Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2008

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Featured log

May 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 03:35, 30 May 2008 [1].

Hubert Walter edit

Self-nom I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's expanded greatly from where it was when I first started editing, I've worked hard to ensure that only relible scholarly sources are used, and while it still lacks a picture of the man himself or his tomb, it is actually illustrated. All aspects of his life are covered, from his start under Henry II to his coronation of King John. This is a very significant individual in English history, who unfortunately doesn't figure largely in most folks' memory. He's been really fun to write about, though. It's very kindly been copy-edited by Karanacs and Malleus, to remove my weasely academic writing! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daft comment. Who's going to do the source checking? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me? (ducks) No clue. Not my department. Boy was it nice to put up something I didn't have to source check too.... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I'm not sure about the MOS on this, but isn't generally "circa" abbreviated to "c." and then linked to circa?
I have no clue. I don't generally stay up on MOS issues like that. I honestly figured that circa would work better because it's not an abbreviation. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both American and British spelling are present in the article.
That's because the main author is a Yank. It should be British spelling, and Malleus attempted to find most of them, but a pointer to the glaring ones would be greatly appreciated by this Yank. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aren't centuries supposed to be linked when they're relevant? They seem to be relevant here.
Can do. I generally try to avoid overlinking. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Walter served King Henry II of England in many different ways, not only in financial administration." - should that be a semicolon? As usual, I'm not sure, and too cowardly to be bold.
Someone else know? I barely squeaked through grammar in school, the various uses of the various parts fail me at times. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Walter accompanied King Richard on the Third Crusade and was one of the principal persons involved in raising Richard's ransom after the king had been captured in Germany while returning home." - "had been" sounds awkward. Maybe "was" instead?
Will do. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also served as Richard's justiciar until 1198, in which role he was responsible for raising the money Richard needed to prosecute his wars in France." - "in which role" -> "a role in which"?
works. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, changed "in which role" to "where" which is more concise. That work? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only checked the lead - that especially should be spotless of awkward/incorrect grammar since most readers read only the lead. If I'm brave enough to tackle the entire text (read: have an inordinate amount of spare time), I might do that. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources check (teeheehee)

Everything looks good, actually. According to [2], [3] needs registration. That's allowed, though, so all seems good. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does, but it's also a printed work, so the link is a courtesy link. I'm told that most folks in the UK get free access through their library. I guess I should have put registration required in it too, but I'm not sure the cite encyclopedia has that field. (ponders) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I'm in the UK and have a library card. I entered the barcode number, and, voila, it works. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put something at the end of the ref (in the edition field) saying that registration/fee would be required. Hopefully that works fine with the MOS mavens! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've been bold and addressed my own issues, [4]. Please check that I haven't done anything stupid. Could you make clearer what aspect of Salisbury was deemed to be a reward, (Salisbury was a town), and I didn't like the expression while on crusade, but couldn't think of a better one. An engaging, comprehensive and well-written article, thanks. GrahamColmTalk 11:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will gladly expand the Salisbury bit, (it's the diocese in this instance, it's medievalist jargon to just refer to the diocese by shorthand like that. We know by context that a bishopric is meant since he's a cleric.) I'm not too fond of "while on Crusade" either, but "while over in the Holy Land killing infidels" which is how they would have described their activiy isn't exactly a NPOV statement (and rightly so, I might add). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Great prose, referenced throughout and good layout/usage of suitable photos. Very nice work, Ealdgyth. Keep it up. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I conducted a pre-FAC review at Eagldyth's invitation, and all issues I found have been addressed. The article seems extremely comprehensive considering the scarcity of records of the time period. Karanacs (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As with Karanacs, Ealdgyth invited me to carry out a pre-FAC review. All the issues I raised have been addressed to my satisfaction. I believe that this comprehensive article meets the FA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I couldn't resist a few tweaks, please check that you're happy. I'm impressed that Firefox's in-line spell check picked up archepiscopal as a typo! jimfbleak (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have added links etc. Personally I would prefer the lead rearranged into a overall summary para, then the more detailed ones. You read a long way before finding out he was Lord Chancellor. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, better now (see below). Johnbod (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments A very interesting article! It was a pleasure to read. I have just a few questions; I was hoping that some further explanations could be added into the article for readers like myself who are largely ignorant of this period in history. Also, a few sections of the article could benefit from some rewriting to make them flow a bit better.

  • Hubert Walter (c. 1160–13 July 1205) was chief justiciar of England and archbishop of Canterbury in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. - Should the opening sentence better express his notability? I don't know much about this period in history and I read this sentence as "he was a government functionary". (Note: That I'm American might have something to do with this!)
Hm. I could say "Hubert Walter (c. 1160-13 July 1205) in the late twelfth and early thirteenth century was chief justiciar, one of the principal royal advisors, and archbishop of Canterbury, the highest ecclesiastical office in England." but I'm worried it's getting too long and drawn out that way. I can see not understanding the chief justiciar, but do I need to explain Archbishop? Ealdgyth - Talk 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above. You certainly need to mention he was Lord Chandellor in the first ?500 words. Much of the stuff in the last para of the lead would be better in the first. Johnbod (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about something like "Hubert Walter (c. 1160-13 July 1205) was an influential royal adviser in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries in the positions of chief justiciar of England, archbishop of Canterbury, and Lord Chancellor". - or something like that? Awadewit (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to work on revising this a bit per your and Johnbod's comments. Just need to cool off after a very hot morning working with horses! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reworked it a bit, let me know what you think? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So much better! Thanks for taking the time! Awadewit (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Walter served King Henry II of England in many different ways, not just in financial administration. - Could we briefly suggest what these ways were?
Done. Inserted "... including diplomatic and judicial efforts." Ealdgyth - Talk 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Walter's mother died at West Dereham in Norfolk, probably the location of Walter's birth, some time between 1150 and 1160. - This makes it seem like her death is related to his birth in some way. Is that intended?
It's more that her death place shows the likely spot where he was born. Reworded to "Walter's mother died at West Dereham in Norfolk, some time between 1150 and 1160, and this gives a possible place of Walter's birth." which hopefully expresses this better. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry - I still don't see why where his mother died should suggest where he was born. Did she die around the time he was born? Did she die during childbirth? I feel like some information is missing here. Awadewit (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The source for that information seems to think it's connected, but I will just take it out. Reworded to "Walter's family was from West Dereham in Norfolk, which is probably where Walter was born." Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that 12th century women didn't go hopping around as much as their modern equivalents. If she died there, she was highly likely to have lived there for a long time. Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was appointed Dean of York by order of King Henry II about July 1186.[1] The archbishopric had been vacant since 1181 and would remain so until 1189, so it was Walter's job as dean to administer the archbishopric - The archbishopric of York?
Yes. I suspect this was a casulaty of either my understanding it to be implicit, or of a copyedit pass. Clarified now. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Walter also was an unsuccessful candidate to become Archbishop of York in September 1186 - Do we know why?
We know that the king rejected all five names that were presented to him, but not why the king did so. I can go into detail about that, if you really want, but I purposefully left that amount of detail out. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a footnote? Awadewit (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added information in a footnote. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1187 Walter, along with Glanvill and King Henry II, attempted to mediate a dispute between the Archbishop of Canterbury, Baldwin of Exeter, and the monks of the cathedral chapter. - a dispute about what?
Again, I can attempt to explain, but at this point, it's probably shorter to leave it out. It was a dispute between the monks of the cathedral chapter and Baldwin over Baldwin's desire to found a non-monastic church staffed by canons which would be in Canterbury itself, and in honor of Saint Thomas Becket. The monks of the cathedral chapter were scared that this was the first step of an attempt to either remove the relics of Thomas from the cathedral to the new foundation, thus depriving the monks of a very large source of income, or an attempt to remove the monks from the cathedral chapter and replace them with canons. Some (about half, including Canterbury) English cathedrals up until the Reformation were uniquely served by monks, and not the canons that were usual on the continent. English monastic cathedral chapters were always scared that they would be replaced by canons and this could lead to some rather heated disputes between the cathedral chapter and its nominal head, the bishop/archbishop. Still want me to include this information? Ealdgyth - Talk 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that explaining the dispute is worthwhile, especially since it comes up again in the article. Awadewit (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Urf. Okies. Will try to summarize this briefly. Some may come in footnotes. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, expanded it a bit, let me know what you think. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent summary! Awadewit (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first paragraph of "Justiciar", is there a way to briefly describe the wars? What were they about?
Added "... which began with Philip's attempts to acquire Richard's possessions on the continent." Ealdgyth - Talk 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When John showed no signs of submitting, Walter called an ecclesiastical council at Westminster for the purposes of excommunicating John unless he submitted - What happened with this? Did John submit? I felt like I was left hanging.
Clarified, I hope. DIdn't want to get too far off topic. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In foreign affairs, Walter negotiated peace with Scotland in 1195 and with the Welsh in 1197. In 1196, Walter quickly suppressed a popular uprising in London led by William Fitz Osbern. - Can this paragraph be expanded? A bit of context added, perhaps? Why did peace need to be negotiated with Scotland and Wales, for example? Why was there a popular uprising? Etc.
Expanded a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is so helpful! Thanks `Awadewit (talk)
  • According to the Life of William Marshal, when word reached William Marshal, one of the richest and most influential barons, that Richard was dead, he consulted with Walter and discussed whom to support as the next king. - Could we add a date for the Life?
added in a date, it was commissioned by the eldest son of WM soon after WMs death, so it's very close in time frame. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take it that the diplomatic missions to France in 1201 and 1204 were unsuccessful? Perhaps this could be made a bit more explicit?
Made it explicit. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of the "Death and legacy" section sort of trails off. I wasn't really sure what the relevance of the authorship debate was.
Attempted to explain that. Sorry, I forget that most folks don't know what all these obscure tracts are. (I really need to write a wiki article on that tract.. but...) Ealdgyth - Talk 04:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is better. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Early life" section is a bit choppy. It just seems like a list of facts that are only tangentially related. Could some flow be added to this paragraph? In particular, could the information about the aunt and uncle be narrated a bit more clearly?
I've moved the information on the aunt and uncle to after the fact that Glanvill helped out Theobald and Hubert's career. Hopefully that'll make things flow better. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph is still a bit choppy, but there is so little information, it is hard to make it flow together, isn't it? This version is better. Awadewit (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the bit about the paternal lands up a bit in the paragraph, maybe that'll help. Let me know? There really isn't a lot of information available about him, unless we want to get into OR. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraphs in both the "Early assignments" and "Under John" sections are a bit disconnected from each other. Is there any way to provide smooth transitions between the paragraphs within these sections?
Hopefully, done, without ticking off my copyeditors. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - this makes for easier reading! Awadewit (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes Walter is referred to as "Hubert". Is there a reason for this?
Because medievalists usually refer to folks by either name, for a number of reasons. I'll go back an prune them back to Walters. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got them all now. (Search functions are so nice.) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit, I'm on the road, so I'll try to hopefully take care of most of these tomorrow night, when (cross your fingers) I'll set up at the client's place. I'll have to take some time on those, since some of the questions need me to dig into the books that are packed into the car. Just wanted you to know I saw it and they look dealable, just need to not be on the road. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time. I'm not one of those people who expect responses within the hour. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Took care of the easy ones, the other three will take a bit more digging into the book boxes, so it'll be tomorrow Ealdgyth - Talk 04:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've got everything now. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! Awadewit (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Just a few comments.

