right and it should be Startling, given that it's an abbreviation of a form that would be italicized. Changing from italics would be distracting to the reader. Other than that I hope everything is addressed. I will try to find a new copyeditor. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Status? Has Tony been asked to revisit ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Mike Christie (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have copyedited the article and made numerous adjustments to the prose which I now think is sufficiently tight. This is now a very readable, comprehensive piece of magazine publishing history, a worthy companion piece to Amazing Stories.

I have one quibble, about linking. Oscar Friend is bluelinked in the text, redlinked in the list towards the end of the article. Also, do Lasser, Weisinger and Meran need to be linked in the table, as they are already linked earlier in the article? Likewise, do Hornig and Miles really need second redlinks?

Brianboulton (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyedit and the support. You're right on the overlinking and I've removed those links. Mike Christie (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: There were a couple of minor problems which I took the liberty of fixing. I changed two words to US spelling, (rivaled and judgment), and I hope this was the right thing to do. I didn't like the "with regard to" but I cannot think of a better way of writing the sentence. I really don't like all those ugly little tables scattered throughout the article. I know they carry a lot of information important to some enthusiasts, but they spoil the look of the article. Could they be but together at the bottom of the article, just a thought. OK that's the nit-picking over, now for the praise. This is a superbly researched article, it is well-sourced and well written. I loved the little treats like the Asimov and John Wyndham anecdotes; a damn good read, well done. Graham Colm Talk 15:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Yes, the article should be in US spelling; I've lived on both sides of the Atlantic and my spelling is corrupted from either perspective, so thanks for the fixes. The tables are difficult to know what to do with; I do firmly believe the information belongs in the article, but perhaps it could be presented another way. Take a look at If (magazine), which has the equivalent table at the end; it's unreadable as a result, but does not clutter the upper half of the article. For the moment I'll stick with the divided tables as they are readable (and a peer review on Amazing Stories strongly recommended this change) but I'm open to either approach if I can get enough interested people to form a consensus. Maybe I'll start tracking the comments I've seen on this (pro and con) and see if they accumulate on one side or the other. I changed "With regard to the title change, Gernsback commented" to "In an editorial just before the title change, Gernsback commented" -- how's that? Mike Christie (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I can live with the tables. And, with regard to the "with regard to", I wished I'd thought of that :-) Graham. Graham Colm Talk 15:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Neutral, all those images of tables of issues rely should be re-done as real inline tables per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images as text. Also per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Color coding they reply should not rely purely on color to show what editor was responsible for what issue (use initials under the date or simmilar notations). --Sherool (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried making a table for one of the images: take a look at this version to see it. I think it's less satisfactory; the size is harder to manage, for one thing, and it doesn't respond to pagesize instructions. I reverted to the image but added alt text: see this version, which has the alt text in. I think the alt text might actually be more useful than the table, because in the alt text I can summarize for an unsighted reader, rather than make them listen to a long list of individual "two slash one, two slash two" cells being read out. For the colour, I took a look at Vischeck per the MOS recommendation and it looks as if the colours I've chosen are distinguishable for someone with red-green blindness, so I think I'm OK there. Please take a look at both versions and let me know which you think is best. My own feeling is that with the alt text the image is slightly the better choice. Mike Christie (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be harder to manage the size, but not that hard. You can tweak font size, width and line height to your hearts content using CSS, see my example version. That said it might work better to have the tables in full size somewhere else since "exessive" styling might cause issues with older browsers/mobile devices and what not. I'm rely not sure. I still think tabular data with color coding in image form is less than ideal, but if you throw in alt text to accomodate screenreaders and rewrite the captions slightly so they don't rely entierly on colors (think for example black & white printouts) I guess enough of my concerns have been adressed to change my stance to newtral. -Sherool (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm impressed by what can be accomplished with the styles; the table as you had it looked quite acceptable to me. After thinking about it some more, though, I think the images with alt text are really a better choice, because I can make the alt text much more comprehensible to someone than the table cells are. The value of the image to a sighted person is that at a glance one can see that Lasser edited for several years, and was followed by Hornig who edited for several more years. The individual table cells would not convey that very well, but the alt text can summarize in just that way. So I've reverted, and added alt text to all the images. I've also modified the captions to associate date ranges with the colours, which I think addresses your concern about a black and white printout. Let me know if that addresses your concerns. Mike Christie (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I guess that pretty much covers it (good point about the raw table listing issue numbers probably not beeing of much use to a blind reader using a screenreader). I still feel it might have been better to present this in some other way (the scattered tables feel a tad "messy" to me), but I can't quite think of how to do it better so I won't make that a point of opposition since It's mostly a matter of taste. So consider me neutral. --Sherool (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Support In general, this article is very good, but there are still a few elements that need polishing:

  • I think this article needs a small paragraph that puts the subject in context. Many readers won't know about the publication history of SF magazines, so a small introduction on the rise of the pulps and the Golden Age of SF would be helpful. It would help the reader place this magazine in the larger firmament of SF magazines.
    I stole a context paragraph from Amazing Stories and put it at the top of the "Publication History" section, and tweaked the following paragraph to suit. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if you could expand it to include information on the Golden Age of the 40s and 50s, since Wonder was published during that time? You could write the paragraph from the point of view of Wonder: it spanned the birth and golden age of SF magazines (or something like that). Awadewit (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly can add something but I'm not sure where it would go -- I think the publication history section needs to be reasonably chronological, and it would be a bit dislocating to talk about the 40s in that first paragraph. I was hoping that the context of the Golden Age and the other magazines would be sufficiently covered by references in the body of the article. For example, the "Influence on the field" section talks about the Golden Age, and Astounding is mentioned as a point of comparison several times -- under the sections on Horning and on Merwin and Mines, for example. Where were you thinking I should put this additional material? Mike Christie (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking that a little overview paragraph at the beginning that covered both the pulps and the Golden Age would be a good idea. While the chronology is a good idea for the detailed sections of the article, I think it is helpful to let the reader know where the article is going at the beginning. So, for example, when I teach the history of the French Revolution in my introductory lecture on Frankenstein, I don't just go through the chronology of the Revolution. I start by giving a little overarching narrative: Bastille, Constitution, Deposition of the King, Terror, Napoleon, Napoleonic Wars, Waterloo - my two-minute French Revolution. Then I go back and spend more time explaining what really happened and the particular issues that are relevant for Frankenstein. But without this little timeline, the students won't know what is "coming next" and they can't orient themselves properly. (Do you watch documentaries? They often do this, too.) I think articles have to do this kind of "forecasting": we have to situate readers historically and show them how individual people and things fit within a larger timeline. So, for example, I have to show my students how Frankenstein is reacting to the debates surrounding the French Revolution - a history with which they are totally unfamiliar. This article needs to show readers how Wonder Stories was part of the great era of pulps and SF magazines. Telling a little bit of that story at the beginning gives readers who are less knowledgeable about the subject a larger narrative to grab onto - it anchors their comprehension around a few key points, if you see what I mean. Awadewit (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done a little more; let me know if that's what you're looking for. Mike Christie (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this well help the uninitiated a lot. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the writing in the second half of the article is much better than in the first half. I would like to see another copyedit of "Publication history". There are wordy sentences and awkward phrases. If you like, I can do this later today.
    Yes, please! Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do. Awadewit (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done - please check the changes I made to see if I introduced any mistakes. I did change the meaning in a few places, guessing what was meant. Awadewit (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All looks good, except for one word change: "stealing" should really be "using" since the illegality was the use of the list, not the possession of the list. Mike Christie (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The covers, often by Earle K. Bergey, typically depicted bizarre aliens and threatened women - I'm not totally sure what the phrase "threatened women" is supposed to mean - is it supposed to mean "threatening women" or what?
    Per BuddingJournalist's note below, it means damsels in distress. See the next note and links. Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that makes much more sense. Awadewit (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Friend's direction, Earle Bergey began to paint more cover art featuring women in ludicrously revealing spacesuits, or wearing his trademark "brass brassières" - I know exactly what you mean by "ludicrously revealing spacesuits", but I think perhaps we should come up with a better description. It is my understanding that a very specific part of these women was revealed. :)
    Ah, well, you obviously haven't looked at as many of them as I have! Breasts are certainly a big focus, if you'll pardon my phrasing, but see this, this, or this, for example. I didn't want to be specific about body parts; a spacesuit that reveals expanses of belly and thigh in addition to barely covering the breasts is ludicrous on multiple grounds. If you can improve on what I've written, please do, but I wanted to be sure you had a good understanding of the inane spacesuit designs before you got out the blue pencil! Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What about something along the lines of "provocative", "alluring", "erotic", or "sensuous"? That was the point of them, was it not? Awadewit (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added "beautiful"; is that enough? The source makes the point that they were intended to be alluring, so you're right that should have been there. It also says they were ridiculous, so I'd like to leave that in. Here are the relevant sentences from the source: "[Bergey] responded to editorial requirements under Friend to paint covers featuring monsters and voluptuous women in danger. The women were invariably wearing ridiculous spacesuits that left them half-naked, or were wearing brass-brassières". Mike Christie (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. I'm wondering if the emphasis here is wrong. The "ridiculous spacesuits" sentence is a bit vague. Are these spacesuits "ridiculous" because they were alluring or because they were unrealistic? Looking at this image, for example, it is only the man who could reasonably survive in space. Awadewit (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. I made it "implausibly revealing" to try to tilt the sense in that direction; does that work? Mike Christie (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent. Awadewit (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He argued against restrictions in science fiction themes, and in 1952 published Philip José Farmer's "The Lovers", a ground-breaking story about sex, in Startling. - Could you be a bit more specific about the story's ground-breaking nature? Sex is a big topic, after all.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Too funny! Interspecies sex! Awadewit (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He followed this in 1953 with another taboo-breaking story from Farmer, "Mother", in Thrilling Wonder. - Why was it taboo-breaking?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Notes" "p" and "pp" are not used consistently - "pp" is missing from some multi-page references.
    Fixed, I think. Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Notes", the Nicholls & Clute Encyclopedia of Science Fiction is not referred to by a consistent nomenclature.
    Fixed. Two things to note; one is that there are two editions, and because the 1993 one is in New York, and I won't be back in NY till January 4th, I am quoting one article from the 1981 edition. The second point is that some articles are missing page numbers; that's because they were cited from the CD version. I'll add the page numbers when I get back to NY -- I hope that won't hold up your support. Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tsk, tsk. Submitting an FAC before it's ready. :) Awadewit (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was a bit embarrassed when I went to fix the citation problems you pointed out and realized how poorly formatted they all were. Somehow I thought I'd done the clean up on these, including the page numbers, but they were messy. I promise to be better behaved in future. Mike Christie (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "References", some bibliographic entries are missing publication locations.
    I believe the only one that is now missing is for Davin; as above my copy is in NY. It's almost certainly Ann Arbor, as the book was published by the University of Michigan, but I will add it when I get back up there. The Amazing Stories entry is not in citation format as I am not sure how to use that template for a magazine; if you happen to know how, could you convert it? Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Davin and Asimov. I don't know templates, sorry. I find them to be far too much trouble. Awadewit (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Asimov is done; Davin will be done in a few days. Mike Christie (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "References", the Perry entry has a strange "ref" tag at the end of it.
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the issue charts need to indicate on the image description page who made the chart and that the chart is "self-made" so that the license makes sense. :)
    Done. Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I'm rereading the lead, it seems to be skewed more towards "publication" than "content and reception". I think a bit of tweaking needs to be done here. As many readers will only read the lead, I think it needs to say more about what kinds of stories were published in the magazines, for example. Awadewit (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a bit more; see what you think. Thanks for the time you're taking on this; it's appreciated. Mike Christie (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:23, 31 December 2008 [3].

Meet Kevin Johnson edit

Nominator(s): –thedemonhog talk • edits

This feaured topic good article from the Lost WikiProject is about a television episode of the fourth season of Lost. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded 02:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Co-editor of the article. Transcluded because tdh forgot to. A few notes before I get to bed: length is fine (40KB; are you trying to break my record of 74KB? ;) ). Split into sub-sections nicely. Think you could spice up the reception paragraph? They're often boring. I tried to do mine with The Stolen Earth by using blockquotes and images to give readers pauses. Sceptre (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that it matters, but just after creating it, I thought of a couple more sentences and pictures that I could add to the article so I hesitated from transcluding it to WP:FAC, but thought that if someone found it, they could transclude it. It is not standard practice and my motives are strange, but whatever. What I did completely forget when writing up the nomination was to give credit to Sceptre for providing the foundations for the plot, reception and lead sections, when I had left my first message in months on his talk page just a couple hours earlier! –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I will review this article before the FAC closes, but not right now. I'll come in around the midgame and offer some suggestions. Sceptre (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Images:
  • First impressions:
    • Per POV concerns, Critical response should encompass all reviews; the positive and negative actions should not be segregated out.
    • " American Broadcasting Company's" in the lead; can we shorten this to ABC? Otherwise it makes the intro a bit of a mouthful.
    • "The episode's broadcast date was heavily influenced by the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike " suggests that the content of the episode was influenced by the strike, but the rest of the sentence implies it caused scheduling issues; was it both or the latter? Make clearer.
    • While I'm not going to go oppose until I've given a thorough look at the prose, I'm concerned about 1a issues such as convoluted sentences. (" Watros was given star billing in the second season;[6] however, she became the first main cast member to not receive an episode with flashbacks from her character's perspective; she did appear in flashbacks of other characters' episodes.[7]")

Please reply to all comments in a block below, so that I can easily keep track of responses. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some changes. I used to simply use "ABC", but then Tony pointed out that there could be confusion with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I suppose that's a valid reason for keeping ABC spelled out then. The changes look good, but I would recommend getting an experienced copyeditor to run through and massage the prose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request made to Casliber. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
…and rejected. I have asked sgeureka. See also Sceptre's edit. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Link to copyedit. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to add some more information and look over the prose around the end of today (UTC) and then asks commenters to return to this FAC. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Done. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • I've said it before and I'll say it again, I find the pictures too small. I know you prefer it like this; I'm just pointing it out. And is the Emmy picture really needed? Now that we have the others, I find it to be just filler. Thoughts? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a problem with filler pictures. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the description of the Emmy actually says it is presumably fake, I don't really see the purpose of including it (the caption doesn't make this clear, either). Awadewit (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Adwadewit here; the caption is inane in any case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have desized the images per WP:MOS#Images. Awadewit (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SyFy Portal says that "News [on the website] that has been [previously] released through official channels about a certain topic"[4]. The BBC,[5] Digital Spy,[6], SCI FI,[7][8] and Comic Book Resources[9] have cited them. The second site is the web version of the print magazine Geek Monthly.[10] Here's an article from a reliable source on them/it.[11] –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. I'll note that the BBC link you provided just shows that they are saying that SyFy portal is reporting some information, not necessarily showing that BBC trusts the information. The first SciFi link just shows that they state that SyFy portal reported on the fan reaction. I'd like to see a bit more usage from mainstream media, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Source changed to more reliable one. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some comments (hopefully useful ones)
    • A bracketed "M.C. Gainey" seems to be missing upon Tom's first mention.
    • The eighth of sixteen ordered scripts—"Meet Kevin Johnson"—was completed - not very easy to read becuase of the dashes. How about "The eighth of sixteen ordered scripts, 'MKJ' was completed..." or "'MKJ', the eighth of sixteen ordered scripts, was completed..."?
    • Sayid, appalled of his employment - could just be me, but I've never heard "appalled of" as part of regular speech... usually "appalled by/at".
    • it doesn't close out the way our previous ones have ended - "our previous [whats]" - seasons?
    • the nonexistence of a script for the next episode courtesy of the strike - the use of the word "courtesy" here is somewhat sarcastic... I'm not sure if it's the best word to use.
    • Only the first three sentences under the Filming section seem to fit under that heading... and perhaps Harold Perrineau's "butt-busting" comment. ;)
    • with the broadcast of "Something Nice Back Home".[54] 1.421 million Canadians watched it - the use of "it" instead of the title or "the episode" here seems as if SNBH is the "it".
  • Good work, as usual. —97198 (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Guess I'll be the first, then. :) —97198 (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs for now.

  • The plot section begins very in universe.
  • I'm one of those rare individuals who has never seen an episode of Lost and I am left in the dark with this plot summary. Can a small bit of background be added so that those of who who don't normally follow the show can figure out what is going on?
    • To me, this just feels like a mix of too much detail (why do we care how he paid for the gun?) and not enough background. Karanacs (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information about when to tell Libby's story seemed a bit detailed to me. Do we need to know all of that information in this article?
    • I think most of this information would belong better in the article about Libby (if it is not already there). It just doesn't add much to our understanding of this article. Karanacs (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All sentences that contain a quotation should have a citation at the end. This may mean that citations are repeated in subsequent sentences. This occurs multiple times throughout the article
  • I'm not familiar with this phrase "The show runners "
  • This is an opinion presented as fact - "The flashback portion of "Meet Kevin Johnson" is the greatest in Lost history"; the article needs to attribute (in text) who thinks this was the greatest
  • The writing section seemed to me to be a bit of a mismash. It has both information about the physical writing and scheduling and then a lot of information explaining the various plot points. To me (unfamiliar with most other tv episode articles), these two types of info don't go together. Also, much of the explanation of the plot points seems meandering. I am not sure whether there is too much unnecessary detail or if there is just not enough transition between the different points. (Some of it might be able to be moved to plot summary)
    • This is better...but it still feels a bit repetitive to me, as some of the info is already in the plot summary. Karanacs (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The three paragraphs of the Editing section do not flow well together at all. These are three very different ideas kind of jammed together with no transitions.
  • The ratings section tone is a bit off. At first, it makes it seem like this would be a very highly watched episode, and the numbers given seem high (but are relatively meaningless without a comparison). Then after all that we find out that this was the lowest rated episode. Perhaps the first half of the first sentence should be combined with the news that it was nevertheless the lowest-rated episode. Then go on to discuss the numbers of viewers.
  • "A common complaint was made " - passive voice, needs attribution. Made by whom?

Karanacs (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"…the greatest in Lost history". Ha ha, I meant greatest in size. Lost is heavily serialized and while it would be possible to give some more background in the plot, it would likely be longer than intended, not to mention that readers are probably familiar with Lost and are able to refresh their memories via other articles. Libby's story is detailed and it could be cut down, but I would rather that it stay in this article until she makes her next appearance—if she returns—at which point, it could be moved. As far as I know, the only episode article longer than this is The Stolen Earth, so there is not much precedent for how writing and editing sub-sections should structured. (Perhaps we should look to film articles.) I believe that I have addressed all other points. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you have moved the awards info, the Emmy picture is out of place. It should be moved to the awards section, or (hopefully) removed. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 02:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the structure of the ratings section not better? –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ratings section has been changed a little, the Libby paragraph has been condensed, background has been added to the plot and the editing section might be getting the axe. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Through the Looking Glass (Lost) (one you wrote!) and Trapped in the Closet (South Park) are about 4KB longer. Anyway, my suggestions are coming, probably tommorow. Sceptre (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am going by readable prose. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, my comments:
    • "The episode begins on December 26, 2004, over three months after the crash of Oceanic Airlines 815, on a freighter offshore of the island where 815 crashed." -> "The episode begins on December 26, 2004, over three months after the crash of Oceanic Airlines 815. The majority of the episode takes place on the Kahana, a freighter moored offshore of the island where the plane crashed." could be better, but is still worded a bit awkwardly (sorry).
    • I have to join the opposition to the Emmy statuette, because the image description does say it's probably a fake...
  • That's pretty much all I can think about right now. Sorry for hyping this up and disappointing you with a crappy review. Sceptre (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. With the removal of that horrid picture, I am willing to support (and had been meaning to for a while now). Just a closing comment; I would remake the awards section under reception, and move the editing awards there. The awards are not really part of the production of the episode, they are a sign of how the episode was received. While I understand why you placed that info there, I would recommend moving it back. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 00:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support. As I said before, remake the awards section under reception, and move the editing awards there. The awards are not really part of the production of the episode, they are a sign of how the episode was received. While I understand why you placed that info there, I would recommend moving it back. Please reply so I can change back to support. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to Support now. :D Very nice work. (Hehe, being bold was fun.) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 06:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean support. There is something off, but I can't just place it. Maybe its the lack of an external links section that just throws me off? I don't know. Second paragraph of Plot, first of Casting, and second of Writing could be split. Some wording seems just a tad off (but no suggestion on how to fix). Example: "after the second season finale, primarily his recruitment aboard the freighter Kahana as a spy for Ben Linus (Michael Emerson)." Ottava Rima (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Very minor things

  • "During production of the fourth season finale, the writers asserted that while they had failed to shed light on the character's past in the past season" is a bit bleugh, with "past" being used twice. Does "past season" refer to the fourth, in which case would something like "current" be better, or the third season?
  • "(Lost would have begun broadcasting a week earlier with its extra episode)" -- "would have" makes it sound like there should be an "except blah blah blah..." tacked onto the end of this sentence

Otherwise I enjoyed reading it. :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, the "past" sentence is better. As for the second issue: I thought about rewording it and then decided that it was redundant enough to get rid of it altogether.  :) –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status update: There are three support votes from 97198, Cornucopia and Ottava Rima, although Ottava Rima thinks that something is off. Karanacs is opposing; he would like some section restructing and removal and thinks that the plot section should be written more for the reader who has not seen Lost but does notice the "random article" button or the article link in some Wikipedia directory, e.g. WP:FA. I understand her concerns, but I ultimately disagree with her proposals. User:Sceptre also supports the current structure. Awadewit and Ealdgyth respectively had problems with images and sourcing, but these have since been resolved. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs left some comments, but is sick and busy in real life and unable to give an update on whether his comment that has not been striked is still valid (that the article needs a copyedit). The article has been copyedited: compare the article at the start of the FAC to its present state. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Generally well-written (begs the question as to why the writing skills aren't put to a deeper topic—how rude I am). I've made a few trivial edits at the top (revert any you don't like). The strike link is a little awkward—I played with it to avoid the blue–black grammatical bump and to minimise the blue via piping, but ended up not doing so. Past-tense inconsistencies in the plot? "the gun jams and does not kill him" need rewording, since it couldn't have killed him after jamming. ", but this, too, is unsuccessful, because the gun jams".? ""Meet Kevin Johnson" contains the first appearance of ..."—oh dear ("features", perhaps?). "Killed off"—does that mean murdered on-screen or just written out of the story? (I'm unsure.) "tell her tale" ("tale" is old-fashioned). "Also" is a very strong back-connector, but has to leap over a para break. I haven't read beyond this; it could still do with a little smartening up by a new editor, and I presume you'll do this before and/or after its promotion. (No need to ping me.) Tony (talk) 10:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Each of those has been reworded. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Neutral Oppose. [Switched to neutral; still reviewing but everything significant I have found has now been fixed.] [Now switched to weak support; I think the prose could still be improved, but that's true of almost every article.] I found the article quite confusing, to the point that I did not finish reading it. I've never seen the show and know almost nothing about it; all I knew was that the plot revolves around some people who are marooned somewhere. I have concerns about context and prose. Some points that concerned or confused me as I read:

  • The lead doesn't give even the most basic information about the overall plot of the series as context for the reader. Even a half-sentence mentioning that the characters are marooned would be useful.
  • The mention of the second-season finale in the lead is baffling and requires a click-through before an uninformed reader can go on.
  • The "flashback" appears to be after Michael leaves the island and returns to New York. Isn't that a flash-forward?
  • The "Other who abducted Walt": what is an "Other"? Not even a link this time, though I think some kind of inline explanation is necessary.
  • The Island won't "allow" Michael to kill himself? The Island is sentient? By now I'm completely baffled.
  • I was unaware that there are factions of some kind among the protagonists until I got to the word "infiltrate". I think a little more explanation is needed there.
  • A couple of prose points: "his position to not kill innocents" is a clumsy phrase; is "position" the right word? "season and a half-long absence": might want to hyphenate that all the way through, or rephrase; "appalled by his employment by Ben": do you mean "exploitation"?
  • The casting section spends a great deal of time on the delays to Libby's planned story. Is this really the right article for that? I'm afraid I stopped reading partway through this section so I apologize if I am missing a connection you make later, but it did seem rather a lot of detail for this particular episode.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All but a couple of those have been dealt with. There is a link to the article and an explanation on the Others earlier in the article now. The island's powers are not further explained. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The extra material in the lead is very useful; thank you. There's now a little confusion in the lead over just when the episode starts -- should it be "The episode starts one month later, when Michael reappears..."? I've struck some points above. I will read the rest of the article and comment again, tonight if possible. Mike Christie (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More changes. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck most of the remaining points above, though if you can find a better way to tell a new reader that yes, the island really does have some kind of consciousness, that would be good. Reading the rest of the article I was happy to find it much easier to negotiate. I have some more comments; I'll outdent for them. Feel free to intersperse your responses if you prefer.
  • How about starting the second paragraph of the plot section with "The flashback begins with Michael and his son..."? It took me so much effort to figure out the timeline that I think it would be good to help the reader along at the key transition points.

-- More later this evening; family responsibilities call. Mike Christie (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that I am not doing that is because when the flashback starts, Michael is driving into a car crash, i.e. the flashback begins after he and Walt get back to the real world and then back to New York and after he tells Walt what happened and after Walt goes to live with his grandmother (and after Michael gets a haircut). All of that is filled in through dialogue later in the episode (and the season). –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. This sounds more complicated the more I learn about it. More below; I can see that with a long-running complex plot it's simply impossible to recap all relevant plot history for each episode, but the plot related points below are things I felt were a problem even so. Mike Christie (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'reminding them of George Minkowski's death (Fisher Stevens) in "The Constant"': a couple of things here. First, it would be better to recast this to have "(Fisher Stevens)" directly follow the character name; perhaps "reminding them of the death of George Minkowski (Fisher Stevens)"? Second, it's not clear what the relevance of those deaths is -- if they also died after deserting the parallel should be drawn for the reader. (Even some Lost fans may not have seen that particular episode.) Third, I think that using the episode name as you do is a viewpoint flicker; we are more or less "in universe" for the plot description, but episode names are not in-universe. I would think it would be better to have the description use in-universe time, and separate it (e.g. parenthetically) from any episode reference: maybe "reminding them of the recent death of Minkowski (in the episode "The Constant")"? However you solve it, it seems jarring to me as it stands.
  • I'm confused about who owns/captains the freighter. Is it Gault or Widmore? Is Widmore on the freighter? From the later mention in the plot section of a war it seems Widmore is the owner and is Gault's superior. If so, could the conflict between the Others and Widmore be mentioned at the first mention of the Kahana, in the first Plot para? E.g. "on the Kahana, a freighter moored offshore of the island where the plane crashed; the Kahana is owned by Widmore, who is at war with the Others".
  • "appalled by his association with Ben": by Michael's association? I didn't follow that first time through; I thought Sayid had been associated with Ben and was now regretting it. I see the internal logic now I understand the plot better but I still think the sentence could do with some disambiguation.
  • Why is "Barracks" capitalized?
  • "John Locke ... meets with his faction": I can't tell if Locke is a survivor or an Other from this, since Ben is apparently an Other and is there. Hence I don't know if this is a faction of the survivors or of the Others. I also don't know what "confirms the identity of his spy" means; there's been no mention of a spy and I've no idea who he's referring to.
  • I would suggesting changing the caption of the picture of Watros to make it clear that this is Watros as herself, not in character. Maybe "Cynthia Watros, who left in the second season finale'; or even mention caption that she is the actress who plays Libby. Picture captions are one of the things that casual readers will glance at, so it's good to avoid any risk of misdirection.
  • I think "show runner/co-creator/executive producer/head writer" and the similar string of nouns a few lines below it are not easily digested. Since Lindelof and Cuse aren't the focus here, wouldn't it be possible to simplify this slightly, perhaps referring only to the roles relevant to the comments you quote?
  • "Having decided for some time that Karl would eventually die, they pinpointed the episode": "for some time" works better with continuing actions, whereas "having decided" is a completed action. Either "The writers had been considering for some time" or "Having decided some time ago" would work grammatically, though I'm not sure if they're precisely what you want to say.

-- That's all I have time for this evening. I'm going to have to let my oppose stand as I do keep finding more concerns. I will do my best to get through the rest of the article tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most issues have been addressed. The Barracks is treated as a proper noun/place name within the show. I reworded the bit on Minkowski so that it seems more conclusive, but I would rather not elaborate on Minkowski's story, which is: a week before "Meet Kevin Johnson", Minkowski and his friend Brandon went out from the freighter in a raft in an attempt to explore the island, but because they did not travel on a specific bearing, Brandon went crazy and they had to return to the freighter, where Brandon died. Minkowski's consciousness became "unstuck in time" (as Brandon's had, but slower) and he began to experience past parts of his life with his present-day consciousness, while blacking out in the present-day. Minkowski was unable to find something that was familiar in both times and eventually suffered a brain aneurysm. And a lot of that occurred off-screen. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments, through the end of the Production section:

  • Is there a special reason for including "Liz" in 'Elizabeth "Liz" Sarnoff'? That form of her name is not used elsewhere in the article; you just call her "Elizabeth".
  • "so stifling hot … [at] about 105 °(F [40 °C])": I think this is technically correctly quoted but quite distracting to read; it would be better to take this out of quotes so that you can more easily give the units. Similarly with ""twin twenty four foot [seven meter]".
  • Why is it worth including the use of "It's Getting Better"? The internal reference, or echo, between scenes that the reuse of the song provides seems a fairly thin thread to hang a lit-crit term like "diegesis" on. It seems a bit of trivia as it stands; does the source you're using make any specific comment about this that makes it more interesting?
  • "achieved a fifth-place 4.6/12 in the coveted adults aged eighteen to forty-nine demographic": what does the "12" indicate? The linked source doesn't seem to explain it, unless I missed something.
  • Can you tell me if there are any guidelines covering what sources are worth quoting in reviews? The Star-Ledger and Huffington Post seems to me to be in a different category from the San Francisco Chronicle and Entertainment Weekly, for example. I think you've avoided quoting from any truly minor media outlets, but I was wondering if there is a guideline for WP:TV or a similar project that covers this. Mike Christie (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes were made for the first two comments. I think that the 4.6/12 does not mean too much to the average reader and if it does, then the reader already knows what it means. The significance of the music is that another song by the same artist was heavily featured in the second season, so it is kind of trivial. Should it be removed (along with the section)? The Star-Ledger is actually completely in the same league as the SF Chronicle and EW.[12] The closest thing that we have for a guideline for those is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#Reception. My rule is to only include reviews by those who have an article about them on Wikipedia. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - There shouldn't be spelling errors this late into the FAC, [13] and some parts are really difficult to understand. See these for example:

When Michael tries to detonate a provided bomb and discovers that it is a fake, Ben contacts Michael by radio and explains that the trick illustrated his position to not kill innocents in his war against Widmore, referring to the death of Ana Lucia and Libby.
Instead of being intercut with scenes from the main ongoing plot, the flashbacks of "Meet Kevin Johnson" are presented continuously and are only bookended by present-day scenes.

And, there are others. I don't think I should have to read sentences two or three times in an article about a TV series. This is not Quark. Graham Colm Talk 17:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no more spelling errors and the sentences that you have pointed to have been rewritten. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have left two messages on her talk page—one days before her last edit on December 19. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Status update: We have four supports and one oppose. I think that at least some of the concerns from the oppose ("for now") have been addressed, but karanacs is not responding to my two messages, although she has returned from her break in editing. One of the supports is attached to a few proposals for change, but I disagree with them and they are apparently not enough to warrant an oppose (or even a neutral) vote. It would be really nice if this was promoted in 2008 (UTC), but I much prefer letting it go into 2009 if my alternatives are restarting and/or archiving. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:21, 31 December 2008 [14].

Arena Active Protection System edit

Nominator(s): JonCatalán(Talk)

This is the shortest article I've nominated for feature article candidacy, and will probably be the shortest I will ever nominate. However, I feel that it meets all featured article requirements, including comprehensiveness (this article covers all thedetails and neglects none), accuracy (all referenced) and follows the style guidelines. The only length requirement is that the article stays on topic, without going into unnecessary detail, which this article does. As a result, I don't think it's short length should be grounds for not nominating this article. To save some people the trouble, all the sources are published and I gave the image of the BMP a proper summary table. Thank you! JonCatalán(Talk) 17:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral - controversial opinion. Strong Oppose - Too small to be comprehensive. The lead is also almost one third of the whole page. Drozd, Shtora, and other systems are easily able to be topics for expansion of this page. Also, the "active protection system" needs to be discussed more thoroughly. There are only a few sources besids Armour magazine used. This suggests that there is probably other information out there not examined. FA require a variety of sources, especially for NPOV. This seems to be one sided and limited on the topic. There seems to be no Soviet based sources (then) or Russian based retrospective discussions now (or, those with such point of views. Note thirteen discussions what "Russians" say, but doesn't give a source. This shows that there is other information that is neglected. This page needs a lot of work and other information before it can be an FA. Sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will respond to your argument point by point. Drozd and Shtora (there are no other systems) have their own topics; the topic is not on Drozd and Shtora. One of the requirements for featured article candidates is that the article cover the topic, and not go into detail with subjects out of scope. As a result, your suggestion would only make this article less of a candidate for featured article status, not more. I, honestly, don't believe that you know the requirements for FAC very well, or you choose to ignore them just to push a point which is wrong and irrelevant. Active protection system also has its own article, which is wikilinked in this article.
There is actually a Russian source being used; that being Baryatinsky's book (which is translated and re-published). Furthermore, if you took the time to look at the other sources, you'd find that most of their information is from Russian sources (which I don't have access to). I don't think you know the topic very well, and obviously your oppose is based on this presumptions that you haven't really cared about checking for accuracy.
What information have I neglected to add? Why make these assumptions? Why not research the topic yourself, and see if I'm really missing information? The oppose is ridiculous; just as ridiculous as your arguments on IRC, no offense. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A single source does not meet NPOV. Here are some other sources you missed from a quick scan of Google books. 1. "

Learning from Their Mistakes: Russia's Arena Active Protection System", 2. " Jane's International Defense Review: IDR", 3. " Future Security‎ - Page 142", 4. " Targets and Backgrounds VIII: Characterization and Representation : 1-3 ...‎ - Page 416" etc. Thats just from a quick scan of one database. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article, you'd find that one of the sources were used (Learning from Their Mistakes, by Geibel). If you wanted to open the Janes article and see that it has the same exact information, it would also enlighten you a bit. But, I will add it as a source and just double cover the information. Maybe if I get 8kb in sources it will meet your "comprehensiveness requirements".. since obviously it now has more information. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To respond on your request on IRC, this is exact quote from the page: In the late 1980s, the Russian Army began development of the Shtora–1 electro-optical jammer. Shtora-1 is designed to jam incoming anti-tank missiles using a one-kilowatt infra–red radiator. Please, read the article before commenting. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, it also has its own wiki article, which is wikilinked... which is why wikilinking exists. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I read through the article three times. Insulting a reviewer about not understanding an article shows that the article is not comprehensive enough or discusses the topic in depth. Further problems: "As a result, the Kolomenskoye machine-building design bureau developed the Arena active protection system". This is the first and only time "Arena" is mentioned in the background. No origins of the project. No financing information. No anything on why it transitions into this or how it transitions. That line is also disconnected from the previous paragraph, which shows a large transition gap. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't insult you; I just said that you obviously have not taken the time to really research in order to back up your argument. You are just making false assumptions, in an attempt to debase the article. There is simply no information available on "financing", otherwise I would have included it; the origins of the project are included to the extent that there is information - that is, the reasons why it was included. The system is fairly new, and there is no information on its testing, et cetera (even for systems that are 60 years old, this information oftentimes just doesn't exist). JonCatalán(Talk) 20:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
False assumptions? So, this was approved by no one? There was no government body that decided they needed it? The Russian military is one mindless entity without parts, groups, etc, that would determine a need? I know Russian weaponry, and I know they go through extensive testing and have an elaborate system of approval that isn't even hinted at. According to the page, this item appeared out of no where without any transition, determination, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Insulting a reviewer about not understanding an article shows that the article is not comprehensive enough or discusses the topic in depth"? I'm at a complete loss. Perhaps you can explain your reasoning for this assumption? –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 20:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is in response to "To respond on your request on IRC". The article does not set up why there are two predacessors. It does not set up how they are connected. It just simply lists them, says some sort information on them, then abruptly declares that there was a new system. This is not enough background to even discuss the history of the item in question. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if I could request that you stay on topic and reply to my points, instead of introducing irrelevant conclusions and straw men. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed over 6 of your military articles so far. If you are going to question my ability to review these articles, then I suggest that it is grounds for looking back at the old ones and disqualifying any past opinion. My qualifications do not suddenly change because you decide that you don't like my response. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(od) I'm sorry, but your pasts reviews are irrelevant to this one; they were on different subjects, and the grounds of your supports were different. Your ability to review is not collective. Please, answer my responses with relevant comments, instead of changing the subject. There is a link the background section; the background is explaining Russia's past experience with active protection systems. One system didn't lead to the other, but it offers an example of Russia's experience with these systems. I will add a sentence on how Arena is different, but it won't get the required 7kB of length to reach 20kB... your arbitrary length requirements. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above user is unwilling to listen to areas that need to be expanded, discussed more thorougly, or necessary information to allow for context that a broader audience would require. The above user has also thrown around many accusations on the matter and the rest. My oppose will stand until the issues are addressed, and I will no longer respond here because the user has made it impossible to continue to discuss the review. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please address my responses? By refusing to argue, and going in circles, it doesn't prove your point. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of issues - firstly, is there a Russian name? Drozd & Shtora are both under the original names, but "Arena" sounds English - if there is an original name, we should probably discuss it somewhere. Secondly, a section comparing Arena to other APSes (other than its "ancestors") would be useful, I think; does it do anything exotic or unusual? Our article notes two Israeli systems and one American one, so there might be something there. Shimgray | talk | 20:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arena is the Russian name. I could add a section comparing it to other active protection systems, I guess. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second though, I don't think it's proper. It would be tantamount to original research. There are no sources which really compare the systems, and adding details about other systems would be beyond the scope of this article and should be better left for their own articles (which exist). I would add a table with information on other systems, so readers can make their own conclusions, but other system's details are even more secretive (like Trophy, for example). Besides, the only other active protection system (hard kill) which has really been "deployed" is Trophy. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. On the other hand, namewise, we have the oddity of Drozd & Shtora, but not Arena, being italicised... Shimgray | talk | 20:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen Arena italicized. I guess it should be; I'm not sure. It might be confused for an English word; I'm not sure what it's named after. There is a website, which would be deemed unreliable here, that mentions something interesting: rena's direct predecessor was Shatjor APS that was installed on the experimental Obiekt 478M MBT. Both systems have been designed by the Kolomna-based Engineering Design Bureau (KBP) together with other allied enterprises. I know the author and I will ask him if he could offer me some sources so that I could add this to the Wikipedia article. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would advise Ottava to read Hurricane Irene (2005) before claiming the article's short length affects its suitability for FA status. Length is no indicator of quality.--Patton123 20:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As would I. And Tropical Storm Erick (2007) (promoted last week). And 2005 Azores subtropical storm. And New York State Route 373. And New York State Route 28N. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 20:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated before, I would oppose these articles if I saw them or had time to review them. They do not meet the definition of encyclopedia and, after reviewing them, there are many problems within them. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Back in the day, people !voted on an FAC based on the featured article criteria. I suppose this is no more, but to go around opposing articles because of your 20 kb length limit is WP:POINT. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 20:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Julian, short articles were never accepted in FAC before and this is lowering the standard. Short articles are impossible to truly be comprehensive and would require a complete redefining of said definition. Stop with the accusations. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have made no accusations. Also, may I ask what your interpretation of the "definition of encyclopedia" is? To me, it means we should be aiming to acheive "the sum of all human knowledge", not "the sum of all human knowledge worthy of an article that is longer than 20 kb". –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 21:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) What's this rot about a 20kb length? I intend to get M22 Locust to FA-Class, but that's only 29kb, and my other project, Light Tank Mk VIII is only 11.5kb - will you oppose that because it doesn't meet this arbitrary 20kb len gth despiute the fact the article is comprehensive, sourced to the best of my abilities and is well illustrated? Skinny87 (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC) If an article has been sourced to all relevant sources (as this seems to have been, avoiding mere repetition of information), then I fail to see why it cannot a) be encyclopedic and b) be a Featured Article. Skinny87 (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what about 13th Airborne Division (United States) which I just got to FA-Class a few weeks ago. Barely 21kb, yet I'd defy anyone to find anymore info about the division, or a more comprehensive article, in print or on the web - It's not that much longer than this article, and yet it's comprehensive and detailed with good sourcing, and now it's an FA. Yet it would have been opposed?!? Skinny87 (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE to all: Stay on topic from this point forward, or all commentary will be moved to talk. There is no KB limit at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with Comments - Can't see anything wrong with the article; it appears to give all the detail it can given the limited English-language sources available, and it is quite a specific subject. Length doesn't seem to be a problem. Just one question; the illustration in the infobox. How do we know it's accurate with how the system works, the ranges and all that technical whizz-bang? What's it based off of, exactly? Official info? Skinny87 (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; the image is based on another image. I'll add a source to the image's description. JonCatalán(Talk) 02:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Weak oppose for now. This is an interesting article and I enjoyed reading it. However, it needs copy-editing. I have made some suggestions [15]. Is the article in US or UK English? There is a mixture I think. On a minor point "Drozd" is Russian for "thrush" as in the bird. Graham Colm Talk 19:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is written in American English. JonCatalán(Talk) 21:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Skinny87 has done a slight copy edit to the article (thank you Skinny!). JonCatalán(Talk) 01:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the FA criteria about minimum length. This is a very interesting, and well-written article. The sources seem reliable and are cited appropriately. I see there was some discussion on comprehensiveness. This is not something I am qualified to judge — but there is more than enough information in the article to satsify my curiousity. Dare I say it; it was good not to have been bogged down by too much detail. Graham Colm Talk 18:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - When I first saw the title, I thought it was an article on a stadium security system. Oh well. It's always good to review different types of articles, so I'm coming out of my sports shell and giving this a once-over.

  • "The system increased the vehicle's survivability up to 80%." Is 80% a general survival rate, or should it be "by up to 80%."? Also, I'd replace "survivability" with the aforementioned "survival rate".
  • "prompted the Kolomenskoye machine-building design bureau to design..." Redundancy with two "design" uses in such short order. Please change one of them to introduce more variety.
  • Background: "named Drozd. Drozd...", Again, another situation where more variety would be nice.
  • Perhaps change semi-colon after "It was composed of three main parts" to a colon?
  • Change en dash in "cone–shaped" to a hyphen. And do the same for "lock–on" and "infra–red", and audit for similar items elsewhere.
  • "between the elevations of -6–20 degrees..." Is what comes before the 6 supposed to be a minus sign? If so, there's a special code to create a minus sign, which is different than a hyphen. Make sure you use that. Also see a "-5–25" later.
  • "and between 40–60 degrees along the horizontal plane.[6][1]" References should usually be placed in numerical order.

Hopefully these will help reduce the amount of copy-editing that is needed. I'll come back at some point to review the rest, but I'm overloaded with reviews right now, meaning I may not be back for a while. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most should be changed. In regards to the last comment, they are "ref name" footnotes, but I will change the order. Apart from that, I didn't change it to survival rate, since the "official" word is survivability (in regards to tanks). But, everything else should be fixed. Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 01:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before I continue, I should note that I did some work on this myself, mostly dash-fixing. Here is my second, and final, round of comments here.
  • Remove comma after "a number of forward-firing grenade discharges" (Shtora-1).
  • The quote "lack of time and funds" is covered by the reference at the end of the sentence, correct? Just want to make sure.
  • "One of the most dangerous threats to Russian armor were was rocket propelled grenades fired from buildings in Grozny." This change will provide correct tenses ("One of the" and "were" now conflict).
  • "with the goal of providing Russian armor with more reliable protection against these threats." Don't like the two "withs" here. Can this be changed to get rid of one?
  • Typo: "including information such a flight parameters and velocity."
  • "Arena increase's a tank's probability of surviving a rocket-propelled grenade by between 1.5[12]–2 times.[25]]." The positioning of reference 12 is odd here. Why not just move it to the end of the sentence?
  • Third paragraph of System details has Drozd without italics. I noticed the system names now include italics; therefore, this one should have them too.
  • Reference 28 needs a publisher.
These are it from me, but I need to consider whether or not to support. I'm not a huge fan of short articles, but it does seem comprehensive for the topic, and it is interesting.
Alright, everything changed except for a couple of things. In regards to reference 12, after the number, I wanted to leave it there because it references that specific figure, as opposed to the sentence as a whole. The reference at the end of the sentence with the quote "lack of time and funds" does cover that quote, yes. Finally, instead of changing to singular in that sentence about the RPGs, I instead turned the entire sentence into plural (some of the most dangerous threats...etc). Hope that this is OK. Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 21:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - After further review, I think the article's components are FA-quality, and that's what matters most to me. It is short, but that doesn't stop me from supporting. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry: Since the article subject is foreign in nature why don't we get see the native country spelling of its name like almost all other such articles? 75.119.246.54 (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been brought up; Arena is the Russian name. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The IP has a point. Perhaps, like me, they can read Russian. Дрозд (thrush), Арена (arena). Why not just paste whichever is the right one into the article? Graham Colm Talk 18:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't this be original research? JonCatalán(Talk) 18:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hope not - if it does it'd be a rather daft breach, to be honest, it's only providing a translation of a single word. Skinny87 (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I added them. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't like that there is no article on the Russian wikipedia on this. The translation suggested above (arena -> arena with cyrillic characters) should really be the translation of the entire title - "Arena Active Protection System" -> name in Russian. After all, the name of the article is not Arena, it is Arena Active Protection system, right? Furthermore does Arena have no equivalent in any other countries' weaponry? I was looking at Countermeasure and I did not see any comparable system.--Kiyarrlls-talk 17:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, do you have the translation? There are comparable systems, but I couldn't compare them in the article; it would be original research. Israel has introduced into limited service Trophy active protection system and are developing the Iron Fist active protection system. The United States is developing Quick Kill active protection system according to Wikipedia (from my sources, I believe Quick Kill was canceled and it's now called something else, but I'm not sure). The Italians are also developing an active protection system, as well as other European countries. I was thinking of starting a navigation box between them. What do you think? JonCatalán(Talk) 17:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Russia it is referred to as "Арена-Э" [16] and you can see some film footage of it here [17]. Graham Colm Talk 17:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's Arena-E, the export version. What's the translation for active protection system? The problem is that I'm sure that the Russians have another terminology for these types of systems. For example, the translation from English to Spanish isn't direct. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will find out. Meanwhile, I have pasted a rough translation of the article on the this FACs Discussion Page. Graham Colm Talk 17:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's "активная система защиты" (pronounced "aktivnaya sistyema zashchity" —active protection system). Graham Colm Talk 17:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added! Btw, I'd like to address your weak oppose as best as possible. So, any further commentary in regards to that would be great. Thanks. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I have just corrected myself.Graham Colm Talk 18:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am very satisfied with the way my comments were dealt with. Thank you very much.--Kiyarrlls-talk 18:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The article conveys the pertinent information clearly. I am satisfied that you have presented the available information and it is enough to warrant FA status, in my opinion. I was able to gain an insight into something I knew nothing about. A personal suggestion: I think Arena should be italicized both because its predecessors are italicized in the article, and because "Arena" is a common English word so italics would help the Arena stand out as a name in the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review File:Arena system.svg - Can you tell me what makes this site a reputable source for the image? I was amused but unconvinced by the statement "Sauron's Creations is a thing from an alternative reality, in which I happen to be a head of a programming company that bears this name. In this unjust and cruel world, however, it is simply my alias. It is, of course, strongly related to the world of J.R.R. Tolkien" but perhaps I am missing something? If this source is indeed unreliable, as I suspect it is, we will need to provide a reliable source for the information in this diagram. Awadewit (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That website has been used by Janes as a source before, on Soviet and Russian armor piercing discarding sabots. JonCatalán(Talk) 16:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, why does this make the site reliable? Awadewit (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a very simplified diagram of a defensive system that is described in the body of the article which is reliably sourced. There have been discussions about this on Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive35#Original_research_and_images. But no consensus was reached on the requirement for sources of simple diagrams that only serve to illustrate and supplement sourced text. There is no original research in the diagram, it does not contain data, it is not a technical drawing from which anything can be made and it is unlikely to be challenged. I don't think a source is needed. Graham Colm Talk 17:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a source is necessary, particularly since this image is hosted on Commons. It is a courtesy to other users who may want to use this image on other articles on the English Wikipedia or on other language Wikipedias. This image is not "attached" to this article - it is independent. The more information that an image description contains, the easier it is for other people across the world to reuse that image. Let's share. Awadewit (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The source is given as [[18]] own work, the artist courteously gives a link to a similar drawing. That the linked article has questionable reliability is not a problem in my book. It is not fair to place the onus on the nominator of this FAC to prove that a courtesy link on the Commons is reliable. The link is not relevant to this FAC. It is not about sharing; it's about whether this nomination meets the FA criteria. Graham Colm Talk 18:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the author of the website said that the Janes articles that do quote him do not actually state him as a source. Nevertheless, Janes is a very widely respected defense magazine; I think that it suggests the reliability of russianarmor.info. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Evstafiev-Chechnya-BURNED.jpg - It has just been brought to my attention that there is a slight problem with this image. Although the image says it was "self-made" by User:Evstafiev, the image can be found here, along with other professional photographs. Awadewit (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the image has been changed with two new images. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query, this is a confusing constuct, can it be reworded to avoid the minuses and dashes run together?
  • Shtora offers 360 degree all-around protection, between the elevations of ‒5–25 degrees.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to -5 and 25 degrees, instead of using an endash. JonCatalán(Talk) 04:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is a dedicated minus symbol, compare to the en dash: −– (minus, en dash). In addition, can you clarify "−6–20", as I don't know if both quantities are negative or not. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:21, 31 December 2008 [19].

Vithoba edit

Nominator(s): Redtigerxyz Talk

Vithoba was here in October, but failed, as I understand it, due to concerns about some references and the prose quality. The article had a copyedit. The disputed references were removed, new ones added. In the process, the improvement of the article was aided by the reviews of wiki-users, which can be read on the article talk. So since the concerns in the earlier FAC are addressed IMO and the talk reviews - weighting the article against FA criteria - taken into consideration, Vithoba is ready to face a FAC again. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig have been checked: Birla Mandir is the only disambig (list) remaining as there is no article on the specific Birla Mandir yet. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the link to the disambiguation page with a redlink. That way, when Birla Mandir, Shahad is created, the link will point to the correct article. Wronkiew (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I support the nomination for FA. Its a well written and well sourced article worthy of FAC. Kudos to Redtiger and Alastair.--Anish (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Disclosure: Anish had left comments on the Talk:Vithoba which helped the article improve. For reference: Talk:Vithoba#Suggested_improvements. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I also reviewed this in great detail on its talk page and my concerns were addressed there, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. For reference: Talk:Vithoba#Ruhrfisch_comments --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I had supported in the earlier nomination as well and was involved to some extent in copy edits and general suggestions at that time. I have read it again and see significant improvement in prose, citations etc.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having faith in the article, this time and last time too. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support A very thorough and well-written article—it meets the highest standard for Wikipedia articles. Priyanath talk 02:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, and the review on the talk. For reference: Talk:Vithoba#More_nit-picking (after User:Michael Devore's comments) --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Why are there some internal pointing between sections. I found 2 such instances - As discussed in the devotional works section above, and (see Legend below). Nothing wrong but unusual on WP. --GPPande 12:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Sand concludes, from a version of Pundalik's legend in the Skanda Purana (see Legend below)" When i first read the line, i felt that readers would ask: which legend? So the link. "As discussed in the devotional works section above," The Devotional Works section describes the background of the texts, mentioned in Legends section. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I understood the background behind why it was written so. See if you can remove them by putting a short note/jump link or shortly describing the background in sentence itself (not more than few words). I found one more such link in Legends section. What do you say? Anyways, I support FA status. Really a great work with in depth research gone into this. --GPPande 18:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Certainly an FA standard article.Pectoretalk 03:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Redtigerxyz Talk 14:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Image licenses look fine. The selective color manipulation in File:Palkhi 2008.jpg lowers its encyclopedic value. I recommend converting it to monochrome. The captions in the article for File:Palkhi 2008.jpg and File:Alandi Palki 08.jpg are unverifiable. Wronkiew (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree about the color manipulation. It is artistic but not encyclopedic. Awadewit (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. For Alandi Palkhi, see Sane, Prajkta (March 2007). "The 'Palkhi' of Alandi to Pandharpur" (PDF). University of New South Wales.. A similar image of the Palkhi is available. As i wrote in the last FAC " Varkaris are known to wear saffron clothes, carry saffron banners and have a saffron Tilak (mark on forehead). The saffron colour is closely related to Hinduism, as a whole. So the picture is not a misrepresentation, in my humble opinion. Notice a varkari is wearing saffron clothes, the saffron banners here. [20] and saffron tilak here [21]." --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thus IMO, the orange colour should be left as it is. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review All images have verifiable licenses, but several need expanded descriptions to allow users to understand what they are.

  • File:Vithoba Gutenberg.jpg - Is there any more information that can be added to the image description, such as the century the statue was made or the type of art it represents?
I can not add itself about this one as the source (gutenberg) does not say itself. Though the image seems to be of stone.--Redtigerxyz Talk 14:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding these descriptions will be very helpful to readers - thanks! Awadewit (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix it. I am just back from Pandharpur, where Vithoba's chief temple stands. Got some fne photos. But I will need some help to digitally improve some images. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Captions added. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:21, 31 December 2008 [22].

2008 Brazilian Grand Prix edit

Nominator(s): Apterygial

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. It has undergone a PR here, where members of WP:F1 ensured that the article was comprehensive. It has been copyedited by about six editors, not including myself, and passed its GAN yesterday. So, I put this amazing Formula One race before FAC. I'm here to answer any questions or make any adjustments. Apterygial 03:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hell of a race, one for the ages. Question, though: In the final standings, Coulthard is listed as being out with a 'collision', but Piquet is listed as 'accident'? Were these the official designations, or did Coulthard collide with something other than a car? --Golbez (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The FIA (the link is in external links) doesn't provide official designations. The difference here is Piquet simply spun off (hence, accident), while Coulthard was shunted off by the Williams cars (hence, collision). Apterygial 09:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - One of the intriguing things about being an FAC reviewer is discovering the wide range of articles that come here, including many on topics that I've never heard of. Even more intriguing for me is finding a page on a sports event from my time, and this fits in that category. I watched most of the race live in the US, including the dramatic final laps (thank you, Speed channel). Keeping in mind that I'm familiar with the topic, and that I already have many active reviews (which limits the time I can spend with any one review), here are my opening thoughts:

  • Two Toyota links in the lead. The second can safely be removed.
  • "The Grand Prix was David Coulthard's final race, retiring after 246 race starts." This sentence needs re-working; if you read it out loud, the problem becomes clear.
  • Question: Lewis Hamilton certainly deserves praise for his season, but was there any thought in the racing world that he lucked out on this day? In the article, the post-race praise contrasts sharply with the section on the background, where the one quote shows there were concerns that he might blow it. I have a hard time believing that the media was completely silenced when Hamilton was one corner from failing to hold his lead.
  • Speaking of the ending, are there any interesting quotes from the media on how dramatic the ending was? I don't follow auto racing that closely, and I'm fairly young, but I can't remember a season title ever being decided on the last corner of the last race before this event. I know it's hard to express this in a neutral way, but a quote or two from racing people would serve to illustrate the rarity of what happened in this race, and I think that it would elevate the article.
  • Report: "and Massa's team-mate Kimi Raikkonen fourth on 69 points." Perhaps add "was" after Raikkonen?
  • Italics for The Times in the text.
  • "the rights now go to the BBC and La Sexta, respectively." Be careful with time-specific elements like "now". It would be better to state when the rights tranfer (2009).

I read partway through Practice and qualifying, and will return to review the rest at a later time. What I'm seeing so far looks good, and I'm impressed by the quality of the sources used; I don't see any questionable ones in there. Best of luck. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the minor adjustments, and I'll chase up the possible content additions. One of the great things about F1 being so popular now is that there is no lack of quality sources; the media love F1 and the amount written on it is beyond staggering. I vaguely remember Eddie Jordan saying Hamilton was "lucky", which could contrast well with his other quote. I'll chase some stuff up. Apterygial 03:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And added. Apterygial 04:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Took me a while, but I'm back to finish my review.
  • "Raikkonen qualified third, though was happy with beginning the race on the racing line behind his team-mate." Try "though he was happy...".
  • Long, winding sentence here: "Hamilton finished the race in fifth position, enough to become Formula One's youngest Championship winner, clinching the Championship by a single point." Here's an example of a tighter version: "Hamilton finished the race in fifth position to clinch the Championship by a single point, making him Formula One's youngest Championship winner."
  • That makes it look like the fact he won by a single point makes him Formula One's youngest Championship winner. I'll see if I can think of better one. Apterygial 07:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to keep what we already have. It seems clearer that any alternatives I tossed and turned over all night (sort of). Apterygial 23:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. It won't impact my support, but here's another idea: "Hamliton finished the race in fifth position, clinching the Championship by a single point and becoming Formula One's youngest Championship winner." Still don't think the present structure works, but I won't force the issue. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like that, and added your suggestion (fixing the typo). Apterygial 23:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-race: A common word like television doesn't need to be linked.
  • The Eddie Jordan quote uses a spaced hyphen, where we would normally use a spaced en dash or an unspaced em dash. However, I don't know if the same rules apply for quoted material. Might be a good idea to ask a Manual of Style expert about that.
  • WP:MOSQUOTE says: "Allowable changes: ... Styling of dashes (use the style chosen for the article: unspaced em dash or spaced en dash"). So I changed it. Apterygial 07:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For reference 1 (Autocourse 2008–09), use en dashes in the title and page number.
That's all from me. It's really quite good and leaves me wanting to read more. The only other thing that bothers me is the part about Hamilton battling Vettel at the end. From my memories of watching the race, Vettel was pulling away from Hamilton toward the end because his car was cornering better. "Battling" sounds like they were wire-to-wire. Oh, and add periods at the end of the Massa and Hamilton photo captions. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I watched the final laps just then to see if it was as close as I remembered. It wasn't that close, in terms of distance, but I think in the conditions it was a mental battle, who was going to crack, to slide off the track. He wasn't really pulling away; there was very little in it. Anyway, apart from that, I fixed everything else, apart from that one sentence, which I'll keep thinking about. Thanks for taking the time to review the article, happy holidays! Apterygial 07:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)I left one note above, but other than that I'm ready to support. Surprising that this reached such a high level of quality so soon after the event. Nice work. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment In the final para of the race section it says "Rain began to fall heavily on lap 69, as Hamilton ran wide, which allowed Vettel to take fifth position." I can't quite remember now, but you would expect that Hamilton ran wide after the rain intensified: can we nail down the relative timing? Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 07:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources I have looked at suggest it happened about the same time. The track was already slippery because "Light rain began to fall on lap 63", and it is feasible that Hamilton may have made a mistake. The phrase "Rain began to fall heavily on lap 69" is really there to signal a gradually wetter rain (as it were), rather than any <SNAP!> and it's heavier. Sorry for shouting. Apterygial 08:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think the only non-English source is from El Mundo, which as our own entry says "is the second largest daily newspaper in Spain and one of the newspapers of record in this country, with a circulation topping 330,000." Apterygial 04:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I always point out that since I'm monolingual (well, I used to be able to read Latin, but it's been a while) that I can't evaluate the non-English sources, just for honesty's sake. I could see that the one non-English source was to a newspaper, but whether it was a tabloid scandal sheet or a serious one, I couldn't tell. Better to be safe than sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I wouldn't know unless I looked at the entry! ;) Apterygial 22:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support - Looks good to me, though it gets a bit quote-heavy towards the ends, do we really need to know so obviously what every F1 website said or could it be put into prose and appropiatly cited (Though I accept there are peacock risks here). A few of the sentences can be a bit convoluted, for example 'Timo Glock remained certain the decision to stay on dry-weather tyres when other teams were pitting for wet-weather tyres was a correct one' could do with...something, commas or what have you, to make it more readable (Especially as it is just a tie in for a quote). All in all though, it is a solid article. There is the temptation to do too much of a bridge from this article to the 2009 season, and I think the article does well to avoid it. PS: Is 'Part 1, Part 2, Part 3' the standard in F1 articles these days for qualifying? Looks kind of hideous and clumsy. But if it is a standard keep it, very minor nitpick from me) --Narson ~ Talk • 12:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's useful to have those quotes there. The real intention is to display an accurate cross-section of what was said about the race from the huge volume of material that comes out about an F1 race. And yes, the risk of a peacock paragraph (as it were) would be hard to get around. I added commas to Glock's sentence, I think it really needed it! Finally, I'm assuming you're talking about the qualifying classification table. It doesn't look great, but I think the FIA wants points for the quickest in Q2 so in future race reports that could be useful (and yes, it is standard). Thanks, Apterygial 22:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was referring to qualifying. Was just making sure there was a reason we didn't use Q1, Q2 or Qualy 1 or something. If it is a standardisation issue, I can live with it. As I said, I had to nitpick to find the faults, it is a great article over all. Kudos. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The jargon issue prevents us from including in Formula One articles a lot of F1 terms (like Q1, P1 (for position), flying lap, etc.) Apterygial 01:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support, obviously. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Apterygial 22:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Very minor thing that I just thought of, in the Background section it says "McLaren were second on 145 points". Technically, the entry competing for the WCC is "McLaren Mercedes". If McLaren had run a different make of engine in the car, it would be classed as a different constructor. AlexJ (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Anyone supporting? Apterygial 23:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Informative and well written. It captures the background, the event itself and outcome of the race well. Works for me. Chasingsol (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Well written, well sourced with reliable sources, a readthrough of the article doesn't give me any reason to believe that anything is wrong, and the layout is aesthetically pleasing and satisfies the MOS. — neuro(talk) 14:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per the above. igordebraga ≠ 00:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I think we are still looking for an image review. Apterygial 01:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Own work by the uploader released in public domain. The image is also in the desired SVG format. LeaveSleaves talk 02:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I think that there should be a mention of the Ferrari team celebrating prematurely.
  • It already does: "However, premature joy in the Ferrari garage soon turned to disappointment as both Vettel and Hamilton passed Glock in the final corners..." Apterygial 23:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really, they celebrated at the end of the race long after he passed Glock. BUC (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, I don't believe there is a discrepancy in that sentence which suggests that your interpretation was not the case. Secondly, a further expansion hardly strikes me as being notable. They celebrated, they were happy, and then they were crushed. Sad viewing, but certainly nothing that should be given undue weight in a Wikipedia article. Apterygial 11:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rain began to fall heavily on lap 69, as Hamilton ran wide" Sound like the rain started just as Hamalton was being overtaken, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that was the case. BUC (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my response to 4u1e above. Apterygial 23:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review All images have verifiable licenses and descriptions. I would ask the editors to add a source for File:Circuit Interlagos.svg. Since Wikipedia cannot rely on its editors' reliability for legitimacy, particularly in the area of self-made content, it is always best to include a source that users can check the diagram against. Awadewit (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the review. Apterygial 23:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image concerns addressed. Awadewit (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query, why are some of the entries in the "Race" table bolded? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pointscoring positions. Only the top 8 drivers get points, and that helps indicate those drivers (the points are given in the far right column). Apterygial 03:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that stated somewhere that I may have missed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so. It's the accepted manner to table F1 results on Wikipedia, and is shown in WP:F1's example race report. It's not hugely important, but does help if you want to know that. Apterygial 04:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless you mean a mention of pointscoring positions, which is given in the piped link marked "points" in the lead and background. Apterygial 04:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:21, 31 December 2008 [23].

Georges Vézina edit

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk)

Article about an ice hockey goaltender who's most notable for playing 15 years without taking a rest, dying of tuberculosis, and having a trophy for best goaltender named after him. Not a lot is written about Vézina other than that, so it was a quite the challenge to turn this article from a stub a month ago to this. All concerns will be addressed as soon as possible. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is a good, informative article with reliable sources, though there are some issues to address before I can support.

  • Where was Vézina born? in Chicoutimi? that should be mentioned in the first sentence of the "Personal life", it should be linked to the Chicoutimi article, and specify the province (for readers not familiar with Canadian geography).
  • "Vézina operated a tannery in Chicoutimi, living a quiet, clean life" - what do you mean by "clean life"? I think this can be worded better.
  • "In 1918–19 Vézina won ten games..." - this paragraph needs references.
  • "After winning thirteen games in 1922–23, ..." - additional references are needed in this paragraph, especially where the article gives numbers such as his goals against average.

--Aude (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed all the concerns. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look good, though before supporting, I need to re-read and see if I notice anything else. --Aude (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - With the changes, I think the article now meets the FAC criteria. --Aude (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • "Vezina allowed the fewest goals against in the league seven times in his four, four times in the NHA and three times in the NHL." Change the first comma to a colon, as it now could be interpreted that the four and three are in addition to the seven.
  • Personal life: "This rumour was started when the Canadiens manager, Leo Dandurand". Apostrophe could be added to Canadiens.
  • "In actuality, the Vezina's only had two children and Georges spoken broken English." Remove apostrophe and change spoken to spoke.
  • "A second son was born the night of the Montreal Canadiens first Stanley Cup win in 1916." Apostrophe for Canadiens again?
  • Playing career: "This time, they convinced Georges, along with his brother Pierre, to come to Montreal, arriving on December 22, 1910." The sentence is awkward when read in its entirety. The last part is what needs an adjustment.
  • "but due to a tie for first, the Canadiens had to play a two game, total goals series against Toronto." Hyphen for two game?
  • "The following season Vezina, who led the NHA in goals against for the fourth time in seven years, as the Canadiens again reached the Stanley Cup Finals, though they lost to the Seattle Metropolitans." Another sentence that seems off.
  • "The championship was the Canadiens first as a member of the NHL and second title as a club." Another apostrophe for Canadiens.
  • Legacy: Move ref 28 after the comma.
  • "instead giving it to the goaltender deemed best in the league based on a poll by NHL general managers." I think it could be "a poll of NHL general managers."
  • The Centre Georges-Vezina and Vezina Trophy links can be removed from the See also section, because they are included in the body.

That's it from me. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All concerns addressed. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this is quite good. It's less stat-heavy than Tiny Thompson, which is also at FAC now, and covers his career quite well. That being said, the one thing I'd change is "with Vezina recording a shutout in the deciding game" in 1923–24. This is a noun-plus-ing structure, and should be fixed. This will also get rid of some passive voice, which helps. If I have time, I'll see if there's more passive voice and make any needed fixes myself. Overall, though, I think it meets FA standards. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the wording, it should be better now. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted it further myself. While I was doing that, I looked for more passive voice, but nothing jumped out at me. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give an example of what you mean with the mixing of citation templates? I'm quite confused in regards to this. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're using the harvdb thingie in the short notes along with cite web. Harvdb uses citation. Best to switch your web refs to citation instead of cite web. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think I did this right now. All the references now use the citation template. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All images appear to be fine. --Moni3 (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Nurmsook (talk · contribs)

  • I could be way off here, but should the Canadian flag in the infobox be File:Flag of Canada 1921.svg as he died when it was in use? Or do we just keep with whatever the flag is now?
  • I went ahead and fixed a few things I noticed. Two dabs (Canadian -> Canada, Spanish influenza -> Spanish flu) and added Category:Ice hockey personnel from Quebec.

The flag thing isn't really a glarring issue, so it doesn't hinder my support for this article, but I would like to know what the situation is regarding that for personal reference ;-) Great job! – Nurmsook! talk... 06:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried changing the flag in the infobox to match the Canadian flag of the 1920's, but have no idea how to do it. If you can figure it out, I'll be all for it. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have to change the code in the template for the infobox, it is possible with the country template used but the code in the infobox needs to be changed. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 14:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of how to change the coding for templates, but regardless, I don't think it makes that big of a difference. It still lists Vézina as being Canadian, which he was. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:21, 31 December 2008 [24].

Plutonium edit

Nominator(s): mav (talk), WikiProject Elements

This article was pretty good (A-class but failed GA due to poor citing) before I started working on it a couple months ago. I've since expanded, cited, reorganized, trimmed and checked images as needed per FA standards. Article was previously brought to WikiProject Elements format by Bth (now inactive) in March 2004 and has since been expanded in true wiki-style by many people. I'm now pretty happy with the article and think it now meets all the FA criteria. If not, please tell me what else needs to be fixed and I'll fix it. I of course, support as nominator. mav (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Current ref 25 (Room 405) needs a last access date.
  • Same for current ref 26 (Plutonium: The first 50 years...)
  • Current ref 31 (Martin, James E. ..) is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 33 (Theodore Gary's...) is lacking a publisher and last access date. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
  • http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=nd99longworthf deadlinks
  • "End of the Plutonium Age" link also deadlinks.
  • I think current ref 36 (Cohen... ) is lacking the book title?
  • Current ref 39 (Radiological control...) is lacking a last access date
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! I'll make sure to fix all that later today. --mav (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above should be fixed now. Thanks again for noticing that stuff! --mav (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What did you do about the Theodore Gary site? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced that ref. --mav (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The fact that nearly all us nuclear weapon plutonium contains 1% of gallum should be mentioned somewhere more prominent than in the Allotropes section, because it makes using it in nuclear reactors difficult. See Besmann reference in the gallium article)
  • France and the United Kingdom operate PUREX Nuclear reprocessing facilities and use the MOX as regular fuel in their reactors. Germany Belgium and Germany are customers of the facilities and also use MOX. The [World Nuclear Association] states that:2% of the new fuel used today The section Use of plutonium waste is the only place where the MOX is mentioned although it is a significant application only in Europe, but it has to go to the applications section. The fuel is used in normal light water reactors and not in breaders. The section Use of plutonium waste reads like the MOX is something new, this should also be changed to a statement that Plutonium is used for energy production in Europe for decades. --Stone (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments! I think I have addressed all of them. Please take a look and edit/comment as needed. --mav (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The light reactor vs breeder reactor bit should be fixed now. --mav (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments:

  • The element normally exhibits six allotropes and four oxidation states but can form one more of each under certain conditions seems awkward
  • I would put the allotropes right after the physical properties.
  • Also, it might help to say exactly which allotrope is referred to in the physical section - since most of the stuff said there is allotrope-dependent.
  • Wasn't there a recent ex-KGB spy supposedly killed in Great Britain with plutonium?

Otherwise it looks really well for a FA. Nergaal (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With polonium!--Stone (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment and support - suggested fixes (minus the KGB part) done. --mav (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgot one thing: the electrical behavior suggests a metalloid character. Has anybody said anything in this sense? Nergaal (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of my references come out and say that so I don't think we should try to interpret and fill in the blanks. --mav (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything should be addressed now. Please take a look and consider striking, editing or commenting as needed. --mav (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section is fine. I checked the layout of the remainder of the article. The number and quality of sections, images and references is commensurate with existing featured articles on chemical elements. Crystal whacker (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I finished reading the article just now. Pending resolution of some minor outstanding issues, I support this nomination. Crystal whacker (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments:

  • In the physical characteristics section, it starts out saying "The metal has a bright...", but think you should say "Plutonium is a metal, which has a bright" or something like that to make it clear to the layreader that Plutonium is a metal (and not assume the layreader knows that).
  • In the discovery section, change "didn't" to "did not".
  • The Cohen, Bernard L. reference (#39) is misformatted.

The article is written in a way that is accessible to and informative for a layreader, such as myself. Though, obviously I don't have subject matter knowledge to judge if the article is comprehensive. --Aude (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and suggestions - which should now be addressed. --mav (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks pretty good. Some attention to the authors in the references could be given tho. There still are some maintenace tags so those should be addressed. Some refs are in "Baker, Jim" fashion, others in "Jim Baker" and yet other in "J. Baker". Not a huge thing, but it's nice to have around, plus facilitates longterm maintenance. I'll read it in detail to give comments on content.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Format for all authors with easy to distinguish first vs last names fixed. Not sure what to do with Venkateswara Sarma Mallela; V. Ilankumaran; and N.Srinivasa Rao... --mav (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: I'm checking for licensing information only. I am unable to comment on the accuracy of self-made images.

  • I entered an {{Information}} template in File:Pu,94.jpg because it neatens the information. Although the images basically have all the information required in the template, please consider organizing it with a template for image summaries that do not have one right now.
    Each image should now have that template. --mav (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My browser on this particular computer is fairly wide. File:Plutonium ring.jpg and File:Pu-phases.png appear directly opposite of each other, one left and one right, and text runs over Plutonium ring.jpg, making it appear jumbled. You have to make this decision, but is it possible to move one of the images to another section? I don't want to play with the layout since I can't say what section is appropriate for the a particular image. However, I need to point out that this passage in particular on some browsers looks quite bad.
    My monitor is running at 1900x1200 via Firefox on Ubuntu Linux and I'm not able to reproduce that when maximized... However, I don't think anybody should ever read Wikipedia in a maximized browser session on a high resolution monitor - it is much better to unmaximize your browser or set-up split browsing. --mav (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I completely believe File:Hanford N Reactor adjusted.jpg was at the source link, now it says "We are sorry, the document you requested is currently unavailable via this website". Perhaps a backup link?
    Odd. Then this become no different than if the uploader scanned the image from a book. --mav (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All other images appear to be fine.
  • Let me know if you have questions. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Headbomb

Oppose per (take deep breath):

Resolved issues
  • Lead
  • The sentence Plutonium is a rare radioactive, silvery-white actinide metallic transuranic element that is produced from uranium ores. is a real mouthful. Five modifiers for a single noun! Rewrite into something similar to "Plutonium (IPA/Symbol/Element number) is a rare transuranic radioactive element produced from uranium ores. It is an actinide metal of silvery-white appearance." Rewrote this part. Re-edit at will.
  • Some elements seems questionable for the lead, such as, but not limited to "It tarnishes in air, forming a yellow coating when oxidized, and reacts with carbon, halogens, nitrogen and silicon. Plutonium dissolves in hydrochloric, hydriodic and perchloric acids." I'm alright with what's in the lead now, other perhaps than P-240. But I'll leave that one to others' judgement.
  • "The most significant isotope of → The most important isotope of...". Fixed.
  • "The plutonium isotope plutonium-240 emits neutrons randomly" → "Plutonium-240 emits neutrons randomly" Fixed.
  • I would put the isotopes in this order for the lead: P239/P244/P238/P240.
    • Good suggestion. Done. --mav (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Pu-240 really notable enough to be include here?
  • The amount of that isotope determines grade and things like "weapons grade" are often used in the press. So some mention is needed me thinks. --mav (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Physical
  • Inconsistent use of α form / α phase throughout the text Switched to phase
  • Spell out the names of the Greek letters on first use , something like "alpha phase (α phase)" fixed
  • "Electrical resistivity of plutonium at room temperature is very high for a metal and oddly decreases as temperature is increased." Explain why this is odd? I know why (R usually goes up with T for common materials), but the reader might not know this. Merging this sentence with the next one into something "above 100 K, the resistivity decreases with temperature, which is odd for metals" might be a sensible thing to do.
    • Rewritten to make less confusing and jargon briefly explained. --mav (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to self-irradiation, plutonium fatigues throughout its crystal structure." What does this mean? Is fatigue something wikilinkable?
    • I don't think there is anything wikilinkable, but I did add ", meaning the ordered arrangement of its atoms start to get disrupted by radiation with time." I hope that helps. --mav (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allotropes
  • "delta phase" inconsistent use of greek symbol and spelled out names.
  • A brief explanation of what an allotrope is would go a long way
  • "Plutonium normally has six allotropes[6] but forms a seventh (ζ)" If you name the seventh, you might as well name the other six.
    • Added to image caption, where it was needed even more. --mav (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uses the Celsius scale, but the rest of the article uses kelvins. I would suggest using kelvins throughout the article, and give conversions to Celsius each time.
    • This article, like most chemistry articles, primarily uses Celsius in the prose. This is consistent with the references. The only time Kelvin is used is when talking about sub zero temperatures or ranges that include very low temperatures. --mav (talk)
  • Nuclear
  • Is "positive multiplication factor" wikilinkable?
  • "During fission, a tiny fraction of the nuclear material (i.e., the binding energy) is converted directly into a large amount of energy;" is physically inaccurate/misleading/sloppy. Material is not energy. Speak of the material's release of binding energy which in turn diminishes the "mass-energy" of the material.
    • I think what I originally wrote was more clear, but a couple different people rewrote that (resulting in the above wording). Changed to "During fission, a fraction of the binding energy, which holds a nucleus together, is released as a large amount of thermal, electromagnetic and kinetic energy" --mav (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isotopes and synthesis
  • Inconsistence use of "radioisotopes" and "radioactive isotopes". I say go with the later throughout the article. Fixed.
  • Metastate → Metastable state Fixed
  • Minus signs should be minus signs, not hyphens (use &minus;) Fixed.
  • Compounds and chemistry
  • aqueous solution → aqueous solution? Linked
  • PuC is not wikilinked but PuN is. That's rather weird.
    • Fixed - both now not linked (neither has an article yet). --mav (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Occurrence
  • Look fine to me.
  • Discovery
  • "He chose the letters "Pu" as a joke". What's the joke? It's now explained (or rather was explained all along).
  • Convert inches to centimetres, not millimeters.
  • Nuclear weapons and waste
  • "melted to form glass logs of plutonium oxide that weigh two tonnes." → "...melted to form two-tonnes glass logs of plutomium"? Bah whatever, I can live with this.
  • "Later, large (200 MW) reactors" → Later, large 200 MV reactors... Fixed.
  • Medical experimentation
  • Nuclear weapons
  • "Encasing the bomb's sphere of plutonium in a tamper decreases..." → "Encasing the bomb's sphere of plutonium in a tamper (an optional layer of dense material) decreases..."
  • Second paragraph doesn't have a reference. Now has refs.
  • Power source
  • Use of plutonium waste
  • Example of reactors that uses MOX would be nice. "Breeder reactors" is good enough.
  • Toxicity
  • "pCi−1" Is this a picocurie? I've made the fixed assuming it is.
  • Criticality potential
  • Looks fine to me
  • Flammability
  • Looks fine to me
  • Physical
  • Some instances of WP:Jargon are there, nothing too bad but things like α form should a least be wikilinked to something.
  • I think I caught the jargon and explained it a bit better. --mav (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isotopes and synthesis
  • This remark applies to the whole article, but is particularly relevant here IMO. Have you considered using forms such as "Pu-238" and "Pu-239" for the main text, reserving form such as 238Pu for formulas and tables? It would improve readability a lot IMO.
    • I really like that suggestion and implemented it. As a matter of fact, I will propose that as a rule for WikiProject Elements to follow. --mav (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are authors in journals using this formalism though???? Nergaal (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does that even matter? We aim to be a fair bit more accessible and readable than journals. --mav (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Medical experimentation
  • Details on the animal experiments would add a lot to this section
  • Nuclear weapons
  • Power source
  • For each type of use, you should mentioned if it is still used in this way. For example, if it was used for scuba suit heating, is it still used now?
Tone down to "Is is still used to hear scuba suits?
  • General remark
Sometimes notes are placed before refs, other times they are after. I would consider place them all before.