  • What does "he disciplined the monks between the death of Henry de Sully and the election of John of Coutances" mean? And what were the "ecclesiastical abuses"?
Clarified a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there supposed to be a space in "FitzOsbern"?
Depends on who is writing the word. I left the space in because the article its linked to has a space. You'll see 'Fitz Osbern" 'fitzOsbern" "fitz-Osbern" "Fitz-Osbern" "FitzOsbern" and "Fitzosbern" scholars haven't settled on a standard. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a better way to say, "Walter was the butt of jokes..."?
I wish. I'll try to think of one. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the References section, you may want to add OCLC numbers for books printed before ISBN became a standard. To facilitate this, there is an oclc parameter in the {{cite book}} template which will then provide weblinks to the World Cat entry.
I'll try to get to this later, make no promises, it's a busy day here at the ranch. Vets, breeding and farriers! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another bishop down, how many more to go? :) --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot. Lots and lots. (grins). I think next up is a horse breed though...Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 29 May 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 03:35, 30 May 2008 [5].

New York State Route 175 edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel, although its short, it is a very comprehensive, well-written article. After passing GA, I gave it a complete rewrite, it went through a small A-class review which passed. And now, to complete my FT plans, I have brought it to FAC for hopes that it'll pass. All comments will be useful. Mitch32contribs 00:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
New_York_State_Route_175#History, By 1947, the New Seneca Turnpike rsection of the route was turned over to Onondaga County and became CR 41. - is rsection a typo? Maxim(talk) 01:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For reference; it's been fixed. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I have a new pet peeve, abbreviations in references. Could we possibly spell them out, such as NYDOT?
  • Current ref 4 "Kenneth Jennighs Wooster (2002) says it was published in 2002, but in reality it's a copy of an out of print book published in 1896. You really should give the older publication data, not the person who put it up on his page. Here's the google books entry.
Otherwise, sources look good. Links all checked out with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you listed is done. Note the ISBN in the cite book template is being impossible, it'l be fixed in a sec.Mitch32contribs 09:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either need a page number on that 1896 book or just a link saying "Available online (here)". (I don't have a problem with the transcription being hosted online, it just needs a bit more for verifiablity). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did the latter, thanks.Mitch32contribs 18:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "U.S. Route 20 (US 20)" - this may be common practice, but it seems weird to almost repeat the route's name, but in brackets. I've no idea what it's indicating. Which is a problem.
  • Why is Lee Mulroy Road in italics?
  • It's referred to as both "the highway" and "the route"...be consistent?
  • "The highway then enters a large forested area, at times surrounded by trees. The highway" - repetition (the highway) makes for poor reading.
  • Ref 14; AAA is a dablink.
  • The ref 4 issue noted above hasn't been resolved.

dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you listed is done.Mitch32contribs 09:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think the article looks great with the changes you made --ZeWrestler Talk 01:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Concise prose, fully referenced and suitable images. Well done. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and comment I like the article. Something to add: Gen. Orrin Hutchinson House is a building on the route, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Not sure where to add mention of this to article, so leave to the nominator to add if you like. doncram (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll insert it in the route description sometime later. Thank you for pointing it out. --Polaron | Talk 11:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Funny, I drive the road often, and we always called it Lee Mulroy Highway, as opposed to road. But, road is the correct title, I've found. I learned something! I thinks it is a nice article. Lvklock (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a comment. By 1938, a new designation was assigned over Route 175 from Marcellus to Onondaga, [9] NY 20N, which was a 31 miles (50 km) suffixed spur of U.S. Route 20. is slightly awkward, and could be worded better. Otherwise the prose is good. Well-referenced, seems factually accurite. Another image wouldn't hurt, but the one will do. Good work overall! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:52, 27 May 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 03:35, 30 May 2008 [6].

Macintosh Classic edit

Self-nominator. I re-wrote most of this recently, and initiated a successful peer review and a couple copy-edits. Fully referenced, good prose. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation and formatting issues resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Sources look good. Links checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they aren't fixed. It's important to use one citation style consistently; just switching templates doesn't sort out the problems. Take this citation, for example:
  • ^ Krey, Michael. "Classic is on backorder", The Business Journal, March 25, 1991, pp. 18.
  • The Business Journal should be italicized (use the work parameter, not publisher), the date should be linked, to be consistent with other date formatting, and it's not a plural on pages. These kinds of fixes are needed throughout. Also, please close and archive the peer review before coming to FAC (see FAC instructions). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, please review again. Full dates are now linked throughout, and publisher names are italicized using the work parameter instead of publisher. Also, pages changed to page when referring to only a single page. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had another look and fixed several straggles, notes:
  • (Notice the hanging p. here, with no p. before the page no.): "Macs for the masses", COMPUTE!, April 1991, p. Vol. 13 Issue 4, 26.
  • (See WP:MOSDATE, there is no comma between month year, and the publisher here, findarticles.com, was missing) Schafer, Liza (April, 1991). Apple Macintosh Classic 2/40 - Hardware Review (pp.2). BNET. Retrieved on May 6, 2008.
  • Ellipses are used once in the article, and are implemented with three unspaced periods. According to the page you linked, that is acceptable: "Three unspaced periods (...). This is the easiest way, and gives a reliable appearance in HTML. Recommended.". — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I add the missing spaces around the ellipses: if there are no other ellipses, that's set, but you should be aware of the WP:MOS#Ellipses guideline for futur work. Put a space on each side of an ellipsis, except at the very start or end of a quotation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the prose looks great and I have not found any additional issues. --Laser brain (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Comment, I don't have much to add because I made my comments at the article peer review. I think the article could stand one more run-through by a different copyeditor to spit shine it a bit. --Laser brain (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another copy-editor made some edits, but I think most of them were not beneficial. Are there any particular sentences which stick out? If not, I think this is not actionable. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The prose is already very good, but I have consulted AnnaFrance to further 'polish' the prose/quality of writing throughout. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I like. Well done, and leaning to support. One question though: are any sales figures available for the Macintosh classic? How well did it perform compared to it's predecessor and successor units? Would be nice to know, if the info is available. Resolute 20:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was asked at the peer review, and the answer is unfortunately no. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well, Can't ask for what isn't available then. I like that all major points are discussed in such a compact article. Resolute 21:06, 20 May 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 03:35, 30 May 2008 [9].

Natalee Holloway edit

previous FAC


Self-nominator along with Wehwalt (talk · contribs) and Kww (talk · contribs). We've worked extensively on this article to meet the GA criteria and have put in a great deal of effort since it's GA promotion to create a featured article; we believe it meets the criteria and look forward to the additional commentary. - auburnpilot talk 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentThe article has come a long way since I last saw it. However, the main image is a fair use image. I think this may be O.K. since whe is not living, but can someone who knows fair usage check on this.
  • I believe a five paragraph WP:LEAD ia against policy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tony, thanks for the quick comments. As for the lead, I believe we could combine the 5th paragraph with the third, to make it meet the 4 paragraph limit from WP:LEAD. This would leave the criticism/boycott paragraph as the final comment in the lead, and may better match up with the order of the article, without neglecting to summarize some of the key points. Thoughts? - auburnpilot talk 00:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no policies on leads; only guidelines. User:Elcobbola can be consulted on the image issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sandy. While I'm not a fair use expert, I do believe such a use would be permitted. I've been claiming fair use for Image:NancyLynn.jpg for quite some time, under similar circumstances, and I can't imagine a free alternative becoming available. - auburnpilot talk 01:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image provides a valid fair use rationale. Her claim to notability comes from her disappearance and possible death. Given this, it's safe to say that there are probably no freely licensed pictures of the subject available. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 06:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we could combine the fifth and third paragraphs, and will do so if it is needed for FA, but given that it is a guideline, and given that it reads much stronger and more logically if we use the five relatively short paragraphs as at present, I would suggest leaving the lede as it stands. As for the photo issue, no more likely to have a free use available than for any other random American kid at the age of 18.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are differences between suggestions, guidelines and policies. I recently started venturing into doing more notable biographies. In recent attempts to get Jack Kemp to FA, Jesse Jackson, Jr. to GA and preparing to attack Jon Corzine, I have begun to look closely at some of the leading political biographies that examine some of the most notable subjects on the project. Currently Franklin D. Roosevelt has a five paragraph lead and if it came to WP:FAR my voice would be to take it to four. I have seen several other incredibly notable biographies that have been trimmed to four. I think you should reevaluate this individual's bio and assess whether the bio is so complex and notable that it is best introduced over five paragraphs. It may seem well-written, but I just think that even the most notable biographies on the project should be introduced with four para leads. I am but one voice, but I think anyone who is not a top priority bio should reconsider the need for five paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged the two paragraphs per discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I quickly skimmed through this article, and I have to say that this is fantastic. I never thought that it would be possible to bring Natalee Holloway up to FA, though I'm not really familiar with the subject. Anyways, I love the style of writing, and all the ref templates seem great. I don't really have much negative things to say except that it would be best to get a fair-use image, though I guess it is fine the way it is. Most people recognize her by that image anyways. And another thing: current ref 73 and possibly others need language tags on the ref. (French={{fr}}, Chinese={{zh icon}}, but I'm not entirely sure what Dutch is.)--haha169 (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Haha169. I've added the "|language=Dutch" parameter to the ref, which I believe accomplishes what you're talking about, and will check other references for the same. - auburnpilot talk 02:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. There were four others, and they've been tagged as well. - auburnpilot talk 02:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All other sources looked good. I didn't check links as it's too difficult on the road. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've address your first four points, by removing the accessdate (they were initially online, but were swapped per WP:Linkrot) and swapping the crime.about.com link for a Fox News article. Ref 73 was a report from Korps landelijke politiediensten, which is apparently a police force in the Netherlands, and not a newspaper. I've also added the publisher information for refs 91 and 120. I'll look for replacement sources for the other link (mediabistro.com). - auburnpilot talk 04:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking more closely, I don't see anything particularly unreliable about the cdnn.info link. If you are referring to the fact that it is no longer working, I've added an archive link to the reference. This leaves the mediabistro link as the only un-addressed concern. - auburnpilot talk 04:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is Expatica a news organization or something similar? I've not heard of them before. Same for Amigoe. Did you replace 73? Or find a working page? If you think those last two are reliable, please feel free to say why instead of replacing them. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Expatica is apparently a European "news and information site"[10]. I've gone ahead and swapped the media bistrolink.com link, as I found one that is more specific anyway. I didn't replace ref 73, as I'm not sure of the exact wording (I can't read dutch). Even though CDNN is an activist group, I don't believe there is a reliability problem with the article we're referencing, as we are only using it to confirm that the National Coalition of Victims in Action supported the boycott. - auburnpilot talk 04:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed one of your questions. Amigoe is a news agency that covers Aruba. (See Amigoe.com/english/ for more info). - auburnpilot talk 04:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
everything but the dutch police site is taken care of. I don't read dutch either, so not much help here. Hopefully someone else can see it and take care of it.... Thanks for the quick and polite responses! Ealdgyth - Talk 04:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Kww (talk · contribs) has a fairly strong understanding of Dutch, so hopefully he'll comment. Thanks for your review, Ealdgyth. - auburnpilot talk 04:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found an archive of the article in question on the Aruban police information site at http://www.kparuba.com/newspages/persberichtNH28apr07.html, and swapped the link. It looks to be a mirror of the Netherlands release, so no impacts on the article. Basically, think "FBI" when you see "Korps landelijke politiediensten"Kww (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "with locals Joran van der Sloot" What does "locals" mean? Aruban citizens? Dutch nationals living in Aruba? "Holloway remains officially missing to this day, although according to Aruban authorities she is most likely dead." "Officially" means what? "to this day" is redundant. BuddingJournalist 15:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and removed "on this day" as redundant. I believe Van der Sloot and the Kalpoes are described as locals, in order to clarify that they are not tourists, but three men living in Aruba. As for "officially missing" I believe this had to do with the legal standing that she has not been declared dead, and is still listed as missing. - auburnpilot talk 15:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"to clarify that they are not tourists, but three men living in Aruba." Well yes, I understood that, but that wasn't what I was asking. It's unclear what is meant by "locals": Aruban citizens? Dutch nationals living in Aruba? This should be made clear to readers here. "Officially" according to whom? By the way, the "v" in Van der Sloot is not capitalized on first mention. Is there a reason for this? BuddingJournalist 16:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The v should not be capitalized unless simply referring to him by his last name. I don't know much about it, but that's just the proper capitalization of the name (Joran van der Sloot). As for locals, I'll let somebody else address that, as I don't see what's so confusing about the word "local". In my opinion, it wasn't meant to have any deeper meaning. I've removed "officially" until I can find a source. - auburnpilot talk 16:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Locals" is not so much confusing, as just unclear. The reader understands that the three live there from "locals", but they don't get an explicit mention of their nationality; locals may mean Aruban citizens. When I read the lead, their Dutch names and the mentioning of Dutch authorities/military becoming involved led me to suspect that they were perhaps Dutch citizens living in Aruba. If this is the case, it should be made explicit, instead of leaving the reader hanging with "locals". BuddingJournalist 16:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sorry for completely misunderstanding what you were asking. Yes, Joran is a Dutch citizen and was living in Aruba, but the Kalpoe brothers are citizens of Suriname, who were simply living and working in Aruba. - auburnpilot talk 16:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"locals" was meant to sum up the varying status of Joran (a Dutch national entitled to live in Aruba because his parents are employed there) and the Kalpoes (who, judging by the articles after they were first released, are Surinamese nationals entitled to live in Aruba but not entitled to live elsewhere in the Kingdom of the Netherlands). We could change that to "local residents", if it is helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify the residency and citizenship concerns, and cast my vote for "locals". Aruba, being a country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, issues a Dutch passport, just like the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles. Anyone that holds that passport is entitled to live anywhere in the kingdom. Van der Sloot is entitled to live in Aruba by virtue of holding that passport. Suriname is a former member of the Kingdom, and became independent about 30 years ago. However, based on the historic ties, there are a lot of Surinamese residents of Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles. The Kalpoes are permanent residents of Aruba, live as Arubans, work as Arubans, and are subject to Aruban law. The specific nationalities aren't particularly important to the story ... if any one of them had been Aruban or Antillean, I don't think it would have made any significant difference. The reason for the heavy Dutch involvement is the simple fact that they are the wealthiest member of the Kingdom, and the only one with a military.Kww (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And to clarify further, the nationality and very basic biographical information on Van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers is included in the first body paragraph of the article; "Disappearance". I believe going into further detail within the introduction would be excessive. - auburnpilot talk 14:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: criterion three concerns: Comment:
    • Regarding Image:Natalee Holloway yearbook photo.jpg: the WP:NFCC#1 verbiage of "could be created" (analogous to "could be obtained") may be problematic; I don't think it unreasonable to suspect that the family would be happy to release an image, if only asked. Reasonable people could indeed argue the fair use claim fails. That being said, however, I haven't seen precedent to establish how strictly NFCC#1 is interpreted in these instances, so this is merely food for thought.
    • Image:Nhposteraruba.jpg, however, is problematic. In its component parts, it is a picture of Natalee (NFCC#3A requires minimal use - the article already has a superior image of her), a picture of her mother (not necessary - NFCC#3A - or a significant contribution to our understanding - NFCC#8) and text (which could be included in the article as prose - NFCC#1). I don't see value to the image as a whole, either. What does it tell us about Natalee, search efforts or her disappearance that prose alone could not?
    • Image:NataleeHollowayWall-female.jpg: Freedom of Panorama applies only to buildings in the United States. If the image of Natalee is copyrighted (as is asserted by Image:Natalee Holloway yearbook photo.jpg, the same image), this is a derivative work.
    • Image:Lastnatalee.jpg is purely decorative (fails NFCC#3A and NFCC#8). The boilerplate rationale indicates that either no or inadequate thought was put into this image's inclusion or that its function is redundant.
    • Image:Joranbook.jpg and Image:Nataleebook.jpg: Why are these images necessary (NFCC#3A)? What significant understanding do they impart (NFCC#8)? What does seeing the book covers tell us about Natalee or the literature regarding her circumstance? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hm. Images and copyright claims aren't my specialty, so I will keep the discussion to the need for the images. The poster image gives us info on the early reward, a photo of Beth (saves us getting a screencap from one of her TV appearances), and, since it apparently is based on an assumption that Natalee may have run away (something which is alluded to in the Amigoe section), speaks to the uncertainty of the early search. Joran's book cover of course not only lets us see Joran's book but also Joran himself. The Natalee at CnC shot I think illustrates the party atmosphere just before her disappearance (which could explain why she got into a car with three men of slight acquaintance), and is not merely decorative but nicely sets off the "Natalee's Behavior" subsection. Does the article otherwise qualify in your view, elcobbola?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I quite disagree that the main image of Holloway fails WP:NFCC. It is highly unreasonable to expect a free image of a missing/deceased person to be obtained, and I personally would never consider contacting the Holloway family in that regard. I also very much disagree with respect to Image:NataleeHollowayWall-female.jpg being a derivative work. If that were true, images such as Image:Missing persons 2 - by Keith Tyler.jpg and Image:Missing persons - by Keith Tyler.jpg would not be free, but very much are. Image:Lastnatalee.jpg is not purely decorative, and meets all aspects of NFCC:
          • No free equivalent: One time occurrence, as the last known image of a missing person, cannot be reproduced.
          • Respect for commercial opportunities: image is low quality, limiting any potential for commercial reproduction, but I doubt any commercial value exists.
          • Previous publication: Image was shown on 48 Hours, a national news program
          • Content: Last known image of a missing person, encyclopedic.
          • Media-specific policy: meets all requirements.
          • Significance:Last known image of a missing person, illustrates concerns over subject's behavior, shows location where she was last seen
          • Restrictions on location: used in only one article
          • Image description page: source, status, tag, and rationale present.
        • The two book images are used in sections where the books are discussed, and both books are used as references within the article. elcobbola, I would appreciate if you would work with us, rather than outright opposing. We are open to making necessary changes. - auburnpilot talk 20:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I side with elcobbola on the book covers: we could make arguments to have them (and in fact, you have), but they are not strong arguments. The real question is Is there anything about the book that the reader would not understand properly without the image?, and the answer to that question is No. We added them because people at the GA review insisted that the article didn't have enough pictures, and I think those two got added on primarily for decorative reasons.Kww (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Of the images mentioned, the book covers are my least concern. I honestly would not object to them being removed. - auburnpilot talk 20:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on images
  • The main image - this issue has arisen before over non-free images of recently deceased people. Technically this image fails NFCC#1 - but in reality, common-sense (and IAR) would suggest that asking the family for a free image isn't in our best interests.
  • Image:Nhposteraruba.jpg - agree with Elcobbola above.
  • Image:NataleeHollowayWall-female.jpg - USCOC 14 says "a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a new work or must contain a substantial amount of new material" - I don't think the Holloway photo can be said to constitute the main part of the image - the person signing is the central feature - so I don't think this is derivative.
  • Image:Lastnatalee.jpg - debatable - I would say it fails WP:NFCC#1, because it doesn't show anything that couldn't be covered in prose.
  • The two book covers are clearly decorative and don't add anything to the reader's understanding - nothing on the covers is discussed in the text, so these two quite clearly fail WP:NFCC#8.
  • As a side-issue, Image:F-16am.falcon.j061.rnaf.jpg is a free image, but is completely irrelevant to the subject and should be removed.
Black Kite 21:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the images of the book covers, reward poster, and F-16. - auburnpilot talk 21:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reluctantly concur. I'd have liked to be able to keep them, but it is not to be. I should note that the lastnatalee image does speak to what was going on with the kids in Aruba, as summarized by Dompig, and I don't think that we could cover it in prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A sincere question as I honestly don't know. Are we sure of the copyright status of images gathered and released by the Department of Justice as part of these investigations? Information generated by the US Federal Government is public domain. In particular it's not clear to me that copyright for Image:Lastnatalee.jpg, having been discovered and disseminated by the FBI from an unknown person's camera, could now be asserted to actually have been generated by the owner of the camera, in the unlikely event that this person attempted to claim copyright. Perhaps this is a legal gray area, or perhaps it's been settled one way or another, but it's clear that de facto the Department of Justice can supersede copyright in disseminating information related to criminal investigations. --JayHenry (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually something I wondered about previously, as the FBI also released three images of Holloway on their website.[11] Are these images still under the copyright of whoever took them, or are they considered public domain, as they've been released by the FBI? I simply don't know enough about copyright law, but it would be worth finding out. - auburnpilot talk 04:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is something we need to find out within the context of this FAR, but it would be worth finding out for future information. Possibly some research into the Zapruder film would be a start, as I recall there was a court case over that.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Per the instructions on WP:FAC, please note that we believe we have addressed the concerns regarding the article's images, raised by Elcobbola (talk · contribs) and confirmed by Black Kite (talk · contribs). We've asked Elcobbola to check back with us twice, once 21:22, 5 May 2008 and again 22:20, 9 May 2008. - auburnpilot talk 13:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've stricken addressed concerns. To clarify: I didn't articulate the concern about Image:NataleeHollowayWall-female.jpg well enough; the FoP comment was meant to be separate from the "photo" comment, but I can see how it could have been interpreted as one thought. The "wall" itself (even without the photo) is sculptural in nature and, thus, subject to copyright in the U.S. That said, however, proving a derivative work for a 3D object is substantially more difficult than with a 2D object (given the role of angles, shadowing, etc), so, not wanting to open that can of worms, I've stricken. My concern regarding Image:Lastnatalee.jpg has not been resolved. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for getting back to us. I don't want to speak for others, but I do not share your concern for Image:Lastnatalee.jpg. I believe a case has been made, Black Kite agrees the image is debatable, and I personally do not intend to remove it. The image clearly identifies the behavior many have spoken about and pointed to as a contributing factor to the disappearance. It shows Holloway on the last night anyone saw her, in the bar where she was last seen. I do not believe the subject of the image can be equally illustrated in words. - auburnpilot talk 14:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks also to Elcobbola for getting back to us. I am inclined to agree with AuburnPilot. It is a matter over which reasonable people can differ, and I think the image should stay. I do not know of any way to describe in prose how Natalee looked and what Natalee and others were doing, perhaps only an hour or less before Natalee was last known to have been seen. For example, her face is red, on discussion boards people have taken that as a sign of intoxication and/or dehydration. I don't offer that as truth, what I say is that people look at that and it helps form their opinions; the reader can look at that photo and ponder what was going on with her at that moment. It is valuable. It should stay.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've stricken the oppose and left the concern as a comment. I certainly agree that it is a matter over which reasonable people can differ. I also don't disagree that certain aspects would be impossible, or at least overly cumbersome, to replace the image with prose. My concern is, however, whether the image is truly necessary or a significant contribution. Indeed, it's "important" in that it's the last known photo, but does that importance transfer to being truly important for us to understand Natalee or the events? As a still, it doesn't really convey behaviour and meaningfulness of the redness of her face (an aspect that could be covered by prose) is speculative. Again, I leave it as a comment in case others want to chime in. Otherwise, my concern isn't great enough to oppose the FAC. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks again for your comments, Elcobbola. We are always searching for new, free use images, and will continue to do so. Right now, however, there doesn't appear to be a free equivalent that serves the same purpose as Image:Lastnatalee.jpg. Even as a still image, I believe it fairly accurately illustrates the general atmosphere of the trip, and the behavior of the students, in a way that could not be captured by plain text (and thus is important enough to the understanding of the subject). Thanks for striking your oppose, and we'll certainly keep your comments in mind as we move forward. - auburnpilot talk 17:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