Phew. That was long. I hope no one is put off by that list. Very few of these issues are deal breakers on their own, but taken collectively, does not lead me to think this deserved the FA star yet. Many of those are style issue that reflect personal preference, and I only mentioned them to have them considered by the collectivity. But there's of items on that list that do not require a lot of work to strike, and the article would be better off if someone did this work. I'll do some of them myself, but I'm not very knowledgeable about plutonium so someone else will have to work on this as well. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for such a thorough review! Fixing 90% of that shouldn't be a problem. --mav (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I see you have beat me to addressing your concerns. Thank you and great work! :) I'll start work on addressing other issues now. --mav (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Status? What is the status on Headbomb's Oppose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly addressed. Still some points to work on. I've been busy with some end of year stuff but should be able to give this a real big push on the 1st. --mav (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say I'd essentially support it as an FA, but I would like some clarification about phases and allotropes being the same thing or not. Maybe it's been addressed in the article already. The expanding on the animal experiments would be nice, but is not a deal-breaker IMO. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 12:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. And the cleanup template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • The clean-up template was added by somebody after I submitted this to FAC. A modest expansion and better transitions should satisfy the person who placed it. I'll be working on this article more later today. --mav (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Start of restructure and modest expansion of history section. Hopefully will be done by end of this weekend. --mav (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section restructured and clean-up template was removed by the person who placed it. --mav (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the dabs a while ago early on, and I've again ensured that the only links to disambiguation pages are those made by the hatnotes. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 18:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as I think that the article is overall of FA quality—but here are some places where I think that the writing should be improved ;)

  • "These and other properties make the handling of plutonium dangerous and have led to a number of criticality accidents." This sentence needs to be revised: logical analysis reveals that the sentence could be construed as saying that "other properties […] have led to a number of criticality accidents", which is not exactly true. Specifying that it is the radioactivity that leads to criticality accidents would be better.
  • "Fuel grade plutonium contains from 7 to less than 19% percent, and power reactor grade contains from 19% and greater Pu-240" Percent is doubled.
  • "238U + n → 239U (half-life 23.5 min; β−) → 239Np (2.36 ;days; β−) → 239Pu (24,100 years)" I could be mistaken, but something looks fishy about ";days;".
  • "During World War II the U.S. government set-up the Manhattan Project, which was tasked with developing an atomic bomb." The phrase "set-up" up-sets me. :) Surely there's a more descriptive word that can be used here. It's also inconsistent with the nearby "Later, large 200 MW reactors were set up at the Hanford Site […]"…
  • "This critical mass is about a third of U-235." This sentence makes little sense. I'm guessing that it means that a third of the mass mentioned is U-235 rather than plutonium, but the fact that I have to guess is bad. (Edit: It probably actually refers to the fact that plutonium's critical mass is about a third of that of 235U—the lack of a possessive in the sentence throws the meaning off, even, for people who aren't thinking clearly enough. :p )
  • "Mox fuel is used in […]" and "MOX fuel has been in use since […]": please make the capitalization consistent.
  • "[…] plutonium's critical mass is only a third of that of uranium-235's." Either "that of" or "'s" should be removed.
  • The last three sentences in the Flammability subsection of the Precautions section feel very choppy: in particular, the mention of the Rocky Flats fire seems to stick out. Rearranging this section for better flow would be advisable.
  • In notes 7 and 8, there is no space before the parenthetical reference to Emsley, but there is in note 9. If spaces are added (edit: removed), please remember note 2 as well.

I think that the writing is overall pretty decent: let's fix up these little stumbles. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the support and suggestions for improvement. I'll make sure to address each point by the end of this coming weekend. --mav (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'll probably be away for the next week or so, you have my continued support. I've struck some of the issues which I consider obviously resolved: please don't strike the others yourself after responding to them—that way I can, once back, check what's been fixed during my absence more easily. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 22:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something to fix:

"Partial exceptions include the refractory metals chromium, molybdenum, niobium, tantalum and tungsten, which, while soluble in liquid plutonium and insoluble or only slightly so in solid plutonium."

I'm not sure what this intends to say, but it's not a complete sentence. Please rewrite for clarity. Crystal whacker (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the writer(s) meant to say "are" instead of "and" on the second instance of the latter. Correcting that would make the sentence more clear, but the "or only slightly so" seems to be saying more "slightly soluble" than "slightly insoluble": this still needs work. If someone can confirm the facts (please), a suggestion for correction, based on my assumptions, would be "Partial exceptions include the refractory metals chromium, molybdenum, niobium, tantalum, and tungsten, which, while soluble in liquid plutonium, are insoluble or only slightly soluble in solid plutonium." {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 23:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the lead section, paragraph 1: "When exposed to moist air, it expands up to 70% in volume and forms a powder that can spontaneously ignite." [Emphasis mine.] Is this really the elemental plutonium? Or is there a chemical reaction involved? From the "Flammability" section, it looks like this represents oxidation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From "Characteristics", "Nuclear": "Plutonium is a radioactive actinide metal that, with uranium, is one of the few elements with one or more fissile isotopes." Why is uranium singled out as one of the few similar elements? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't "Characteristics", "Nuclear" section describe the alpha decay of Pu-238? I added a brief comment right at the end of the section. From "Applications", "Power source", this property looks quite important. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From "Characteristics", "Isotopes and synthesis", paragraph 1: "Because of its comparatively large half-life, minute amounts of Pu-244 can be found in nature." I think I know what the author means, but the sentence appears counter-intuitive. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From "Characteristics", "Isotopes and synthesis", paragraph 1: "The primary decay modes before the most stable isotope, Pu-244, are spontaneous fission and α emission; the primary mode after is β emission. The primary decay products before Pu-244 are uranium and neptunium isotopes (neglecting the wide range of daughter nuclei created by fission processes), and the primary products after are americium isotopes." Does this mean that uranium and neptunium undergo spontaneous fission and alpha emission to form Pu-244? Pu-244 undergoes beta emission to form americium? This section could be clearer. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From "Characteristics", "Isotopes and synthesis", this equation does not appear to be correctly formatted:-

238U(d,2n)238Np → 238Pu + β−

Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From "History", "Production during the Manhattan Project", paragraph 4: "B, D and F were the initial reactors built at Hanford". I'm surprised that A, B and C weren't the initial reactors built. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From "History", "Cold War use and waste": "The U.S. reactors at Hanford and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina produced 103,000 kg, and an estimated 170,000 kg of military-grade plutonium was produced in Russia. Each year about 20,000 kg of the element is still produced as a by-product of the nuclear power industry. As much as 1000 tonnes of plutonium may be in storage with more than 200 tonnes of that either inside or extracted from nuclear weapons." Why not use "tonnes" consistently throughout? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From "History", "Cold War use and waste": "The glass consists of borosilicates mixed with as cadmium and gadolinium". The grammar is incorrect and I don't know what it should be. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From "History", "Cold War use and waste", is there a reference for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture caption in "Applications", "Power source" reads "A pellet of plutonium-238, glowing due to blackbody radiation." However the article indicates that plutonium is silvery-white in colour. Is the pellet of Pu-238 really a black body? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From "Precautions", "Toxicity": "The U.S. Department of Energy estimates the increase in lifetime cancer risk for inhaled plutonium as 3 × 10−8 pCi−1.[48]" Unfortunately I can't seem to view the Argonne National Laboratory's fact sheet. Can someone confirm that the fact sheet is still available? Wouldn't "sieverts" be more helpful than "curies"? I would like to review the validity of the cancer risk information. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From "Precautions", "Criticality potential": "Plutonium in solution is more likely to form a critical mass than the solid form due to moderation by the hydrogen in water." [Emphasis mine.] Is "moderation" a technical term? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits and comments. I'll make sure to address each comment after I address some earlier issues. --mav (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relatively major referencing issue {{inotes}} is not used like it should be. It doesn't produce anything the reader can see. This needs to be fixed (or worked around).Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inote is being used here for extreme referencing (an allowed use) and for adding page numbers to references that really don't need them b/c their plutonium chapters are only a few pages long. Converting the inotes to inline cites would overwhelm the adjacent text with repetitive inline cites. --mav (talk)

Support and comment by jimfbleak Because of its comparatively large half-life, minute amounts of Pu-244 can be found in nature. Is this true, given the age of the earth? Isn't it more likely that Pu-244 is formed from U-238, and its long half-life allows detectable amounts to build up? jimfbleak (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support—Looks excellent. < and > take a space after. Tony (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:21, 31 December 2008 [25].

Solomon P. Sharp edit

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk • contribs • count)

Article has passed a GA review. It is well-sourced and, I believe, comprehensive. I hope to be able to address any concerns quickly and see this article promoted to FA. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 02:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Full disclosure, I passed the article for GA. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That article lists sources on which it is based at the bottom. One is The Kentucky Encyclopedia, which I have already cited. The other is History of Franklin County, Kentucky, which unfortunately, I don't currently have access to. As best I can tell, the article in question only serves as a source for one claim (that of the Frankfort trustees offering a $1000 reward for the capture of Sharp's assassin.) I'm fairly sure I can find that in another source if necessary. Does this qualify as "material that is likely to be challenged"? If so, I'll try and dig up another source. If not, I'll just omit the cite and the reference altogether. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind; I found a more reliable source. Everything look OK now? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: I attempted to add the appropriate information to the information template in Image:Beauchamp kills Sharp.jpg, but I was unable to find the page number of the woodcut in the Criminal Calendar. I found the 1835 Calendar at the Lehigh University Digital Library. I looked through the chapter on Beauchamp, but no illustration was readily apparent. The book, though quite fascinating, appears to be over 300 pages and I don't have the time to find the image. If you could, please, link the image summary to the source. If you can't link to the exact page number, please include it in the summary. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I grabbed the image from the Google Books preview of Bruce's The Kentucky Tragedy, and just referenced the source he provided. I have a hard time believing he could get it published with a false attribution (not that I think you're saying that.) What I'm getting at is that I don't have access to the calendar, so I can't provide a page number. If it needs that to pass FA, I'll try to get a copy on interlibrary loan. Let me know. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind again. I now see that the Lehigh Collection is free for public viewing. The image in question is on page 298. http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/cdm4/crime_viewer.php?ptr=13817&DMTHUMB=1&DMTEXT=criminal+calendar&searchworks=searchcriminal+calendar_0_0&CISOPTR=13757 Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Karanacs (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Comments. I enjoed this article, but I feel like the last section is missing a little bit. The linked article on the tragedy provides more detail on the aftermath. At the very least, I think it worth mentioning in this article that Sharp's brother wrote a book about him and what happened with that. Karanacs (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about how much detail to go into there. I tried to apply the logic that "This article is about Solomon Sharp, so it should probably end where his life ends." But you are probably right about Dr. Sharp's book. Let me work on it a bit. Any other suggestions for what ought to fill out that section vs. what strays off-topic are appreciated. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 19:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done some expansion on that section. How does it work for you? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 00:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good, but Darby is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, so you might want to provide a few words of context (or at least full name). Karanacs (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OOPS! That's what happens when you write two articles on related subjects, then wait several months before nominating them for FA! You forget what is in which one. Thanks for the catch; let me know if my latest edit is not sufficient to clarify Darby's identity. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent :) Karanacs (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for incorrect spelling of Edgar Allan Poe. Heh heh... Comment Great work on this article! There are a couple very short paragraphs, notably the second one under "Political career" and the very last paragraph of the whole article. I'd suggest either bulking them up or merging into another paragraph. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I can eventually absolve myself for the sin of misspelling Poe's name. Judging from your user name, I gather that is of great importance to you. :)
I've merged the short paragraphs into larger paragraphs. Please feel free to leave any additional comments. I hope you will eventually be able to support the article's promotion. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks quite good.
    • "(Whether Sharp..." Is there a reason this is in a parenthetical? It seems perfectly fine as a regular, old sentence. :)
    • "The family briefly moved..." Do we know the approximate date for this move?
      • Unfortunately, no. The only source where I have found mention of it is Allen's A History of Kentucky, which says: "When the war was over, he moved from Washington County, Virginia, first to the neighborhood of Nashville, Tennessee, and a short time afterward to the vicinity of Russellville, Kentucky." I'm big on including dates for continuity, but I just don't have this one. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He supported the election of..." Is this during the campaign or after he was elected?
    • "he worked with Ben Hardin" Who's that?
      • He eventually served as a U.S. Representative from Kentucky. He comes up a lot during the politics of Sharp's era and beyond. I was looking for his wiki-article under "Ben Hardin" at the time I wrote this and couldn't find it. Later, I discovered it's under "Benjamin Hardin", but I forgot to come back and wiki-link this. I've remedied that now. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "harsh measure dealing with the welfare of slaves" Rather vague. What does this mean? Did this measure help/hurt slaves?
      • If I remember correctly, the measure was harsh against slaves, and Sharp opposed it. Unfortunately, I've already returned that source to the college library, which will be closed until January 5. I won't have access to the source again until then, but I don't think it was very specific about what the measure entailed. I've clarified the sentence based on my remembrance of what the source says. I can double-check it after the first of the year, or I can just eliminate the sentence since it isn't really critical to the overall story of Sharp's life. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "nevertheless, Sharp recognized..." "nevertheless" doesn't really work as a connector here. Sharp could have certainly recognized the political value of service no matter what the length.
      • I see your point. Really, the "nevertheless" was intended to convey that, even though his service was brief, he managed to get promoted to colonel because he recognized the value of military service in state politics. I really wish the sources were specific on how this happened, but they aren't. Still, I felt it was worth mentioning, since many sources refer to him as "Colonel Sharp." I've hopefully clarified the sentence now. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "his ill-fated expedition " Is there a link for this? Or perhaps just give when this happened to establish some more context for readers.
      • This is also in the source I've returned to the library. Best I recall, the expedition wandered around for forty-two days and never did find or attack the enemy. I've revised this section based on that recollection. Again, it'll be after the first of the year before I can fact-check it, but I'm reasonably sure this is correct. If so, I believe my edit addresses your concern for clarity. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "His opponent, John Upshaw Waring, was a notably violent and malicious man." This is one of those sentences that probably requires a citation on its own.
      • This entire paragraph is meant to be cited to the footnote at the end. I can repeat the cite at the end of that particular sentence if you think it necessary. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "during a remodel many years later" Do we know a more specific date?
      • Unfortunately, no. Again, only one source that I have run across mentions this. In Johnson's "New Light on Beauchamp's Confession", he states: "Although printed in 1827, Vindication was never sold to the public, because Darby threatened to sue if it was and, perhaps more persuasively, John U. Waring said he would kill L. J. Sharp if it was. All copies were walled up in the Sharp home in Frankfort, not to be discovered until many years late during its remodeling." Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd separate the footnotes and the references into two sections (==Notes== ... ==References==), but that's just personal preference. BuddingJournalist 15:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Sometimes, I include a ==Footnotes== section which includes explanatory notes (such as in today's main page article, Richard Hawes), so I combine References and Notes so I don't end up with so many sections. I don't have that here, so I'm happy to conform with your preference. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. I hope you will find my responses sufficient to support the article's promotion. If the two issues related to the source at the college are still a problem, I'll see if I can find it at the local public library (doubtful, since it's a much smaller library) or if I can get it sooner on interlibrary loan. Otherwise, I'll be happy to pick it up when the college library re-opens January 5 if you're willing to wait that long. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I'm happy to support. BuddingJournalist 16:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed both links. I don't know what branch of service Sharp's father was in, and I don't think "interim" necessarily needs to be linked in the first place. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 04:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Johnson article in the bibliography points out that the murderer Beauchamp was a vehement Old Court partisan, and that Sharp's brother was trying to portray this as a solely political murder. We should include this POV; which doesn't mean we should endorse it.
    • Yes, I seem to have omitted this fact in my haste to introduce the epilogue per Karanacs' suggestion above. I have added a passing mention of it now, which is probably all it deserves given that Dr. Sharp had a vested interest in how the murder was perceived. This addition also had the beneficial side-effect of making the introduction of Darby much cleaner. Thanks for the suggestion. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 05:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nevertheless "tried to frame" begs the question; "portrayed"? (And if I read your source correctly, Beauchamp's partisanship was not in dispute, but whether it was the motive for the murder. If so, we should state that he was.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll take "portrayed", but I'm not sure why the text as-is calls Beauchamp's partisanship into question. It questions Beauchamp's motive, but the next statement, the one about partisanship, states definitely that both Darby and Beauchamp were Anti-Relief partisans. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 22:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least after 1820, Old Court and New Court Party seems to be the standard nomwnclature. We should probably adopt it; if not, we should capitalize Anri-Relief. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though I concede that after Old Court and New Court came into use, they constituted the preferred nomenclature, I prefer Relief and Anti-Relief in this case for precisely the reasons you mention. The factions identified by these more general titles first, and only became Old Court and New Court following the legislature's attempt to abolish the Old Court in 1824. Before this, those monikers would have no real meaning, since there was no New Court until then. By continuing to use "Relief" and "Anti-Relief", we avoid straying too far off-topic into the details of the Old Court-New Court affair. I have capitalized "Anti-Relief", per your suggestion. Hope that is satisfactory. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 05:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - some stuff from the lead and the first section of the article:
  • He was re-elected to a second term, but his support of a controversial bill regarding legislator salaries cost him his seat in 1816. - "But" → "though".
  • Every sentence in the second paragraph in the lead begins with "He..."
  • In 1818, rumors had surfaced that Sharp had fathered a stillborn illegitimate child with Anna Cooke. - Remove "had".
  • Whether Sharp actually made such a claim, or whether it was a rumor started by his political enemies remains in doubt. - Add a comma after "enemies".
  • Sharp's murder became the inspiration for a number of fictional works. - "A number of" is vague. Everything from 1 to 10100 is "a number".
  • The family briefly moved to the area near Nashville, Tennessee.[4] Between 1798 and 1800, the family settled at Russellville, Logan County, Kentucky.[5][3] - These sentences should be merged.
  • He opened a practice in Russellville, but soon relocated to Bowling Green, Kentucky, where he engaged in land speculation, sometimes in partnership with his brother, Dr. Leander Sharp. - Remove the comma after "Kentucky".
  • Only months later, a woman named Anna Cooke claimed Sharp was the father of her stillborn illegitimate child, a charge Sharp denied. - Change this sentence to "Months later, a woman named Anna Cooke claimed Sharp was the father of her stillborn illegitimate child; Sharp denied this claim."
  • The scandal soon abated, and though Sharp's political opponents would continue to call attention to it, his reputation remained largely untarnished. - "Though" → "although".

–Juliancolton Happy Holidays 16:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your review. I've implemented all the changes suggested above. The only one I'm not sure about is replacing "a number of" with "several". That's probably just as vague, but I can't say for certain how many works, exactly, were based on the story of Sharp's murder. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 19:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made this change. It sounds a little awkward to me for some reason, but I always have trouble editing my own prose. Any other suggestions for the rest of the article? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A couple more comments:
  • The measure, which paid Congressmen a flat salary instead of paying them only for the days when they were in session, was extremely unpopular with the voters of his district. - No need for "extremely".
  • Sharp had clearly identified himself with the Relief Party, as had Governor Adair. - Remove "clearly". –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 15:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full support - with a few comments. Since the article is written in US English, shouldn't "duelling" and "remodelling" have a single "l". I might be wrong of course ;-). And, since the murder was not really politically motivated, I think "assassin" is not the best word to describe the murderer. Great article, thanks. Graham Colm Talk 17:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:21, 31 December 2008 [26].

Half-Life 2: Lost Coast edit

Nominator(s): Gary King (talk), S@bre

This is a video game level that was released online. It was created as a technology demonstration to showcase new features implemented into the video game engine used by the level, which include improved graphics and a new commentary system. This article is fairly different from a typical video game article, in that the primary focus is on its development. Gameplay is essentially the same as the game that this level uses, Half-Life 2, so the basics are outlined here. Also, the level's plot only exists to serve the technology demonstration purpose, so only the important details are mentioned in the Plot section—it is a fairly short level. Regarding Reception, there isn't as much available as there is for a typical game, but we used what we could find. Gary King (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two images in this article; both are fair use:

Gary King (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Sabre was going to create a better image than the craptastic HDR comparison? (limey slacker :P) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's been busy lately I believe. Gary King (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you've jumped on ahead, eh? Well, Image:Lostcoastlogo.PNG needs downsizing to 256px horizontal, and if I crisper picture was found to replace the HDR comparison shot, that would be nice (we could have the image be lower res too). As it stands, images have proper licenses and detailed rationales, so aside from the above images should meet criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done. And, well, he knows this FAC is open. I'm assuming he's just unable to get to the game any time soon. Gary King (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Limey I may be sir, but I am no slacker! Well, not much. I've uploaded the new version, and included a few pointers in the summary of exactly what is different. I've reduced it to 500px, any lower and the fine details (which basically sums up HDR) would start to become less noticable. -- Sabre (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a tad cleaner, but I suggest reuploading it as PNG, so there aren't any scaling artifacts in the thumbed version. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- Sabre (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←My god that looks much better, no? And to think all I had to do to get results was call Sabre a limey :P Images look good, I'll get around to giving a full review sometime or another (I've got three days to kill and no finals, so it'll be sooner rather than later :P) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mildly insulting my British heritage always gets response. You're lucky I can't call you out for pistols at 20 paces any more. :S -- Sabre (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support More comments - it looks pretty good, but there are some issues (might as well start this review because otherwise I'm just going to play DotA and RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 :P): changed to support

  • Lead
    • There's lots of repetitious "the level" sprinkled throughout. Change it up.
    • "In addition, Lost Coast was the first video game developed by Valve to use audio commentary," - feels a bit clunky, why not reword to talk about how players can listen to blah blah blah?
  • Body
    • "A nearby man, identified in the commentary as the "fisherman"" - why not just call him the fisherman from the get-go?
    • "They tested three different methods before finally settling on a fourth method that was deemed workable. " This gets stated after, so why not just axe this bit?
    • You've got some conflicting sentences: the first part of development talks about how it was supposed to be a tech demo, and then you say "Lost Coast was originally conceived as a level in Half-Life 2, but was later discarded during development. " - I understand what you're trying to say, but perhaps level design should go first and then you talk about how it was turned into a tech demo afterwards.
    • "As a technology showcase, Valve considers Lost Coast to have system requirements that are very high.[12] The game runs on computers with specifications lower than what is recommended, albeit without some key features such as HDR. If a non-HDR capable card is used, the developer commentary is changed slightly to reflect this. For example, Gabe Newell would describe the effects that are seen in a different manner.[13]" The first part of this seems disjointed, as suddenly we went from commentary to system requirements. Put the first part into another section and smooth the transition?
    • "People who received Half-Life 2 as a gift were not eligible to download the level. " - what does this mean? How did Valve make the distinction?

I sniffed about on LexisNexis and elsewhere to find more reviews, but there wasn't much else, so I think it uses the sources available. To me, the graphics-speak works fine and is accessible, but I suppose a technophobe should check it out. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done Gary King (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you move your "Support" to someone more visible? Right now it's at the end of a line that's crossed out and in italics; not that easy to spot at first glance. Thanks! :) Gary King (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: For a tech demo, you've done a fine job of gathering well-referenced information. In conclusion, [27].--ZXCVBNM 23:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A few quibbles: This thread was mistakenly put into the Over the Edge FAC below. I have verified that these comments go with this FAC and accordingly moved them here. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]

  • "implemented into future games"—"integrated into" or "implemented in".
  • "a significant amount of lighting effects"—"number of".
  • "were also added"—removed "also".
  • "considered Lost Coast to have system requirements that were very high." Why not "considered Lost Coast to have very demanding system requirements." Tony (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done Gary King (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:21, 31 December 2008 [28].

Over the Edge (1999) edit

Nominator(s): SRX''

I'm nominating this article for featured article because after extensive work to get the article to comply with WP:PLOT, WP:FICTION, and WP:IN-U, and after a lengthy peer review, I believe this article now meets the FA criteria. In addition, unlike other pro wrestling articles, this is unique because it involves a death of a wrestler at the event. Any comments, however, will be addressed. SRX 22:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Note to source checker - http://www.hoffco-inc.com/wwe/ppv/ppv/ote99.html is not reliable as a whole, but in this case, the source is verifying the on-screen talent, which they credit to videos of the event on the internet, in which the talent is visible and announced at the event.--SRX 22:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Image review: Please complete an {{Information}} template for Image:Bradshaw.jpg. All other images appear to be fine. --Moni3 (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added that the {{information}} template to the mentioned image. Thanks.--SRX 01:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments - A wrestling PPV article from when I actually watched wrestling! That was a long time ago. For those who don't know, Owen Hart's death become a national story and led to widespread criticism of the then-WWF. Therefore, this has more going on than most articles of this type. I did offer two rounds of comments at a peer review, so I don't know how much more I can find in this review, but that's never stopped me before.

  • "From the six scheduled bouts on the undercard, two received more promotion." One of the other active wrestling FACs puts this as "### received more promotion than the others", which I think is an improvement.
    • I improved it.--SRX 23:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Background: second sentence of the section is huge, and runs on quite noticeably: "For three months before the event, several WWF professional wrestling matches and background stories were played out on WWF programming, Raw is War, Smackdown (no exclamation point?), and Sunday Night Heat, to create feuds between various wrestlers, casting them as villians and heroes."
    • I split them.--SRX 23:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comma after "WWE's previous pay-per-view event".
    • Comma added.--SRX 23:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "the daughter of the WWF Chairman Vince McMahon." Remove second the.
    • Removed.--SRX 23:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "The Undertaker's price for Stephanie's return was the control of the wrestling organization." I don't like the first "the". Can another word be substituted?
    • I removed it and replaced "of" with "over."--SRX 23:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Real names needed for the Road Dogg and Val Venis.
    • Names added.--SRX 23:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Event: "In the final contest, Vince McMahon (second time linked) defeated Mildeon (Dennis Knight) in a singles match that ended in "No Contest". If it was a No Contest, how did McMahon win?
    • Removed link, fixed statement.--SRX 23:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That's it from me for now. I'll come back for further reviewing at a later time. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks.--SRX 23:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "Kane then pinned Henry in order to retain the WWE Tag Team Title.
    • Removed suggested part.--SRX 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "Holly and Snow began their bout in the ring but were scripted..." This sentence goes on for a while. Can it be chopped it two?
    • I cut it.--SRX 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Main matches: "and as a result, were counted out." → "and were counted out as a result."
    • Reworded.--SRX 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Real name needed for Chyna.
    • No because she was best known as Chyna per WP:COMMONNAME and she legally changed it to Chyna recently.--SRX 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Change comma after "The referee disqualified Triple H for this action" to a semi-colon?
    • Done.--SRX 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Owen Hart accident: Spell out WCW, and perhaps give the real name of Sting.
    • Done.--SRX 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Aftermath: "which led to a match at SummerSlam (1999)...". I recommend piping the link here to remove the 1999 in parenthesis.
    • Done.--SRX 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The printed references have page numbers in pp. for plural, when they should be p. for singular in most cases. For the one that isn't, the page range needs an en dash. Also place the Calgary Sun in italics in each of the references.
    • Done.--SRX 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
That's all from me. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, thanks.--SRX 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I converted the citation templates to the cite news templates. In addition, I updated the deadlink.--SRX 16:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - I think this meets the standards, and is unique to boot. One more thing from this image novice: the poster needs to state the copyright holder (WWF). Placing it next to the source should be sufficient. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Copyright was added.--SRX 17:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I made a few changes to the prose; hopefully I didn't change the meaning of anything. After a full review, I feel the article meets the criteria. Although I am usually a tad bored with sports article, this was a rather interesting (albeit unfortunate) read. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 03:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, and no your changes didn't change the meaning of anything :)--SRX 00:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Why is it necessary to tag 12 of the 13 statements in the infobox with a ref. 1? Consider providing a broad source for this type of info in the main text, just once if possible.Tony (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A few quibbles:
  • "implemented into future games"—"integrated into" or "implemented in".
  • "a significant amount of lighting effects"—"number of".
  • "were also added"—removed "also".
  • "considered Lost Coast to have system requirements that were very high." Why not "considered Lost Coast to have very demanding system requirements." Tony (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are these comments referring to this article because what you are stating does not match the current revision, could these comments may have been added to this FAC by accident?--SRX 18:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
SRX, I think (actually, I know) that these comments are intended for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Half-Life 2: Lost Coast above. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have copied the comments into the correct FAC. I think that you can delete them without breaching etiquette guidelines, although you might ask Sandy or Tony first. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving the comments, Dabomb. SRX is trying to steal our Supports :P Gary King (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
=D I don't need your supports =p But thanks for making that clear, I will ask Sandy.--SRX 19:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:21, 31 December 2008 [29].

Gerard K. O'Neill edit

Nominator(s): Wronkiew (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think that it meets the criteria. This GA has gone through both natural sciences and biography peer reviews. Many thanks to those who gave their advice. Gerard K. O'Neill was a physicist and author who advocated the colonization of outer space. Wronkiew (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback on the article. Wronkiew (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query Hi that was an interesting read, it mentions that he had a son and two daughters by his first wife and was survived by four children. If you have any details of the fourth such as if this was with his second wife it would be good to add this. ϢereSpielChequers 19:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few more details on the fourth child. His name was Edward, and he was the "half-brother" of Roger. Therefore it seems like a safe assumption that his mother is Tasha. However, I don't have any source material that comes out and names his mother directly, so I'm not sure how to work it in to the article. Wronkiew (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I can't see how to bring that into the article either. But I don't think that should stop it getting FA so I've switched to the talk page. ϢereSpielChequers 07:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Images appear to be fine. --Moni3 (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I contributed at the general peer review. The article has developed well since then and is, I think, comprehensive, well-written, easily comprehensible to the layperson. A couple of very small points:
    • Writing career: Since the High Frontiers book has already been mentioned I think this section could start, more economically, with "O'Neill's popular science book The High Frontiers: Human Colonies in Space (1977) combined..." etc
    • Entrepreneurial efforts: Penultimate para. "...a variant of his LAWN system" would be better as "...a variant of O'Neill's LAWN system".

Fine work. Brianboulton (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and thanks. Wronkiew (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Well-written, well-researched and satisfies all the criteria. This is so interesting, I will read it again just for pleasure. Thanks. Graham Colm Talk 09:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Tony (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:21, 31 December 2008 [30].

Wail al-Shehri edit

Nominator(s): --Aude (talk)

I mostly wrote this article about one of the 9/11 hijackers at the end of September, but have come back a bunch of times (with "strategic distance") to work on copyediting and MOS. I believe it's now ready for FAC, and as always, happy to address any issues. Please review! The article is not overly long (but not super short either), so hope that reviewing won't take too much of reviewer time. --Aude (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment can it be explained what a "muscle hijacker" is? I presume a guy who does the fighting to take over the plane, but couldn't fuind it in the Wikipedia article on hijacking. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment. You are correct. I took that detail out of the lead, since the term is undefined there. I also adjusted the wording in the article to define "muscle" hijackers as the non-pilot hijackers. --Aude (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a wikilink to Hijackers in the September 11 attacks#Muscle hijackers, though that article is only what I consider start-class. That will be the place to define the hijacker roles in further detail. --Aude (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs, pls check the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thank you for reminding me. --Aude (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references, such as NEFA.
  • Current ref 40 (Confusion ...) the author name should be at the front of the reference like all the other references for consistency.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing the references. I have made some adjustments. --Aude (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • The two Shehri brothers then traveled to Afghanistan in March 2000, where they ended up at an Al-Qaeda training camp. - Remove "Shehri" and "then".
  • As well, many young people in the region idolized Osama Bin Laden, who had family ties to Asir. - "As well" is a poor way to start a sentence.
  • Details on how the non-pilot ("muscle") hijackers were chosen for the September 11 attacks are vague, though they appear to be selected by senior al-Qaeda leaders in 2000 from the thousands of recruits at training camps in Afghanistan. - This sentence is slightly confusing. When I first read it, it seemed like "they" referred to the details that are mentioned in the beginning of the sentence.
  • Once Wail and the other muscle hijackers completed their training in Afghanistan, they received $2,000 so that they could return to Saudi Arabia to obtain clean passports and visas. - Remove "tjat".
  • Some time in late 2000, Wail traveled to the United Arab Emirates, where he purchased traveler's checks presumed to have been paid for by Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi. - Remove "some time".
  • Upon check-in, Wail al-Shehri was selected by the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS), as was his brother Waleed, and Flight 11 hijacker Satam al-Suqami, while Mohamed Atta, the pilot hijacker on Flight 11 had been selected in Portland. - This sentence needs to be reworded, as I'm not quite sure of what it's trying to say.

Well done, overall. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. I have adjusted the text, per your comments. --Aude (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: The two images that have been released by As Sahab - how was that permission given? Is it explicit in the website sources? --Moni3 (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As-Sahab has been posting videos on archive.org, where there is the option of posting them under creative commons licenses or releasing into the public domain. As Sahab has selected public domain for the videos, including the one that the two images/screenshots are taken from. [31] --Aude (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I see it. Thanks. Images appear to be fine. --Moni3 (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read a good chunk of the article and fixed a few grammatical and expository errors. It needs a couple more hands to look for other things to fix, but the content is sufficient to warrant featured article recognition. Crystal whacker (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I did a little copyediting throughout the article. This certainly appears comprehensive and neutral. Good work! Karanacs (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The copyedits look good. Thank you for taking time to review. --Aude (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A couple of very minor points:

  • "In the aftermath of the attacks, some news reports mistakenly identified Shehri as a trained pilot and son of a Saudi diplomat. The Shehri family in Khamis Mushait has spoken to the media, denying those early reports and saying that the Shehri brothers had disappeared." I found this momentarily confusing, thinking that the disappearance was cited in support of the denial of Shehri being a pilot and the son of a diplomat. Is there another way to phrase this?
  • "His treatment involved verses from the Qur'an read by a sheikh"; can you be more definite than "involved"? Presumably they were read over him?
  • Do you mean "World Gym" or "World Gyms"?

-- Mike Christie (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have adjusted the article, per each of your points. Please let me know if anything is still not clear, or you find anything else for me to address. --Aude (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a few comments:

  • Does teachers college require a possessive (teachers' college)?
  • Here: In March 2000, he left for Pakistan with Waleed, as well as with Ahmed al-Nami; - how about just a simple "and"?
  • Will all readers know what is meant by a clean passport?
  • What is a Florida state identification?
  • Have you got a source to support the calling of the prostitute?
  • Some attention is needed here: Men named Wail and Waleed were both reported to have been found alive by a BBC News article on September 23, 2001,[37] as well as a number of other news reports in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. how about "Men named Wail and Waleed were both reported to have been found alive by a BBC News article on September 23, 2001,[37] and other in news reports."
  • Why the apostrophe here 'Asir ?
  • The last sentence is too long: In response to 9/11 conspiracy theories surrounding its original news story suggesting hijackers were still alive, the BBC issued a response in 2006, explaining how confusion arose with the Arabic names that were quite common, and that the BBC's later reports on the hijackers superseded the original story. - Try splitting it. Graham Colm Talk 15:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestions. I have made changes, except I think teachers college does not take the possessive (e.g. [32]) and the FBI timeline source covers the prostitute sentence. --Aude (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is a comprehensive and very informative article on the life of one of the 9/11 hijackers. The bio is comprehensive and neutral, it satisfies WP:FACR. AdjustShift (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support the writing. But I noticed a few things at random.

  • "Shehri was highly religious, and attended Al-Seqley Mosque" – "deeply religious and attended ...".
  • also also – I'd remove the one before "idolized".
  • "had been friends with Bin Laden's father" – more formal to use "was a friend" or "was friendly with".Tony (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adjustments made. Thank you for reviewing. --Aude (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:04, 27 December 2008 [33].

Action of 13 January 1797 edit

Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk)

An article on a minor but infamous naval action of the French Revolutionary Wars in which two British frigates (commanded by the ubiquitous Sir Edward Pellew) managed to destroy a much larger French ship of the line, killing over 900 people. I created the article from scratch a few months ago and since then it has passed GA and had a military history wikiproject peer review. All comments welcome. Jackyd101 (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had, but somehow I neglected to thank User:Rama for his assistance with French ships, officers and sources.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support — wonderfully written, it was a joy to read through this article and be engrossed in how two Davids force a Goliath to its knees. It covers well the battle, how it came about and how it ended. I did a bit of tweaking, and do have some queries but I do not think they substantially affect the quality of the article.

  • "Indefatigable was a razee, one of the largest frigates in the Royal Navy, having been cut down to 44 guns from 64 in 1795. This reduction was intended to make her fast and powerful enough to catch and fight the largest of the French frigates. Indefatigable was armed with 24-pounder cannon on the main decks and 42-pounder carronades on the quarterdeck, giving her a stronger armament than any equivalent French frigate."
Is it possible to rework this (the "guns" seem wanting to be joined together)? For example, "Indefatigable was a razee, one of the largest frigates in the Royal Navy redesigned in 1795 to make her fast and powerful enough to catch and fight the largest of French frigates. Armed with 24-pounder canons on the main decks and 42-pounder carronades on the quarter deck, she had a stronger armament than any equivalent French frigate, even after being reduced from 64 guns to 44." (My example may sucketh).
Your example is fine and I can incorporate it into the article, but I'm not clear on what your objection to the previous version is, can you explain a little more?
Not an oppostion, a quibble: I just think the original sentences split apart the ideas that concerned the guns, instead of consolidating them in a single region. Like I said, a mere quibble. Jappalang (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. I have placed your version in the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A map of the pre-fight (geography of the bay and positions of the combatants) would be nice.
It certainly would. The only trouble is that the only map I have found (and it is of the aftermath of the action) is still within copyright in a book I have and I'm not convinced of its accuracy (its scale is definately serverly exaggerated). I will keep looking and see what I can turn up.
Further to this point, if you look at the co-ordinates at the top of the page, they give a decent impression of the situation, with the tag situated at the point Droits de l'homme struck.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although Pellew knew the use of lower deck guns on the ship of the line was restricted, he was not aware that the French ship was totally unable to open her lower deck gunports during the action: an unusual design feature had the ports 14 inches (36 cm) lower than was normal and as a result the sea poured in at any attempt to open them, preventing any gunnery at all from the lower deck and halving the ship's firepower."
Is this critical to the article, since Pellew obviously took the risk (belief) that Lacrosse would not use his lower deck cannons?
It is important that the French ship was unable to use her lower deck guns, because had she been fully equipped, she could have certainly blown Amazon to matchsticks and would probably have done the same to Indefatigable. I'm not certain what your are suggesting: are you saying it should be removed?
I was wondering how important it would have played to the situation at hand. After all, Pellew took the chance, thinking that Lacrosse did not dare to use his lower guns, so whether or not Lacrosse could open his lower deck guns seem to be moot (and the explanation can be taken away without hurting the article). However, like I stated above, this is not opposable and could be considered an interesting piece of information in the article. Jappalang (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to keep it for now, although I see your point. I'll think about ways to make it more relevant.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was Lacrosse commended for losing a ship of the line to two smaller frigates? After all, if he engaged them right at the start, he might have won or chased them off. Were his superiors that understanding of the situation?
Hmmm, I may rephrase this slightly, because I don't think he was commended for losing the ship, he was just not completely blamed for its loss and was able to continue his career in the Navy. I'm afraid I'm not 100% certain of the exact aftermath of this particular engagement within the French fleet (it may well be that this disaster was to a certain extent swallowed by the much greater disaster of the campaign as a whole).
That be all, great job! Jappalang (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your review and comments. I have answered them as bes I can here and in the article and if you have any replies or feedback they would be welcome.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support; another wonderfully written article by Jackyd101. A couple of comments, however.

  • Sources looks good.
  • Images check out.
  • Grammatically, I'm not sure if I'm write, but could the following sentence be structured a bit different; Having used all the cannon balls available, over 4,000, Lacrosse was forced to use shells against the frigates.. I.e. either using em dashes between "over 4,000" and the words before and after it, or writing the word out. The multiple commas comes off as difficult to read when skimming over it (although, it's not a major issue).
Rephrased.
  • Are there any clear conversions for the measurement of gun caliber? I.e. converting "42-pounder" to millimeters.
I will look into this. The "42 pounder" designations were official names, (like 7.5 cm PaK 40 or similar) and are never translated into other measurements in histories, even modern ones. However I will have a go and see what happens.

Thank you. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing; cannonball wikilink should be disambiguated. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to link to Wiktionary [34] but I can't remember how to do this. Can someone point me in the right direction?
Thankyou very much for the review and the support, very much appreciated. Any more comments please let me know.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A great read, some minor points for consideration:

  • "The war that would result would, it was hoped..." The repeated "would" is a bit ungainly. Could it be: "It was hoped that the resulting war would..." etc?
rephrased
  • "de Galles was hoping to sail..." sounds a bit casual. Perhaps "planned to sail" would be stronger?
rephrased as suggested.
  • The long sentence beginning "The British Channel Fleet normally maintained..." has a slight contradiction in it. First, it appears that the squadron was driven involuntarily off shore by the gales. But then you imply that this move resulted from Colpoys' concern that the ships migh be wrecked on the coastline. I wonder whether the second part of the sentence is really necessary?
rephrased, hopefully this is better.
  • Is this repetition avoidable: "...the Raz de Sein. The Raz de Sein..." ?
rephrased to channel.
  • The section heading "Failure of the expedition" is a bit cryptic. Pellew was on a mission, too. Shouldn't this be "Failure of the French expedition"?
Renamed.
  • Another slight contradiction. "Pellew knew that the ocean was too disturbed to allow Lacrosse to open up her lower gun ports without the risk..." etc. A bit further on: "Although Pellew knew the use of lower deck guns on the ship of the line was restricted..." Not the same thing; the two statements need harmonising.
This came up before, but my solution obviously wasn't adequate. Rephrased.

Finally, such a good story could do with a slightly more arresting title, don't you think? "Action of 13 January 1797" doesn't suggest a naval battle, or anything remotely exciting. Does the engagement have any other name in official naval history?

I felt this too, but there really is no agreed name for the battle in British histories. The French call it Naufrage du Droits de l'Homme, but this title (like the possible Pellew's Action) I felt was too one sided. For the moment, this is probably the best solution.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much for your review and comments, very much appreciated. If you think of anything else please let me know.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question. You state that " against expectation, the frigates successfully outmanoeuvred the much larger French vessel . . ." Would one not expect frigates to outmanoeuver (although not outfight) ships of the line? Kablammo (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, changed.

Support. Very compelling writing. Mahan compares the "trained and disciplined" British crews to "French ships, crowded to repletion with men for the most part unaccustomed to the sea", and provides some other details in his short account. Mahan, Alfred Thayer (1892), The Influence of Sea Power upon the French Revolution and Empire, 1793-1812, vol. I, Boston: Little, Brown and Company, pp. 358–59. My support is not conditioned on use of that source but you may wish to consult it to see if Mahan’s observations are useful. Kablammo (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly be interested in looking at that sourse however for some reason I cannot access the book through the link you gave me. I will see if I can get hold of it in hard copy but will not be able to look properly until after the Christmas period. Thankyou for your review and support, much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've e-mailed you the pages. I hope you can find the book; it is a classic, and the source of this famous quotation:

The world has never seen a more impressive demonstration of the influence of sea power upon its history. Those far distant, storm-beaten ships, upon which the Grand Army never looked, stood between it and the dominion of the world.

Regards, Kablammo (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou very much. I will read the source carefully and see if I can incorporate it into the text (it may be a couple of days, I'm going away this weekend).

Support. Wow. I was riveted by the writing, and I learned a great deal about a small part of British/French naval history. I don't have anything to add that those above haven't already mentioned. Looks good to my untrained eye. Good luck. Chasingsol (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much, much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — To make this FAC complete...

  • File:Droits de lHomme sinking.jpg — source is provided (albeit archived, Grovesnor updated their site and removed this from their catalogue) and date as well (sourced to NMM, as it is unlikely the painting was done before the battle). PD due to 70 years beyond author's death is appropriate. Jappalang (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Edward Pellew.jpg — source, date, and PD are appropriate. Jappalang (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Vaisseau-Droits-de-lHomme.jpg — source, date, and PD are appropriate. I uploaded a better picture and informaiton from a more reliable site. Jappalang (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Jean-Baptiste Raymond de Lacrosse.jpg — problems: source of image file is known, but the source does not state date of picture or who drew it. This is not a photograph where we can reasonably say that an unknown photographer has likely died. This is a sketch or trace, and could be drawn by a present day artist (thus failing the 70 years beyond author's death). Can the date information be traced? Failing that, I think the image can be removed from the article without harm. Jappalang (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I can say without fear of inaccuracy that the Lacrosse image is PD: it is very similar in style and execution to contemporary sketches. However I cannot prove that it is PD because I cannot work out who drew it. I am still trying but if I cannot identify the artist I guess it will have to be removed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I spent some extensive time over the past few days looking for any indication as to which artist created this portrait. Despite digging through numerous French language websites, I have been unable to find anything. The subject of the portrait was certainly very famous in his time, he appears all over the place. I found out everything else you could possibly want to know about him, except who the heck did his portrait! Ah well, I tried. --Chasingsol(talk) 13:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, I too have been digging (and asking other users who know French history of the period) but so far no luck. I have emailed the webmaster of the page the image comes from but so far no reply. Merry Christmas!--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the same image? here; JonCatalán(Talk) 17:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its similar, but not the same. Its of the same guy though and appears to have been made in 1835 which would make it PD. Would this be an acceptable image?--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a suspicion that the Jean-Baptiste Raymond de Lacrosse.jpg was found in a book, which could either be Delgrès, ou, La Guadeloupe en 1802 or one of the books listed at Marine library (another page for reference). The key is to find a date for the picture (authors can be ignored if there is proof the picture was published before 1923). If the date cannot be found, then it would be wiser to leave this picture out. For the eBay picture, it is a lithogram by Maurin on 1835, so it would be acceptable as PD. The image is a little bit small though (though still suitable). If uploaded and used, it would be wise to webcite the ebay page for reference. Alternatively, a samaritan could buy the lithogram, scan it, and upload it in full glory to Commons (heh). Jappalang (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded and inserted the new image, although it looks a bit strange and I'm not sure why, of anyone can help with sizing the image it would be appreciated. I'll get on the webcite thing soon. This should solve the image problem however.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:04, 27 December 2008 [35].

British Empire edit

Nominator: User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (talk)

A lot of work has gone into the article to ensure that it is comprehensive in its coverage, that it is fully referenced, and that it adheres to the MOS. A peer review by User:Finetooth helped a great deal there. If there are any outstanding items preventing it from reaching FA status, I stand ready to address them ASAP. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not experienced with these reviews, but I'll just start by linking to previous reviews I found:
Hope to do more later. EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm sorry, but I have a hard time supporting this nomination with the article lacking any chronological map, where the distribution of the Empire is shown over time. I mean something like this. Nergaal (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I fail to see why this should hold the article from reaching FA status. Firstly, animated images are rather distracting for the reader, though that just might be me. Secondly, the anachronous map at the top (the territories that were at one time or another part of the BE), combined with the text, which goes into considerable detail on when most colonies joined/left the empire, combined with the link to Evolution of the British Empire (where such a map exists, and is more appropriate) are all enough for the curious reader to dig more into details. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • I'm still deciding whether to support or oppose. I began by looking at the references. The following authors of the listed references have their own Wikipedia articles and ought to be wikilinked: Alan Taylor, Margaret Thatcher, Piers Brendon, Saul David, Niall Ferguson, Martin Gilbert, Laurence James, Jon Latimer, Thomas Babington Macaulay. Macaulay's work has its own article, The History of England from the Accession of James the Second. The date of first publication of Macaulay's history ought to be provided; it is given as 1848 in our article. The author who is listed as T. O. Lloyd might be better spelled out as Trevor Owen Lloyd, since Lloyd is a common surname.
  • There is a template {{Empires}} that lists out all the empires in Wikipedia. In the section 'Modern Empires' I did not find any featured articles at all. I noticed that Dutch Empire had an unsuccessful bid for FA status. Going back to Ancient Empires, I see that Byzantine Empire is a featured article. I've been looking that over, trying to see how it compares to British Empire in thoroughness of coverage.
  • There has been discussion (above) of whether the extent of the British Empire should have an animated gif file. I would vote No because animating the worldwide picture of the B.E. is too confusing. In one of the sub-articles, there is an animated gif for the colonies in North America which, while not super-convincing, is worthwhile if you have the patience to wait several minutes for it to cycle all the way through.
  • British overseas territories is the actual name of our article, and that's how the capitalization should go. (There is a UK government reference in the linked article which backs this up).
  • Why do we have the unfamiliar word 'anachronous' used in the caption of the prominent map at the top of the page? This is not Word-A-Day. Why not replace it with 'Land areas of the world that at one time were part of the British Empire', or some such. EdJohnston (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments to come. EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have tackled the above to the best of my knowledge (note the three questions on the incomplete ones). Please let me know what I should do or if there is anything else needed to be done. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For File:Treaty of Paris by Benjamin West 1783.jpg, it looks like the source was Harper's Magazine, which is reliable for the color representation. However, to complete the Information template, please see the Library of Congress description here, which, unfortunately, is black and white. --Moni3 (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. I amended File:British Empire 1897.jpg and File:Victoria Disraeli cartoon.jpg. If you are not the uploader and you are not sure where it came from, you can find the closest equivalent to the image from a reliable source and link on the source line. The 1897 map has quite a few hits on Google images, but the Cambridge Library is an excellence source. I would not claim I found it on Bob's Ye Olde Maps Website. The Punch cartoon is a little more difficult, but I found the best copy on Punch's own website. I'm going to ask for advice on the Newsweek image. I recently posted a Newsweek cover in an article I wrote, including a bangup rationale for its being there, and I was advised to take it down. The cover is also high resolution. I decreased the pixel size, but my image editing software is too limited on this computer. Non-free images should be low resolution. I'll revisit this when I know more. --Moni3 (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Newsweek image has been removed from the article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All images appear fine. Sorry for not returning sooner, and thank you for being understanding and flexible with the Newsweek image. Having written a few articles myself, I understand how frustrating it can be. --Moni3 (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support - I've read the article, but am not 100% ready to support yet - I want to give it another read though tonight. However, I did notice that the article is (please correct me if I'm wrong) missing any mention of the Egyptian or Iraqi independence granted in the 1930s. A sentence or two will do, but I think its quite important in relation to the Suez Crisis especially to mention the former at least.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response You are not wrong. I'll add mention of those later today. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done [50] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add some other comments below as I read through, although I do think this is a very good article.
  • "The British Empire was the set of . . ." - is the assumption that the British Empire is in the past? The article's introduction indicates that the empire is indisputibly a thing of the past which is a viewpoint I can understand, but not one that I think conforms to the idea of a balanced view: Britain retains some colonies after all. On what basis did you choose to use the past tense in the introduction?
  • On a related note, the "was the set of" might be better written (and to my mind better encompass the non-tangible aspects of the empire: culture, politics, religion etc.) as "was comprised of the"
  • "in the 17th century. It was the largest empire in history" - since the empire was extemely fluid in size over time, perhaps "in the 17th century. At its height it was the largest empire in history" might be better.
  • I felt there were some, mainly grammatical problems with the lead and I have copyedited it a little. I think this helps introduce the article a little more clearly, although if you disagree please change it back.
  • You need to decide whether you are going to capitalise Empire or not. You seem to have capitalised British Empire, but not empire when it is alone. My instinct is to always capitalise Empire when referring to a specific one as I think it is a proper noun, just like any other place name however I could be wrong. Whatever you do however, be consistent.
  • Make sure all citations come after punctuation.
  • I saw a few more of these lurking around, keep you eye out for them.
  • "the percentage of the population comprising blacks" - I have to say, that I have never liked the term "blacks" to describe people in population terms. Not only can it be perceived as a little demeaning, but it is also a little unhelpful as its meaning has changed quite dramatically in historical usage over time. Perhaps just say "black people" or "of African descent" instead, but at least link it to the relevant article.
  • "(the majority in the south)" Either explain this a little more clearly ("Southern Colonies" etc.) or give a piped link to Southern United States which explains the South as a regional concept.
  • "At the concluding peace Treaty of Utrecht," - no need for the word "peace"
  • I realise the article is crammed as it is, but there should be some mention in the section on the 19th century of Ireland, the famine there and the debates over Home Rule, which were a major issue in late 19th century politics. It doesn't need to be long, but it is quite important.
I will continue tomorrow. I know I have brought up a lot, but I don't think it will be to difficult to deal with these and I have to say that I am ver impressed with the article so far, excellent job on a complicated and controversial topic.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response - thanks for your feedback Jackyd101. I agree with your points, save for the first one - see the last sentence of the End of Empire section! My reading has always suggested that Hong Kong/1997 is traditionally seen as the end of the empire. Certainly, although we sometimes get the odd anon IP claiming it is still in existence, I have never seen a reliable source make this claim. (The Government certainly would not refer to a British Empire!) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's all done [51]. I'll look at adding the 19th C Ireland stuff. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland: [52] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll finish my review this morning with additional comments appended below. The first point was a discussion point rather than something I want to see changed immediately: I wanted to see the process that led you to introduce the article in this manner and I think you've explained that sufficiently.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rather than deal with the issue, however, Britain" - this sounds like your suggesting that Britain ducked responsibility on the issue (and you wouldn't be wrong), but with something like this you should either say it and source it or keep it more neutral. I suggest "Rather than address the issue directly, Britain" as an alternative.
  • "successful in its objective of recapturing the Suez Canal"" - are the extra quote marks here signifying anything?
And that is that, a throughly interesting and enjoyable article which I am happy to support. Very good job.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done [53] and.... great! Thanks again for your input and suggestions. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response - done for Oz and Kiwi [54], using a page from an existing reference [55] and done for Newfy [56] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support with regard to FA criterion 1(a). This article is exceptionally well-written and engaging. Graham Colm Talk 13:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Article is indeed well-written (1a); seems comprehensive & well-researched (1b); history seems stable (1e); follows all of the section 2-4 guidelines. Still, I'm not sure about factual accuracy or neutrality; I trust that this article will have much expertise editing here. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There are still a couple of problems with the article and as mentioned above a chronological map showing the development and then decolonisation of the Empire would be far more informative than the several maps currently provided at different points in time. However The article is mostly well written and explains the major issues well remembering there are separate articles going into far more detail on most of the issues involved. It is well sourced and fits the required criteria / standard. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per britishwatcher.--Judo112 (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just a few things, perhaps with some more to follow.
    • The article uses three styles for the dash at the level of sentence punctuation. Only two of these (unspaced em dash and spaced en dash) are recommended at WP:Dash, or are at all standard anywhere. That should be fixed, for conformity with MOS. Choose one style, and use it consistently.
    • There are a couple of serial commas that appear unjustified in an article that generally avoids these. MOS (at Wikipedia:Mos#Serial_commas) recommends consistency, except "where including or omitting the comma clarifies the meaning of the sentence". Beyond the usual greater clarity afforded by just about all serial commas, those underlined here do not "clarify the meaning":
      • the majority of whom were convicts, ex-convicts, or their descendants
      • Britain returned Guadeloupe, Martinique, Goree, French Guiana, and Réunion to France, and Java and Suriname to the Netherlands
    • Still in some way involving commas, the following are awkward or non-standard, and would be better if rewritten:
      • India's two independence movements, the Indian National Congress, and the Muslim League, had been campaigning [Irregular use of commas brings momentary uncertainty for the reader: are there three elements and an irregular third comma (two independence movements; the Indian National Congress; the Muslim League) or two elements and an irregular second comma (the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League, both of which are independence movements)? The answer seems obvious to the authors, but for some readers it may not be. Solutions: omit the second comma; or replace the first and third commas with dashes.]
      • The granting of independence to Rhodesia and Vanuatu in 1980, and British Honduras in 1981 meant... [Omit the comma; or put a to before British Honduras and a comma after 1981. Otherwise the structure is uncertain (at least momentarily, which is still bad) and the punctuation non-standard.]
      • Decades, and in some cases, centuries, of British rule and emigration... [Too many commas, so too fragmented. Omit all three commas, or refashion like this: Decades or centuries of British rule and emigration....]
      • Several ongoing conflicts and disputes around the world can trace their origins to borders inherited by countries from the British Empire: the Guatemalan claim to Belize, the Kashmir conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and within Africa where political boundaries did not reflect homogeneous ethnicities or religions. [The elements in the list are not parallel in their grammar or logic: the A, the B, the C, and "within Africa...". It's a bit long and convoluted anyway. Try this: Borders imposed by British rule cause problems even today: the Guatemalan claim to Belize, the Kashmir conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and confrontations in Africa where political boundaries do not reflect homogeneous ethnicities or religions. (I'd want a serial comma before and confrontations, but that is not the article's chosen style!) An alternative: simply reword the original with this: ...the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and several disputes in Africa where... (with no comma after confront, since your article's chosen style rules this out!). All of this analysis assumes that the matter of ethnicity or religions affects only Africa. That's the natural reading as things stand. But if that matter applies to all the cases (as I believe it does), then you want something like this: Borders imposed by British rule were insensitive to ethnicity and religion, causing problems that still persist: the Guatemalan claim to Belize, the Kashmir conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and several confrontations in Africa.]
      • The American colonies, which provided tobacco, cotton, and rice in the south and naval materiel were less financially successful than those of the Caribbean,... [The meaning is uncertain. Let me try this: The American colonies, which provided tobacco, cotton and naval materiel (and rice in the south) were less financially successful than those of the Caribbean,.... Or this might be meant: The American colonies in the south, which provided tobacco, cotton, rice and naval materiel, were less financially successful than those of the Caribbean,.... Or this: The American colonies, which provided naval materiel, and in the south tobacco, cotton and rice, were less financially successful than those of the Caribbean,.... Is it one of these, or something else?]
    • Isn't the lead too long?
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 21:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: thanks for your comments! I think all your points have been addressed now:
  • Serial commas: done [57]
  • More commas: (Indian independence movements & Rhodesia/British Hond): done [58]
  • Decades and centuries commas: done but with a different way than proposed - I think it's OK? [59]
  • Conflicts and disputes: done [60]
  • Less financially successful American colonies: simplified [61]
  • Length of lead: the good article review said it was too short, so we lengthened it! [62] "The lead needs to be longer - four solid paragraphs would be about right for an article of this length" Personally I don't see any irrelevancies in it - what do you think could be removed? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot about the dashes... on it now... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's done too now [63] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did some trimming of the lead [64] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good, Red. I've just fixed a couple more dashes myself. Now, I am still concerned about this: Several ongoing conflicts and disputes around the world can trace their origins to borders inherited by countries from the British Empire: the Guatemalan claim to Belize, the Kashmir conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and several disputes in Africa where political boundaries did not reflect homogeneous ethnicities or religions. Do you intend the point about ethnicities and religions to apply only to Africa? That is the more natural way to read the sentence; but it might be read the other way, to apply to all of the ongoing conflicts and disputes around the world, and that meaning would seem to be right. Yes? It therefore needs reworking to say one thing or the other. In fact, I also don't like can trace their origins, since it is not the conflicts and disputes that trace their own origins! How is the present wording better than, say, the following? Borders imposed by former British rule often failed to respect regional ethnic or religious differences, with a legacy of problems that remain to this day: the Guatemalan claim to Belize, the Kashmir conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and confrontations in Africa.
The lead is more trim and efficient, now.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 02:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O, and note 47 has this form: "pp. 8, 30–4, 389–92". That pp. is good! Why do other references not also use this style, as opposed to this style in note 70: "p. 156–7"? The pp. is far more standard.
What's more, the style in note 70 differs from this in note 77: "p. 133–34". A consistent rule should be applied for the omission of digits in the second element.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 03:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've fixed the refs. Regarding your continuing concern, the source from which this whole paragraph was drawn refers to Africa on its own, and the Guatemalan claim to Belize is not a religious or ethnic claim. But I agree this needs reworking. I'll look at it in the morning... it's getting late here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 04:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How's this? [65] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, Red. I've done some fixing myself, to bring a few details into conformity with WP:MOS, as required for featured articles. I'll watch for a little while, and I expect soon to support promotion.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 00:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your help. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: the opening sentence has "United Kingdom (UK)" - should the abbreviation that is then used later in the article be explained in this way, or is UK commonly enough understood? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once is just right. UK by itself is good after that. Finetooth (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:04, 27 December 2008 [66].

Akutan Zero edit

Nominator(s): User:Raul654

This is a new article I started this week. People knowledgable about WWII may have heard of this, but a lot of the details remain obscure. I had a lot of fun writing this one :) Raul654 (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Interesting and enjoyable read; I have made a couple of changes saying what continent places are in, but otherwise nothing to add. The 3 pics in "recovery" leave a 2" white gap at the head of the next section for me, and the cemetery pic goes well into the notes. I would move that up to the top of the section, & maybe the one of the plane being flown down down into a lower section. When something has to go in picture placement, being right next to the relevant text should be the first thing overboard, I and most professional picture editors feel. Interesting to note that the frequency of referencing is much lower than for most nominations here (this is not a criticism). Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS Is "thusly" encyclopedic US English? I'm never allowed to get away with "whilst". Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Picture points now dealt with. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: An interesting article. I don't know anything about the subject, and found it very informative. I do have a few issues, however:

  • General point re citations: Some paragraphs appear somewhat lightly cited, e.g. first paragraph of the first main section, and other similar cases. In particular the Thach Weave tactic paragraph in the Consequences section doesn't have a citation at all.
    • The Thatch weave is a well-known topic (at least among people familiar with WWII). Nonetheless, I've added an attribution for the paragraph. Raul654 (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotations are cited, but generally not attributed in the text. For example, the three quotations in the second para of the first section are all cited to Reardon, but we don't know if he was giving his own opinion or reporting someone else's.
    • Any time I quote someone and cite a ref, the author of the ref is the author of the quote, unless I explicitly attribute someone else. Raul654 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But how does this approach square with WP:MOS#Quotations (Attribution paragraph)? Reardon is not the subject of the article or the section. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the sudden adoption of bullet-point format?
    • Lists (that is, of the captured fighters available to the Americans) should use bullets. Raul654 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since all of the items in the list have significant text, then WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists (first line) should apply. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs. - that section does not read easily as a non-list. It's an enumeration of the three aircraft previously captured by Americans. As an enumeration, it's inherently better suited to a list with bullets. Raul654 (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have to disagree. The paragraph looks and reads fine as straight prose, with the simple addition of "Finally," or some such before the sentence beginning "In China...". I've tried it. Brianboulton (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I do not believe this is an improvement. I'll fix it if other people here comment that your way is better. Raul654 (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typo in third line of third para of this section: "the rejected as" - I've fixed it as "they"
  • "Koga's final mission" sounds a bit melodramatic for a section heading ("Custer's last stand") Perhaps just "Final mission" would be more neutral?
    • I see nothing wrong with calling it Koga's final mission. "Final mission" is cryptic. Raul654 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starting a paragraph with "Note that..." introduces a direct editorial voice which is not impersonal or neutral. The sentence reads perfectly well without being prefaced in this way, and I suggest the two words are deleted.
  • Who is saying: "It seems likely..." etc., and is the last part of the sentence relevant to this particular article?
    • Per my above response to your above comment regarding quotations, the author of the ref quote (Rearden) is the one making the comment. Raul654 (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Crash" section you refer to "Koga's wingman". He has previously been named, so why not now?
    • I refer to Koga's wingmen, not wingman. He had two of them, both previously named in the text. Raul654 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normal usage is for "Christian burial" to be capitalized.
  • "stymied their efforts" is surely colloquial speech?
    • I do not believe so. Raul654 (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, not very encyclopedic, but no matter. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know where you are picking up on this. Stymied is a proper english word. It is neither colloquial nor slang. According to Merriam Webster, it means " to present an obstacle to; stand in the way of", which is exactly how it is used in this article. Googlar scholar, which indexes academic paper, has 60 hits for that phrase. Raul654 (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference to the Japanese "meatball" needs explaining - is it the aircraft insignia, or what?
    • "Meatball" was/is the common term for the red circle (the battle insignia) on Japanese combat aircraft Raul654 (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • PS - according to some googling, the proper Japanese term is Hinomaru Raul654 (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not a common enough term to be unexplained or unlinked, however. Not many people will know what it means. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've rewritten that part to call it a hinomaru, with a link to the term and an description of what the hinomaru is. Raul654 (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Consequences section there's a long sentence that could do with splitting (about Reardon and the Japanese businessman). In any event I suggest that the comma after "1947" be deleted.
  • Final image - a path in a cemetery where Koga may be buried? Hmmm...not sure how relevant this is.
    • At the risk of going into nuance here that I wanted to avoid in the article -- Koga was exhumed in 1947, but the team doing the exhumation was unaware of his identity and marked his body as unidentified. His remains were interred in Adak in a grave next to someone who was identified (Shindo Shigeyoshi). The Japanese excavated the Adak cemetery in 1953 and took 236 bodies back to Japan. Shigeyoshi was one of 13 bodies identified; the other 223 were buried in Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery. It is probable that Koga was one of the 223 unidentified ones. So yes, "likely", "probably" etc are the correct words to use. Raul654 (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't comment on accuracy as I have no knowledge, and don't know the sources, but they look solid enough. Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aviation-history.com is listed as one of McGraw-Hill's 500 best aviation websites. I think that we can consider it reliable. The other two sites were used for supporting information only (not referencing) to at others' suggestions I've kicked them into an external links section. Raul654 (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correction - one of the two warbirdforum.com articles remains. It's identical to one on j-aircraft.com as well. The author of the article is Richard L. Dunn. Some googling turned up this (bolding mine) - Richard L. Dunn is currently an independent consultant and Senior Fellow at the University of Maryland. He conducts research and provides advice on business strategies to effectively develop and employ technologies in the military and civil sectors. Mr. Dunn retired from Federal service where he served as the first General Counsel of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and was awarded the Presidential Rank of Meritorious Executive. He also served at NASA Headquarters and was on active duty as a Judge Advocate in the USAF for ten years. At DARPA, Mr. Dunn pioneered contracting using “other transactions” to increase the effectiveness of R&D and prototyping efforts. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of the Government Contractor. He has written extensively both in the area of government contracts and military history. Mr. Dunn is a graduate of the University of New Hampshire (cum laude), and has law degrees from the University of Maryland and George Washington University (Highest Honors). Mr. Dunn and his wife, Karen, reside in Edgewater, Maryland. . Therefore, I think the source is reliable. Raul654 (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Raul, you could just remove j-aircrart and warbird cites I think - isn't that triple cited? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're not there to reference any particular facts, but to help and inform the reader. For that reason, I'm hesitant to delete them. However, I've converted them into external links. Raul654 (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the last two, and left aviation-history out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Still need last access dates on the websites. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NVO has put in the website retrieve dates. Raul654 (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - doesn't this need a citation? (towards the end of the "The Mitsubishi A6M Zero fighter" section) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Zero, piloted by Maeda Yoshimitsu, crashed near Cape Rodney, New Guinea. The team sent to recover the plane erred when they chopped off the wings, severing the wing spars and rendering the hulk unflyable.

    • It was cited at the end of the proceeding paragraph following the colon. I've doubled up on the citation to make this more obvious. Raul654 (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All images appear to be fine. However, I am unsure about the gallery layout in the middle of the article. I have never seen that before. It's not particularly aesthetic on my browser. Are there other layout options that utilize the necessary image components and don't leave such large gaps in text? --Moni3 (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jappalang went through, removing some images and re-arranging others. The images should be fine now. Raul654 (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment I don't think this is grounds to oppose, but I find the lead kind of weak, the prose choppy and I feel that the article can be brought up to a much more professional standard. Then again, it might just be that there aren't really enough sources to bring it up to those "standards", or not enough information. But, when I first read it I felt that it met the standards of a B-class article, not a FA-class article. Also, I agree with Moni3, I don't like the gallery. Images should be integrated into the article as visual aides with relevant text. A current example is AMX-30, which I'm currently expanding in an attempt to bring it up to FA-standards, where I removed the gallery as I integrate the images into the rest of the text (as it's written). JonCatalán(Talk) 22:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading the article, it seems that the gallery does make that section of the article look a bit poorly organized. I saw it without the template, and the article's organization seemed a lot better. Is there any way to integrate those images like the other images? Apart from that, is there any way to expand the lead? If so, I'd be happy to support. JonCatalán(Talk) 22:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is is O.K. to take a book quote, not from the book itself, but from a blog site hosted by http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/aboutaf.tmpl? What makes http://www.angelfire.com/wa/wathies/ reliable as a source for the book quote used in the article? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The website, though hardly professional, is from Bill Thies, the guy who discovered the Akutan Zero. (Just look at the name and the fact that it's written in the first person) Raul654 (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The actual quotes from the Zero! book are set forth on the article talk page:
Even as we reeled from the debacle of Midway, another event occurred far to the north which, although lacking the drama of open conflict, was no less serious.
and
We felt strongly that the unnoticed capture of the airplane, assisting the enemy so greatly in producing a fighter plane specifically to overcome the Zero's advantages, did much to hasten our final defeat.
Mr. Rearden's 1997 article in American Heritage's Invention and Technology Magazine combines excerpts of both:
Okumiya has written that the Allies’ acquisition of Koga’s Zero was “no less serious” than the Japanese defeat at Midway and “did much to hasten our final defeat.”
Note the correct placement of the quotation marks.
The cited website however renders this amalgamation of two separate quotes as one:
"the acquisition of that Zero [was] no less serious than the Japanese defeat at the Battle of Midway."
Mr. Theis's quote is not verbatim, but a partially-paraphased combination of two separate quotes appearing on separate pages of the original source. While it accurately conveys the meaning, it is not an exact quote. Kablammo (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great example of why third-party sources are not reliable to source quotes! —Mattisse (Talk) 02:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've converted the lead section to use the sourcing provided by Kablammo, and moved Theis's website to an external link. Also, earlier today someone added a {{fact}} which I have sourced. Raul654 (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the list vs prose issue for the other Zeroes (which I don't intend to change unless others think it should be; see above), I don't believe there are any outstanding issues. Raul654 (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The three items really do not look like a list and it seems almost prosified. I have to agree with Brianbouton. I am also concerned about http://www.aviation-history.com. If the site had some public contact information (phone number or address), then some kind of evaluation could be made. But there is none and only a web form exists. A website under the control of an anonymous owner does not strike me as reliable. I would second Ealdgyth's question. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments This must be typos in wording and quote marks (from the lede):

Japanese historian Masatake Okumiya noted that "the acquisition of that Zero "was no less serious" than the Japanese defeat at the Battle of Midway, and that it "did much to hasten [Japan's] final defeat".[4]

  • Also, I question the wikilink to Selective memory loss in the quote: "It also seems likely that in his interview, Shikada employed selective memory in not mentioning shooting down Michell's PBY and then machine gunning the crew on the water." The quote reads as if "selective memory" is being used in the sense of a person's tendency to remember what they want to remember, and not a memory loss due to "a rare side effect of head injuries" as the wikilinked article states.
  • Needs some copy editing of repeat wording, eg. "The fatal shot severed the return oil line, causing Koga's plane to lose oil. Loss of oil will ultimately cause an engine to seize, forcing the plane to return to earth, possibly in a crash. Oil pressure in Koga's plane dropped, causing him to reduce speed to prevent the engine from seizing for as long as possible." causing > cause > causing. It would be better to vary the wording.
    • I've scrubbed this section down to "The fatal shot severed the return oil line, and the plane immediately began trailing oil. Koga reduced speed to prevent the plane's engine from seizing for as long as possible". Its previous incarnation was unnecessarily wordy. Raul654 (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there are too many quotes in the entire article, as if nothing is trusted to be reworded by the article writer. In addition to all the quotes interwoven in the text, there are three large blockquotes in this rather short article. I particularly object to this paragraph:

n 1940, Claire Lee Chennault, leader of the Flying Tigers, sent a report on the Zero's performance to the United States Department of War. "Aeronautical experts who studied the reports of the performance of the new Japanese 'mystery fighter' snorted in disbelief. When they read the secret reports of speed, maneuverability, firepower, and range, they rejected as 'arrant nonsense' the claims that the Japanese had become a grim air threat. Their conclusion was that such a fighter was literally an aerodynamic impossibility."[10] Early in the war, the Zero outclassed any Allied fighter it encountered. According to American flying ace William N. Leonard, "In these early encounters and on our own we were learning the folly of dogfighting with [the Zero]."[11]

First, the entire paragraph is mostly quotations. Second, the longest quotation is a very subjective, almost novelistic description (eg "snorted in disbelief") and, although implicitly attributed to Claire Lee Chennault, it does not specifically state that this was his personal view (if that is what it is, as I am not sure whose view it is). Further, the way all the quotes are buried in the paragraph, it is difficult to distinguish what is quoted and what is not, from my point of view. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • You misinterpret the paragraph in question. Chennault was not doing the snorting -- he was the one whose report was snorted at. I've rewritten it, sans the quotation, to make this more clear. Raul654 (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are now 3 block quotes in the article - one is a quote from the test pilot who flew it (a primary historical source) in the flight testing section; the second is a quote from a historian about the historiography of the plane in a section describing its historiography. I don't think either of these should be removed or paraphrased because I think that would be detrimental to the article. The third block quote is from Rearden about Koga's actions in trying to land the plane. This could be paraphrased. Raul654 (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments - Excellent work overall. Some minor comments:
  • To achieve this, however, Japanese engineers traded off armor protection. The Zero had no armor and no self-sealing fuel tanks. - The use of "armor" twice is slightly redundant.
  • During the war, the Japanese manufactured roughly 10,500 Zeros. - Can a source be found for this?
  • From these wrecks, the Allies learned that the Zero lacked armor and self-sealing fuel tanks, but little else about its capabilities. - Self-sealing fuel tanks is already linked earlier in the article.
  • However, the bad conditions and long delivery time to the United States meant that Neumann's Zero did not reach the United States for testing until after the recovery of the Akutan Zero. → "However, the bad conditions and long delivery time to the United States prevented Neumann's Zero from reaching United States for testing until after the recovery of the Akutan Zero."
  • It is unknown who fired the shots that damaged Koga's plane. Numerous individuals have claimed credit for it. - These sentences could probably be merged.
  • Physical inspection of the plane showed it was hit with small arms fire – .50 caliber bullet holes and smaller, from both above and below. - "Showed" → "revealed".
  • Oil pressure in Koga's plane dropped, causing him to reduce speed to prevent the engine from seizing for as long as possible. - "Causing" → "prompting". Also, is there a source for this sentence?
  • The Zero was fit to fly again on September 20. - I guess it's not terribly controversial info, but could you source this?
  • Avoid links within proper quotes whenever possible.

–Juliancolton Happy Holidays 15:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've implemented all of the above except the one about the individual who shot down the plane. I don't see a good way to merge those sentences. Do you have a suggestion? Raul654 (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about, It is unknown who fired the shots that damaged Koga's plane, although numerous individuals have claimed credit for it.? –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 14:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It meets FA criteria. However some ideas for unneccessary but interesting expansion would be to include more info on what Japanese thought of both Koga (did Japanese remember him honorably or not, I think they had a thing about suicide instead of capture or defeat) and US capture of the plane (which you have already included with the general's quote). Most War articles that include more of what each side were thinking and doing make interesting reading. NancyHeise talk 03:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's not really a whole lot more to say about the Japanese reaction. To the Japanese, Koga's crash and death were not all that noteworthy at the time (such things are commonplace during a war). I believe the subsequent capture of his airplane was unknown to the Japanese until after the war (the information gleaned from the capture was classified until 1956). In retrospect, Japanese historians credit the capture as being extremely important, but the extent of that (versus other factors like the rapidly decreasing skill of Japanese pilots, increasing skill of allied pilots, and improved performance of allied planes) is debated. Raul654 (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:07, 23 December 2008 [67].

Blair Anderson Wark edit

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. Perhaps not the longest of articles, but it is comprehensive and has passed both GA and Wikipedia:Wikiproject Military history A-Class. Any and all comments welcome. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I passed this for GA, although it was very good then and I didn't really have any comments at the time. My only suggestion now is that I always found it easier to read citations when they were seperated from the text by some kind of box (see Thomas Crisp or Ronald Niel Stuart), however this not a condition of my support, just a suggestion.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, not a bad idea. However, all of the other VC articles I have worked on I have presented the citation in the same format, and would like to remain consistant with these. Thanks/cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments Generally up to the usual high standard. I took the liberty of making a few cosmetic copyedits - a few other points follow. If these can be addressed I wouldn't have a problem supporting this FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Intro: "member of the Australian society" sounds like a club - suggest simply "member of Australian society", or perhaps even the more down-to-earth "member of the community".
    • I find it a bit confusing to read that "Throughout June and July, Wark commanded the 32nd Battalion" and then shortly after to find that "From 29 September to 1 October 1918, Wark assumed temporary command of the 32nd Battalion". Presumably June-July was temporary as well? If so, I think you need to either mention that in both places or drop it from both places, otherwise it looks like he had permanent command of the 32nd and then, mysteriously, only temporary command of it.
      • I have now clarified that it was temporary command on both occasions. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could we look at some paraphrasing of source material? For instance in the article we're told that the 32nd "was subsequently involved in the operations that continued to press the retreating Germans through August and into September", a straight lift from a passage in the cited work. As I've noted on a previous occasion, it's not always easy when the source articles are of a similar level of detail to what we're presenting here, but we can try and be a bit more original in our wording. "...tasked with providing carrying parties for supplies and ammunition, the battalion was soon drawn into combat" is also very close; while you've thankfully substituted "combat" for the source's "vicious fighting", the rest is the same and could be rephrased as well. Obviously I can't speak for possible close similarities between the article and the book sources.
      • Geez, I can't believe how lazy I was sometimes in my earlier articles. In the first instance I have quoted the material, and in the second I have changed it to "The unit was originally designated with providing carrying parties for supplies and ammunition during the battle, but were subsequently drawn into the fighting.". Is that okay? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all your comments and the copyedit, Ian. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No prob, I changed one more verb that stuck out for me in the second bit, plus modified what I saw as a couple of instances of singular/collective confusion re. the battalion. Hope they work for you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having a look at your changes I have no objections. Once again, thanks. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as hard as I tried, I could find little in the article to fault. The prose is generally very good, and the article is comprehensive, as far as I can tell. Well done. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 14:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — all images check out fine (sources, date, authorship, license). Jappalang (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:07, 23 December 2008 [68].

Scout Moor Wind Farm edit

Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum

I'm nominating this article on the United Kingdom's largest onshore wind farm on behalf on the Greater Manchester WikiProject. It's relatively short at 1,317 words, but I believe that it's nevertheless comprehensive and meets the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - All images have descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments
  • Scout Moor Wind Farm is the largest onshore wind farm in England. - This leaves me to wonder; are there any larger offshore wind farms?
  • Powered by twenty six Nordex N80 wind turbines, it has the capacity to generate 65 MW of electricity, providing 154,000 MWh per annum, which is enough to serve the average needs of approximately 40,000 homes. - Inconsistency with spelling out numbers.
  • The site lies across 2 miles (3.2 km) of open moorland between Edenfield, Rawtenstall and Rochdale, - Link moorland.
  • The second presentation was given by a representative of Scout Moor Wind Farm, who argued the need for Britain to produce clean green power, without harmful emissions, in order to counter the increasing dangers of global warming. - Remove "in order".
  • The last quote of the History section should be incorporated into the text.
  • Could the Key facts be renamed to "Overview"? "Key facts" seems slightly POV as to what kind of fact is considered "key".

The article looks good, overall. The above comments are minor, and should be easy to fix. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All changed apart from the first point, which I don't have the answer to. Nev1 (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit to the lead mentioning the only larger offshore windfarm, Kentish Flats. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Changed to support. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed the "they work for you" reference to the original Hansard source. Richerman (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NUAE is a german company name - what it stands for is not given anywhere - not in English anyway! I've changed the title of the ref to NUAE Geotextiles Ltd. News.
  • Rochdaleonline seems to be online news only, however the opening date is non-controversial and I've added a newspaper reference from two days earlier that says it will be officially opened on that date. Richerman (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed yahoo newsgroup and new enegy focus refs
  • Removed The Stringer ref and added missing publisher Richerman (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A protest group was formed to resist the proposals" You never mentioned proposals before. Shouldn't this read "A protest group was formed to resist the construction of the wind farm" or something similar that fits better in the flow?
  • "Visible from as far away as south Manchester, the wind farm was officially opened on 25 September 2008, after "years of controversy",[4] at a cost of £50 million." Contains too many commas. Bad prose.
  • "The underlying geology broadly belongs to the Lower Coal Measures and is a mixture of hard rock and soft shale" (missing word)
  • "spans across to" needs rewording.
  • The last bit of the history section had me confused. Are you sure we need exact quotes here below the bill quote?
  • "exacerbated", "subsidence" and "grout" are not the sort of word I would think the typical reader knows.

I did some minor editing of my own during this review.- Mgm|(talk) 12:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "proposals" changed to "proposed construction".
  • "Visible from as far away ..." rewritten.
  • Added missing word in "The underlying geology ...".
  • "spans across to" changed to "extends to".
  • Minor rewrite to avoid use of the word "exacerbated", grout and subsidence now linked.
--Malleus Fatuorum 13:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All my comments were addressed. Karanacs (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Comments[reply]

  • It says that the turbines can be seen from south Manchester - how far away is that?
  • Is there any information about the habitat management plan that they were supposed to come up with?
  • The lead appears to contain information that is not in the body of the article (forgive me if I missed it) - that it spans 2 mi, also the comparison with the offshore wind farm
  • How wide is the moor? What percentage is the wind farm using?