(Might not get through everything now, will continue when I get time...)

  • In general, newspaper (etc. - see MOS:ITALICS) publishers in references need italics.
  • "Holloway and 124 fellow graduates of Mountain Brook High School,[22] located in an upscale suburb of Birmingham, Alabama,[23] were visiting Aruba on a five-day, unofficial senior class graduation trip.[22] - I really fail to see why the first two cites are necessary...they just make readability bad. Move [23] to the end of the sentence if you like.
  • "17-year-old Joran van der Sloot" - the V in van der Sloot is later capitalised...consistency?
  • "Van der Sloot initially denied knowing who Holloway was, but then Van der Sloot and Deepak Kalpoe" - sounds weird naming him twice...reword

(more later). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! Dutch naming practices is to capitalize the Van if not accompanied by a first name, otherwise it is lower case. We are consistent on that throughout. I have addressed the other concerns and await your other comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More stuff, done offline.

  • "John and Jones were released on 13 June" - shouldn't this be in the previous paragraph?
  • "On Friday, 17 June, a fourth person, later identified as disc jockey Steve Gregory Croes, was also arrested." - most of those commas can go...
  • "Van der Sloot called Deepak Kalpoe to tell the latter that Van der Sloot was walking home" - would "that he was walking home" work better?
  • "In the months following his release..." - this paragraph is annoying with every sentence starting the same way ("Van der Sloot stated..." etc.)
  • "because he believed Natalee would soon turn up" - should refer to him by surname
  • "Dutch National Police(nl)" - couldn't you just have the text wlink to the nl article rather than the stuff in brackets?
  • ""De Zaak Natalee Holloway" ("The Case of Natalee Holloway")" - book titles need italics
    • "Twitty's book "Loving Natalee: A Mother's Testament of Hope and Faith"" - same again
  • "The prosecution appealed the Kalpoes' release." - merge this paragraph with the previous? (and perhaps the next?)
  • "on Dutch TV on February 3" - wlink date
  • Check paragraphs 3 and 6 of De Vries footage and "confession" section for numerous sentence starting with the same phrase
  • the Philadelphia Daily News reported" - newspaper needs italics...though I don't really see the point of this paragraph...
  • "Members of Holloway's family have denied drug use by Holloway." - reads awkwardly, probably better to change the second Holloway to "her"
  • "they have told, and, at least one" - rmv second comma and put a "that" there
  • "(which, according to Twitty, may still have been alive)" - you already said this a sentence ago
  • "Senator Jeff Sessions, and Congressman Spencer Bachus, Alabama Senator Richard Shelby" - the and should go after Bachus I think (needs copyediting, this section does)

Yeah, that's about it. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the thorough review, DM. I've implemented all of your suggested changes except for the last one. It looks like Wehwalt (talk · contribs) caught that awkward wording earlier today. [12]. Thanks again, - auburnpilot talk 01:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. That's what I get for doing this offline. :) Everything looks good. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Support The article is exhaustive, diligently sourced, and neutral. Lead and structure are okay. References 81 and 138 look to be missing some info. I read through and gave a mild copy edit. The writing contains a good deal of legalese, but I think given the subject this is unavoidable and should not be held against the article.
  • I'm of two minds about the length however. On the one hand, this received a staggering amount of media coverage, and the length of the article merely reflects this coverage. On the other hand, the coverage was mostly cable television news programs that aren't held in particularly high regard. They were desperate for any morsel of the Natalee Holloway story to feed before their ravenous audience and I'm concerned that the article gets lost in minutiae. I'm of two minds because the audience that fueled the programs would likely be grateful for the article's depth, whereas a person (like myself) who found the coverage repugnant, struggles to retain interest at such length. I would be interested to hear the nominators thoughts regarding this. --JayHenry (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, JayHenry, as well as your copy edit. I appreciate your view on this, since you seem to be on the opposite side of me in terms of viewing the subject matter, but I don't believe the length is inordinate. If I remember correctly, the length was briefly discussed at some point in the past, but there was no logical place to break up the article, without creating senselessly small subarticles. According to the readability link at the top of the page, the article contains 40.0 KB of readable prose, which certainly isn't a small article, but I don't believe we could adequately cover the subject in a smaller version. - auburnpilot talk 19:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I've fixed ref 138 and added a second ref to backup reference 81. I don't speak Dutch, so I can't fix the existing reference. Kww (talk · contribs) will have to check that. - auburnpilot talk 20:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused about what needs fixed. The Antilliaans Dagblad is my local paper, and hasn't got a website. The reference includes the name of the paper, the date of publication, and the original Dutch text. What more is needed? I'm happy to do it, but need to understand what needs to be done.Kww (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only thing missing would be the title of the article, if you can still find it. - auburnpilot talk 22:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, cleaned the windows with that newspaper months ago. If your backup is good enough, maybe we can just go with that.Kww (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be a bad idea to keep both, since one has the direct text of the quote, and the second (the one I just added) confirms the context of the quote. - auburnpilot talk 23:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to locate the title via a library or some other means, so future readers will be able to find the article. Without a title, searching for it in the future will be somewhat difficult. Considering the amount of English-language coverage, why are Dutch sources used? Also, pls use the correct Category:Language icons. Study B with Shepard Smith. ?? It's Studio B (TV series); please make a careful review of citations and wikilinking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm confused, because I let people tell me that there was a problem. The citation reads ::::::*Antilliaans Dagblad May 15, 2007 pg. 12, "Onderzook bij de broers Kalpoe", original Dutch text is "een beter beeld krijgen van de plaats waar, of de omstandigheden waaronder, een delict zou zijn begaan, of waar sporen van betrokkenheid bij een delict kunnen worden vastgesteld" (Dutch).
I see you solved the confusion by correctly templating it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, it was published by the Antillians Dagblad on May 15, 2007. The article was titled "Onderzook bij de broers Kalpoe", and the original text was "een beter beeld krijgen van de plaats waar, of de omstandigheden waaronder, een delict zou zijn begaan, of waar sporen van betrokkenheid bij een delict kunnen worden vastgesteld". So, what is the problem?
As for "why do we use Dutch sources?", two reasons: First, because the American sources tend to be quite sloppy on the legal terminology. They refer to crimes and things by American titles. Since every legal system in the Kingdom is in Dutch, English sources wind up appearing to disagree on what is happening when they actually agree: it's just their translators disagree. Second, some of the details of the investigation were never reported in reliable English sources. Once the initial furor wore off, there were events that got picked up in English speaking blogs and similar sites, but never deemed important enough by major English-speaking news outlets to discuss. Actually, there's a third reason : I'd have to fly to Miami to get an English newspaper, and I can pick up Dutch ones at the grocery store. Kww (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just switched the Antillians Dagblad reference to a {{cite news}} template. I'm not sure how JayHenry and I both overlooked the title, as all the necessary information was already provided. As for the language icons, where are we using an incorrect one? - auburnpilot talk 00:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now, the formatting was causing confusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Ah, my apologies. I didn't realize that was the title because of its placement in the citation, and thought it was a quote supporting the material. I'm content to support. It's long for my tastes, but well within guidelines, so I can't oppose for that (and I know it'd be like asking you to chop off your arm after you've worked so much on it). --JayHenry (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone. I'm currently travelling so my access is limited. I know that there are a number of things going on on the article talk page, which I just commented on, and also SandyGeorgia made some comments as edit summaries. Can I suggest that if there are unresolved concerns (including the one I just proposed a compromise to over on the article talk page), that we bring everything here?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I change the article per discussion on this and the article talk page, mostly to integrate the material from the behavior section into the article. I hope people are pleased with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerns I reviewed only the "Disappearance" section, and the issues I found are rather troubling.
    • "The students were accompanied by seven "chaperones", whose exact function is unclear." Why is chaperones in quotations? If it's according to some source, then the source should be given.
    • "According to Jodi Bearman, who organized the trip (and whom "Vanity Fair" would identify as one of the seven chaperones), "The chaperones were not supposed to keep up with their every move."" Who is this Bearman? A parent? Vanity Fair is a publication and should be italicized. Why the conditional "would"? Most importantly though, the given source does not match this statement. The quote is nowhere to be found, and neither is any mention of Jodi Bearman. Also, where is the source for the Vanity Fair parenthetical?
    • "There is little question but that the students had a good time, up until the final night." This is an odd sentence with the "but".
    • The Disappearance section does not establish the context of the trip. When did the students arrive? Where did they stay? The quote from the Commissioner just seems out of the blue.
    • "Two of Holloway's classmates agreed that the students' drinking was "kind of excessive"." Putting this in quotation marks implies that the classmates said this exact quotation, but this is certainly not the case!
    • "Holloway was last seen by her classmates leaving the vicinity of Carlos’n Charlie’s,[22]" Certainly not what the [22] source says: "The night she disappeared, Holloway went to a beach concert and then ate and danced at Carlos' n Charlie's bar and restaurant." Nothing about her classmates. Nothing about leaving the "vicinity". BuddingJournalist 21:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I have now addressed your concerns. I removed the quotes from around "chaperones" and added a reference and quote from another chaperone to clarify the section and their role (Jodi organized the trip and chaperoned, Plummer is a Mountain Brook teacher and chaperone). I removed the parenthetical mention of Vanity Fair and made reworded the sentence, adding Vanity Fair as the reference. "There is little question..." sentence removed all together. I added the date they arrived in Aruba, where they stayed, and relocated the Dompig quote later in the article, where we mention his allegation of drug use (more logical, in my opinion). Removed quotes from "kind of excessive", specified who the students were, and reworded. Holloway was last seen outside of Carlos'n Charlies so I've added a source and removed the word "vicinity" (now simply states "leaving Carlos'...". Thanks for your comments. - auburnpilot talk 22:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only small caveat I have is that I've restored the quotes, but expanded it, so now it is the students "agreed the drinking was kind of excessive". It is in the article. While likely the kids said it, or agreed to it, it no longer creates the confusion that BuddingJournalist spoke out against above.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidently, the reason we had "vicinity" in there is that she was seen in the car about a block away by classmates, who may have urged her to get out of the car and gotten the response from her "Woo hoo Aruba!" But perhaps we were being too picky.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering whether this article is misnamed. Disappearance of Natalee Hollaway seems the appropriate target as the article deals solely with the event and investigation and she is only notable because of it. See Disappearance of Madeleine McCann or Disappearance of Ben Needham. We're no doubt inconsistent on this and I'm wondering what others feel. Marskell (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The topic has come up a few times (and there have been a few bold renamings). Consensus among the three most frequent contributors has always been that the vast majority of links and searches are to Natalee Holloway, so that's what the article should be named. The policies are against having a separate biographical article: if there was a Disappearance of Natalee Holloway article, there should not be a separate Natalee Holloway article that tells you where she went to grade school, her favorite hobbies, and what she named her cat, because she isn't notable in and of herself. The policies do not dictate the title, a decision largely based on this article's name.Kww (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kww. I've always used Joseph Force Crater as my example, but if you look in the category for disappeared people, most are under their own names.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree as well. Like JonBenét Ramsey, Natalee Holloway is the most likely search term, and most links to the article appear to reference Holloway by name. - auburnpilot talk 18:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually argued similarly on McCann and was talked out of it. It would be nice if they were consistent.
Given that you're treating this as we do bios, I think an Early life and family section is necessary. If you think it breaks up the flow having it after the lead then it can be placed as a last section. Marskell (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is there really to say in what would be an even longer article? She really didn't do anything notable until she vanished. She went to school, etc. She was on the dance team. I hesitate to have such unnotable matters in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response below. Marskell (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article is now comprehensive, and the prose just meets FA standards, in my opinion. Great job on responding to comments. Karanacs (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Comment. I noticed a few instances where a quotation is not directly followed by a citation. While I assume the citation at the end of the paragraph covers the quote as well, per the MOS there should be a cite immediately after the quoted sentence. If you'll fix that I'll support. Karanacs (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I caught them all.[13] Thanks for getting back to us so quickly. - auburnpilot talk 16:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. While the article certainly appears comprehensive, I don't think the prose is quite up to FA quality. There are repetitive sentence beginnings, redundant text, a mix of overly unwieldy sentences and short choppy sentences and other issues. I've provided a few examples here. I think a really good copyedit but someone who is uninvolved in the text would help.

  • How is the chaperone function unclear? It is detailed in the next two sentences.
  • "A third chaperone, Paul Lilly" - this wording really makes it sound like these were the only 3 chaperones, but we know there were 7
  • If this is a bio of Holloway, why is there nothing on her life before the disappearance? I'd recommend either a small section on her family life or rename the article to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway (with a redirect from this title)
  • Might need to add a brief descriptor of Carlos and Charlies for those who are unfamiliar with the chain (maybe wikilink to it also)
  • The prose does not seem to flow very well. For example, in the first paragraph of Early investigation section:
    • the interjection "(the two would divorce in April 2007), " seems out of place here.
    • "Within four hours of landing in Aruba, the Twittys and others went to the Aruban police with Van der Sloot's name and address, as the person last known to have been seen with their daughter" - this makes it sound like the TWittys visited the police, and the "others" visited at a different time. There is alos not an agreement between "name and address" and "person".
    • "Accompanied by two Aruban policemen, various other Arubans, as well as by the friends they brought on the plane and other Americans," - this seems unnecessarily detailed and wordy. It almost seems to read that random other Arubans and Americans decided to join the procession.
    • "he explained what he said happened, with which Deepak Kalpoe, who was present, agreed." - very awkward construction
  • A lot of the sentences seem short and choppy, which contributes to the prose issues.
  • This seems to have no relevance in this article ", an attorney who had been part of the judge in training program, but who had left it prior to the Holloway incident, "
  • Why is "the gardener" in quotes? (and "the jogger")
  • "While the searches were carried out, neither witness was deemed credible by authorities, and the searches were fruitless" - this makes it sound like the witnesses were not deemed uncredible (incredible?) until the searches had begun - is that the case? This is also needlessly verbose.
  • "On April 11, 2006, Dave Holloway published his book, co-authored with two writers" - at this point in the article, we don't know who Dave Holloway was.
  • There is an error in the refs - "Cite error: Invalid < ref > tag; no text was provided for refs named FNCThree "

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Karanacs (talk • contribs) 19:30, May 20, 2008

Thanks for the comments, and I hope you will be willing to withdraw the oppose if we address these issues. I only have time to deal with a couple of them right now, but Kww and AuburnPilot will pitch in. I should note that they were called the gardener and jogger because that's how the news media usually referred to them. We never got a name for the jogger, the gardener was named "Carlos" or "Cumpa" but the media rarely called him that. See the Vanity Fair article if you want a fuller explanation. The jogger, for instance was a convicted criminal. Good catch on the Dave Holloway thing, that's a hangover from a former sentence which was taken out a while back.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are almost totally prose-related; once the article has gotten a solid copyedit I'd be happy to change my !vote. Karanacs (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked somebody from WP:LCE to give a hand, so hopefully we'll get that independent copy edit soon. In the mean time, I'll try to directly address the concerns noted above. - auburnpilot talk 20:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose given the absence of an Early life and family section. Siblings? POB? Details on parents? I'm not especially bothered by the title issue; but the title does indicate a bio and the page needs a brief sketch of her life and family.

Also, I don't like how clauses take multiple refs: "On June 5, Aruban police detained Antonius "Mickey" John and Abraham Jones, former security guards[38] for the nearby Allegro Hotel,[6] which was then closed for renovation,[39] on suspicion of murder and kidnapping.[40]" Is there no way sentences like this can be reduced to one or two refs? It's visually distracting. Marskell (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would seriously object to the introduction of an Early life or family section. This is not a biography, regardless of the title, and both sections would be out of place. As for references, I don't think removing them just for aesthetics is a good idea. This is a highly contentious subject and the more sources the better. - auburnpilot talk 20:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you object to background information on the subject of the article? If it's well and truly not a bio then rename it. Marskell (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the article doesn't make it a biography. As we've stated above, there are numerous cases where articles reside at the name of the subject who was murdered, kidnapped, shot... It's the most likely search term, and most articles refer to Holloway by name, as opposed to "the disappearance of Natalee Holloway" or something similar. To say it must have an early life section because of the title isn't true. - auburnpilot talk 20:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the name of the article does in fact imply that this is a biography. In this case, since her family was so involved with the investigation, I believe that a family section is warranted. If it isn't included, then the title should be changed to "Disappearance of" and the Natalee Holloway title should redirect to it. Karanacs (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, in general, why object to background information on the main subject of the article? Regardless of the title, it is a comprehensiveness concern (the title merely reinforces it). Even with "Disappearance of..." I'd still like to know a little more about Natalee Holloway than the article provides at present. Marskell (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to some basic information being added to the article where it's relevant, but I don't see the need for two sections (Early life and Family). There are two other nominators, and I'm sure they have an opinion too. - auburnpilot talk 20:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to come off as combative, but that's simply not true. If you look through categories like Category:Disappeared people or Category:Murdered American children, the majority of articles reside at the name of the person who is the subject of whatever action the article discusses (whether it be a murder, kidnapping, or disappearance). - auburnpilot talk 20:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But those articles aren't FAs, Auburnpilot. This is a legitimate comprehensiveness (1b) concern. Leave the title, fine, but at least briefly fill-in the details that people would expect on a bio with a short, dedicated section. Here's how they do it on McCann. Note I am not asking for two sections, just one: Early life and family. Or you could shorten it to, simply, Life. Marskell (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we are to do it, it should be only a couple of paragraphs containing only undisputed basic vital data.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose the following language, to be added to the article in the "Disappearance" section, to be retitled "Background and Disappearance":

  • Natalee Holloway was born October 21, 1986 in Clinton, Mississippi, to Dave Holloway and Elizabeth Ann (Beth) Holloway (nee Reynolds). After her parents divorced, she and her younger brother Matt resided with her mother, who subsequently remarried George "Jug" Twitty, a prominent Alabama businessman. At the time of the disappearance, Dave Holloway was an insurance broker in Meridian, Mississippi, while Beth Twitty was employed by the Mountain Brook school district. In April 2007, the Holloways would divorce."

Assume all that would be properly sourced and wikified, which I think it would be, it is all fairly well known info. Frankly, that should be enough on background. This is a long article already and I'd like to keep it to a minimum.--

Karanacs, I think this would address the remaining specific concerns you expressed (we would delete the existing language about the divorce). We've taken care of all the others, I think.