Karanacs (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added distance from south Manchester.
  • Added the total area of the moor, and the area occupied by the wind farm.
--Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved information from lead to body of article Richerman (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I See that since my previous comment, a reference has been removed. Why was that? Also, you tend to fragment sentences quite often. "Visible from as far away as south Manchester, 15–20 miles (24–32 km) away, it is split between the Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale in northern Greater Manchester and the Borough of Rossendale in south-eastern Lancashire.[1][2]" is an example of such sentence construction. Of course variation is needed, but if possible try to start the subject, or at least have a clear subject in the first part. "Visible from as far away as south Manchester, 15–20 miles (24–32 km) away, " doesn't have a subject (or a verb for that matter). -- Mgm|(talk) 11:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which reference you're referring to, but I removed some text along with a reference as the reliability of the source was questioned by Ealdgyth. I've fixed the sentence you mention and I'll have a look to see if I can find any more like it. Richerman (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've dealt with the fragemented sentences now. Richerman (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments Seems very short of economic analysis of what is a business project after all. The two owners should be mentioned in the lead - what are the JV shares? What is the expected lifetime, and actual production figures? I know it's windy up there, but it doesn't blow all the time. There must be revenue projections, and given the movements in energy prices recently, some comment on how these might have changed would seem called for. Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK but what do you mean by JV shares? Richerman (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are their respective shares in the Joint Venture? Should be available online in the Annual Reports etc. Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, United Utilities aren't mentioned any more on Peel holdings' website and it seems they pulled out of the project. I've added a line to that effect.Richerman (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the useful life expectancy of 25 years, but the only online annual report is from 2002 and there is no mention in it of wind energy proposals. Richerman (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the points have been addressed now, is the article ready for promotion to FA? Richerman (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I read the articles correctly, the nameplate capacity of 65 whotsits, often mentioned, actually has a capacity factor of 27% (tucked away in the final table) - ie in the absence of a change in weather patterns of biblical proportions only 27% of the nameplate capacity is ever likely to be achieved. Nor do we know what figures are initial pre-operating projections and which actual. I don't know anything about the subject but the article doesn't explain these matters well & I suspect is not written with a depth of understanding of the issues. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of us new much about this stuff when we started but you learn as you go along - especially from other articles about the subject. I will put something in about the points you mention. Richerman (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an explanation of the capacity factor with a pointer to the main article on the subject Wind power. Does that make it clearer? Richerman (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It won't be promoted with only one support declaration. While the individual comments might have been addressed, it might be best to figure out what other changes are needed for the other reviewers to change from "comments" to "support". Karanacs (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it has two. :) –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 19:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see yours right next to the strikeout. I think I need to clean my glasses ;) Anyway, Sandy archives on Tuesday and Sunday, so this will likely be open all week. Karanacs (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all familiar with this process and I don't know what else I can do other than address the points that are raised. Should I ask those who have made the comments whether they have changed to support or would that be canvassing? Richerman (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you don't specifically ask for supports, it is fine to notify reviewers that you've addressed their comments. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 19:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - With the changes, the page is completely aesthetically pleasing, reads well, and I didn't find anything "missing". I haven't seen any MoS problems with my last glance through. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notes - 1. Two paragraphs for lead with slight expansion (one or two sentences). 2. Alternate some images. The first could start on the left. 3. Last part of "Construction" first paragraph (starting with "The weather constrained") could be split to form its own paragraph so it doesn't all flow together via the blockquote. 4. Reduce "see also" by introducing the wikilinks in the text. "Wind power in the United Kingdom" and "Wind power" definitely belong somewhere in the body of the text and in the lead (windfar is already there, so wind power may be unnecessary). 5. Last paragraph of "Geography" should have a few more sentences. 6. The same for the last paragraph of "Construction". I'm opposed to tiny one or two line paragraphs that seem to stick out and feel out of place. Not all of these are necessary, but they will help with the minor aspects. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the lead and the geography section, alternated the images, split the paragraphs as suggested, and got the "see also's" down to one, with the rest incorporated into the text. I've also removed the last paragraph break in Construction.Richerman (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The imagequote template is very strange on IE7; way off to the right of the page (can it switch to a regular blockquote?). Also, it's not necessary to WP:NBSP dates in citations; that must have been a lot of work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell, Imagequote is used when there's a left-aligned image that would interfere with the quote template. However, the image here is right-aligned, so I'm not sure why it's being used. I also switched the template to Imagequote2 so that the spacing is correct (Imagequote seems to be antiquated). I don't know why the functionality of imagequote can't be integrated into quote. BuddingJournalist 02:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The image was at one time left-aligned, but it's now been right-aligned, so it was a hangover from that change. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • I'm not liking the way quotations are handled. Too many dull "so-and-so said, "Quote"", sometimes with little context. Moreover, perhaps this is a style issue, but I was taught that when introducing quotations with "said" or the like, a comma should precede the quotation. Thus, "Councillor Pilling said, "Our party is very...", not "Councillor Pilling said "Our party is very..." If the quotation is preceded by something such as "said that", the comma is not needed. Also: "was that "These applications are made under section 147..." should be either "was that "[t]hese applications..." or "was, "These applications...".
    • "In 2005 United Utilities" Lonely, one sentence paragraph. Also, sometimes a comma is used after temporal clauses ("In November 2008, the company") and other times, it's not (like here). Best to be consistent. BuddingJournalist 02:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "un-recorded shallow coal mining" Why is un-recorded hyphenated? And what does "un-recorded" mean? Were people surreptitiously mining?
    • "what assessment she had made of whether the development of the Scout Moor Wind Farm would meet the provisions of the Commons Bill in respect of the protection of and public access to common land" What is the Commons Bill? Link? This seems to be an unnecessarily wordy sentence. -> "...Margaret Beckett, then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether the development would meet the provisions of the Commons Bill regarding the protection of and public access to common land."
    • "It was reported in May 2007 that a meeting had been held" Why "it was reported"? Is there doubt about the meeting having been held? Who attended this meeting?
    • "The view of Catherine Pilling" Not a very artful transition. What is the connection of this quotation to this meeting? Did she say this after the meeting to the public? During it? The rest of this paragraph is just a list of quotations. Not representative of Wikipedia's best work here. "The Labour group leader was opposed to the plan saying " Who is this, and what is the meaning of "Labour group leader"? Leader of what? BuddingJournalist 02:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Replies
        • "These applications ..." changed to "[t]hese applications.
        • The lonely one sentence paragraph beginning "In 2005 United Utilities ..." has been merged into the text.
        • Hyphenation of "unrecorded" has been removed. "Unrecorded" means that no records were maintained of where the mines were located.
        • "Margaret Beckett, then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ..." sentence rewritten as suggested.
        • The meeting did take place, attended by invited local councillors and developers. Clarified in the text.
        • "Labour group leader" means the leader of the UK Labour Party local councillors. Some rewriting done in that area to make that and the relationship between the meeting and the comments more explicit.
      • --Malleus Fatuorum 18:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks better. Still not wild about the way quotations are handled, but the meeting paragraph reads much better now and gives more context. BuddingJournalist 02:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments—This is good and, after a little massaging, should be of FA standard. I've made a few copy-edits. Unsure why "years of controversy" is in quotes (see my comment about loosening up a little about quotemarking short bits of common text from sources, esp. where not contentious). The information in Note 3: can it be included at the end of the lead, or perhaps in the body of the article instead? Can you watch your use of "which"—see my changes in two places to clarify its referent. Two quotes from refs that you've wound into the main prose just ahead of the ref numeral are a little forced; I can see that you want to verify that these were the actual words in the source, but perhaps it's good enough to drop the quotes from the single last word here: The geological diversity of Scout Moor, which weathers at different rates, has given it a landscape of "steep escarpments separated by sloping shelves", although the main dome of the moor is flat and "rounded".[4] No one will accuse you of plagiarism. Also, ref [4] appears here in four successive sentences; these are hardly contentious statements, so the earlier ones could be rationed. Slightly overlinked. I'll do some more work on it later. [Disclosure: I know Malleus well on WP.] Tony (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Is a 1991 travel guide a good source for a quotation on geology in an FAC article. And is it worth citing twice in same short paragraph, as it is in the first paragraph under "Geology"? (See: "steep escarpments separated by sloping shelves" which is a quote from Sellers, Gladys (1991). Walking the South Pennines. Cicerone Press. ISBN 978-1852840419.) I know the author is "one of the best know guidebook writers in the north" (from the book's back cover), but I am wondering if WP:RS allows guidebooks for geological citations?
  • The information referenced by the guide is hardly contentious, I don't see a problem with using it as a source in this case. Nev1 (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response My complaint is directed at setting a precedent for using a travel guide as a geological reference in an FAC. (In WP:RS it is suggested such sources are not the best.) Surely a legitimate geological source can be found. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, reference 12 is piped with a link to this article: Chetham Society 1856. Quotes from it are cited four times in one short paragraph, in the first paragraph under "History". Is there not a rule against an article linking to itself?
  • The Harvard template automatically links to the bibliography section, this has never held back FACs before and I don't believe it's over linking. It's purpose, especially in articles with longer bibliographies, is to take the user straight to the relevant book in the bibliography. Nev1 (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - It is hard for me to accept that the Harvard template automatically pipes, not to the society that published the quotes, Chetham Society 1856, but to this article, Scout Moor Wind Farm at FAC. That is due to piping and that should be fixed. It is a principle that an article should not contain links to itself. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I see. Where does it say this? It wouldn't take much to change it from the template to another format, as this article only uses it twice, but I'm concerned that this issue may needlessly hinder other FACs. Nev1 (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The templates have been removed. Nev1 (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think are too many quotations for such a short article (disregarding the sources). Is this material such that the editor cannot use original wording? It is not like quoting a famous author or featuring compelling prose that could justify using quotations. The quotations seem to be facts that could be stated without using quotations.
  • Quotes only make up a small proportion of the article. In the instance of the etymology, quotations allow precision, rephrasing it might lead to accidental inaccuracies. Also, quoting people's opinions later in the article ensures that their meaning is fully conveyed. Nev1 (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reponse - Quotes make up an unnecessary part of the article, especially when quotes are not people's opinions that cannot be summarized in an encyclopedic style (which is the job of writers of an encyclopedia, after all. (If the editor thinks "rephrasing it might lead to accidental inaccuracies", then the editor has no belief that an encyclopedia can be written in original prose.) User talk:BuddingJournalist makes the same complaint above: "I'm not liking the way quotations are handled. Too many dull "so-and-so said, "Quote"", sometimes with little context. Moreover, perhaps this is a style issue, but I was taught that when introducing quotations with "said" or the like, a comma should precede the quotation." Although some of his complaints were address, he was not completely satisfied. Example: (first para under "History", using the piped redirect to this article)

In England, scout hills "are long ridges of rock, so called from the Anglo-Saxon Sceotan, as being shot out, horizontally or nearly so, to a great length".[1] Scout is a corruption of the Old English "sceot", meaning "shot" or "to shoot", this suggests Anglo-Saxon settlement in the locality at a very ancient time.[1] Kinder Scout in Derbyshire shares this etymology.[1] The village of Shuttleworth, to the immediate west of Scout Moor, derives its name from Sceot-hulls-worth, meaning "dwelling-place by the Scout hills".[1]

  1. ^ a b c d Chetham Society 1856, p. 260.
    • This is four short sentences, each on referenced by the same source. Also, the manner in which the quotes is used is confusing, as it is not clear if some words is quoted because it is someone else's wording, or because it is a word being used as a word quote-use justification. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it not over using a reference to cite the same source four times in a row in a short paragraph, as Chetham Society 1856 is in the first paragraph under "History", especially with no intervening citations? —Mattisse (Talk) 04:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Over referencing? I didn't think such a thing was possible. Using the reference more than once in succession has no detrimental effect and reinforces that all the information came from the same source. Also, if someone were to introduce new information into the paragraph (with a source), it might give the false impression that the new source references all the information before it. Nev1 (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response - Yes, there is such a thing as over referencing. For example, I have seen this raised as a legitimate complaint by [[User:Tony1|Tony in the past. Referencing each sentence in a paragraph to the same source is over referencing. See the first paragraph under "History" quoted above. Footnotes are considered distracting to the reader, so using them unnecessarily is not desirable. Your reasoning would require a footnote after every sentence. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm of the inclination of Nev1 too - I'd much rather see "over" referencing than have any kind of confusion of where a statement or factoid came from. Yes it can seem like overkill, but I don't think it's a bad thing for WP or our readers in this case or others. Indeed if this was an academic paper being submitted for assessment one wouldn't be marked down at all, quite the contrary. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plus, in this case a reference is required after every quotation. Nev1 (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response - Of course a reference is required after every quotation. The question is, why are there so many quotations that are not anyone's opinion and could be rephrased in the editor's own words. Is that not what writing an article for an encyclopedia about? Otherwise, writing an article for Wikipedia would just be a question of assembling quotations and sources.
    Please see Tony's comments above, whose complaints I have reiterated:[69]
    "Two quotes from refs that you've wound into the main prose just ahead of the ref numeral are a little forced; I can see that you want to verify that these were the actual words in the source, but perhaps it's good enough to drop the quotes from the single last word here: The geological diversity of Scout Moor, which weathers at different rates, has given it a landscape of "steep escarpments separated by sloping shelves", although the main dome of the moor is flat and "rounded".[4] No one will accuse you of plagiarism. Also, ref [4] appears here in four successive sentences; these are hardly contentious statements, so the earlier ones could be rationed."

    —Mattisse (Talk) 16:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The paragraph has been reworked and now only uses the same reference twice. I hope this is acceptable. Nev1 (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:07, 23 December 2008 [70].

    2006 Gator Bowl edit

    Nominator(s): JKBrooks85 (talk)

    Hello, all. This is another article for the Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games featured topic in-progress. It's been passed through the GA review process, I've checked it for dead links via the tool provided, and it follows an established FA style featured in previous articles such as 2000 Sugar Bowl and 2008 Orange Bowl. The only thing this article lacks is pictures, but the aforementioned 2000 Sugar Bowl article also lacked pictures and didn't have any problems passing FAC. I'll continue to look for some, and if I'm able to find any (or if you can suggest some), I'll be sure to add them. Feel free to contact me with any comments, questions, or concerns, and I look forward to earning your support by addressing any items you care to bring to my attention. Thanks for your time. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments -

    • Double check that all your newspaper titles are in italics. I noticed current ref 28 (Bowl season brings 28 games...) where USA Today isn't in italics, likewise current ref 36 (Hokies will get a shot...)
    • Fixed those two.
    • It's not something you HAVE to change, but any reason you put the authors after the titles? It's .. odd.
    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dang, that is darn strange. I don't think I've ever done that before while writing an article. All the other FAs I've contributed to are in a standard format, and only this one looks funky. I wonder if I just started out differently, then kept it internally consistent throughout. Either way, I'm going to reformat these refs. There's a few "The Roanoke Times" vs. "Roanoke Times" conflicts, and the titles of the articles need to be put into quotes, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - Another enjoyable Virginia Tech bowl article. Here's some of what I found that can be improved.

    • "in the competition. The game was the final competition..." Change one "competition" to "contest" or something else that will create more variety. Other than that, I like the many different phrases for game.
    • Fixed.
    • Louisville Cardinals is linked twice in the lead.
    • Fixed.
    • Important one: Several sub- headings are identical. Something is needed other than Virginia Tech and Louisville.
    • Fixed.
    • Team selection: "losing 13–16 in a close contest." Why is the loser's score given first here?
    • Fixed. Not sure what I was thinking, but I must've had a reason at the time.
    • Should say something about photos: the most appropriate one I can think of is one of Alltel Stadium, or whatever they call it now. I don't suppose a mug shot of Marcus Vick would interest you... :-)
    • Heh. I've put in a picture of the stadium for now. We can work out what else might work if you've got another suggestion.

    I haven't gotten to the defensive matchups yet, but I can tell already that I will end up supporting this in the future. Like most articles from this editor, it flows well and leaves me wanting to read more, which I will be doing later. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Defensive matchups: Jimmy Williams link needs disambiguation. The link should go to Jimmy F. Williams. While I'm here, a couple of these Tech defensive players have photos, if more are needed.
    • Fixed.
    • Fixed.
    • Final statistics: "and quarterback Hunter Cantwell was named the most valuable player of the Cardinals." I'm not crazy about of, so how about "was named the Cardinals' most valuable player."
    • Fixed.
    • There was a mistake on my part; I originally had Final quarter written instead of Final statistics. It wasn't changed, but I'm going to do it myself after I finish here, so I struck it. If it doesn't look right, feel free to change it back. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Postgame effects: "The game itself provided more than $14 million dollars in economic benefit to the Jacksonville area...". That, my friend, is what dollar signs are for.
    • Aw, you're all about the dollar signs. :P
    • Yeah. I don't make enough of them for doing this. :-):-). Giants2008 (17-14) 20:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition to the two dabs I mentioned above, there are a bunch of others in the article; use the dab checker at the top right of the FAC page to find them.
    • Dang, that's a handy tool! I've fixed everything it noted and will definitely add that to my pre-FAC procedure from here on out.
    • Still a couple left, but I'll get these too. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's it from me. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for another great review. I appreciate all the checking you've provided this and past FACs. It's definitely helpful. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments from User:B
    • In the First quarter, was the 4th+6 conversion a fake punt? I'm assuming it was and if so, the article should say so.
    • Fixed.
    • About stompgate, I don't believe that "apparently in anger" is supported by the sources. There's nothing that I can recall from the game that would suggest that anger had anything to do with it. Whether it was unintentional, an intentional act to cause injury, an act of revenge, or a decision made in anger in the heat of the moment isn't really something we should speculate on.
    • Removed.
    • I fixed it where I saw it, but most college teams (including VT) call them "tailbacks", not "running backs".
    • This was something I had to make a judgment on in regards to readability. I imagined that it'd be easier for someone unfamiliar with college football to understand running back, and the article about the position is labeled that as well.
    • I think, so long as its consistently used, it can be either --for the 2007 USC Trojans season article, I used "running back" instead of "tailback" because I wanted to use the most common term --despite the fact that USC usually uses tailback to describe the position. --Bobak (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the chart under Final statistics, Louisville is abbreviated "LU". Is that correct? They are called the University of Louisville, but I didn't fix it in case it was an Oklahoma type thing (the University of Oklahoma is OU for some reason).
    • I think you're right on this one as well; I've switched it around.
    • In the postgame, it says Stiney replaced Kevin Rogers as QB coach. Is that correct? Mike O'Cain is our QB coach now, but was there some time in between Rogers' departure and Danny Pearman leaving/O'Cain being hired that Stiney was QB coach? I was thinking it all happened pretty close together, but I could be wrong.
    • Yeah, it's close enough together that Stinespring's tenure is pretty much irrelevant. I've changed it and added a new citation.
    • Otherwise looks good. --B (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review: Images appear to be fine. --Moni3 (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose Two reasons. First, the naming scheme here seems improper. Personally, I think it's silly we call bowl games by "<sponsor> <bowl name>" and think in the real world it should be "<bowl name> headline sponsored by <sponsor>". That said, the headline sponsors have paid huge sums of money for these bowls to bear their name. As such, the proper title of this article, and similar articles in this vein, should be "<year> <sponsor> <bowl name>". Thus, this article should be "2006 Toyota Gator Bowl", as that is the proper, official name of this bowl. Even the article Gator Bowl notes the "bowl's official name was the Toyota Gator Bowl". Renaming this article to the official name, and leaving a redirect at this name, would be appropriate. Even if you disagree with this naming scheme, it seems a serious fall through that we don't have a redirect at 2006 Toyota Gator Bowl. Second The use of the logo in the infobox is inappropriate. Yes, there's a huge brawl on this issue going on at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Severe_overuse_problem. But here's the crux; this logo is for the entire Gator Bowl series sponsored by Toyota, which covers 11 games. Fair use requirements demand minimal usage. We don't need to sprinkle the logo across so many articles. If someone needs to see the logo, they can see it at the main Gator Bowl article. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the critique. IIRC, the main reason we decided to use this naming convention is because bowl game sponsors have been changing so frequently that it makes more sense to stick to the simplest possible name. There's also the issue of advertising on Wikipedia pages, which we wanted to avoid. I do agree that we need to have redirects on alternatives, and have created one for the link you provided. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. If you have any suggestions for the content of the article, I'd be happy to make those changes. In regards to the logo issue, I'll continue to address it on the discussion page devoted to the subject. Thanks for the comment. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I really don't want to get drawn into a debate on fair use images here, but logos for events change over time. Many logos for annual events now change every year. The current gator bowl logo is different from the one used for this game. In the future I'm sure the logo will change again, and I think it would actually be a much more appropriate fair use to use the logo from a specific year on that article instead of including every old logo on the main Gator Bowl article. I also think your argument that the official sponsor name of the bowl should be used as the article title because "sponsors have paid huge sums of money for these bowls to bear their name" is weak. That same argument could also be used to justify using the logos on the article page. Sponsors pay huge sums of money to put their name on a logo they hope as many people as possible will see, therefore we should put the logo on the article. Article names are usually the most common term for something, which is not necessarily the official name. Examples include United Kingdom (instead of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) and United States (instead of United States of America). Rreagan007 (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not wish to entangle the two reasons I am opposing. They are separate issues. Perhaps the naming convention should be brought up in a different forum. With regards to the logos, I respectfully disagree. Since an argument is being made in the wider discussion on the issue that "this is how it's done" means it is acceptable, I am taking a stance against this usage as I feel it is wholly inappropriate to use logos in this way. One of the best ways to do this is to make it clear that such usage in featured articles in not acceptable. I don't wish to debate the issue of logos further in this FAC. The wider discussion is more appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have a number of comments which mainly relate to prose. Due to length, I have put them on the article talk page. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This is another excellent article by JKBrooks85. A few more images would have been nice, but not required. Also, the oppose by Hammersoft based on the fair use of the bowl game logo should not kill this nomination. He is opposing on principle because of the ongoing fair use debate, which is fine, but that alone should not stop an otherwise excellent article from becoming featured. If the fair use debate is resolved in favor of being more restrictive, it is an easy problem to fix by simply pulling the logo off the article at that time. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Another great article by JKBrooks. Once again it's well-written, cited, and enjoyable to read. I'm also in agreement with Rreagan007 in regards to logo use. The ongoing debate certainly shouldn't detract from what is an excellent football article. --Geologik (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Yet another great read on a Hokies bowl game. The logo can be removed if deemed necessary, so it's not a factor in my declaration. I also think the current title is the best choice. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Agree with the above, I wish I had the time to do the same amount of excellent work JKBrooks brings to these articles. He's turning into an FA machine. --Bobak (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose References are sloppy. They do appear to support statements, but they are poorly formatted. Even though WP:CITET makes it appear that anyone can do whatever they want, I think FA articles must be held to a higher standard. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please give me an example of what you would prefer? JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 05:55, 21 December 2008 [71].

    Tiny Thompson edit

    Nominator(s): Maxim(talk)

    By far not the biggest article ever nominated to be featured, nor the smallest, this article is about an NHL goaltender who played during the Dirty Thirties mostly for the Boston Bruins. He is noted for being the first goaltender to catch the puck in order to stop it, and the first NHLer to intentionally make an assist by firing the puck to a teammate with his stick. Please see my extended notes on the article on the talkpage. Maxim(talk) 02:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments (I love reviewing short articles; thanks for nominating this!)
    • In the Early life section, specify when he was born.
      • Done.
    • The first four sentences of the Early life section begin with "[Something], Thompson...".
      • Fixed.
    • As a teenager playing competitive ice hockey, Thompson picked up the nickname "Tiny" as a joke, because he was the tallest player on team, standing 5 ft 10 in (1.8 m); the nickname stuck with him for the rest of his career. - Is there a better term for "picked up"?
      • Fixed with "acquired".
    • After receiving advice from Reid, Thompson issued an ultimatum to his coach: either he (Thompson) played goaltender, or he would quit the team. - No need for "he".
      • Clarified wording.
    • In the 1933–34 season, the Bruins missed the playoffs for the second time with Thompson in nets, posting a 18–25–5 record, with Thompson in nets for all 48 games[8] - Needs a full stop.
      • Fixed.
    • However, in the playoffs, Boston was swept in three games in the first round by the Maple Leafs. - Context needed for "swept".
      • Clarified.
    • Thompson used gloves that were smaller than a regular player's. - "Player's" → "players'".
      • It refers to player's gloves. Clarified the wording.
    • Is it possible to merge the Legacy section?
      • I thought of this too, but the problem IMO is to where to merge it. And I think, albeit its stubbiness, it's better to leave it where it is.

    –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • First replies by Maxim(talk) @ 14:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
          • Looks good, I just have one more comment. Is it possible to move the image in the Playing style section to the infobox? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, since it would be a fair use problem, as the image is discussed and helps explain a section, and not simply illustrating the subject. Maxim(talk) 15:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - It always takes me a while to review long pages, so there's nothing wrong with bringing "tiny" articles here. :-) (Come on, that was too easy)

    • I'd delink professional in the lead, because it's really too general for the topic.
    • Buffalo Bisons links to a minor league baseball team. Buffalo Bisons (AHL) is the correct link.
    • Early life: "however, he agreed to do so, so he could be accepted..." Double so here. I think some rephrasing is in order.
      • For this, "however, he agreed to do so that he would be accepted..." Now it reads like there's a word missing. Still needs a little work. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pre-NHL career: Link the Memorial Cup. Also, what is the CCSHL?
    • "with 1.64 goals-against-average". Should it be "with a 1.64 goals-against-average"?

    Busy studying right now in real life, but will return after finals in a few days. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    After a break of several days, I'm back to finish reviewing this article. Luckily, there isn't that much of it; however, I am somewhat concerned about that. I'll explain at the end.
    • NHL career: "owing to his good reputation in Minnesota.." No, those aren't ellipses. :-)
    • "becoming the only Hockey Hall of Fame goaltender acomplish this feat." At least there's only one period. :-):-) Seriously, it needs an extra word and a spelling fix.
    • The Stanley Cup Finals each have their own articles, which might be useful links.
    • "the Boston Bruins missed the playoffs for the first time while Thompson was a member of the team, He won only..." Punctuation is off.
    • "In the next season, The Bruins..." Remove capitalization from The.
    • "he won the Vezina Trophy for his second time." → "he won his second Vezina Trophy."
    • "with Thompson in nets for all 48 games." Should "nets" be plural or not?
    • "with 26–16–6 record" → "with a 26–16–6 record".
    • "with Thompson making 10 shutouts." Found a "noun-plus-ing" stucture. I don't think "making" works well here anyway.
      • This is still a noun-plus-ing structure. How about "as Thompson recorded 10 shutouts."? Giants2008 (17-14) 02:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "At the conclusion of season..." Should be "of the season".
      • Perhaps "At the end of the season" would be best? Giants2008 (17-14) 02:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Detroit Red Wings: "Change the semi-colon after "10 regular season shutouts" to a period.
    • 'Thompson was traded for Normie Smith and $15,000 to the Detroit Red Wings". Try "Thompson was traded to the Detroit Red Wings for Normie Smith and $15,000".
    • Post-NHL career: "in the 1940–41 season,," What is going on with the double punctuations?
    • Playing style: "risking being hit with the puck when moving to catch a puck..." Two pucks this close together is probably a redundancy. I would just write "moving to catch it".
    • Johnny Bower, a former goaltender who was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fam". Another typo.
    • My overriding concern with the article is most evident when his career is described, but I sense it throughout. The article feels overly statistical to me. I fully understand that quality sources are probably hard to come by, but I feel like the page needs a few more interesting facts about him. For example, are there any quotes from other player on some of Thompson, similar to the one at the end? Did he have any particularly memorable games during his career? I liked the Playing style section, and thought the first paragraph of Early life was interesting. I'd like to see more of this if possible to break up the statistics.
    For now, I'm going to oppose due to the large number of typos. I'll re-assess it when they are dealt with. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed everything. As for the interesting stuff, I would have sworn I put something about his sextuple-overtime game. Turns out I forgot to. I've expanded the article past 2000 words. Maxim(talk) 01:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm setting the Wikipedia record for "fastest response to a ping". :-) I'm happy with most of the changes, so I'm dropping the oppose. The article still feels too stat-happy for my tastes, but that is just my opinion; other reviewers can decide how valid it is. The addition is nice, but I wish there was more unique info like that out there. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed the other things. I still haven't given up on other things, and I may prune it later. --Maxim(talk) 02:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    From a quick scan, it looks a bit better in terms of how it has been made less stat-intensive, though I did make a couple quick grammar fixes. I need to read it again and see if anything still needs tweaking, but it's heading in the right direction. Preferably, I'd like to wait until any copy-editing has been completed. When that happens, feel free to ping me again. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments -

    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Replies by Maxim(talk) at 16:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. While these sites give their sources, they are essentially WP:SPS and need to satisfy that also. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may butt in, www.hockeydb.com/ has had its accuracy vouched for by Sports Illustrated here. For Hockey Goalies, I wish we had proof that Doug Norris, the author, is a recognized hockey writer. Has he written any books, or been a newspaper or magazine columnist? Without that, I don't know if even the bibliography is enough. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Replied again at 16:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC). Maxim(talk)
    The hockeydb ref is good, thanks to Giants, so you can put that back in. I'd love for the hockeygoalies site to be proven, but it's been replaced for now so it's good, and I'm unwatching this FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review: Please include a date and author (photographer) for Image:Tiny Thompson.jpg. I'm guessing the image was taken after 1923. If that is the case, the licensing for the image is incorrect. Please find who holds the copyright to this image. If the photographer who took it is dead, he may have left his work to an agency. You can start with the Hockey Hall of Fame. As it stands, this image will have to be removed to be promoted to FA until you can learn more about its licensing. Please let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Um, it is obviously made after 1923, see, if you had actually read the article than believe your opinion is automatically the deciding factor in promoting this, you would have known that Thompson played for Boston starting in 1928. The concept of fair use does not exist in Canada, so the HHOF has the rights to that image, and having it here and claimed as fair use will not impede their commercial opportunities since they're not trying to sell the image. Maxim(talk) 20:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why the information for the image should be complete. Thompson is wearing a Boston jersey in the image. Where was it taken? In the US or Canada? Who was the photographer? When was it published for the first time? In the US or Canada? If the Hockey Hall of Fame owns the image, or has rights to the image, a link to that statement should be included in the information summary. The link goes to the jpg, but no information on their website appears readily available to state that the Hockey Hall of Fame owns the image, or has released it to be used. I've had to hunt down this information in the articles I've nominated for FA as well. I know it's stressful during the FAC, but it must be done. I can help you, and I am willing to do so. I notice Jacques Plante was passed with a similar non-free image (Image:Plante firstmask.jpg), yet no image review had been completed during that FAC. User:SandyGeorgia can clarify her procedure for promoting articles with image problems, and I'm willing to ask for more guidance on this image, but asking for the date and photographer is not an outrageous request. Clarifying its licensing to improve a blanket Fair Use Rationale isn't either. --Moni3 (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This image is from the HHOF. Looks like a staged shot in the Boston Gardens. If this so damn vital to you, you could at least make a tiny effort to look at the site: it's (c) All Rights Reserved, but this is a fair-use exception. If I had to guess at the date, it would be after 1935 judging by Thompson's appearance. As for the Plante stuff, I fail to see how that's relevant at an FAC for Tiny Thompson. Maxim(talk) 22:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good gracious, Maxim. Do you understand I'm not trying to impede this article's promotion, but ensure it is the absolute best it can be? I don't understand the hostility. But the fact remains: there is no date for the image, and no explicit statement in the image summary to state who owns it. I have, actually, checked out legendsofhockey.net, and noted that this image is one of several images featuring Thompson (his bio gallery), and none of those have explicit statements to say who took them, where, etc. They were rather careful to state that all portraits were copyrighted and certainly not free to be used. So the question remains to be answered. I bet I could find it (or get a giant push in the right direction) if I called the Hockey Hall of Fame. But this is your area of expertise. --Moni3 (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I e-mail the HHOF, it will take most likely more than a few days. If I had take a shot at the date, I'd say between 1935 and 1938. As for the HHOF's futile attempts to block me with JS, do you believe that because of their attempt the image may not meet NFCC#2. I confess that I'm really struggling to address your concern. I'm sorry for my previous hostility, it's just I've had more than enough troubles finding an image for the article... but I'll bear with you. Maxim(talk) 02:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Maxim. Sorry for not replying. I completely understand your frustration. Recently, I had a non-free image with a purpose so impressive it was used as an example in a non-free image dispatch, then put up for deletion by another admin. I encourage you to call the HHOF. Seriously, I call all over the place to get what's needed for my articles. Most people reply quite nicely. If you call them and ask for a media representative as if you were asking question on behalf of a publication, the right person may be able to answer the questions about who owns it. If they own it, ask them if Wikipedia can use it, with the magic release: I own the copyright to the images found attached in this email. I grant permission to copy, distribute and/or modify these documents under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. Then send that agreement to permissions@wikipedia.org and change the licensing of the image to GFDL. Even if the response takes longer than the FAC, I have removed images to have the article pass the process, then re-added them when I got the proper permissions. Let me know if I can help. --Moni3 (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So to put it in a nutshell, you suggest I remove and delete the image pending communication with the HHOF? Maxim(talk) 21:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image in article is fine. --Moni3 (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - The article as a whole is repetitively using sentences that start with "Thompson" (Thompson is [...]. Thompson appears [...]. In 19xx, Thompson joins [...]. Thompson uses [...]. etc). This is most noticeable in "Playing style", where the first three consecutive sentences start with "Thompson". Jappalang (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gave it a polish. Maxim(talk) 02:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose by karanacs for now. Short articles, unfortunately, make it easier to pick out prose issues. I've listed some examples below. I'm also not that familiar with hockey, and some pieces of the article lost me.

    • The lead makes it sound like Thompson personally won the Stanley Cup - this is misleading for readers not very familiar with hockey.
    • Fixed.
    • Lead prose needs a bit of massaging. In a two-sentence span, "playing" and "played" are used 3 times.
    • Fixed.
    • This particular issue is fixed, but there is more in the lead that could be tightened. It needs a bit of help to flow better; removing redundancy is one way to do that. Karanacs (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead doesn't need to repeat his date of death, as that is already in the first sentence.
    • removed.
    • Prose could use some massaging. Examples from the early life section:
      • "stuck to" not really encyclopedic
      • "often watched Reid perform in goal from the front row seat directly behind the nets" - what does "perform in goal" mean? and this could be read that Reid was performing from the front row seat...make sure punctuation and transition words are correct; "behind the nets" is jargon that may not make sense to people who haven't watched hockey before
        • Better, but could still be read that Reid was performing from the front row. Karanacs (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried to simplify or explain these as needed.
    • I think early life and Pre-NHL career should probably be combined. those sections are both very short.
    • Agreed, personally, and I have done so. We'll let Maxim decide for good when he's back.  ;)
    • I feel like we are lacking a little context in the article.
      • How did Thompson convince Reid to become his mentor?
      • Did Reid provide only verbal advice or also help coach Thompson on how to physically play?
      • is surrendering 11 goals in two games good/bad/average?
        • Fixed. (Not shabby at all in that time) Maxim
      • What is the Memorial Cup and why is it important?
      • Was it unusual to begin playing at age 14?
        • Depends on what kind of team the Monarchs were, so I can't make any assumptions. Maxim
      • What is "goals-against average"? Were his numbers significant at all?
    • Why did Art Ross buy Thompson's contract is he had never seen Thompson play? Was his reputation that good?
      • Clarified Maxim
        • Information is good, presentation not so much. Karanacs (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Watch for repetitive phrasing - for example, "in his first NHL game, he posted a shutout, becoming the only Hockey Hall of Fame goaltender to post a shutout in his first game " - "post(ed) a shutout" repeated and "in his first..." repeated.
    • Fixed.
    • Any information on the names of his parents? Did he have any other siblings besides Paul? Was Paul older or younger? Where did Tiny fall in the birth order?
      • The only thing I have is that Paul was younger. Maxim
    • What is a vezina Trophy? (We shouldn't have to click all the links to find out)
    • Clarified.
    • This sentence jams together two thoughts in a very awkward way: "In the 1931–32 season, the Boston Bruins missed the playoffs for the first time while Thompson was a member of the team, appearing in 43 out of Boston's 48 games, and winning only 13"
    • Broke into two sentences.
    • Better. Second sentence still awkward. Karanacs (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why did he appear in only 5 games in the 1938-39 season, when he did so well the season before?
      • He would be traded. Clarified. Maxim
    • Why did he choose to leave Detroit? (or was it his choice?)
    • Why did he serve as goaltender just once while he was coach?
    • Thompson had retired upon leaving Detroit (to answer your question above), and served as a goaltender only on an emergency basis with the RCAF Mustangs when the team's usual goaltenders were injured. This is stated in the article, but I will try to clarify it. Resolute
    • Why did he stop coaching?
    • During the war, the Alberta Senior Hockey League was a military league. Once the war ended, it returned to being civilian, with a new set of teams. I'll try to find a cite and explanation for this. Resolute
    • Any information on famous players that he originally recruited when he was a scout?
      • Not really. Res may have some, since he has access to the Calgary newspaper archives. Maxim
    • Any information about how long he served as a scout?
    • "using gloves that were smaller than a regular player's ones" -> "using smaller gloves than most players" or "using gloves that were smaller than those of other players"... current wording not proper grammar
    • This makes no sense to me "Although he caught the puck with his glove, he did so without gloves resembling the modern blocker and trapper combination"
      • I would explain this as that the blocker/trapper were developed specifically to block the puck with the blocker or catch with the trapper, but I'm not sure on how to this in the article. Maxim
        • I don't know what blocker or trapper is, and it was a bit annoying to have to read the links to figure out that they were pieces of equipment rather than roles that players play.Karanacs (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sounds like an opinion being stated as fact. May need to attribute the opinion in the article text "He was a good puckhandler, and one of the best of his time at forward passing"
    • Did the rules change to allow catching the puck with bare hand? I'm wondering why no one else had done it before
      • I think it's one of these quirks about goalies--they were barefaced in nets 'till the 60s. Maxim
    • the info about Georges Vezina seems a bit misplaced here. That might make a good footnote
    • I think the first two sections of Legacy should be merged with the Playing style, as it really fits better
      • I've merged the Legacy section. Maxim
    • Are there any quotations from his induction into the Hall of Fame that could be included?
    • I had searched both Calgary newspapers from the time of his induction, however at that point in time, Hall of Fame inductions evidently were not big news, as the only thing I found was a two sentence blurb in the Calgary Herald stating that he had been inducted. It is unlikely that there are any such quotations. Resolute
    • It's not really important that he left behind two grandchildren....just that he had one daughter and had been married.
    • Any information on when he married?
    • I could probably find this information in a back issue of a Calgary newspaper if I had any clue what date it might be. His obituary did not say. Resolute
      • I suggest to look around the mid 1920s to early 1930s, as marrying between late teens and mid 20s seems logical in that time. Maxim
    • Current ref 27 does not have New York times italicized; it should be, since it is a newspaper

    Karanacs (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'll field some of these, as they touch to the parts I researched. Specifically, his time as a coach in Calgary and his HOF induction. Resolute 21:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Karanacs, thanks for your lengthy review. I'm experienced a period of unexpected business, so it may take some time (not an excessive amount, just longer than usual) for the to fix all these problems you've pointed out. Thanks a lot, Maxim(talk) 23:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've attempted some of the MOS fixes, and I could explain many of the other concerns with logical assumptions - i.e.: that he would only have played goal while serving as his teams' coach on an emergency basis, as it was nearly impossible for a goaltender to also coach his team, given he would have to be focused on the play for the entire game, neglecting his coaching duties. That is not really something I could put into the article, however, for obvious reasons. Resolute 01:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Karanacs, thank you very much for you very lengthly review. It is very useful to have someone who isn't that familiar with hockey do such a thorough review. Maxim(talk) 23:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry it took me so long to come back. I think the prose still needs work; the examples I gave of prose issues were only examples. Since the last time I read this, the grammar and spelling have further deteriorated. Here's a very specific one that I found this read - "to do be in net ". I highly recommend a good independent copyeditor - once you've looked at an article long enough it's hard to identify where the issues actually are. Also, the first section mentions that he was on a junior team in Canmore, then goes on later to say that " began his junior career playing for the Calgary Monarchs ". Seems a bit of a disconnect there. Karanacs (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in the process of recruiting copyeditor(s). Maxim(talk) 00:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Still working on it, hope to have a definite answer soon. Maxim(talk) 02:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I did some minor cleanup of punctuation and linking, but following the comments of the above editors, I think this article now meets the criteria. Resolute 01:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support All issues cleaned up now, meeting all criteria. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Personally, I would prefer the image remained in the infobox. I understand it is a fair use image, but it seems to make the most sense. Anyway, I have a couple things I found, and will support upon fixation:
      • "He was not being a goaltender, but he agreed to play the position to get into games." - The phrase 'he was not being' sounds odd, rewording would help.
      • You have 3 paragraphs in a row that start with "In the ___ season"; mix it up a bit. Wizardman 23:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed the prose. As for the image, I will admit I am not the biggest fan of fair-use, and I am only using it because it is very difficult to explain the section where it's used, for which the rationale is specifically written. Using it in the corner is merely illustrative and contradicts the rationale for use. Maxim(talk) 02:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. I'll Support now. Wizardman 18:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per cleanup. And comments from other supporters--Judo112 (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There's some discussion here. Maxim(talk) 21:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – Looks good. The cleanup done by Maxim (talk · contribs) seems to have cleared all the issues enough for me to support. I've been basically watching the development of this article ever since it first appeared on WP:DYK. No problems here. – RyanCross (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't make it past the second sentence; agree with Karanacs' assessment that an independent copyedit is needed.
    • He played 12 seasons National Hockey League (NHL), playing for the Boston Bruins and Detroit Red Wings.
    • No need to rush, Julian; I'll check next time (lots to get through still). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copyedit done, albeit a fairly quick one. It should have taken care of any major prose issues, though. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 02:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:16, 21 December 2008 [72].

    AMX-30 edit

    Nominator(s): JonCatalán(Talk)

    The AMX-30 was France's first truly mass produced post-war tank, and most successful (including the AMX 50 and the Leclerc. My interest stems from its direct relationship with the Spanish AMX-30E, which I took through FAC a while ago. I believe this one meets the requirements, and as usual I will do everything as quickly as possible if anything does come up. Thank you! JonCatalán(Talk) 04:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments:Well-written, and well sourced, through and through. A few remarks, though:
      • There is no mention of the AMX-30B2 "Brennus", the latest version fitted with "Brennus" reactive armour(hence the name)[73].
      • The Combat History section is very short, especially on the French participation in the Gulf War. 44 AMX-30s were deployed to the Gulf[74], and they were an important part of the "Daguet" Division, the French ground force (not just an armoured brigade, as is incorrectly stated in the article). The AMX-30s took part in the capture of As-Salman airbase, and though Iraqi resistance was only sporadic, I have seen some photos(in French publications) of Iraqi tanks knocked out by sabot rounds from AMX-30s. Some mention of this would be good. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Responses; the problem with both is that there are no reliable sources on either one. I do mention that there was reactive armor added to two battalions of AMX-30s, which refers to the Brennus upgrades, but the source doesn't mention the name. As a result, I'm not going to add the name. The same in regards to the combat section; there are no reliable sources. Those websites are not regarded as reliable sources, and would not pass this FAC. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • -The Brennus upgrade was introduced in 1995, so I doubt it is the same thing as the 1979 ERA package.
    -The B2 variant is described briefly in the lead section, but not in the "variants" section. Is there a reason for this?
    -Footnote number 39 reads "Bishop, page 31", but I can't see any source written by anyone called Bishop. What's with that? --Raoulduke47 (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The B2 variant is described under the sub section "modernization", under "development history". Again, if you can give me a reliable source on the Bernnus, I can add it in. In regards to Bishop, I must have forgot to add the source into the bibliography. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that ERA package refers to the Brennus, but doesn't distinguish by clarifying. I will attempt to clarify the Wiki article. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I don't have any good sources about the Brennus armour  :-( Apart from that, it seems that GIAT built an experimental stealth tank, based on the AMX-30[75] [76]. Details are sketchy, but it could be mentioned. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was actually looking for that article; I have it on paper somewhere. JonCatalán(Talk) 08:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments -

    • Current refs 78 & 79 (the El Pais site refs) should state the language they are in.
    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done! JonCatalán(Talk) 17:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review:

    Hey, thanks for pointing those out! Problems should be resolved. JonCatalán(Talk) 21:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - another excellent tank article (you need to find a new subject to write about one of these days;) Cam (Chat) 00:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    World War II battles don't count? JonCatalán(Talk) 15:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, w/ comment - in-line citations look alright, and (totally nit-picking here) there is a mini-image sandwich with the second and third images in the 'Variants' section. (Just one line; if you can't/don't want to move one of the images, there is no way I will oppose for one line :) Also, I agree with Cam - maybe start on some battleship articles? ;D Allanon ♠The Dark Druid♠ 07:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Sandwich has been removed. And, I actually did have a battleship article in mind; I just don't have enough sources on it (the España class Battleship). :p JonCatalán(Talk) 15:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • support but hmm if there was coverage on the question of if the lightweight MBT theory was actualy valid I missed it.Genisock2 (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I could make comparisons between the AMX-30 and heavier tanks, but I would rather have the reader do it him/herself; otherwise, it would be original research (I have no sources which make the comparison for me; or that validate the idea of mobility taking priority over protection). JonCatalán(Talk) 16:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lean support I don't see any major problems at this time. However, I will keep an eye on what others say. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Comments
    • Is it possible to cut down on the lead a tad? It seems slightly too long.
    • Although the 48 metric tons (53 short tons) vehicle was comparable to contemporary battle tanks in firepower and engine power, it suffered from distinct disadvantages, including an antiquated track design. - Should that be "48 metric tons"?
    • Although the 48 metric tons (53 short tons) vehicle was comparable to contemporary battle tanks in firepower and engine power, it suffered from distinct disadvantages, including an antiquated track design.[1] Although 600 were planned for production, only 60 were ultimately manufactured by 1950. - Avoid starting consecutive sentences with the same word.
    • Given that the ARL 44 was considered a stop-gap vehicle since the beginning of its inception, work on a new tank had begun as early as March 1945. - What's a "stop-gap vehicle"?
    • The new vehicle was designated the AMX 50, and its hull and suspension were very similar to that of the German Panther tank, which had been used by the French Army in the immediate post-war. - No need for "very".
    • Although the design borrowed a lot from German tanks, including the Maybach 1,000 horsepower (750 kW) engine, based on an earlier model, and the torsion bar sprung road wheels, the AMX 50 also included a number of unique features. - Is there a better term for "a lot"?
    • Although it was intended to put the AMX 50 into production, financial reasons and the arrival of military aid from the United States, in the form of 856 M47 Patton tanks,[9] caused the program to be abandoned in the mid-1950s. - This sentence reads oddly. I suggest removing the commas after "states" and "tanks".
    • Furthermore, the new tank would have a multifuel, air-refrigerated engine, a torsion bar suspension with hydraulic shocks, and a road range of at least 350 kilometers (220 mi). - Remove "furthermore".
    • The images in the Development history section should alternate from left to right. Also, could the section be broken up with a sub-header? As of now, it's a slightly overwhelming block of text.
    • In contrast to the AMX 50, the AMX-30 was issued a conventional turret, since it was found that it was much more difficult to seal oscillating turrets from radioactive dust and against water when the tank was submerged. - "Since" → "because", and remove "much".
    • Originally, the first two prototypes were powered by a 720 horsepower (540 kW) spark ignition engine, named the SOFAM 12 GSds, however, later a multi-fuel diesel engine was adopted, developed by Hispano-Suiza. - This sentence needs a bit of rewording.
    • Similar to the Development history section, the Variants section could use a couple sub-headers.
    • The vehicle also has a 80-meter (87 yd) heavy towing cable, while an auxiliary wrench has another 120-meter (130 yd) towing cable, capable of towing up to 20 metric tons (22 short tons) when working over the front of the AMX-30D, although in this case the vehicle must be supported by removable props, which are carried on the vehicle, and the bulldozer blade must be lowered on the ground. - Needs to be broken up into two sentences.
    • Although a prototype, designated AMX-30H, was completed in 1968, it was not until 1971 that the vehicle was evaluated. - Remove the first two commas to improve sentence flow.
    • The self-propelled anti-aircraft gun began development in 1969 to provide this type of vehicle to the French Army and provide it for export. - Avoid the use of repetitive words in a sentence ("provide").
    • Production of the AMX-30 took place at the Atelier de Construction de Roanne, in the town of Roanne. - No need for the comma.
    • Originally, 300 AMX-30s were ordered by the French Army, but by 1971 the order had been increased to 1,000, divided between eight batches. - "But" isn't really an encyclopedic word.
    • Starting in 1987, the Spanish Army began a six year modernization program which brought 150 tanks up to AMX-30EM2 standards and modified another 149 tanks to AMX-30EM1 standards. - Remove "starting".
    • In the mid-1980s, Venezuela also adopted a modernization plan for its deprecated AMX-30s, opting to replace the original engine with a new Continental AVDS-1790-5A diesel engine, producing 908 horsepower (677 kW) and exchanging the existing transmission with an Allison CD-850-6A. - Remove "also".
    • Furthermore, Venezuelan AMX-30s received new fuel tanks, increasing the tank's road range to 720 kilometers (450 mi), while firepower was improved through the adoption of a modern fire control system. - "Furthermore" is a slightly odd word. In my opinion, the sentence would be better off without the word, or with "additionally" as a replacement.
    • Due to political problems between Chile and Argentina, the former placed an order for 46 tanks, although this was later cut short to 21 when the contract was canceled by the French government in 1981. - "Problems" → "issues".
    • Total production of the AMX-30 and variants totaled at 3,571 units. - No need for "at".

    Good work as usual, but a copyedit is needed. My biggest concern is the use of redundant words, but that should be easy to resolve. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 17:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, thanks for the review! Everything should be resolved, except for a few. Namely, I didn't want to divide variants into any sub sections, because it would have made it more difficult to read (it would have chopped the section into several sub-sections, a paragraph each. I divided the development history section, but as you can see, the effect is almost the same. And, I clarified the sentence with "stop-gap" in it, but that word is not meant to be jargon; it's another word for "temporary" (while implying that it will be replaced). I didn't know how to define the word in that sentence. Apart from that, I will work on the lead. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support — Excellent article all around. Well-cited, easy to read and understand, and nicely illustrated. I do have a question on the combat deployments, however. Wasn't the AMX-30 deployed on peacekeeping missions as well? If so, it'd be nice to at least mention those actions, as the article on the Leclerc does. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I had originally put them in italics, since they were French designations. I took off the italics, except for the round which actually is spelled in French (as a series of words). JonCatalán(Talk) 05:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:16, 21 December 2008 [77].

    Marble Madness edit

    Nominator(s): Guyinblack25 talk

    (Nomination reset. Old nom Raul654 (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    • Support per my previous !vote. – sgeureka t•c 21:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - See my comments added earlier today. Graham Colm Talk 21:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - my concerns have also been resolved. --Aude (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Source: For ease of reference purposes, here is the information on the Killer List of Videogames website Ealdgyth questioned.

    KLOV has been cited by numerous entities
    (Guyinblack25 talk 23:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    Support Comment. I had opposed prior to the restart; enough has been done to strike that oppose. I'm not quite ready to support; I have left a note on the article talk page about a couple of sentences I think could be improved. Mike Christie (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See talk page discussion link for details. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Switched to support; I think the new version of that section does the trick. Mike Christie (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support: Per previous vote. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - Per previous vote.[78] —Mattisse (Talk) 17:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:16, 21 December 2008 [79].

    Richard Cordray edit

    Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because... It has been improved greatly and is an interesting subject.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: The lead is simply a list of Cordray's previous offices. What about WP:LEAD? Dablinks and a deadlink need sorting. Will read on. Brianboulton (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The intent is to have the first paragraph describe his many notable (in the WP sense) past offices. The second paragraph describes unique claims that make him notable. I expanded the second a little.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the lead in general should be expanded. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I started expanding ant then someone unexpanded it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, Tony, you added 15 words and "somebody else" (User:Robert K S) removed four. These movements are neither here nor there; the lead needs to be written as a summary of the whole article per WP:LEAD. It's not just a case of adding on bits. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be honest. I did not want to lay out in detail that he has had three unsuccessful campaigns this early in his career. I laid it all out there in the WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That would violate WP:NPOV. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is all good now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments -

    • What makes the following reliable sources?
      • http://www.j-archive.com/
        • Clearly fan created. However, is it possible that there is any other/better source of such information?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I moved this to the ext.links section. [80] It only says that he is "A judicial clerk from Grove City". That he is from Grove City and worked as a judicial clerk has already been established with other refs. --maclean 05:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • http://politicalgraveyard.com/
        • I think politicalgraveyard might be reliable because the site creator is a professional at record keeping: http://potifos.com/ . I don't know if there has been previous debate about his web site's work, but I consider him to be an expert on maintaining records such as these.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I removed this ref.[81] That Cordray ran in the 1992 race is established by other sources, that thirteen-term Republican Chalmers Wylie retired is unlikely to be challenged. --maclean 05:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. If there are no reliable sources for the information, it shouldn't be included. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you still questioning both resources or just the j-archive?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both are unstruck, so yes, I'm still questioning both. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Tony, can you explain more clearly what's going on in the third paragraph of the Early legislative career section. It sounds like some sort of gerrymandering attempt; I realise you have to be careful with your words, but at present it's incomprehensible. In particular, what does "...so that incumbent Democrats were in the same district in nine specific districts" mean? Brianboulton (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ohio has a law that you have to live within your district. The republicans gerrymandered the state so that many democrats homes were in the same districts. I will look back at the text and see what I can do.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the references and gave it a shot. I focused the sentences on Corday, and left out some details, like the Senate. [82] I could not get footnote 11 "Underwood, Jim and Thomas Suddes (1991-10-06). "Remap Sends Lawmakers Scrambling To New Homes" The Plain Dealer Newsbank" to work. -maclean 18:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Try a different browser.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand now. I've done some more copyedits to the rest of the section and am reading on. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good copyediting.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Further comments

    • Law career section: I've done some copyedting and some reorganisation of material for clarity's sake.
      • A timeframe is required for the first para, about Cordray's time in the US Solicitor-General's office. At least say what summer this was.
        • I have no further information.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That surprises me. I suggest you hide this lack of info by rewording the para along the lines: "After a brief period in the office of the United States Solicitor-General, Cordray entered private law practice. In 1993 he co-wrote..." etc
            • Anything that is missing is not a surprise. Note that I wrote this in the absence of any articles in Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, and New York Times. Almost all information comes from what would be considered major local newspapers from Ohio. As state attorney general, I expect he will hit the national press on a few issues even if he remains non-controversial. However, I am not so keen on the rewording because it is possible he did his Solicitor General stint during a summer in law school before clerking for the Supreme Court.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • My suggested revision doesn't exclude that possibility. Your wording isn't wrong, but it unnecessarily invites the question "which summer?" without providing any more illumination. (If you don't want to change it, would you be cross if I copyedited it?) Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I am not so keen on the change, but I will make it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Wait a second. It seems that your change is confusing his stint with the United States Solicitor General and his time as Ohio Solicitor General. He went into private practice following the latter.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Look, you've given his dates as Ohio Solicitor as from September 1993 to the defeat of Fisher by Montgomery in 1994. So how can the 1993 private practice detail in the first para be after his Ohio Solicitor stint? Try not to be so resistant to small changes designed to improve the article! Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I apologize for my own confustion. Let's go back to my previous best guess. Suppose he did this during the summer of 1985 (my best guess), then he went back to complete his last year at Law School and to serve as the Law Review Editor. Then he either clerked two years for the Supreme Court or did something for a year and then clerked a year for the supreme court. The description above is not so good. Let's suppose he did the USSG after the Supreme Court. This would be summer 1989 (most likely) or 1988 or 1990. Then, he ran for public office. Maybe he did private practice before public office in 1991, but I doubt it. Could you reconsider your suggestion in light of the two most likely scenarios.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I've looked at the sources, and I understand the position now. I have slightly expanded the "hate crimes" sentence, and I have moved the "summer with the USSG" sentence to a more appropriate place, since it is mentioned in the source in connection with his Ohio appointment. I think it's A1-OK now, but check it out. Brianboulton (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have a date for his appointment as Ohio's Solictor?
      • Third para: "When the same court overturned the decision..." etc - clarify this is the 6th US Circuit Court, and also which decision it was that they overturned.
      • Last paragraph "...sought a ballot issue to cement the policy". This won't be understood by anyone not familiar with US politics-speak. What is a "ballot issue" - is it a referendum? Does "cement" mean "confirm?

    Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Section looking good - except you've introduced a new, unnecessary problem by adding a new final sentence to the third paragraph. What's George W Bush doing there (I assume you meant Bush Senior)? The sentence is very ponderous, and adds nothing of interest- why is it relevant who was president at the time of his appearances before the Supreme Court? I thought the judiciary was separate from the executive. I recommend losing this sentence altogether. Brianboulton (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Politics are usually partisan. He was appointed by both a Democrat and a Republican. This is encyclopedic content in this regard, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand this at all. "He was appointed by both a Democrat and a Republican". In what sense are you using the word "appointed"? Was he selected by these administrations to act on their behalf in some way? And can you please confirm that it is George W, and not his father, that you are talking about? If it's GW, then there's somrthing amiss with the article's chronology. (I just knew this sentence would cause trouble) Brianboulton (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the dates of the supreme court cases. Clinton was Prez from Jan 1993 - Jan 2001. He was followed by the son (W.). Yes he is a specialist who argues on behalf of legal departments in Supreme Court Appeals. The USDOJ chose him to argue on their behalf. Do you want more in the article about this?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This explanation, and your rewording, has clarified the position. But, for chronological consistency, Clinton ought to be mentioned before George W. Brianboulton (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Treasurer career
      • This sentence appears in the middle of the section: "Cordray has also engaged in private practice, including personally arguing six cases before the United States Supreme Court". This information has nothing to do with his Treasurer career, and both facts are well-established earlier in the article. Suggest you withdraw the sentence as it has no purpose.
      • The statement: "He owns a small business as well" may belong somewhere else, but is again nothing to do with his Treasurer career.
      • The main paragraph is under-referenced. No sources given for his four initiatives, the figure of $650 million, his presidency of the Board of Revision or chairmanship of the Budget Commission.
      • "...recovering from the misdeeds of Bob Taft" reads as POV, even though you cite this. If you want to say this, I suggest you use the exact words of the source, in quotation marks. Anything else reads like your personal view.
        • See what you think now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, it's OK now, because you've identified the POV as Cordray's. I've copyedited it a bit for clarity, and split the sentence because it was too long and convoluted, but the meaning is clear now.

    Brianboulton (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Attorney General race:
      • Class 1 senators, class 2 etc - all a bit complicated. Perhaps a simple explanation of "offyear" is all that is necessary.
        • Wow. In trying to find the link, I learned that I was confusing United States midterm election with Off-year elections. I have got that part fixed. Here is the deal about Senator classes. Senators are elected to six year terms. Each state has two Senators. Elections are staggered so that every two years a third of the Senator seats are up for election. The three thirds are called classes. In a given six year cycle, there is year 2 - Class 1, year 4 - Class 2, and year 6 - Class 3. Midterm elections are every 4 years. Can you tell me what you think the article is missing in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The details of the contest for seats on the Ohio Supreme Court don't concern Cordray and should be omitted.
    • Personal section: This is a bit scrappy; at least half of it is about his Jeopardy experiences. Look through his biog, there's interesting things to be said. For example, his father's 43 years' service to a centre for the mentally retarded, his mothers's social work also involving mental disability. These may not be "notable" in themselves, but they give useful information about Corday's background. You could also mention Cordray's work on the Advisory Board of Friends of the Homeless, and his being part of Al Gore's "select group known as Leadership 98". This is material supplied by Cordray himself, so why not use it? Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Cordray was born in Columbus, Ohio,[66] the middle child between brothers Frank, Jr. and Jim." This belongs in the "early life" section, not "personal". I'm not a huge fan of Personal sections; could this be merged elsewhere? ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply A quick run through this months WP:FAL shows that two of the three recent WP:FA promotions (Ayumi Hamasaki and Maggie Gyllenhaal) of living persons have separate early life and personal life sections. In fact, except for athletes all living people promoted since November 1 have had a separate personal life section. From my experience at WP:FAC and WP:GAC most people ask you to separate family and personal life from early life.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This meets the FA criteria. Except one thing is missing: in the Attorney General race, I don't think it says whether he won that race or not (the intro says, but not this section). --maclean 05:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comments
      • There's a problem with the very first sentence of the lead, which at present describes a highly transient situation which will change in about three weeks' time. I think this should be rewritten to be less time-dependent, and to avoid words such as "currently". My suggestion: "Richard Cordray (born May 3 1959) is an American politician of the Democratic Party who served as State Treasurer of Ohio. In November 2008 he was elected Ohio Attorney General, to take office from January 8, 2009 for the remainder of an unexpired term ending January 2011". Or something similar. Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've removed a troublesome sentence from the lead: "During his 2008 election there was no evidence that the financial crisis of 2007-2008 affected his service as Ohio State Treasurer". This sentence was awkwardly placed, badly worded, not representing what the article says in the main section, and implying that the financial crisis was finite when I believe it is ongoing. Rather than trying to repair the sentence, I have dumped it and I believe the lead is better for it.
      • I'm still getting trouble with refs [20] and [30]. In neither case can I reach the source - I get network timeouts.
    If these final issues can be sorted out I will be happy to add my support. Brianboulton (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support: I have copyedited the article, and have negotiated for several amendments which have been amicably agreed with the main editor. The article is both comprehensive and well illustrated, very thoroughly cited. An imformative piece of work about US politics at state level, dealing with someone who might—who knows—be a star of the future. Ref [30] now works, but I couldn't get to [20] on either of my browsers (Mozilla Firefox and Internet Explorer), though I'm not withholding support for that. Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I copy-edited the article slightly and clarified some legal matters. In the past I also added US Supreme Court case citations. The article, in my opinion, has no serious problems and satisfies FA criteria now. Ruslik (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:16, 21 December 2008 [83].

    1994 Atlantic hurricane season edit

    Nominator(s): –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone

    Christmas 1994 nor'easter was recently promoted, so here's a related article. Ok, I know it's a short nomination statement, but I couldn't think of anything else –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment- In the lead there is one little problem,

    In addition, a nor'easter in December may have had tropical characteristics, though due to the uncertainty, it is not classified as a tropical system.

    Do you have a reference for that? --Irmela08 00:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That information is already referenced in the body of the article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok then , support --Irmela08 00:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support despite having a pathetic reason for nominating, Meets criteria and is well written :P Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review: Please complete {{information}} templates for Image:1994 Atlantic hurricane season map.png and Image:Alberto 1994 Rainfall.gif. All other images appear to be fine. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support; w/ comments;
      • After a lack of storms in October, November... <- This could probably be worded more professionally (and, I don't think we lack storms; it's not something we need :p ).

    JonCatalán(Talk) 19:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Got it, thanks. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 19:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:16, 21 December 2008 [84].

    Raccoon edit

    Nominator(s): Novil Ariandis (talk)

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think that this article offers a very good overview over all main aspects of the raccoon. The article has gotten a thorough copy-editing in its previous GA review. Since then, I have extended the section about subspecies and checked all facts and given sources once again.

    • The three links to the IUCN Red List are dead at the moment, but the relevant information is also available in the given book by Samuel I. Zeveloff.
    • The often cited website Projekt Waschbär is maintained by Frank-Uwe Michler and his team. Frank-Uwe Michler was the student of the raccoon expert Ulf Hohmann and has studied the raccoon for over seven years. His recent research project is funded, among others, by the Technical University of Dresden and the Office of the Müritz National Park. There is a large number of newspaper and magazine articles about his research: [85]

    --Novil Ariandis (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments
    • The figure: 0.03 km2 (0.01 mi2) is a bit messy, shouldn't it be in metres and yards? Though this would contradict the range in km2 and mi2 afterwards.
    • Reply: I think using 30,000 m² would suggest an accuracy not present in the source which says "3 ha to 38 ha". Using the same units of measurements is also good for comparisions. Therefore I propose to not change it. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might want to rename 'Nomenclature' to 'Etymology'?
    • More right-left staggering of images (in 'Physical characteristics' for e.g.) per MOS:IMAGES.
    • Images shouldn't break up headings per MOS:IMAGES.

    Cheers, Jack (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments
    • Current ref 145 (Michler...) is lacking a publisher. it needs to note that it's in a non-English language and what language also. Same for Current ref 171 (same author)
    • Reply/Done: I have provided the language information. It doesn't have a publisher since it's a diploma thesis. I have provided that information now, too. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments
    • I ask the same for Image:Raccoon (Procyon lotor) 2.jpg. I see it has been a Featured Image, but think the template info cannot hurt the page. Can the caption for image be more descriptive than "portrait"?
    • The reliability of the source for Image:Waschbaer-verbreitung.png is unclear because the site is in German. Is this a Wikipedian? Are you able to confirm the individual who created the data for this map is an expert in the field?
    • Reply: This website is maintained by Ingo Bartussek, the author of the book Die Waschbären kommen (The raccoons are coming), which is used as a source for the article. The URL of the website is given on page 48 of the book. Ingo Bartussek is a wildlife photographer who was a member of Ulf Hohmann's research team in the 1990s. Furthermore, he has written articles for GEO and the BBC Wildlife Magazine about the species ([86]) and is organizing an ongoing traveling exhibition about raccoons ([87]). The data for the map was provided by Frank-Uwe Michler (see my nomination intro for some info about him) --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This File:Spiromoundsraccoon.svg needs a source to verify that such pre-Columbian art exists. Best would be to state exactly where in Oklahoma it can be found according to a reliable source.
    • Reply/Done: I was not the one who added this image to the article. I think it's a quite ugly drawing and I have found nothing to verify the claim made. Since there is a large number of other, very good images in this article, I have removed this image. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For accessibility issues, the image should appear below the subheadings.
    • I also have concerns that the image Image:Raccoons eat deer.png is an experiment to track chronic wasting disease among raccoons, but the image illustrates group feeding. That scenario has been set up by scientists. Does it depict what it is being used for?
    • Reply: Well...... it's certainly borderline and would be okay otherwise, but probably not for a featured article, so I have removed it. However, it would be nice to have an image of a raccoon group. I'll see if I can find a photograph with a free licence elsewhere, but I can't make promises. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are, as well, quite a few images. It makes the article appear messy in places. What are your thoughts on spacing some of these or removing a few?
    • Reply: I have removed the sketch in the mythology section and the group feeding pictue (see above). Besides that I believe that all images are showing something unique which could be of interest to the reader. The penis bone illustrates another part of the anatomy of raccoons. However, I would certainly remove it, if we had a full-body skeleton available. The picture of the raccoon on an apple tree illustrates its climbing abilities. The image with the skunk illustrates urban wildlife which gets fed by humans, quite important issues in an article about raccoons. I am not attached to the Baylisascaris procyonis larvae, but some readers might be interested to know how this potentially dangerous pathogen looks like. All other images are even more important in my eyes and it's good that we have them. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me know if you have questions. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments
    • Comment English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign sources when they are of equal quality. It appears that about half of the references are to sources in German. Is the English scholarship on raccoons really that much less reliable? 65.96.164.13 (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Monographies written by noted experts of a field are the best possible secondary sources. Therefore, no equally reliable English secondary sources exist for the information taken from German books. This is especially true for most of the information contained in the chapters "Distribution outside North America", "Distribution in Germany" and some of the information contained in the chapters "Social behavior", "Conflicts" and "As pets". If you are questioning certain facts for which German sources were used, I can provide the original text and an English translation. Some information is also available in English sources, but I have always tried to use the best possible source. For example, Anke Lagoni-Hansen is offering especially comprehensive lists of statistics in her book Der Waschbär, but very outdated information regarding social behavior. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments

    Overall very thorough and well-rounded, but a few issues.

    • In conflicts with humans, you mention that they very occasionally prey on cats/dogs. But you neglect to mention that raccoons are one of the most common predators of poultry, though mostly chickens and ducks (turkeys and geese are generally too large, as are other livestock). If you like, I have a list of poultry-related books that can be used to cite this, but this source and this source confirm this fact and are already used in the article. Please mention it in any section you like.
    • Reply/Done: I have provided a sentence about it in the "Conflicts" chapter. Along with two sentences about their impact on corn and other crops which seemed a bit more important to me. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is the image of the penis bone in the article where it isn't mentioned? Wouldn't it be more appropriate in the Reproduction section?
    • Reply: The penis bone is mentioned in this paragraph: "The penis bone of males is about 10 cm (3.9 in) long and strongly bent at the front end." --Novil Ariandis (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Hunting and fur trade, the various breeds of coonhound should probably be mentioned, even if their use wasn't exclusive to hunting raccoons.
    • I hate to bring this rather sad idea up, but is there a relationship to the animal at all etymologically to the other uses of the word Coon, such as the ethnic slur? If there is, the Etymology section should mention it briefly. If there is no relation, it should link to Coon and say that the word is used in other contexts with a different definition.
    • Reply: The origin of the ethnic slur "coon" is probably derived from the act of using coonhounds to hount escaped slaves. But reliable sources could be very hard to come by... The etymology section also shouldn't get much longer, so I'll see if I can write one additional sentence about the subject. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If all else fails, a simple see also link to the dab page would suffice. Steven Walling (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, there are still many other minor facts not included in the article which do not lack reliable sources like this one. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 14:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • MOS supports the right-left staggering of images, but it's also best to avoid divorcing headers from section text with a left-aligned image. No big deal, but it would be easier to read if you fixed a few of these.
    • Reply: I am quite sure that it is impossible to meet the inconsistent requirements regarding the placement of images proposed by various users in this nomination. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 14:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like I said, no big deal. Image placement is not exactly a key issue. Steven Walling (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Other than these few things, the article definitely meets FA standards. Nice work! Steven Walling (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SupportComments

    I'm fairly close to supporting. It is a comprehensive, well-researched and thorough article, but I still have some concerns:

    • I've done some copy-editing on the article and left some questions in hidden comments.
    • Reply: I have addressed most of your concerns, except the ones I disagreed with or which were just not clear enough. You can add them here again for further discussion. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the lead could do with some work: it is too detailed in some areas while ignoring others.
    • Reply: The lead is certainly on the short side which is the way I like it. I absolutely hate it when the lead is just a bit shorter version of the article. Is there anything specific you are missing in the lead? --Novil Ariandis (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm certainly not encouraging you to make it longer, but I think it could summarize the article better; currently we get the length and weight ranges and the percentages of the components of the diet but no mention of evolution, subspecies, disease, or use as food or pets. Yomanganitalk 12:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The most distinctive characteristics of the raccoon are its good memory, facial mask and extremely sensitive front paws — the latter two features are themes in the mythology of several Native American tribes. Admittedly I've rewritten this so the good memory isn't awkwardly shoe-horned in, but are these really the most distinctive characteristics? Facial mask yes, but memory? Perhaps dexterity, rather than sensitive front paws (this ties in better with the claim about the mythology, since the front paws are not a theme)
    • There are some inconsistencies in the text to do with the island subspecies/not subspecies - I suspect this is problematic, but it needs explaining.
    • I echo Steven Walling's concerns over the penis bone (I never thought I'd write that). It is somewhat glossed over considering it has a big in-your-face photo. None of the other bone lengths are mentioned. Is it unusual?
    • Reply: Ulf Hohmann writes that it is particularly strongly bent. Samuel I. Zeveloff describes that it can be used to make rough age estimates. There's also a picture of it in both books. So I guessed that I should mention it at least in one sentence. I included the picture to offer a wide variety of motifs in the article. I am really not that attached to it. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might like to expand the mention to include the age estimation. Yomanganitalk 12:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, not really. Such specific pieces of information belong into a textbook and not into an overview article which is quite long already. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Conflicts" section has too much advice and not enough reporting for my liking
    • Reply/Done?: Parts of this section have been reworded. I think offering bits of advice in this section is appreciated by many readers. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That looks OK now. I'm sure there is some MoS diktat against giving advice. Yomanganitalk 12:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The mythology section is weak. The Dakota Sioux and Aztec information needs expanding.
    • Reply/Done: The information on the Dakota Siouxs and Aztecs has been expanded. The mythology section shouldn't get too long, though. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The hunting section mentions a population decline in the 30s, but doesn't mention if this is directly attributable to hunting. We don't get a lot of population information on the North American population aside from the hunting. I would have expected to see more in the "Distribution in North America" section
    • Reply: According to Zeveloff, the reasons for the population decline are not well understood. There are no estimates of the total number of raccoons living in North America. Is there anything specific you wanted to know which was not in the article? --Novil Ariandis (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to see more recent information on the population statistics. For the US we have only the 5 times increase in the 1980s from the 1930s (with no figures for either). The hunting section later on gives us some idea that the populations must be larger than the numbers killed, but are there really no populations estimates for any area in any period in North America? If that is the case, it deserves a mention in the distribution section in itself. Yomanganitalk 12:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would love to add some information about population numbers in North America. However, I can't find anything, not even for an U. S. state. On the other hand, I also can't find a reliable source which says that no such population estimates exist, the best one was Actual raccoon population estimates are difficult to obtain and most states have had to be satisfied with simple indices of relative abundance. from http://www.wvdnr.org/Wildlife/Magazine/Archive/04Winter/monitoring_mountain_raccoons.shtm --Novil Ariandis (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is putting dousing its own section giving it undue weight? For a behaviour only seen in captive animals it gets a lot of attention.
    • I would say that dousing is a characteristic behavior of raccoons that deserves extensive treatment. It's not well understood by most folks, and is a common question. The more we explain about it the better, as far as I'm concerned. Steven Walling (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: It certainly deserves its own chapter. The name for the animal in many languages is directly derived from this behavior. There also has been more feedback on this chapter on the discussion page by other readers than on all other chapters. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yomanganitalk 12:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments
    • Comments a comprehensive and well organized article
    • first as Ursus cauda abrupta (“long-tailed bear”) - abrupta would indicate something like broken-tailed bear ?
    • Reply/Done: Wow, thank you for the note. I slipped into the next row and took abrupta instead of elongata. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Diseases section may be better as "Diseases and parasites"
    • Reply/Done: Another user changed it in "Health". Is this okay? --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Shyamal (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm, not sure, but parasites can be present even in perfect health. Shyamal (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments
    • Oppose I'm concerned with the fact that you have two images of raccoons facing the right while being positioned on the right. (I feel silly saying that). Also, I am not comfortable with the images in "Evolution", the second in "Physical characteristics", "Senses", "Diet" and "Dousing", "Distribution outside North America", and "Hunting and fur trade" extending into the next sections and screwing up formatting. I am deeply concerned with the MoS violation of images under a third level header in "Health" and "Habitat". The "Habitat" picture can be fixed by removing the level header and just having it connected to the second level header. The "Health" image could be moved down a paragraph, or the top paragraph split and then moved down. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Sorry, but I won't spend any more time on such an irrelevant aspect like the absolute correct placement of images in an article. I am very happy with their current placement. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since you made it clear that you wont change any of the images, I am opposing on grounds of direct violation of rules set out in WP:ACCESS. An article does not deserve Featured Status if it cannot accommodate all browser set ups. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have repositioned some of the pictures to aovid breaking the third level headings from the text, as that is a valid concern. I think worrying about which way the raccoons in the pictures are facing and pictures bleading into another section are minor and not enough to stop the article from becoming featured. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I am deeply concerned with the MoS violation of images under a third level header in "Health" and "Habitat"." This is NOT something to be deeply concerned with. You CAN be deeply concerned with the economic crisis, the suffering of the Burmese people under their military regime or the extinction of thousands of species each year, and MAYBE with a terrible factual mistake in the article, but NOT with the placement of images before or after or in between a heading. Please get your priorities straight. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good economy or bad, I still want you to obey the MoS and that is my primary concern right now. :P By the way, your placements still disrupt part of the headings. Your skull image disrupts "Evolution". Captive racoon disrupts "Dousing". The evolution section can be fixed by expanding the first paragraph by a few sentences then splitting it in half, then expanding the last paragraph by 2-3 sentences. Move the picture to the second paragraph. Same can be done for "Dousing". Split the first paragraph into three, add two sentences to each second. Move the picture to the second paragraph. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they do not disrupt anything to do with the headings. The part of the MoS which concerned you is in place so that section headings do not become disconnected from the text below when using large font. This is now taken care of. My understanding is that the issue with the layout now is that text to speech browsers will describe the image before the section, which, though arguably as logical as other arrangements, is against the MoS. The nominator may wish to look at the issue in this context.
    • I hope people reject the notion that we pad articles for the sake of image layout. 86.44.27.169 (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of the issues with the images should now be resolved. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support - Excellent article! Comprehensive, well-structured and an interesting read. Good image balance and well-cited with reliable sources. Everything a species FA should be. Well done! --mav (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support. This is a well-researched, well-written, informative, and comprehensive article that can and should be held out as a model to emulate for any Wikipedia editors developing an encyclopedia article about any species of animal. Henry8787 (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I have taken the liberty of removing a little redundancy [88]. To tell us that raccoons are predominantly nocturnal in a sentence about their diet is a bit odd and the section about the danger of ingesting worms from latrines could be clearer. But these are trivial points. Thanks for an interesting article. Graham Colm Talk 15:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The article is well-written and informative. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional support - The article is very informative and meets the FAC requirements. Though, a very minor issue ... I noticed some links to disambiguation pages. Please check (using the disambig links tool) and fix them. --Aude (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply/Done: I've fixed two links. The remaining link to the disambig page coon is desired. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dabs, please correct the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:16, 21 December 2008 [89].

    July 2006 Westchester County tornado edit

    Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk)

    This article had been needed for quite some time. It was created once but a merge was decided upon. So, after compiling sources I've recreated the article with much higher standards. There have been a few copyedits to the article and it easily passed GAN. So, the next step would be FAC. I've gone through just about every article I could pull up from the net (for free) so there's not much else I can add (if anything) without spending money. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Do you have any solid information on the sort of thing, if anything, these paid-for sources could add to the article? Unfortunately, the comprehensiveness requirement still applies even if good content can only be sourced to something for which you have to shell out money. Steve T • C 23:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, I don't. The paid-for sources do not give a preview. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, due to uncertainly over comprehensiveness. No prejudice against withdrawing !vote should it be determined by someone with access to the paid-for sources that they add nothing of value. Steve T • C 23:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked my parents (too young to do this on my own) and they let me have the membership to the site. I'll search through the articles and see what I can get. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Found nothing from the articles which provided new information to this article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck oppose after my own search yielded little of value. Steve T • C 09:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: is this article really notable I don't see anything that makes this tornado deserve an article of it's own. Is it because it occured in New York/Conneticut? I recall a tornado that occured a few years ago in New Brunswick and caused more damage than this, yet I can't find a mention of it anywheres on Wikipedia. --Kuzwa (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's enough information and news coverage (granted that by a certain point they just keep saying the same thing). It's a rare tornado (one of only eight in Westchester), the strongest known tornado in the County, and at F2 intensity, it is also the only known F2 tornado in the county. Tornado history Project: Westchester NY, tornadoes. As for the tornado in New Brunswick, tornado year articles before 2006 haven't really been worked on that much (IMO). It may get its own article in the future but I'm not sure of the specifics of that tornado. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, is that noted in the article? Might be worth adding to prevent people using the argument that Wikipedia is not a news source. --Kuzwa (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Added it to the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll agree that the article meets WP:N. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My issues are resolved so Support. --Kuzwa (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments -

    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All of their data is taken directly from the Storm Prediction Center. I would use the SPC, but I can't get a solid reference that states what I need. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. While these sites give their sources, they are essentially WP:SPS and need to satisfy that also. 16:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk
    News articles? I've checked this site and matched it with the SPC and NCDC records, and they all match up. The only difference is that This site allows people to comment on the tornadoes, no factual change. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, actually what we're looking for is a newspaper or other reliable source using this site as a reference, or discussing it and claiming it's reliable or something similar. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a NOAA site that refers to the tornado project. Also see USA Today, USA Today, USA Today, University of Minnesota, University of Colorado. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review: Please complete an {{Information}} template for Image:DCP 7760.JPG. Other All images appears to be fine. --Moni3 (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, I've added the template. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments from the lead.
    • Delink the dates (optionally).
    Quick note, the one date that is linked is a piped link to the Tornadoes of 2006 article, specifically the day of the tornado. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops, indeed it is. See, that's why links shouldn't be concealed. I thought it was another boring ol' date link. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Westchester Tornado was an F2 tornado that touched down in Rockland County, New York on July 12, 2006. The tornado tracked for 13 miles (20.9 km) into southwestern Connecticut during a 33 minute span through two states. - These sentences could be merged.
    • The tornado touched down at 3:30 p.m. EDT (19:30 UTC) on the shore of the Hudson River before becoming a waterspout. It tracked 3 mi (4.8 km) across the river before moving back over land. - These could also be merged.
    • After passing through the town, it intensified into an F2 tornado and grew to almost a quarter mile in diameter - Needs a metric conversion.
    • making it both the strongest and largest tornado in the county's history - Which county? Rockland, or Westchester?
    • The tornado continued through the county causing damage to numerous structures along the way until it crossed into Connecticut at 4:01 p.m. EDT (20:01 UTC). - Needs a comma somewhere.
    • Not long after entering the state, it lifted near the town of Greenwich at 4:03 p.m. EDT (20:03 UTC). - "Lifted" needs context for non-weather experts.
    • Much of the information in the lead is not present in the body of the article, such as the bit about it being the strongest tornado in the county's history, as well as the last sentence of the first paragraph.
    • The tornado left considerable damage in its wake. - "Considerable" is vague.
    • Two barns and a warehouse were destroyed, and a large stained-glass window was completely shattered. - No need for "completely".
    • Damages from the tornado totaled to $12.1 million (2006 USD; $12.9 million 2008 USD).Damages from the tornado totaled to $12.1 million (2006 USD; $12.9 million 2008 USD). - Remove "to".

    –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Late response but these should be all fixed up. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In accordance with Wikipedia article naming standards, the name of this article has been changed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - seems like it passes the criteria. RockManQReview me 01:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Most of the damage was concentrated to the northwestern corner of the town.[14] and caused $2 million (2006 USD) in damages.[10] - Notice the error? I'm not sure how to fix it without changing the meaning of anything. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 17:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've corrected it. The half sentence was meant to be the total for the state. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Little glitches everywhere I looked, see my edit summaries, a runthrough by a new set of eyes would be good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Name was changed again per a brief discussion. No more moves should follow. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:16, 21 December 2008 [90].

    Albert, Prince Consort edit

    Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk)
    Original Oppose from User:Dweller

    Looks good at first glance, but a closer inspection reveals problems. Has this had a third party copyedit recently? Has it had a recent Peer Review? Some comments:

    • I think you can afford to go to 4 parags of Lead, per WP:LEAD.
    • The Great Exhibition of 1851 having a section all to itself looks odd set against the scope of his life, as the other sections are dedicated to great chunks of his life.
    • An aside - popular thought has it that he introduced Christmas trees or cards or both to Britain. Worth a mention?
    • Ah... quite a lot of unsourced material in here. Some sample sentences are those beginning: "Albert was born in Schloss Rosenau...", "The death led to a re-arrangement of the Saxon duchies..." and, most worrying of the three I cite (because of apparent editorialising corssing NPOV) "Albert and his elder brother, Ernest, spent their youth in a close companionship scarred by their parents' turbulent marriage and eventual separation and divorce."
    • Unexplained use of italics in info box.
    • Some silly slips in the text, eg "Their mother was exiled from court and married, as her second husband, her lover, Alexander von Hanstein, Count of Polzig-Baiersdorf."
    • NPOV and PEACOCK issues, eg "a speech in which he expressed paternalistic, yet well-meaning and philanthropic, views" or sentence beginning "A man of relatively cultured and liberal ideas" (also unreferenced)

    Sorry, but this needs too much work for FAC and needs to go (back?) to PR or a 3rd party c-e. It's a jolly good article and clearly a labour of love. You'll get there, but there's just too much to do for it to be nursed through here this time IMHO. The subject is fascinating... if I was well, I'd happily c-e it for you, but my time here is too limited just now. If you want to "wait" for me, please drop me a line to my user talk. --Dweller (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • It says "three to four". Are you saying that there is pertinent information missing from the lead?
    • Sections re-organised.
    • Added: "Other myths about Prince Albert, such as the claim that he introduced the modern idea of Christmas to Britain or wore piercings, are dismissed by scholars as inventions.[1][2]"
    • "Schloss Rosenau" is supported by multiple references, e.g. [91]. The two other examples now referenced.
    • Styles are italicised to differentiate abbreviations of "Serene/Royal Highness" from initials. Foreign language words are italicised according to style guidelines. The rest is hard-coded in the infobox template.
    • Changed to: "After their mother was exiled from court, she married her lover, Alexander von Hanstein, Count of Polzig-Baiersdorf".
    • I don't mind removing "paternalistic, etc." It's from Weintraub but the other biographers don't use these words. I've expanded the quote from a published speech. "relatively cultured and liberal" is changed to "progressive and relatively liberal"; I think this is adequately shown by his support for emancipation, technological progress, science education, Charles Darwin, and the welfare of the working class. DrKiernan (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Has Dweller been asked to revisit? Please fix the Dabs identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I think it is fixable in FAC with a good copyedit. The statements without citations are not so bad, as any bio of Albert is going to be able to give a cite, and I don't think it is controversial that his parents had a difficult marriage. I would like to see more about Albert the family man. By all accounts he had a very fulfilling romantic and sexual relationship with his wife. As for his children, to say that he felt that the intense educational regime he set up for the Prince of Wales was lost on him kinda begs the question. After all, he allowed Stockmar to put in that regime that probably scarred Albert Edward for life; to mention it in that way makes it sound like it was the son's fault that he didn't take to academics in that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've expanded on Edward's education, and his relationship with his father. DrKiernan (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review: The licensing of the images is fine, but I'd love to see the summaries neater by using an {{Information}} template, particularly in Image:Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha - Project Gutenberg etext 13103.jpg and Image:RoyalAlbertHall.jpg. --Moni3 (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Dabs, please rectify the dab links identified in the dabfinder in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Amended again. DrKiernan (talk) 07:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Links all check out, sources look good. Suggest Burke's Peerage be listed with the source books - there are several citations to it. Brianboulton (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments -

    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just replaced these references. We've had this discussion before. François Velde's work is in other areas [92] but here he was just being used to quote original documents (e.g. National Archives, HO 38/39, p.73–74), so I didn't think it was important. DrKiernan (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That works. When do you think the National Archives will start putting documents like this online? Some of the US ones are, which makes life nice! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. As an Irishman I'm not normally inclined towards Victoria, but this article moved me. From the page I got the sence that the couple had a real bond and were very attracted to each other; something I had not known before. I gave a light ce, and am happy now with the prose. Its a charming article, and I'm pleased to S. Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
    • Could do with more pictures - Osbourne, Crystal Palace, a family photo?
    • On the marriage their ages should be worked in. If Victoria had not come to the throne at such a young age, she would have been unlikely to have had so much freedom in her choice. Also their exact blood relationship should be explained - was there concern over its closeness, and was haemophilia raised as an issue?
    • I thought, and our article agrees, he designed Osbourne House itself, with pros doing the actual drawings of course.
    • Personally I think his work on the Great Exhibition & Albertopolis, and his various commissions on trade and the arts should be expanded upon; it does deserve a full section. No link to his co-schemer Cole, or the V&A. This was surely his most visible area of activity in Britain, and the one with the most lasting results.
    • It is the Christmas Tree he is usually credited with introducing, and the link should be there - which gives a useful summary of the history, and his own limited role.
    • The relationship with Bertie is pretty thinly covered.
    • No mention of his art collecting and commissioning, and the significant collection made by him and given by Victoria at his request to the National Gallery.

    Maybe more later. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Two added.
    • Added "aged eighteen". Their young ages are already in the article e.g. "At the age of 20 he married his first cousin, Queen Victoria...Albert's future wife, Queen Victoria, was born in the same year with the assistance of the same midwife." Albert was considered very healthy. Hereditary haemophilia did not become apparent in the family until Prince Friedrich of Hesse and by Rhine was diagnosed in 1872. He was the second known case after Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany.
    • I shall work on this. Added. DrKiernan (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The description of the 1851 exhibition is deliberately short as the main details are in the main article. Cole is mentioned there. The V&A is already linked: "including what would later be named the Victoria and Albert Museum." I've been considering adding his work with the commission to redecorate the Houses of Parliament, but all the decisions were made after his death, and the final decorative scheme was not his.
    Added work with the commission to redecorate the Houses of Parliament. DrKiernan (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Samuel Taylor Coleridge published his Christmas essay describing the German trees in 1809, and Felicia Hemans "painted bags of bonbons destined to adorn the boughs of the 'Christmas Tree'."[3] Both died before Albert came to Britain. There are other explanations for the rise of popular Christmas imagery during the 1840s and 1850s, including but not limited to: writers like Dickens publishing books drawing on German ideas; the importation of children's toys from Germany (where timber was cheaper and hence was used in toy manufacture; Germany cornered the European toy market) and the "Teutomania" of the time, when the (supposed?) shared heritage of the Nordic races was celebrated. I wouldn't want to expand on "Other myths about Prince Albert, such as the claim that he introduced the modern idea of Christmas to Britain are dismissed by scholars as inventions." but I would be happy to consider any suggested re-phrasing.
    Replace "the claim that he introduced the modern idea of Christmas to Britain ..." with "the claim that he introduced the Christmas Treeto Britain ..." as suggested above. He is surely never credited with the Christmas card, whose 19th century origin is well known, but often with the tree, as covered in that article. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. DrKiernan (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is similar to Wehwalt's point but his family life is already covered extensively in "Within two months of the marriage, Victoria was pregnant"; "All nine children survived to adulthood, a rarity then even among royalty, which is credited to Albert's enlightened influence on the healthy running of the nursery"; "in private the couple were more easy-going"; "In early 1844, Victoria and Albert were apart for the first time since their marriage"; "private residence for their growing family"; "Albert continued to devote himself to the education of his family...joining in family games with enthusiasm....felt keenly the departure of his eldest daughter for Prussia...thought that his intensive educational program was largely lost on his eldest son"; "Albert and Victoria were horrified by their son's indiscretion, and feared blackmail or scandal or, worse, pregnancy."
    Now that you put it up, the language about the children surviving to adulthood is a bit peacocky. Minor children of the British monarch are not noted for dying under age 18, by my count, 33 of the 36 underage children of British monarchs (either born before or after accession) in the past 250 years have survived to age 18 (two of George III's 15 kids, and "The Lost Prince", Prince John, being the exception). I may make a friendly edit or two on the educational point I made above.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed "a rarity even among a royalty". DrKiernan (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, similarly to the Parliamentary decorative scheme, I've been considering adding this but it doesn't really signify anything unusual. All the royals were/are collectors. DrKiernan (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is certainly nonsense, but even if it were true, that something is "usual" (marriage? children?) is no argument for not covering it. Albert, in notable contrast to the vast majority of British royals, would be notable as a collector and donator alone. This and the other replies above aren't really satisfactory at this level; for such an important figure, the article seems rather skimpy in the later sections. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a couple of sentences on his private patronage and collecting. DrKiernan (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support, although I would like to see PMAnderson's comments addressed, as he appears to have identified several interesting additions to the text. Karanacs (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Comments[reply]

    • Make sure that there is a citation at the end of every sentence with a quote, even if that means duplicating citations in subsequent sentences
    • Any details on " Albert's enlightened influence on the healthy running of the nursery"?
    • Any details on what he tried to change or how successful he was -"used his position as Chancellor to campaign for reformed and more modern university curricula"?
    • I'm not sure about the fit of the Hardinge story. We aren't told what the findings were or how this impacted Albert other than he assisted the man. Is this anecdote really necessary for this article?

    Karanacs (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Duplicated.
    • I shall have a look.
    • Added "successfully ...expanding the subjects taught beyond the traditional mathematics and classics to include modern history and the natural sciences."
    • Removed. DrKiernan (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment further. I've made a few hopefully helpful edits. It's in the article that Parliament refused to make Albert a peer. (I almost wrote speer). Isn't that one up to the monarch?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. If there was no opposition and no support, I guess the monarch can ennoble who they like. But in the face of substantial opposition, I guess they cannot. DrKiernan (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My thought is that grant of money to Albert was threatened. I'll check the 19th century books I have on the British Constitution, but I think in theory the monarch can ennoble who she wants. In practice, and being a young inexperienced monarch, I'd think that opposition could cow her.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that politicians could have opposed the peerage but they had no power to prevent or refuse it. Consequently, I have changed "Parliament refusing to grant him" to "Albert claimed that he had no need". DrKiernan (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this is part of the "unwritten constitution", but the boot was already very much on the other foot - it was for governments to propose peerages (not actually voted on in Parliament), and as became very clear in 1910, the monarch was unable to do anything but sign them off. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Given this do we even want to mention the piercing at all? It seems giving too much dignity to a modern urban legend. By the same logic, I guess we should mention that people called cigar stores and asked to have him let out of the can!--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't complain when you removed it last time around but see Talk:Albert, Prince Consort#Prince Albert piercing. I don't mind if it is included as long as it is dismissed as a myth, but nor do I mind if it is removed as trivial claptrap. DrKiernan (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the talk page discussion, and based on that and the fact it is trivia and almost certainly a modern urban legend, I will apply the ax vigorously.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incomplete. Comparing with the ODNB life (which is of course very full), I see the following missing:
      • His mother deserted her husband when Albert was five; I'm sure our author knows this, but the reader doesn't.
      • We should say Crystal Palace; we should also explain what Albert did; ODNB quotes Granville as saying that he was the only one "who has considered the subject both as a whole and in its details", and he did a great deal of necessary diplomacy.
      • Albert took charge of the Royal Household as a whole, not just the nursery; the lead has this, the text doesn't. His enlightened influence was partly child-rearing, but mostly a financial reform, disposing of the sinecures.
      • The purchase of Balmoral should ba made into a single paragraph. (The fact that it was a major expense for the Royal Family, made possible only by a large bequest from James Camden Nield, should be mentioned; it's a great difference from Elizabeth II's finances.)
      • Albert acted as representative of the Queen to Peel's government; Lord George Bentinck denounced his presence in Parliament during the Corn Law debates as partiality.
      • His educational measures included an information campaign about child labor, an exceptional note in Victorian politics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added.
    • Added Crystal Palace. Article already explains role as Chairman, and promoter. As this article is already long, the details should be in the parent article.
    • Changed "domestic affairs" to "the royal household".
    • Two Balmoral parts merged. Nield is not mentioned by Ames, Fulford or Hobhouse, so I would prefer to leave him out. I think the article should concentrate on those points agreed by all biographers as the key issues.
      • Added a few words (not the name) and removed dangling participle. That will satisfy me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added.
    • Added "supported moves to increase working ages" and "he spoke of the need for better schooling". DrKiernan (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Time to let Prince Albert out of the can and into the FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I had a request to re-visit. Will do. Can someone clever zip up my previous comments in one of those whizzy show/hide thingies? Ta. --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Second comments from User:Dweller
    • Differences in address details for Windsor castle and St. George’s Chapel look a little silly for anyone who knows they're at the same place
    • Infobox lists a German variation of his given names. Presumably that was what he was originally named and then it was later anglicised? This should be mentioned and reffed in the main article somewhere, along with a note of when the anglicised version was adopted.
    • Birthplace still unreferenced - a talk page comment doesn't really help
    • Lead claim "only husband of a British Queen regnant to have formally held the title of Prince Consort." seems unrepeated in main text and therefore uncited

    More as I find 'em --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Amended.
    • Removed. He was always Albert.
    • I've added hidden references, so that the attribution is clear for those with a deep interest, but the prose remains free and flowing for most readers.[93]
    • Removed. DrKiernan (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Clearly improved after all the comments. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional Support - 1. Too many redlinks. 2. Lead seems to need at least three more sentences. 3. Last paragraph of "reformer and innovator" could use a little more. 4. Text sandwiched in "marriage". Perhaps split top paragraph and move picture down to second paragraph. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:16, 21 December 2008 [94].

    Pallid sturgeon edit

    Nominator(s): MONGO

    This article has been peer reviewed (Wikipedia:Peer review/Pallid sturgeon/archive1) and all concerns there have been met. Interested in hearing from others as to what else is needed to get this article to FA level.MONGO 21:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Images

    • Image:Pallid.jpg - missing author (just put the parent government organization, if no individual is credited)
      Got that...it was PD image from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, per source link.
    • All other images look good, although for accessibility and uniformity I would make sure all images are set to size=thumb to allow user preferences to decide image sizes; right now the images are irregularly sized and it's not the best presentation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Will take the image px parameter to default...thanks for reminding me.--MONGO 23:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Somebody beat me to it!--MONGO 23:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Query Hi Mongo,

    • Did Pallid sturgeon evolve in the cretaceous or did the Sturgeon family?
      The sturgeon family did apparently...but the pallid has changed little since. I adjusted the intro and need to do the same to the article itself I think.
    • Re "pallid sturgeons are one of the only federally listed endangered fish species in the Missouri and Mississippi River systems." Is that one of the few or the only? ϢereSpielChequers 17:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It is one of the "few"...and was the first listed fish species...will adjust.--MONGO 00:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further thoughts
    • You've not mentioned any other predator except man. It wouldn't surprise me if full grown adults have no known predators and different stages in the lifecycle encounter just about every predator on the river, but if your sources cover this I think it would be nice to put something in the gap.
    • Will adjust...as is probably true for all fish species, during their early life, they are probably easy prey for a plethora of species and circumstances.--MONGO 00:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    :*I didn't understand the bit about hybridisation and DNA. If the "hybrids" have identical DNA to one species and not the other then they aren't hybrids, just a variant of one species. Was this a summation of two scientific studies that contradict each other, or was the DNA study on DNA that are inherited by gender (e.g. a mitochondrial test for the female line only)? If so it would be worth mentioning that hybridisation is always male of x species with female of Y. ϢereSpielChequers 00:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think the research is still vague in this matter...what I understood it to mean is that when pallids and shovelnose hybridize, the offspring are shovelnose based on the DNA collected. I will try to adjust the wording after i think and read about this matter some more. I also need to see if they even know whether we are dealing with pallid roe being fertilized by shovelnose or vice versa.--MONGO 00:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Having read the study I've made a few tweaks, it seemed easier to make them in the article than list them here; hope you like them, if not, well its a Wiki! Unfortunately I can't tell from the bit about "conversely the companion results" whether both studies were using mitochondrial DNA or just the other one. But I think it was important to move away from identical as that could be interpreted as implying either a one off event or a very limited genetic pool (both of which may be true for a rare species, but neither was stated in that source). ϢereSpielChequers 14:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good to me...thanks for the assistance and the comments.--MONGO 00:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support All my major concerns have been addressed, as with any species predation would be nice to mention if someone publishes research on it, but I don't think that is necessary for FA status. This article is an interesting read and has been a pleasure to review (and it reminds me of an enjoyable visit to that part of the world). ϢereSpielChequers 14:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you...your review and article contributions are much appreciated.--MONGO 12:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • In the "Prior to the construction of dams ..." paragraph, I'm not sure if this should be worded in the past or present tense. The first sentence mentioning what happened before the dams should definitely be past tense, but not sure about the rest. I tried adjusting it but not sure if it's right. I think what you had with use of the word "would" was a conditional sentence, which I'm not sure works well here, or at least the intended meaning is not clear to me.
    • What is the importance or relevance of "rocky or hard surfaces" for depositing eggs? Do they deposit the eggs on the surfaces, behind them, or what? maybe this can be clarified, by saying something like "rocky or hard surfaces where they deposit hundreds ..." or some other wording to connect the two parts of this sentence.
    • The second paragraph of the last section, "In Nebraska, a small number of pallid sturgeons have been captured ..." seems a bit long. Can this be split into two paragraphs?

    Aside from these specific comments, the references are all reliable, with use of some scholarly sources and other good sources, and think the article is very informative. I may think of more comments later. --Aude (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Will address all of these points in a day or two...thanks for the suggestions.--MONGO 04:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      That's fine. I'm not sure my changes to the article were improvements, so feel free to make any adjustments needed. --Aude (talk) 04:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I have done some copyedits and adjusted the tense, re-adding "would", which I think is correct. Please make any adjustments needed. --Aude (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      That looks good to me...thanks.--MONGO 12:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - The article looks good now, and I believe it meets all the FA criteria. --Aude (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Much thanks for adjustments and comments.--MONGO 19:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Missing image source

    Comments -

    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Will address all of these points in a day or two...thanks for the suggestions.--MONGO 04:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC) In process...already updated ref mentioned ot more valid one...the formatting of many of the older refs is no longer in the same citation template style as is now used, so will adjust over next few days.--MONGO 05:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have made the adjustments you have suggested...I went and updated all the cite templates to newer formats. Some of the templates were from older formats and now we have more uniformity. Thanks for taking the time to comment.--MONGO 00:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Appears to have been taken care of now...[95]...thanks for the reminder.--MONGO 12:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Henry8787:

    • Prose is on the poor side. Text needs to be cleaned up and simplified. I've made a few copyedits myself to illustrate this, but there's plenty more where that came from. An example I can't fix is "Descended from the Acipenseridae (Sturgeon) family of fish that originated during the Cretaceous period 70 million years ago, the pallid sturgeon has remained relatively unchanged since." because I'm not really sure what's that's supposed to mean. Here's another, from the taxonomy and etymology section: "DNA sampling of shovelnose sturgeon taken from the same three locations showed that the shovelnose were genetically one population; Whilst the physiologically identified pallid/shovelnose hybrids from the Atchafalaya River showed genetic distinction from pallid sturgeons, but on the genetic markers assessed were genetically indistinguishable from shovelnose."
    • A range map would be nice. The lead section's description of the range is too brief, and I eventually figured it out from the "distribution" section further in the article, but a range map in the taxobox would illustrate it nicely at a glance.
    • There are comments about the fish being tasty and fun to catch in the lead section, but nothing about interactions with humans outside of conservation efforts. Historically, was this a widely sought-after fish? Bycatch? Was it ever notable for the taste of its flesh?
    • The lead section seems too heavily weighted toward its status as an endangered species. While this is very important, the lead section should also be used as a thumbnail of the entire article, so if a reader just reads the first few paragraphs of the article and then switches to something else, they's leave with a decent understanding of the article's subject. In this case, they would leave with the idea that it is endangered and there are efforts being made to conserve it, It lives somewhere in the Mississippi river region, it's related to another similar-appearing species of sturgeon, it's large and can live 100 years, it's ugly, and it tastes good. Does this effectively summarize the article?
    • The physical description section seems to have too heavy an emphasis on comparing the pallid sturgeon to the shovelnose sturgeon. Since I don't know what a shovelnose sturgeon looks like, I'd have to refer to the article (which, by the way, isn't wikilinked nearby). Unfortunately, that article, once found, doesn't really paint a good picture. Fortunately, both articles have very nice photographs, but can the text be edited out a bit to paint a better picture with words?
    • The reproduction and life cycle section is very nice. I have a bit of a problem with how verb tenses seem to switch back and forth between present and past tense, though.
    • I hate to be a citation nazi, but I'm finding too many assertions that make me think "who says that anglers found catching this fish rewarding", and "who attribited changes in hybridization rates to changes in the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers?". I'm not going to litter the article with {{fact}} tags and statements that are unlikely to be questioned obviously don't need any, but there are too many examples of obviously researched items that aren't attributed to their source.
    • Generally, not ready for FA yet.
    • I'll post more feedback if desired. Henry8787 (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll look into some of your suggestions. The article actually rates pretty high as far as readability goes according to the Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test and others. I haven't worked on the Shovelnose sturgeon article and probably won't since I am more interested in endangered species overall. But since the shovelnose is fairly common and they are so similar, it seemed, especially since that is what a lot of references do, to compare the two. The other issue due to their similarities are that pallids, which are endangered species and it is illegal to keep them if caught, need to be easily identified so that they can be released and anglers can report their findings to various agencies. There is almost no information aside from what I found about the roe occasionally being used for caviar in the past, regarding whether the species was sought after primarily because it tasted good or more so due to it's huge size. I surely would have loved to have a good range map, but lack the toolskills and software to develop one on my own...the range of the species is congruent with the Mississippi and then up the Missouri River systems, extending little in the upper Mississippi, the Platte and the Yellowstone Rivers as well. I try to keep wikilinks from being too common and the MOS expects that except in cases where articles are real expanisve in size, that the only time another Wikipedia article should be linked to is in the first occurance in which it is found in another article.--MONGO 03:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Back...found and added a range map to the taxobox...hope that helps.--MONGO 04:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will try and address other areas in next few days...thank you for the copyediting and time you have spent commenting.--MONGO 04:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Readability isn't so much a factor in my comment as how well the prose flows. I agree, the article doesn't have excessive jargon and big words meant to impress the reader with the author's amazing mastery of the English language. However, if the average reader (read as A to B high school student) reader can't read through the article without being hung up on the way it's written (such as having to stop and re-read a sentence because they didn't quite understand it the first time), then the article needs improvement to meet the standard of "brilliant prose", even though they are able to comprehend all of the words involved. That was what I meant about the prose being lacking. Henry8787 (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have tried clearing up the taxonomy section, as the material explaining the hybrids seemed slightly confusing to the lay reader such as myself. I have also done some general copyediting. Are there other sections in particular that seem difficult to read? --Aude (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sorry, but a majority of the article seems to have pretty major copyediting issues. I'll use the taxonomy section to illustrate because it's relatively brief. The first paragraph has four sentences, each of which pretty much have nothing to do with each other. Paragraph 2 has 5 sentences, which are all related to the same topic, except that the third sentence seems to contradict the first, or at least make me wonder why you're telling me that all the species are different, then turn around to tell me that the living specimens found in a certain section of the river are all the same. The grammar, style, and flow make me feel that each of the 5 sentences in that paragraph were written by different people at different times. There is random switching between active voice and passive voice, and an arbitrary semicolon inappropriately used instead of a period. The third paragraph seems like it was a fragment left over from something else, but left in because the information is useful (which it certainly is, don't get me wrong). The article covers a great topic, one that has hooked my interest, but it can use some serious polishing to get it to shine to the degree it should before it appears on Wikipedia's main page. Henry8787 (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I want the article to be as good as I can make it...I am considering adding a new section on the DNA discussion and removing that from the Taxonomy section. I have adjusted the first paragraph in the Taxonomy section based on your comments and those made by another commentator.--MONGO 14:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I have created a new section which will detail the DNA issues...it will be a few days before I get this section straightened out.--MONGO 15:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More comments from Henry8787
    • In the taxonomy section, the "The DNA showed that the southern populations have been reproductively isolated but are physically indistinguishable, aside from size, with the northern Missouri River individuals being much larger.[9]" sentence seems awkwardly stated. Two populations that are physically indistinguishable, except that one of them is much larger than the other? That "physically indistinguishbale" seems to be the wrong phrase to use here, but when I tried to clarify what the original source (#9) said so I could fix it myself, (it's the "Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) 5-Year Review Summary and Evaluation" (pdf). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2007) reference), I found that the document is 120 pages long. Any chance of obtaining page numbers in that citation? That's a lot of searching.
    • In the life cycle section, including the caption of the photograph of "immature larva" of the fish (redundant wording, perhaps), the article hints of physical differences in the fish during different stages of its life cycle, such as "as the larvae developed tails...". Please describe the physical changes that occur to the fish during its development from embryo to mature adult. Henry8787 (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did some copyediting and word changes in the DNA studies section [96], but somebody partially reverted my edits, leaving a problem with pronouns that don't agree in the first two sentences of that section. That should be cleaned up, since it's doubtful that the fish are comparing their own DNA samples.
    • In the physical description section, I see what I assume is a description of the average size of the fish, 30-60 inches, and a maximum weight (85 lbs). Any information on an average weight or a maximum size? Would a 60-inch fish weigh 85 pounds? This should be clarified. Henry8787 (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll look around and see what I can find about average weight. I didn't want to start specifying all the different groups which have researched the species, its DNA and other issues since once we start that, we're mentioning the names of the specific scientists and others and it kind of gets endless and we lose touch with the main subject matter which is the species. Your copyediting has been most appreciated, just so you know that.--MONGO 22:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments
    • It's important to state the obvious in well written articles, particularly in the lead. Is there an especially good reason not to say that "The pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) is an endangered species of sturgeon endemic to the waters..."? The sturgeon family isn't even linked until the second paragraph, which feels weird for an article about a sturgeon species.
      I moved the discussion about sturgeon up to the top into paragragh so this problem is solved I think.--MONGO 14:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel like the origin of the name should also be part of the lead. It's another basic bit of obvious info that needs stating for beginners to the subject early on. Any objection?
      Been looking at this but not sure how to make it fit in better.--MONGO 14:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll take a hack at it, and if it doesn't seem to fit, it isn't that far in to the meat of the article. Steven Walling (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Physical characteristics, I would say that the description of sturgeon (which I have seen up close and personal before) as "shark-like" is extremely subjective. Can we change it to "They have a streamlined appearance, as with many sturgeon species."?
      I took that out since it was not a great comparison overall.--MONGO 16:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd personally like to see more detail about their feeding habits (what exactly do they eat as bottom feeders?)
      I added more details as to their dietary tendencies. That section looks better now with the expansion.--MONGO 16:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Overall, seems to meet FA standards. Nice work! Steven Walling (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you...I will address your comments over the next few days.--MONGO 04:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for taking the time to review this article.--MONGO 16:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the thorough response. I'm now definitely comfortable seeing this promoted. Congrats again on the good work, Steven Walling (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by jimfbleak I like the article but found the second para of lead a bit choppy. also

    • Descended from the Acipenseridae (Sturgeon) family of fish that originated during the Cretaceous period "sturgeon" shouldn't be capped, but this clause doesn't make sense anyway. How can it be descended from an entire extant family of which it is a member? Presumably you mean it is descended from an ancestral Cretaceous sturgeon, in which case please give fossil details.
      I went and simply changed that to reflect that it is a member of the sturgeon family. I decapitalized the bluelinked word sturgeon.--MONGO 14:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Taxonomy - doesn't actually mention that it is a member of the sturgeon family, let alone discuss relationships in the family. I would have thought it was at least worth mentioning the Pseudoscaphirhynchus genus as the only other group in the subfamily, and the South Asian counterpart of Scaphirhynchus jimfbleak (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Working on this...I think I have the first paragrapgh in the taxonomy section reworded appropriately now.--MONGO 14:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Concerns have been addressed jimfbleak (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Article read well for me and appears to cover everything a species article should cover. Good job! --mav (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Status? Work in progress tag on the DNA studies section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Sandy...in progress tag is now taken down...that section is now meeting WP:SS.--MONGO 00:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lean support Clean article. Doesn't seem to have any major problems. Some concerns above, and interested in finding out what the "work in progress" is. However, I know enough to lean towards a support. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Work in progress now completed.--MONGO 00:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional Support. It would be unusual for this article to be promoted with the "work in progress" tag (which I have been waiting to be addressed before commenting). I have been bold and tweaked the section in question [97] and I think it is OK. Of course, I don't know what is going to be added. Graham Colm Talk 16:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I just had to get some time to reevaluate the DNA section...linked articles provide more details and the section now meets WP:SS.--MONGO 00:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral per SandyGeorgia's comments below. Few changes have been made since her complaint was registered, so I don't dare support. I fear I will be blamed for copy editing your article. I hope you don't mind my copy edits, although I don't think I am responsible for all her complaints! But I don't dare risk it.
    The situation you describe regarding the Pallid sturgeon is quite interesting, and also relates to the situation of many species of fish. An insightful article. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mind your edits in the least. All articles on Wikipedia are, even FA's, works in progress. I just wanted the species to be documented for the reasons listed, including that it is big, it is rare, it has an ancient lineage, that it was the first fish species listed as endangered in the Missouri River basin and the the reasons why it is believed to be endangered and the efforts to try and stop it from becoming extinct. I didn't expand too greatly on the hybrid issues (as you brought up on my talk page) since I think, from all the details I am reading, that the jury is still out as to whether the hybrids indicate that pallds and shovelnose sturgeons are simply varients of the same species...DNA indicates that the hybrids are almost identical to shovelnose, but distinct from pallids...it is not known yet whether the hybrids have the ability to reproduce...if you care to read more, check out page 479 in this online accessible pdf....[98]..I might add a wee bit more about hybrids, especially the part I just touched on.--MONGO 22:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I thought this was close last night when I read through, but now I'm seeing copyedit and prose issues.
      • "The Pallid sturgeon take a long time to mature ... " Long time?
      • To better protect pallid sturgeons from extinction, research on its DNA and that of other closely related species was conduced to assess differences within various populations of pallid sturgeon
      • ... that may permit recreation of suitable habitats without reducing the Serivice's ability to protect people ...
    • I am not responsible for the complaints you make, although I am sure I am being blamed! I tried to edit well, but apparently I dragged this article down into the pits. Sorry. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mongo, can you please run through again; there has been some deterioration, so please check and ping me when you've made corrections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I see GrahamColm went through; thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Caption to this photo says the beast was hatchery raised. Unsourced and unbelievable. Source says "Linda Vannest and Crystal Hudson release an adult pallid sturgeon back into the Yellowstone River in North Dakota". I removed the hatchery bit; maybe they used an adult for spawning, but did they actually raise it? NVO (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for clarifying that...I missed it...and that is correct that any pallids released from hathcerys were ones that were captured for spawning purposes and other reason...some of these are pretty large...[99], but they are not hatchery raised as you pointed out.--MONGO 04:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:15, 17 December 2008 [100].

    Shackleton–Rowett Expedition edit

    Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk)

    Shackleton's last hurrah: determined to have one more go at the Antarctic that had repeatedly thwarted his desires and ambitions, Ernest Shackleton, in poor health, set off for the implacable continent with an odd selection of old chums. Alas, Antarctica beat him again; he died on the outward journey. Thereafter the expedition was anti-climactic, though of historical importance as the very last chapter of the short-lived Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration. Credit to User:Yomangan for supplying the map of the ship's track.

    The fair use rationale for the Rowett portrait may be queried. I will say in advance that it is important that readers should have the maximum information possible, textual and visual, about Rowett—there is very little on him in the public domain. Without him there would have been no Shackleton-Rowett expedition. He met the whole cost, and should be pictured alongside Shackleton. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support I have done a bit of editing on this article, as I had a little run through pre-PR and another one during it, but there wasn't much for me to pick on. Another solid article pulled from the little material available (and it is a better read than Wild's book, believe me). Yomanganitalk 02:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I gave this a copyedit while it was at peer review. I've reread it just now and only found a few tiny things to tweak. Fine work, as always. Maralia (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment/Suggestion - Since the Endurance is mentioned throughout the article, I think it would be helpful to have a mention/small explanation in the lede. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Good suggestion, to tie in with the beginning of the first main section. I've added a few words to lead. Brianboulton (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments -

    • What makes the following reliable sources?
      • http://www.sossi.org/articles/tristan.htm
        • Scouts on Stamps Society International (SOSSI) is an international body which supports a large number of publications and other activities related to the depiction of Scouts on postage stamps. Well, it takes all sorts...I would imagine it is the only international body in this field. The information about the flag presentation which is cited to this source can be got from Wild's book or his Geographical Journal report, but a US-based international society with a proven record of publishing stuff over many years seems reliable to me. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • http://www.south-pole.com/homepage.html
        • South-pole.com is a huge site that covers just about every Antarctic venture since before Captain Cook and until after World War II. I use it a lot. Its reliability largely comes from its being approved by the Scott Polar Research Institute. This is SPRI's Index to Antarctic Expeditions which provides links to what it calls "the best summaries" of expeditions, and every link is to a South.pole.com sub-page. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves... (hint, Brian, probably a good idea to copy-paste the South-pole.com one into the nom statements from now on... I'll probably always question it for other reviewers to see your reply.. it's not something most "new" reviewers would know about. Have to admit the boy scout one is a new one on me. Might double cite that one, just to be safe.) Ealdgyth - Talk 04:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done as you suggest, and double-cited the scout thing. Somehow, I don't think that site will figure too often in FAC reviews, but, you never know...I note what you say about South-pole.com, and will try to remember to do that. Brianboulton (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Great subject, nicely done. ϢereSpielChequers 20:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - Very interesting, well-organized account, clearly presented. I do have a question about the Fair use image for the Endurance (File:Quest1921..jpg). Since there are PD images available, as in the Endurance (1912 ship) article, is the Fair use justified? It is a beautiful photo. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That image is of the Quest not the Endurance (which was in pieces at the bottom of the sea by this time). There are no known PD images of the Quest. Yomanganitalk 00:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry! My carelessness. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review: Similar to Mattisse's question, I think there is a better license for File:Quest1921..jpg. If the image was taken in the US, it would have a {{PD-US}} template tag. Since you know more about the image than I, could you state that this template is accurate:Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure? If so, it would be a public domain image and you can amend the summary page.

      • The image was taken in St Katherine's Dock, London, some time in 1921 before the expedition sailed. No account of the expedition was published until after 1 January 1923, so PD photographs of the ship are very scarce, if they exist at all. The copyright for this one is claimed by the Scott Polar Research Institute, so I think the suggested template does not apply. It has to be a FU rationale. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Similarly, would Template:PD-Australia be more accurate for File:Rowett.png?
    The picture is attributed to F & A Swaine, and we can't be sure if a) the book was published in Australia (despite the publisher's address) and b) if the picture was first published in the book. The lack of copyright notice in the book doesn't mean that the photo doesn't exist somewhere with a copyright notice, and since it was almost certainly taken in England {{PD-Australia}} would be a bit of a cop-out. I think erring on the safe side with a justifiable FU tag is preferable in this case, but I'm open to persuasion, as there are a lot more images that I could use if this is deemed to fall within the usage rules. Yomanganitalk 18:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The information is from more than one page. pp.98–137. That isn't required anyway, is it? Yomanganitalk 18:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I imagined it was a composite of maps or such. I don't believe it is required, but suggested per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Adding_images under More information on how to provide a good source. How about adding something like: information for map culled from text spanning pp. 98 - 137 at the end of the source info you have now? --Moni3 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's something I'm actually not sure of (and does not appear to be clarified per Wikipedia:MOSIMAGE#Images: the sizes of all the images vary quite a bit. What do you think about making them somewhat uniform in size?
      • Lead image and maps are forced, as permitted by MOS:IMAGES. All the others are either standard or upright. I've made Shackleton and Rowett the same sizes, and done what I can to get some kind of uniformity, but some images are just larger than others. Every image accords with WP rules. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me know if you have questions. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No questions. Let me know if you require further elaboration of these answers. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support by Ruhrfisch - overall very well done and another great member of the series on the Heroic Age of Exploration. I have a few minor quibbles, mostly MOS issues:

    • In the lead ... and the beginning of the "Mechanical Age" that followed it. "Mechanical Age" seems to be a direct quote and should have a ref per WP:LEAD and WP:MOSQUOTE
      • Ref added (mechanical age is linked in the text, but yoy're right - as I have it as a quote in the lead it must be linked there. Brianboulton (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are some Imperial units that should also have metric equivalents given, for example the weight of the ship ("tons", presumably short tons) and knots. {{convert}} may be useful here.
      • Neither Fisher nor Huntford, who give tonnage figures, say anytning other than "tons". My guess is that they meant imperial tons, since that's how everybody here understands tons - 2,240lb. No one uses the short ton measurement. In view of lack of certainty, rather than have a possibly false conversion, would it be better to add a footnote explaining the uncertainty? Also, I have put the knots conversions (mph, kph) into a footnote to avoid text clutter.
        • I have short tons on the brain from working with American bridge articles, sorry. Of course it would be Imperial tons. Since they are already numbers, I think it would be OK to have the metric ton value after in parentheses, but if you prefer a footnote, that would be OK too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've put in the metric equivalents in parentheses. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Do not assume that the figure for tonnage is weight. The ship was originally a commercial vessel, which typically incurred port and canal fees and other charges on the basis of their tonnage, which is volume, not weight. Ships of this era often had tonnage numbers much lower than their displacements; they really have little to do with each other. It is not correct to assume that "ton" means weight, and therefore incorrect to make a conversion. It is safer to assume that, for commercial vessels, the "tonnage" means tonnage, i.e., volume, but that is still an assumption. Kablammo (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thank you for this informative note. Both of the sources say "tons", 125 and 204 respectively. From this discrepancy it is clear that they were using different bases, but all they say is tons. Possibly "125" is a tonnage figure and "204" displacement, but I have no direct evidence of this. However, I will remove the conversions, and will recast footnote 23 on the more authoritative basis of your note. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should coronary thrombosis be linked in in modern terms, coronary thrombosis
    • Last paragraph of Return section has no refs, but needs them, especially for the direct quote.
      • Don't know how these refs got lost, they were there once! Restored now, thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hope these help, well done Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • ALl of my quibbles have been addressed - thanks very much, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Beautifully written. The ever-tricky image questions appear to have been resolved. I have three further quibbles about the text.

    • I'd recommend unlinking Davy Jones's Locker, since the link appears in a direct quote in the "Voyage to the ice" section. Linking it here makes it appear to be part of the quote. It's worth linking, so you might want to retain the link in a footnote.
    • A bit further along in the same section, it would be good to translate "2,300 fathoms" as 14,000 feet and 4,300 metres for us landlubbers.
    • The sentence in "Assessment" about the wireless equipment has an extra word in it or is possibly missing several words: "The long-range, 220-volt wireless equipment did not to work properly and was abandoned early on." Finetooth (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Last point, well spotted - extra word removed. Thanks for the review comments. Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support with a few comments:

    • I am a little concerned with the expression "Communists overran" since the goings-on in that part of Russia in 1919 were much more complex. I would prefer "Red Army had captured" or "had occupied" or even "Bolshevicks...".
      • I've made it "Red Army took control of...", with appropriate link
    • Instead of the "w.r.t." here: "The policy of the government of Canada with regard to the funding of expeditions" - how about a simple "on"?
      • You're right – done.
    • I'm not quite sure what the "some" means here: "..the mapping of some 2,000 miles (3,200 km) of uncharted coastline."
      • It's an approximation. I've change dit to "about".

    Brian, the usual accolades apply, thanks. Graham Colm Talk 11:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • And thank you for your pertinent quibbles, spot on as usual. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Very well done. Kablammo (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:15, 17 December 2008 [101].

    Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan edit

    Nominator(s): User:David Fuchs

    The last FAC received mixed support; users Awadewit and Steve suggested that it needed beefing up. I have trawled through all the sources I was about to wrangle up by visiting two libraries and putting out requests on interlibrary loan. Compared to the article a month ago, there's another 10KB, 1800 words, 24 citations and more than ten substantial, multipage sources added. The sections on effects, filming, and music, in particular, have been expanded by more than eight paragraphs. In short, I believe it is now as comprehensive as it can be. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments -

    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (GAH! Another Trek movie...) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there is a case to be made for trekmovie.com's reliability, if you want to. While it was only citing Bryan Singer's consideration of the film as an influence on his own movies, it'd be a shame to lose the statement as the film is cited as such (in much the same way as Empire Strikes Back) quite often as a gold standard to emulate when making SF sequels. Steve T • C 09:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering 1) it was an interview, which is reliable no matter what; 2) TrekMovie.com has been right about everything on the new film and 3) it's a source Paramount respects, has held webchats with, interviewed everyone on the production team and was one of many sites that had the first official photos on the new film sent over to, you ought to be a good-faithed about what citations we editors use. Alientraveller (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It still has to meet WP:RS. If you found a source that talked about their relationship with Paramount, that might be good evidence to argue for its use (probably as a borderline source via WP:SPS like Kotaku, but still able to be used.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments from the lead. KHAAAAAN
    • Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is the second feature film based on the Star Trek science fiction franchise, and was released in 1982 by Paramount Pictures. - "And" → "that".
    • When Khan escapes from a fifteen-year exile to exact revenge on Kirk, the crew of the Enterprise must stop Khan from acquiring a powerful but unstable terraforming device. - "Fifteen" → "15". Also, replace the last "Khan" in that sentence with "him".
    • Director Nicholas Meyer completed the final script in twelve days, without accepting a writing credit. - "Twelve" → "12".
    • Meyer's approach evoked the swashbuckling atmosphere of the original series, and was reinforced by James Horner's musical score. - "Swashbuckling" is a rather bizarre word. Is it possible to find a replacement for it?
    • The production used various cost-cutting techniques to keep under budget, including utilizing old miniatures from past Star Trek projects. - "Star Trek" isn't needed here.
    • The Wrath of Khan was released in North America on June 4, 1982. It was a box office success, earning $97 million worldwide and setting a world record for first-day box office gross. - Is that USD?
    • Dissenting reviewers, such as the Washington Post, called the special effects outdated and the cast geriatric. - Put quotation marks around "geriatric".

    –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Think I got to all of the above; I reworded the first sentence and broke it in twain, and put a wikilink to swashbuckling which I hope should help clarify. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I supported this FAC last time around. All I have to say right now is: Khhhaannnn!!!!!!!!!!!! Its a lot more expanded and comprehensive. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I intend not to oppose on comprehensiveness this time; the additions since the last FAC have filled the gaps I felt were present in the story of the film's development. I'll give it the once over later today for any other issues. Steve T • C 09:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Hopefully I can find some time to review the article more extensively, but in the meantime, I wanted to bring up a certain point. The "Cast" section bolds the names of the actors and roles, and while I realize this has been traditional formatting in a lot of film articles, I am not sure if this is in compliance with MOS:BOLD, which specifies limited usage of the formatting. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never thought about that before... I guess I can remove the bolding if other editors have issues with it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I asked the question last year at WT:MOS (I can't find the archive link right now, but I will), giving a couple of examples of bold usage in cast lists, one of which was the example the film Wikiproject does at WP:MOSFILM#Cast and crew information. The response I received from Sandy indicated it was OK. Steve T • C 16:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • David, don't worry about it for now, then. It's not a big deal. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, here is the relevant discussion. Steve T • C 16:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I'm close to supporting the article's promotion. Some prose tightening is required, but it'll take longer to list my suggestions here than it will to actually do it, so that's not a concern right now. My main issue is with the reception section, which relies too-heavily on weasel wording (an unfortunate term) and some original research. Examples include: "A near-universal note of praise was for the film's pacing..." which is cited to just two reviews. Even if this were cited to eight—or eighteen—reviews, it would still be inappropriate because it's selecting viewpoints that agree with your own impression of the film's critical reception. I'm sure it's correct, but what you need for all the statements like this is a separate source that properly summarises the critical consensus. "Complaints about the film focused on what were seen as tepid battle sequences, and perceived melodrama..." is another example, a statement that reads as if it summarises the entire negative reception to the film, when in fact it's just three that you've selected. And I'm sure the statement that "Critical response to The Wrath of Khan was positive" can be cited to something other than Rotten Tomatoes too. Only two of the reviews used by the site to generate its consensus score for Wrath of Khan pre-date 2000, so for summarising the response upon the film's release it's not the best source to use. Oh, and there's still that missing cite at the end of the fourth paragraph of the "Development" section. Steve T • C 13:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    added the citations. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a cite that might be used to add the statement that Trek fans generally consider it the best in the series ("It is nearly gospel now among Trekkies that the second Star Trek installment, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, is the undisputed best of the series, and will likely never meet its equal.") It should pass muster as a reliable source; Christopher Null is the author of a book on film criticism and has written for Wired, Business 2.0, PC World, Men's Journal, and San Francisco Magazine among others. Steve T • C 14:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It might also be worth mentioning that Wrath of Khan was the film on which Marc Okrand first developed the Vulcan language; the actors' scenes were filmed in English and dubbed later in Vulcan once Okrand came up with words that synced well with the actors' lips. There's a USA Today cite for that here; feel free to ignore the suggestion if you think it trivial, it won't affect my !vote one way or the other. Steve T • C 14:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the Christopher Null citation as well as one I had commented in and forgot about; I knew about the Okrand bit but didn't add it as it doesn't really mesh with anything else (it would be of use for the Vulcan and Klingon pages, though.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I'm still trying to come up with ways in which the "Critical response" section can be beefed up as it still seems a little light. Has it ever appeared on any of the AFI lists? Have you also considered mentioning the Saturn Awards the film won (here), and the Hugo it was nominated for (here)? Oh, and the 2002 special edition DVD release was also nominated for a "Best DVD Release" award at the 2003 Saturn Awards. That might be a more trivial thing to mention, but it might be useful as an addendum to the last line in the "Home video" section. Or not. Your call. Steve T • C 14:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you also think that the release and box office information should sit outside the "Critical response" section, as it's not strictly about the critical reaction to the film? Here's how it would look. Again, your call. Steve T • C 15:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, I don't like sad lonesome paragraphs all alone :) I think the DVD award is somewhat trivial, but I've added in the awards information. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck oppose. Steve T • C 16:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The major issues I had have pretty much been resolved or explained. Nice work. Steve T • C 15:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I would have supported this in the first FAC, but the article has improved so much more, and Steve is a lot smarter than me so if he approves, I approve. Alientraveller (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, crumbs, don't put this on me, what do I know? :) That said, you're more likely than me to know whether the article covers all the major facts and details, so in turn your support makes me feel better about mine. Steve T • C 22:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Great article - covers all the points a movie article should and does it very well. Loved the movie too, BTW. --mav (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remarks—I thought it was FA worthy last time and it still looks so. A couple of points come to mind now that don't appear to be answered by the article:
      • I think the Plot section should explain the relevance of the Kobayashi Maru scenario to the remainder of the story. My guess would be that it shows the crew of the Enterprise is inexperienced and that Captain ("I don't like to lose") Kirk employs irregular tactics to achieve victory. But I'm sure some reference can clarify the link.
      • Did the dramatic scene showing the death of midshipman Peter Preston have some relevance? I think the director's cut explained that he was Scotty's son, but this isn't mentioned. Was there anything else of interest in the director's cut?
      Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi. The significance of the Kobayashi Maru is explained later in the article, here:

      The Kobayashi Maru test forces its participants to confront an unwinnable situation which serves as a test of character, but Kirk reveals that he won the test by cheating; Saavik responds that Kirk has never faced death. Spock's own solution to the no-win scenario, that of self-sacrifice, forces Kirk to confront death after continually cheating it, and to grow as a character.

      And Scotty's relative gets a few words in the "Cast" section, here:

      Scott loses his young nephew following Khan's attacks on the Enterprise. The cadet, played by Ike Eisenmann, had many of his lines cut from the original theatrical release, including a scene where it is explained he is Scott's relative. These scenes were [later reintroduced] making Scott's grief at the crewman's death more understandable.

      All the best, Steve T • C 23:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:15, 17 December 2008 [102].

    SS Dakotan edit

    Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)

    This is an article about an American cargo ship launched in 1912 that had a nearly 60-year career for the United States and the Soviet Union. The article has passed a GA review and a Military History A-Class review. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, Zyrianin should be a redirect, as should Dakotan, if it weren't ambiguous. The latter shouldn't be a redlink in any case--that should probably be a disambiguation page, including a reference for the demonym for people and things from North or South Dakota or the old Dakota Territory or the Dakota tribe, but including a link to SS Dakotan. Furthermore, I didn't see any "SS" in front of Zyrianin in the article; should there be one?
    The omission of SS in front of Zyrianin in the first paragraph of the lead was an oversight and has now been remedied. (It was displayed correctly as "SS Zyrianin" in later in the lead and in the infobox.) I'm thinking that the same reasoning you had for Dakotan would also apply to Zyrianin so I'll work on disambiguation pages for both. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What appears in the Soviet Union category now is "SS Dakotan". You should categorize the redirect at SS Zyrianin, sorted under Z, for that and any other Soviet Union categories, so that people who go to the category can see the name appropriate to that category. Any category listing that comes from a redirect will appear italicized in the category listing. It should still be categorized and sorted under Dakotan as well, so that people can go from this article to the Soviet ships category. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, gotcha. Done. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The issues I raised here have been addressed. Thanks. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review: Images check out ok. --Moni3 (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments
    • The first paragraph of the lead is slightly disappointing. I would like to see more general information about the ship to start off the article, rather than a timeline of a sorts.
      • The reasoning behind that is to try to have all of the alternative names (i.e. redirected names) in boldface in the first paragraph of the lead (difficult given that there are several). I always strive for that after a previous FAC of mine where that was brought up. How would you recommend improving the paragraph? — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The committee selected Dakotan, her sister ship Montanan, and twelve other American-flagged ships that were sufficiently fast, could carry enough fuel in their bunkers for transatlantic crossings, and, most importantly, were in port or not far at sea. - "Twelve" → "12". Same with all numbers above 10.
      • I went ahead and changed "twelve" → "12" where you noted. (I had written it as "twelve" because two sentences later I used "four", "fourteen", and "ten" (all spelled out) and was trying to avoid a mix of words and numerals.) Are there others that you saw? — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no reason twelve must be rendered as "12". Please review the number guidelines. Kaldari (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The article looks good otherwise. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - MoS gives flexibility in numbers vs words. See Numbers as figures or words. Bellhalla is compatible with MoS in his justification for his choice of spelling out the numbers. I prefer the choice of consistency over using a mixture of numbers as words and numbers as numbers in appropriate situations. Also, in some situations, spelling out numbers is aesthetically more pleasing. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Potential support - Another one of your well written, well organized and strangely fascinating articles. One question on the sentence: " Dakotan continued inter-coastal service through the Panama Canal in a relatively uneventful career." Do you mean her career of inter-coastal service through the Panama Canal was relatively uneventful? (Sorry to be dense about this, but "career" seems to subsume the whole of her career, including whatever happened with the Soviets, unless the word has a different meaning for ships.)
      • I meant just the inter-coastal period of the ship's career. I changed the sentence to "Dakotan continued inter-coastal service through the Panama Canal in a relatively uneventful manner over the next twenty years." — Bellhalla (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I wish the first para could be more straight forward and easier to figure out. I understand the need for so much bolding. Is it possible that the opening sentence could be more of a summary statement? Something like:

    SS Dakotan was a cargo ship built in 1912 for the American-Hawaiian Steamship Company that served as a transport ship under the United States Army in World War I, and then transferred to the Soviet Union under Lend-Lease in World War II before being finally scrapped in 1969. During World War I, she was taken over by the United States Army as USAT Dakotan. Near the end of that war she was transferred to the United States Navy and commissioned as USS Dakotan (ID-3882). During World War II, the ship was transferred to the Soviet Union and renamed SS Zyrianin (or Зырянин in Cyrillic).

    The first para is so dense with info that it does not invite the reader into the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent suggestion for the wording. I've replaced the original version with yours. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support, but with three minor concerns:

    • I don't see the particular relevance of the sugar refinery picture. Given the size of the infobox and the image sandwiching it will cause, a photograph of the processing of a commodity which the vessel carried is unnecessary.
      • I included it because it shows a part of the industry which was the reason for the ship's construction.
        • On a narrow screen, this is the only place where text is sandwiched. I think it is far afield, as we likely would not show an oil rig for a tanker, or a sawmill for a timber barge, etc. Kablammo (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can see your point about the content of the photo and have so removed it. But, I've always interpreted the "sandwiching" guideline to be between two images, not counting an infobox as an image. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a wide-aspect screen there is a substantial blank space in due to the picture below the infobox. Not sure if this can be remedied, given the limited space available for images.
      • Which image is causing problems, the "SS Zyrianin …" image? (And, if so, how wide is your screen?)
        • Yes. Wide. But on my laptop there is no problem with white space. Assuming most computers have narrower screens it should not be an issue (I posted my first set of comments while looking at the desktop). Kablammo (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is stated that her "movements throughout the rest of the war are not known". Presumably they are known to someone; I don't think the absence of such details renders the article not comprehensive, but see no reason for the statement.
      • I would tend to agree, but in past GA nominations, peer reviews, A-Class reviews, etc. for this and other articles, I invariably get the 'what happened from this year to that year' questions. What would you think a better way of conveying that the ship did something but it's not in sources, and wasn't, say, just overlooked?
        • Personally I think just noting it was in service with the USSR should be sufficient, and I would disagree with those who want a chronology of events even if mundane. Kablammo (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I reworded the sentence to keep the fact that she was in SFO during the war but omitted the rest of that sentence. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kablammo (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (Replies interspersed above.) — Bellhalla (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - all concerns have been rectified. (I assume the "white space" problem has been rectified, as I do not detect significant problems on different sized screens.) —Mattisse (Talk) 22:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:15, 17 December 2008 [103].

    SS Washingtonian edit

    Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)

    This article, which I believe meets the featured article requirements, is about a one-year-old cargo ship that sank in 1915 with a load of sugar off the coast of Delaware. The article has passed both a GA review and a Military History A-Class review. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review - Image:Ocupación estadounidence de Veracruz.jpg - This image has a speedy deletion tag on it. Please resolve that issue. :) Awadewit (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Swapped it for the newer typo-free name. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this an error?
    ^ "Sugar", The Wall Street Journal (21 January 1915), p. 3.
    ^ "Sugar", The Wall Street Journal (28 January 1915), p. 3.

    Is this one ref with an error (that should be combined to a named ref), or did the WSJ run two articles a week apart with the same name? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • It was apparently a regular feature in The Wall Street Journal that included sugar futures prices. Both are cited to show the difference between sugar prices before and after the collision. They both happened to be on page 3 of their respective editions. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
    • The final cost of Washingtonian, including financing costs, was $71.49 per deadweight ton, which came out to just under $733,000. - "Came out to" → "totaled".
      • Changed.
    • Washingtonian had a speed of 12.5 knots (23.2 km/h),[4][5] and was powered by a single steam engine with oil-fired boilers which drove a single screw propellor Washingtonian's cargo holds, which had a storage capacity of 490,858 cubic feet (13,899.6 m3),[2] were outfitted with a complete refrigeration plant so that she could carry perishable products from the West Coast—such as salmon from fisheries in the Pacific Northwest, or fresh produce from Southern California farms—to the East Coast. - Can this sentence be split? Also, should it be "propeller" as opposed to "propellor"? One more thing, remove "that" in "so that".
    • Didn't read this until now, but I fixed all of these items in a copyedit. Maralia (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, Maralia!
    • Not a big deal, but is there a way to fix the redlink to Delaware Breakwater? A redirect would probably suffice, but I'm interested to find out what the Delaware Breakwater is.
      • I've found that it's part of a place listed on the National Register of Historic Places. I've asked for help with a stub article at WP:NRHP.
    • Is there any information about why/how the ships collided?
      • Washingtonian's captain/crew misjudged the speed of Elizabeth Palmer and did not take evasive action. I've reworked the paragraph to, I hope, better explain the collision.

    –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for taking the time to review and your good suggestions. (My replies to them interspersed above.) — Bellhalla (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Support I gave it a quick copyedit; didn't find much. Not too keen about it being in Category:World War I merchant ships of the United States and Category:World War I shipwrecks in the Atlantic Ocean; we didn't enter the war until years after she was sunk, and it was not a WWI-related incident. Maralia (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    So noted, and changed. Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As a diver, I'd be interested in knowing if the underwater remains of the ship have deteriorated over time. Possible impacts might include hurricanes or other storms, further construction of the breakwater, or other damage. Also, if anyone has salvaged (or pilfered) parts of the ship, that would be worth documenting as well. I've written about some of these post-depositional impacts at Samuel P. Ely (shipwreck). If it's a popular scuba diving site, it would be worth knowing these things. Now that you've piqued my interest, I might end up researching this myself. (Also, since there are no underwater pictures, I'll have to travel out to Delaware and take them myself... OK, that might be a tall order.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In looking I found several charter companies that offer trips to dive there, but no photographs. I haven't come across any description of any artifacts from the wreck. I did find one forum posting from July 2008 describing (briefly) a dive to Washingtonian, and the description matches that in the 2007 Shomette book. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. Karanacs (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Very interesting and well-written article. Would it be possible to elaborate just a tiny bit on the damage done to the Elizabeth Palmer in the collision? Did it sink as quickly as the Washingtonian? And do we know how many crew members were rescued from the WAshingtonian? Karanacs (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added a couple of sentences that explain the sinking of Elizabeth Palmer. There were 39 survivors out of a 40-man crew for Washingtonian; the number of survivors is now noted in the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - I have done some copyedits, though still have some concerns.

    • The frequent use of dashes within the prose, especially the "In late August, American-Hawaiian announced that Washingtonian..." sentence breaks the flow of the prose and makes it more difficult for readers. This sentence is where you lost me as a reader, then I had to stop and re-read that paragraph. How about saying something like, "By the time the Panama Canal opened on August 15, the Washingtonian's Navy charter had ended. In late August, American-Hawaiian ships switched to taking the canal route, sailing on a San Francisco – Panama Canal – Boston route, opposite of the route used by the Mexican, Honolulan, and sister ship Pennsylvanian."
      • I have no problem with changes that make things more accessible, however, the wording you suggest is not necessarily supported by the references. No specific date for the end of the Navy charter is available, so it may or may not have ended before the Panama Canal opened. (I would guess that it did, but it's not supported.)
    • What makes aquaventuresonline.com a reliable source? it's a commercial site, in the business of selling diving adventures, so they might not be the most reliable and neutral source on popular dive sites. I would like to see better sourcing, if available.
      • Page 212 of the Shomette book is the source for the fact that Washingtonian's wreck site is one of the most visited dive sites on the east coast. I think the additional details provided by the aquaventuresonline.com site help to fill in some "color" for the wreck. Counter to your view, I believe that they, as commercial operators that take tours to that dive site as well as others, are uniquely qualified to comment on it's nighttime popularity, especially given that a printed source already states it's popular. If, however, my opinion is in the minority, the whole last sentence can be excised.
    • Could we get a map showing the location of the shipwreck? I think a dot locator map, using File:Delaware_Locator_Map.PNG, would suffice.
      • I've had a map request on the talk page since September. I have no idea what a "dot locator map" is.

    Other than that, the article is a good, interesting read. Aside from aquaventuresonline, the sources look okay to me. --Aude (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the comments. My replies are interspersed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Well-written, well-referenced, well-organized, and comprehensive on the short life of this vessel. Kablammo (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by User:Raul654 19:07, 14 December 2008 [104].

    2006 Pacific hurricane season edit

    Nominator(s): ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)

    This is my first FA nomination in a while, but I've been working on this for a while, and I think it's ready to undergo this most holy ritual known as FAC. I've gotten some feedback already, and so I'm ready to address any of your comments. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review

    I'm sure these will be easy to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 07:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The first one was fixed easily. The other two are a bit trickier. I tried searching for an archive of those images, for about an hour, and I couldn't find anything. I'll keep searching, but for now those current links will have to suffice. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • How are we supposed to find the image at the source link for the second two? If you could leave a few instructions on the image description page, that would be helpful. Awadewit (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • NOAA doesn't archive old images, although they usually stay on the server for a few days. Something that old isn't going to be available online anymore. Potapych (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support just because the great Hink nominated it. :-) --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 13:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dylan, just a quick note, but when reviewers declare votes at FAC, it is expected that they are doing so in relation to the FA criteria. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. <:( --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 16:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the article is probably one of the best EPac season articles we have (if not the best), so I'll keep my support. --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 16:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved issues, Cyclonebiskit (talk)

    Comments from Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs) Comment Section by section review-

    • Lead
      • Good
    • Seasonal Forecasts
      • Could the Central Pacific be included?
        • Not really. The source (which is the only one of the sort) only says the number of storms that could exist in the basin, nothing beyond that.
      • Expand reasoning for the number of storms forecast
        • Good idea. I did so.
    • May and June
      • Link wind shear near the end of the Aletta description
        • Got it
    • July
      • In the Bud section, give a brief description of what a major hurricane is
        • Clarified
    • August
      • Give a reference for the first sentence (Not that I disagree with it, just that a reference for that claim would be nice) The monthly summary should be a good reference
        • Linked to Hurdat
      • Delink wind shear in the Ioke section since it is linked in the Gilma section
        • K
      • Is there a link for hurricane-proof bunker?
        • Heh, there is one
      • Ileana, what about Socorro?
        • Good point, added hurricane force wind gusts
      • Delink outflow in the Kristy section since it is linked in the Ioke section
        • K
    • September
      • Good
    • October
      • Good
    • Unclassified storm
      • Good
    • November
      • Good
    • Impact
      • Good
    • Season effects
      • (can't review since this is my own work)
        • Err, I reviewed it, and I removed Ileana's landfall, since the TCR said nothing about that. In fact, I removed all of the direct hits, since they were confusing and not supported by TCR. I only left Ioke and Norman, for reasons I clarified in the article.
    • Storm names
      • Note that a request was made for Daniel to be retired
        • Good idea.


    Overall a very good article. There is one more little thing that would become redundant if I included it in that list, the rainfall totals. You have it for Aletta and no other storm, why is that? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I know what you mean. Aletta doesn't have a rainfall total. Thanks for the review. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, my bad, 02E has the rainfall. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooh, I see it. Well, there's no real reason its rainfall total is mentioned in the top section, except that the total stood out to me. Lots of the other storms have it mentioned in the impact section, though. Should I move it, or is it fine? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, I think it's fine after giving it another look. Everything looks good to me, Support. P.S. I changed the symbol notes you put in the season effects table into ref group notes, it wont work with references but I think it should be fine. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, thanks. Quick question for you (actually) - maybe should the notes go beneath the table, as a 3rd level sub-section? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Had to think about what that meant for a bit haha, that means four "=" right? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, I changed it to what I meant. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that looks better. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OpposeComment: Although the marshalling of facts is impressive, and the presentation excellent, there are significant prose issues to be resolved. I have not yet completed the prose review, and I may raise further points later.

    • Lead:
      • The following sentence is repetitious and a bit clumsy: "The season officially began on May 15 in the NHC portion of the basin and on June 1 the season began in the CPHC portion"
        • I reworded it to clarify the agencies first.
      • These dates seem contradicted by, later: "The season began on May 27..."
        • Good catch. I replaced "the season" with "seasonal activity".
    • Seasonal forecasts: The term "multi-decadal signal" needs to be explained for the benefit of the general reader.
      • I tried using the wording provided by the source, as I can't find anywhere that says what it really is. To simplify it, I just changed "signal" with "cycle", as the terms are fairly exchangeable in this instance. Does "multi-decadal cycle" need explanation, or is it self-explanatory enough (a cycle that lasts more than one decade)?
        • I don't think the meaning you give is self-explanatory, and I think it should be clarified by a parenthetical note. Brianboulton (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I changed it to "decades-long cycle". Is that simple enough? I really hate parenthesis, and I don't think significant explanation is needed here. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • May and June
      • "On May 15 the Eastern Pacific hurricane season began, which is the area of the northern Pacific Ocean east of 140°W". The "which is the area" needs to be directly connected to "Eastern Pacific". The sentence needs adjustment along the lines: "On May 15 the hurricane season began in the Eastern Pacific, which is..." etc
        • Good call - fixed.
      • The same "which is" problem applies to the first sentence of the second paragraph.
        • Fixed.
      • Sentences should not end with "however". "However" is a qualifier to a previous statement and should follow immediaely after the statement it qualifies.
        • Moved it to the front of that statement.
      • The following sentence has numerous problems. "No tropical storms developed in June in the basin, although typically two form in the basin during the month; since 1965, there were only four seasons in which a tropical storm did not form in June, the others being 1969, 2004 and 2007." It is too long and meandering at present, even with a semicolon break. An awkward repetition of "in the basin" should also be avoided. The phrase "there were only" should be "there have been only", and I believe it should read "...there have been only three other seasons in which..." etc.
        • I split it into two separate sentences. In the first one, I replaced the awkward wording by clarifying its position against the average June. In the latter, I made the change you suggested; originally I had the wording as "four", not "three", since the source included a subsequent season, but I agree it was a tad confusing, so I changed it.
    • July
      • Another problematic sentence: "After about a month of inactivity, the tropics became active in the basin in July, starting with the formation of the tropical depression that would later become Hurricane Bud, early on July 11 about 850 mi. (1,300 km) south of Cabo San Lucas". Again the sentence winds on, and needs subdivision. Also, "the tropics became active in the basin" is strange phrasing - what "tropics" became active?
        • I thought "tropics" was common, but fair enough - I changed it to "tropical activity", and rewrote that trouble spot into two sentences.
          • It's still not clear what "tropical activity" means, at least to non-weather buffs like me. Also, in your rewording, you have another of those prose repeats I complain of lower down: "The tropical activity in the basin became active" - activity becoming active seems a total redundancy. And since this is a new section, the basin you are talking about should be identified. So, could the sentence be simplified to: "After about a month of no storms, the East Pacific basin became active in July." Wouldn't that cover it? (no repetition, no redundancy, and clear)Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Silly me, indeed saying "tropical activity" is pointless. I changed it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The following is an example of a problem that occurs regularly in the prose and hampers smooth reading - the close repetition of phrases. Here we have "As the previous two storms were weakening tropical depressions, another tropical depression found..." There are frequent occurences of this kind of repetition within the text.
        • I'm not so sure I know what you mean. Did you find it confusing having "tropical depression" mentioned twice so quickly? Assuming that's what you meant, I changed this wording to clarify "a new tropical depression".
          • It's not that I find such repetitions confusing, it's that they disturb the smooth flow of the prose. As I indicate. it's a bit of a habit in this article. In its very first line the words "hurricane season" occur twice in swift succession, and there are similar cases. What I'm saying is that you would sharpen the prose if you avoided these repetitions by judcious rephrasing. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ok, I see. I removed the first mentionings of the depressions. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's fine, but surely, a full repetition of "Pacific hurricane season" in the first 12 words of the article is avoidable? Especially as the word "season" is repeated yet again in the first sentence. I suggest the first sentence should read: "The 2006 Pacific hurricane season was the most active since the 2000 sesson, which..." This would mean losing the Pacific hurricane season link, but it's not worth screwing up the whole first sentence for this. If you think the link is essential, you could use a pipe and link it via the last word of the sentence, "hurricanes". Brianboulton (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Alright, now I see. I didn't particularly want to remove the link, but when I saw the link was used again, then I didn't see a point to it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • August: "More storms in the season developed in August than any other month..." is awkward-sounding, and slightly ungrammatical, too. Grammatically it requires an "in" before "any other month", but that would mean three "ins" in the sentence, so I would advise a bit of rewording.
      • I moved/added "Within the basin" to the front of the sentence, then clarified the rest.
    • "A disorganised cyclone, persistent wind sheer prevented further strengthening..." The first three words seem detached from the rest of the sentence - to what do they refer?
      • Fixed/clarified.

    That's as far as I have got at present. I will add further comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks a lot for the review. When you're ready, I'm ready any for more comments. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck the oppose to "comment" , which seems reasonable in the circumstances (don't keep opposes alive any longer than you have to). I will get back with more constructive comments as soon as I can. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Resuming my prose review after 19 days, with apologies for the delay. Brianboulton (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • September
        • Check comma usage. As a rule I think that sentences that begin, for example, "After September 18" do not need a comma after the date. There is no natural pause there, and the comma spoils the reading flow. There are several examples of this.
        • The phrase "never having attained tropical storm status" needs an "it" in front, to be gramatical.
        • Suggest lose comma after "Central Pacific"
      • October
        • "quickly" is redundant in the first line - (you have "within 24 hours")
        • "almost just as quickly" - "just" is redundant
        • "24 hour" --> "24-hour"
        • "...and Paul steadily weakened to tropical storm status". Suggest a comma after "environment", which preceded this phrase, then: which steadily weakened it to tropcal storm status".
        • In last para: "the previous storm" - why not name it?
      • Unclassified storm
        • The sentence "It drifted over unusually warm water, as much as 2°C above normal" is not quite grammatical. Suggest insert "with temperatures" after "warm water" . And "as much as" is not very encyclopedic - "up to" would be better.
        • Use of "while" in: "...while the storm was located..." etc. Location is unrelated to the wind speed which was the subject of the earlier clause, so "while" is inappropriate, Slight rewording necessary.
        • What's "cloud-free eye"?
        • Link "eyewall"
      • November
        • "based using" isn't right. "Based on"
      • Impact
        • It's my ignorance, but what's the difference between rainfall and precipitation?
        • The format you use to convert Mexican dollars to USD is a bit clumsy and hard to figure out. You have: "£663 million (2006MXN, $60.8 million 2006USD). I would suggest "$MXN663 million ($60.8 million 2006USD)". The year need only be mentioned once. The other conversion formats need similar simplification.
        • "Hurricane Lane moved ashore..." a date would be helpful here
        • Word missing: "...two of which were from rough seas..."
        • Link "wildfire"
        • beneficial in some areas but damaging in other areas" - it's the old repetition thing. Should be "but damaging in others".
        • "washout" nedds a lnk
        • "all of which being" --> "all of which were"
        • Insert "first" before "full-scale", to get the meaning
        • "many of which with..." - "of which" is redundant
        • To avoid multiple repetion of "damage" I suggest you say: "Destruction on the island was..." etc
      • Season effects table
        • It says: "Deaths in parentheses are additional..." It should say "Death figures in parentheses are additional..." But where are these parentheses?
        • Deaths total 15 in the table, but the figure given in the text is 14.
    • These may seem a lot of points, but most are fairly minor and can be dealt with easily. Brianboulton (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources: Dead link here Sociedad y gobierno unidos ante los daños del Huracán Lane

    Otherwise links check out, sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, I fixed the link. It wasn't really dead, as that link worked for me when coming from the previous page. But I got a permanent link. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox Comments from Yellow Evan (talk · contribs)

    The second best EPAC season article (behind 2003)
    The Season effects and Impact should be merged into Season impact.
    We need more FA EPAC season articles
    Help explode with the amount of Featured Topic (see my user page) Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox}}
    • Comments
    • Ioke passed near Johnston Atoll and later near Wake Island, where it caused heavy damage but no deaths. - The second "near" is unneeded.
    • After no storms formed in June, the season became active in July when five named storms developed, including Hurricane Daniel which was the second strongest storm of the season. - "After no storms formed in June" reads oddly. Could you reword that?
    • On May 31, Aletta dissipated about 200 mi (320 km) west-northwest of where it first formed. - "First" is redundant.
    • It tracked eastward, bringing heavy rainfall to the coastline, with a report of about 11 inches (280 mm) falling in Acapulco. - Avoid using "with" followed by an "-ing".
    • It moved westward, gradually intensifying under favorable conditions, and being named Daniel by the NHC after reaching tropical storm status. - It's already mentioned that the storm was named "Daniel" in the previous sentence.
    • For a brief period of time, Daniel was forecast to move through the Hawaiian Islands as a tropical storm - "For a brief period of time" → "Briefly".
    • With low amounts of wind shear and a northwest track through warm waters and a moist environment - Somewhat of a run-on.

    –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments -

    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • More comments
    • During the season, tropical cyclones caused 15 fatalities and $355 million in damage (2006 USD). - This needs a source.
      • The totals were merely a summation of the stats from the rest of the impact section. No reliable source (or any source I've found) provides the season damage/death total. Should I cite that sentence with all of the refs that make it? At the very least, I put the individual totals in parenthesis.
        • What about a note which explains that, as in 2007 Atlantic hurricane season? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone
          • I'm not sure what you mean. 2007 AHS does not have any sort of note. I see one word in 2007 AHS that might improve clarity - "collectively" - which I added to this article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • "The cumulative damage figures were obtained by summing the damage figures on the individual Tropical Cyclone Reports referenced throughout the article, with the exception of Hurricane Dean. Dean's damage figures were obtained by adding the per-country totals referenced in the Impact section of this article." –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh! I thought you meant the total in the impact section. Yea, I added something like that. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of the six storms that did not strike the country, the first was Tropical Storm Aletta, the first storm of the season - This is confusing, as more than six storms during the season didn't strike Mexico.
      • Changed to Of the six storms that affected Mexico but did not strike the country
    • The Impact section is basically a timeline in prose form. Nearly every sentence begins with "In [month],...".
      • Well, it's more along the line of what the impact section does in the similarly featured 2003 Atlantic hurricane season. What don't you like with it?
        • IMO, not every sentence needs to say what month the storm was in. The impact section in 2003 Atlantic hurricane season reads more easily, as it only lists the few significant storms, and a few sentences about their respective effects. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, I removed a few dates, but I left some that I felt improved clarity. I didn't really worry about previous FA's with regards to this season's impact section, due to it being the first Pacific one and one of only a handful including the Atlantic. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hurricane Lane impacted 4,320 houses, and a total of 19,200 mi (30,000 km) of roads and highways were damaged to some degree. - What does "impacted" mean? Does that mean they were damaged? Destroyed?
      • The source (which is in Spanish) isn't clear. It just says 4,320 houses were affected.
        • Ok, that's fine. Could you change "impacted" to "affected"? "Impacted" implies that there was some damage. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think they're perfectly interchangeable, but I'll just make the change since I don't really mind. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • locally severe flooding in New Mexico,[48] - The source doesn't say that.
      • I remember that information, but I forget where I got it from, so I changed it to another piece of information.
    • In contrast to John, later the remnants of Hurricane Lane produced light rainfall in Texas, causing little effects. - The source given doesn't say the rainfall was light. Also, should it be "few effects"?
      • I simplified it to "The remnants of Hurricane Lane also produced rainfall in Texas."
    • The landmass experienced hurricane force winds which resulted in some downed trees. - "Some" is vague.
      • I rewrote the sentence.
    • In the western Pacific Ocean after being re-classified as a typhoon, Ioke passed very near Wake Island, forcing the full-scale evacuation of the island since a typhoon in 1967. - No need for "very" here.
      • Agreed.
    • Later, the storm passed near the Japanese island of Minami Torishima, which was also fully evacuated. - This is a cliffhanger. Was the island affected?
      • I had searched before and not found anything, although a search tonight yielded some useful information.
    • The remnants of Ioke later brought hurricane force wind gusts and a powerful storm surge to southwestern Alaska. - The sources don't say the surge was "powerful". Also, one of the sources doesn't mention Ioke at all.

    –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Thanks for the comments. For the Ioke one, I just removed the info from the other source. At first, I felt the information in the first one was important, and backed up being caused by Ioke, since the latter source confirmed Ioke was the predominant weather pattern in the area. However, it was easiest limiting it to the source explicitly mentioning Ioke. Cheers. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:Raul654 19:07, 14 December 2008 [105].