Marskell, you mentioned the concern about the security guards sentence. That was not put together that way by happenstance. I had to find those pieces of info in different articles, that they were no longer security guards, that the Allegro was closed, etc. I did not find one source that had the whole thing in it, or I would have simplified it. It isn't us, it is the sources. I hope you will, once we settle the issue of the background, withdraw your oppose. Wehwalt (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with the addition of this new paragraph. Karanacs (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with that as well. - auburnpilot talk 13:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've wikilinked, referenced, and added the paragraph to the article, along with an image of MBHS.(diff) - auburnpilot talk 15:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the para is good; I wasn't asking for much more than that. It does provide some basic info that wasn't there previously.
If my example sentence literally can't be constructed without four sources, so be it. I'll strike the oppose but would like to read again for POV and prose. Marskell (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Marskell. I emailed Blaxthos (talk · contribs) and he has agreed to give us a thorough copy edit, as Karanacs suggested. Hopefully that will further address any prose concerns. - auburnpilot talk 21:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a. Here are random samples of problems.

  • Where on earth is Aruba? Do we have to meander to the linked article to find out?
  • "outside of"—what does "of" add?
  • "Van der Sloot was arrested twice on suspicion of involvement in her disappearance, and the Kalpoes were each arrested three times, but the three were released due to lack of evidence." Confusing "three"; remove "the three"? And weren't they released three times? Which time was it for lack of evidence?
  • " missing white woman syndrome"—again, I don't want to have to go to the linked article to find out what it is, so a short explanatory phrase after this item is in order (or remove it from the lead).
  • "upscale suburb"—upscale??
  • Do you really think our readers don't know what "suburb" means? Please delink all of the useless links.
  • stated "The chaperones were not supposed to keep up with their every move."—Dot after the final quote-marks (see MOS).
  • "Searches for Holloway, or for her body, began soon afterwards."—Is the nested phrase really necessary?
  • "but it is unclear whether or not the security cameras at the hotel were working"—Spot the redundant couple of words.

Plus lots more. TONY (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tony, thanks for your comments. I hope you will work with us to get this article passed, and will either now or after the member of the League of Copyeditors that AuburnPilot has gotten to do a copyedit of this article, revisit this, and inform us of your other concerns, and reconsider your vote.

I have taken care of the specific concerns you mentioned as follows:

  • Aruba: We had language stating what and where Aruba was, but it was deleted as (it was perceived) unnecessary during, I believe, the good article review. I've restored it.
  • "outside of": Deleted the "of"
  • The releases: I've rephrased it so it is clear that each time, they were released for lack of evidence. We had it that way before, actually, but it was changed for one reason or another.
  • "upscale": changed to "wealthy". Suburb delinked.
  • Chaperones sentence: Period moved.
  • "or for her body". Deleted.
  • "security cameras". "or not" deleted.

Again, I hope you will work with us to get this article passed by showing us the other concerns your eagle eye has spotted, and review either before or after the copyedit. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I need to spend time working through this cascade after a month's absence from FAC. Please recruit a new collaborator to polish the language. TONY (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated, we have a member of the League of Copyeditors coming in. Hopefully that will do the trick. I hope you'll look back on us to review and reconsider in due course.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blaxthos (talk · contribs) would not be able to copyedit the article for another week, Happy-melon (talk · contribs) ignored my request, Miranda (talk · contribs) is too busy, and my post at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors‎ has thus far gone unnoticed. Any thought from the FA regulars on how to get an article copyedited when nobody is willing to do it? - auburnpilot talk 21:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why the unfree picture? It is not fair use by a long stretch. ➪HiDrNick! 23:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was discussed above, and as an image of a missing, and likely dead person, it is a perfect claim of fair use. It would be exceedingly unreasonable to expect a free use image to become available. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 00:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because a free image is unavailable does not mean that we can go all willy-nilly with fair use. This is a portrait photograph taken by a professional photographer, exactly the kind of people notorious for pursuing infrindgement claims. This image is not needed for an encylopedic understanding of the subject; it is decorative. ➪HiDrNick! 00:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I, and others, disagree. Think of it this way: logos of companies, organizations, and sports teams, album covers, book covers, and the like are all seen as adequate fair use within articles which discuss them (rather than direct commentary on the image itself). In this case, not only does the image illustrate the subject, but the there is actual commentary on the image's subject. Holloway's appearance is a major part in the understanding of the missing person case, and has been the subject of much discussion (accusations of missing white woman syndrome). This image is not decorative, and I truly believe it's removal would be detrimental to the understand of Holloway and the case. - auburnpilot talk 00:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • And unrelated, I saw you did a bit of copyediting on the lead. If you'd be willing to copyedit the article as a whole, we'd greatly appreciate it. As you can see from my comment directly above your first comment, we've been having a hell of a time finding somebody to copyedit this article. - auburnpilot talk 00:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the prose has shaped up nicely. I am satisfied. --Laser brain (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose, 1a (prose) and 2a (lead) pending some treatment of the narrative. The prose is pretty good but it needs a fresh pair of eyes. The narrative left out information in a few places; I've tried to point them out below. There are puzzlers in the lead that don't have corresponding text in the body. The lead should summarize the article and it doesn't seem to do that; given the length of the article, the lead should be fleshed out. [reply]
    • "The disappearance became a media sensation in the United States, Aruba, and the Netherlands." Source given does not back up the statement - it doesn't talk about the media in Aruba and the Netherlands. I can't find anything else about this in the body.
    • Can you find a more reliable news source than Court TV for the statement in the lead that she is most likely dead? Again, where is this in the body? Chronologically, it should fall at the end of Rearrests and re-releases but there is nothing there about the Aruban authorities considering her dead.
    • Both times you say she didn't show up for her return flight, it is rather jarring. I think it's because we're hit with it suddenly.. when was it scheduled, etc?
    • We're told that the Twittys arrived and gave the police Van der Sloot's name, but how did they have that information?
    • "Hundreds of volunteers from Aruba and the United States joined the search." The lead tells us "thousands" and then you say it again right after this sentence.
    • "Beth Twitty was provided with free housing..." What about Jug?
    • "On July 4, the Netherlands deployed three F-16 aircraft equipped with infrared sensors to aid in the search, also without initial result." The "also" implies we were just told about a search method that yielded no result.. but we weren't.
    • Little grammatical glitches should be ironed out by an experienced copy-editor, such as "... though searches still continue." (extra word) --Laser brain (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts. We avoided how Beth found about JvdS because she has told multiple stories about this. Maid at hotel, stopped and asked some kids, it didnt seem worth going into it.
What is wrong with Court TV?
We dont know where Jug stayed. Presumably with Beth, but that is just an assumption. The focus has been on Beth.
I have made other changes requested--Wehwalt (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should say in the article that Beth told multiple stories. That was a moment in the article that I thought, "How did she know that?" and we can expect other readers to react that way. On the topic of Court TV: I don't wish to mount a source assault, but my understanding is that Court TV employs mostly "anchors" rather than journalists and, to me, that weakens it as a source. For statements that others may challenge, I would prefer a vetted news source such as a journal or newspaper. --Laser brain (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a second source (from MSNBC) for the statement that Aruban authorities believe she is most likely dead, and a brief sentence mentioning who gave Van der Sloot's name to Beth Twitty. - auburnpilot talk 15:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have played with the language a bit.
Look, I would like to thank everyone for their concerns. I hope that we have answered everyone`s concerns. I remain committed to this nomination. I hope everyone is generally satisfied with the article, and that we can move ahead as a FA. I see that we are the longest-standing open FAR, and it will no doubt close soon. I think that this is an article to be proud of. This is a controversial topic. People have strong views on Holloway. AuburnPilot, Kww, and myself, who have done the most work on the article, have been vigilent in keeping POV out of it. This is not easy. It would be very easy to write this article as an attack on Joran, or on Beth, or on the Aruban police, or on the media. We have, however, maintained a neutral article, and if you go and read the talk page archives, you will see how difficult this has been at times. From what I gather, we three nominators do not agree as to what happened to Holloway, and we have very different views on the case. Yet we have come together and made a well written, neutral, comprehensive article. I have been personally attacked on a forum for it, even my picture posted. It does not matter. This is an example of Wikipedia at its best. I ask that it be passed as an FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. I'll echo the above, in that I sincerely appreciate all the comments we've received so far, but I really hope we can wrap this up soon; I had no idea the process would last so long (25 days thus far). Reading back through the discussion, I don't see any concerns that have been left un-addressed, and Tony appears to be the only one who has not checked back with us (I've asked him to do so). - auburnpilot talk 03:47, 29 May 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 00:14, 28 May 2008 [14].