    Over the Rainbow (Connie Talbot album) edit

    Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk)

    Connie Talbot is now featured, and her new album was released today, meaning that there is now unlikely to be much further coverage of this one. I am more than happy to work with any suggestions posted here. J Milburn (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review - I see no reason for three album covers. Yes, they are different, but not sufficiently so that we need to see them all. Choose one and then I'll review the fair use rationale for that cover. Awadewit (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that there are too many. I feel the original cover (the Christmas one) and one other should be kept- the article does make a clear distinction between the two releases. I wasn't sure which to remove, but I guess the UK version was released first- I have removed and deleted the U.S. cover. For those interested, the U.S. release cover looks like this- practically the same as the UK rerelease cover. I'm happy to swap them over if anyone thinks that the U.S. release cover should be used instead. J Milburn (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there are multiple releases of the album, but the article does not discuss the different covers. There is no reason to have both of the images. Note that WP:NFC states that cover art can only be used "in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)". That means, technically, that we should really have critical commentary on both covers. However, we have come to accept one cover image, whether it has critical commentary or not. Two is out of the question, however. Awadewit (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, that's fine. Which cover should I go for? The original? J Milburn (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have critical commentary on one of the covers, use that one. If not, I would suggest the original, yes. Awadewit (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. If anyone is interested for whatever reason, the rerelease cover can be seen here. J Milburn (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, you just need to fix up the "purpose of use" so it makes sense. There was quite an extensive "purpose of use" for one of the other covers - I would use that one. Awadewit (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FurMe'd it. Should be fine now. J Milburn (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All image concerns met. Awadewit (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (changed, see below). Sorry to nitpick, but I have some concerns (I did some edits to edit minor concerns myself):
    • "The recording of the album and its release were geared towards Talbot's young age, with much of the recording being done in her aunt's spare room."
    You mention the promotion surround the release in a later sentence and the release doesn't really have anything to do with her aunt's bedroom as the second part of the sentence implies. I'd say "The album's recording schedule was geared towards ...." with an added explanation after the bit about promotion in the lead to say exactly why it was done ( to preserve her childhood)
    • I've changed it again to give you an idea what sort of construction I'm looking for. Feel free to tweak. - Mgm|(talk) 00:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "She later toured Asia in support of the album, achieving more success on the Asian charts, with the album reaching number one in three countries."
    I would recommend explicitly mentioning the countries, not doing so doesn't really save any space. Also, if the promotion was initially kept to a minimum, then how, why and when was it decided to do a promotional tour of Asia?
    • Mentioned the countries. I don't really know the answer to your next question, though I do know that this wasn't your standard pop music tour- she appeared on TV a couple of times, did a couple of interviews and met a few famous people. No sell-out two hour performances in stadiums with screaming fans. J Milburn (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually meant the ones in which it hit number 1, not the ones she toured. - Mgm|(talk) 00:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead says the album peaked at number 38 in the British charts, the section says 35. Which one is it?
      • Section. I got it wrong in the first place after relying on a poor source, and obviously forgot to update. J Milburn (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there no numbers available for the pressings for the US release and rerelease?
      • I have never seen any, and I've read every news story indexed by Google News, and all the news entries on the official site. J Milburn (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Talbot was quoted as saying "I love it here, it’s brilliant, really fun" but she had to be ushered off-stage by the police."
    There is no contradiction, so the use of 'but' is faulty.
    • What would you reccomend? "Talbot was quoted as saying "I love it here, it’s brilliant, really fun" and she had to be ushered off-stage by the police." sounds comical. J Milburn (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed my mind, - Mgm|(talk) 00:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Reviewers in the Harlow Star agreed, saying "There's no doubt she's a sweet little girl with a nice voice, but surely there's something inherently wrong with thrusting a child into the limelight at such a young age?""
    What are they agreeing with here? If it’s the inherent wrongness of awarding the kid a star rating, the comment doesn’t explain it.
    • "Rashvin Bedi, writing for Malaysian newspaper The Star, praised the album, saying that "Connie sings with ease and manages the high notes admirably", but asks whether "people would buy an album of the same songs sung by a 20-year-old girl"."
    There is a tense shift which doesn't really connect the two quotes even if it was corrected.
    • Tense shift fixed, but I disagree with your second point. "She praised album with "X", but criticised by asking "Y"." Is it any different from what I have done with the others? A positive comment about the singing, before a question about the fact she's a child? J Milburn (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personnel and tracklisting sections have no sources attached. - Mgm|(talk) 11:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wouldn't know where to put footnotes, but I have added five general references that cover them. J Milburn (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional question: You say the YouTube links aren't copyvios, but the user channel from the uploader says this is the official channel. Please clarify.- Mgm|(talk) 00:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Marc Marot is Talbot's publicist, it is his channel the videos were uploaded on. Talbot's official site links to Marot's channel as Talbot's "official" channel- I guess she has two. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you should point that out somehow. It's not immediately evident. - Mgm|(talk) 20:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Formatting The name of the album should be in italics throughout according to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music MUSTARD standards. - Mgm|(talk) 20:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is? If you're referring to the references, we should use the source website's formatting where possible, as per the MoS. J Milburn (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm talking about the name within the text. References have their own style. - Mgm|(talk) 09:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is always in italics? I've checked through three times, and I can't see any mentions where it isn't italicised. J Milburn (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support My concerns have been addressed. - Mgm|(talk) 09:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excellent, thanks for your comments. J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments -

    • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references, shuch as HMV.
      • HMV is never known as 'His Master's Voice', even on official documents (I work for Waterstone's, which is part of the HMV Group- even the parent company is known as HMV Group). I really don't see the benefit of expanding that. J Milburn (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might make it clear in the references that the Rhythm Riders site is Talbot's official site
    • I note the concern voiced above about unreferenced sections, which should be sourced.
    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    leaving that last one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Comments
    • Although initially public appearances were kept to a minimum, Talbot did make some appearances to promote the album, and performed in public several times after the British release. - Remove "some".
    • A rerelease of Over the Rainbow was released on 18 June 2008 with an updated tracklist, replacing some of the Christmas themed tracks with more general covers. - "A rerelease was released" sounds a tad repetitive.
    • A recording schedule was worked out so that Talbot could continue with her normal school activities while recording the album in her aunt Vicky's spare bedroom, which her mother described as "a better solution [than Sony BMG] which has not robbed her of her childhood". - Remove "that".
    • with a music video being shot in Jamaica for the release. - "With" followed by an "-ing" doesn't read well.
    • The album was released in the U.S. on 14 October, with Talbot and her family travelling to America to publicise it. - Ditto.
    • The Orchestra needs en dashes to separate the player from the instrument, rather than a hyphen.
      • Done (I think- that's not something I can get my head around). I copied the en dash from, and uses spaces as directed by, WP:DASH. Is it correct now? J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I stalled at this sentence:
    • Although Arnison claimed he did not "want to put [Talbot] through the promotional grind which most artists go through because she is too young", Talbot made several public appearances after the album release, include headlining the Great Bridge Christmas and Winter Festival, which local police threatened to cancel unless crowds clamouring to reach the tent in which Talbot was performing could be brought under control.

    Support - I raised objections to the initial, parent article but I don't see any problems with this one. I tweaked a sentence to update the article, but I did not see any other problems with the prose. There is nothing in the article that is likely to be challenged and I consider the citations adequate. I think this is a well-researched, well-written contribution. Graham Colm Talk 17:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by User:Raul654 19:07, 14 December 2008 [106].

    Tropical Storm Erick (2007) edit

    Nominator(s): Juliancolton
    previous FAC (19:52, 30 September 2008)

    Yep, here it is again, the weak tropical storm that never affected land. It's a very short article, obviously, but what it lacks in length it makes up for in comprehensiveness. The article uses a variety of sources, both from government and news agencies. As it was a very short-lived storm, there is nothing more to write about it that isn't indiscriminate. Why am I nominating this again? Because I've worked hard at it, and with the help of Titoxd (talk · contribs) who significantly copyedited the article, I feel it meets the criteria without a question. Last time I nominated this, I withdrew due to growing opposition to such a short article, with the hope that a massive discussion at WT:FAC would eventually resolve the issue at hand. As it's been several weeks, and there has been no progress in coming to an agreement, it seems likely that the FA criteria will not be changed to exclude short articles in the near future. So, during this FAC, I strongly encourage people to vote in compliance with the current criteria. Please note that this is not a POINT nomination, but rather a regular attempt to recognize an article as Wikipedia's best work. Thanks in advance for any comments, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - Why is there an image in the references section? --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 14:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    During the previous FAC, some editors requested more satellite pictures. As there is no room in the text for another image, I added it to the references section. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the image in the ref section does anything to enhance the reader's understanding, and it is odd placement. لennavecia 16:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Jennavecia. For now, weak support upgraded to regular-strength support. Good luck with the nomination, Julian. --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 17:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, that's fair. I removed the image. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support now that the image issue is fixed. --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 12:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, 15:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

    Comment. There's an apparent discrepancy between the minimum pressure given in the infobox (1004 mbar) and that given in the text (1005 mbar). --Malleus Fatuorum 14:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Got it, thanks. 15:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

    Comment. Can you do something about this sentence: "In terms of forecasting, despite lower than average official forecasting errors, Erick was poorly forecast"? The repetitions really clunk, here. Also, what does "lower than average official forecasting errors" actually refer to? Is the intended sense that, while in general, official forecasting errors for the season were lower than the averages of other seasons, Erick wasn't forecast accurately? If so, could this be clarified? Brianboulton (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The source doesn't provide any further clarification, so I removed that one bit of the sentence. Thanks for the comments. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support- This article is well written.--Irmela08 16:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose Comment - It's not really a very short article, but since you offer it up as such, we need to test that shortness in itself isn't unsatisfactory. This perhaps allows us to test the application of the new clarified "placing the subject in context". Why is this article of interest? The thesis seems to be that the storm was not unusual in any way and had no impact. Why not merge it with all the other nondescript unimportant storms of that season then? What is it that justifies this storm having its own article? What does it tell us that would be lost in a list of other run-of-the-mill weather events of 2007? More specific points:

    • Because the storm remained far from land, no damage was reported in association with Erick. - if it had damaged shipping would this not have been reported? It appears that it wasn't powerful enough to have caused any damage anyway (if this is the wrong interpretation it suggests that I don't have a enough context to draw the correct conclusion)
    • This has been rephrased poorly. Now we have no damage on land, when it should be no damage at all. Yomanganitalk 02:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On July 22, the wave passed through the Lesser Antilles with some deep, yet disorganized thunderstorm activity. What is "deep" thunderstorm activity? Are thunderstorms normally organized?
    • The thunderstorms are still "disorganized" with no explanation of what this means. Yomanganitalk 02:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate you are trying to clarify the meaning of disorganized in this context, but so far it isn't a lot clearer. Is it a technical term? If so, could it be linked to an appropriate article? If not, could it be rephrased to avoid the implication of organisation by some form of intelligence. Yomanganitalk 19:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the time of its upgrade, Erick attained peak winds of 40 mph (65 km/h) and a minimum central pressure of 1004 mbar. Was the peak and minimum for the entire life of the storm, or just during the period it was being upgraded?
    • The addition of "as a cyclone" to this sentence isn't really helpful. Simply adding "its" was fine. Yomanganitalk
    • Although finding the exact position of the center of circulation was difficult... For whom? Why?
    • We are still missing the "why?" (and why is it important to do so?) Yomanganitalk 02:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence, In particular, the storm formed without significant warning, and dissipated similarly, explains this. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does that explain in relation to the sentence above? Aside for the fact it is not related to it in the text, it is a comment on the forecasting success not the monitoring and plotting of the storm. Why was it difficult to locate the centre of circulation? What was it about the storm that made this difficult? And why do the meteorologists (or anybody else) need to locate the centre of circulation? Yomanganitalk 19:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A weak low pressure system formed along the wave on August 3, although it failed to reorganize as it entered the North Pacific. Why? We know the wind shear prevented it forming initially, did it prevent it reforming as well? What is failing to reorganize into what? Would this reorganization normally be expected (and if not why is it mentioned)?
    • "What is failing to reorganize into what?" has been clarified. The other questions remain unanswered. Yomanganitalk 02:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A couple of them have been clarified, but most need further work. Yomanganitalk 02:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On August 5, the low-level remnants of Tropical Storm Erick passed south of Hawaii, though caused no effects. no effects? How were they detected then? Perhaps you mean no damage?
    • Hmm, I'm not really sure what kind of clarification you are requesting. Could you please explain further? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "No effects" is rather vague. If it caused no effects, it would not be detectable. Do you mean had no impact on the infrastructure? Caused no damage? Also "on the island" has been added here. Hawaii is an archipelago. Is this meant to be Hawaii's "Big Island" or is this just an error? Yomanganitalk 02:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • With regard to the reply to Brianboulton above. The source doesn't provide any further clarification, so I removed that one bit of the sentence. Are there no other sources to explain this? Rather than removing parts of the meagre information available, can you not provide some explanation? Yomanganitalk 17:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Tropical Cyclone Report is the only source that provides information about forecasting for minor storms such as Erick, and it doesn't clarify that statement. The only way to clarify that in the article would be original research. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to have been clarified. I hope that wasn't OR. Yomanganitalk 02:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Oppose. This is a fairly weak oppose, based not on the shortness of the article but on the prose quality and lack of context in certain areas. Some examples:
      • "On August 5, the low-level remnants of Tropical Storm Erick passed south of Hawaii, though caused no effects." Ungrammatical and doesn't make sense.
      • "In general, Erick was poorly forecast; the storm formed without significant warning, and dissipated similarly." What does "in general" mean here? Poorly forecast in relation to what, in what way? Why was it "poorly forecast"?
      • We're told in the lead that Erick was the eighth tropical storm of the 2007 Pacific season. What is Erick's relative standing in that season overall? Was Erick typical for that season?

    --Malleus Fatuorum 19:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've addressed the above examples. Could you take another look? Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree that the examples have been addressed; in at least one case the issue has been compounded. For instance: "Erick was considered to be poorly forecast by the National Hurricane Center". This is not at all clear. By whom was it considered to have been poorly forecast? By the National Hurricane Center? Or were they the ones doing the forecasting, and someone else (unspecified) considered that they had done a poor job of forecasting? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The National Hurricane Center considered the storm to have been poorly forecast by themselves; I've tried to make this clear in the article, though suggestions regarding further clarification would be appreciated. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I rewrote the whole sentence. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks a lot better, thanks Tito. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Enough has been done to satisfy me over the points I raised above. Switching to support. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    From the lead:

    • "Because the storm remained far out to sea" Should that not be at sea?
    • "with some strong, yet disorganized thunderstorm activity." Thunderstorms are organized?

    I won't make a "vote" yet, as I'm not especially familiar with this topic. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the comments. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review

    These should be easy issues to fix up. Awadewit (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, all issues resolved. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]
    Resolved issues, Cyclonebiskit (talk)

    Comments from Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs) My turn :P Little later that I wanted to be but here it goes

    • Lead
      • Good
    • Meteorological history
      • "At the time of its upgrade, Erick attained its peak winds as a cyclone of 40 mph (65 km/h) and a minimum central pressure of 1004 mbar.[1]" No conversion into inHg?
      • " A weak low pressure system formed along the wave on August 3, although it failed to reorganize into a tropical cyclone as it entered the North Pacific." It's already in the North Pacific, do you mean West or Central?
      • "According to the storm's Tropical Cyclone Report, the National Hurricane Center considered that its own staff forecast poorly the evolution of Erick when compared to the center's average prediction errors." forecast poorly? Might just be me, but seems a bit awkward
    • Impact and statistics
      • Good
    • Other stuff
      • Good

    Just three little things I found after reading it over. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Changed all three. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctantly Support - Meets all the criteria. Kaldari (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Neutral Support per usual disclaimer. I have followed the arguments on various pages and read some previous arguments concerning shorter FAs. I'm left feeling disappointed that we're not making anything that feels to me like progress. The bottom line is that, when I read an article like this, my sense is that it will usually wind up not getting promoted at FAC for one reason or another. When the community is ready to make a good-faith effort to carefully push the boundary, to figure out exactly what kind of shorter and "drier" (probably better than "boring", which is laden with value judgment) articles can become Featured, without weakening what it means to be Featured, I'll be happy to read the arguments and toss in my vote. Until then, I'm not willing to weigh in one way or the other; harm could be done either way if I take a shot in the dark. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've changed my mind and decided that I can support Julian's "storm to nowhere" article, but only after the addition of a hatnote at the top, "See also Effects of tropical cyclones and 2007 Pacific hurricane season." I'm looking for the question of the cumulative impact of storms like these to be answered somewhere, and I think we should point to that right at the start. To the objection that this is a "vanilla" article, and that shorter and drier FAs will create a perception that some people "get off easy" writing FAs: Julian has worked very hard on this article, and he and others had to write the other articles that supplement this one, or I wouldn't be supporting. To the objection that making this article FA will encourage people to write almanac articles rather than improving the articles that more people are actually reading: that's not Julian's problem; if this is the article he wants to write, let him write it, and if he wants to improve it up to FAC standards, fine. We have other ways of encouraging work on the high-traffic articles, such as the weight given to hits per month at WP:V1.0. To G-Guy's objections: I understand that almanac-like articles in Wikipedia are fine; my context was FAC. Also, I understand that this article is boring, but the point is that the impact of the 2007 Pacific hurricane season isn't boring at all, and this article constitutes one piece of that puzzle. If I had my way, I would decide it differently, but I have been persuaded that current consensus sees WIAFA #4 as prohibiting details in this article that can't be tied to this storm. To the objection above that WP:NOT says that my standards of journalistic writing don't apply in Wikipedia: WP:NOT doesn't come close to saying that, it says that Wikipedia is not the news. Standards of professional writing, at least in popular science articles in high-quality newspaper and magazine articles, have always been relevant at FAC. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose in its current form. My problem is that I don't know yet what the new phrase "places the subject in context" from WP:FA? means, and I've started a thread at WT:FAC#"places the subject in context" to help me decide. I think the article is very professionally written, but ... well, I'll explain over there. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    I've chatted with Julian about this; I want to be clear that I'm trying to discover what the FAC criteria have been all along, not make up an interpretation of "place in context". I'll go gather data on previous FACs and come back with a more detailed argument. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    Sorry, but I don't understand this oppose. Could you please elaborate further? Thank you. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]
    Sure Julian. It's possible this is not an "actionable" oppose, because you can't take action to bring the article in line with "places the subject in context" if the community hasn't defined what that means yet, and we haven't. But I think a little more discussion for a few days might get us something that's a little clearer.
    My two cents: I want to see at least a claim as to the effect on or interest by humans. That claim might be that unusual surfing conditions or beach erosion was caused by the storm, or it was a significant threat to shipping. Or it might be that meteorologists learned something interesting from or about the storm. If you can't find anything about this storm in particular that evoked some kind of reaction, then a trick journalists will use is to use this relatively uninteresting storm as a lead-in to explaining some of the ways that all big storms are interesting. Storms harm ecosystems; they have some (minimal) effects on "dead zones" in the oceans; beach erosion is a significant concern in many places, including Hawaii (and the seawalls we build in response can make the problem worse). There are many gradual effects of storms, and your readers would understand why storms are so interesting to you if you talked about some of that. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]
    Responding to the anticipated objection: yes, I know that in general we try to segregate material into separate articles, so that a discussion of "beach erosion" doesn't usually belong in an article about a storm; people can click on the links. Still, I'm looking for a "good read" in an FA. I'm looking to have some idea of context. I'm fine with "cheating" a little bit to get there, pulling in stuff that is really better covered in other articles, as long as it doesn't get in the way of the main material, and as long as it answers the question, "Why am I reading this article?" - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My two cents on that would be that to widen the discussion in the way you describe would be a breach of criterion 4 ironically. Not because of length but because of the article's lack of focus. I also think that to be fair this article must be judged against the criteria as the are now, not as they may be in a few days time. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) To go on about how some storms cause damage, beach erosion, etc. would fail criterion 4. Information about tropical cyclone impact in general can be found at Tropical cyclone, which is linked from this article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge Could this whole thing be merged in a article Tropical Storms 2007 to get a article with a information content worth to read it?--Stone (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    First, despite the recent discussion to merge the article, WikiProject tropical cyclones has agreed upon writing articles for each storm, so long as the article meets project standards. Second, if we merged this article on a minor tropical storm into 2007 Pacific hurricane season, Erick's section would be longer than many other storms—even those that made landfall and caused severe damage—so we would be introducing undue weight. Lastly, the article clearly meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, having had significant coverage in secondary, reliable sources. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My humble idea: Make an article uniteresting tropical storms without landfall!--Stone (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I don't see the humor in this. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with writing an article on each storm. I disagree with featuring them. Geometry guy 21:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not funny, I agree. The thing I find interesting about Erick, and if more information were available would like to see expanded, is why it was so poorly forecasted. That alone, for me at least, makes Erick noteworthy, and even (dare I say it) interesting. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OpposeWeak oppose. Too boring to feature. The article fails to place the subject in context, because it doesn't have a notable context: "no effects, property damage or fatalities were reported; no ships were affected, and no tropical cyclone warnings and watches were issued" and "due to the lack of any impact, the name Erick was not retired, and is scheduled to be reused for the fifth named storm of the 2013 Pacific hurricane season". In other words, the hurricane was not just boring, but even officially boring. And it isn't even interesting for being the most boring hurricane, since it was only the second most boring of its season, according to the article. This is like an article on the batting averages of a mediocre player in a mediocre baseball team. I don't think articles like this need to be merged or deleted (I am broadly inclusionist). But featuring them is an exercise in futility. Is anyone excited about the idea that this could go on the main page one day? The article is good, maybe as good as it can be, and much credit to Juliancolton for all his efforts. but articles like this aren't our best work. Geometry guy 21:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What has the main page got to do with this? TFA is an entirely separate process, and as you yourself have pointed out many times it is impossible for every FA to get on the main page in any case. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To oppose a merge because the resulting article would be unbalaned is no point not to merge it. secondary, reliable sources a institute which has no other job than to look for storms would publish all the numbers you want, but this makes it not an interesting article anybody wants to read except the people from National Hurricane Center and they already published everything on their home page.--Stone (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've said previously in this discussion, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it is our job to write about subjects which many people don't find interesting. Also, the articles uses a variety of sources, not just from the National Hurricane Center. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. This article should exist as a separate article, per Pillar One and WP:Notability.
    But should it be featured? At the moment almost any FA is eligible for TFA with no additional criteria other than "Raul decides". That's not a great environment to work in (even if it reflects the name "featured article") but it is where we are now. Geometry guy 22:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relax Geo. Raul isn't going to make this TFA, ever. He keeps a tight lid on what kind of hurricane/storm articles get TFA and how often. Your oppose is therefore not only unactionable, it is based on a future event that will almost certainly never happen. Wrad (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am quite relaxed actually Wr. It will not spoil my day if this article is featured. I will just shrug and think "it's a funny old world, Wikipedia". My comment probably isn't actionable, unless there are reasons out there why this hurricane is particularly interesting (Malleus suggests above that there might be, but thinks they might not be sourced). The whole idea of actionable comments conflicts with WP:WIAFA however, which is purely about the quality of the article and mentions the word "actionable" precisely zero times. Instead "actionable" is a conduct code for reviewers. If you think my oppose is bad faith, please take it up on my talk page. In the meanwhile, I don't see the benefit in flooding Raul's list of potential TFAs with articles he generally ignores. What purpose does it serve? Geometry guy 22:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, unactionable to me means that the oppose is not based on the criteria, not that the reviewer's oppose is in bad faith. Second, I don't think you are very aware of the TFA process as it works in practice, only how it works in theory. In theory, yes, Raul could go into zombie mode and pull a random article out of a hat, but that doesn't happen. Please point me to a recent TFA, (in the last year?) that was "boring" in the same way this one is (to you), and then your argument would be stronger. Wrad (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't my point. What purpose does it serve to feature this article? It will never appear on the main page you say. Does it represent Wikipedia's best work? Geometry guy 23:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. Wrad (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What purpose does it serve? To encourage others to reach the same standard of article writing. Does it represent wikipedia's best work? Yes, it does, unless you choose to arbitrarily and unilaterally add "interesting" to the FA criteria. Who cares about the main page anyway? Since when was every FA guaranteed a place on the main page? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. So if you had to showcase how great Wikipedia is, the quality and the detail of its articles, the breadth of its scope, you would pick this one. Geometry guy 23:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be a subjective decision not based on standard criteria. We have standard criteria for a reason. This article meets the set criteria. Wrad (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. That's an answer. Geometry guy 23:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just not one I agree with :-) Geometry guy 20:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that goes without saying. Wrad (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I submit that this article fails, in a marginal and perhaps even unactionable way, at least one of 1a, 1b, 2b and 4. I read the article again, and looked at the previous FAC. 1a: is the prose engaging? No it is dull. For example, the first paragraph of the first section is proseline; I was also interested to read Tony1's objection at the previous FAC. 1b: does it place the subject in context? Nope, it now even needs a hatnote to say to the reader, "This article is not very interesting, but these articles are, and if you read them first, you will learn that this was a boring tropical storm which didn't do anything beyond the things that many tropical storms do." 2b: does it have a substantial table of contents? The storm happened. It had no impact. I'm underwhelmed. 4: does it avoid going into unnecessary detail? Read the last paragraph of the first section and decide for yourselves.
    In the previous FAC, Juliancolton honestly admitted "I'm trying to set a precedent for FACing less-notable storms". This article presents a very poor case for establishing such a precedent, and I hope that such a precedent will not be established. Why not try instead to make the 2007 Pacific hurricane season into a featured topic? This article provides a GA for that topic. Geometry guy 20:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm not trying to set a precedent. I'm simply trying to get this article recognized as Wikipedia's best work. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, in response to your concerns about proseline in the lead, I'd like you to take a look at Category:FA-Class Tropical cyclone storm articles. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The main proseline issue is not the lead, but the first paragraph of the first section. (And I'm afraid comparison with other tropical storm FAs has already been dismissed as an irrelevant argument.) Geometry guy 20:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if dozens of articles with the same format are featured, that seems like a precedent to me. Regardless, do you have any suggestions as to how the information could be presented in a less timeline-like way? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Say less. At least to a non-expert, the first moment of interest (dare I say that :) was when the wave crossed Central America and formed into a low pressure system in the Eastern Pacific. The preceding events are not worth dating (although the formation could be dated in passing, rather than as the opening of the paragraph). Over-dating also true in the last paragraph, which has four dates, none of which are particularly notable. There's also some personification going on here ("they failed" suggests "they tried"). Geometry guy 20:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All done. Hope that satisfies some of your concerns, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The first paragraph is a bit better, but you only fixed "it failed" in the last, which still goes into unnecessary detail, using unnecessary and possibly even false precision about the timeline. Geometry guy 19:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I removed a bunch of dates. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (←) Ok, that's another improvement in my view. Now, unnecessary detail: what does "On August 5, the low-level remnants of Tropical Storm Erick passed south of Hawaii, although they caused no effects on the island." add to the article? I suggest cutting it. Geometry guy 22:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, that is actually a significant part of the storm's history. It was the only time the storm or its remnants approached land, so I feel it adds context. Will remove if you feel necessary. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you disagree with my suggestion, stay true to your own judgement. That is the only way to handle conflicting views of different reviewers and I am very much against the "jump through every hoop of every reviewer" culture. If you want to keep the sentence, maybe "no rainfall" is better than "no effects" as that is what the source says. Presumably the wind shifted a bit and there were a few extra clouds :-) Geometry guy 19:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Switching to weak oppose for at least three reasons. (1) The remaining actionable points are disputed. (2) My original oppose was partly intended to raise a general issue with a rhetorical approach (e.g. "boring" rather than "contributes little significant additional content") and that isn't entirely fair. (3) Markus Poessel has made a good case (also with some rhetoric :) at WT:FAC against the general tenet of this kind of oppose. It is a matter of some debate whether every article should have the potential to be an FA, and one like this may not be a good precedent. As I've said before, it won't spoil my day if this is featured, but I still believe that it does not meet 1a, 1b, 2b and 4, so I can't in good faith strike my oppose. Geometry guy 17:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. It seems to me that this article does quite a good job of putting the subject in context, particularly in the first sentence--which places it into the context of 2007 hurricane season--and the final section--which is pretty much an explicit discussion of storm's significance that compares it appropriately to other storms. It gives the reader enough information to understand how this storm fits into the broader context of 2007 storms and storms in general. (The failure of some short FA candidates to similarly enable the reader to understand how the topic fits into the most relevant broader contexts seems to have been the motivation for the new context bit; this article doesn't have that shortcoming.)--ragesoss (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - It meets the criteria. Let's not misquote and misinterpret the criteria willy-nilly in order to make sure it doesn't pass. Wrad (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to those who aren't sure whether or not it should be merged. Prior to the previous FAC (meaning in a previous and potentially outdated version of the article), I tested whether or not merging the article would make the parent article too long - test here. I also tested the current version - test here. As the season article is not featured (and thus incomplete), you could compare that section to one from 1995, 1998, or 2003. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • FWIW, that merge test excludes several sentences of info that's in the Erick article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which sentences are those? If they're in the lede, they should be in the body of the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Almost the entire Impact and statistics section. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The entire impact and statistics section is actually just full of naming, which is never included in the season article, and it includes info on Accumulated Cyclone Energy (which is debated on whether it should be there in the first place). There was nothing missing from my test. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Which furthers my belief that this article should be kept separate; otherwise, information is lost. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Not at all! The ACE is useless (it already appears in the season article in that table), and the naming stuff is already in the dab article. There's nothing that would be missing. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • ACE is cited to a reliable source, so there's nothing wrong with including it. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • ACE has been discussed, and there is some agreement in the project to not include it (such as: scientists rarely/never use ACE for individual storms, it's a fairly meaningless/confusing statistic). Also, as I said, the ACE already appears in the seasonal article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • That doesn't mean it shouldn't be including within this article. Also, true, a few editors have expressed their opinion against ACE, but there's really no consensus, and I still fail to see a real reason why we shouldn't include it. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • You're missing my point. You said the entire Impact and statistics section was missing from that test, and I proved that nothing was missing (by ACE already being in the season article, and the naming being in the dab article). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Also, with the ACE, there's a problem over the sourcing. The NCDC, as the project has uncovered, only uses operational data. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Still, NCDC is a reliable source, so we have to use it rather than our own calculations. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                              • I disagree with "we have to use it." The site may be reliable normally, but that link is not reliable, as we know the values are operational and not 100% accurate. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                • Do we have any proof that the information from that site is incorrect? Also, per WP:V, we still have to use the reliable source over what we believe is correct. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • Yes, the WPTC went over this a while ago; the site was only updated through the season, thus not reflecting post-season (official) changes. I totally disagree that "we still have to use the reliable source", as 1) we know it's not correct, and 2) it's not needed in the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • You haven't answered my question. Regardless of what WPTC thinks, is there any actual evidence that proves NCDC to be incorrect? It really doesn't matter if you disagree with that statement. Per WP:V, a core content policy, ...whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • Yes, I have answered your question. We found that the NCDC only used operational data, which makes it incorrect with regards to post-season changes. It does matter that I disagree with that statement, because using ACE in general is completely optional to begin with. If the source you have for it is not accurate with regards to post-season changes, then the link is not reliable, regardless of where it came from, and thus it shouldn't be in the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ← Do we have any proof that NCDC uses operational data, or is this just our belief? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said several times before, we know that NCDC was last updated during the actual season. On the bottom of the page, it clearly says "Last Updated Thursday, 01-Nov-2007 13:38:53 EDT." ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (de-indent) I have an issue that references five and six are the exact same (from two different websites), yet they provide no additional information than reference four (which is the official NHC one). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, primarily due to its potential for it to be merged. Also, the following sentence does not appear in the cited link
      • A weak low pressure system formed along the wave on August 3, although it failed to reorganize into a tropical cyclone as it entered the North Central Pacific.
    • I did another test here, which resulted in a two paragraph section, much like the sections of the featured 1995 season. I removed the aforementioned trouble sentence, as well as the one on the tropical wave (which is not directly related to the storm); I also condensed some needlessly long sentences, and removed usages of the "had" in phrases like "had become". I'm not suggesting that the article should be merged ASAP, rather that I don't think it should be featured due to its easy potential for it to be merged. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but this oppose is not actionable. It is not up to FAC to decide whether an article should be merged; instead, FAC should try to determine whether an article meets the FA criteria. Is there anything about the article that does not meet the criteria? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Logically, if the article could be merged, then it would fail the stability criterion. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Any article might be merged. Also, FWIW, you voted to keep the article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Unlike any other article might being merged, I don't think any other FAC's could be merged as easily this one, as the tests have shown. And, no, I didn't "vote" to keep the article. The edit summary said "keep", and the actual edit showed it was a reluctant keep. Just because it was a reluctant keep, doesn't mean I would oppose it being merged. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Examples of current FAs that are shorter than Erick: Hurricane Irene (2005), 2005 Azores subtropical storm, New York State Route 373. Sure, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but this shows that articles of 10 kb aren't unprecedented at FAC, so there's no higher chance of this being merged than many other nominations. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Neither of those 2005 FA's could be merged, due to the season article being so record-breaking (not to mention featured already). I won't comment on the road one. The point is that this article could be merged very easily, but those, not so much. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Notability is not inherited. Thus, being an active season does not make the storms within it more notable than anything else. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • As I said before, the articles can't be merged, due to the season being so active, and that it's already featured. This article could fit easily in the 2007 PHS season article, since it's not featured and there wasn't as much information involved with the season. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • That doesn't make much sense, as the article clearly meets the notability criteria. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • That's your opinion; I personally think it did not have "substantial coverage in reliable sources" (other than brief mentions in newspapers while it was active, and a few NOAA/NHC documents). WP:MERGE lists "context needed" as a reason for merging, which begs me to ask: was the storm notable on its own, as a random bunch of clouds that didn't affect anyone, or was it notable because it was named and part of the 2007 Pacific hurricane season? I strongly think it is the latter. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • It had more than brief mentions in newspapers. It had full articles written on it in major news agencies like MSNBC and the Associated Press. Of course, the storm was notable as a named tropical cyclone. Tropical cyclones are one of the most widely-covered topics in the media, and have become particularly notable as being associated with global warming. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                            • When I said "brief mentions", I should clarify. The storm was only written about because most *all* tropical cyclones are written about. The AP source you cite in the article only has 80 words on it, and that was while the storm was active. 80 words, from a few AP stories on the day it was active, would be considered brief by most people. Are there any sources that mention the storm after it dissipated? Saying the following is vague, could you clarify? "Of course, the storm was notable as a named tropical cyclone." Was the storm notable only because it was named? If the storm occurred but wasn't named, would it be as notable? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                              • No, if the storm was not named, it would not have been notable. Why is that relevant? It was named, and then it became notable. All subjects are notable for a reason. Also, yes, it has received coverage in reliable sources after it dissipated. The TCR, NCDC, and other documents. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                • The naming is hugely relevant! The point about the naming is that it is arbitrary, done by officials behind a desk with some data. Hurricane Katrina would've been just as notable if it wasn't named; it would've been written about just as much. For storms elsewhere in the world (take Delta 05, or even Vamei for an example), sometimes named storms were written about even if they weren't known to be a storm by the public. You basically agreed it wouldn't be the case for Erick. Its name on the list was why information existed on it, essentially, which is why it should be merged. You listed Erick as appearing in the TCR, the NCDC, and other documents, but its appearance in each of those places was just because it had a name. Whether it is merged or not is not the relevant issue here, but rather its potential to be merged, hence making it instable, which roots back to my opposition to this becoming a featured article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • Your oppose is still not actionable. As I said, every article has the potential to be merged someday. So by your theory, every article is unstable and thus ineligible to be featured. This article has no greater chance of merge than anything in Category:Low-importance Tropical cyclone articles. Additionally, you're contradicting yourself; a week ago, you stated that you "would be OK with keeping the article", and now you're opposing this FAC because you think it should be merged. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • Julian, you're still going on with my reluctant keep for the article, before I thought about it further that maybe this should be merged? You were more than willing to merge the article a few months ago. Regarding to the other articles being merged, sure, maybe "someday" every featured article could be merged. My point is that this article could be merged today, without losing any information. That is very obviously not true for any of the other articles up for FAC at the moment. The oppose may be not be unactionable, but it's still a valid reason for why this article should not be featured. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • That doesn't matter. Every article has the potential to be merged within the next five minutes. Why do you think this article has a greater chance of being merged than anything else? Please, consider the reasons why the article should be kept. If it is merged into 2007 Pacific hurricane season, then we have a huge section for Erick and a tiny section for everything else, even the storms that made landfall. Then, if I expand everything else to give the article appropriate weight, the page will become far too long and bloated. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • Yes, it does matter, and I greatly disagree with "Every has the potential to be merged today." There is no chance United States will be merged today. Practically speaking, there is little chance any of the other current FAC's could be merged. If Erick is merged (per my latest test), it would have a two paragraph section, much like that of the sections in the other featured season articles of the basin. That would not make the season too long or bloated, by any means. Therefore, as I've said before, this article could easily be merged, hence my opposition. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ← A couple of points here. First, here is a comprehensive merge tests that uses all suitable information. If merged, Erick's section would be four paragraphs long—2 paragraphs longer than the section for Henriette, a landfalling hurricane. Would you want the section on a minor tropical storm to be longer than the one on a deadly hurricane? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's completely against the purpose of merging. When you merge, you take the relevant facts and merge, not copy and paste the entire article. Compare to my test from earlier. That is a very rough merge of the article, and it could easily be trimmed a bit further (without removing important info) to prevent it from being longer than the other articles. I've said all I can say on this. The article could be easily merged, thus making it unstable. I maintain my oppose. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As well, I maintain my stance that this oppose is not actionable, and a merge is not a viable option. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It looks to me as if the article should be merged with the storm season article. Re Geometry Guy's comment above: I don't regard this as a deletionist position as I don't think the content should be deleted; I just don't see the value in having a separate article on this storm. I am not opposing on this basis, as I don't see anything in the FA criteria that would let me do so; I would probably oppose if there were such a criterion. Mike Christie (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just of note, it has been explained above why this article should remain separate. Thanks for the comments, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I see two reasons above: the WikiProject decision on whether to have separate articles, which I have respect for but don't feel is binding on FAC; and undue weight, which I don't agree with because it would, if I understand correctly, reflect the fact that the other storms are not yet treated with as much detail, but could be in the future. Mike Christie (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, all of the storms of the season have as much, if not more, information available as Erick does. The content simply hasn't been added yet. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I tend to agree with Juliancolton that merging has problems. One is that if this much attention is given to one of the most boring storms of the season, proportionately larger attention should be given to the more interesting ones. The result is likely to be a bloated article. I think summary style is helpful here, but I don't see why each daughter article should aim at FAC. That's appropriate for the storms about which there is something interesting to say, but not for all of them. Geometry guy 20:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that I understand your position, and if "interesting" was one of the FA criteria then I would likely be a little more sympathetic to it. But it isn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - it passes all of the criteria, regardless of length. I doubt this will ever go on the main page as it is; short. However, I have no qualms about giving it that little star in the corner. Side note: Merging is out of the question. Article is verifiable, so therefore is notable. RockManQReview me 02:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I mean Support. Meets criteria. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure if it matters, but I added an external links section with some documents on the storm. Hopefully this clears up any concerns about whether the article meets notability requirements. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support- because the article statisfies all the FA criteria. There is nothing in the criteria about minimum length or opportunities for merging and since nothing in the article contravenes Wikipedia pollicies I support this candidate. Graham Colm Talk 17:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by User:Raul654 19:07, 14 December 2008 [107].

    Frederick III, German Emperor edit

    Nominator(s): Banime (talk)

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because Frederick III is an important part of German and world history and is a good subject for debate today among historians. This article has gone through a good article review, an A class review, and a peer review and has been improved substantially over the past few months. I believe it has finally reached featured article status. Banime (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments Still needs a lot of copyediting [108]; non-native English is still in evidence. Further examples:
    Pt DONE "The timing of his death and the length of his reign have remained important topics among historians today, and his reign is also considered a possible turning point in German history.[5]" - the first part seems unlikely, and the secon needs a "potentially" I imagine, and a change of tense.
    DONE"Furthermore, William had been in love with his cousin Elisa Radziwill, a minor Princess of the Polish nobility." - Surely rather a major one, as Polish princesses go, even if not grand enough for Fred?
    DONE"He entered the University of Bonn and focused on English, French.." - just "and studied"?
    DONE"As early as 1851, plans were made by European royalty to marry Frederick to Victoria, Princess Royal of Great Britain and Ireland, the eldest daughter of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. At the christening of the future King Edward VII, Frederick's uncle, King Frederick William IV of Prussia, was godfather and had also dandled the Princess Royal on his knee. The Royal dynasty in Britain was predominantly German; there was little British blood in Queen Victoria and none in her husband.[13]" - chaotic logic, & if we are taking that route you have to go back about 300 years to find any ethnically British ancestors of Queen Victoria.
    DONE"The couple had already took kindly to each other before the betrothal and loved each other throughout their marriage.[16][17] The rigorously educated Victoria shared her husband's liberal views. "
    DONE"There Queen Victoria allowed him to stand in her place as an official deputy on numerous occasions.[26]" - despite the reference, I'm sure this is misleading. "There Queen Victoria allowed him to represent her at ceremonies and functions on numerous occasions.[26]" is more likely; I expect most were funerals, where a large variety of individuals often "represent" the Queen. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "After his military education, Frederick had his first combat experience during the Second Schleswig War. Frederick supervised Field Marshall Wrangel and his staff and tactfully managed the disputes between Wrangel and the other officers" - unless there was actual violence in staff conferences, "...had his first experience of active service during the Second Schleswig War.." or similar ("active campaigning" maybe), would be better. Given his limited achievements otherwise, the military successes could well be expanded on.

    There are only three images, two of which should be placed on the left, not the right. Despite the usual plethora of nob-squad templates, there is room for more, and we must have ones that could be added- maybe of his military career. If the language could be cleaned up, & these other poiints dealt with, I would support. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, I improved all of your concerns I believe. However, I believe "combat experience" is still the proper term for what he did in the Second Schleswig War. He was still in a high staff position. I think the term fits, but if others disagree then perhaps we can change it. So that one I did not change yet. Also, I'll work on expanding more about his military successes. Finally, I'm not very good with formatting, images, or templates, but I'll see what I can do. If anyone can help that would be appreciated. I know there is at least one more image of Frederick III that was removed earlier, as well as a photograph somewhere. Thanks so far for your comments. --Banime (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay about the images I looked at the MOS and I couldn't find anyway to make it work so far. The image fits perfectly where they are (Queen Victoria in the family section and the newspaper article about the war in the military section), and the MOS says no images should be left aligned below level 3 subsections. Therefore I'd have to move a picture slightly out of context to accomplish this. I could put another image left aligned under the Legacy section if you feel that would help. Let me know as I'm sort of confused on how to fix the images. Also I'll keep looking for any more templates, thanks. --Banime (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When all three image constraints can't be achieved, I prioritize to WP:ACCESSIBILITY, since it's important that all readers be able to easily access our articles (more so than aesthetics). I follow the following algorithm when there are competing constraints:
    1. WP:ACCESS, no left-aligned under third-level headings
    2. WP:MOS#Images, not looking off the text
    3. Stagger right-left ... really, not the most important. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, that means as of now the images should be correct. I'll see if I can figure out a way to get them not looking off the text but that would mess up the 1st of your "rules". Thanks. --Banime (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, an image overhaul has been completed with the help of some great editors (Johnbod, Jappalang, thanks. Also thanks SandyGeorgia for the copyedit). All the images should be great now (and they all are sourced/have information) and fit the MOS and rules above. The only thing I can see now is the format after the "Illness and Brief Reign" title, there is a large space because of an image. It could just be on my computer though. --Banime (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The images are now hugely better, & my comments on specific prose/meaning passages above dealt with adequately, but I think an overall polish would still be good. Apart from the main infobox, there are 8 nobility/royalty templates! Surely some could be sacrificed, and should not more of the horizontal ones go below the references? Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed some infoboxes and rearranged it a bit. Working on a final copyedit now and I've asked another editor for help. If anyone else would like to join in and help copyedit that would be much appreciated. --Banime (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, I looked at all of the other FAs of nobility and I follow their format now. There is the Titles, Honours, and Arms section with an infobox of titles and with the arms in it to the right. Then below that there is an Ancestry section with a hidden infobox of ancestors (some had the table as I originally had it, but most of the FAs had the infobox that the article is using now, so that should be fine. Then below that is the Issue section with a table of children. So the format of the article should be to FA specifications now for royalty, and I'll keep working on the copy edit. --Banime (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And finally, I did a copyedit and Jappalang did a great copyedit of the article. --Banime (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still not enough. For example, the un-English construction "the Chancellor position", which I had removed in a small ce [109] has now been reintroduced. There is a lot of clumsy phrasing. You need someone like Tony or Malleus. It's a pity, because otherwise I think it's there, and the article is not long. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay I'll keep looking for good copyeditors. --Banime (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has been copyeditted again and expanded a bit with better context. --Banime (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Support - considerably improved - I did a smallish copyedit myself. The prose could still be polished further, but I think now meets FA standard. One small thing - was there a formal coronation, or was there not enough time? Worth slipping in either way. Johnbod (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, I'm continuing to get more copyeditting help even now. Jappalang made some good suggestions and recommended other good copyeditors. As for the coronation, I've always believed he was too ill but I've never looked it up so I'll be glad to do that now and find out. If he had one I'll source it and put it in. --Banime (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I could not find anything about a formal coronation, I think he was too sick. If I find anything in the future I'll add it. --Banime (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok - I suspect you're right as they only took place after I think at least 3 or 6 months of official mourning for the previous monarch. For example Queen Victoria's was 11 months after her accession. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The prose is now fine, after further polishing by Karanacs, EyeSerene etc. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments -

    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I did not check the reliablity of the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, I thought it was something published by Penn State but I could be wrong. Luckily I found this just to provide another citation to an already cited sentence, if you think this isn't reliable then I can remove it and no harm would be done. --Banime (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd remove it. Should be easy to source that information to something more reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed. The sentence is already cited with another source so there's no problems with the article with it removed. Thanks --Banime (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review

    Hopefully this information will be relatively easy to acquire. Awadewit (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, the description/date/photographer was added by Jappalang. I also added a source to each of those images, however I'm looking for better ones as we speak (one is just a thumbnail of it). --Banime (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This stuff is all fixed (all images now have all required information and sources), thanks. --Banime (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One last thing - since the image of Victoria was scanned from a personal collection, is there a book we can point to that verifies this image is of Victoria and that the photographer is Downey, etc.? I presume this photograph was reproduced somewhere. Awadewit (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That image is no longer being used in the article. We got a new image of Victoria. --Banime (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    New image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support by karanacs. The article has been improved a great deal since I last read it - kudos to Banime, Jappalang, and Johnbod for their hard work. A few minor things:

    • The first paragraph of the lead mentions twice that his father is William I. Perhaps this can be combined so that it only tells us this once?
    • Does this need a citation "liberal sentiments would remain a powerful force in German politics."
    • "William, who would become emperor after Frederick's death, shared none of his parent's liberal ideas, and relations between them were strained throughout their lives" - I suspect that relations weren't strained when William was a child...is this completely accurate?
    • This reads awkwardly "An obstinate soldier and unlikely to change his ideas at the age of sixty-four"
    • "Frederick's respectful treatment for his country's foes brought him respect from them and observing countries" - it may not be possible to rephrase this, but I'm not fond of respectful and respect in the same sentence
    • Is this proper grammar? "William, however, lived long"

    Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, I've addressed your concerns. I changed the first paragraph so it only mentions him as his father once. I added a citation for liberal sentiments being strong (with an additional qualifier of "throughout Frederick's life" since I couldn't find one yet that just said forever or something similar). The childhood bad relations is accurate, I clarified and added another citation (Victoria sort of felt separate from William since he seemed like a "complete Prussian" which means conservative and military, etc and a rift developed between them even in childhood, citation says this). I changed the obstinate sentence a bit. I didn't change the respectful sentence, unless you feel "honorable" or "kind" or "fair" could be substituted but I don't think the meanings are quite the same. And I edited the grammar of that last one. Thanks again --Banime (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose stricken; comments resolved Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose by karanacs. If this was really written by a non-native English speaker (as mentioned above) then Congratulations! Unfortunately, though, I don't think that the prose is quite FA-quality. It is often clunky and repetitive. I also think that there are some issues with which details are included and which are left out. I only read the first half of the article, but I've left my comments on that below.

    • Why does the lead go into so much detail about William I? The entire sentence on the number of years he ruled each entity could be cut and the reader would still understand.
    • "longevity ensured that his son succeeded the throne at the age of 57" - "ensured" is likely the wrong word choice. Just because he lived a long time didn't mean his son would. And the "Furthermore" that begins the next sentence doesn't really seem to fit.
    • Do we need to know in the lead that the Princess Royal was a liberal and "shared several lines of thought with her husband"
    • There is a lot of repetitive phrasing. Watch for subsequent sentences that use identical phrases - that is generally considered poor prose.
    • The first paragraph of Early life lost me a bit. It does not flow well at all.
      • I think part of this is due to too much detail being included (is it important that Weimar was the first German state to grant a constitution?).
      • Also, the paragraph really ties together too many ideas - first, Frederick's family and second, the "tumlultuous period" in which he grew up.
      • Thirdly, the section is misnamed. We really know very little about his early life from this. It might be worth combining this section with "Education".
      • The prose is adequate but not great. For example, this sentence When Frederick was 17, a series of political uprisings erupted across the German states known as the Revolutions of 1848, which were brought on by nationalistic and liberal sentiments. is very awkward.
      • This section also doesn't document the effect that the "tumultuous" period that he witnessed had on him. Do the sources mention his reaction to the Revolutions of 1848, for example?
    • Is there any more information on his studies at University?
    • "European royalty made plans to marry Federick " - which particular members of European royalty? The sentence makes it sound like there was a big committee that decided all this
    • watch for repetition - "Victoria, Princess Royal, Princess Royal of Great Britain"
    • "As such, the British monarchs considered a marriage between Frederick and the Princess Royal as a very good idea" - this still doesn't tell me why the British royal family having German blood would make marrying a German a good idea - why not marry into a family you aren't already related to some way?
    • probably need a citation for this "Princess Augusta was greatly enthusiastic over the prospect of closer connections with Britain" (since we are talking about a personal emotional reaction)
    • There is a lot of mention in the first part of the article of "liberal views" but not a lot of discussion on what those are. The word "liberal" has many connotations across the world, and I am not really sure what it means in the context of 19th century Germany
    • What makes globalsecurity.org a reliable source for a biography of a German prince/king?

    Karanacs (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the comments. As most of these are copyedit things I won't respond to them individually but I will address a few of your points:
    • On the Revolutions of 1848, this was brought up in an earlier peer review and I had (and still am) looked for a source that I remember saying that the Revolutions contributed to his liberal beliefs, but since I couldn't find it I decided to take it out and just show that a very large liberal revolution occurred during his teen years and the reader could see the kind of environment he grew up in and decide for themselves how it effected him. If I find the source I'll put it in.
    • Another point, the Weimar being the first state with a constitution just sort of set up his mother well, showing how she was more liberal than his father. Many liberal persons at the time wanted a constitution of some sort (and while the German Empire eventually had a constitution also it wasn't quite what we think of today and the monarch still had all the power). That can be removed if needed.
    • Along with that, liberal for the time refers to Germans wanting a unified country with a constitution and some sort of representation such as a diet or house of representatives - this is especially the desired result of the Revolutions of 1848 and when Germany unified it was what the liberals always wanted (however it was done in the wrong way with war) which may have contributed to their enthusiasm for Frederick (or even William initially before he showed that he was too much of an "old soldier" and conservative military man and monarch). It also usually goes along with what the Socialists for the time wanted, such as protection of workers, accident insurance, etc. (which Bismarck does eventually give, however - again, it was done the "wrong way" in a sense, which is another large point which has nothing to do with this conversation or article so I won't bring it up anymore).
    • Also, a fourth point, yes there is more about what he studied at the University, with each subject he studied while there and how the studies contributed to his liberal leanings. I removed the subjects by Johnbod's suggestion because it was repetitive (some subjects he studied were mentioned previously). If you feel they should be added I can add them in as well.
    • Finally, Globalsecurity.org is a respected defense consultant and journal type site that collects both background and historical information as well as breaking news throughout the world. Now obviously it has a US bias, but I only used the source for the facts and as an example of another source's belief that Frederick could have prevented war. I believe it is a reliable source overall and its used by many government and media sources (see here).
    Thanks for all of your comments and if this fails I'll get a really good coypedit to help out the article.--Banime (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On globalsecurity.org, each of those praise entries mention only their current new coverage. I am unconvinced that this necessarily extends to the accuracy of their historical biographies. As for your explanation of what liberalism was in that time period, it needs to go in the article, not just here. If I was confused, I suspect a great many other people will be too. Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, should I bring it to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard? I still firmly believe it is reliable but that way we could get a definitive answer. I know many of the sources in that link praise its news collection but a few also praised its background information by name. Plus, the background information has all been accurate from what I've read, although I wouldn't expect anyone to believe it is based on me alone. Would that be the best place to go? --Banime (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so far here is what has been done. Jappalang did another great copyedit of the text and most of your concerns should have been met. He also removed the GlobalSecurity citations. Right now we still have one more citation for GlobalSecurity, but its for the "first in his family to study" part. If needed, we can remove it until we find another source that says "first in his family" because we already have sources for "studying at the University of Bonn" so we can remove it easily if you see fit. Finally, we added a few more sources and I expanded the part explaining about liberalism in Germany and what it meant. The article should now have a better context and be written better and your concerns should be addressed (and any additional ones will be shortly). I'm still looking to find better secondary sources for one citation but right now it has a tertiary source. Thanks.--Banime (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and removed the GlobalSecurity source once and for all. I also found reliable secondary sources to replace the tertiary source that I used earlier and removed that as well. All sources should be okay now. --Banime (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnbod has also helped with another copyedit. Thanks Johnbod. --Banime (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently the article is undergoing another copyedit. --Banime (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support; I commented during the A-class review, and the article has been greatly improved by the FAC (in regards to prose and content). I'm happy to support this article's promotion. JonCatalán(Talk) 22:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not yet. This article is not yet in English: When his father acceded to the Prussian throne as King William I on January 2, 1861, Frederick became the Crown Prince. Kings in English succeed. A number of minor prose flaws of the same order need fixing.

    • More seriously, the article treats the liberal program in nineteenth century Germany as a fixed quantity, known to the reader. It should be defined, and it should be acknowledged that Liberalismus had a different political program in 1848 and 1888. (Largely because of changes in the overall situation: Schleswig-Holstein and the existence of a Prussian constitution ceased to be issues; the nature of the Prussian constitution and the response to socialism became issues.)
    • The Legacy section is an indiscriminate collection of information, much of it describing only the view of "Historians", some of it describing the views of historians from early in the last century. By its very nature, it's speculation: what would Frederick have done if he'd lived?, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. How many historians have written on Germany in 1888? Have any of them not speculated on this question?

    These choices seem reasonable. In decreasing order of work:

    1. A real survey of the literature, sourced to a secondary source, with the historians sorted by date and ideology.
    2. A survey of current speculation on "what if Frederick had lived?"; again, organized by historical and political tendency - and sourced to a secondary source.
    3. List the open questions: What would Frederick have done? Would he have attempted to create a liberal Germany? Would he have succeeded? Would this have averted WW I?
    4. Remove the speculation altogether.

    This article does none of these. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your suggestions and concerns. I'll go through and ensure the prose is improved (EyeSerene just finished a new, great copyedit of the article and perhaps that already addressed that issue). I will also reply and discuss some of your thoughts on the other sections of the article in a while. --Banime (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, your prose concerns should have been addressed, the article has been further improved (mostly thanks to EyeSerene and anyone else who helped). Liberalism was defined in the first section as wanting more representation in parliament and protection of basic freedoms, which is relatively unchanged throughout this entire period. For the specifics, there are good links within the article to liberalism in Germany, and Revolutions of 1848, etc that provide further detail that don't add to this article specifically, those basic facts are enough to show what Frederick desired and how he wished to rule. Also, when reading an article people will want to know why a certain person is covered, studied, or well known. While the article could just be "Frederick was an emperor of Germany, etc." I have personally not seen any source that simply described Frederick III without raising the question or speculating about what would have happened if he had lived longer, was not sick, or his father died sooner, etc. That is what people study about him so I believe that should go into the article. I put down as many of the major opinions and historians as possible into the Legacy sections so that all sides are represented so there is no bias of "yes he would have averted ww1" or "he couldn't have changed anything anyway" coverage. Yes many historians are from after his death or early in the century, but those historians are studied further today and there are plenty from more modern times as well in the sources. In fact, with ww2 dwarfing the scope of ww1, there has been (in my opinion) even further study of what Frederick could have done, and whether he could have prevented ww2 as well. When one man is studied as potentially having the capability to prevent two of the most disastrous wars on earth I think that should be covered, and it is in an unbiased way. The speculation is only in the article because that is how he is studied, its why he is most notable, and it is covered in numerous reliable sources. Of course, I am always open to further discussion on this issue if you'd like. Thanks for reading this long block of text and I hope that answers any concerns you had. --Banime (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I'm afraid I must oppose.
    • Liberal politics have no connexion with the liberal arts, and the passage Augusta insisted that her son should also be educated in line with the new liberal ideas. Accordingly, Frederick was thoroughly tutored in both military and liberal subjects (especially accordingly) is nonsense.
    • the concept of liberalism, which evolved in Germany during the 1840s, I hope that something else was meant, which would not deny the Liberalism of Spain in the 1810's. But this should be clarified anyway.
    • Prussia was recovering from the Napoleonic Wars, having been conquered by Napoleon I of France Prussia was recovering from the Napoleonic wars in the 1830s? Come on now.
    • I would be willing to rewrite the Legacy section to my own satisfaction; but I am not prepared to edit-war over it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll take a look at your points and reply later. Also, if you'd like to rewrite the Legacy section how about we work on it together in a sandbox? I have one here if you'd like to put it there and we can work on it together and maybe that can improve the article (I'm hesitant to do it directly to the article right now, however I would never "edit war" over it). As for the liberalism in Spain, it was meant to show more of liberalism in Germany only and not discount liberalism evolving throughout the rest of europe. I'll make sure to clarify it if I can. I'll be back with more. --Banime (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've numbered the approaches I think reasonable on Legacy. Which ones would you prefer? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well I don't prefer any of them when I read them, but perhaps your treatment of one of those approaches would change my mind. I definitely don't approve of the last two, and probably the second one would fit best but like I said I'm skeptical so write how you'd approach it, then I can look at it and maybe it will change my mind. I'm just sort of confused by the suggestions is all. Feel free to just give your hand at which one you think would be best in a sandbox (like I said you can use mine). Also I'm still looking at improving your other points, you brought up some good ones (like with the liberal education). --Banime (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first two would both require a secondary survey of the literature on Frederick, preferably in English; do you know of one? (I find it inconceivable that one doesn't exist, even in German - but finding one would take time.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The 4th would breach the "comprehensiveness" requirement, the first two would be very nice, but really the questions are probably more interesting here than the answers, which would suffer badly from compressed summary. The 3rd appears to be the way to go, and does not require much further work, it seems to me. Johnbod (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think its possible to raise the questions they raised without giving any sort of answer, otherwise people are going to be wondering why they raised these questions. That is why I think it's fine how it is. Otherwise it would read more like "Historians raised the question what would happen if he had lived longer?" And that would be it... as it is it goes into each side of the argument and covers all the theories (preventing the wars, or not for certain reasons).--Banime (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No. We may not answer such questions, with a possible exception when the answers are consensus among historians - not the case here. (Incidentally, even I know of one line of argument you have missed; read Golo Mann for the argument that parliamentary democracy was arriving despite William II, and would have prevailed even if Germany had won the war - so it is not clear the present text can even claim comprehensiveness.) Doing so is adopting a point of view, which is contrary to policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Undent reply to Septentrionalis and Johnbod) Okay I've read over your arguments again and I think I finally see where you're coming from, but I still think you're a bit mistaken. All of the sources are already reliable secondary sources about Frederick III, I think if the article were "literary sources about Frederick III" then your method would make sense, but because this is about Frederick III we do not need further secondary sources about the secondary sources. All of them are about Frederick III and each one thinks one of those theories on the Legacy section. With other controversies among historical figures or situations, you'd show what the differing secondary sources were describing. The Legacy section as it is now is already showing each of the theories that are described, and the only reason I show the historians is for more accuracy and so that readers can look them up and see the individual sources if they have more questions on what that author thought about Frederick. Do you see how it is now, that is why I think you may be a bit mistaken with your Legacy concern. Your other concerns I'm still looking into though, I think you brought up those good points and I'm trying to figure out a way to fix them. Thanks. If you'd like to we can continue this conversation here or on Frederick III's talk page. --Banime (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A very simplified explanation: one secondary source describes Frederick and says he would avert world war 1. Another secondary source describes him and says he would not have averted anything. I showed both of those possibilities and put the historians in there simply for accuracy and further information for readers. --Banime (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, I have fixed all of our your concerns (besides the Legacy section concern which I have spoken about above). I clarified that it was simply the liberalism in Germany, removed the perceived link between liberalism and the liberal arts, and removed the reference to the Napoleonic Wars which is too debateable (if I find good sources for it in the future I'll add it in). All of your concerns should be met now, except for the legacy, which I hope you will read my messages up above and agree with what I have said. Thanks. --Banime (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read your reply above (the one beginning with "No we may not", and if possible please reply after here to maintain continuity) and I've been doing some research. First I'd like to state again that I've addressed all of your other concerns. Second, I've been looking into what you have said. You said that "we may not answer such questions", which I agree with; however I nor any other wikipedia editor has personally answered those questions in this article, just the secondary sources that are cited. Also, you mention Mann's position. I've researched and think I've found which theory you are mentioning (specifically by Eley and Blackbourn), and although I have not seen Mann's source yet I think they are similar (if Mann's is different please let me know, or please link me to an online version if you can). That train of thought is that Germany's liberals made some liberal progress during the years up until the end of the Weimar Republic. However, they do not mention Frederick III specifically. The theories with regards to Frederick III say he could have made Germany a liberal state quicker, ruled more liberally, and avoided both world wars. The theories against him say he would not have liberalized Germany and the wars would have happened anyway, etc. This third general theory you are talking about, that Germany was becoming liberal anyway, does not really fit with regards to Frederick III's legacy. It seems completely separate from him. If you remove him from the equation entirely then, the wars still would have happened according to the proponents of that theory. However, the two general theories (I say two because of the "general trains of thought" even though theres a number of variants) with regard to Frederick discuss the possibility of Frederick personally liberalizing Germany and the possibility of him avoiding world war. In short, I think that third theory you brought up has really nothing to do with Frederick. --Banime (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid Banime misunderstands my objection. It is not that he has been intentionally pushing a POV (although he seems extremely impressed with the argument that Frederick could have averted the war); it is that this is an indiscriminate selection of information. This is presented as a survey of the positions on Frederick; neither I nor the reader have any reason to believe it complete though it purports to be, nor any reason to believe that all these views are still current. (For example, the view that Frederick could not have liberalized is cited to three sources, but the most recent is from 1951.) The whole thing does read like what Banime happened to have on hand; as sources for matters which are consensus, this would be fine; but this section is precisely what is not consensus. A secondary source, stating these are the views on Frederick would have done, and implying that it has covered the important ones, would answer these objections .
    Let me do a draft edit, showing what would satisfy me; I think most of the references, which are the important things here, can be retained. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I think that would help as I'm just a bit confused although you've clarified your position a bit. Thanks, let me know when I can look at it. --Banime (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've redrafted the section. Note that all the references are still there in the footnotes; but Dorpalen's sixty-year old discussion of the state of play, especially since he is summing up for his own position, was getting undue weight. The corresponding paragraph in the lead should also be trimmed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved your current draft to User:Banime/Sandbox where everyone can see it, or use your link above. The reason for the move is it is still a draft, and as this is still in FAC and a number of supports have supported the other version I think that should stand until we're agreed. I see what you're trying to do with the section, but I think it is misguided slightly. I've been reading through WP:RS and other guidelines and policies to get a better idea. Please see This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. I understand you said I'm not pushing a POV and thats not what this quote is in regards to, its for the opinions of these reliable authors, who according to your version should not be represented. I know you also said its an indescriminate collection of information, however it also says Wikipedia articles should cover all significant views, doing so in proportion to their published prominence among the most reliable sources which was done and all significant views were covered. Sometimes the date of different resources CAN be used to call into question their accuracy, however this is most applicable perhaps to scientific type articles and less applicable to history. They all share the same facts behind their reviews of Frederick III, the only difference is their interpretations. However, because they are the opinions of reliable authors they should be stated. If you'd like and have an online source I can look more at Golo Mann however I believe, as I stated before, that his specific theory doesn't really have anything to do with Frederick III per se. And you mentioned above that I am impressed with the argument that he could have averted the war. If you can tell any sort of my pov from how I wrote this article then that would be a problem, however I don't think you can as it is very NPOV and covers all sides. However, when a man is covered by numerous reliable sources in that he could have stopped some of the most destructive wars in history, then yes I feel it needs mentioning and moreso than a quick glance or raising the question within the article "what if he had liberalized germany sooner?" or something to that affect. I hope you can see my point better now. Your draft is still on my sandbox, as stated above. --Banime (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please let me know if you revise along these lines. We should not lay this sort of weight on three sources out of many; if it's important to you to portrary Frederick as a potential world-saver, nire a blog. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask for a clarification of what this reply means? I'm not sure what you're trying to say and I don't think it fits exactly to my reply. However it could just be my mistake but I really don't understand what you are saying. --Banime (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Having just reviewed it in detail, I must oppose promotion of the present text; I should like to support, and if a compromise is made I will consider it. Banime has a message to peddle; this may have energised the production of the article in its present state, but the result is not our best work. This is a variant of the old editing advice: if there is a passage you particularly like, edit it out. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay now that you've been a bit more clear and still think I have some sort of message to show with this article, despite it being NPOV as possible and showing all the sides of the argument, I'll have to restate my claims again. Yes, I am also open for a compromise, and your work is still up at my sandbox if you'd like to work more on it. I'll start with a better question: can you please show me one secondary source which discusses Frederick III WITHOUT bringing up his potential affect on the liberalization on Germany and its effect on Germany's future? I'm seriously searching hard to see if I can find one, but EVERY source that I've looked at has examined Frederick within the framewark of whether he WOULD or WOULD NOT have liberalized the Empire and potentially avoided conflicts. Therefore, it has nothing to do with my message at all but the message of all of these reliable sources, which is why I quoted the guidelines above to you. Now that you've tagged the article and posted on the talk page, I'd have to say that it is not my "Banime's enthusiasm about the possibility that Frederick, if he had lived, could have averted the First (and so presumably the Second) World War" (which you said on the talk page), but rather my enthusiasm that multiple secondary sources have said that. I quoted the policies to you above, these are all in seconary sources, you really don't need to start accusations for anything. In response to your advice, I like the entire article, but I am not unwilling for it to change. In fact I've improved this article with every editor here so far, and I improved it based on all of your claims as well except for this one regarding his legacy because you believe it is my opinion, which it is not. --Banime (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be surprised if there was a source on Germany in 1888 which did not speculate, at least for a sentence, on what would have happened. My objections are, I repeat, two:
    • A full paragraph in the lead and three in the body are too much to spend on speculation.
    • This is probably a reasonable picture of the balance of speculation sixty years ago when Dorpalen was writing. Now it is an indiscriminate selection of dated information. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have gone over your position many times and reread your draft (currently at User:Banime/Sandbox) many times, and have finally come to a conclusion after our many exchanges both on this talk page and my talk page. The draft itself seems to me to be almost exactly like the version currently on the FAC, except with less information. You have accused me of pushing a POV despite everything being sourced by reliable sources. Conversely, and you may not understand that this is exactly what you're doing, but I believe that your removal of large amounts of information covered by secondary, reliable sources is more akin to pushing a POV. Arbitrarily saying sources cannot be used because they are a certain number of years old does not work in this case. This is not science, where facts may change. What if someone felt only sources from this year were worth using and citing? Then this article wouldn't exist. That isn't anyone's place to say. The facts did not change regardless of when they wrote. This article is also not about the consensus of historians, of which there is none in this case anyway, but about showing every side of the story that is significantly covered in reliable sources, which I feel the article has done. You have admitted yourself that every source has mentioned this speculation on Frederick, so how can two paragraphs within the body, discussing this speculation and showing the sides of the argument that are well sourced, be "too much"? Therefore, due to the arbitrary assignment that all sources must be from a certain date, and the fact that PMAnderson admits that every source mentions the speculation but he personally feels it should have lesser representation within the article and not be discussed fully, I have to say that this oppose is inactionable. Also if a neutral party would like to take a look at PMAnderson's current tagging of the article, which I feel is a bit hasty, out of consensus, and misinformed, that would be appreciated. --Banime (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick addendum so you don't misinterpret my tone: I thank you for your review and contributions to this article, however I think you're very mistaken on this point, and feel that no one can effectively take action on it. Thanks --Banime (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In the process of reversion, Banime has restored a slip in tone: of The Princess Victoria, Princess Royal is too formal for an encyclopedia. At a minimum, The should be lc; preferably the repetition of Princess should be avoided. We are an encyclopedia, not the Court Circular. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I took a look at this, however because the article is actually Princess Victoria, Princess Royal and her name in bold is The Princess Victoria, Princess Royal I feel it should be kept as is. --Banime (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that article is written as though it were an extract from a Court Circular. This is less than optimal, but it is not up for FA. As often, Wikipedia is not a reliable source (here for encyclopedic prose), and error should not propagate from one article to another. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure we can call her simply Princess Victoria, if no one objects. I don't think the meaning would be lost and the link would go to the right place. Agree? --Banime (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be fine; you could have done it eight hours ago. (The title of our article on the Princess, btw, is an artifact of the effort to make a systematic treatment of noble titles satisfying our demands for uniqueness; none of them is guaranteed to be English usage, which our texts should follow.)
    Fixed, thanks.--Banime (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (undent, moved reply to bottom of PManderson's oppose)We're working on our talk pages to see if he can suggest some other way for the article to be improved since I don't feel the age of source should be taken into account. I'll be thinking and seeing if theres any kind of draft I can come up with (probably on my sandbox). Any suggestions by other editors are welcome, although I'm still holding onto a few of my reservations I'm trying to work on it to see what we can come up with. --Banime (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, I took some time to separate myself from the article for a bit then come back and read both versions and your argument again. When looking at the draft (currently here), to me it just seems like it doesn't contain enough detail. I know your point is that you feel there is too much given to the speculation, but I'd have to repeat that as long as most sources bring up this speculation often, and seeing as how the speculation is about a very large effect on history, I feel that the weight given to it currently is proper. I looked again to see if I could detect any POV, but I feel both sides are well representend and sourced within the article. If I attempted to cut down I feel it would just make the speculation less detailed, which I feel isn't really an option in this case since readers will be interested on both sides of this speculation and "potential turning point", and as long as it covers both sides neutrally and from reliable sources it should be included. Therefore, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point of your oppose, at least for the time being. I thank you for all of your other suggestions so far to help the article, and sorry that we haven't met eye to eye yet on this one issue. If any other editors want to ensure proper weight is given and no POV exists, please do so. Thanks again. --Banime (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. I think it meets the criteria, though I agree that there are some minor prose issues. For example, the second sentence of the lead is rather long, and "liberal" is repeated quite a lot throughout the article. But these are, of course, minor quibbles. DrKiernan (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of your minor prose concerns should have been addressed, hopefully it is improved. --Banime (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. I think it meets the FA criteria after all of the copyediting that's been carried out during this nomination. I do have one minor comment though, which is that the article has left me wondering what happened to the Empress following Frederick's death. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your help in improving the article while you reviewed it. Also, I understand your question and I'll look into adding a small blurb about it, but since the article is about Frederick I do not want to get it too off topic. Nothing particularly "happened" with her as she was no longer in any sort of position of power after William II took the throne. I could perhaps add a small summary or mention that she did not affect the direction of the empire, but again I'm not sure how off topic that is. I'll look into it more and if anyone else has suggestions please let me know. --Banime (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not suggesting adding anything other than a sentence or two, just to round off the story. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a sentence about what she did after his death to sort of sum up the story as you said. At the same time I won't go into a lot of detail on her actions, as a reader can click her link and find out more if they desire. Read it if you'd like and see if it improves the article, or feel free to copy edit it. --Banime (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks fine to me, thanks. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose The article is unbalanced and lacking information. I was particulary stricken by the fact that a minor love affair with Polish noble is noted while the possible internal policies towards milions of people from Polish minority in Prussia is completely absent from the article. This should read less like tabloid information and more like encyclopedia work. More information on internal and foreign policy matters that would be persued, including repression of minorities under his regime.--Molobo (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But the main thing emerging from the article is that he didn't have a "regime". Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe his views on foreign affairs, internal matters, dealing with the minorities would be more interesting and valid then love affair information.--Molobo (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never heard anything about his bad internal polices or planned policies towards the Polish. Do you have any sources for that? I'm pretty confused about your oppose as I've never heard anything like that before. I guess that could be possible or maybe even covered by a source at some time, but it might be WP:FRINGE or something similar? If you show me some sources on that I'll look into it, but as I've said I've never heard anything about that. Are you sure you have the right Frederick III? Many German rulers were named Frederick, and Frederick III at that. --Banime (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After some searching, I think you may be referring to Elector Frederick III, from a few hundred years before? When he wished to ally with Russia and supported their policies against Poland because of that? That is a different person, but I can see the source of confusion. Also, the "polish affair" you were talking about wasn't with Frederick III but rather with William I (its in the article but perhaps you missed that). --Banime (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps as I am not a native speaker I didn't express myself clearly. In short-I would prefer the article would deal what were his intended foregin and internal policies and views on politics. --Molobo (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, please read my replies directly above. In regards to the article, I believe it already does deal with his intended foreign and internal policies and views on politics, quite thoroughly. He was liberal, supported the constitution, wanted less power for the chancellor, and was against more conservative internal and foreign policies (especially those put forth by bismarck). If you have any sources for the "anti polish" things you said then I'll gladly look at them, but I've been searching for a bit now and I haven't found anything stating anything close to that yet. I have found where it talks about Elector Frederick III, a man from hundreds of years earlier, and how he may have wanted to support anti-polish russian policies for an alliance with russia or something similar, so I think you really might be mixing up this person. However if you have sources stating the contrary I'd gladly look at them. --Banime (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I found something talking about some expulsions of poles from prussia during his father's reign, but that was by Bismarck and William I. I still haven't found anything specifically saying Frederick III supported these or even mentioning him in the same sentence yet. I understand you wish for the expulsion of the poles to be mentioned but I don't think it fits in this article, if anything it would fit in with William I or Bismarck. I'll keep looking as I've only found one (non reliable) source so far. --Banime (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Banime-I just wanted the article to be more focused on scholary things like foreign or internal policy, but I won't press the issue.--Molobo (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Molobo, it would be better if you could cite specific issues. Currently, you are skirting around Banime's responses and the point you're trying to make is elusive (and not very clear). You cite the example that he had a love affair as an example of the article leaving what you believe the central subject (his politics), but the rest of the article does deal with his politics in one way or another. Can you cite specific examples of what you'd like to be included? JonCatalán(Talk) 22:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Molobo, that is not exactly what you said ("including repression of minorities under his regime"). Please point out reliable sources that stated this happened under the subject's reign. Wikipedia articles cannot cover things that were never done by the subject. If there are reliable sources that cover this item, and the idea is not an insignificant one, then your oppose would be valid. Jappalang (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, well I've added a bit of citations and a sparse few more things into the article with regards to politics, but not too much. I've been researching a lot on Frederick lately to try to see if anything you said could be found, but I haven't found anything about his relations with Poles yet. If you have a source I'll gladly look into it. --Banime (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A list of his official actions would be a useful article, if the sources permit. Under the circumstances, there can't be too many of them.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting another article, or for all of his official actions to be represented in this one? I believe most of them are already with the exception of a wedding he attended, but I can doublecheck the sources and be sure if that's what you meant. --Banime (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Another article. It would be grossly disproportionate here if it actually listed everything he did as Kaiser; it is quite possible, however, that no anti-Polish measure is among them - we are only discussing three months. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support if the image overlapping into the next section is reduced. Those things make me cry. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Fixed it, with a slight copyedit as well. --Banime (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the page looks great. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    inflammatory forum-shopping comment [110] removed. Karanacs (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This questions Banime's use of sources, connecting him with some hoax articles. A useful caution, but the sources I have checked (a handful) here appear to be real; I think Banime's handling of them is somewhat tendentious, but that is part of my oppose. The present text also cites some authors as though Wikipedians had consulted them, when the footnotes make clear that what is being cited is Dorpalen's assertions about those authors; carelessness, but not prevarication. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you're talking about, the sentence Other historians, including Wilhelm Mommsen and Arthur Rosenberg, oppose the idea that Frederick could have, or would have, liberalized Germany.[7] which is footnoted to page 2 of Dorpalen. Arthur Rosenberg was used already, as you can see he is sourced later in the article. Dorpalen page 2 describes both Mommsen and Rosenberg that way, hence the citation. I believe it is sourced correctly, since I sourced where I got it from (rather than using a Mommsen source that I did not consult) and the sentence is simply describing Mommsen and his contradiction of Frederick's liberalism. If anyone thinks this is contentious please let me know. --Banime (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support This article is well written and comprehensive. Well done. I hope it gets promoted. NancyHeise talk 19:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: There are minor quibbles, but this is definitely an FA. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support with comments. I found a few spelling mistakes and inconsistent use of US and UK English; the article needs to be consistent. Please be take care not to over-link. The article is certainly FA standard on the whole, but it still needs a few tweaks here and there. Graham Colm Talk 18:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by User:Raul654 19:07, 14 December 2008 [111].

    Rheinmetall 120 mm gun edit

    Nominator(s): JonCatalán(Talk)

    This article deals with the tank gun used by the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams, amongst other thanks. It covers its development history, export history and the development of ammunition for it. JonCatalán(Talk) 02:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments -

    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, since they changed their layout and no longer include their sources on each page it's hard to prove, but their information comes straight from the manufacturer. JonCatalán(Talk) 15:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, there's no need to. I remember why that sentence even exists; it was done to allow the article to be included as a "Did You Know" (they needed an online source). I argued that the site wouldn't be considered reliable, but they added it regardless. The muzzle velocity is actually already mentioned in a sentence previous to that one, so I removed that sentence and the source altogether. Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 22:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me get this straight, they insisted that you use an unreliable source merely because it's online, even though it's unreliable? Anyway, resolved, thanks Jon. And may I say how much your referencing and sourcing has improved in the last few FACs you've brought! It's a pleasure to see the vast improvement! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I have hopes of putting an article I'm about to work on through DYK, but I have a feeling that they will bring up the same requirement. I might have to link to this FAC. :D JonCatalán(Talk) 20:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support

    A few points:

    • Linking in the lede has two links for South Korea, but none for LAHAT.
    • The two sentences in the last paragraph of the lede that both begin "The Israelis have also..."
    • Krauss-Maffei should always have a hyphen, but appears here as two words.
    • Too many uses of "also": five uses in the lede, two uses in the penultimate paragraph, four "also"s in the last paragraph
    -- William Avery (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Those can all be fixed very quickly; most already have. I will work through the text to remove instances of the word "also". According to their website], it's actually not spelled either way; they spell it KraussMaffei. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, the word "also" has been removed or replaced throughout the text, leaving only a few instances of the word left where proper. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All resolved. William Avery (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review: Issues with Image:Korean Army K1A1 tank.jpg. Source does not match. Site and link to apparent permissions are entirely in Korean. I don't understand how GNU is claimed for this image.

    • Source on Image:M829.jpg is a dead link. Without that source, it's not possible to determine the image is a work of the US military and in the public domain.
    • All other images appear to be fine. --Moni3 (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I replaced the image of the round with Image:USARMY-M829A2.gif, which seems to be properly sourced. The image of the South Korean tank has been changed to Image:Merkava3dKasag001.jpg, which was uploaded by a user as his own photograph. Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 18:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Supported after commenting during this article's A-Class review, and can find no points that need addressing, especially after the comments addressed above by the nominator. Skinny87 (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Also supported the article during it's A-Class review, and find it ready for being a featured article. One last pharaoh (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:Raul654 19:07, 14 December 2008 [112].

    2nd Canadian Infantry Division edit

    Nominator(s): Cam (Chat)

    This article concerns the second of three infantry divisions in the First Canadian Army. Passed a GA-Review and MilHist ACR in August. EyeSerene recently completed a full-scale copyedit, and general tightening and reference work has been ongoing throughout the last week. Respectfully submit for FAC Nomination. Cam (Chat) 01:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review:

    fixed licensing so that the link is no longer required. Cam (Chat) 01:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source, date, and author information for Image:Sgthamarshall.jpg should be amended to reflect where the image came from, when it was taken, and who shot the photo.
    Fixed. Cam (Chat) 05:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Checked LAC, info could not be found, so I simply put "unknown" in instead. That's been acceptable in the past, would I be correct to assume that that's the case here as well? Cam (Chat) 05:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please provide a source link for Image:Mapnorthernfront.gif. Evidence of the creator/author releasing the image into public domain should be evident through a link in the info summary. If Michael Dorosh is the image author, he should be contacted to change the source to self-made.
    I can definitely attempt to contact Michael Dorosh (I've met him before..as he's a fellow Calgarian). That said, I do also know that his map-rendering skills are considerable, so I wouldn't be surprised if he made this one. At any rate, I'll check. Cam (Chat) 05:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, although the author is unknown, I've changed to NAC credit and Canada-PD. Cam (Chat) 05:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me know if you have questions. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Followup: If the Public Archives of Canada claim the author is unknown, that's ok with me. Can you link the archive pages to their images for Image:Sgthamarshall.jpg and Image:Canadian soldiers during the Battle of Groningen.jpg or at least include their ID numbers? Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done for Sgt. Marshall. I'm still looking for Groningen. Cam (Chat) 00:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments -

    • Your last reference .. is it supposed to be an external link? I don't see it used in the footnotes, so if it isn't used as a reference, please move it to an external link section. If it is used as a reference, it needs a publisher and last access date at the least.
    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed that one issue - it was an external link already used as a reference, so I've fixed that. Cam (Chat) 20:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Support; an excellent article. Although I don't want to hold the article's promotion back, I personally dislike the large lists included. I think that those order of battles are better placed in "spiral" articles, and the organization to be described in paragraph form. To me, it looks more professional, using the tables only as a visual aide. Or, include the tables, but also describe it in paragraph form (the tables are still a visual aide). JonCatalán(Talk) 06:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Agreed. Units are my thing and this one is all-around excellent. For the comment above, I'd recommend replacing the tables with the {{command structure}} template, so they are less intrusive to the narrative of the article. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 20:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment—Does this have any relation to the 2nd Canadian division that served in World War 1?[113] Perhaps this could be mentioned in the text? Does this list show an accurate depiction of the divisional artillery, recon and engineers in 1939? I was wondering why the non-infantry units weren't listed for 1939, since they are shown in the 1944 table.—RJH (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is of no relation to the 2nd Canadian Division. In WWI, they didn't specify division type, whereas in WWII the 1st Canadian Army fielded both infantry and armour divisions. As for the divisional artillery and such, there was no specified organization for each division in the early days of the war; they simply relied on an overarching corps artillery and engineers that were not attached to the actual division. Hope that answers your question. Cam (Chat) 06:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with Comments
      • The last sentence, about the deactivation of the division, is a little out of place on it's own. Can it either be expanded upon (Who gave the order, and why?) to create a whole paragraph, or integrated into the previous paragraph? Skinny87 (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:07, 13 December 2008 [114].

    Sonestown Covered Bridge edit

    Nominator(s): Ruhrfisch ><>°°

    Sonestown Covered Bridge has had a very helpful peer review (thanks to Dincher and Finetooth) whose suggestions for improvement have all been addressed. I believe this article, which follows the FA models of Cogan House Covered Bridge, Forksville Covered Bridge, and Hillsgrove Covered Bridge, meets all of the Featured Article criteria. This is a self-nomination in that I have made most of the edits to the article, but I have sought feedback and have received positive comments. This is a very interesting bridge and I hope the article does it justice. Thanks for any feedback, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support: A fine addition to this series. For some unaccountable reason I missed the peer review, where I normally discharge my quibbles. Here are a few, mainly to do with punctuation usage. Don't feel you have to adopt my suggestions unless you agree they improve the text.

    • Lead: I would place a comma after 1969
    • Background last line): Prose flow would improve if a comma rather than a semicolon followed "other state", and "remained" became "remaining"
      • Thanks, changed the sentence in question to In 2001, Pennsylvania had more surviving historic covered bridges than any other state, with 221 remaining in 40 of its 67 counties.[14]
    • Construction: Perhaps a semicolon rather than a colon is required after "covered bridge", since what follows is not a list. Also, in the last sentence, I would put a comma after "in the state".
    • Use and restoration:
      • The comma after "1865" looks like one too many
      • "Even after the repair was completed, beer trucks making deliveries...could not cross it, but had to use handcarts instead". Two points here. First, it wasn't the beer trucks that had to use handcarts, so a slight rephrasing is advised. Secondly, a little explanation would be helpful here. Was this due to a weight restriction? If so, why did it only apply to beer trucks?
        • Thanks for pointing this out. I rewrote it so it now reads Even after the repair was completed, vehicles that were heavier or larger than the bridge’s limits could not use it. Since beer trucks could not cross it, deliveries to the American Legion Post southeast of the bridge were made with a hand cart instead.[29] The area is quite rural, so my guess is relatively few trucks go there and most of the ones that did just took the 5 mile detour (propane or home heating oil, or postal trucks). My guess is the beer delivery was probably faster with driving to the bridge and using a hand cart than going on a 10 mile round trip detour, but for propane or oil this would not work. The newspaper article does not give more detail on other trucks though. Hope the rewrite is OK, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "...sometime between 1999 and 2002" seems a bit vague for such recent history. Perhaps "sometime" is superfluous? Also, I wonder if this sentence about a new bridge is in the right place, as it comes in the middle of discussion about repairs to the covered bridge. The next sentence begins "According to NBI data the bridge was...", which sounds as though you are talking about the new bridge.
        • I do not have a source that is more specific on the new bridge construction, although the next time I am there, I will check the new bridge for a plaque with its date of construction. I removed "sometimes" and added "covered" so the following sentence now reads "According to NBI data the covered bridge was...",. The reason the new bridge sentence is where it is now is two-fold. First it is chronological (earliest date for new bridge is before the NBI repair date). Second and more important, I imagine that a large part of why the new bridge was made was to provide access for all vehicles, not just those light enough to cross the bridge (avoid the detour), so the new bridge follows the beer delivery sentence (which I am still working on). Thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That is all. An excellent article, well-craftd and illustrated Brianboulton (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the support and helpful comments - I have done the quick fixes (punctuation) and will work on the others next. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe I have addressed all of the comments, thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support All my concerns were addressed in PR. Another fine article. Dincher (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks very much for your kind words, edits, peer review and support, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Support with comments. Another excellent addition to what has become a series. Sorry to be such an idiot, but there are a few things I don't understand:

    • Davidson Township was first settled in 1806 and was incorporated in 1833. For readers who do not live in the U.S. perhaps a fuller explanation of incorporated would be useful. I'm guessing it means incorporated into Sulivan County?
      • Thanks for pointing this out. In Pennsylvania, townships are incorporated municipalities within their county (as are boroughs and cities). I changed the sentence to The area that became Davidson Township was first settled in 1806 and was incorporated as a township in 1833.[10] and added a note to reference [10] that reads Note: Davidson Township was formed in 1833 from part of Shrewsbury Township while both were still part of Lycoming County. Hopefully this is clearer, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are wing walls?
      • Wing walls extend out away from the abutments at an angle, and hold the dirt and fill that make the ramp up to the bridge in place. I added an explanation and reference to the article - is this clearer? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sentence is a little illogical Even after the repair was completed, vehicles that were heavier or larger than the bridge’s limits could not use it. Does it mean original limits?
      • I meant the posted weight and height limits. Have added "original" to the sentence. Just to try and make it clearer, when it was being repaired after the flood damage, no vehicles could use it (the newspaper article has a photo with most of the floor ripped out, presumably to work on the floor beams). Even after it was repaired (and today) trucks are generally too heavy or too tall / big to cross it, which is almost certainly why they built the new bridge just downstream. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what scour conditions are.
      • Changed it to It found that the bridge's foundations were stable for scour conditions (the potential for the stream washing them out), ..., hopefully clearer, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref. 22 is a little untidy, can we a least lose the etc. etc.
      • Wel, that is the full original title from the more prolix 19th century (even including the double "etc."). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for another well-written and engaging article. Graham Colm Talk 13:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I apologize that I have not replied until now - I was offline most of the day and only saw Ealdgyth's edit in my watchlist the one time I was on before. I will reply to the points above next, but wanted to thank you for your kind words and support first (and apologize). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have replied to all of your comments and hope things are clearer - thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. I enjoyed reading this when I was doing the peer review mentioned above by User:Ruhrfisch. All of my PR concerns have been addressed. Nice job. Finetooth (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you very much for your kind words, edits, peer review, and support, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review: All images appear to be fine. Personally, I am relieved that someone else also misspells their image uploads per Image:Sonestwon Covered Bridge 9.jpg. Thanks for that. --Moni3 (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks very much - for what it's worth, I also got the capitalization wrong in "Image:Sonestown COvered Bridge 10.jpg" ;-) I figure the Commons admins have better things to do than move my typos to their correct names. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note I found the dedication date for the new bridge and added that. In the process I saw the bridge was not decorated or lit for the holidays this year and so moved and tweaked that sentence too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It might still be early for Christmas decorations. Not saying that you gotta make another trip though. Dincher (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On the same trip I saw that the Forksville Covered Bridge was decorated and had lights, but it may be too early for Sonestown. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:07, 13 December 2008 [115].

    Luc Bourdon edit

    Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk)

    Article about ice hockey player who died back in May at the age of 21. Already passed GA and had peer review a few weeks ago. All comments welcome, and will be addressed as soon as possible. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - I enjoyed reading this article while not enjoying it, if that makes sense. It's been a while since I've reviewed something that I thought was really good, but it's sobering at the end. This is what I found during a full review. Most of these are just minor nit-picks; in this case, I find that to be a sign of high quality.

    • Comma after Manitoba Moose in first sentence?
    • Early life: Remove comma after Miramichi Rivermen?
    • "who now manages the local arena". Watch for date-specific items that may not stay updated, like this one.
    • Playing career: "Link Tampa Bay Lightning in the last paragraph of the section.
    • International play: Delink 2007 World Junior Championships, as the event is linked a few paragraphs beforehand.
    • Death: "During the 2008 NHL Draft, the Canucks management wore guitar pins to remember Bourdon, since he was an avid guitarist." Apostrophe after Canucks?
    • Typo in last paragraph: "New Brunswik".

    In addition to these, I saw some references that need further formatting. There are a couple refs without a publisher, and one doesn't have an access date. Ealdgyth will be around soon to provide a full list of issues. Overall, though, I'm looking forward to supporting this soon. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Everything should be all fixed up now. Also went through the references and cleaned them up, so that matter should be good. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Provisional support - This is pending the one questionable source below. While the author, Matt MacInnis, is apparently a sports columnist for a Canadian newspaper, I'd feel better if it could be proved that he is a noted hockey writer in particular. Rest of it looks good, though. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Comments
    • In the Early life section, specify when he was born.
    • Shortly after the trade, Bourdon injured his ankle, suffering a fractured fibula, high and low sprains, and a second degree ligament tear. - Link ligament.
    • Bourdon made his international debut representing Team Canada in the 2005 World Under-18 Championships, held in the Czech Republic, earning one assist in a silver-medal effort. - Needs a source.
    • At the 2007 World Junior Championships in Leksand and Mora, Sweden, Bourdon scored the game-tying goal in the third period of a 2–1 shootout win over the United States in the semi-final.[19] In total, Bourdon picked up two goals and two assists in six games, as Canada won another gold medal. - Why are some numbers spelled out, but others not? "Two" and "2" for example.
    • The 2–1 is a score, which I've always seen given like this in sports-related FACs. I guess "a two to one shootout win" could be done, but I think it's fine the way it is now. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • During the 2008 NHL Draft, the Canucks' management wore guitar pins to remember Bourdon, since he was an avid guitarist. - "Since" → "because".

    –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All taken care of. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments -

    • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper. (The Simons ref is not italicised)
    • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the footnotes, such as TSN.
    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hockey's Future is a website that provides information about younger hockey players expected to play in the NHL. They include a list of main contributers, and some of them have been involved in leading hockey publications. That said, all the references should be fixed up now. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the questionable source and replaced it with more notable references. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review: Images appear to be fine. --Moni3 (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments
      • As Ealdgyth mentions, italicize newspaper titles. Also, you alternate between Vancouver Province and The Province; which one is it?
      • Combine the two uses of "Penguins' Letang Loses Best Friend In Bourdon" into one source. BuddingJournalist 19:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Source for the career statistics? BuddingJournalist 19:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All taken care of. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments = All small from me, but I'll put them out anyway:
      • Juvenile arthritis redirects to childhood arthritis.
      • "Noted as a strong defenceman who could contribute with offence" - probably a style choice, but should it be on offence?
      • A link to francophone would be useful for those unfamiliar with the term, or just say French-speaking.
      • "participated in the CHL Top Prospects Game, and exhibition for draft-eligible players" - an exhibition

    **Cite needed at end of paragraph ending with 2007 World Juniors

      • Same in the next paragraph. Grsz11 02:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just of note, the sentences mentioned are of a non-controversial nature, and don't need references. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I got everything listed there, except the last two, for as Juliancolton said, they aren't controversial, and even so, they are referenced later on in the section. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Striken accordingly. Thanks and good work. Grsz11 03:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I removed a redundant mention of the date of Bourdon's death in the lead, but otherwise my concerns were already addressed in the peer review. One minor point of clarification needed, however. The article says that Bourdon played with Miramichi from age 15-17, but also that he left home to play in the QMJHL at age 16. Obviously he wasn't on both teams. I presume it should state he played for Miramichi at 15-16? Resolute 16:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed the age. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: I fixed a couple wikilinks, but other than that, no outstanding issues with this article. The only thing I really can say would be to possibly add a bit more substance to the international section, but I do realize he was limited to only the three tournaments. I'll look through some archives to see if anything can really be added, but that's not something that hinders this article from passing FAC. Great job! – Nurmsook! talk... 05:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:07, 13 December 2008 [116].

    Main sequence edit

    Nominator(s): RJH (talk)

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the necessary criteria. The page has undergone a PR and is GA-rated. I've taken it about as far as I can without further input, so please let me know if there are issues that need to be addressed. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review

    • Image:Dwarf Stars.png - We need a source for the information in this chart (images need to be verifiable, too!).
      • Image removed.
    • Image:PPvsCNO.png - The image needs an English description. Also, did Xenoforme make this image? If so, it should say "selfmade". Finally, we need a source for the information in the graph.
      • I updated the commons page accordingly.
    • Image:Open cluster HR diagram ages.gif - We need a source for the information in this diagram.
      • I added a reference to a journal article showing the color-magnitude diagrams of the two clusters in question. Unfortunately the original image author has retired from Wikipedia, so I can't get a definitive source. If the ref. is inadequate then I guess we'll have to decide if the image is unusable in an FA.
        • As long as all of the information in the diagram can be found in the source, we are fine. Are we fine? Awadewit (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I found a web page that has separate HR diagrams for M67 and NGC 188. (The page is by Dr. Michael W. Richmond: see notes below.) The plots look like a good fit for the data on the wikipedia article, so I've added that as a source to the commons page. I think we're good now.—RJH (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    These issues should be relatively easy to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks. I think I've addressed these image issues.—RJH (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments -

    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does this address your concerns? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. From my perspective as an astrophysics layman, this article doesn't do enough to explain the connection between main sequence and other types of stars. Despite several brief mentions of the connection, I had to read the giant star to understand how main sequence fits into the broader picture of stellar evolution, something that should have been made clear within the lead. One specific bit I found confusing: in the second paragraph of the Lifetime section, it shifts from using the Sun as an example to generalizing about observable stars, and it's not clear enough how the two halves of the paragraph connect.--ragesoss (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you mean that the Main_sequence#Evolutionary_tracks section is unclear? The Stellar evolution article covers the topic in detail, so I didn't think it is appropriate to delve into more details of the post-main sequence evolution in this article. I made some changes to the Lifetime section that I hope will address your last concern. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the evolutionary tracks is not detailed enough, particularly in terms of the variability of evolutionary tracks. Do all main sequence stars then become red giants? The text should be more explicit in terms of the way stars of different mass (and composition?) evolve as they leave the main sequence. But the bigger issue is that this section doesn't come until the end (a natural place for it in terms of the life of a star), while understanding how main sequence relates to other regions on the diagram is central to understanding what, in a broad sense, the main sequence is. In particular, this should be addressed more clearly in the lead section.--ragesoss (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay I inserted what I hope is the minimum necessary wording needed to cover this issue. I think the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram and stellar evolution articles are the appropriate places to tell the evolutionary tale and to relate the main sequence to the rest of the chart. Providing a broader summary of post-MS stellar evolution here seems off topic, except in how it relates to the MS (as is done in the lifetime section).—RJH (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Greatly improved! All my concerns from the above comments have been addressed.--ragesoss (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    more Comments:

    • The relationship between the final paragraph of the introduction and the topic of 'main sequence', as well as the 'Structure' section, isn't made clear. It's implicit that the description of star structure applies to main sequence stars as opposed to other kinds, but that should be made explicit.
      • I modified the paragraph to tighten up the description and add some details relevant to main sequence stars.—RJH (talk)
    • It seems that equilibrium is a central aspect of what defines main sequence stars; this should probably be discussed within the introduction.
      • I added a couple of sentences to the lead. It applies to other stars as well, so I'd rather avoid characterizing this as a core aspect of the main sequence.
    • It would be helpful if one of the H-R diagrams pointed out the dividing line between upper and lower main sequence.
      • I put some wording in the text about what spectral classes are typically upper and lower main sequence.
    • It would be helpful if there was a bit more info about the transition, along the main sequence, from lower to upper. It says that 1.5 solar masses is the point where both processes are equally efficient. First, does this mean that the processes are actually contributing 50% of the energy each? (Are there other significant minor reactions that contribute nontrivially as well?) Second, how fast does the transition occur? Is there a significant amount of both reactions in a 1 or a 2 solar mass star? The answers to these questions are in the PP vs. CNO graph, but they should be addressed in the text as well; the graph alone could be misleading for readers who aren't used to dealing with log graphs. The graph caption is also a bit confusing: "relative energy output (log ε)" could be read to mean that "log ε" is a shorthand for "relative energy output", instead of what it actually is, a log graph of ε (energy output) for different reactions, which is plotted in relative (i.e., dimensionless) terms.
      • I modified the wording somewhat to try and address this.
    • A graph might be helpful for the luminosity-color section, highlighting the places across the main sequence a single star might go through. This would make more clear what the "broadening" of the main sequences means, since (because it is plotted as a mostly diagonal band) readers might get confused by assuming stars move along the main sequence rather than perpendicular (?) to it.
      • I am unclear about this. Stars moving along the main sequence wouldn't broaden it. Doesn't broaden mean to widen or thicken? I added a note.
        • But broad and wide can be, on the one hand, the opposite of thin or long, but on the other had, can be the converse of tall. That is, broaden and widen are often associated with horizontal extension (i.e., stretching along the x-axis). I think it will be clear to most people, I was just pointing out that the potential for confusion is there.--ragesoss (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a thought: the "Lifetime" section might make more sense immediately after the "Energy generation" section.
      • My thinking was to move spacially from the interior outward, thus: energy generation, structure and luminosity-color variation of the photosphere. This is followed by the chronological details: lifetime and evolutionary tracks.
        • It seems to me that "Lifetime" is basically a function of energy generation and the interior composition (i.e., how much hydrogen is available), so I think it would still make sense within your organizational scheme.--ragesoss (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's points to both viewpoints; Lifetime also belongs with the Evolutionary Tracks, and I think that shoving both in there would break apart the flow. Sorry but I'd prefer to stick with the current arrangement unless there's a wider consensus.—RJH (talk)
            • That's fine. I just thought I'd throw the idea out there.--ragesoss (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the "Lifetime" section, it wouldn't hurt to have a citation for: "For massive stars, however, this mass-luminosity relationship poorly matches the estimated lifetime. A more accurate representation gives a different function for various ranges of mass." The next two paragraphs do follow up on that, with citations, but it's not immediately clear that that's what is going on.
      • I couldn't find the original source for this so I removed it. As you pointed out, the following text covers the same topic so I think it's unecessary.

    Overall, I think it's a solid article that will be Feature-worthy with some straightforward fixes.--ragesoss (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I think I've addressed most of your concerns.—RJH (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:PPvsCNO.png (Note: They don't want us displaying graphics in here.)

    Comment.

    • Returning the PP vs. CNO graph, I think the graph itself is a problem. The energy curves for PP and CNO are continuous over the big gap in x-axis magnitude (which jumps from 20 to 100); that can't be accurate. It's an important (essential, I would say) graph, but I think it needs to be redone.--ragesoss (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point. A graph like Figure 20 here would probably be better.—RJH (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I put together a new ε vs. T chart based on Schwarzschild (1958). Schwarzschild's plot used a dashed line to represent the combined processes, so that may also address your concern below.—RJH (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One thing that might be worth mentioning to make more clear the suddenness of the PP to CNO transition (which is not obvious in the log graph) is this fact I found in the CNO cycle article: "The sun has a temperature of around ~15.7×106 K and only 1.7% of 4He nuclei being produced in the Sun are born in the CNO cycle." That it goes from 1.7% at 1 solar mass to 50% at 1.5 solar masses (to what, >>99% at 2 solar masses?) gives perhaps a better sense of the division between upper and lower main sequence than the log graph based on core temperature (a property that is not given less attention in the article than mass, and might be confused with spectral temperature)--ragesoss (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A graph of mass versus the proportion of P-P vs. CNO energy generation might be informative. I'm not sure whether such exists, but I'll take a look around.—RJH (talk)
        • I had no luck finding specifics. This details are probably more appropriate to Stellar nucleosynthesis anyway. I'm going to take a pass. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is intimately tied to stellar structure & evolution ... a higher temperature sensitivity of the dominant energy-generation reaction means convective energy transport is more important than radiative transport in the star. That manifests itself in the evolutionary tracks. For example, look at [117] and there's such a diagram about halfway down that page. Whenever there's a "jerk" in an evolutionary track back to the left (warmer temperature) at the end of the main sequence, that means the stellar core is convective (i.e., CNO is more important than P-P). In that linked figure, that happens for all the tracks with masses more than 1 solar mass. There are some webtools out there now for rolling your own color-magnitude diagrams and evolutionary tracks which might provide you with the raw data needed to construct the diagram you think you want, but it'll be annoying and may violate the OR guidelines to do so. I certainly don't recall seeing a diagram of the kind you're thinking of. BSVulturis (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks. Maybe we need an article on evolutionary tracks? I added it to the requested articles list, and hopefully this can be covered in detail.—RJH (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. All my major concerns have been addressed. The articles seems clear, complete and well-referenced to me. I still think the energy production section could be expanded a small amount, with more explanation within the main text that unpacks the relevant features of the new and improved diagram, including a mention of the triple-helix process, which (if I understand correctly) is important for very high mass main sequence stars. But I'll leave that to your judgment, RJH.--ragesoss (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. I did some modification of the paragraph to try and make it clearer. However, I couldn't find any reference to a stellar "triple-helix" process, even under google scholar. It's not listed in the stellar nucleosynthesis article. Does it go by another name, perhaps?—RJH (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I meant triple-alpha, and I got my physics mixed up with my biochemistry (alpha helix).--ragesoss (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay. Perhaps you are thinking of shell burning stages for evolved massive stars? I think this only kicks in after core hydrogen burning has ceased, but I may be mistaken. (I'm not sure about first generation stars.)—RJH (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're probably correct; I think I got that impression from some of the less developed articles along with the diagram. Since the triple alpha process is on the diagram, it should probably be mentioned in the text, if only to restate what you said here, that it becomes important during the transition to red giant stage but not during the hydrogen-burning period.--ragesoss (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is mentioned later in the text. I just though it would break the flow to discuss it in that section.—RJH (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • SupportComments
      1) In the lead I read Hydrostatic equilibrium is maintained by a balance between the thermal radiation within the star and the pressure from the overlying mass. This balance occurs because the rate of energy generation at the core depends on the temperature and pressure. I suggest instead All main sequence stars are in hydrostatic equilibrium, where pressure in the hot core is balanced by the pressure from the overlying mass. The strong dependence of the rate of energy generation in the core on the temperature and pressure helps to sustain it.
      I adopted your wording, with minor modifications.
      2) The first paragraph in 'Properties' section is unreferenced and redundant, in my my opinion.
      Deleted.
      3) The last paragraph in 'Luminosity-color variation' section should mention that unstable main-sequence stars, which result from the intersection of the instability strip with the main sequence, are called Delta Scuti variable stars. There are other classes of unstable main sequence stars like beta Cephei variable stars, which are unrelated to the instability strip.
      Okay.
      4) In the 'Lifetime' section I found As the energy output of the helium fusion process per unit mass is only about a tenth the energy output of the hydrogen process, this stage will only last for about 10% of a star's total active lifetime. Thus, about 90% of the observed stars above 0.5 solar masses will be on the main sequence. I doubt the accuracy of this estimate. In the case of the Sun helium-burning stage will last only for about 60 mya, which is only 0.5% of its lifetime. The difference is luminosities should be taken into account.
      I'll need to double-check this because it has shown up in several sources.
      You can see Formation and evolution of the Solar System article and ref 86 in it (Schroder). Ruslik (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm getting a lot of mixed messages from the various references about this. It seems to vary quite a bit by mass (especially for low mass stars) and the quotes values vary from 1% up to 25% of the MS lifetime. I think I'm just going to remove the 10% value and use a general statement instead. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      5) In the last section Stars with at least four solar masses can also fuse elements with higher atomic numbers. I actually read that this limit is 7-8 Solar masses.
      The carbon burning article lists 4 solar masses, but that is also unreferenced. Section 10.3.1 of this page lists a model with 5 solar masses where carbon burning takes place (step G). I need a better ref.
      See this: 7.5-9.25 Solar masses for SAGB stars. Ruslik (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I had just inserted this reference, which listed just over 5 solar masses. At this point I'm not sure what to do.—RJH (talk)
      I think the higher mass is more accurate, because Poelarend et.al. used more accurate simulations. The onset of carbon burning depends on the helium core mass, which is significantly reduced during the second dredge-up of the convective envelope. The influence of the latter is difficult to calculate—treatment of the convection requires an enormous computational power. However you can simply state that this mass lies somewhere between 5-7.5 Solar masses. Ruslik (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, I put in the range and used both references. I'm sure it'll get further refined later. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      6) The use of word cataclysmic for SNII type explosions should be avoided, because it can confuses readers. They may think that they related to cataclysmic variables.
      Okay, I removed the word.
    I hope my comments will be helpfull. Ruslik (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they are helpful. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Extremely comprehensive and engaging prose. Yet another brilliant RJ article. Sorry for being so delayed, didn't know if this FAC was done yet. —Ceranspeak 22:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it. Kind of embarrassed though.—RJH (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:07, 13 December 2008 [118].

    Metroid Prime 2: Echoes edit

    Nominator(s): Gary King (talk), Igordebraga

    After working on this article for over a month, I believe it's ready. Gary King (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I thought that the reception section skimped on criticism on the multiplayer, which was prominently mentioned in the lead. If the criticism wasn't all too common, then I think it would be better off if you dropped that. bibliomaniac15 04:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It was mentioned by two reviews in the Reception section; I think it's suitable in the lead, especially considering it was one of the few things that received criticism. Gary King (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another comment. In the synopsis: "Dark Aether becomes home to the Ing, cruel shapeshifting creatures that can possess bodies of the living, the dead, and the artificially intelligent, and intend to destroy the Luminoth." The last part doesn't make much sense, since if you cut out the appositive, it becomes: "Dark Aether becomes home to the Ing, and intend to destroy the Luminoth." I think that the "and" should be changed to a "who."
    • Some comments, since I played this game.
      • I'm a bit of a nerd when it comes to opening sentences, but I think the first sentence is rather boring, and doesn't say that much. I would love if the second sentence (the general content) was used instead for the opening, since it sums up what the game is so well. The current first sentence would be a logical second sentence then, since it explains in more general terms of what it is. I don't know if everyone would agree, but on tropical cyclone articles, which I so often work on, I try and find a captivating opening sentence, with a more general sentence that follows.
      • Is the mentioning of the Zelda game important? I find it out of place, especially it being in the first paragraph, which is supposed to talk about the game itself. If it were on TFA, and the whole lede were included, I'd certainly be confused why there was a Zelda reference in its main page blurb.
        • Removed.
      • The last sentence of the first paragraph of the lede could use some tweaking. Perhaps a semicolon is needed to split the "will be released" part.
        • Edited to replicate another FA with receive same treatment.
      • Likewise, I have some issues with the last sentence of the second paragraph of the lede. First, should Temple be capitalized? Second, you say Samus must travel to the temples, but you don't say why. Isn't that important? Third, perhaps the bit about the Space Pirates and Dark Samus should be a separate statement, since IIRC those battles were separate from the Ing/Luminoth battle.
        • Fixed a little. But the Space Pirates/DS is to show that the Ing aren't the only problem.
      • A source is needed for "The events of Echoes take place six months after the events of Metroid Prime."
        • Didn't find, reworded.
      • Something I notice that's missing is total number of units sold (not just in 2004, but overall since released). That is important, I would imagine.
        • I couldn't find newer data outside of forums (it says it's NPD numbers, but people normally complain when this kind of source is used...).
      • Should its place in chronology in the MP trilogy be mentioned in the lede? Just an idea...
        • Don't know, but decided not to put.
      • For the image in gameplay, should it be "heads-up display" or "head-up display"? The former redirects to the latter.
        • Fixed.
          • The wording "heads-up display" is still in the gameplay section.
      • The first sentence of "setting" is a bit too much of a run-on; its format is "a is on b, which home c, which is doing d, which is e."
        • Did something, tell me if it needs more work.
          • Better.
      • Wasn't there something about Dark Samus originating from the end boss in the first Metroid Prime? Should that be mentioned?
    • That's it for now. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two more concerns. First, in the setting section, I really don't like the wording of "One day" in regards to the meteor strike. Since the source you have for that sentence says "five decades ago", and MP3 was 6 months after MP2, then couldn't you logically say "About five decades prior" or something, instead of the vague "one day." The other concern is larger, in that the entire synopsis section is without a source, which I find that problematic. Is there a reason for that, other than that we are to assume the game is the source? Shouldn't the article rely on secondary sources? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done the first. The second, sources are nice but not a requirement. Gary King (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Could you point me to the discussion that sources are not a requirement? The way you said that freaks me out a tad, per FA crit. 1c -
            • Factually accurate : claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate
          • Sorry, but thinking about it further, I oppose based on that. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've never had a problem with the synopsis of any previous FAs. How can certain things be sourced when there isn't always a quote available? Gary King (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Consider it unactionable, but I can't support something that large that is unsourced. I was told that the game was considered an "acceptable primary source"; that alone is murky in my book, as I thought we were supposed to rely on a combination of primary and secondary sources. I cannot believe that there is no available source from some agency (Nintendo would be the best bet) that does not have a plot outline. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's not just video games; it's also accepted in films (e.g. Jurassic Park (film)). Novels generally have page citations (Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards), but they are inherently easier to cite than an intangible form such as new media. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • For a book or movie, I might be fine accepting that (since you can put the page # or the time in movie). I stand by my position in this one, though. I asked before, but you didn't really answer, can you point me to the discussion that says sources are not a requirement for a featured video game article? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • There's probably a discussion out there but I don't usually hang around WP:VG so I wouldn't know where it is, but Fuchs might know. In any case, I've added references to the Synopsis section, so please check it out now. Gary King (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Much better. Having read Nintendo Power, I think that is a perfectly acceptable source for the plot. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • In the in general case, when dealing with works of fiction, it is perfectly acceptable for plot and other in-universe details to be sourced to primary works as long as 1) that's not the only aspect the article deals with (per WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:N and 2) if secondary sources are available, they can be used. For video games, you are rarely going to get a full plot understanding from secondary sources, but anything (reviews, etc.) can be used at least to establish the opening parts. --MASEM 23:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One more concern before I declare my !vote. The image of the box art doesn't really pass the fair use criteria, does it? First, the "Purpose of use" on the image page says "Metroid Prime 3: Corruption". If you've copied the rationale from elsewhere, you need to read it again to make sure it still applies. Second, though you use it in the article, it's just.... there. There's no text saying "cover art" or something like that. Also, as far as I know, aren't you supposed to explain the image somewhat? I, for one, would like to know what the symbols mean. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks I fixed the mention of Corruption. The fair use is sufficient for the image's use in the article—images have already been checked above by Awadewit. Gary King (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good enough - I'm ready to support now. While there still might be outstanding issues (such as writing), I believe that the article is now the definitive source for information on the topic, anywhere online. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review

    Oppose - man, you really don't waste time with closing them Peer Reviews, eh? Looks close, but there are some issues with the prose that need to be addressed: changed to support 21:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

    • Lead:
      • "Metroid Prime 2: Echoes is a first-person action-adventure video game developed by Retro Studios and published by Nintendo for the GameCube video game console. It is the second game in the Metroid Prime trilogy, following Metroid Prime, and the first Metroid game to have a multiplayer feature." I dunno, personally I happen to dislike the whole wall of blue greeting people as they start reading. Is the "first person" part that important? Is telling us it follows Metroid Prime that important either?
        • The "first-person" is to denote it is like an FPS, but with less focus on shooting. I reworded to denote it's a direct sequel to Metroid Prime, so very similar to it.
      • "Echoes follows a theme of light versus dark, similar to another game published by Nintendo, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, whose development team advised Retro Studios on the concept's development. " This sentence doesn't tell me much, disassociated as it is with the other story elements, and "to another game" bit just sounds vague and bizarre as phrased.
      • "The game was released in North America, Europe, and Australia in 2004, and in Japan in 2005, and will be released for the Wii in 2009 with updated graphics and take advantage of the Wii controls as part of the Play on the Wii selection." or, put a period after 2005. And create a new sentence.
      • "Nintendo launched a viral marketing campaign to promote the game that included several websites written in an in-universe style. Echoes was well received by most critics, and received comments focusing on its campaign and graphics, which was considered one of the best on the GameCube. However, the game received complaints regarding its steep difficulty level and the average quality of the multiplayer component. " 'included several websites written in an in-universe style' - ehhhhh. Not grabbing me. "and received comments focusing on its campaign and graphics" - comments?
        • Yeah, Gary King is a man who rushes. The first, tried to do something; the second I had already removed, and third, changed following the previous commenter; the fourth, removed the former (no need to summarize everything in the lead) and reworded the latter. The igordebraga ≠ 23:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • What? Gary King (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • 00:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC): Article passes the GA. 04:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC): The FAC is started. Simple. But he's a great editor nevertheless. igordebraga ≠ 22:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The amount of time between an article being promoted after GAN and its nomination to FAC isn't directly related to how well written it is. I'm fine if you call me a poor writer, but please don't assume bad faith and think that I tend to rush nominations. Gary King (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gameplay:
      • "The gameplay revolves around solving puzzles to uncover secrets, platform jumping, and shooting enemies with the help of a "lock-on" mechanism that allows circle strafing while staying aimed at an enemy." This is rather breathless with the lock-on bit. Try ending at enemies and starting a new sentence explaining the lock on mechanism.
      • "The game contains additions that include new power-ups for Samus, including the Screw Attack, which allows Samus to jump in midair and off of certain surfaces; and new beam weapons, which, unlike in previous games, have limited ammunition.[2][3]" Two guesses on what the two issues are with this sentence.
      • "The safe zones are either permanent or need to be activated. " How does one activate them?
      • "The game's heads-up display simulates the inside of Samus' helmet and features a radar, map, missile ammunition meter, health meter, and health bar" It's not quite clear you are referring to Samus' health, et al in this section.
      • "The multiplayer mode allows up to four players to engage in combat using a split screen. It has six arenas and two modes: Deathmatch and Bounty, the latter of which focuses on collecting coins that injured characters drop. Multiplayer in Echoes features the same control scheme as the single-player mode and includes the lock-on system.[2]" - don't go all "the multiplayer mode" on me when we haven't talked about it before. Explain the gametypes if you're going to talk about one of them.
        • 1st: considering I link to the previous game gameplay, reworded. Tried to fix the rest. igordebraga ≠ 23:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Synopsis:
      • "Echoes takes place on Aether, a planet inhabited by the Luminoth, a race that protects the planet's pure natural energy, the Light of Aether." repetitious structure
        • Added some words.
      • "One day, a meteor collides into the planet and leaves a scar that burns the Agon Plains, floods Torvus Forest, " - um, who gives a crap about Torvus forest and agon plains? It seems like by cutting out these details, the plot could be slimmed down.
        • It's just for readers not to be much lost when "Agon Wastes" and "Torvus Bog" appear in "Story"... but removed the names. igordebraga ≠ 23:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Named Dark Aether, it forms evil creatures to balance the Luminoth, called the Ing: cruel shapeshifting creatures that can possess bodies of the living, the dead, and the artificially intelligent, and who intend to destroy the Luminoth." awkward start with an unclear subject; tacked-on sentence about the Ing, repetitious structure
        • Reworded.
      • "Failing to return the Marines back alive" - gah.
        • Removed
      • To me, it seems the entire second paragraph of plot could be turned into "Samus travels to different locations across Aether, defeating powerful bosses and restoring light yadda yadda."
        • Reduced it a bit.
      • "If the player has collected 100% of the in-game items, a post-credits scene shows Dark Samus reforming herself." This comes out of nowhere, and since it's not discussed previously doesn't make much sense. Recast to be less game-centered.
        • Added some words, but I can remove.
    • Development:
      • "Nintendo ordered Retro Studios" order eh? Who does he think he is?
      • "After the successful release of Metroid Prime" How was it successful?
        • Reworded
      • "They also created a more immersive storyline that focused less on the Space Pirates and Metroids." who are the developers to decide their succeeded in creating an immersive storyline. I'd likes some qualifier to that. Also, something should explain why focusing less on the Space Pirates and Metroids was a departure.
      • "because the game also used a light and dark concept" oh come on, you can explain it, "the game's protagonist travels between light and dark worlds yadda yadda"
        • Reworded the rest.
      • "The "Hunters" multiplayer theme is a remix of Super Metroid's "Upper Brinstar" theme" perhaps you should preface these examples by explaining they adapted music from previous Metroid games?
        • Expanded.
    • Release:
      • The I Love Bees bit should be explained out (that it was viral marketing/ARG for Halo 2)
        • Done.
      • "Despite positive reviews, some critics found problems with the game" The positive reviews part is a given considering previous text, just axe it.
        • Done.
      • the constant use of "complained " sounds a bit POV
      • "and 40,000 copies in Japan after its release there" 40,000 copies during the same time frame? it's not clear in the prose
      • "It was also rated"
        • All reworded
      • keep the same citation scheme: in "the 15th best GameCube game by IGN, and the 13th best by GameSpy.[30][31]" the IGN ref should come after the award is named.
        • I had already fixed before your post. Did you review a previous version somehow? igordebraga ≠ 23:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please reply to the above in a block below so I can keep track of what's being done and all. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've performed a series of copyedits fixing my concerns outlined above, but I'm concerned about the length of the reception section. There are only three reviews by my count for positive reviews, for example; I'll see about gathering up some MSM sources from LexisNexis. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright I'll get right on it. Frankly, Development is the hardest to expand, so Reception shouldn't be that bad. I'll fish around. Gary King (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Check your email, I've sent a half-dozen plus bits. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added three more positive reviews. Thoughts? Gary King (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's shaping up. I only have two things left, really: 1), why is the game citation segregated from the rest of the refs, and 2) the reception prose is clunky. There's too much "Publication X's Reviewer Y" and lots of similar phrasing and word choice, such as "enjoyed". Perhaps lumping together similar statements would help improve flow (Publication X's Reviewer Y and Publication Z's Review Ω pointed out the graphics and ≈ as postive aspects of the game." --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the long quotes look better in a separate Notes section. They are notes, after all, considering they reference the article's subject itself. Also, I've cleaned up Reception; thoughts on it now? Gary King (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just think it's weird having a single note all by its lonesome. The reception section looks much better; I'll do a final review sometime this weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's pretty effective, visually, in the Notes section of articles such as Half-Life 2: Lost Coast. Gary King (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but there the notes section has more than one note in it. Anyhow, the reception looks better now, eliminating my concerns, so I support. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments -

    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All done Gary King (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you replace the questioned source? If so, with what? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't replace it. It was originally a Famitsu source; someone else added the URL to it to use as an online mirror for the information. I just removed the URL. Gary King (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • "The events of Echoes take place some time after Metroid Prime." I always prefer "is set" in these instances so as to establish a firm in-universe basis, but that's probably personal. Same for other instances (start of "gameplay" and others). Anywho, "takes place some time after" does not mean anything and just sounds vague.
      • Done.
        • The primary concern, "some time", has not been addressed.
          • Replaced, but don't know if well enough.
    • "sends her to rescue Marines"—it will be obvious to us gamers, but non-gamers may be confused by this. You need establish that these are not "marines" based on any actual national force, UK, US, etc.
    • "There, she discovers the Marines were slaughtered". I always prefer "that"s in sentences, but they're usually not necessary. However, it does not sound right here without it. Take this one with a pinch of salt, though.
      • Done.
    • There's no reference to gameplay besides the genre and multiplayer feature. There should be at least one sentence establishing the core gameplay premise of the game. Something akin to the second sentence of "Gameplay". Consider incorporating "Development" by referenceing the game's music and/or actual development.
    • "written as if taking place in the game universe". But the games, sharing a series, also share the same universe. I think it would be more apt to state "Metroid universe", as "universe" nearly always applies to the series, and not the game.
      • Done.
    • "Echoes' campaign". This is gaming jargon; stick with "single-player mode" or something similar.
      • Done.
    • "Over 470,000 copies of the game were sold in North America" Past tense? Sold as of when, ie. what time period?
      • The Reception section shows that is in 2004.
        • It still needs to be in the lead if mentioned. Readers should not have to read "Reception" so that this makes sense.
          • Done.
    • "it received several video game industry awards, including spots on top games lists by Nintendo Power and IGN". Bothe aren't techncially awards, so I'm not sure if "including" can still be used here. Anywho, it may be better to replace with an actual award so the prose runs more smoothly in this sentence.
      • Might need rewording, but done.
    • "Equipment players collect include the Screw Attack, which allows Samus to jump in midair and off of certain surfaces; and beam weapons that have limited ammunition". Jumping in mid-air is what the Double Jump is; you need to express what it is more accurately. It would be better to say that it was reintroduced in this game, so as to establish context. Not sure about the semi-colon—looks slightly needless with the "and" there. Mention that the beam weapons are "upgrades", and not just the same beam but with limitations.
      • Reworded.
    • ", the player's health bar," If we are to assign health as a characterisitc of the player then we can do so with ammunition and so on. Inconsistent.
      • Removed "player"
    • "Several visors are available, and each performs a different function that include searching for enemy weaknesses, interfacing with mechanisms such as force fields and elevators and retrieving text entries from certain sources, highlighting objects that can be scanned, revealing and highlighting interdimensional objects or cloaked enemies, and creating a visual representation of sound." This sentence is way too long (Snake?). Don't be reluctant to elaborate further so that this aspect serves as its own paragraph.
      • Broke the first part.
        • I'm not sure that that's sufficient—it's still an unwieldy list. I know I'm being awkward, but try splitting the list in two, with a type of "and also" or something similar, if that makes sense.
          • Broke yet again.
    • Not sure about the semi-colon in the last paragraph. This section is pretty comprehensive, although you probably should mention the Morph Ball. A good way to link it in as a fresh concept is to reference the bosses that could only be defeated by the ball, which I think was a series first.
      • Replaced it with a comma. But the intention was to show new features (the old ones, the link to Metroid Prime#Gameplay will show).
        • I may be missing something, but the comma change isn't showing on my screen.
          • "off of certain surfaces, and" How?
    • "Space Pirates set up a base on Aether after detecting Phazon on the planet". I don't think these terms have been explained up until now. This should be solved by linking to the series article.
      • Put Phazon clearer, but I don't know if SP needs more info.
    • Plot has the "A-B-C" structure. If you don't mind, I'll save time and not review this part, but will just recommend that it be rewritten in the style of an overview. Purge sentences like these: "Deceased Marines suddenly rise and attack her, apparently possessed, and she fights them off." Although covering a different area, the "Setting" section manages this well.
    • "The developers decided to go in a different direction from the original game and used new sound models, weapon effects, and art designs." I feel that this sentence is questionable since the game uses fundamentally the same gameplay mechanics. Reword so as to not convey the concept in this way.
      • Reworded.
    • ""something that everyone understands, the conflict between good and evil"". After noticing dubious punctuation, I traced this quote to the source. Anywho, you've contracted the quote while passing it off as the original. Don't you need to use ellipses when doing this? Actually, in the original, it references this as the conflict between "good and evil", so I'm not sure if the quote is entirely honest/appropriate.
      • Put the punctuation as it is in the article.
        • Woops; misread it. Apologies. ;-)
    • "Nintendo launched several websites to kick off a" Watch out for informal language. Try "initiate"; "engender" probably too flowery for some people's liking, but I digress...
      • Done
    • Believe it or not, "internet" is actually a proper noun. Should be capitalised.
      • Done
    • Again, the second sentence is way too long. Sentences such as these need to be split up. "that featured grainy QuickTime videos". "grainy"?
      • Reworded to show the intention of the "grainy"
        • It's still quite long, I think.
          • I don't know how to reduce. Instead, I broke a section to turn the "block" paragraph shorter.
    • "The game was considered suitable for players of any age by Computer and Video Games, which called Echoes an essential purchase for anyone with a GameCube." It would probably be more appropriate if you just quote it here.
      • Quoted.
    • "Bryn Williams from GameSpy complimented the tight controls". Again with the informal language.
      • Reworded
    • "They also considered the game to have too little voice work." Just generally a funny way of wording things. Reword please.
      • Removed.
    • "Computer and Video Games was disappointed that Echoes was not as innovative in terms of gameplay as Metroid Prime, and called the multiplayer mode a "half-hearted" feature.[13] The Age's Jason Hill was disappointed by the lack of innovation in Echoes," Both "disappointed" and "innovative" are repeated in consecutive sentences here.
      • Reworded.
    • I'm not a fan of the positive–negative layout here; it really is basic. What's more, aspects, such as multiplayer are discussed in separate parts of the section even though the subject is the same. Criticisms and praise should be integrated; and yes, I do realise that other FAs have this structure.
    • Some prosaic reception from Japan would be nice, but not necessary. A lot is made of Japan's reaction to this franchise, so it would be interesting.
      • Added Famitsu to the Reception box.
    • What does the MobyGames link offer?
      • Removed.
    • Source 10 is missing author info, as is 12.
      • Added authors in the ones that credit someone that's not "Staff".

    Okay that's about it; you'll notice that I've copyedited the article partially for simple issues. Most of these can be resolved easily, although "Story" and "Reception" issues could take time if you decide change the style of each. Happy editing. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 12:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • See if more work is needed. igordebraga ≠ 16:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I've left a few responses. I've been impressed with the amendments so far. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done some more. igordebraga ≠ 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yep; nice work. The split up of the long sentence was pretty much what I thought was need. Admittedly, some parts are slightly more awkward now, but sometimes that's the sacrifice required for improving clarity/removing errors. Ashnard Talk Contribs 09:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments by Guyinblack25

    The article looks pretty good. The only things that stood out to me were some style and prose issues.

    • The lead
      • There is barely any mention of the development. I would include at leasta sentence to make it representative of the article.
    • Gameplay
      • I know "health bar" is a no-brainer for anyone who's ever seen a game, but I think health meter would be more appropriate.
    • Setting
      • This structure of this sentence is a bit hard to read because of the commas. I'd suggest emdashes around the shapeshifting and possessing part, but the next sentence uses them too. Not sure what would fix this. "Dark Aether becomes home to the Ing, cruel shapeshifting creatures that can possess bodies of the living, the dead, and the artificially intelligent, who intend to destroy the Luminoth."
    • Development
      • This is a minor issue, but the first paragraph is considerably larger than the rest. I'd start a new paragraph at the part about the storyline.
      • In a related issue, I'd move the sentence about the multiplayer component to after the sentence about the screw attack and wall jumping. It feels tacked on where it is now and seems more related to content from the first game. I think this would improve the flow and balance the new paragraphs sizes.
      • I assume the darker variants of the theme music are for the same areas? If so, I'd tweak the sentence some to make this more clear.
    • Reception
      • Some of the review scores in the table don't add much because they are too similar. For instance Computer and Video Games and Eurogamer both gave it a 9/10, and Game Informer and IGN a 9.5/10. I'd drop the CVG and either GI or IGN; Eurogamer gives a European perspective.
      • There's a bit too much direct quoting for my tastes. I'd paraphrase/summarize some more.
    • Sources
      • It wouldn't hurt to list X Publication Staff for the refs that don't have authors.
      • I'd list the authors of ref 9 as EGM staff to show it's not 1UP.com staff.

    The article looks very good. Once these issues are addressed, I'll be happy to support. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    Should be all done now Gary King (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: My main concerns have been addressed. The images have the proper tags and I think the article is well-sourced, comprehensive, and well-written. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:36, 10 December 2008 [119].

    Bart Simpson edit

    Nominator(s): Scorpion0422

    This is the second FA towards a Simpson family FT. It is modelled after Homer Simpson, and is larger and there are some differences between the layout (for example, this one has no development section and the reception and influence sections are merged due to overlap). Huge thank you to Zagalejo and Jackyd101 for their reviews, which helped out quite a bit. As always, all concerns will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion0422 20:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review

    • Image:Bart Simpson.png - Could you replace the link with one that takes us the image a bit better so that we don't have to search all over the site?
      • Done.
    • Image:Groening at comiccon.jpg - The source and author field need to be filled in from Flickr - after the commons bot moves an image, sometimes information is lost or needs to be filled in.
      • Done.
        • I've also fixed the license there. Awadewit (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Nancy Cartwright.jpg - Please provide a more direct link to this image so the user doesn't have to hunt around the website. Also, if the CC by SA 2.5 license is not mentioned in reference to this image at the website, we need to have that email sent through OTRS.
      • I'm actually not sure if it is on the website, I looked and couldn't find it. According to the image, it was provided in an e-mail sent by the website.
        • I didn't see it, either. Ok, then this needs to go through OTRS. Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've left a message for the uploading user at commons.
    • Image:New Orleans Chalk Gag.png - I am not entirely convinced by the fair use rationale for this image. What is important in these scenes, as illustrated by the article's discussion, is the words on the chalkboard. I don't think we need an image to convey this. That is, having the image does not significantly increase the reader's understanding of these scenes (WP:NFCC #8).
      • Well, I think it does because people who have never seen the show would not know what the sequence looks like, so I think it does add value to the page.
        • From article: In the opening sequence of most Simpsons episodes, the camera zooms in on Springfield Elementary School, where Bart can be seen writing a message on the chalkboard. This message, which changes from episode to episode, has become known as the "chalkboard gag" - As the article makes clear, it is the message on the chalkboard which is essential. The article then goes on to quote several notable "gags", which are verbal jokes. The image is not necessary to understand these jokes. Awadewit (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Alright, I guess this one can go.
            • I have stricken this as it has been removed from the article. Awadewit (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:I'm Bart Simpson, who the hell are you?.png - I am not entirely convinced by the fair use rationale for this image. The article states Believing Bart to be a bad role model, several American public schools banned T-shirts featuring Bart next to captions such as "I'm Bart Simpson. Who the hell are you?" and "Underachiever ('And proud of it, man!')". - Since we already have a fair-use image that shows what Bart looks like and this t-shirt is not different from that, we are basically using it as an illustration of Bart (again) plus the words. The image does not significantly increase the reader's understanding (WP:NFCC #8).
      • I think it does, because someone might read through it and wonder what the T-shirt looks like and thus it does significantly increase the understanding. Are you suggesting I change the rationale?
        • The article describes the t-shirt well. The image doesn't add anything and adds redundancy (another copyrighted image of Bart), which is explicitly against the NFCC criteria (NFCC #3 - minimal use). Again, in this situation, it is the words on the t-shirt that are important - the words caused the t-shirts to be banned. Awadewit (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've stricken this at is has been removed from the article. Awadewit (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sure we can work through these issues carefully. (Note: I do feel your pain regarding the restrictions of fair use on Wikipedia, but the restrictions are quite tight to protect Wikipedia from lawsuits. None of us wants that. Imagine if Fox sued us!) Awadewit (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 00:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a list of images that I might be able to include. Now that I have room, I thought I would add one of the Macy's Thanksgiving Day balloon. Would that be acceptable? -- Scorpion0422 01:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have to see the image and its licensing. Awadewit (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Image:Bart_-_Macys.png. -- Scorpion0422 00:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, I would say no on this. It is just a big balloon shaped like Bart. Since we already know what Bart looks like from the non-free image in the article, we can imagine a big balloon shaped like him. We don't really need an image to convey this idea. Awadewit (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you can imagine what it would look like, but that doesn't mean that you would be correct. When i first heard that there was a Bart balloon, I assumed it would just be Bart, I didn't know it would depict him skateboarding. -- Scorpion0422 21:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But you could just add that fact to the description in the text. We are running into the same problem that we ran into the with the t-shirt here. We are replicating images of the copyrighted Bart and we don't have a compelling reason to do so. With the screenshot from the movie, we are showing a famous scene from a movie, Bart skateboarding, and Bart naked. These are compelling reasons to show the Bart figure again. In the case of the t-shirt and the balloon, we don't have any such compelling reasons. Awadewit (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed both of the images, but now there is a large ugly imageless section... Maybe I'll throw an image of Michael Jackson in there. -- Scorpion0422 16:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought you were joking! Image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggestion: What do you think about a shot from the Simpsons Movie skateboarding scene (either nude or not)? This would illustrate both the famous scene and Bart skateboarding - it is a famous scene identified by the article which is a bit hard to picture and shows Bart doing one of his trademark things? Awadewit (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'll give that a try. I can't get his full frontal scene (because of how it works, in that portion of the sequence, the rest of his body is blocked out), but I'll try an image. -- Scorpion0422 21:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Image:Bart Simpson - Skateboarding.png -- Scorpion0422 21:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is much better. I've added more to the rationale and fixed the description. Awadewit (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments -

    • Current ref 10 (Groening, Matt...) is lacking a page number
    • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • Is current ref 64 (Cantor, P...) a journal article? If so, the journal needs to be in italics. {{cite journal}} would be good to use here.
      • I'm actually not sure, I didn't add the ref. However, I have converted it.
        • Might be a good idea to use Google Scholar to check on this? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done, I have fixed the ref, and added a link to the article. -- Scorpion0422 16:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the footnotes, such as MSNBC, BNET,, etc.
      • BNET actually doesn't stand for anything, and according to it's article, MSNBC doesn't stand for anything, it's just a combination of MSN and NBC.
    • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals even when they are in the original. (I noticed current ref 134 (Berke, Richard L....) but there may be others)
      • Yeah, the New York Times in particular likes to do that, I usually avoid it but I guess that one slipped through. Fixed.
    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 00:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support — Article is excellent in terms of content and sourcing. I can see no serious problems that would prevent this article from being promoted. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    Comment - There is a link: Radioactive Man, which is a pipe to a redirect to a disambiguation page. William Avery (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed. -- Scorpion0422 16:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. As usual, I skimmed over the article to look for any major problems, and found none. Now I didn't go hunting through links to look for a misdirected one; I tried to read it as a random reader would. The article is informative enough and to a greater extent, well-enough sourced. And all the image-related problems have been fixed. Tezkag72 22:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notes, pls check the dabs in the toolbox, pls review punctuation per WP:MOS#Captions (full sentences get a full stop), and something seems amiss with the caps here: Bart was described as "Television's king of 1990",[108] "television's brightest new star"[109] ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done, done and done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 15:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support once all the MOS issues are resolved. If only we were able to write articles like this for all fictional characters... --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the support, but which unresolved MOS issues are you referring to? -- Scorpion0422 18:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:58, 6 December 2008 [120].

    Maggie Gyllenhaal edit

    Nominator(s): ThinkBlue

    I'm nominating this article for featured article status because I have expanded the article and have brought it to GA status and one peer review process. I look forward to any feedback that arises out of this process. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review - All images have descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Dweller
    • Maybe I'm being grizzly here, but I'm puzzled by the partial use of sourcing in the Lead. Either source all the information there, or none of it, on the basis that it's sourced in the main body. This way, it makes the information presented seem less reliable. --Dweller (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Her mother is from a Jewish family in New York City and is the ex-wife of Eric Foner, a history professor at Columbia University." Unsourced. --Dweller (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "she worked a summer job as a waitress" To an Englishman, this comes across as less than formal language. Unsure about American English, so left it. I fixed another more definite informality. --Dweller (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have to agree, but I'm pretty sure it's standard American usage. There's no question that it sounds sloppy (to us), but I'm hesitant to critique it, lest pride is wounded and an AE vs. BE conflict erupts.--Adasta     10:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed the sentence, does it make sense? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • lacuna re her high school. --Dweller (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "break-out role" Do you mean break-through role? Even so, it seems POV unless someone said so in RS.they did --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC) --Dweller (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, "break-out" is OK - my English dictionary includes "a great success" among its meanings. We would say "breakthrough" in the UK, but perhaps break-out is a more usual Am-Eng form? Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lead looks a reasonable length - could add fiancé to it. --Dweller (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't put the sentence you suggest into the lead. It has one "and" too many. I have restructured in the Personal life section, where I think it belongs. In the lead, I advise you limit yourself to a minimal "Since 2006 she has been engaged to actor Peter Sasgaard". Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Got everything. The reason I left the references in the lead was to support the information stated there, so it wouldn't become a problem, but seeing how it was brought up, I removed them. I got your concerns, except for the high school thing; Hardvard-Westlake was the high school Gyllenhaal graduated from. Also, would this, for the lead, ---> "In her personal life, Gyllenhaal has been in relationship with actor Peter Sasgaard and announced their engagement in 2006 and together they have a daughter", work? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support: I helped peer-review this. During and after the review, a great deal of work was done to bring the article up from what was a fairly raw state to its present form. This is now, I believe, a comprehensive and well-written biography of an interesting up-and-coming star. I have just one quibble, and one caveat:

    • Quibble: Could a more easily-understood term than "poverty non-profit advocacies" be found, to describe what she is supporting here? This is a post-peer review addition to the text, and although I can roughly guess its meaning, I'm not sure, and other readers might be likewise confused.
      • I removed "non-profit", don't know if it helps. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No! - "poverty advocacies" makes no sense at all - sounds as if she is advocating poverty. The best wording I can suggest is "anti-poverty campaigns", if that describes what she was doing. But don't leave it as it is! Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]
    • Caveat: My support has to be dependent on the sources being checked out as "reliable" by FA standards. I'm afraid that identifying reliable sources isn't my strong point, especially in the movie world where I know next to nothing. So I will require assurance on this point, after a sources check by Ealdgyth or another sources specialist.

    I have done a little more copyediting, and have also commented on some of the points raised above. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • My support is now unqualified, as the soucees have been checked out. Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Looks generally good. A couple of things:

    • It's a bit repetitive at times. At the end of the last paragraph of the lead, three sentences start with "She..." There are similar issues with the end of the first paragraph of "2006–present" and the end of the second paragraph of "Personal life".
    • The quote "Gyllenhaal humanizes her so deeply and richly, though, that" seem to set up a false contrast, because what goes before is omitted. I would use ellipsis: "richly...that".

    Couldn't really find anything else. Lampman (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Check and I hope I cleared the consistency issues. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good, support. Lampman (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments -

    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the references and replaced "Digital Spy" with an Orlando Sentinel source. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose Second source is to a wikipedia mirror [121] and has been for some time. Haven't looked at anything passed that. 86.44.30.20 (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reference has been replaced. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note:This oppose from an IP should be struck, as the issue raised is resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments
    • "Hardvard-Westlake" Is this correct with a hyphen or should it be a dash?
      • I think its with a hyphen. Sorry about that, its with a dash and has been added. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Donnie Darko is mentioned in the lead, but no mention in the main body of text.
    • It's not exactly contentious, but reference 8 seems to be a blog.
    • The second image, while it helps to break up the text, doesn't seem to add much that the infobox image already does.

    Peanut4 (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Issues resolved, EnemyOfTheState|talk 18:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments. Overall, the article looks good, but I have some concerns:

    • Per Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language she should probably be introduced as an actor, not an actress (though there is some debate about this)
      • I disagree, why is it that articles like Reese Witherspoon and Katie Holmes have "actress". --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • At least in the case of Reese Witherspoon I know that the article passed FAC with the word 'actor' in it, it was changed back since then apparently. I personally don't care really, but I know that some people do.
          • I know where your coming from, seeing that Angelina Jolie has "actor", unless its necessary, I'll make the switch. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is the first section called "Biography"? Isn't the whole text a biography? Having just a single sub-section doesn't make much sense either, why not simply calling the first section "Early life"?
    • Is Secretary a romance (lead) or a black comedy (career section)?
    • I'm surprised there is no information at all about her childhood, how she got interested in acting, etc. Is this really all unknown?
      • Yeah, the only thing that is mentioned is that she starred in her father's films and that after graduating from Columbia, she took off to London to study drama, and came back and starred in films. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What kind of roles did she have in the three films she did with her father? Were these all brief cameo appearances? If so, it should be noted.
    • Her role in Donnie Darko must be discussed in more detail. There is more information about her role in the lead section than in the career section.
      • Question: Should the details come after the film is mentioned or say that in Donnie Darko....? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but you will probably have to break up that sentence to add something about Donnie Darko (what character she played etc.). You can't give more information in the lead than in the main body of the text. That breaks the inner logic of the article. EnemyOfTheState|talk 18:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is what I mean: The three films that she had supporting roles, Cecil B. Demented, Donnie Darko, and 40 Days and 40 Nights, alright should I add the info. after the mention of Donnie Darko or start a new sentence in her role in the film? Hope that made sense. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Never mind, I fixed the info. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm afraid this creates more problems, because 40 Days and 40 Nights was not only released after Donnie Darko, but also after Secretary; it breaks chronology. I would instead keep only Cecil B. Demented and Riding in Cars with Boys in that sentence and write a short paragraph after Secretary, in which you could mention 40 Days and 40 Nights, as well as Adaptation and Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, two pretty well known film that aren't in the text at all at the moment. EnemyOfTheState|talk 09:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Ok, I think that's better. But Confessions of a Dangerous Mind did not make $15m worldwide, but $33m [122], and it wasn't a critical failure, it was actually quite well received. EnemyOfTheState|talk 17:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Oops, I was looking at another movie and accidentally added that movie gross. So, check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Her next roles were in smaller independent films such as ...". "Such as" implies there are others the text does not mention. Also, why is Criminal explained further, but not Casa de los Babys?
    • The last part of the quoted review by Mike Straka ("I loved Gyllenhaal in this movie") should be removed. This offers no useful information for the reader and has the sole function of praising her.
    • Her role in World Trade Center most be explained further, especially since some of her characters in indie and tv films are mentioned a lot more prominently. Also, considering her 9/11 controversy, the film's critical and commercial success could be mentioned briefly.
      • Do you have a suggestion? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What character she played, that the film was generally well received and made $163m worldwide which is her second highest grossing film (I think). Maybe also what she thought about the film since she was involved in a controversy about the subject. EnemyOfTheState|talk 18:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was there a specific reason why she replaced Katie Holmes in Batman?
      • Katie Holmes turned down the role to appear in the Batman Begins sequel and Gyllenhaal was cast. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, that's probably nothing that needs to be mentioned.
          • Yeah. Also, I read in an article that before she accepted the role, she wanted Holmes' blessing and she got the green light. Would that be important to include? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "setting a record worldwide, opening-weekend gross of $158,411,483 on its opening day." This makes no sense. The film made $158m on its opening weekend in North America. Not on its opening day and not worldwide.
      • Do you have a suggestion on how to re-write it? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Something like "The Dark Knight was an big financial success, setting a new opening weekend record at the North America box office. With revenue of $996m worldwide, it became the fourth highest grossing film of all time."
    • The career section is pretty generous towards her in general. There is not a single negative or in some way critical review quoted, and the text also fails to mention that Trust the Man was critically and financially unsuccessful and Mona Lisa Smile certainly wasn't a critical darling either.
      • Will add the detail regarding Trust the Man. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Has been added for both Mona Lisa Smile and Trust the Man. Also, every review I've read, they don't give her a bad review on her performances. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what way exactly did she "protest" against the Iraq war at the Oscars? If all she did was giving interviews, I'm not sure this sounds right.
      • She was asked on how she felt about the US invading Iraq. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just checked the NY Times story, and she apparently said this at the Independent Spirit Awards, not the Oscars. Also, "spoke out against" might be more accurate?
    • US$ is linked in Personal life, but not when it's first mentioned in the career section. I'm not sure it needs to be linked at all in an article about an American though.
    • Why do so many (apparently) uncontroversial statements have two footnotes? How for example is her relationship with Sarsgaard proven further, if you don't use one, but two links to People.com?
      • I add two references so that the information can be backed-up by two references. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point is, if you already have one reliable source, you don't really need a second one. All it does is hurt readability, at least imho. EnemyOfTheState|talk 18:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Controversy" sections should be avoided where possible. If there is a descriptive term for the 9/11 incident without the word "controversy" it would certainly be preferable.
      • What do you suggest? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I don't know, I guess you could go with a pretty obvious headline like "Comments on 9/11 attacks" or something like that.
    • The Further reading section lists quite a few articles that hardly offer any new information about her. I think only longer, in-depth articles should be linked there. The three articles about the election (A party any prez..., The Hofstra Debate..., Celebrities encourage voter registration...) merely list her name once, and the last two links seem like random stories to me that could be found by the dozen using Google News.
    • One more thing: The infobx lists three critics awards that aren't even mentioned in the filmography. If these awards aren't significant enough to be be mentioned in the filmography, they definitly shouldn't be in the infobox.

    EnemyOfTheState|talk 08:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Issues resolved, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments I was asked to review this and have read it carefully. While I think it is close to FA standards, here are my pretty nitpicky concerns so far:

    • I would mention her daughter in the lead in connection with her realtionship with Peter Sarsgard - having a child is pretty important in someone's life.
    • I know refs in the lead was mentioned above, but there is a direct quote in the lead Gyllenhaal drew criticism in 2005 for her opinion that America was "responsible in some way" for the 9/11 attacks. , and as such it needs a ref per WP:LEAD and WP:MOSQUOTE
    • Her parents' marriage is mentioned, but not their 2008 divorce - I would think having her parents divorce after 32 years would be traumatic for all involved and would mention it either in the Early life or Personal life section.
      • I think I would say something at the end of the first paragraph of Early life after Her mother is from a Jewish family in New York City and is the ex-wife of Eric Foner, a history professor at Columbia University.[4][5] like "Gyllenhaal's parents, who married in 1977, filed for divorce in October 2008." or perhaps "Her parents filed for divorce in Octobner 2008 after 32 years of marriage."[123]
    • There are several internal consistency issues with the article - something is done one way in one place and a different way elsewhere in the article, or the lead (summary) has more detail than the body of the article. The detail should be in the text with the lead as more of a summary.
      • Her mother is linked and "Naomi Foner Gyllenhaal (née Achs)" in the lead, but is unlinked and "screenwriter Naomi Achs" in the Early life section.
      • the lead has her as the "older sister", Early life just has "brother" - perhaps add "younger"
      • the lead says she was 15 when she made her film debut, the text just gives the year the film Waterland was made.
      • At least two films that are linked in the text are not linked in the Filmography section: Waterland and Homegrown. Given all of the film links elsewhere in the Filmography, they should be linked there too.
      • The text calls Trust the Man a 2006 film Following Happy Endings, she starred in the 2006 films Trust the Man..., but the Filmography lists it as a 2005 film.
        • This has been changed in the Filmography to 2006, so I struck it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could the date be given for After studying at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art in London,[6] she had a summer job, working as a waitress in a Massachusetts restaurant.[7] to provide context for the reader?
    • Same thing for She made her theatrical debut in the Berkeley Repertory Theatre production of Patrick Marber's Closer,[10][11] for which she received favorable reviews.[12][13] please
      • There is no date available, all the sources I've read say that after she graduated from Columbia she went to London to study at the Royal Academy. Same goes with the waitress job. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Closer does have a year date. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Awkward sentence Secretary marked the first time Gyllenhaal performed full frontal nudity on film.[22] - do you really perform nudity? Perhaps something like Secretary was Gyllenhaal's first film role which featured full frontal nudity.[22] would be better?
    • Could this be tightened up? In 2003, she co-starred with Julia Roberts in Mona Lisa Smile.[24] In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, she revealed the reason for accepting the role of Giselle in Mona Lisa Smile was ... to something like In 2003, she co-starred with Julia Roberts in Mona Lisa Smile in the role of Giselle.[24] In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, she revealed the reason for accepting the role was ...?
    • Also need a date in Gyllenhaal returned to theater in a Los Angeles production of Tony Kushner's Homebody/ Kabul as Priscilla, ... please
    • Some short sentences could be combined to flow better perhaps (less choppy):
      • The film generated mostly critical reviews.[26] Manohla Dargis of the Los Angeles Times described the film as "smug and reductive".[27] could perhaps be The film generated mostly critical reviews,[26] with Manohla Dargis of the Los Angeles Times describing it as "smug and reductive".[27]
      • She also recorded songs for the movie's soundtrack.[24][36] She called the role the "roughest, scariest acting ever" and said she is more natural singing on screen than acting.[36] could perhaps be She recorded songs for the movie's soundtrack,[24][36] calling the role the "roughest, scariest acting ever" and adding she is more natural singing on screen than acting.[36]
    • What is this sentence doing in a section called "2002–2005", especially when the next section is "2006-present": Gyllenhaal was invited to join the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in 2006.[38]
    • I think it should at least be "attacks on" in Gyllenhaal depicted Alison Jimeno, the wife of Port Authority officer Will Jimeno, in Oliver Stone's World Trade Center, based on the September 11 attacks of the same-title towers of New York City.[48][49] I also think the "same-title towers" is a bit odd - I would prefer just linking to World Trade Center (the buildings). This last is my opinion - not actionable if you prefer.
      • Question: What do you mean by "attacks on"? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I meant either Gyllenhaal depicted Alison Jimeno, the wife of Port Authority officer Will Jimeno, in Oliver Stone's World Trade Center, based on the September 11 attacks on the same-title towers of New York City.[48][49] (bolded for emphasis), or perhaps Gyllenhaal depicted Alison Jimeno, the wife of Port Authority officer Will Jimeno, in Oliver Stone's World Trade Center, based on the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center towers of New York City.[48][49] Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Avoid "recently", time rolls on and it won't be that recent - so She recently finished filming the comedy Farlanders, to be released in 2009,[62]... would be better as something like In late 2008 she finished filming the comedy Farlanders, to be released in 2009,[62]... perhaps.
    • In the Controversy section, there should be areference right after the direct quotations per WP:MOSQUOTE
    • This is awkward "expressed" does not seem to the right verb here She said she would have left the project if the Jimenos wanted, but Allison Jimeno expressed that she and her husband were comfortable with her and "had no problem with her in [the] movie".[101][102] maybe "expressed the opinion" or just change it to "said" or some similar verb?

    OK, all done. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have struck all the resolved issues
    • Support All of my concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:58, 6 December 2008 [124].

    Christmas 1994 nor'easter edit

    Nominator(s): –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone

    Well, according to WT:FAC, some people have gotten bored with the usual nomination statements, so I'll try something new. Did you know ... that that nor'easter may have been a tropical cyclone? Considering that most reviewers won't even know the difference, let alone find it interesting, I guess I'll continue on as usual...

    Since its last FAC, the article has been copyedited by a couple editors, has received helpful comments on the talk page by User:Brianboulton, and got an equally helpful check for MOS and ACCESS issues by User:SandyGeorgia. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you make the Infobox damage total a little neater? Right now, it says "Damages: Several million 1994 USD", which is a tad weird. Why not just put the total you know (based on what you have already), and put the > sign ? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All references are good. I'm just a bit confused with the two sentences between the section Effects and the sub-section Southeast United States. Are they there as general effects or because there is nowhere else to put them? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, yeah. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review

    • That is the downloadable file. I was wondering if there was a way to link to the website and the file. (Apparently I would have to install a program to read this file.) Awadewit (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: I copyedited this article before FAC, and am leaning towards supporting , but I'd like a couple of issues settled first.

    • The two stray sentences after the Effects heading: I'm not convinced that they are doing anything where they are. In the main text the causes of flooding appear to be rainfall rather than snow melts, and there are no other references to ice jams, so the first sentence looks redundant. The second sentence makes a general point about above-average temperatures, but this could be made in the lead. I'd consider ditching the first and transferring the second.
    • In the lead you say that damage amounted to "several million dollars". According the main text, the damage in New England alone amounted to about $18 million - that's hardly "several". And what about the damage in the other areas - why is quantification given only for New England? I would guess that total damage was probably more like $50 million, which is seriously contrary to the lead statement. Could we have a clearer summary statement estimating the total cost of the damage? Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I clarified the damage total in the lead. As for the damages in other areas, information for specific totals is only available for New England, where the storm was the worst. Thank you for your copyedits and helpful comments, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support: Those were my only concerns. Brianboulton (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Meets all criteria, since it was copy edited. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 18:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Meets the FA criteria after the reviews. iMatthew 00:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:58, 6 December 2008 [125].

    Niobium edit

    Nominator(s): Stone, Nergaal (talk) & WikiProject Elements

    I'm nominating this article for featured article... as a tribute to the goddess of tears? Stone and Nergaal (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Question: In other uses you say:"Because niobium and some niobium alloys are physiologically inert (and thus hypoallergenic), they are used in jewelry[52] and in medical devices such as pacemakers.[53]". The next section states:"However niobium metal, without compounds, is physiologically inert (and thus hypoallergenic) and harmless. It is frequently used in jewelry and was tested for medical implants.[64][65]".
    • Why mention in twice?
    • One says it's tested for medical applications, the other says it's used. Which one is it? - Mgm|(talk) 00:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First: I think the first place shows reasoning of use, while the second needs to be there as the section is dedicated to health hazards. Nergaal (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    1. Reduce the number of blue links. You can remove common words such as tin, country names etc.
    2. Mention that Connecticut is a US state. You can expect everyone to know that.
      I now a lot of people for which a full list of US states would be Florida, Texas and California.
    3. discovered by Charles Hatchett --> Context: --> discovered by English chemist Charles...
    4. do mention the nationalities of the other chemists below
    5. a hydrogen atmosphere --> atmosphere & hydrogen, check if it not contradicting
    6. most leading American commercial producers --> give an example
      the sources do not specify names. Nergaal (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    7. Check prose: Even after its discovery, and even after --> for the word "even"; reads colloquial
    8. Niobium metal crystals pushes the section heading right. Looks bad. Try right aligning it instead
    9. least stable ones is... --> least stable isotopes is...
    10. Why is niobium used in semiconductor elements?
      I am not sure what you mean (nergaal)
      The whole text does not include the word semiconductor, but it is used similar to tantalum in capacitors, because it is similar to tantalum and much cheaper. Done (Stone)
    11. Since it's a scientific article, how about adding the Kelvin values?
      Celsius is scientific for reaction temperatures. Nergaal (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    12. Check: are used used industrially --> repetition, "industrial" as an adverb?
      Not sure what you mean (nergaal)
      Deleted industrially, because it is also in the applications section and there it is described in a better way Done (Stone)
    13. The element is never found as a free element but does occur in minerals. --> rewrite as positive tone
      haaa? what's wrong with it? (nergaal)
    14. Why is Niobium used in the steel industry? The reasons/uniqueness why Niobium is favoured over other metals should be mentioned. If it imparts strength, then move the last sentence earlier.
      Changed sentence and added why they are good and how it is done by niobium Done (Stone)
    15. Same as above for superalloys
      added sentence about hardening gamma" phase.--Stone (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    16. to cryogenic temperatures. --> add the value (−150 °C)
      Is it necessary? The next sentence sates it is at 9.2 K? But to add a temperature is no problem.
    17. General comment: It is frequently used in jewelry and was tested for medical implants. -- the article fails to mention "WHY?"
      are physiologically inert (and thus hypoallergenic) was added (stone)
    18. 7 days --> spell 7
    19. Overall: Light copyedit needed to remove instances of colloquial tone
    20. Bring out the reasons "Why" Niobium is used in various applications

    =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tried a to get a few of the points.--Stone (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    all the issues without replies should be solved now. the others need some clarifications. thanks, Nergaal (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments. Needs copyediting. I spotted a few errors while I was reading; I'll give it a second reading at some point to see if I find them again and fix them. :) The placement of the Rose photo and the crystals photo is severely wrong, at least with my browser / screen resolution / etc. A question: what were the "comments of disbelief" after the discovery? I looked up the reference and couldn't find anything I would call a comment of disbelief. I think it is better to give an exact quote rather than assessing ourselves whether the reaction was "disbelief" or not. --Itub (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You must be using Internet Exploder, right? I've noticed that those two images do really strange things in IE (on Windows) that I don't see on Safari (for Mac) or Firefox (for both). I'll take a look at fixing the issue later; in the meantime at least we know that this is a browser-specific problem. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 16:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was Firefox 2, with a window at least 1024 px wide. --Itub (talk) 08:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Firefox 3 displays them ok. Nergaal (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I find Firefox 3 is fine with window 1024px wide. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I still haven't heard any reply about the "comments of disbelief". --Itub (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right! The sentence should go. Tried to find a good ref for it but failed.--Stone (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Gone! --Stone (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review

    • Image licensing issues resolved, but I still think that the layout could be improved. Awadewit (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Rose photo and crystals photo is causing huge amounts of white space on my display (Firefox/Linux). Let me know if you want a screenshot.
    I am using the syntax <div style="float: right; margin: 5px;">. It looks ok on firefox 3.0.4. I tweaked it a bit. How is it now? Nergaal (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need to add that code around images (I think something like that is already built into the "image" stuff). Also, I added a subst:clear at the end of the first section, so that there aren't problems with the infobox. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the images are on the right-hand side of the article - for the best aesthetic layout, they should be staggered per WP:MOS#Images.
    It is because there are short sections which are shorter than the height of the images. If you can make it work, go ahead and play with the arrangement of the images. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I played a bit. I also desized the images per WP:MOS#Images. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think there are too many images on the right-hand side at the end of the article, but we can't move any of them because of WP:ACCESS. I would suggest deleting one. Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Nb-TableImage.png - This image needs a description, source, date,and author.
      All info added. --mav (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It would be best if we could say what the "other data" is. Image descriptions should be as precise as possible. We also need a source for this information, like a chemistry textbook or something. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      A reference for the position of niobium in the periodic table? Nergaal (talk) 05:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The point is we don't know who made this chart. Let's give people a reference they can check it against. Wikipedia gains its legitimacy from verification, not authorship. (Shockingly, not everyone has a handy shower curtain against which to check this image!) Awadewit (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Added the ref and info what you can see.--Stone (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Charles Hatchett.jpg - This image needs a source, a date, and the original artist. There is no way to verify the PD license as of now.
      Source and other info added. Date is unknown but author died in 1928, so I think that means that copyright expired in 1999. --mav (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It would be best if we could include a complete bibliographic citation for the source, including publication location and publisher. Awadewit (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      added the bibliographic citation of the journal in which this image was first reproduced. --Stone (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Excellent - thank you.
    • Image:Heinrich Rose.jpg - We need the artist's name in order to verify the PD license. It looks like the engraver's name is in tiny script in the bottom right-hand corner of the image. Can you read it?
    done. Nergaal (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like there are two William Sharps who are engravers (previously I had only known of one). I've included both of their dates, as I am not sure who did the engraving. Either way it is PD. Awadewit (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is probably personal work by a user who seems to have retired long ago. Nergaal (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We should at least try to leave a message on their talk page asking them to verify this. Then we should add such information to the page, including that it is an assumption on our part. Awadewit (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would Image:World Niobium Production 2006.svg be a better chart? Imade it from the BlankMap-World6,_compact.svg.--Stone (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearer provenance, yes. Awadewit (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced!--Stone (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it look right now? Nergaal (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:NFCC to help you understand how to fill out this form and the concerns surrounding non-free images - do not just copy the error-ridden forms from before:
    • You need a detailed description of the image.
    • The source link needs to take us to the image - I'm not going to wander around the website looking for it.
    • We are supposed to use low-resolution images whenever possible. You have marked this image as not being low resolution. Is it indeed high resolution? Why do we need a high resolution of this coin?
    • The "purpose of use" needs to be much more specific - what is special about this element being used in coin-making? I had to go to the article to find this out. Why does the reader need to see an image of this? Why are words insufficient? Note that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
    • Why is the image not replaceable?
    • Who owns the copyright on this coin?
    I hope this helps you fill out the form. Awadewit (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I've tried to do fill it in. How is it now?
    This is much better - I would add something to the "purpose of use" about the refraction creating the cool color (that is why we need to see the coin). Awadewit (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ←now? Nergaal (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Awadewit (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For help with images, see this dispatch on non-free images and this dispatch on free images. Awadewit (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Current ref 10 (the science editor... ) is lacking a last access date
      added(stone)
    • shouldn't current ref 11 (Gupta ..) have page numbers?
      pages 1-12! (stone)
    • Current ref 12 ( van der Krogt...) is lacking a publisher, also what makes this a reliable source?
      Will search for another!(stone) deleted sentence and van der Krogt ref. --Stone (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      DONE The whole sentence was deleted so the ref is no longer necessary
    • Shouldn't current ref 22 (Holleman...) have page numbers?
      Yes, but I have only the page numbers for the 1985 version.(stone)
        • Verifiabilty really requires page numbers. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Holleman, Arnold F. (1985). "Niob". Lehrbuch der Anorganischen Chemie (in German) (91–100 ed.). Walter de Gruyter. pp. 1075–1079. ISBN 3110075113. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) is what I have and if necessary I will substitute it for the ref which is in the article. --Stone (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      DONE now German version with page numbers, but should contain identical informations in all available languages, but will have different page numbers.
    • What makes http://www.jxmetals.com/sdp/316680/4/cp-1271725.html a reliable source?
      It is ONLY used to say that the metal has a bluish tint. Nergaal (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      ref replaced by rubber bible ref.--Stone (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      DONE Was replaced with a far better source the CRC Handbook
    • Shouldn't current ref 23 (Greenwood..) have page numbers?
    • Sholdn't current ref 24 (Cardarelli...) have page numbers?
    • Same for current ref 25 (Agulyansky..)
      done (stone)
    • What makes http://www.superconductors.org/index.htm#top a reliable source?
      Exchanged it for a better one(stone)
      DONE The source was changed to a reliable one.
    • Current ref 35 (Tither..) and 36 (Dufresne..) are lacking a publisher. Also what makes this a reliable source?
      Proceedings of the International Symposium Niobium 2001 (stone)
      done!
      I think a article from a science conference is good enough to be credible (stone)
      regarding reliability, see google books' entry about the book where the proceedings have been published in. Nergaal (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      DONE Is a publication in a conference proceding and reliable!
    • Current ref 39 (Heisterkamp...) is lacking a publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
      Proceedings of the International Symposium Niobium 2001(stone)
      done!
      I think a article from a science conference is good enough to be credible (stone)
      DONE Is a publication in a conference proceding and reliable! The book can be looked at in a library.
    • What makes http://www.europipe.com/files/ep_tp_43_01en.pdf a reliable source?
      They produce pipline steel, so they should know what they sell(stone)
      It is actually part of the same 2001 Proceedings, and according to google scholar is cited at least 5 times. nergaal
      I think a article from a science conference is good enough to be credible (stone)
      DONE Is a publication in a conference (same as above) proceding and reliable!
    • What makes http://www.taxfreegold.co.uk/sierraleone.html a reliable source?
      DONE deleted sentence
      This the only source where you can see the coin, but reliable only in that way that the coin is real.(stone)
    • Current ref 58 (Michaluk...) is lacking a publisher... also see above about this source and reliablity.
      Proceedings of the International Symposium Niobium 2001(stone);
      I think a article from a science conference is good enough to be credible (stone)
      DONE Is a publication in a conference proceding and reliable!
    • What makes http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5254836.html a reliable source?
      I tried to solve this issue. how's now? Nergaal (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      DONE exchanged for a better one.
    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Try to get a few but with the page numbers somebody else has to give the numbers, I have no access to the english versions.--Stone (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not questioning the conference, I'm questioning the publishing site. It appears to be self-published on the europipe site, rather than through a conference proceedings which would be a non-selfpublished source. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The first page of the europipe is an advertising page and the rest is the paper from the conference. It is also cited in a journal doi:10.1016/j.msea.2007.06.003--Stone (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unclear on what has been done and what has been taken care of. Leaving these rest out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope every concerne was taken care of and the eplanaitions ar sufficient to understand what has been done.--
    • Support Weak oppose. Generally well written article, but it has some problems:
      1) 'History' section should mention discovery in 1940-1950s of superconductivity in niobium and its compounds. Please, write who discovered them and when. They were one of the most important discoveries of 20-th century! (see this paper)
      Added info, but might need a bit of polishing. Nergaal (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      But how about NbN, NbTi and Nb itself? Ruslik (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      NbTi was discovered after Nb3Sn and its success is mentioned in the applications section. And the other two discoveries are not importent enough that they have a place in history.--Stone (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      2) Infobox says that there is no data on magnetic ordering. Why? As I know niobium is a paramagnetic (above critical temperature).
      thanks for spotting that. Nergaal (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      3) It should be mentioned that lithium niobate is one of the best ferrorelectric crystals.
      Lithium niobate is used extensively in mobile telephones and optical modulators, and for the manufacture of surface acoustic wave devices. mentioned in the compounds section, should it be moved to applications? --Stone (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It can stay there. I meant that ferroelectricity should mentioned explicitly. Ruslik (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      ferroelectricity is now mentioned explicitly.(stone)
      4) According to estimates, niobium is 33rd on the list of the most common elements in the Earth’s crust. But how much in ppm?
      20ppm added --Stone (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      5) Article says Extensive ore reserves are located in Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, and in Russia. The two largest deposits of pyrochlore were found in the 1950s in Brazil and Canada, and both countries are still the major producers of niobium mineral concentrates. It is a bit contradictory. The first sentence says that extensive deposites occur in three countries (and probably do not occur in Brazil and Canada). However the next sentence says that the large deposits were discovered in Brazil and Canada ? Can some quantative infrormation be provided? What are reserves? How much niobium is produced every year?
      The Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, and in Russia deposits are not mined yet. Numbers for the deposits are only given for Canada and Brazil. Extensive is the most specific the source gives. Production is between 39,000 and 60,000 metric tonnes in 2005 and 2006.--Stone (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Does any estimate of the world reserves exist? Ruslik (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      USGS gives 2006 4,400,000 Reserves.--Stone (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Can this be added to the article? Ruslik (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      numbers were added. --Stone (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      6) Article misses several important applications of niobium and its compounds. One of them is superconducting RF cavities of free electron lasers, which are made of a high purity metallic niobium. Another is superconducting bolometers that are often made of NbN (thin films).
      the RF Cavity is more of laboratory curiosity than an application, but I will get the ref doi:10.1140/epjd/e2005-00308-1 and read it. The doi:10.1063/1.2769575 will take a some time for me to understand, I am only rocket scientist.--Stone (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      You can read this too. Ruslik (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      added Superconducting Radio Frequency but could not find an application of niob bolometer except laboratory use.--Stone (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      See this and this. Ruslik (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Will use the Herschel one. Thank. (But still a lab application).--Stone (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Added Herschel bolometer use.--Stone (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      7) HSLA steels Please, explain abbreviation at the first use.
      changed to High strength low alloy steels (stone)
    I hope my review will be helpful. Ruslik (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Helpful, but a lot of work! Thanks for your time and we will try to solve all issues!--Stone (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - In the following paragraph, I wonder if there is a way to combine the two mentions of "jewelry" into one?
    Because niobium and some niobium alloys are physiologically inert (and thus hypoallergenic), they are used in jewelry[53] and in medical devices such as pacemakers.[54] Niobium treated with sodium hydroxide forms a porous layer that aids osseointegration.[55] Along with titanium, tantalum, and aluminium, niobium can also be electrically heated and anodized, resulting in a wide array of colours using a process known as reactive metal anodizing which is useful in making jewelry.[56][57]
    Also, under "Precautions" you mention again that "t is frequently used in jewelry". This seems repetitious.

    —Mattisse (Talk) 21:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd suggest simplification: unless the references are specific about the particular uses mentioned, they're (the mentions) unnecessary. Anodization can serve many purposes, and jewelry is only one use. The "reactive metal anodizing" process is a redlink, and I suspect a simple link to the general article on anodizing would be sufficient, as metals can be anodized in different ways. Without that which I suggest removing, the sentence could probably also be rephrased for greater clarity. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 06:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - This is a well written, well referenced article that I find quite interesting. I would be happy to support it if the above problems, including the prose issues, are remedied. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I also liked the stuff I learned during the upgrading of the article! We will do our best.--Stone (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments -

    • I wish you would fix the repetition of "jewelry" mentioned by me above. There was a suggestion under my comment as to how you could fix it. "jewelry" is repeated twice in the same para under "Other uses" and then again under "Precautions". If you just fixed that first para under "Other uses".
    deleted the first jewlery and mentioned the hypoalergic stuff at second apperance. (stone)
    • Also this repetition is confusing: In 1864, the Swiss chemist Jean Charles Galissard de Marignac was the first to prepare the pure metal, reducing niobium chloride by heating it in an atmosphere of hydrogen.[8] In 1864, Blomstrand,[7] and in 1866, the Swiss chemist Jean Charles Galissard de Marignac,[9] proved that there were only two elements.
    deleted Swiss chemist Jean Charles Galissard and the pure because it was importabnt that he prepared the metal. (stone)
    • Is there a reason why no date is give for this: The differences between tantalum and niobium were unequivocally demonstrated by the French chemist Henri Etienne Sainte-Claire Deville and Louis J. Troost, who determined the formulas of some of the compounds.?
    added the date 1865 (stone)
    • Confusion. In the para with Confusion arose from the minimal observed differences between tantalum and niobium, is this the same confusion that the para above it is talking about? There was considerable confusion[3] over the difference between the closely-related niobium and tantalum. In 1809... or a different episode of confusion?
    right! has to be changed: will try today to fix it. --Stone (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rearranged the section and tried to make it clear that it is one Confusion .--Stone (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    —Mattisse (Talk) 23:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - You have fixed my complaints and I find the article fascinating. Oh, and the links check out. Good job! —Mattisse (Talk) 02:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm new to FAC. At a first glance everything looks fine. I may have something more to say if I manage a more careful read. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, caps removed, please read the Wp:FAC instructions regarding template limits, and do not cap other editors' comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Review 2

    (I'm very busy these days, so will probably be unable to respond to these posts in a hurry. I'm still not happy with the prose:

    1. however it is believed -- weasel/peacock term
      gone (stone)
    2. At least 32 radioisotopes -- are there more than 32?
      "Up to 2003 at least 32" (stone)
    3. 30 ms -- spell out first instance. Not a commonly used unit
      now 30 milliseconds (stone)# This equation does not seem balanced: 3Nb2O5 + Fe2O3 + 12Al → 6Nb + 2Fe + 3Al2O3. Shouldn't it be 3Nb2O5 + Fe2O3 + 12Al → 6Nb + 2Fe + 6Al2O3?
      right! (stone)
    4. The world wide production according to the United States Geological Survey increased --> wordy. Start with The United States... estimates...
      reworded (stone)
    5. astimated - spelling
      now "estimated" (stone)
    6. The images in the =applications= section are all bunched up. They should correspond to the section that they are placed in. Also, left aligned images that interfere with the sectional heading are a strict style no no
    7. Niobium is occasionally used --> occasionally is a redundant word.
      gone (stone)
    8. Niobium is being evaluated -- is being evaluated by who? When will this be completed? The words convey a sense of time
      "was evaluated.... but ta capacitors are stillpredominat" (stoen)
    9. Because niobium --> Replace by "As niobium". better still shift the "because of" sentence so that it appears after the information on pacemakers.
      "Niobium .. used in pacemakers, because they are" .. (stone)
    10. $1 billion. Mention that it is USD
      "1 billion US dollars" (stone)
    11. Without addition of iron oxide the same process is used for the production of niobium. --? Confusing wording. What is the "same process"?
      now insted of same process "alumothermic process" (stone)
    12. "To reach the grade"; "In the longer term", – copyedit required
      reworded sentence (stone)
    13. "the reaction small" --> comma needed after reaction
      "the reaction, small" (stone)
    14. "US chemical industry still refer to the metal by the original "columbium"." This statement can be also augmented by including the USGS as one of the parties. Else it would be too vague
      "USGS refer to the metal by" (stone)
    15. "According to estimates" -- whose estimates?
      That of the reference. (stone)
    16. What is a "biological role"?
      These kind of statement is present in a lot of articles like #:: " Yttrium has no known biological role, though it is found in most, if not all, organisms and tends to concentrate in the liver, kidney, spleen, lungs, and bones of humans" If necessary a sentence like is not used for biochemical processes in biological systems could be added. --Stone (talk) 08:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    17. It is possible that the columbium discovered by Hatchett was a mixture of these two elements. -- You have a source for this statement?
      will have a look --Stone (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      [126] Nergaal (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    These are some of the issues I have found. There might be more. I would be unable to give another look at the article for a while. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I've done a bit of c/editing. Please see my comments in Talk. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 19:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak support COI - I de-stubbed this article back in 2002. I haven't said anything until now b/c I thought this article wasn't ready. But the article now minimally qualifies given all the edits and improvements since FAC started. Some areas for improvement:
      1. More info on the element's physical properties (we normally have a full subsection on that in element articles),
      2. Another para or two about the isotopes/nucleosynthesis. Right now, the only info is the basic boilerplate filler from WP:ELEMENTS
      3. Better lead section; more info on history (we normally name the discover in the lead)
    Mattisse put it in (stone)
      1. Applications section is a bit image heavy and images should never be left aligned directly below a heading.
    I am not good with images, but to delete one is no problem.(stone)
    But the bottom line is that this article is now FA quality - it just can be a bit better. --mav (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - I attempted to address you comments about naming the discoverer in the lead, using referenced material from the section below. However, I reverted my additions, per complaints of SandyGeorgia below. Perhaps someone else can do this to her satisfaction, as this is not difficult, using the existing referenced information. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support: the article is much better than several recent mainpagers; on the other hand, it can still be improved.
      1. Why was this element called columbium in the first place? It's a well-known story, and it ain't got nothing to do with doves.
        Now it states named after Columbia (stone)
      2. The fact that the USGS calls the element "columbium" is irrelevant given that this is a general U.S. term. Where did the "col" in coltan come from?
        The occurence section states columbite-tantalite (coltan ..' (stone)
      3. I'd like to see it made much more clear that niobium is used almost exclusively in high-grade structural steels, then in other structural alloys (eg, jet engines), then in superconducting alloys (very minor use, in weight terms), then the rest (the most interesting uses for a random reader).
        Should we add 90% ended up in the production of high-grade structural steel, followed by its use in superalloys --Stone (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        added 90% ended up in the production of high-grade structural steel, (stone)
      4. I can't understand the presence of separate "Notes" here. They seem to be an excuse for unreferenced speculation, but even at that I wouldn't object to them being mixed with the references (following academic style in learned journals in the field). However, note 1 seems to be irrelevant given the discussion in the article text, while note 2 is incomprehensible for the lay-reader and unreferenced for the illumint@.
        Good point will look for it on the weekend.--Stone (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I tried to get rid of that section. Nergaal (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The bottom line is that this is one of our better articles, IMHO, and that it should be allowed to develop in the normal WikiWay: if that leads it to the Main Page, so be it! Physchim62 (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Notes, it is unclear to me if the numerous sourcing and image concerns are resolved. Also, because there are multiple and glaring prose errors in the first paragraph of the lead, I am surprised at the Supports and haven't yet read further. Please arrange a copyedit.

    Niobium is similar to tantalum, and the two are difficult to distinguish. This similarity has lead to confusion over the years during process of its recognition and naming. Niobium was first discovered in columbite in 1801, by the English chemist Charles Hatchett who initially named it columbium; that mineral has since been renamed niobite. In 1846, the German chemist Heinrich Rose distinguished that niobium and tantalum were separate elements.

    The citations also need to be cleaned up, sample:

    Double punctuation after the author? And mixed date formats (most are ISO, but there is an occasional linked full date). Please carefully scan the citations for consistency and formatting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) Note to SandyGeorgia - I added to the first para of the lead a few hours ago to take care of some comments above regarding the discoverers needing to be given in the lead of articles on elements. I left edit summaries asking to have more knowledgeable persons reword and correct. Everything in the lead is immediately sourced in the text below. I do not believe there are current comments regarding the adequacy of the sourcing, except for yours. However, because of your comments, I will revert my edits immediately. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    HELP!!
    • {{cite web | url = http://a.a.ö | title = a | publisher = a | accessdate = 2008-09-05}} gives
    • "a". a. Retrieved 2008-09-05. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
    • {{cite journal | title = a | first = a | last = a | url = http://a.a.ö | accessdate = 2008-09-03| journal = a | isbn = |publisher = a | editor=a }} gives
    • a, a. a (ed.). "a". A. Retrieved 2008-09-03. {{cite journal}}: Check |url= value (help)
      Is there somethings wrong with the date format?--Stone (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe there is, as I had to remove the period at the end of some initials, so they would not show up twice as complained about above: Papp, John F.. "Niobium (Columbium)". USGS 2007 Commodity Summary. Retrieved on 2008-11-20.
    From your example above, I do not see what you are doing wrong to get different date formats! —Mattisse (Talk) 19:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The journal and the web is the problem. But journals should not get a accessdate and I will delete all accessdates from them if necessary.--Stone (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are right, as journals do not usually have accessdate, having the doi, pmid, or whatever instead. It is on the web that has the accessdate. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments to the Comments

    About the numerous sourcing and image concerns and what is unresolved.

    What I can find as unresolved:

    • The not very good www.taxfreegold.co.uk reference.
      [127] ? n
    • The crowded images in the applications section
    • to cryogenic temperatures. --> add the value (−150 °C)
      not jet added
    • current ref 22 (Holleman...) have page numbers?
      yes but I have only access to the German edition from 1985 and will substitute it by it if necessary.
    • "According to estimates" -- whose estimates?
    • What is a "biological role"?
    • Coments of mav to improve: properties, isotopes/nucleosynthesis, lead.
      lead was expanded. n
      properties expanded but might require a bit of cleanup. n
    • Coments of Physchim62 mention: called columbium, general U.S. term, high-grade structural steels, Notes are unreferenced speculation
      notes edited/removed. columbium solved. n
    • Coments on date in references and lead by SandyGeorgia
      lead should be ok. n

    --Stone (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: I have moved my suggested lead para to talk page. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Second request: when the lead has grammatical errors, the rest of the article is in doubt:

    Niobium is similar to tantalum, and the two are difficult to distinguish. In 1801 the English chemist Charles Hatchett discovered a element similar to tantalum and named it columbium, but in 1809 the English chemist William Hyde Wollaston, wrongly concluded that columbium and tantalum were identical.

    Perhaps you all can put a printable version of the text into a word processor and do a spell check, and get someone to carefully read through the entire article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I did the word processor check and the content seems to be ok. I believe that paragraph was inserted/modified/expanded fairly recently so few people got a chance to pick the a/an error. Nergaal (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone must have a word processor with spell check, fundamental grammatical errors should be sorted by now:

    • Niobium was evaluated as an cheaper alternative to tantalum in capacitors.[4], but tantalum capacitor are still predominant.

    Please secure a fresh set of eyes to go through the text (it would also be helpful, although not required, to remove all of the empty parameters from the cite templates, they chunk up the text in edit mode without adding anything). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Another one:

    Along with titanium, tantalum, and aluminium, niobium can also be electrically heated and anodized, resulting in a wide array of colours using a process known as reactive metal anodizing which is useful in making jewelry,[5][6] The fact that niobium is hypoallergenic also benefits the use in jewelry.[7]

    I can't promote this until you all seriously go through it, perhaps with a spell checker. Cleaning up the citations may make it easier for you all to spot these issues. For example, on medical articles, we avoid the lengthy author, coauthor, last, first parameters and all the extra punctuation by using one field: author = Biason Gomes MA, Onofre S, Juanto S, Bulhões, LO de . Much cleaner, easier to read, easier to edit around, and agrees with the citation template fromat returned by Diberri for PubMed articles, yielding consistent citations across bio/med articles; food for thought. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    plural ?? One of the least stable is 113Nb, with an estimated half-life of 30 millisecond. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. now its 30 milliseconds --Stone (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I strongly favour the term columbium hahaha, I always hated how they picked "niobium" when I was a kid. I am just massaging the prose. We are doing british spelling right? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, we're using British/Commonwealth English. I standardized it early on after finding "color" and "colour" close together (and then had to fix all the "color"s again a while ago). I think I've fixed most of the American English words, but I might have missed some—it's something to watch for. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I've just changed gray to the British standard grey in the first para. BTW is "rare" in that para used as a technical term (as in "rare earth"), or just as a vague qualifier? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I not used as technical term only you see it not very often. --Stone (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment—there are some areas where the article clearly needs improvement (for all that we've polished it quite a bit :/ ), so I'm making a list. I'll help fix these too, but to start I'll list some sentences and what is wrong with them. Some of my comments also focus on comprehensibility by people with lesser understandings of the science in the article: I phrase some of my questions as though asked by someone clueless.

    • "Both tantalum and niobium react with chlorine and traces of oxygen, including atmospheric concentrations, forming two compounds: the white volatile niobium pentachloride (NbCl5) and the non-volatile niobium oxychloride (NbOCl3)." …so tantalum can form niobium pentachloride?
      right we should get rid of tantalum in this sentence.(stone)
      Better:"This confusion arose from the minimal observed differences between tantalum and niobium, additionally niobium react with chlorine and traces of oxygen, including atmospheric concentrations, forming two compounds: the white volatile niobium pentachloride (NbCl5) and the non-volatile niobium oxychloride (NbOCl3)."?(stone)
    • "Scientists claimed to have discovered new elements: pelopium, ilmenium and dianium, which were in fact identical to niobium or mixtures of niobium and tantalum. Other elements reported to be present included innibite." …so the scientists were claiming that imaginary elements were identical to actual elements and/or compounds? What is innibite?
      Better: "Scientists claimed to have discovered new elements: pelopium, ilmenium and dianium, later to be found identical to niobium or mixtures of niobium and tantalum."?
      innibite not the slightest clue!(stone)
      remoced half sentence Other elements reported to be present included innibite. which is a left over from copy past in the aricle.--Stone (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The differences between tantalum and niobium were unequivocally demonstrated in 1864 by Christian Wilhelm Blomstrand, and Henri Etienne Sainte-Claire Deville, as well as Louis J. Troost, who determined the formulas of some of the compounds in 1865 and finally by the Swiss chemist Jean Charles Galissard de Marignac, in 1866, who all proved that there were only two elements." Needs clarification: who did what to demonstrate these differences? Did any work together? At very least, the comma after "Blomstrand" is unnecessary.
      I have the publications and will extract the acchievments of the scientists.(stone)
      The experiments where published in several journals, but for the history section it would be a little to much to give all the people and all the claimed elements and why they are only mixtures of several elements. But a short overview might be:
    1. Marignac profed that there is only on oxide of niobium rendering the experiments of Rose and Hermann yielding two oxides wrong.
    2. All above mentioned scientists except Rose state that pelopium oxide is a mixture of tantalum oxide and niobium oxide
    3. Marignac finds in Kobells Dianium oxide amounts of titanium oxide big enough to render the the experiments uselss.
    4. Marignac and Blomstrand identify the niobium oxychloride which is neither a chloride of a new element nor a subchloride of niobium
    5. Deville and Troost meassured the molecular weight of niobium chloride and therefore the mw of niobium making the niobium chlorides of different scientists comparable
    • "In 1961 the American physicist Eugene Kunzler and coworkers at Bell Labs discovered that niobium-tin continues to exhibit superconductivity in the presence of strong electric currents and magnetic fields, thus becoming the first known material to support the high currents and fields necessary for making useful high-power magnets and electrically powered machinery." Poor Eugene Kunzler, doomed to forever be a material for high-power magnets…
      I believe I've fixed this by using the pronoun "it" to more clearly refer to niobium-tin (diff), though a more drastic rephrasing might be even more clear. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The abundance on Earth should be much greater, but the “missing” niobium may be located in the Earth’s core due to the metal's high density." Why should the abundance be greater? (the article doesn't mention stellar production or anything, though I think it might once have. Can we explain this more clearly please?)
    • "The use of niobium alloys for superconductors and in electronic components account only for a small share of the production." Aren't we supposed to avoid vague adjectives like "small"?
      The numbers change a lot due to big projects like the LHC, but less than x% might be extractable from one of the sources.(stone)
    • "Niobium is an effective microalloying element for steel. The increase in toughness and strength and the good formability and weldability of the microalloyed steel is due to improved grain refining, the retardation of recrystallization, and precipitation hardening. These effects are caused by the formation of niobium carbide and niobium nitride within the structure of the steel." From the first sentence to the second: "What increase in toughness and strength?" From the second sentence to the third: "Wait, you mean the strength increase, or the grain refining etc., or both?" This bit clearly needs to be rephrased to say that niobium allows the formation of the last-mentioned compounds, which in turn improve the characteristics mentioned, which in turn improve strength and toughness of the microalloyed steel—rather than the "backwards" form used here.
      I've rephrased this (diff), and I think it flows better now. I'd appreciate further review, though. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 23:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "One example of a nickel-based niobium-containing superalloy is inconel 718, which consists of 18.6% chromium, 18.5% iron, 5% niobium, 3.1% molybdenum, 0.9% titanium, and 0.4% aluminium." Wait, it's nickel-based, but it doesn't contain nickel? What's up here?
      Nickel based means the rest: 18+18+5+3+x=100%, but it must be added.(stone)
      Better by adding "balanced by 53.5% nickel"?
    • "For example, Austria produced a series of silver niobium coins starting in 2003; the colour in these coins is created by diffraction of light by a thin oxide layer produced by anodizing." What colour? I thought you just said they were silver? Or do they contain silver? Should it be "silver-niobium coins" or "silver coins with niobium 'pills'" or what? (They're silver coins with anodized niobium on the "pill" to create a colour for the "pill", as I understand it)
      right I think I had to remove the pill, because sombody complaint about it during GAN or peer reviewing.(stone)
      Better:"For example, Austria produced a series of silver coins with niobium 'pills' starting in 2003; the colour of the niobium 'pill' is created by diffraction of light by a thin oxide layer produced by anodizing."?

    This is a good start: let's get on it. I'll help fix these too, though listing them here should help a bit with the speed. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 23:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Good points, but it is late and will start tomorrow, with what is left, by the others.--Stone (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to improve some of the points here, but need a native speaker to confirme it, had some bad reaction on my last edits to the lead due to grammar problems and typos.--Stone (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This article appeared at FAC with significant prose, sourcing, image and comprehensive issues. Please try to use peer review pre-FAC in the future. I remain concerned about the number of prose issues I found each time I read the article, but the article appears to be within criteria now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:58, 6 December 2008 [128].

    Ayumi Hamasaki edit

    Nominator(s): Ink Runner (talk)
    previous FAC (03:54, 24 September 2008)

    Prose issues and a few MoS-related errors tripped up the last two candidacies, so I had someone streamline the prose. Other issues included the reliability of some sources and the number of fair-use music samples, but I believe these have been cleared up. Ink Runner (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Images and sounds - Free images are appropriately marked for commons. Sound samples are appropriately marked non-free (3 might be one too many for taste, but I'd trust the judgement of the editors that all three are needed). The only image that concerns me is the cover of "I Am" - since it is non-free and duplicating the free pictures of Ayumi, I'm not sure if this is really needed on this page. I'm not convinced outright if it is or not, however. On one hand, presuming she was the primary person composing that cover as the text suggests, that would be an example of her visual art style and would be appropriate. On the other hand, I would think that the discussion of the reason the artstyle changed that way in response to 9/11 is better suited on the album's page (where the cover already is). I don't know whether there is a way to have a stronger connection to the album cover in the text (the caption throws me, the "(Note the dove)" addition feels weird), a better rationale for its use on this page, or what. --MASEM 15:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I debated adding the picture, too, and decided that the record covers are an important aspect of her artistry (as stated in the Time source), so for the article to be comprehensive, it would need at least one example. (And I am... seemed to be the best choice.) Ink Runner (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm fine with that (others may not, but...) I would explain this more in the rationale for this image on this page, to support it more, but it otherwise seems fine. --MASEM 15:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Check. The rationale now reads "Illustrates an aspect of the artist's artistry (her artistic covers), as discussed in the article. According to a Time article, Hamasaki's covers are "an element [she] considers crucial to conveying her message" and are therefore a notable and important part of her artistry. Because covers are visual media, a picture would be the best way to illustrate this aspect of the artist's artistry." Ink Runner (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Excellent. Again, I think the image is fine, but you may want to be ready if other reviews feel it is not appropriate (NFC on BLP is a very tricky subject and generally discouraged, but I think this is an appropriate exception per your reasoning and article). --MASEM 00:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A comment on the prose. I wrote very uncomplimentary things about this article in its second FAC but decided to help it on its way. I'd like to think that the work I did on its prose in August improved it. (I didn't participate in its third FAC because I was unaware of this.) I'm not the only person to have worked on the prose, however, and Ink Runner has recently done a lot of good work on this article. As I look at the prose now I think that there are rather too many semicolons for my taste, but I also think that it's absurd to insist on the degree of polish that's required for, let's say, the corporate advertising or annual report of a criminally polluting or otherwise loathsome corporation. This is an encyclopedia, not some compilation of PR lubrication or belles lettres. While there may be occasional oddities (which reviewers shouldn't hesitate to point out or fix, the prose as a whole is easily good enough for the purpose. I'm no expert on Hamasaki -- actually I've hardly heard anything by her and have to say that what little I've heard doesn't appeal to me at all -- but the article appears to be very scrupulously done, and seems very informative while not going off the rails into trivia. I see no reason why this should not be featured, and so I'd recommend promotion. Morenoodles (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Article appears to cover all the important aspects of Hamasaki's life and career. It's definitely improved from when I last looked it over in the previous FAC. --Polaron | Talk 12:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support This article is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. It has an appropriate lead, structure, and citations. The citations have been formatted and used very well since Ink Runner began working on this article a year ago. It definitely stays on topic without going into other things. Now you might think, well... this is pretty typical, considering it is Wikipedia. But many articles do need help, particularly ones on Asian stars. This article used to be NPOV, unreferenced, full of red links, and just inconsistent and confusing with the prose and references. Ink Runner has been working really hard on this article for the past year. Check the edit history; he's been slaving away at this piece of artwork everyday with at least several edits! Thus, the references and prose just kept getting better! They've improved even more than from the last time this article was nominated for FAC. I'll have to continue this as a response to my own comment, because I can't for the life of me figure out how to create a new paragraph and keep it in line. Lady★Galaxy 04:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    However, some bits seem to be missing something. It just looks like it's not linked enough, but that can't be helped because you'd have to create new pages for the links (mainly clothing lines, clubs, and companies) and that probably wouldn't meet the Wikipedian notability standards. (As well as the fact that you'd have to dig up references for those as well.) My only other concern is that this article may use too many dashes, but it doesn't make the text hard to understand. On a last note, I went ahead and linked a few things in the lead that weren't already. I really hope this article passes FAC. If not, we'll keep working on it and fix what is needed to reach that status. Hopefully. Lady★Galaxy 04:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    General resolved issues; primary sources are a concern, but neither overwhelming nor inappropriate in their use. Jappalang (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments—
    • Prose issues: I think this article still requires copyediting.
    • There are several long snakes in it—"In 1998, under the tutelage of Avex CEO Max Matsuura, she released a string of modestly selling singles that concluded with her 1999 debut album A Song for XX, which debuted atop the Oricon charts and stayed there for four weeks, establishing her popularity in Japan." and "Though she originally supported the exploitation of her popularity for commercial purposes, a 2001 event in which Avex forced her to put her greatest hits album in direct competition with Hikaru Utada's Distance made Hamasaki reconsider and eventually oppose her status as an Avex "product"." for example.
    • I went through the article and fixed such snakes. Some sentences, however, were left intact so as not to sound choppy. Ink Runner (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think most snakes have been eliminated, so this can be considered resolved. Jappalang (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Because of" is not a good way to start a sentence (classic disapproval of starting sentences with conjunctions); this is found several times in the article.
    • In those cases, "because" is a subordinating conjunction and introduces subordinating clauses. It's perfectly fine grammatically. (Starting sentences with coordinating conjunctions, such as "and", probably isn't, though.) Ink Runner (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My mistake, I was following an archaic myth. Jappalang (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a related note, using ", as" as an explanation is not encouraged due to possible confusion when it comes to chronology.
    • Several badly connected sentences. For example, "When her agency representation ended, she needed somewhere to live. Hamasaki began acting and appeared in B-movies such as [...]: see the disconnection that results in a presented idea left to dangle. "He persisted until the following year, when she finally signed on to the Avex label and began vocal training.": "persisted until the following year" implies failure, and yet she signs—could have been "He persisted and succeeded in the following year; she signed on to the Avex label and started vocal training." instead.
    • The first example was a result of a copy-edit by karanacs, whom I believe is quite experienced at this prose thing. I streamlined it, though, so it flows more easily. As for the second example, "persisted until the following year" doesn't necessarily imply failure (at least in American English). Ink Runner (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue with the first example was not grammatical, but about the essence of it. Basically, the presented idea was "Hamasaki needed a place to live, so she started acting in B-movies." How does needing a place to live relate to acting in movies? Did she need money to rent a place? Was free accomodation given to actresses? Jappalang (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence now reads "Needing somewhere to live (she had previously lived in dormitories provided by her talent agency)...". Ink Runner (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It still does not address how acting in movies give her a place to live. Instead of explaining the dependent clause (why she needed a place to live), it should be the main clause that should be explained (why acting gave her a place to live). Jappalang (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did a copyedit in which I removed the whole talk about her search for a "place to live". It was a bugbear in the context of the section. It was hard to form sentences around it that did not disrupt the flow. Furthermore, that sort of reason felt like a casual info (trivia). It had no impact on her career or thinking. More significantly, neither source provided talked about her housing problem in her temporary transition from singer to actress. With its removal, that sentence as an example is no longer valid. Jappalang (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Couple of "noun plus -ing"s: e.g. "her first tour extending" and "concert celebrating"
    • There are several cases where imprecision or confusion arise. For example, "she moved to Tokyo at fourteen to pursue"—at fourteen hundred hours or years of age? "Hamasaki's popularity and influence in music and fashion extends all over Asia;"—I sincerely doubt that includes Russia, India, Kazakstan, and Nepal, which are Asian nations.
    • Two FACs ago, Tony suggested I just use "fourteen" instead of "at age fourteen" etc. for conciseness. Changed to "age fourteen", though, for clarity. As to the second sentence: according to BusinessWeek, Hamasaki has "a sizable following across Asia"; the article doesn't specify a region, like the Orient or Central Asia. The sentence now reads "Because of her constantly changing image and tight control over her artistry, Hamasaki's popularity extends across Asia; music and fashion trends she has started have spread to countries like China, Singapore, and Taiwan." Ink Runner (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Source issues:
    • Frankly, there seems to be a lot of primary sourcing to establish trivia (such as CM's use of Ayumi in their soft-drink commercials, Sanrio's Hello Kitty-Ayu tie up, etc), or background information (Avex-published magazines or sites for Ayumi's thoughts behind her albums). Wikipedia as a tertiary source is to primarily rely on secondary sources. Primary sources are fine if sparingly used, but that does not seem to be the case here.
    • I see nothing wrong with using primary sources in the above mentioned instances. For example, it wouldn't really make a difference if Hamasaki's own thoughts were published in a primary or a secondary source. (For things like sales figures, though, Avex might "beef up" the numbers, so I don't use primary sources for sales figures, charting positions, etc.) I have replaced some of the primary sources with secondary sources, though. Ink Runner (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, there are some projects I would like to take on given the primary sources I have on them (interviews, behind-the-scenes episodes, etc) but "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Let us hear the thoughts of others. Jappalang (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I replaced most of the primary sources. Only nine of the sources are primary now. Ink Runner (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I would consider Drizzly Records and Japan Airlines to be clear primary sources since they are sourcing for events that are close to their goals (increased sales), so that makes eleven ten primary sources. Jappalang (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replaced the JAL source. I couldn't find any (reliable) non-primary sources about Hamasaki's German releases, though. (Besides, it's not being used as a source for sales figures, charting positions, or anything like that.) Ink Runner (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am fine with the use of foreign sources, but when they are sourced for quotes, the original sentences should be given in the reference for us (the ones who can read Chinese and Japanese) to check, especially since there is no provided online source. ("independence, rebellion, and conflict juxtaposed with [...] innocence" and for being "like the contents of [...] a diary" and "reflecting [their own] changing emotions" is really controversial. A Japanese example, "cheered on girls" and "began brimming with things to say" are sourced to Vivi.) Furthermore, The breakup ("[...]") between words leads one to wonder if the article had cherry picked words to translate. If foreign sources are going to be used for quotes, please put the original sentences or online copies in the references (via the quote field or otherwise).
    • Okay, the original foreign-language sources of quoted material have been put in footnotes, since that seems to work best with the kind of citations used. Ink Runner (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not all the foreign-language sources have been put in footnotes. Jappalang (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you missed out "honesty and freedom". However, on reading through, I have to raise one question. Are they all necessary? The quoting, could not some of them be rephrased or left without quotation marks? After all, one is already translating them from one language that conveys multiple meanings per word and situation to another. One usually quotes when a specific unique phrase and context cannot be rephrased without losing the feel of the original sentence. "Expressing determination", "something good", "relay the atmosphere", etc. Should such phrases be unique? Jappalang (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I use the quotation marks to distinguish that they're Hamasaki's own words, not my own or those of the magazine etc. Hamasaki's lyrics and explanations of her albums' themes and such are very vague, so I thought that rather than try to "interpret" them, for the sake of being objective I should put her own words (and mark them as such). I de-quoted (is that a word?) the phrases not open to a lot of interpretation, though. Ink Runner (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Sweetboxみたいな曲" is more "Sweetbox-like tune/music" than "song". Generally, a song comprise of music and words. It seems Ayumi was looking to modify an old tune to accompany new lyrics. Jappalang (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "世界共通語" is a global common language, but on its own, there is no connection to English, which is what the sentence is making a claim to. What does the source say about English in relation to this (the original Japanese sentences supplied also seem to be lacking a relationship to English)? Jappalang (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There appears to be several mix-ups between the normal tsu ("つ") and the small tsu　(っ) in the quotes provided... Jappalang (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, my word processor doesn't output sokuons. Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also point out that there are curly and straight quotation marks used in the article. "“Free & Easy”, “Voyage”, and “H”" are curlies for example. WP:MOS states to be consistent in usage and recommends straight quotes. Jappalang (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since I am going through the article and checking the quotes, this can be stricken. Jappalang (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Additionally, her album A Best 2 -White- became the best-selling Japanese or Korean album of the year in Taiwan."—this is sourced to a music online shop. It is not clear whether the shop is referring to its best selling album or for the country. If it is a national seller, surely a publication would have listed it. I hope that this is an isolated incident and not the norm for other primary sources and sales ranking.
    • Removed the sentence. All other charting positions use Oricon as the source, so there shouldn't be any other such problems. Ink Runner (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The references are inconsistently formatted and missing several pieces of information. Authors for newspaper pieces are absent. Such articles definitely have authors or are sourced to noted news agencies, and their reference should state them. Magazine articles, especially those that belong to established magazines, would list their authors and again, their reference should state them. Published references also seem to be missing page numbers or ISSN numbers. Publisher information also seems to be missing from some references.
    • Most of the inconsistent formatting/missing publisher information is in the Oricon references; fixed these instances. Also, here in America (or at least in Sacramento, CA), the ISSN numbers are blanked out from the copies I have. Added page nos. and authors; however, some sources (like Oricon Style) don't list authors. Ink Runner (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are references that use "p. " for page prefix, while others use "pg." and "pgs.". What about authors for the newspaper articles? For quoting, several cite templates allow the use of the "quote =" parameter. Jappalang (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The references are consistent now; they use "p." for a single page, "pp." for multiple pages. I'll add the authors to the newspaper articles, and put the original text from magazines in footnotes. Also, Sin Chew doesn't list a person as an author, just "Sin Chew Interactive" (星洲互動); and The Straits Times just lists the news agency. Ink Runner (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sin Chew's reference is written in "raw" (i.e. without using a template), which I think would not be a big issue, but would be nicer to standardize with the others. The Straits Times's "J-pop Divas Fight It Out", however, is also written out in raw and lacks an author or news agency. Jappalang (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Electric New Paper (Miharu Chang's "Ayumi Spells Big Bucks") is not a newspaper. It is an online version of The New Paper. As such, the source indicates that there should be a site that hosts the article for verification. Where is it? Jappalang (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possible conflict of interest—Lady Galaxy is the second most prolific current contributor to this article.
    • I don't think there is a conflict of interest, since she isn't really a "regular" contributor, nor does she do much more than minor spelling- or punctuation-related stuff. Ink Runner (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed—after looking through her recent 50 edits, it seems that way. Jappalang (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    {
    Could you provide an example in the article of who has "compared her to Madonna". As a reader I would wish to know if this comparison was made by notable sources such as Japan Times etc in the text as it could be a comparison from any of the fan sites. Count Blofeld 17:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the Japan Times (one of the sources cited) says that she is compared to Madonna so often that "she's probably converted to Kabala [sic]." Ink Runner (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposable issues resolved—remaining issues are matters over phrasings that should not be seriously opposable. Jappalang (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comments — not wishing to keep splicing in new things above, I start this section for additional issues as I go through the text.
    Lead
    • "Because of her constantly changing image and tight control over her artistry, Hamasaki's popularity extends across Asia;"
    This does not seem to be related... i.e. would a constantly changing image lead to her popularity's spread across a continent? It would be best to relate how her frequent makeovers made her popular with fans and how it extends across several countries. Now, what does "tight control over her artistry" mean, and how does it lead to popularity or extent of her influence? There seems to be an attempt to combine two ideas, two separate complete sentences—one that talks of her popularity, and one of the extent of her geographical sphere of influence (popularity)—into one sentence that proves to be puzzling to me.
    Well, first, CNN makes the relation. Second, I can see how her constantly changing image would lead to her popularity in Asia: she stayed popular in Japan by constantly reinventing her image, like Madonna, and Japan influences many other countries in fashion etc... (especially here in the U.S., we have a lot of people who take fashion cues etc. from Japan.) But this is only speculation: the source says that the two are related, but not how, and I don't want to violate WP:NOR. Ink Runner (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Hamasaki is one of Japan's best-selling singers. She is the Japanese female artist [...] She is also the only Japanese female artist ..."
    This seems repetitive, and it could have been avoided by establishing an encompassing context at the start such that following statements would be in respect to her achievements in Japan. See the sales achievements in the leads of Whitney Houston and Madonna for comparison.
    Removed redundant "Japanese" in paragraph. Ink Runner (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave a copyedit to remove the repetitive sentence structure. Hopefully, it is good (improvements are welcome), so the issue can be considered resolved. Jappalang (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Childhood and early endeavors
    • "Hamasaki was born in Fukuoka Prefecture and raised by her mother and grandmother, because her father had left the family when she was three and never again came into contact with her."
    I pointed only two snakes above as an example. This is another.
    It could be rendered as, "Born in Fukuoka Prefecture, Hamasaki was raised by her mother and grandmother. Her father had left the family when she was three, never again coming into contact with her."
    Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "to earn money for the family"
    Suggestion: "to supplement the family's income."
    You're right, some might construe the sentence to mean that Hamasaki was the sole wage-earner. Changed. Ink Runner (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Although she originally earned good grades, she eventually decided that the subjects she was studying were of no use to her and her grades dropped drastically."
    This sentence, as it is, interrupts the two adjoining sentences that dealt with Ayu's modeling career. It seems to have no relation to either. It could be developed on its own. In the Japanese education system, it is compulsory for children to attend schooling until they finished lower secondary school, at which point they would be 14 or 15 years old... (see the idea I am getting at here?) So this sentence could be part of potential information that deals with Ayu's schooling history. Did she stop schooling after lower secondary (later text states she briefly entered a vocational school for arts)? What are her thoughts on education now (especially in regards to tertiary)? If no sources for these are available, it is advisable to reshape this sentence to some form that fits better into the section. I think the problem is that the subsection is taking on a strict proseline structure that limits the flexibility and structure of the ideas to be presented.
    How about something like this:
    "At age seven, Hamasaki began modeling for local institutions, such as banks, to supplement the family's income. At age fourteen, she moved from Fukuoka to Tokyo to take modeling jobs under SOS, a talent agency. Her modeling career did not last long; SOS deemed her too short and transferred her to Sun Music, a musicians' agency. As "Ayumi", Hamasaki released a rap album, Nothing from Nothing, on the Nippon Columbia label. When this failed to chart on the Oricon, the label dropped her. Hamasaki then took up acting and starred in B-movies such as Ladys Ladys!! Soucho Saigo no Hi and television dorama like Miseinen, which were poorly received by the public. Dissatisfied with her job, Hamasaki soon quit acting and moved in with her mother, who had recently moved to Tokyo.
    Hamasaki had earned good grades through junior high school; however, after taking up modeling, she decided that the subjects she was studying were of no use to her and her grades dropped drastically. After moving to Tokyo, she briefly entered Horikoshi Gakuen, a high school for the arts. After quitting her job and school, Hamasaki spent much of her time shopping at Shibuya boutiques and dancing at Velfarre, an Avex-owned disco club." Ink Runner (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea is good, but there are a few prose issues in the new second paragraph. With "after"s at the start of three consecutive sentences (discounting the "however"), the structure has become repetitive (underlined). Jappalang (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Something like this, then?
    "Although Hamasaki had earned good grades through junior high school, she eventually decided that the subjects she was studying were of no use to her and her grades dropped drastically. While living in Tokyo, she briefly entered Horikoshi Gakuen, a high school for the arts. After quitting her job and school, Hamasaki spent much of her time shopping at Shibuya boutiques and dancing at Velfarre, an Avex-owned disco club." Ink Runner (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I copyedited the section, so I have to consider this resolved. Jappalang (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "At this time, she briefly entered Horikoshi Gakuen, a high school for the arts."
    This presents the same issue as above.
    • "The writing in her messages to him from New York impressed him, and he suggested she try writing her own lyrics."
    Suggestion: "The producer was impressed by Hamasaki's style of her writing in their correspondences, prompting him to suggest that she try her hand at writing her own lyrics."
    Changed to "He was impressed by Hamasaki's style of writing in their correspondences, prompting him to suggest that she try writing her own lyrics." Ink Runner (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1998–1999: Rising popularity
    • "was "unassuming": its singles [...] were not major hits"
    Well... instead of dwelling on the negatives all the time, how about a few proactive sentences!
    Suggestion: "was "unassuming": its singles [...] failed to break into the Top 10." Heh...
    Well, some of the singles did break into the Top 10; however they weren't considered "major" hits because their sales weren't that great (in Japan, it's considerably easier to score a high chart position than in the U.S., and high sales don't always mean high charting positions and vice-versa.) Ink Runner (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, sorry. I misread the Time source. As it is, her first two did not hit the Top 10, and her subsequent four only squeaked in... Can we say that they "failed to break into the Top 5." The Times did not talk about the sales of the singles, so "hits" should be considered on the chart position. Let me mull over this a bit... Jappalang (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, "major hits" covers probably is good enough... Jappalang (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "were "cautious" and "unassuming" pop-rock songs."
    Repetitive use of "unassuming"?
    Removed the redundant "unassuming". Ink Runner (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, Hamasaki's lyrics, introspective observations about her feelings and experiences that focused on loneliness and individualism, resonated with the Japanese public."
    Suggestion: "However, Hamasaki's lyrics, filled with introspective observations about her feelings and experiences that focused on loneliness and individualism, resonated with the Japanese public."
    All of her lyrics (according to the source) were "introspective observations" etc., so I don't see the need for "filled". Ink Runner (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed on re-reading. Jappalang (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "As a result, the album made her a success:"
    Strange part here... the singles were failures, but the album a success?
    Suggestion: "The songs had gained Hamasaki a following that was growing, and the release of the songs as an album was a success:" This would necessitate the change of "she" in the following sentence to "Hamasaki".
    All right. Changed to "The songs gained Hamasaki a growing following, and the release of the album was a success". Ink Runner (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the singles released later that year were dance tunes and earned Hamasaki her first number-one single and first million-selling single."
    The referred source (RIAJ) listed only Loveappears and "A" (mistakenly) in the million-seller album list. According to her singles articles on Wikipedia, "A" is not her first number-one nor million-selling single. It is supposedly "Boys & Girls". Which is it? Jappalang (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Boys & Girls" is her first million-seller, but I don't state that because WP is about verifiability, not truth, and the RIAJ doesn't list B&G. Oricon, does, however, list B&G as a million-seller (in a list of Hamasaki's singles by sales, B&G is listed higher than "H", which sold a million), but Oricon's list of Hamasaki's albums lists Guilty as having sold more than (Miss)understood, so the source might be seen as inaccurate. ("Love ~Destiny~" is her first number-one; I included the source.) Ink Runner (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand our policy on verification. My concern is that the RIAJ source does not state Loveappears or "A" as her first number-one or million-seller (when the sentence is talking about that). The added Time reference only states "Love Destiny" as her first number one song and no mention of her first million-seller. Jappalang (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Should I include the list of RIAJ million-sellers of 1998 then, to verify that she had no million-sellers before 1999? Ink Runner (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the first million-seller, I think it will be clearer to cite it to a footnote where the the two sources (RIAJ charts) are linked and explained. Jappalang (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Ink Runner (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a nice footnote referencing scheme. Jappalang (talk) 07:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2000–2002: Commercial peak
    • "and a sense of shame of her public image."
    This sentence leaves the reader dangling. Why should she feel ashamed of her public image? Saying that the song focused on hopelessness is one thing (especially when such themes were mentioned earlier), and adding on that it was reflecting her disappointment that she failed to express herself is pretty fine. However, suddenly we are told she was ashamed over her image? This was not hinted at earlier, and not explained in this paragraph either.
    • "the burden of her responsibilities."
    Less sudden than the previous examples, but still sudden on what responsibilites weigh on her? One could expect that she is expected to support her family, but recalling that the earlier example was about public image, was there some social pressure for her to be a role model? Again, it is not very clear here, and could be duplicative with the previous issue. Take care when addressing these issues.
    Hamasaki never really explained that. Like I said, Hamasaki is often vague in her lyrics/discussions about themes of her albums, and I just write down whatever she said so the reader can interpret for him/herself. Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in contrast with Loveppears, Duty was a rock-influenced album with "Audience" the only dance song."
    Something niggled at me here.... I would say it is the sentence structure placing the song title up front... That could imply "Audience" was a common song between both albums.
    Suggestion: "in contrast with Loveppears, Duty was a rock-influenced album that had only one dance song, "Audience"."
    Okay, fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the "Trilogy" were "hit singles" ("Seasons" was a million-seller); the album itself became Hamasaki's best-selling studio album."
    The semi-colon is unneeded, redundant "itself", and a slight repetition of album
    Suggestion: "the "Trilogy" were "hit singles" ("Seasons" was a million-seller), and the album became Hamasaki's best-selling collection of original songs."
    Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still heavily proseline here, and the nature of the article here is strained with mentions of her personal relationships. Could these not be moved in the "Image" or "Other activities" section?
    • Okay, I've moved the personal life stuff to "Other activities". Ink Runner (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In an effort to have increased control over her music,"
    Suggestion: "In an effort to have greater control over her music,"
    • On a related note... "The lead single, "M", was the first of the many tracks from the album that she composed herself, under the pseudonym "Crea". In an effort to have increased control over her music, Hamasaki composed all of the songs on I am... except for "Connected"(April 2003) and "A Song Is Born" (December 2001)."
    Paraphrasing... "Hamasaki, as "Crea", composed many tracks on I am.... Hamasaki composed all the songs on I am... except two songs to have greater control over her music." See the redundant idea here?
    Suggestion: "She exerted greater control over her music by composing all the songs on I am..., under the pseudonum "Crea"; "Connected"(April 2003) and "A Song Is Born" (December 2001) were the exceptions."
    Changed to "Hamasaki increased her control over her music by composing all of the songs on the album under the pseudonym "Crea"; "Connected" (November 2002) and "A Song Is Born" (December 2001) were the exceptions." Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I am... also showed evolution in Hamasaki's lyrical style: it was a retreat from the themes of "loneliness and confusion" of some of her earlier songs."
    Suggestion: "Her lyrical style had evolved in this album: she retreated the themes of "loneliness and confusion" to explore concerns that do not focus on oneself."
    Well, even though her lyrics took on more "worldly" themes, they didn't necessarily stop focusing on herself (for example, "Dearest" focused on herself.) And in Loveppears, the themes were more "loneliness and confusion"-ish , but she focused on other people in songs like "Appears". Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It was clear that Hamasaki's status as a trendsetter extended outside Japan as well: at the ceremony, she received the award for "Most Influential Japanese Singer in Asia"."
    Let us calm down and be less celebratory of her status.
    Suggestion: "At the ceremony, she was acknowledged for influencing fashion trends outside of Japan, receiving the award for "Most Influential Japanese Singer in Asia"."
    Well, I'm not sure the award was only for influencing fashion trends. I mean, though it was very likely she received the award for doing so, the article doesn't explicitly state that, and the award was for Most Influential Singer. Yes, it should probably be "toned down", though. Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the latter was her first tour held in outdoor venues."
    Is this a very significant achievement?
    Not really, I guess. Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In November 2002, as "Ayu", she released her first European single, "Connected", a trance song from I am... composed by DJ Ferry Corsten."
    Thus, I am confused (interestingly I missed this in the earlier part)..., how is a 2003 song part of a 2002 album? It deserves an explanation.
    Gah, I accidentally put April 2003 as the release date for "Connected". It should be November 2002. Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am still puzzled over how a song released in November can be part of an album released in January... Jappalang (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not all that common in Japan, but here in the U.S., recut singles are quite common. Usually, a lead single is released prior to the album, then recut singles are released after the album, like how Mariah Carey's "Touch My Body" was the lead single from E=MC2, then "I'll Be Lovin U Long Time" was released afterward. (A recut single is a single released after an album but whose A-side is a song from the album.) So "Connected" was a recut single. Ink Runner (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A short movie starring Hamasaki, Tsuki ni Shizumu, was created to be the video for "Voyage"."
    Get rid of the "noun plus -ing" construct and tweaked to start with an active voice.
    Suggestion: "Hamasaki starred in a short movie, Tsuki ni Shizumu, which was created to be the video for "Voyage"."
    Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "As part of the promotion for Rainbow, those who bought the album online could access a password-protected website that had a part of the instrumental version of the title track, which did not appear on the album. It later appeared on Hamasaki's 2003 ballad compilation/remix album A Ballads."
    How much of this is related to Hamasaki herself instead of the album? In other words, did Ayumi had any part to do with this or did it have a significant impact on her image or person? If not, why should it be here?
    Well, I guess it doesn't really have much to do with her image or person. I guess it reflects more on the state of the Japanese music market at the time: sales were starting to decrease (Hamasaki's single "H" was the only million-seller in 2002, and Rainbow was her first album since ASFXX not to break the 2 million mark) and I guess Avex felt it necessary to launch the promotional campaign. Removed since it does look kind of incongruous. Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2003–2006: Decline in sales
    • "Her mini-album Memorial Address (December 2003) was her first album to be released in CD+DVD format in addition to the regular CD-only format, a decision that came from her increased interest in the direction of her music videos and wish to "relay the atmosphere" of the A Museum concert."
    The quoted phrase "relay the atmosphere" is not really in the original sentence... Basically, the sentence states: "she started to get interested in audio-visuals (videos) and actively watched the works of various supervisors. In that year, Ayumi and her supervisors produced those 3 videos, which they showed to the producer. The producer then suggested to release the album in the CD+DVD format. In accepting his comment, Ayumi thought the feelings she had over the charm and potential held by that year's videos can be reflected in the form of the 7 PVs and a digested form of Amuseum recorded on DVD."
    Removed the quote. Ink Runner (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Memorial Address topped the Oricon chart and became a million-seller."
    Reduce the "become"s. Suggestion: "Memorial Address topped the Oricon chart, selling more than a million copies."
    Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "rather, she simply wrote freely and honestly."
    Suggestion: "instead, she wrote her songs according to her desires, uninfluenced by worldly concerns."
    Again, I don't want to put words in her mouth; she didn't say anything about "worldly concerns" so I think it best not to assume anything. Ink Runner (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "She approached the composition of the music with the same freedom that she kept in mind while writing the lyrics. Because she liked rock music, the album had notable rock overtones."
    These two sentences can be moved in front of "She was so pleased with the result that she declared My Story the first album she felt satisfied with."; the first sentence can then be copyedited to reduce the redundancy ("same freedom per the lyrics").
    Changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "her first tour based on an album."
    Suggestion: "her first album-based tour."
    Okay, fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Wanting to sing a tune like those of Sweetbox"
    Better to strap a descriptive to Sweetbox, e.g. group, singer, whatever.
    Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Though (Miss)understood also reached the top of the Oricon, it became Hamasaki's first studio album not to sell a million copies."
    Reduce the "become"s. Suggestion (taking into account the issue below): "Although (Miss)understood reached the top of the Oricon, the music chart company stated that it sold less than a million copies—the first of Hamasaki's studio albums to do so."
    Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and "cheered on girls""
    I believe the original phrase was more of a noun than a verb; thus, quoting should remain a noun, unless it is rephrased...
    Suggestion: "and were composed to encourage female listeners."
    Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Secret was her first original studio album not to become an RIAJ-certified million-seller"
    It is sudden to introduce a RIAJ qualifier here to the "million-seller" term. It calls into question all the previous million-seller terms. Although there was a footnote at (Miss)understood to explain there were two ranking bodies, the situation is unanimous here between the two bodies. Hence, it should have been clarified at the earlier sentence that only one body considered (Miss)understood to be a million-seller.
    In addition to the change for (Miss)understood above, change this to, "Secret failed to sell a million copies, according to both Oricon and RIAJ."
    Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2007–present: Foray into Asia
    • I failed to spot this earlier, but why are the titles of tours in italics?
    • The MoS doesn't specifically say to put them in italics, but it does say to put things like orchestral works and plays in italics; it also doesn't say not to italicize them, so... Ink Runner (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I think a tour should not be in italics. It is the same performance (entitled to italics) that takes place in different locations. It is not a whole artistic workpiece, but a repetition of one. (Note: a media that covers a tour would be in italics.) FA Celine Dion's also has tour titles not in italics. However, as the MOS has nothing to cover this, it is not an issue. Jappalang (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "She performed not only in Japan but also in Taipei, Shanghai, and Hong Kong, making Tour of Secret her first tour with stops outside Japan."
    Suggestion: "It was her first international tour, and aside from Japan, she performed in Taipei, Shanghai, and Hong Kong."
    Changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "As a result, the concerts became highly anticipated, and tickets for the one in Taipei sold out in two hours; tickets for her Hong Kong concert sold out in three hours."
    Suggestion: "Her foreign fanbase highly anticipated the concerts, and tickets for the Taipei and Hong Kong performances sold out in less than three hours."
    Changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Unlike its predecessors, the writing of Hamasaki's ninth studio album, Guilty (January 2008), was not an emotional experience for her, nor did it have a set theme."
    Suggestion: "Unlike her previous works, Hamasaki had less of an emotional experience in writing Guilty (January 2008), her ninth studio album. Neither did she set a theme for the album."
    • "With first-week sales of around 432,000 copies, Guilty peaked at the number-two position on the weekly Oricon charts, making it Hamasaki's first studio album not to reach the top."
    Suggestion: "Selling 432,000 copies in its first week of release, Guilty peaked at the number-two spot on the weekly Oricon charts; it was Hamasaki's first studio album that failed to reach the top."
    Since other sections don't mention the first-week sales of albums, and the number isn't all that important, I just removed the "Selling 432,000..." part. Ink Runner (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The portion of the tour held in Japan spanned seventeen concerts and lasted from April until June;[15] the stops outside Japan were again held in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Shanghai."
    Suggestion: "From April till June, she toured Japan, holding seventeen concerts. Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Shanghai were again the foreign stops after the domestic performances."
    Changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Hamasaki's forty-third single, "Mirrorcle World", was released on April 8, 2008."
    Suggestion: "On April 8, 2008, Hamasaki released her forty-third single, "Mirrorcle World"."
    Because "Mirrorcle World" ("the single") is the subject/theme of the next sentence, for parallelity, I made it the subject/theme of that sentence. If that's just an American quirk, I'll change it to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your changes are good as well, so I will strike this suggestion. Jappalang (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "To commemorate her tenth anniversary in the music industry, the single was released in two versions, the second B-side containing a remix of either "You" or "Depend on You"."
    This sentence is not gramatically appealing to me (possible dangling modifier and declaration of two versions but detailing only one). Furthermore, I question the significance of its role in the tenth anniversary commemoration. Would it hurt the article if this sentence was taken out?
    Probably not. 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    Image and artistry
    • "Though her first tour with stops outside Japan did not take place until 2007, Hamasaki has been moving towards an Asian market since 2002"
    Suggestion: "Although Hamasaki did not hold concerts outside of Japan until 2007, she had set her sights on the Asian market since 2002"
    Well, her performances at the MTV Asia awards etc. are considered concerts. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahhh, she has performed at concerts outside Japan then, but she did not hold concerts outside Japan at that time. (Semantics!) Jappalang (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fie on semantics. ...Changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in addition to performing at the MTV Asia awards, she performed at South Korea's first joint performance among Asian singers and at a concert to celebrate Sino-Japanese relations."
    Overuse of "perform" in various forms.
    Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Style and influence
    • "She also admires Michelle Branch, Kid Rock, Joan Osborne, Seiko Matsuda, Rie Miyazawa, and Keiko Yamada;"
    I fail to see Michelle Branch, Kid Rock, and Joan Osborne in the reference given (her profile at Avex).
    Whoops. Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "these diverse influences have led to the variety of her own music."
    Suggestion: "the diversity of her taste in music has lent itself to her own compositions."
    • "She has employed Western as well as Japanese musicians; among those she has worked with are DJs Armin van Buuren, Jonathan Peters, Junior Vasquez, Above & Beyond, and Ferry Corsten; the Lamoureux Orchestra of France; and traditional Chinese music ensemble Princess China Music Orchestra."
    Bad usage of semi-colons. On another note, are we to name every DJ who has ever worked with her? I can understand the French and Chinese orchestras (to show a diversity of cultural music), but what do the DJs give as told here? Just prop up the DJs who had significant influences on her music.
    Okay, fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, I do not see any changes to this effect... Jappalang (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh, that's funny. Fixed now. Ink Runner (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Having released over 100 songs (not including remixes), Hamasaki's musical style has changed over time; her music spans styles including dance, metal, R&B, progressive rock, pop, and classical."
    Suggestion: "Hamasaki has released more than a hundred original songs; through them, she has covered a wide range of musical styles, such as dance, metal, R&B, progressive rock, pop, and classical."
    Changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, when writing "M", none of the melodies composed by her staff appealed to her, and she decided to compose."
    Suggestion: "However, she started to compose her own melodies after her staff had failed to compose a tune for "M" that appealed to her."
    Changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Thinking that this let her get closer to what she had in mind, Hamasaki continued, most notably in her album I am..., mostly her own work; furthermore, she took control of nearly every aspect of her artistry for the same reasons."
    Suggestion: "Wanting to produce works faithful to her visions, Hamasaki took control of most aspects of her artistry. I am... is representative of this stage in Ayumi's career; its songs and videos were mostly produced under Hamasaki's direction."
    Changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Later on in her career, however, she began delegating many of the tasks she had come to handle, including composition, to her staff."
    Suggestion: "Later in her career, however, she started to delegate many tasks, including composition, back to her staff."
    Huh, that wasn't my original sentence...must be a result of a ce. Changed. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Hamasaki is often involved in the artistic direction of her live performances; as a result, they are often lavish productions that use a variety of props, extravagant costumes, and choreographed dances."
    Great involvement from an artist does not result in lavish productions unless his or her personality are such (which is not mentioned here). The phrase "as a result" should be dropped.
    Done. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "As with her live performances, she is involved in the artistic direction of her promotional videos ..."
    Why not drop "as with her live performances" and insert "also" between "is" and "involved"?
    Done. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... tries to convey the videos the meanings or feelings of their respective songs."
    A word is missing, the clause is inappropriately phrased, or "convey" is incorrectly used.
    Again, probably a mistake made during a ce. Added the missing preposition. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "anglophone"
    It would be wiser to link this word to either an article or Wiktionary, or render it in simpler terms.
    Linked to Wiktionary. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lyrics and themes
    • "Hamasaki's lyrics, all her own, have resonated among her fans, who praise them as being honest and "expressing determination"."
    The sentence can be rephrased to exclude the clumsy "all her own"... "Expressing determination" is a bit too plain for a quote. Furthermore, "honest" seems to be used quite often later on...
    Suggestion: "Hamasaki has been praised by her fans for writing unpretentious lyrics that "incite listeners to dance" and "express the determination equal to one who is injured but insistent on overcoming his condition."" (the literal translation of "one who is injured but insists on starting to walk on his own two legs" is a bit clumsy).
    Public image
    • "Hamasaki's influence extends to other aspects of pop culture, including fashion, and she is often considered an icon and trend-setter in fashion, a status attributed to her tight control over her image."
    Redundancy in the ideas for "fashion".
    Suggestion: "Hamasaki's influence goes beyond music; she is often considered a fashion icon and trend-setter, a status attributed to her tight control over her image.'
    Changed to your suggestion. 16:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    • "As well as appearing in fashion magazines such as ViVi, Popteen, and Cawaii, Hamasaki repeatedly wins awards such as "Best Jeanist", "Nail Queen" and Oricon's "Most Fashionable Female Artist"."
    Honestly... the awards sound corny for an encyclopaedia...
    Suggestion: "Besides her frequent appearances in fashion magazines, such as Vivi, Popteen, and Cawaii, Hamasaki has often been lauded for her trendy choices in apparels and accessories; Oricon has repeatedly named her the "Most Fashionable Female Artist"."
    Well, they're actually pretty prestigious awards...but OK, changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This status has led to Hamasaki's shaping of Japan's fashion scene; many aspects of Japan's fashions—including clothing, hair, nails, and accessories—have in some way been influenced by her."
    Her status as a "fashion icon and trend-setter" does not lead to influencing the fashion trend in Japan, it already influences it; thus the first sentence is incorrect and can be dropped.
    Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Because of her status as a trend-setter, Hamasaki has been sought by numerous brands to endorse their products."
    Much in the way that companies have asked big-name Hollywood stars to endorse their products, her trend-setting achievement would likely not be the only factor that urges companies to seek her signature. The subordinating clause could be dropped.
    Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Other activities
    • Changed to your suggestion and moved the section to the "Image and artistry" section. Ink Runner (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second paragraph is heavy in proseline. Reorganize and group the concepts (I see clothing, television show, accessories, and what-nots), varying the sentence structure.
    Personal life
    • "Rumors of a future marriage for Hamasaki and Tomoya Nagase (her boyfriend since her acting days) began to be circulated by the Japanese media by July 2007, nearly six years after the couple had made their relationship public. On July 13, 2007, however, Hamasaki announced that they had broken up."
    Not a good way to introduce the section.
    Suggestion: "Hamasaki dated singer-actor Tomoya Nagase since her brief acting career, and they publicly announced their relationship in 2001. Six years later, the media circulated rumors that the couple were about to get married; however, on July 13, Hamasaki announced that they had broken up."
    There are now four references clumped at the end of this. Source them properly to their statements. The Mainichi "Egos, abortion or mutts" is unreliable and should be removed because Mainichi disavows any responsibility for it (freely translate from WaiWai). Its "The Ayu-Nagase Catastrophe" could be removed since it was for investigating the ex-couple's "love mansion", which is no longer mentioned. Jappalang (talk) 11:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Shortly thereafter, Hamasaki revealed that she and Nagase were no longer living together."
    Uh, Hamasaki did not reveal this; it was Mainichi's investigations and speculation (although evidently true). Regardless, is this notable? It would be if she and Nagase kept living together after they had broken up, but it is normal (and therefore insignificant) that broken-up couples do not live together.
    You're right; removed sentence. Ink Runner (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "She disclosed that she had been diagnosed with deafness in 2006 ..."
    Change "deafness" here to "the condition" to avoid repetition with the preceding sentence.
    Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Supposedly as a result of her hearing loss, Avex shares went down by thirteen yen."
    This is really wholesale speculation and sensationalist journalism. It should be qualified by appending "according to United News Daily" to it if it is to be included.
    Removed. It doesn't have much to do with her personal life, anyways. Ink Runner (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Despite the setbacks"
    She is deaf in only one ear (she can still clearly hear with the other). How is that a setback (something which obstructs or throws off a plan/course)? Furthermore, the plural form would indicate there are other such problems. What are they?
    Hmm, I don't know why it was plural. Changed to singular. As to the condition being a "setback": the American Heritage Dictionary defines setback as "an unanticipated or sudden check in progress; a change from better to worse." Ink Runner (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, a "setback" requires a context unless obvious (if we follow the AHD's definition, then what is the progress that was disrupted?). Jappalang (talk) 11:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, her singing suffered... ([131]) Ink Runner (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a good source to include and possibly to expand on. Note that the newspaper piece has professional opinions that state two sides of the story. One side (singer and producer) states that the condition could affect live performance; the other (songwriter with deaf students), however, argues that it is a correctible condition. Jappalang (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Above are the issues found. Jappalang (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to above, I advise seeking a copyeditor to go over the text. Although the WP:LOCE is defunct, you can try and see if any members of the FA-Team or peer review volunteers are willing to take up the task. Jappalang (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the suggestion. Karanacs has already given the article a CE, and I have contacted a Peer Review volunteer to give the article a look. Ink Runner (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notes, many of the sources are Japanese, making it hard to evaluate accuracy and reliability. Do any of the reviewers read Japanese? I wrote to a friend who speaks Japanese and received the following feedback:
    The Japanese and Chinese sources (including those of the quotes) have been reviewed by Jappalang, who reads both of the mentioned languages. Ink Runner (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks (good to know)! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I have not paid full attention to the sources yet, because I was concentrating on the prose (I looked further when something about the sentences bugged me). I will start looking in detail at the available online Japanese and Chinese sources now. Jappalang (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oricon and RIAJ are solid; Avexnet is from her label and hosts her website; Sponichi Annex is part of a major Japanese newspaper; Cawaii is a teen fashion magazine, Vivi is another one. Beatfreak is the Japanese version of an American teen magazine. rockin'on japan is a J-Rock magazine, likely simlar for J-Point, Casa Brutus, Girlpop, and Sweet. barks.jp website uncertain.

    Girlpop and Sweet are magazines aimed at teenage girls, J-point is a music magazine, and Casa Brutus is an architecture magazine, similar to Architectural Digest. (The article cited talked about Hamasaki's concert at the Yoyogi National Gymnasium and its setup etc.) Barks.jp is similar to MSN Music and it's owned by IT Media (アイティメディア株式会社). Ink Runner (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Checking one for accuracy. "Oricon has repeatedly named her the 'Most Fashionable Female Artist'." The source says that she is the ベストジーニスト賞 or Best Jeanist; could be some hyperbole.

    The Oricon source does say in the text that she was awarded "Best Jeanist", but the poll was for "オシャレアーティスト" or "Most Fashionable Artist". Ink Runner (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Japanese and Chinese sources resolved. Jappalang (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further source comments — per the comments above, I went through the Japanese and Chinese sources. Those that have issues are listed below:
    • Source: "A Great Achievement — Hamasaki Ayumi Ties with Akina Nakamori for the Achievement of Five Crowns"[132] (2007-07-24)
    This reference cites the achievements listed in the lead. However, as the subject is living (and her competitors), I question if the text should focus on her "most"-est achievements. Being the first is understandable, as no one can likely be the first for that record again. However, selling the most and getting the most #1s can be eventually broken. Considering the nature of an encyclopaedia, it is in the best interest to rewrite the achievements to avoid rewrites later. As of 2007 according to this source, Hamasaki has 28 #1 singles, 9 years running to have a #1 single per year, 39 top 10 singles, 20.218 million copies of singles sold, and 5 million-singles sellers. This source also states "Love Destiny" as Hamasaki's first #1 single.
    For the 10 years running, you would want to use ref #73 http://www.oricon.co.jp/news/confidence/53725/full/, which also states "Love Destiny" as the first #1 singles, and 30 #1 singles as of 2008-04-15.
    I sourced the 10 years #1 singles achievement with the appropriate source. As for the concern over the presentation of her achievements, I will leave it to others to evaluate. Jappalang (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Footnote-3: "According to Oricon, "Boys & Girls" is Hamasaki's first million-selling single (its sales are listed as higher than those of "H", a million-seller); however, the RIAJ does not list the single as a million-seller."
    This footnote is sourced to http://www.oricon.co.jp/artists/s/246497/ for the first part. The source is a cumulative sales chart that seems to be updated as frequently as possible. Hence, this cannot support the assumption that the reference for the second part (http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/million_list/1999.html, a list of million sellers for 1999, which only shows Loveppears and "A"). Boys & Girls might have sold less than a million in 1999, but reached a million sales in early 2000 or later. Furthermore, http://www.oricon.co.jp/music/special/061206_03.html states that "Boys & Girls" was immediately #1 on its release; it was not Hamasaki's first #1 single. That #1 was "Love Destiny", as presented above by two Oricon sources.
    Thank you; I had overlooked the fact that Oricon's listing was according to current sales. Listed "Love: Destiny" as the first #1. Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Duty resonated with fans: the "Trilogy" were "hit singles" ("Seasons" was a million-seller), and the album became Hamasaki's best-selling studio album."
    Allmusicguide does not seem to have any information pertinent to this sentence (http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/million_list/2000.html only showed "Seasons" as a million-seller). Do you mean http://www.oricon.co.jp/artists/a/246497/ ?
    Darn, they must have updated Hamasaki's page. Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The single, a duet with Keiko Yamada, was released as part of Avex's non-profit Song+Nation project, which raised money for victims of the attacks."
    Umm... according to the source (http://www.avexnet.or.jp/songnation/index.htm), the proceeds from the album and 3 singles mentioned (one of which was Ayumi's) was donated to the United Nations for world peace and for the children (note the small letters...), not US's 9/11 victims. No specific charities were mentioned (I would presume UNICEF, but would not put that down).
    Changed the sentence to "raised money for charity" and replaced the primary source with a secondary source. (Since it requires paid access, I put the original text in a footnote.) Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The secondary source does not state where the proceeds would go to, it only notes that the song was resulting from the attack and that Hamasaki and Yamada were singing the duet (note: I read the full text of the source). It seems the primary source would be a better choice (unless another secondary source that speaks of where the money would go can be added). I would suggest adding back the primary source; the secondary source can then be used to reinforce the primary. Jappalang (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I re-added the primary source. Ink Runner (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In support of I am..., Hamasaki held two tours, Ayumi Hamasaki Arena Tour 2002 A and Ayumi Hamasaki Stadium Tour 2002 A."
    This article (http://epochtimes.com/b5/2/6/19/n197226.htm) talks about Ayumi Hamasaki Arena Tour, whose last stop was in Yokohama. It only stated when the tour started (April), how many Japanese cities it had been in (11) and how many performances were given (21). Other than that, it only stated Ayumi's first outdoor performance will be given in Tokyo at the end of the month, and July would see her first new single. Oh yes, she also said that "[David] Beckham is so handsome!" (urgh). There is no mention of supporting I am... (though this can be inferred by year) or that there were two tours to support the album (no mention of a Stadium Tour).
    Sourced. Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The album had three singles—"Free & Easy", "Voyage", and "H"; the last became the best-selling single of 2002."
    Actually, according to the source (http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/million_list/2002.html), it was the only million seller single in 2002 (heh), but if there are no other million seller singles, then it cannot be the best then (you need competition to be the best).
    As the only million-seller single, "H" technically was the best-selling single; the competition was every other single released in 2002. Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah... my bad, I had mentally inserted a "million-seller" between "best-selling" and "single". Jappalang (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Though (Miss)understood also reached the top of the charts, Oricon stated that it sold fewer than a million copies—Hamasaki's first studio album to do so."
    The source (http://www.oricon.co.jp/music/special/061221_03.html) only gave the numbers. Nothing about it as her first studio album not to sell a million copies.
    I included the Oricon sales of the other albums in their respective paragraphs. (Except for those of I am... and Rainbow, which are in a footnote.) Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I understanding correctly that you are asking readers to go through each week from "from the fifth week of December 2002 to the fourth week of February 2003" on the Oricon site, adding up the album sales to verify the fact? Jappalang (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Ink Runner (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but I have to say this is a very clunky way to source a statement... Jappalang (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Both of the album's singles, "Startin'" and "Blue Bird", continued her streak of number-one singles: "Startin'" became her twenty-sixth, setting a new record for most number-one singles held by a solo female artist."
    Should be sourced to http://www.oricon.co.jp/news/ranking/15343/ instead of http://www.oricon.co.jp/news/ranking/15339/ .
    Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Her sales, however, continued to decline: according to both Oricon and the RIAJ, Secret failed to sell a million copies."
    It (http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/gold/200611.html) did not explicitly state it, but having the million single/album stating (miss)understood, while Secret is left as a Gold record should be fairly safe. Raising this up for discussion.
    I included the sales of Secret, so it should be clear. Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, there is no sales figure for Secret in http://www.oricon.co.jp/news/ranking/22658/ . Is this the correct source? Jappalang (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, how do I do these things? XP Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Footnote: "However, Oricon's year only has fifty-one "weeks"—the first two of the year are combined. Kobukuro's sales for the combined two weeks were slightly higher than Hamasaki's, giving them the number-one position. "
    Umm... this source (http://web.archive.org/web/20080116220440/http://www.sponichi.co.jp/entertainment/news/2008/01/07/02.html) is talking about her ear problem, not the differences in accounting practices between Oricon and Kobukuro...
    Added a ref. Ink Runner (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The album's singles—"Glitter / Fated", "Talkin' 2 Myself", and Hamasaki's first digital-only single, "Together When..."—however, reached the top of their respective charts."
    This source (http://www.oricon.co.jp/news/rankmusic/48305/) talks about how Hamasaki's 29th number 1 single that is also her 40th Top 10 hit, made her the second among the industry in each area. How is this related to the sentence?
    The other source, a chart (http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/chart/w080120_1.html), shows Hamasaki's "Together when" as the first, "(Don't) Leave me alone" as the 46th, and "My All" (67th) on the chart for online distribution for the year. It does not state "Together when" is her first digital-only single...
    Well, her discography lists "Together When..." as a digital-only single, but to be sure, I sourced it. Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no mentions of "Glitter / Fated", and "Talkin' 2 Myself" in either source.
    Ref #71 says that "Talkin' 2 Myself" is her 17th consecutive #1 single. Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I missed that. Jappalang (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Hamasaki is also the first female singer to have eight studio albums that topped the Oricon."
    This source (http://www.oricon.co.jp/music/special/061206_03.html) was used as far back as April this year (or earlier) to source this sentence (and its earlier forms). However, I do not see any such acknowledgement in the source.
    Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have fixed a few other mistakes in sources that can be easily corrected. The above would require action from the main contributor or others more knowledgeable with the article. Jappalang (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Final comments: after going through the article for the several times noted above, I believe opposable issues with regards to sources, and comprehensiveness are resolved. Although the language is clear, I am not too enamored with the style and flow at certain parts (hence, my recommendation of another copyeditor). Still, this article is a good, neutral, and comprehensive read. I would not stand against its promotion to be an FA, but I think it could do with a bit more polish to its prose. Jappalang (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The prose is not facilitated by the mess of punctuation. Here's one example with ellipses, dashes, parentheses, quotations, colon and semi-colon, all competing with footnotes:

    Hamasaki's debut album under Avex, A Song for XX (1999), was "unassuming":[8] its singles—"Poker Face", "You", "Trust", "Depend on You", and "For My Dear..." (all 1998)—were not major hits;[9] the tracks, composed by Yasuhiko Hoshino, Akio Togashi (of Da Pump), and Mitsuru Igarashi (of Every Little Thing), were "cautious" pop-rock songs.[9][8]

    Some rewording might help avoid all the punctuation. This is only a sample. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have edited some sentences and moved the refs around to avoid their competing with the punctuation. The dates of releases were left in parentheses since other FAs also follow that practice, and it seems like the best way to streamline. Ink Runner (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:48, 6 December 2008 [133].

    Major depressive disorder edit

    Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs)

    This can be considered a group nomination, although where to draw the line can be hazy. For some months, three editors (me, Cosmic Latte and Paul Gene) have been in a concerted effort to get this here, along with EverSince and others along the way. delldot gave a very thorough review, and orangemarlin, Tony and many others have chipped in with advice, including negotiating a way through alternative therapies and so forth. Do I think it is perfect? No, but I do honestly feel it is one of Wikipedia's best articles and stands up well with others I have been involved with. We didn't send it to GAN mainly as delldot did such a thorough workthrough and the size was such I sorta felt it was a big ask for one editor to read and judge. One final thing, the article stands at 51 kb readable prose, 1 kb more than the upper limit for FAC. However, I have been unable to figure out what the last little bit to lose, or whether folks felt ignoring the rules WRT article size was okay. I figured this may be the best venue for consensus on this, in the coal-face as it were. Anyway, lemme know how we can make it betterer. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Restart: old nom with Restart notes. Images have changed and need a new review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could someone drop a note on my talk page when the image choices are stabilized and I'll rereview then? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just out of curiosity than anything else: can you tell me where this 50kb prose limit comes from? That would make both this article, and say, The Wire (both at 60kb prose now) ineligible for FAC. Sceptre (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SIZE. Awadewit (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And, no, it doesn't make them ineligible: WP:SIZE is a guideline, 10,000 words is a suggested max, and MDD is at 8,500 words (compared to RCC for example at 12,000). See User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Incidentally, I myself would never oppose an article for simply being too long (although I would had it too many references), but I would suggest splitting the article into subarticles. In this article's case, a split I would suggest would be something like history and social impact; causes and symptoms; and diagnosis and treatment; and I would not oppose it for having nearly 300 references; medical articles I often exempt. That said, I won't support the article either. It'd be too daunting for me to read, and I don't like reviewing articles where I don't know much about the topic (in this case, apart from everyone's "knowing somebody who knows somebody", I know little about the subject). HTH HAND. Sceptre (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I freely admit size has been a problem, and has resulted in the birth of some subarticles already, thus we have a treatment (the treatment section was significantly trimmed) and biology article, and I have taken out some material that would be better placed in a future causes article. Furthermore there is a major depressive episode article, and various links to antidepressant and electro-convulsive therapy. History of mental disorders is also linked and this section was trimmed down alot. Question is, what to take out without compromising the comprehensiveness here? Prioritising this has been tricky and wieghing up clinical vs historical vs encyclopedic (whatever that means). I did try to rank snippets and see what was more important before relegating some to subpages. I will see if we can relegate a bit more, as we have various subpages already. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support as contributor, following previous FAC. Well-written, thoroughly sourced article. I find that, following prior trimming, the article passes WP:SS, so I would not worry about trimming more. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm tending to agreeing with Cosmic Latte; flicking through, I did notice a lot of offshoot articles already. I think this is a perfect balance between short and long, just looking briefly at it. Sceptre (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as the article is well-organized, throughly well-referenced, and presented well (the images and location of the images look good). Well done Casliber and Comic Latte!  :) Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much (although Casliber deserves more credit than me)! Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    < Note regarding restart notifications moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder#Moved 1.> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image review - [[:Image:Amitriptyline-2D-skeletal.png]] - Please add a description, author, source, and date for this image. All other images check out fine. Awadewit (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (sourced on commons page now) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Image concerns addressed. Awadewit (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as minor contributor per previous FAC. I believe this is an example of Wikipedia's best writing, and a very valuable article. looie496 (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support:It was a great article 3 months ago and now a much better one: I believe it fullfills all FA criteria.--Garrondo (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose There are several issues but, to be brief, let me give one: that the language of the article contains too much jargon and so contravenes our policy WP:NOT PAPER. For example, consider the first sentence of the section on causes: "The etiology of mental disorders is best appreciated through a multidimensional integrative approach that disfavors reductionism and encourages models that consider a wide array of biological, psychological, and social forces." This seems quite horrid and compares poorly with another online encylopedic treatment which has "There are many different factors that can trigger depression.". Colonel Warden (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Agree, I reread it and realised it was very general and no meaning was lost by its removal, and so removed. We did make a concerted effort to remove jargon but some has crept back in with a rejigging. We are trying to address it and you are welcome to list more on the MDD talk page)Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Status? How is this going? (I've checked in several times and found typographical errors introduced.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got the ones you noted, and found some more to convert US spelling. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I supported the FAC before the restart, and have now reread it thoroughly. I think the article has improved in many aspects since my last read, so technically it would be silly of me not to support now. Anyway, I have a number of comments written at Talk:Major depressive disorder#Skagedal's comments, and just for the fun of it I'm going to wait with my support !vote until a few things have been addressed. These are the things I find most important:
      • Agree with Colonel Warden about jargony language at some places; there are some specific examples in my notes.
      • Religion as a protective factor stands out; explained better in my talk page notes.
      • "Psychological treatments" is not that well balanced; purely behavioral treatments are missed, and a specific treatment that hasn't received that much research (MBCT) is given undue room, occupying one out of five paragraphs. – strike as balance is now much better; still have minor issues but will take on talk page
      • There's a lot of talk about the role of rumination in modern psychological conceptualizations and treatments, this should be discussed. Forgot this one in my notes. Sorry for not being more specific, I'm in a bit of a rush at the moment. – strike as not specific/actionable, will return to this later on talk page. /skagedal... 10:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll make sure to strike these as addressed or adequately discussed on talk page. /skagedal... 11:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Great article, neutral and reliable info, well referenced.. would be good also to meet Skagedal's suggestions --The.Filsouf (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Meets FAC criteria and is among the site's best work. Good job Casliber et al. Articles on substantial topics will always have areas of contention. On an open and anonymous project, no one will ever unilaterally agree on the exact presentation of any topic of importance, and someone will always have one more thing to "improve". None of this affects the greater notion that this article is among wikipedia's best work. If FAC takes the endless-laundry-list approach to even broad-topic articles, we will never be able to feature the site's real best work. Feature it and keep working on it, if you like. –Outriggr § 02:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – I agree with what Outriggr says. My "endless-laundry-list" at talk page was meant as a possibly helpful list of things I thought about when reading through, not as a "fix this or I won't support". I apologize to the nominators if I was sending mixed signals on this, so let's be clear: This is a great, well balanced, comprehensive, WP:WIAFA-meeting article. /skagedal... 10:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It read like a good encyclopedic page that would be a valuable addition to the Medical FAs. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerns resolved, Vassyana (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I still think this is a solid article. I played devil's advocate to pick through the sources. I found:
    • Nearly all of the "out of date" materials cited are used to document historical views, as complementary sources, to relate information unlikely to suffer from dating (or known to retain relevance), or to report the views of prominent figures in the field.
    • "Learned helplessness[43] and depression may be related to what American psychologist Julian Rotter, a social learning theorist, called an external locus of control, a tendency to attribute outcomes to events outside of personal control.[44]" (Is this an editorial observation or what the source reports? It is unclear whether this is a good citation or original research as presented. The use of a citation at the beginning of the sentence further gives the impression of original research.
    I'm the one who inserted the cite at the beginning there -- it's what the source says. I'm not sure I really understand what worries you about this, though. looie496 (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The phrasing and chunky citation are general OR red flags. To clear this up, does the first citation explicity state that learned helplessness may be associated with Rotter's theory? Does the second citation explicitly state that depression may be associated with the model? Vassyana (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, ref 2 (at end) has ext. locus control linked to depression. The crux is does ref 1 link learned helplessness with ext. locus of control. I should have read this more closely as the two terms are not synonymous and I will remove it (see talk). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, linking learned helplessness with ext. locus of control (and depression) is precisely what ref 1 does. That's why I put the cite there instead of after Rotter, where I thought it would be misleading. Anyway, I see that Cas has removed this sentence entirely, which is the simplest way of solving the problem. looie496 (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Milder depression has been associated with what has been called depressive realism, or the "sadder-but-wiser" effect, a view of the world that is relatively undistorted by positive biases.[48]" (The depressive realism model has been heavily criticized. This seems only tangentially related to the article subject, so why not just add a see also link to depressive realism instead of raising the issue in-text?)
    • "Vulnerability factors—such as early maternal loss, lack of a confiding relationship, responsibility for the care of several young children at home, and unemployment—can interact with life stressors to increase the risk of depression in women.[49] However, the validity of risk factors has been widely debated.[50]" (This gives an inaccurate impression to the reader. The validity of risk factors is not widely debated, as such. The principal point of dispute is whether or not those factors increase vulnerability to stressors or stand alone as a risk factors.)
    • "The National Comorbidity Survey (US) reports that 51% of those with major depression also suffer from lifetime anxiety.[208]" While this is certainly a highly notable study, it is over a decade old and the year should be explicitly included in-text.
    It's quite the large list of refs, so it's possible that I may have missed something. However, I reviewed the article a few times in an attempt to be completely thorough and did not not any other issues of concern. Vassyana (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (included years of NCS as per last point) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (removed depressive realism - see MDD talk apge) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (removed second sentence on querying vulnerabilities as stand alone factors; it is not a Review article and although interesting, not substantive enough to add a huge deal) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. My few concerns have been resolved. This is a great article that fulfills the criteria. Vassyana (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Meets the FAC criteria. Shyamal (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I'm of the opinion that the article meets the FA criteria. AGK 15:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:48, 6 December 2008 [134].

    Phan Dinh Phung edit

    Nominator(s): User:YellowMonkey
    previous FAC (03:05, 13 July 2008)

    Renominating. The previous time, Tony1 said the prose was fine, although another reviewer did not, although I did make his fixes, and nobody else ever turned up. Also, a picture of his statue is now present. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments Minor prose points:
    • "Phan was born in the village of Dong Thai, reputed for producing a number high-ranking mandarins, in" - it would be 'reputed to produce', but you mean known or famous etc.
    • "Phan himself gave early indications of distaste towards the classical curriculum required" - distaste for, I think
    • "Phan also compiled a historical geography of Vietnam, which was penned in 1883" -"written", "completed" or "published".
    • "whom he caught with Tuong" - what, like at it? Needs clarifying
    Still needs to be clearer - what act? Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Thuyet took Ham Nghi on a northbound escape to the Tan So mountain base..." rephrase, maybe: "Thuyet escaped with Ham Nghi to the Tan So base in the northern mountains"
    • No Links: Ha Tinh, scholar-gentry
    • "targeted two nearby Catholic villages that ^had^ collaborated with French force^s^.

    - done some others myself. Otherwise very interesting & well-written. There must be more sources on the parallels with the Vietcong, no? Worth adding something I think. Johnbod (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tweaked these, and mentioned some bits about how the VC like to portray themselves as modern PHan Dinh Phungs and Truong Dinhs. I was unable to find any material by historians that actually compared them, however, although a few have noted the communist desire to see themselves as a modern PDP or TD. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 05:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review

    Yes, unknown and pre-1933 since that's when he died. The French stuff at the bottom indicates it was published during the French colonial era, so pre-1955 and so PD-Vietnam. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, I can't keep up with all the different naming conventions, I need a defaultsort or persondata hint about how to list alphabetically. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, list by PHAN, Dinh Phung I think. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - I came to this article ignorant and went away informed - well-done! I can't speak to the article's comprehensiveness as I don't know anything about this period of Vietnamese history, but the sources are reliable, the writing is good (the entire article flows quite well), and the illustrations are well chosen. The quoted discussion between Phan and Khai was a particularly nice touch to the article. Awadewit (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Two minor issues, that may or may not need to be addressed:

    • I usually dislike citations in the lead, but I wonder if this sentence might need one? He was renowned for his uncompromising will and principles
    Done. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 13:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any information on why he wasn't given the death penalty for refusing to support Duc Duc
    I guess that's in Ton That Thuyet's head. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 13:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Karanacs (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 3 December 2008 [135].

    Atmosphere of Jupiter edit

    Nominators: Ruslik (talk), Serendipodous (talk), Nergaal (talk)

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because it now fully satisfies FA criteria, in my opinion. I also want to say that it is the most complicated article I have ever written. Ruslik (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - 40KB on a ball of game millions of miles away? Argh.

    Dude, you write FAs about video games. Serendipodous 19:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which sell millions of dollars in merchandise and are the largest entertainment industry on Earth, thank you very much :P besides, I don't write 40KB on them, they are all more manageable sizes :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Video games don't last 20 years. The planets are for all time. The way things are going, we'll be telling our grandchildren how great it was when we had electricity, and when that happens, looking up at the planets will be the only entertainment left, like it used to be for thousands of years. Serendipodous 00:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please respond to everything in a block below my comments so I can keep track of things. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • I want to point your attention that all majority those images are from commons. Commons have different policies and they are not part of the English Wikipedia. Ruslik (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, some of them are actually on en.wiki. Ruslik (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if they are on Commons, they still need proper licensing. Gary King (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Image:Jupiter Belt System.JPG, Image:NH Jupiter IR.jpg, Image:Jupiter-Earth-Spot comparison.jpg, are still missing offsite URLs for the original source image; all other concerns taken care of. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    first and last should be ok now. For the second one I cannot find a better link than a bbc one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs)
    I subbed the original New Horizons gallery as a source. Serendipodous 13:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think now all images are OK. Ruslik (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Subbed. Also did the same for the white ovals image. Serendipodous 00:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I didn't contribute this time... ;). Anyway, the prose could use a bit of a touch-up. I'll get around to a copyedit ASAP. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 21:22, 26 November 2008
    • The density gradually decreases until one typical for the interplanetary space is reached about 5,000 km above 1 bar pressure level. I added a hidden comment, remove it when you're done, but what comes after typical? —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 21:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I rewrote the sentence (avoided mentioning typical for interplanetary space). Ruslik (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Links:
      • Retrograde and Prograde link respectively to a dab page and a redirect to Retrograde and direct motion, an astronomical topic unrelated to the sense here.
      • Isotopic links to a dab page. I was tempted to make a pipe from 'isotopic ratio' to isotopic signature, or could it just be a plain link?
      • I fixed some other more straightforward problems. William Avery (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I linked retrograde to Retrograde and direct motion, and isotopic to Isotope_geochemistry. The latter is the best target that I can find. I also see no problem with the redirect. The definitions of prograde (in the direction of motion), and retrograde (against the direction of motion) are the same everywhere, so Retrograde and direct motion article, which of course says nothing about atmospheres, is a good link. Ruslik (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Support — after re-examining Retrograde and direct motion article.William Avery (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support—I performed a review during PR and I thought it was in fine shape then. After another go through, it appears to more than meet FA criteria. I have no significant issues to report.—RJH (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Copyediting now. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • "molecular envelope" isn't in Webster's 3rd Unabridged or in Wikipedia, and I don't know what it means. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It refers to the outer layer of Jupiter, where hydrogen is in molecular state. Deeper inside the planet, where pressure is higher, hydrogen is in metallic state. Ruslik (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Makes sense. Please define the term in the article at the first occurrence. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    done. Serendipodous 16:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There isn't support at Webster's for "air" meaning "Jovian atmosphere", but it's okay with me if it's a common term among astronomers, since the meaning is clear enough. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It is frequently used in literature. Ruslik (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:Image use policy, "Inline animations should be used sparingly; a static image with a link to the animation is preferred unless the animation has a very small file size." Your animation is 7.5M. Display just one frame, so that either the reader gets the animation if they choose to click on the thumbnail, or if they click on a link in the caption. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comment "Oval BA should not be confused with another major storm on Jupiter, the Little Red Spot (or Baby Red Spot) which turned red before the GRS and Oval BA shredded it in late June/early July of 2008." HubbleSite does not support the suggestion that Oval BA was involved in the shredding. Also, there are several cases of the digit 1 being used in prose. Should this be changed to "one"? The double adjective "1 bar" needs a hyphen. Wronkiew (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Little Red Spot passed in between two other red spots. It appears to left of GRS on the image 2, and its remnants appear to right of the latter in image 3. I think such numbers as 1 bar should written in the scientific style, where digitas are usually used. 1-bar ? I actually have never wirtten it in this style. Ruslik (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks like single digit measurements are fine, so you should leave them. Digits and spelled out units should be hyphenated in cases where they are double adjectives, see WP:HYPHEN. It is not apparent to me from looking at the image that Oval BA was involved with LRS, I think it needs to be clarified or a better source found. Wronkiew (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Ruslik may be confusing that image with this one. That one is of the mergance of the three white ovals to form Oval BA. Serendipodous 19:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've subbed the New Horizons image (which is a duplicate of one below) with the image of the three red spots in conflict. Serendipodous 19:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant the image from ref 87 (you actually added it), which shows that Baby Spot was shredded. Ruslik (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The image doesn't show the shredding, just the aftereffects. The caption for the image on HubbleSite says only that LRS was "caught up in the anticyclonic spin of the GRS". It does not say that Oval BA was involved. Wronkiew (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I concede this point. Little Baby (Spot) was eaten by GRS alone. Oval BA only stood by as a silent witness. I added new reference and clarified that sentence. Ruslik (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And here we see the cub eyeing the mother intently as she stalks and kills her prey, learning vital skills for later life... Serendipodous 23:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Additional comments I will feel comfortable supporting if these are resolved or suitably explained. Wronkiew (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would prefer to see less speculation about the processes and properties of Jupiter in the article. There is an over-reliance on the phrase "is thought to" or its variants where the facts are uncertain. This is especially apparent in the lead.
        I removed some "is thought to". However these 'facts' are just conclusions form rather complicated models, which are often equivocal. Ruslik (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lead says that hydrogen sulfide has not been directly observed, but "Observational history" says that HST detected it through spectroscopy.
        You are right here. Only water was not directly observed in sufficient amounts. I changed this. Ruslik (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The latter is caused by the higher condensation heat of the water and the higher water abundance as compared to the ammonia and hydrogen sulfide (as oxygen is a more abundant chemical element than either nitrogen or sulfur)." It's not clear what "the latter" is referring to.
        Done. Ruslik (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "This ion produces strong emissions in the mid-infrared part of the spectrum, at the wavelengths between 3–5 μm, and is the main cooler of the thermosphere." I was not able to find any support for H3+ being the "main cooler of the thermosphere" in Yelle 2004.
        On page 27 Interestingly, they find that thermal conduction plays a small role in this region and heating is balanced primarily by H+3 cooling. I can add more a specific ref if necessary. Ruslik (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "At the present rate of reduction it would become circular by 2040, although this is unlikely because of the distortion effect of the neighboring jet streams." There is no reference to support this.
        Added a reference. Ruslik (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, the article is accurate, verifiable, and well written. Wronkiew (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 3 December 2008 [136].

    Reception history of Jane Austen edit

    Nominator(s): Awadewit (talk) and Simmaren (talk)

    In our slow and steady efforts to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Jane Austen, we bring you a history of how Austen's works have been received and how the fan culture surrounding Austen has developed. Simmaren and Awadewit have been working on this article for over a year and believe that it now meets the FA criteria. They would like to thank everyone who has helped shape this article, but most especially Maria, who researched and wrote the "Adaptations" section. This article has undergone a rigorous peer review by Markus Poessel, Scartol, Moni3, and Brianboulton; it has been copyedited several different times, lastly by Jbmurray; it has been checked against the MOS by Epbr123; and it has been BE-ified by Roger Davies. Awadewit (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Simmaren (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review - Does Image:Greer Garson in Pride and Prejudice.JPG need a Fair use rationale as a screenshot? Otherwise, images check out ok. I haven't read it since I peer reviewed it. I think it has changed some since I saw it last. --Moni3 (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I do not believe it does need a FUR - see the licensing information links and the license tag. Awadewit (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That brings up an interesting question that may either require further research on that image, or taking this discussion completely off this page. I had to remove screenshots from To Kill a Mockingbird because I could not prove that copyright had not been renewed, and even if it had not been renewed, could not prove that it was in the public domain. I called the US Copyright Office for verification. Do you need to prove in the license information tag that this film in particular is in the public domain? Or, by the links, are all trailers from 1923 to 1977 available to use? --Moni3 (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears to me that these trailers (and only the trailers) are available. We could solicit a certain Commons editor's advice, however. Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For my own edification perhaps we should ask him. Striking concern unless Elcobbola indicates otherwise. --Moni3 (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The trailers are derivative works, not purely original works. Thus they would be affected by the copyright status of the film itself. Kaldari (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read this and let me know what you think. It is my understanding that this trailer is indeed in the PD. Awadewit (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, my note to Elcobbola. --Moni3 (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I didn't think about the fact that the trailers are typically published before the movie is. Kaldari (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lead Review... Kaldari (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • "With the growing professionalisation of university English departments in the first half of the twentieth century, criticism of Austen became progressively more esoteric and, as a result, appreciation of Austen branched in several directions. In the late twentieth century, for example, fans founded Jane Austen societies and clubs to celebrate the author, her time, and her works;" In the first sentence "appreciation of Austen" is presented in the context of academic criticism. The phrase is then parlayed into discussion of Jane Austen fan clubs. This switching of contexts was unexpected (for me at least), as I was expecting the "example" to be from an academic context as well. This could be remedied by removing the clause "for example" which strongly ties the two sentences together (perhaps too strongly), or by adding more transitional wording between the two sentences to broaden the context.
    • Transitional wording added: criticism of Austen became progressively more esoteric and, as a result, appreciation of Austen splintered into distinctive high culture and popular culture trends; "for example" removed. Awadewit (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...fans founded Jane Austen societies and clubs to celebrate the author, her time, and her works; consequently, "Janeite" increasingly became a term of opprobrium." Why would celebrating Austen, her time, and her works lead to "Janeite" becoming a term of opprobrium? The connection here isn't clear.
    • New version: In the late twentieth century, fans founded Jane Austen societies and clubs to celebrate the author, her time, and her works; consequently, scholars often disparagingly referred to fans as "Janeites". Awadewit (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "opprobrium" and "ensconced" are a bit academic. Can these be rephrased?
    • How about a change from (a) "firmly ensconced" to "widely accepted" and (b) "opprobrium" to "contempt" or "disparagement" ? Simmaren (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've incorporated "disparage" above. See what you think. Awadewit (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - although there was some phrasing that made me smirk or laugh, I don't see any problems. I wonder if there were any reviews in America or Europe of any of her work early on, but that doesn't seem too necessary. I think Lewes's picture is a negative (he needs to shave better), but I've never liked him much, so I am biased. By the way, did Fanny Burney ever say anything about the works? Elizabeth Gaskell? Mary Elizabeth Braddon? Juliet Barker's The Brontes provides a detailed account of Charlotte's view of Jane. I didn't know if the source you used really went into it. Barker says (p. 548) "While Charlotte realized, as Lewes did not, that Jane Austen's style and tone were the absolute antithesis of her own, she nevertheless also recognized his criticism of her tendency to melodrama and her 'untrue' pictures of high society. It was, after all, what many of the reviewers had found fault with and Smith Williams himself advised her to avoid. Thanking him for his literary advice, Charlotte told Smith Williams that she kept his letters and referred 'not unfrequently' to them." In 1850, she purchased Sense and Sensibility and (pp. 634-635) "Writing a few weeks later when she had read Jane Austen's Emma, she anatomized the vast gulf that lay between their different styles of writing. (quote - She does her business of delineating the surface of the lives of genteel English people curiously well; there is a Chinese fidelity, a miniature delicacy in the painting: she ruffles her reader by nothing vehement, disturbs him by nothing profound: the Passions are perfectly unknown to her... Her business is not half so much with the human heart as with the human eyes <eyes>, mouth, hands and feet; what sees keenly, speaks aptly, moves flexibly, it suits her to study, but what throbs fast and full, though hidden, what the blood rushes through, <what> what is the unseen seat of Life and the sentient target of death - this Miss Austen ignores... Jane Austen was a complete and most sensible lady, but a very incomplete, and rather insensible (not senseless) woman, ]if/ this is heresy - I cannot help it)" (quoting from her letter CB to WSW, 12 April 1850). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are lots of interesting comments from nineteenth-century writers in particular on Austen. What we decided to include were the ones repeated most often in the articles and books we read. Scott's "Big wow-wow" quote, for example, is repeated everywhere. If you are interested in every scrap ever said about Austen, you should read the Southam collection of reviews. Two volumes of material, which includes everything CB said about Austen and much more. Quite the read. Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as semi-collaborator, although the credit is all Awadewit and Simmaren's. This is quite a fine article, but my opinion of Miss Jane still coincides with that of Twain: "I often want to criticize Jane Austen, but her books madden me so that I can't conceal my frenzy from the reader; and therefore I have to stop every time I begin. Every time I read Pride and Prejudice, I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin-bone." :) María (habla conmigo) 21:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will it become obligatory for every reviewer to include the quote they wished we had cited? :) Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently, as long as they support the page. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, mine was the best: succinct, earnest, violent. I consider this meme concluded. Back to critiquing, everyone! María (habla conmigo) 21:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This FAC can become the source for the "Quotations of and about Jane Austen" page we have occasionally considered as a sub-page. ;) Simmaren (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for an article that I have been watching for a long time. Here we see the paradigm of how FAs should be built, and I advise all editors who aspire to bringing an article to FA status to analyse this article's history. Graham Colm Talk 22:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – with a quibble! "The 1972 adaptation of Emma was the first to be produced by BBC Television". It wasn't. This gives details of BBC P&P adaptations in 1952, 1958 and 1967, Persuasionin 1960-61 and Sense and Sensibility in 1971. And this gives details of an ancient BBC adaptation of P&P, in 1938! Sorry to be a bore with these details, which I think I hinted at in the peer review, but can the above reference to the 1972 Emma please be revised? Otherwise, a joy and a pleasure to read. Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that is the first adaptation of Emma. Awadewit (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but the paragraph is about TV adaptations of Jane Austen novels, not about TV adaptations of Emma. The impression is given that the BBC started doing these adaptations in the 1970s, which is not the case. I'm not suggesting that these earlier productions be listed individually, but surely it is worth a brief mention, as part of the reception history, that the BBC made its first Austen attempt in 1938, when TV had scarcely been invented, and continued to produce versions at regular intervals during the 1960s and 1970s, even if they weren't very good ones? Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll have to check with Maria to see if the sources mention these earlier TV adaptations to any great degree. I know that she reworded this part of the article in response to your concern at the peer review, but perhaps it is still not clear enough. Awadewit (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources that I used only vaguely refer to early adaptations in comparison to the newer, post-1970 ones; basically they are dismissed as being not very faithful to their sources, historically inaccurate, and dull -- completely opposite of what came about with the heritage drama movement. Rather than give the impression that these early adaptations by the BBC are as notable (or as important to Austen scholarship) as the newer ones, I've just reworded the Emma sentence to read: "The 1972 BBC adaptation of Emma, for example, took great care to be historically accurate, but..." Is this better? María (habla conmigo) 00:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that is better, because the implication that the 1972 Emma was the first BBC Austen adaptation is no longer there (incidentally, BBC did Emma in 1948 and 1960). I'm not pressing beyond this, but I'm just wondering, in a general way, whether there is a point to be made that the Austen phenomenon might have occurred sooner if the earlier TV productions had aspired to the standards and fidelity of the later ones. Do the sources say or imply anything along these lines? In this respect, Jane Austen on Film and Television: A Critical Study of the Adaptations (MacFarland, 2002) might be useful. Brianboulton (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't recall reading exactly that sentiment, but several critics (including Troost) made the point that the BBC productions became more successful when combining textual/historical accuracy with the appeal of a visually appealing, flashy Hollywood film. The 70s ended up being a clear starting point in this regard. I don't have access to the MacFarland book from my library (and ILL would take too long for this FAC, I fear, especially with a holiday coming up), but perhaps someone else does? María (habla conmigo) 13:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The book (by Sue Parrill, McFarland is the publisher) is on the shelf(at the moment) at the University of Chicago library, to which I have access. I can undertake to retrieve it this weekend and take a look if that would be helpful. Simmaren (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much of this book is available online at Google Books as well. I read this book a few years ago and I remember being unimpressed by it. How about we at least mention in the article that there were TV adaptations before the 1970s, but that they didn't have near the popular nor the critical acclaim that the later ones did? Awadewit (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be fine - could be done very briefly, I'm sure. Brianboulton (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As long as it doesn't make "between 1900 and 1975, more than sixty radio, television, film, and stage productions of Austen's various works were produced" at the end of the first paragraph in the section repetitive, sure thing. María (habla conmigo) 17:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Maria, what would be the best source for this? I'm scanning mine and they all focus on the annus mirabilis of 1995. Awadewit (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Brian, the more I look into this, the more difficult it becomes. I have several books here on Austen and film (both television and movies) and none of them discuss the pre-1970 television adaptations at all. They all give about once or two sentences to those adaptations. The essays in these books focus on the 1940 P&P, the post-1970s TV adaptations, or the sudden explosion of Austen adaptations of the 1990s. The most I can do is add a phrase explicitly stating that these were not the first TV adaptations. I can't source much more than that at this point. It would take a lot of digging and these pre-1970 TV adaptations are clearly not at the center of Austen adaptation studies. (Note: I can't even source the general statement I suggested above, which is more of a synthesis of a bunch of material. I can't point to a single page on which that statement appears.) Awadewit (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The impression that the 1972 Emma was the first BBC Austen adaptation has been removed from the text, and that was my prime concern. If there is no worthwhile source saying anything about the earlier adaptations, perhaps we should leave it at that? I've looked at the text, and it might be hard to fit in your phrase saying that earlier adaptations existed, without disturbing the flow. Please consider the point resolved, without further expenditure of time. Brianboulton (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support no quote, just a support. Yomanganitalk 00:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for now. It's a thorough and interesting article and I learned a boatload, but I feel it needs some auditing for us pop culture-bred morons :) (Further comments moved to talk, [137] 03:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC) ) -- Changed to Neutral. Awa and co. have addressed most of my concerns, but I am still unsure about statements presented as straightforward facts which may be misunderstood and accessibility. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 4) In the lead, I feel the referencing is spotty; either ref it all or don't. I don't see how "become one of the best-known and widely read novelists in the English language.[1]" is any less controversial or wanting of a citation than the quote "but it was not until the 1940s that Austen was firmly ensconced in academia as a "great English novelist"" for example.
      • 5) "scholars often disparagingly referred to fans as "Janeites"." There are instances where it seems like a little too much effort has been put into "historicizing" the content; do scholars no longer refer to fans as "Janeites"?
      • 8) "the way women depend on" is this meant to be present? As it's talking about the time of her writing I think it would be better as past (even though, of course, many of the same constraints women face have changed little).
      • 9) I feel some of the quotes could be audited; for example, I have no clue what "They were full of it at Althrop" means, so wikilinks, editing, or parentheticals or brackets or whatnot would aid me. I'll point others out as I seem them.
      • 13) "sixpenny series" is that the equivalent of a pulp edition or something nicer? I don't have a clue one way or another.
      • 15) "Several important early works, glimmers of brilliant Austen scholarship, paved the way. " ok that sounds downright peacockian. To your deference
      • 16) It's a bit offputting that the 1930's section begins by talking about the 1940's and then jumps back to the 1910's.
      • 20) I'll admit it might not be that important of a mention, but the most recent Austen bit I can think of was PBS broadcasting "the complete Jane Austen" as part of Masterpiece Theatre-as far as I know new productions of most of the works and then the 1995 P&P. (according to the site it was a first for US television, so it might merit a mention.)[138] editor deference
      • There are a few other minor grammar issues, such as overuse of commas, but I'm not going to make you hunt for them and will do a light copyedit when the more important (to me, anyway) issues are taken care of. They are but nitpicks.

    Like I said, it's a well-written bit, I just think it could use some edits to make it more friendly to readers who aren't grad students specializing in english period literature :) If you could reply below in a block rather than in between my comments, it would help me understand what is being done and makes discussion easier to follow. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Could you number your comments so that they are easier to refer back to, since you don't want us to break up your comments? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Responses to David:

    • 4) I have removed all refs in the lead except the ref to "one of the best-known and widely read novelists in the English language". This statement is much more controversial than anything else in the article and is not cited anywhere else in the article. Awadewit (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 5) I think historicizing the context is important, as the entire point of this article is that the reception of Austen and her works has changed over time. With regards to your point about scholars and Janeites, actually, there is much less of snobbishness among scholars now than there used to be. Two of the leading modern Austen scholars, for example, actively study Janeites and popular culture (Claudia Johnson and Deidre Lynch). The question for me in this article is always: have we explained the historical well? Perhaps you could point to areas where you were confused? Awadewit (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 8) This is written in the literary present. Since it is discussing her plots, we used the present tense. Awadewit (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 9) I removed the Altrop reference. Let me know what other quotations were confusing. Awadewit (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 13) I've linked sixpenny to wiktionary and described the edition as "cheap". Does that help? Awadewit (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 15) It may sound peacockian, but the sources really do sound this praiseworthy. Awadewit (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 16) Reworded: Several important early works—glimmers of brilliant Austen scholarship—paved the way for Austen to become solidly entrenched within the academy. Awadewit (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 20) We have included adaptations that Austen scholars have written about and that are demonstrably important. Since there are so many, we cannot mention every one. I'm sure you understand. See the burgeoning list at Jane Austen in popular culture that we hope to organize some day. Perhaps you could add this one there? Awadewit (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try to convey my issues with the article more clearly-maybe inline comments would help. As regards 1), the thing is anyone outside of literature or media analysis has no idea what "reception studies" are, and so "reception history" isn't exactly the most helpful description for us uninitiated. I don't really have an issue with it being the title as much because I hate verbose titles more than anything, but I think the lead could still be structured to be more newb-friendly. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think comments on the talk page would be better, since there are so many people involved here. Awadewit (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think sandy said "no" to talk page comments last I checked, but I could be misconstruing her inscrutable ways again :) In regards to 5), my issue wasn't with having context (I like history, I like context too, looking back my choice of words was bad) but more with what I see as sort of making recent and current comments and analyses sound like they were written awhile ago- the whole "latter 20th/early 21st" bit. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought we were supposed to move long discussion to the talk page? Awadewit (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh, I'll go ask Aunt Sandy :P Also in re: to 17), if it's that general, than just paraphrase rather than quoting. It's just bothersome to read a quote with no attribution (whether it's contestable or not), because then I have to hunt for who made the statement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Note: Can I just say that I much prefer threading? I have to have two tabs open in order to follow all of these comments now, otherwise I would be scrolling like crazy.) Awadewit (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (I understand, but with a long list it turns into a wall of text which I have to sift through to find out what's been done and what needs to be addressed. Sandy said it's up to you if you want to put this on talk, so I leave formatting up to you.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If we are not going to thread, can you find some sort of orderly way to arrange your responses, then? Right now, I have to hunt for them. Perhaps you could create a list in response to our list ("Responses to Awadewit and Simmaren", maybe)? Awadewit (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to lose internet on the train, but if we use the talk I'll have more leeway in formatting so we can do it inline if you want. I'll try to start on it tonight (EST). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If by inline comments, you mean hidden comments in the article, I would much rather not. It is easier to have a discussion on a talk page. If by inline you mean, threading, I am all for that. :) Awadewit (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've copied responses to the FAC talk page - I thought you were going to transfer new concerns to the article talk page. Oh well. Awadewit (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it seems to me that Twain's comments on Austen are not really explained... it gives a pithy quote but not his criticism of Austen. Is more ommitted becuase it would unbalance the article? gren グレン 07:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Twain quote is intended to illustrate and perhaps sharpen the preceding sentences in the paragraph, which summarize Austen's reception in the United States and which provide the context for it. In the sources, the debate between Howells and Twain is frequently mentioned, and Twain's dislike of Austen is almost always described. We thought about including a good quote from Howells, and there are a couple of pungent quotes from Twain that would have served the purpose, but this is the one that best fit within our constraints of size and scope. Unfortunately, quite a bit of "good stuff" had to be left on the cutting room floor. Simmaren (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of Twain's quotes, actually, are pithy rather than explanatory. That's his style. Thus we explained in the article that "Twain used Austen to argue against the Anglophile tradition in America". Awadewit (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. I did a peer review for this piece, and I enjoyed it thoroughly. I suppose I'm one of the English major people described above, so perhaps it's best for others to parse its readability for layfolk. However, I've never been a Janeite, and nevertheless I found it very engaging and accessible. Another quality article from Awadewit and Simmaren and Maria, meeting – in many cases surpassing – the FA criteria. Scartol • Tok 18:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 3 December 2008 [139].

    13th Airborne Division (United States) edit

    Nominator(s): Skinny87 (talk)

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has gone through a peer review, GA Review and A-Class Review, and I think it's ready to become an FA-Class article. It's part of an Airborne Warfare project I'm undertaking, already having got Operation Varsity to FA and 11th Airborne Division to A-Class. Skinny87 (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review - I fixed up the images, so they all have descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments & support—

    • I think compound dates have spaces between them and the en dash.
    • I don't see any other problems, really. A nice article, and happy to support.

    JonCatalán(Talk) 17:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources

    Otherwise links check out and sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Link fixed and deleted respectively! Skinny87 (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dabs, pls review the dab issues identified by the dab finder in the tool box. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Sandy. I managed to fix one, but I can't find the other links that the disambig box is telling me are in the article. I fixed one Fort Bragg but the box says there's one more, and I don't know how to fix the 14th Division one as it's part of a template. Skinny87 (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I got the other Fort Bragg dab; an easy way to find it is use the "find" tool (ctrl+f on a PC, probably "apple+f" on a Mac). The other problem with the 14th Division dab is that the division never actually existed; it was a phantom division, and likely won't ever have an article of its own. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - The article is not correct about the division's intended deployment. It was scheduled to be shipped to the Philippines in January 1945. The Battle of the Bulge caused it to be rushed to Europe instead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey Hawkeye. What source are you getting this from? None of my soirces state it was destined for the Phillipines. But if you tell me what source it is I'll have a look at it. Skinny87 (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Primary documents of course! Try Ruppenthal, Vol. 2, p. 286
    • "It was officially activated in August 1943" Meaning that the division received a training cadre from the 11th Airborne Division and 78th Infantry Division and a trainload of inductees direct from some reception centre with no military experience whatsoever. Other trainloads arrived over the next few weeks and months, until the division was largely filled, while officers attended various specialised training courses. Equipment trickled in. Training started in earnest when about two thirds of division equipment had been delivered. Most divisions were not fully equipped until alerted to move overseas. BUT
    • "Between April 1943 and February 1945, the division remained in the United States" I think you mean August, not April!
    • "but was not immediately shipped out to a combat theater, remaining in the United States as a reserve formation." NOT SO. The training cycle usually took about a year. It started with basic training for the inductees and then worked up to small unit and ultimately division manouvres. The 13th Airborne Division was not ready to be shipped overseas until September 1944.
    • "Consequently the division did not take part in the first two large-scale airborne operations conducted by the Allies, Operation Husky and Operation Neptune,"
    • It could not have possibly participated in Sicily, since it was not formed at this time, nor Normandy because it was not ready. In September 1944, the 13th Airborne Division was stripped of 1,652 enlisted men to provide reinforcements for the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions. (See AGF Study No. 7) Since its total strength was only about 8,300, this represented about a third of its infantry strength, and required restarting the whole training process anew. As a result, it was not fully trained until January 1945.

    Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, that's a lot to take in Hawkeye, but I'll try and get it added into the article within a few days. Skinny87 (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, everything but the Philippines bit is added in, Hawkeye. If you can add that I hope I've solved all the issues you have with the article. Skinny87 (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - I don't know when Hawkeye will be back online, as I do know he had to go to the US recently and his time on wiki was sporadic, which is understandable; I'm hoping that any further reviwers won't take that the above fact hasn't been added in yet as a mark against the article. Hopefully it'll be added in as soon as possible; I'd do it myself but I don't have the book or any references in my own sources supporting that the division was destined for the Phillipines. Skinny87 (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the status on this ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops, sorry Sandy, it's all done, dusted and solved. Knew I'd forgotten something! Skinny87 (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support — Good article considering that the 13th Airborne Division never saw combat. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support —another well-written article from Skinny87, everything seems to be in order. Disclosure: I've done some minor work on the article, including minor copyediting, links, merging references, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments -

    • Okay, this is going to sound picky, but this is a US army article, so why is the spelling British? I see "U S Army Centre of Military History" in the refs, when it's properly "U S Army Center of Military History". Probably needs a double check for other spelling concerns.
    • Another nitpick, why is it "Maj. Gen George W Griner.." Shouldn't it be "Major General George W. Griner"? (US habit is to put in the period after middle initials, plus why is the rank abbreviated?)
    • Bit of overlinking also, no need to link New York City and Pacific.
    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ealdgyth - I take your point on the British spellings and the period in Griner, and hopefully all British spellings should be gone now, but please highlight any more that need to be fixed. However, I've been told time and again in articles on American military formations that using 'Maj. Gen.' or 'Lieut. Gen.' is the way to go; I used to spell it out fully but got shouted down a few times. I hope it won't be a problem for it to remain that way. I've also dealt with the overlinking
    I'd say that not everyone is going to know the abbreviations for military ranks, so it's probably wiser to spell out in full the first usage and give the abbreviation in ()'s for later usage, just like any other abbreviation in an article. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just about to change the first use of Major General in 'Formation' when I noticed it's spelt out in full and wikilinked in the lead. Is that okay, or should I expand its first use in 'Formation' as well? Skinny87 (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead is fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Huzzah! Thanks very much! Skinny87 (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh wow, that's great! Thanks Sandy! Skinny87 (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 3 December 2008 [140].

    Tanks in the Spanish Army edit

    Nominator(s): JonCatalán(Talk)

    This article covers the history of tanks in the Spanish Army from 1919 to the present time. It passed a Good Article review and an A-class review (through the Military History WikiProject), and was copyedited to an extent during both processes. Just to avoid tiring people who have a right to be tired, I will double check on the footnotes and make sure none are repeated. Thank you for your time! JonCatalán(Talk) 05:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review

    • Image:Trubia.jpg - Just to be clear, there are no Trubia tanks left anywhere in the world which someone could take a photo of?

    Lovely tank photos, btw! Awadewit (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks! I changed the first image to another image I took of the T-26, and to clarify; no Trubia prototypes currently exist. JonCatalán(Talk) 12:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    New image checks out and I've clarified the fair use rationale. Awadewit (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: The lead is way, way to long - it's getting on for 1,000 words and needs to be cut by at least 50%. Please see WP:LEAD. The problem arises because you have included discursive details in the lead, instead of providing a broad summary of the article's content. Brianboulton (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The lead is a summary of the article. It was almost impossible to cut more information from the lead, and avoid leaving some parts of the article not summarized. According to WP:LEAD (which I have read before), an article with over 30,000 characters may have a lead three to four paragraphs long. This article's prose size is 48kB long, and the article itself is 83kB long. I don't see anything that says that the lead can only be about 500 words long, although if you check on Word Processor, the current lead is 800 words long, not 1,000 words long; the only thing on that page which mentions "500" is that the lead should be expanded when the stub is about 400 to 500 words long (not the lead). JonCatalán(Talk) 19:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out, taking a second look, that each section really has around two sentences on it, in the lead. Most have one sentence. I honestly can't see which details are "discursive". JonCatalán(Talk) 19:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When I suggested you looked at WP:LEAD, I wasn't drawing your attention to any specific numbers, I was meaning you should look at its general guidelines, what it says about overview, about summary style, its emphasis on the lead as a brief summary, about readers not being dropped into the middle of the subject from the word go, etc. I don't accept your statement that it is "impossible to cut more information from the lead". It is supposed to summarise the topic in a general way, leaving the detail to the body of the article. There is simply far too much detail in your lead, which properly belongs elsewhere. Brianboulton (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't read what I said. The current lead summarizes the article, and barely goes into any detail whatsoever. Read the lead, then read the article. Each section is covered by one or two sentences (which is standard). It's a long lead, because it's a long article. According to WP:LEAD an article of that length can have four paragraphs (which it does). Cutting from the lead will mean that entire sections aren't covered, which is certainly against MoS guidelines. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I read exactly what you said, and disagreed with it, as I do with your later statement that this huge lead "barely goes into any detail whatever". But I'm not getting into any further argument about it - let others judge. Also, please accept that this is not a personal attack. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to make sure, I'm not taking this as a personal attack. I just find your argument to have a lack of foundation, given that you haven't even provided examples of what you think goes into detail (and how you think that the detail in the lead even compares to the detail in the article). You have just repeated the same thing three times, without actually supporting your argument with any evidence. JonCatalán(Talk) 21:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To but in, I've looked at the lead, and it doesn't seem that long, and I can't find any details that could be taken out that weren't strictly necessary; it's a large article covering a broad topic, so I think it's okay. Skinny87 (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    • '8 millimeters (0.31 in) Hotchkiss machine gun, and was later re-armed with a Spanish 7 millimeters (0.28 in) machine gun' - Millimeters to Millimeter, please
    • 'Upon inspection by the Spanish government, including King Alfonso XIII, it was decided to procure another ten—including eight armed with machine guns and two armed with cannons' - Do we need to know the King inspected the tanks - seems kinda superfluous.
    • 'The French government declared that there were no vehicles available for sale, and later added that under no circumstances would they allow Spain to rearm these vehicles - why did they suddenly refuse?
    • 'the tank was powered by a four cylinder Hispano-Suiza 40/50 engine, which had equipped the Spanish Army's military trucks since 1915' - which the Spanish Army's military trucks had been equipped with since 1915
    • 'Designed to avoid having problems with the tracks coming off the vehicle, the new track system substituted the traditional tracks with a track system which was held together by a lateral metal wall, with the roadwheels suspended from the chassis' - I think 'tracks' are repeated too many times in this sentence.
    • 'The new tank proved satisfactory—and even bettered the French FT-17 in some aspects—and the Spanish Army ordered the construction of four prototypes' - how did it better the FT-17?
    • In the T-26 Shipment Table, the Additional Information comments aren't all aligned correctly.
    • 'During the Spanish Civil War, the Nationalist Army only developed a single tank, taking advantage of the capture of the Trubia Factory in the north, in 1937. Based on the Republican Trubia-Naval, the German Panzer I, the T-26 and the Italian CV-33, it was designed to unite the best of all three major light tanks used by the Nationalist Army during the war.[90] The tank was named the Carro de Infanteria modelo 1937 (Infantry Tank model 1937).[91] However, it did not perform as well as expected, and it was not put into mass production.' - The name of the tank needs to come sooner than it does now, I kept expecting it but didn't find it.
    • 'The Nationalist's tank disparity with Republican forces caused Nationalist commanders to offer up to 500 pesetas for each captured T-26, to Spanish soldiers' - offered spanish soldiers upto 500 pesetas for each captured T-26
    • 'At the end of World War II, the Spanish Army counted on a tank force composed of ...' - 'had' instead of 'counted on'

    Okay, those are all the comments. I think if they're satisfied and I don't find anything else problematic, I'll Support the article. Skinny87 (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oops, those templates were missing adj=on; they are fixed now. I'll remove King Alfonso XIII, and in regards to why the French decided to stop the sale, I don't think my reference really gives a specific reason, other than the one already provided by the text (...and later added that under no circumstances would they allow Spain to rearm these vehicles with the Spanish 7 millimeters (0.28 in) machine gun, and consequently denied the sale.).
    I changed the sentence about tracks to: Designed to avoid having problems with the tracks coming off the vehicle, the new design substituted the traditional tracks with a system which was held together by a lateral metal wall, with the roadwheels suspended from the chassis.
    In regards to the comparison between the Trubia and the FT-17, it's explained in the paragraph. For example, The track system was the most innovative and unique part of the new Trubia light tank. Apart from the new tracks, the Trubia was to have a greater velocity (at least 30 kilometers per hour (19 mph)) and greater road range than the FT-17. While a new machine gun was installed on the glacis plate, the tank's crew was increased from two to three, which caused the hull to be enlarged; this also allowed the engine to be maintained from inside the vehicle, allowing the crew to fix small breakdowns in the field.
    Everything in the table is aligned center, it's just that the comments are long enough so that it takes up the entire cell (except for the third "additional comment"). The table was edited by another user to make the unreadable prose shorter.
    Everything else should be fixed! Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 21:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Well, that's me satisfied Catalan, so Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinny87 (talk • contribs) 07:28, November 24, 2008
    A quick query (I didn't spot this before) - in the US aid section it refers to "...the XII Armored Brigade, which was formed by the 61st Alcázar de Toledo Armored Infantry Regiment, the 61st Asturias Mechanized Infantry Regiment..." - should these regiments both have the same number? Shimgray | talk | 12:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for catching that! The Asturias was the 31st Mechanized Infantry Regiment. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Named refs again: Jon, this comes up on every one of your facs, I shouldn't still be playing this broken record :-) Sample:
    ^ de Mazarrasa (1990), p. 77
    ^ Manrique, La Brunete, p. 73
    ^ Candil, Carros de Combate, p. 166
    ^ de Mazarrasa (1990), p. 77

    If you can't catch them visually, you can put them in a spreadsheet and sort the spreadsheet to locate the repeats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, thanks. As mentioned, it's an ongoing effort of mine to hunt them down and fix them. I caught another instance; I will continue to look. JonCatalán(Talk) 00:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can teach you how to check them using an Excel spreadsheet if you remind me sometime. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Why is this article in the catergories Weapon templates and Military navigational boxes? The article isn't a template so this doesn't seem correct. Rmhermen (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It comes from the inclusion of the "History of the tank" template. I forgot to add tags on its page. The issue should be fixed now. JonCatalán(Talk) 03:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: But please shorten the Lead. KensplanetTalkContributions 08:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose re lead (see also my earlier comments). It's not just the length, it breaches other MOS requirements, too. It does not start with a short declarative statement that pinpoints the article and says why the subject is notable. It drops the reader right into the middle of the subject with no introduction or lead-in. Its length is out of proportion, even for a longish aRticle on a broad subject, and that length comes from too much detail in the lead text. For example, while it is appropriate to say that both sides in the Civil War were supplied with tanks from other European powers, it isn't necessary here to give all the model numbers. That is one example. I tried to raise this point with you earlier but you were unwilling even to consider it. If you are now prepared to discuss the issue, I am happy to make other suggestions. I have no other problems with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not I who was unwilling to discuss the issue. It was you. I asked you for specific examples of what I could remove, and thankfully you have at least provided on right now. I'm not sure how you want me to introduce the lead; perhaps you could give me an example or help. "Tanks in the Spanish Army" is an introduction within itself (we know we're talking about tanks in the Spanish Army), and the first sentence denotes that the article is about the history of tanks in the Spanish army (the short declarative statement is: Tanks in the Spanish Army have over 80 years of history, from 1919 to the present.). Finally, according to WP:LEAD an article with over 30kB may properly have a lead which is four paragraphs long, and this article is 80kB long and has a lead which is four paragraphs long (I don't see the breach in MoS, like you claim there is). JonCatalán(Talk) 21:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I shortened the lead as much as I really could; I removed facts that could be removed, whereas the lead would still make sense. JonCatalán(Talk) 22:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have taken out about 150 words; you could possibly lose a few more by the removal of redundancies, (e.g. in the first line it isn't necessary to say both "have 80 years of history" and "from 1919 to the present" since they mean the same thing), and the odd peacock words (extremely capable). I leave such things for you to consider. You have to put a bit back to explain what the T-26B was, that was surpassed (3rd para). Overall, the changes certainly improve the lead, though I still don't like the way one is rushed into the subject rather than "led", but I appreciate that you have attempted to address my concerns, and I have struck the oppose. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed mention of the T-26, outright. Any idea on how to start the introduction, though? JonCatalán(Talk) 16:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am working on this. Brianboulton (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, my suggestion is that you replace the first two sentences with the following single sentence: "Tanks in the Spanish Army have over 80 years of history, from the French FT-17s first delivered in 1919 to the Leopard and B1 Centauro models of the early 21st century." Then follow on with "The FT-17 took part in..." etc. This, I think, provides a good lead-in to the topic, and gives a clearer idea of the article's range. It replaces reference to the inspecific "current state" with the time-specific "early 21st century", and is also slightly shorter. What do you think? Brianboulton (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, I instated that sentence. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support: My concerns were almost entirely with the lead, as discussed above, but these concerns have been adequately addressed. I could probably suggest ways of reducing the lead further, but enough is enough, and I am happy to support the article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments -

    • I'm going to assume that "Carros de Combate Modernos...) is in Spanish?
    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I didn't evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, yes it is. For some reason it didn't show up, even though it was included in the citation template. I'll put the "es" icon outside of it. JonCatalán(Talk) 15:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    Birth of the Spanish tank force: 1919–1926

    • On the fourth line of the first paragraph, there is a typo. "Canon" should be spelt "Cannon".
    • In the second paragraph of that section you say that the French government "agreed to the sale of ten machine gun armed FT-17s and a single command tank." Could you please explain how this command tank was different from the other tanks?
    • In the next sentence you say that these tanks were presented to the "Escuela Cetral de Tiro, or theCentral Firing School". There should be a space there.
    • In the third paragraph you say "the tanks were forced to withdraw back to Anvar". It's "withdraw to Anvar" or "fall back to Anvar", you can't say "withdraw back".

    Early indigenous tank development programs: 1925–1935

    • In the Trubia tank section, "the tank was powered by a four cylinder Hispano-Suiza 40/50 engine, which the Spanish Army's military trucks had been equipped with since 1915" would be better phrased as "the tank was powered by a four cylinder Hispano-Suiza 40/50 engine, the same engine the Spanish Army's military trucks had been equipped with since 1915"
    • "While touring Europe for a second time, in an attempt to integrate foreign design trends into the new Trubia, Captain Ruiz de Toledo" would be better phrased "While touring Europe for a second time, and in an attempt to integrate foreign design trends into the new Trubia, Captain Ruiz de Toledo"

    Tanks during the Spanish Civil War: 1936–1939

    • Shouldn't "Organization of Popular Front armored forces" be a subsection of "Armor of the Popular Front"? Not saying you should do this but it's what I would have done,
    • "The loss of many of the Republic's BT-5s during the Battle of the Ebro caused them to retire the tank to its reserves." — should be their reserves.
    • "Officially, the Italians lost an estimated 2,700 casualties during the campaigning around Guadalajara; the Republican Army lost an estimated 4,000."

    You can say that they "lost 2,700 men" or else "sustained 2,700 casualties". One can't "lose casualties" lol.

    Post-war era: 1939–1953

    • "Beginning in 1945, now-Major Verdeja" would be better phrased as "Beginning in 1945, the now-Major Verdeja"

    Late Cold War: 1970–1991

    • "Ultimately, the Germans were not able to sell the Leopard tank" would be better phrassed "Ultimately, the Germans were unable to sell the Leopard tank"
    • "With a fuel tank of 970 liters (210 imp gal), the tank had a road range of 600 kilometers (370 mi) and the fuel was, on average, sufficient for 18 hours." Sufficient for 18 hours of what? I assume this should be either combat or travelling.

    The rest of the article is fine. If these very minor problems are cleaned up the article will make a brilliant FA, wholeheartedly support recognition.--Patton123 18:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you! I took care of most of it, except for two things. First, the FT-17 command tank issue. I'll have to look up my source and see if it mentions the differences. Unfortunately, I don't have a book dedicated to the FT-17 in general (although maybe I can find something). The second was the suggestion on the sentence that deals with traveling to Europe. The suggested replacement was: "While touring Europe for a second time, and in an attempt to integrate foreign design trends into the new Trubia, Captain Ruiz de Toledo" -> I believe that adding "and" into the sentence makes it seem as if his tour of Europe was for another purpose, while the specific intention was to look at foreign design trends. Otherwise, however, it should all be fixed! Thank you again. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes on second thoughts I agree, it would sound like his trip to Europe was for some other reason. I'll search the net for some sources about the FT-17 myself in the mean time, and post any good ones I find here.--Patton123 19:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, information about the command tank added! JonCatalán(Talk) 19:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support--Patton123 22:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 3 December 2008 [141].

    Primate edit

    Nominator(s): Jack (talk)

    Recently listed as a good article, primates are an importance subject for any encyclopaedia. The article has seen significant improvement since July and is now stable. Jack (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Restart, old nom. Per WP:FAC instructions, "Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly." There have been substantial rewrites and changes, long delays, new images, and it is not clear to me if new images or sources have been vetted. Please make an effort to respond promptly to concerns raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The image concerns have been addressed. I was keeping track of what was left to do on the talk page, will attend to Dank55's comments shortly. Jack (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do the images need to be rereviewed or not? Awadewit (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Image status was unclear before images were added, then some deleted, so I'm unsure where this stands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The only additional image since the images were reviewed, is Image:Shanghai-monkey.jpg (licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License). Jack (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The new image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. I will support as soon as: I find out if my copyediting dealt sufficiently with SV's concerns, any new images and sources are vetted (per Sandy), and my previous comments are addressed. Nice job. I can't speak for Ruslik, but you've certainly been diligent dealing with his concerns; you answered my one remaining question; and neither SV nor anyone else has raised the concerns we saw before the restart, which I hope means that this round has fixed the problems to everyone's satisfaction. Well done. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Progress report: I'm doing a little more copyediting now. Jack, check my recent edits to make sure they're okay. Everything I wanted is taken care of now except for this:

    • All the following are done: "Comparative analyses have substantiated the sexual selection hypotheses": which hypotheses? You don't seem to be talking about one of Darwin's hypotheses. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Not entirely sure what I meant here, but I was reading from this reference. Does anyone else understand it? Jack (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I've removed unclear wording, it now reads: Comparative analyses have generated a more complete understanding of the relationship between sexual selection, natural selection, and mating systems in primates. Jack (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd recommend either defining exactly what you mean by "primitive ... body plan", or removing it; the following material defines what you mean in detail, and is easier to understand, too. Readers could quickly figure out what "body plan" means from the wikilink, but they still wouldn't get what "primitive" body plan means here, I think. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't think I've done this one properly, the sentence won't really work if I elaborate too much on "primitive body plan". Jack (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, I've removed it for now. Btw, there are only 242 ghits for "primitive body plan", and some of those were not using the phrase in the specialized sense, so readers may have difficulty with the phrase. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding "all species possess some adaptations for an arboreal lifestyle", I think I agree that it's a little unclear, but maybe I'm just not getting it because I'm not a biologist. We primates have backbones, one form of which first arose among our fish ancestors ... does that mean we have "adaptations for a submarine lifestyle", even though we don't live underwater? Would it work to say this? "Not all primates are adapted for living primarily in trees, but all primates are adapted for climbing for many purposes, such as escaping predators." No need to list baboons, geladas, humans etc. here in the lead; that can stay in the relevant section. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, "Some primates (including humans and baboons) do not live primarily in trees, but all primates [continuing as above]". - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I used the second suggestion (but replaced the second "primate" with "species"). Jack (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was getting more at "arboreal lifestyle"; for one thing, the word "lifestyle" has been so overused and misused that it's almost a word to avoid now, at least in a general encyclopedia. I'll replace this with "climbing trees", but feel free to revert. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reading the article with SlimVirgin's objection about readability in mind, I've decided I don't have a general objection on these grounds. All of Monkey (start-class) and much of Ape (C-class) are more readable for non-biologists; as long as we have something for everyone, we've more than done our job. That's why people like Wikipedia; we're easily the top content site in the world (we're 5th by hits, and most people headed to google.com or msn.com are on their way to somewhere else). - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify: I don't have a "general objection", but I made changes along these lines in my copyediting and asked for more changes here (such as my first two points). I just don't think the problem is unfixable, and I hate inefficiency more than anything; I'd rather get this stuff fixed now than have the article fail and have to do this all over again in a month. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding "30 grams (1.1 oz), to the Gorilla, which is 200 kilograms (440 lb)", these units weren't spelled out or linked at the first occurrence. Per WP:MOSNUM, they don't need to be linked (since they're not obscure units) although they can be at first occurrence; but "In the main text, spell out the main units and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in parentheses (e.g a pipe 5 centimetres (2 in) in diameter and 37 kilometres (23 mi) long). [*] When there is consensus to do so, the main units may also be abbreviated in the main text after the first occurrence." - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. The first occurrence was in the lead section, "Primates range in size from the 30 g (1 ounce) Pygmy Mouse Lemur to the 200 kg (440 pound) Mountain Gorilla." - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also from WP:MOSNUM: "Avoid the unicode characters ² and ³. They are harder to read on small displays, and are not aligned with superscript characters (see x1x²x³x4 vs. x1x2x3x4). Instead, use superscript markup, created with <sup></sup>." Please replace "cm³". - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 02:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • More readers will understand "social grooming" and "skin parasites"; is there a subtle and important difference in the terms "allogrooming" and "ectoparasites"? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Nope, they are the same thing. The terms were changed during GA review or FAC to allow easier comprehension for the layperson, along with a lot of other words. Jack (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per M-W Unabridged, the eye is a "sensory organ" but vision is not. I'd prefer we avoid "color vision evolved to become the main sensory organ." - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      You're right, I've changed it to "trichromatic eyes evolved to...". Hope that isn't too technical, the phrase is used and defined further up the page in the colour vision paragraph. Jack (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how you reviewers feel about inline citations at FAC ... I saw someone complaining about citations for every sentence at WT:FAC ... but surely the 16 cites to Ref 27 at Primate#Life history and Primate#Diet and feeding is going too far. What's the right number of citations in these sections? Anyone? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Tarsiers are the most carnivorous primates, exclusively eating insects, reptiles, amphibians and other live animals." The most, or the only? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The reference used to source that statement said both "most carnivorous" and "only totally carnivorous" primate. I've changed it to say only carnivorous, and corrected the diet according to the reference. Jack (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "frugivore biomass": why not "fruit-eating animals (by weight)"? Again, is there some subtle, important distinction if you switch to terms everyone will understand? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      No difference, just more concise. I've changed it to: Making up between 25% and 40% of the fruit-eating animals (by weight) within tropical rainforests. Do you think it's okay to pipe weight to biomass? Jack (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I think that's a good judgment call, even though I tend to be stricter than some on Easter eggs. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Be consistent in meter vs. metre. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. Changed metre to meter. Jack (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per MOSNUM, "Fully identify a currency on its first appearance (AU$52); subsequent occurrences are normally given without the country identification or currency article link (just $88), unless this would be unclear." - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. Jack (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... manual dexterity allows them to perform tasks that a quadriplegic is physically unable to do": a little awkward. You don't need a lot of manual dexterity to surpass a quadriplegic. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Changed to ... manual dexterity makes them ideal helpers.' Jack (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Behind the scenes, many zoos, particularly those with Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) accreditation, participate in the Species Survival Plan (SSP)": I doubt that this is "behind the scenes"; zoos that spend a lot of money on conservation probably trumpet their accomplishments. (The North Carolina Zoo, of which I'm a member, certainly does.) And there are two "many zoos" in a row; could these two sentences be combined? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. Jack (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Zoos and other Animal Welfare supporters generally oppose Animal Rights and the GAPs insistence ...": I can't see how we can make "Animal Rights" a proper noun, so maybe "animal rights initiatives" would be better, and "GAPs" needs an apostrophe. Since this is a contentious topic, I'm going to leave this sentence alone. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Neither animal welfare nor animal rights are proper nouns, corrected GAP's as suggested. Jack (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Primate#Animal testing has an average of 1.5 sentences per paragraph; too short and stubby. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "estimates suggest" is redundant, but the main point is that you're probably running afoul of WP:WORDS here. Either your sources give enough weight for you to say that something is true (or at the least, that someone with at least a little credibility and solidity believes it to be true), or they don't. Words like "claim", "estimate" and "suggest", when used to undercut a source at the same time that you're presenting the source, are WP:Words to avoid. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Reworded to: Data for some African cities show that half... Jack (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the things you mention in Conservation are important factors, but here's another factor you may or may not want to mention: common chimpanzees are incredibly strong (my local zookeepers say, 10 times as strong as humans in their long muscles) and very aggressive at times (and you never know which times). The real danger posed by chimps in the wild in turn triggers our own baser instincts. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 06:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, I hope it goes without saying, but don't throw this in there because it sounds good, add some version of this if it goes along with your thinking and it's already sourced or easily sourced. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "inbreeding, which can cause deleterious effects leading to a population bottleneck, whereby 50% of the population is lost": I don't get what you're trying to say here. Inbreeding might lead to a 10% or 100% loss, not always 50%. Are you saying that something special happens at the halfway point? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 06:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It was a poor attempt to define population bottleneck, sadly I used the definition of population bottleneck from Wikipedia; after doing a good search I can't find an reliable reference to source the statement so I've reworded the sentence to: leading to a population bottleneck, whereby a significant percentage of the population is lost. Jack (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, that's it for me. I did most of the copyediting myself, but I didn't fix the things I listed above. See my standard disclaimer. Not too much left to do. Overall, it seemed like good, well-researched, persuasive writing. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 06:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for your time, hopefully we'll get this through soon in great shape! Jack (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments (lead and Evolutionary history section)
      1) In the lead Prosimians most closely resemble early proto-primates,. However proto-primates are not mentioned in the main text. I suggest removing this passage about proto-primates from the lead.
      Changed to: Prosimians have characteristics most like those of the earliest primates, and included... Jack (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      2) In evolution subsection I read The suborder Strepsirrhini, ... is generally thought to have split off from the primitive primate line about 63 mya (million years ago),. However in the next paragraph I read According to genetic studies, the lemurs of Madagascar diverged from the lorisiforms approximately 75 my. There is a contradiction here. Could lemurs and lorisiforms diverge from each other 75 mya ago, taking into account that Strepsirrhini diverged from primitive primates only 63 mya ago?
      Because of differences in genetic and fossil studies, there is no real consensus as to divergence points. The paper indicating that lorisiforms split 75 Mya (with a 95% credibility interval of 66.9–84.4 Mya) makes no mention of the strep/hap split. I recommend we follow the recent genetic study by Horvarth for lemurs, it has a much wider range than previous lemur studies (over 200 lemur species) though that leaves the question of where the strep/hap split was. I've seen the last common ancestor of the primates being: 77 Mya (Steiper, 2006), 64–80 Mya (Pace, 2007), 63–90 Mya (Martin, 1993), 81.5 Mya (Tavaré, 2002 - also thinks no more than 7% of primate species are represented by fossils), euprimates at 80–90 Mya (Martin, 2007) then I've seen the strep/hap divergence at: 50 Mya (Porter, 1997), 61 Mya (Yoder, 1997) and 80 (Martin, 2003) & (Tavaré, 2002). Though I do agree this needs to be clarified, I'll attempt to clear it up. Jack (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I hope you will clarify this. Ruslik (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Will do, think I might need to get some outsider opinion first though. Jack (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 3) I also read in the second paragraph the three remaining families that include the lorises, the Aye-aye, the galagos, and the pottos.. So three families or four (lorises, the Aye-aye, the galagos, and the pottos)?
      There are many species within those three families. The more recognisable subfamilies from Lorisidae are mentioned (lorises and pottos), I've changed it now to "lorids"; the family name. Jack (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      4) I see another inaccurate statement (fourth paragraph) In 2008, the Aye-aye family, Daubentoniidae, was confirmed to be a lemuriform.... However in the previous paragraph Aye-aye was listed together with lorises, not lemurs, and in the scheme in the next subsection Aye-aye has its own infraorder (Chiromyiformes). Please, clarify this.
      Now reads: In 2008, the Aye-aye family (Daubentoniidae) was confirmed to be a lemuriform and descended from the same ancestral lemur population that rafted to the island, it is contained within the Chiromyiformes infraorder, forming a sister clade to the lemurs. Lemurs/lorids split then lemurs/aye-ayes split, so aye-aye is lemuriform (as opposed to lorisiform) but is not contained within Lemuriformes. Jack (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      5) In the fifth paragraph of the evolution subsection I read and contains the two clades: the parvorder Platyrrhini that developed in South America and contains New World monkeys is one, and the parvorder Catarrhini that developed in Africa and contains the Old World monkeys, humans and the other apes in the other. "is one" "in the other" are redundant here, in my opinion.
      You're right, removed offending words. Jack (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      6) Although anthropoid primates could have made it to North America and island-hopped to South America during the Eocene,[20] and Antarctica supported large, dense forests for a southern migration, The language here is not encyclopedic, especially "made it to". Please, clarify this sentence (split it in two sentences).
      Okay, changed wording. Jack (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      7) The young Atlantic Ocean was not nearly as wide as it is today ... Please, specify what was the width of Atlantic in Oligocene/Miocene.
      Added reference to this statement, the reference has a picture of the width but no specific width value. Jack (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      8) Close behind came lorises and tarsiers, also African castaways. Again unencyclopedic language.
      Changed to: Soon after, the lorises and tarsiers made the same journey. Jack (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      9) In the Classification subsection In older classifications, the Primates were divided into two superfamilies: Prosimii and Anthropoidea. How old are those classifications?
      I've mentioned that McKenna & Bell disregarded Prosimii and Anthropoidea. Jack (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      After looking at this again, McKenna & Bell weren't the first to follow this classification. Added information to reflect this. Jack (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      10) I would appreciate more information about hybrids. It is interesting topic. How long do hybrids live? Can they breed, or they infertile?
      This section was cut down purposefully due to length constraints on the article. Jack (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope my comments are helpful. I will continue tomorrow with other sections. Ruslik (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They look really helpful, I'll get on to them as soon as I can. Cheers, Jack (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments 2 (Distinguishing features. Anatomy, physiology and morphology)
      11) Please, explain arboreal habitats at the first use.
      Added (trees and bushes) immediately afterwards. Jack (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      12) Please clarify that posterior lobe is in Cerebellum (I initially thought that it is part of the cerebral hemispheres).
      Changed to more concise wikilink: Posterior lobe of cerebellum. Jack (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      13) In the list of features not all items have inline citations.
      Am I out of practice on inline citations? The times I've seen it come up at WT:V, there was agreement that "five digits on the fore and hind limbs with opposable thumbs and big toes" was exactly the kind of thing people didn't want to see line-by-line citations for, they wanted a cite to a general textbook, which is in the sentence that introduces the list. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 11:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      In this case it is better to remove citations from items altogether, because they create false impression that some information is cited and some is not. Ruslik (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I originally cited every distinguishing characteristic (to the same source, which was a list of distinguishing characteristics), the someone recommended that I just reference the whole paragraph. The paragraph was then turned into a list, and then people added extra distinguishing characteristics (which I don't believe are distinguished from other orders) and cited them to other sources. So the unreferenced points are all from the original source at the beginning of the paragraph. I'll have a look at what the best method of action is. Jack (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Right, I understand, Jack. I'm going to fix this in the way that I think Ruslik wants ... which is to copy the citation that's currently meant for just the whole list to the end of each line that isn't cited by another source. If there were only one major editor on this article, as often happens at WP:GAN, I think there might be an additional argument that citing some but not others may bring up a question in some reviewers' minds of where exactly the material is coming from and how the article was constructed. In an article that's a community effort, we can't, of course, restrict anyone's right to ask for sourcing for just one fact, or the right of any editor to exercise independent judgment that there's a better source out there for a particular fact than the general textbook. I think Ruslik is just asking for the reason he states: use consistent formatting ... if you put cites at the end of some elements of a list, then cite every element ... otherwise readers may misunderstand. I'll do that now. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      14) In the Anatomy section there is a sentence The primate collar bone is retained as prominent element of the pectoral girdle; this allows the shoulder joint broad mobility.. It is strange, in my opinion. It implies that primate's pectoral girdle is more mobile, because it has an additional bone (clavicle)?
      From the clavicle page: It serves as a rigid support from which the scapula and free limb are suspended. This arrangement keeps the upper limb (arm) away from the thorax so that the arm has maximum range of movement. This is an important characteristic of primates; without extremely mobile forelimbs brachiation would not be possible. Jack (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      15) The main hominid molar cusp (hypocone) evolved in early primate history, while the cusp of the corresponding primitive lower molar (paraconid) was lost. So I do not understand how many cusps humans have, five or four?
      They can have either 4 or 5. I've added it to the paragraph. Jack (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      16) at the time of dinosaurs is not very scientific. Please, specify time (or period).
      Done. Jack (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      17) In Sexual dimorphism subsection Studies are helping to find the relative contribution of the various selective and non-selective mechanisms in sexual dimorphism evolution and expression. Redundant sentence.
      Removed. Jack (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ruslik (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Ruslik more very helpful comments, I'm trying my best to keep up with you. Jack (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Final comments
      18) In the 'Social system' subsection the first sentence says Richard Wrangham proposed that social systems are best classified by the amount of movement by females occurring between groups Please, clarify if this theory is applicable to all animals (and humans) or only to non-human primates?
      Only non-human primates. Made change. Jack (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      19) In the 'Interactions with humans' section there is sentence Some of these are zoonotic diseases that can also be transmitted to humans, most notably the potentially fatal Herpes B Virus. Please, explain what 'there' refers to in it. This sentence partially duplicates previous two sentences.
      Changed to: Viruses such as Herpesviridae (most notably Herpes B Virus), Poxviridae, measles, ebola, rabies, the Marburg virus and viral hepatitis can be transmitted to humans; in some cases the viruses produce potentially fatal diseases in both humans and non-human primates. Think I managed to remove an 'also' as well! Jack (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      20) Within the order Primates, humans are recognized as persons and protected in law by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This sentence conveys an impression, that UN Declaration somehow mentions primates (includes humans and excludes other primates). However the declaration just states that everybody (meaning humans) has some rights. Primates are not mentioned in it at all.
      Added only before humans. Jack (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I happy to support this article if my last concerns are addressed. Some copy-edit may be necessary as some weasel words are too overabundant (also, for instance). However I am an expert in criterion 1a. Ruslik (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. My concerns have been addressed so I support now. Ruslik (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks again Ruslik. Jack (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: footnotes and references ideally should be seperate. Sceptre (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The footnotes thing is mentioned at WP:Layout, but maybe that's not a persuasive argument (I couldn't tell your view on these things from your userpage). Would you do me a favor and read my blatherings at User:Dank55/Essays#What style guidelines are supposed to be on the value of style guidelines, and tell me if that's in any way persuasive about the value of arguing this on the style page rather than in the middle of someone's FAC? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe it's just me who does it, but I sometimes put footnotes explaining a point seperate from citations, and use a, b, c, etc to denote them, qv The Trial of a Time Lord. It helps a bit with reading, e.g. I was a bit perplexed about the "every continent on Earth" statement, clicked the ref to see a citation, and it was an explanatory footnote lost in the sea of citations. :) Sceptre (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree, I separate them myself (unless I'm being lazy, which is ... a lot :). But a lot of contributors don't like to separate them. My gut feeling is that we won't be able to get an agreement at WP:Layout to say they have to be separated, but it wouldn't bother me at all if people want that change. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It would bother me; the distinction is artificial. Expository footnotes should also cite sources, at least for the assertions in the footnote, and many citations could use a word or two on the nature of the source. If your notes do fall neatly into two classes, it's harmless busywork. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Quite right, Sept, they don't generally fall into two neat piles. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I made the separation, per the comment. I only found two instances (humans inhabiting Antarctica and Article 6) but maybe I missed something. And, now that you reminded me, I need to get down to basement to finally start watching my DVD of Trial. :) Rlendog (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment by jimfbleak Primates ... as well as an increased reliance on stereoscopic vision at the expense of smell this sounds as if a good sense of smell and stereoscopic vision are mutually exclusive, and you can't have both. Is that correct? I can't see any obvious reason why a dog, for example, couldn't be good with sight and smell, jimfbleak (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      As they increasingly relied on their stereoscopic colour vision, their sense of smell was less important and therefore was no longer selected for. See this graphic from here. Primates are far more reliant on vision, dogs are far more reliant on smell. Hope this answers your question, do you still think a change should be made? Cheers, Jack (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The prose looks much better than when I reviewed this article nearly two months ago, a few more suggestions:

    • "Richard Wrangham proposed that social systems of non-human primates are best classified by the amount of movement by females occurring between groups." Sounds more like a suggestion than a proposition to me. Changing proposed will also eliminate the repetition of "proposed" occurs in the next sentence.
      Changed proposed to stated. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Non-human primates (NHPs) are rarely granted the same legal rights as humans, despite the close evolutionary relationship."-->Despite the close evolutionary relationship, non-human primates (NHPs) are rarely granted the same legal rights as humans.
      Done. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In South America, but not in Central America, squirrel monkeys associate with capuchin monkeys."
      Done. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A few hunters have found and killed individuals since then, and its prospects remain bleak." "its"-->the species'.
      Done. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Primate species each move variously by brachiation, bipedalism, leaping, arboreal and terrestrial quadrupedalism, climbing or knuckle-walking." What does "each" mean here?
      Changed to Primate species move by brachiation, bipedalism, leaping, arboreal and terrestrial quadrupedalism, climbing, knuckle-walking or by a combination of these methods. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The mean endocranial volume is 1201 cubic centimeters in humans, 469 cm3 in gorillas, 400 cm3 in chimpanzees and 397 cm3 in orangutans." Is there a reason for the absence of conversions?
      Brains are measured in cubic centimetres, I wouldn't have thought conversions would be very helpful. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "There are 21 critically endangered primates, eight of which have remained on the IUCN's "The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates" list" Per MOSNUM, comparitive quantities should be written out the same; i.e. There are 21 critically endangered primates, 8 of which have remained on the IUCN's "The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates" list.
      Done. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Accounting for 25% to 40% of the fruit-eating animals (by weight) within tropical rainforests, primates play an important role by dispersing seeds of many tree species." Important role in what? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Changed to: important ecological role. Thanks for the comments again. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - the prose is much better now. Shyamal (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Like the lemurs, the New World monkeys had unclear origins. - is the past tense intended ?
      Changed to have. Jack (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...the evaluation of current populations as distinct species is in flux - statement can be improved but I am not sure how ? The same goes with the start of the sentence A few new species are discovered each year....
      Changed to: Although primates are well studied in comparison to other animal groups, a number of new species are still being discovered; genetic tests on some populations have also revealed previously unrecognised species. Not sure if this is too clumsy, or if I'm allowed to link 'being discovered' to Primates discovered in the 2000s? Jack (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In modern, cladistic reckonings, the Primates order is a true clade. - What is a true clade - I suspect you really want to say it is monophyletic - if so it should just be that the Primates form a monophyletic clade or such like...
      Changed to mention monophyly. Jack (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Biological anthropologist Colin Groves - could do without the prefixes, in fact even the mention of the author is not really needed - just the number of species in the year with the reference should do.
      Changed to: Primate Taxonomy listed about 350 species of primates in 2001,:ref: the author, Colin Groves, increased that number to 376 for his contribution to the third edition of Mammal Species of the World (MSW3). Jack (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Primates have two forward-facing eyes - no objection, but is the two really needed !
      Removed two. Jack (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • During the Eocene, most of the northern continents were dominated by two groups, the adapids and the omomyids - dominated or just occupied ?
      From Sellers' Primate Evolution: "Each of the major geological epochs are characterised by major primate adaptive radiation such that a relatively few taxa dominate the primate fauna." I've added the reference. Jack (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adapids survived until about 10 mya. Omomyids, on the other hand, perished about 20 million years earlier. - more comfortable if the extinction order is put in sequence without the need for arithmetic and backward glances.
      Changed to: Omomyids perished about 30 mya,:ref: while Adapids survived until about 10 mya. Jack (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to genetic studies, the lemurs of Madagascar diverged from the lorisiforms approximately 75 mya. These studies, as well as chromosomal and molecular evidence - Genetic studies presumably includes those "chromosomal studies".
    • Catarrhines are routinely trichromatic due - the special phrase "routinely trichromatic" needs to be marked by italics - and should ideally be explained in a section within Evolution of color vision in primates.
    • Variously, both Euarchonta and Euarchontoglires are ranked as superorders. - redundant and removable statement - clades are rank free and it is completely normal to "variously" indicate positions relative to Linnean ranks.
    • comment I still don't understand why there is such a disproportion between the mentions of Chimpanzees (meant as the Pan troglodytes) and Bonobos.--Sum (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see much info specific to either chimps or bonobos, although I wouldn't say that there's a WP:WEIGHT issue with the slightly greater emphasis on chimps (despite being a bonobo fan, myself), given that comparitively little research has been done on bonobos, given their rarity and geographic isolation. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Too bad you're a fan, articles should be written by scientists.--Sum (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mentions of the Common Chimpanzee = 3, mentions of the Bonobo = 2. Not undue weight, when refering to chimpanzees both Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus are included. Jack (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The term Chimpanzee is sometimes used in the article to just refer to the Common Chimpanzee. So the difference is higher and there is a problem with the consistency of the terminology.--Sum (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    1. ^ Armstrong, Neil (2008) "England and German Christmas Festlichkeit, c.1800–1914. German History 26 (4): 486–503
    2. ^ Ferguson, Henry (1999). "Body piercing". British Medical Journal 319: 1627–1629
    3. ^ Hemans' sister, Harriet Mary Browne Owen, in an 1840 biography
    4. ^ Pozdeev, Y. (1991). "Reliability comparison of tantalum and niobium solid electrolytic capacitors". Quality and Reliability Engineering International. 14 (2): 79–82. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1638(199803/04)14:2<79::AID-QRE163>3.0.CO;2-Y.
    5. ^ Biason Gomes, M. A. (1991). "Anodization of niobium in sulphuric acid media". Journal of Applied Electrochemistry. 21 (11): 1023–1026. doi:10.1007/BF01077589. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    6. ^ Chiou, Y. L. (1971). "A note on the thicknesses of anodized niobium oxide films". Thin Solid Films. 8 (4): R37–R39. Bibcode:1971TSF.....8R..37C. doi:10.1016/0040-6090(71)90027-7.
    7. ^ Azevedo, C. R. F. (2002). "Characterization of metallic piercings that caused adverse reactions during use". Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention. 2 (4): 47–53. doi:10.1007/BF02715453. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    8. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference VillageVoice was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    9. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Time was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/December_2008&oldid=261119483"