Cogan House Covered Bridge edit

Nominator: Cogan House Covered Bridge has had a very helpful peer review, which found no major problems and the suggestions for improvement from it have all been addressed. I believe this article 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 from many and have received positive comments. This is a relatively obscure, but quite interesting bridge and I believe the article does it justice. Thanks for any feedback, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The only concern (?) I have is This site, which I'm being told is actually a reformatted scrape of some US governmental data. Since the data isn't exactly contentious, it can probably scrape by (oooh, puns!). It'd be nice if another source could be found for the information, or at least a link to the original data was included in with the nicely formatted link also.
    • Thanks for the suggestion - I have added the original ref to the formatted ref in the article. There is a website here that explains the situation - you can either try to puzzle out the official Federal Highway Administration page, or pay $60 for a company to give you the data in Excel format, or go to Svirsky's website. There are some interactive maps (msnbc.com has one) but they are for the biggest and busiest bridges in the US (10,000 cars a day or more) and the Cogan House Covered Bridge is not on them. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the putting both links in is the best solution, and solves all RS concerns. We have the (ugly) but ultra reliable governement source and the (prettier) but self-published not as reliable source for the same data both listed for folks. It's US government data, so it isn't a copyvio we're linking to on the second site, so all is good.
Not a big worry, but gah, that's a lot of blue! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look good, links checked out fine with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much and thanks too for your helpful comments at Peer Review Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS If you want to see the original data from FHA NBI, I dug it out and pasted it into the talk page here Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support An excellent article about a bridge that you'd have to try really hard to find. Well written, fully referenced and a very enjoyable read, especially the part about the construction of the bridge. Dincher (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, kind words, and helpful peer review comments, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I really like the use of maps and pictures to make this a better, and more interesting article. References look good, and use of a geobox is a great touch too.--Kranar drogin (talk) 04:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support and kind words, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support:Well written, detailed and referenced. : Will someone please sort this unsigned Support? It appears to be a duplicate.[15] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was added by User:KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 on 26 May at 08:09. GrahamColmTalk 10:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding this and sorry not to have seen it. I asked KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 to strike one support on his/her talk page just now, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS:Oops how did I do this? I thought I had deleted this comment and had rewritten it below! Apologies for the mishap and all the confusion... I hope you understand that these things happen when your internet connection keeps disconnecting and you have to rewrite comments...Obviously I wasn't trying yo be oversmart...I know theres a thing called article history.- KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - thanks for striking and again for your support, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice work. Keep it up. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your support and kind words. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support for an engaging and well-written article. GrahamColmTalk 16:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved GrahamColmTalk 16:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My only quibbles are:

  1. The use of the word rehabilitation throughout the article. I know this word is correct in US usage, but to my UK ears it sounds odd. How about restoration?
    • also prefer restoration or renovation, the problem is that the word "rehabilitated" is used on the official plaque at the bridge and "rehabilitation" was used in the newspaper article and Baumgartner's history. I was afraid if I used multiple nouns for the 1998 work, it might become confusing (is the "restoration" the 1998 rehabilitation or the 1964 needed repairs or the 2000 repair after the propane truck broke the bridge)? I would prefer to keep some of the 7 rehabs unchanged but would be OK with using restration in several places if that would be clear enough. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • On further consideration I changed all but one instance to restoration, leaving "rehabilitated" to describe what the county commissioners did (as that is their word of choice). Thanks again for pointing this out, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Shouldn't unpassable be impassable? GrahamColmTalk 16:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed, good catch. Thanks for your support, edit, comments, and kind words, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support for a top-notch article, well-written, well-supported, and nicely illustrated. The prose flows and informs. I want to visit this bridge. Finetooth (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your support, copyedits, and kind words (it is a great place to visit - very peaceful), Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support:Details, prose, refs, tables all look good to me. (fixed a few dashes and date formats, kingly recheck them) - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thnaks for your support, edit and kind words. My understanding was that if a full date was wikilinked no comma is needed as the software puts one in. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Amazing work! Plenty of reliable references and sources that I don't know how you found, well-written, and just an all-around great article. I am always amazed at how much information you can find on minor parks, rivers, towns and such. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much for your support and kind words - there are 7 covered bridges on this NRHP nomination form and this is the one with the most information available by far. There is one other with enough details to make FA perhaps, or at least GA. I am not sure the other 5 have enough available information to even make GA, but I will try. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I look foreward to seeing that one at FAC sometime soon. It might need a bit of expansion, though. :) Once again, good work! 02:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the vote of confidence - it may take me a while, but I'll work on it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as a peer reviewer. Who knew I could enjoy reading about a covered bridge so much? --Moni3 (talk) 20:53, 27 May 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 00:14, 28 May 2008 [16].

The Garden of Earthly Delights edit

c. 1504 triptych by Hieronymus Bosch. Co-nom with Modernist, Kafka Liz and Outriggr. Very helpful PR here. Ceoil (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. I'll attempt to return at some point and do a fuller review, as I've always loved this artwork. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards support An interesting article on an important work of art! Thanks all! Here are my comments and questions:

  • Did this work of art influence any other works of art or artists? I was surprised to see no "Legacy" section of some sort.
  • This is proving surprisingly difficult. The most I found was a mention that Bruegel may have been influenced by the triptych's right hand wing. Ceoil (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the major sources mention the work's influence on later artists. Maybe you could tie in Bruegel at a push, if only because he also painted panoramic hellscapes, and lived just after. But such a section would be at best cobbled together and sevearly disjointed. Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being talked through on talk. Ceoil (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that work is being done on this and it is proving difficult. I know if anything significant turns up, you all will add it. Awadewit (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do the exotic animals in the left panel represent? At one point in the article, the giraffe is tied to the age of exploration and discovery. Anything else?
Now described in the article as a general appeal to contemporaries interested in the drawing of explorers of the time. I wonder though, if the forms of giraffes or elephants were any less astounding to medieval minds than some of the creatures Bosch imagines in the left panel. Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the significance of the hairy figures in the central panel?
Liz found quite a technical article on this last night (Dixon), but we found it difficult to summarise. Found secondary sources tonight, reading through themto still. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few lines intended to shed some light on them. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • God is shown as younger-looking than on the outer panels, and is likely to represent Christ as the incarnation of the Word of God, as described in John 1:14. - awkward wording
  • Fränger distinguished these pieces from the artist's other works, and argued that since they essentially contained anti-cleric polemic, they were yet all, he thought, altarpieces, commissioned for devotional purposes; likely, he concluded, to a mystery cult. - too many phrases separated by commas
  • A late 15th-century engraving by Israhel van Meckenem shows a group of men prancing ecstatically around a female figure (right) - Why does this say "right"?
  • The pointing man has variously been described as either the patron of the work (Fränger in 1947), an advocate of Adam in denouncing Eve (Dirk Bax in 1956), or because he is clothed in a brown cloth, Saint John the Baptist in his brown cloak (Isabel Mateo Goméz in 1963). - There is an odd mixing of citation styles here - suddenly we have Harvard.
This comes from Reuterswärd, and though I have the sources he quotes I have different editions, and the pg nos don't match. My versions (except Fränger) are online but difficult to search, so I'm waiding through so I can cite directly from the original books. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Bibliography" needs to be tidied up - the entries are not listed in a standard form.
  • Some are missing publication locations while some have the locations. Awadewit (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At times I felt the prose was just the teensiest bit wordy, but it would take a very good copy editor a long time to improve this. I mention it only if someone who comes by feels the urge to polish up what is already very good prose.

I very much enjoyed reading this article. This is one of those times when I could sit back, munch on my breakfast, and learn. Thanks so much! Awadewit (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Awadewit, and as usual with your reviews there is now broad scope for development. I'll let you know when we're done, or at least ready for a final 'judgment' ;). Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I said at the peer review that I would support this interesting and well-written article for FA, and it has improved since then. Well done, again, to the unflagging Ceoil. qp10qp (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May thanks for the edits and for the very insightful PR, Qp10qp. Ceoil (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This looks pretty good overall. I have a few comments/questions:

  • the triptych is generally considered to be his best-known...work (intro)
Is there any other Bosch painting that might be better known? I only have a casual interest in this stuff, but I'd assume you could just say that it is his best known work. It seems strange to be hedging your bets like that. Interestingly, the next sentence asserts, without hesitation, "The work finds Bosch at the height of his artistic powers, and in no other painting does he achieve such complexity of meaning or such vivid imagery."
OK. Zagalejo^^^ 17:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A scene of God presenting Adam with the newly created Eve is at the left of the large central panel, which may be either a moralisation on earthly temptation and sin or a celebration of sexuality; the right panel depicts the torments of damnation. (intro)
I had to read this sentence a couple of times to realize it was talking about all three inner panels. There's too much information crammed into a tight space. It might be better to give each inner panel its own sentence, so that things have room to breathe.
  • In that section, it might be better is you simply describe what the second panel looks like, rather than jump in with the debates over its interpretation.
No strike out yet? Jeeze Zagalejo, your as hard as nails ;) Ceoil (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to, but I ended up with an edit conflict. :) Zagalejo^^^ 05:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was long thought that the work was intended by Bosch as a didactic warning to the viewer on the perils of life's temptations. (intro)
Isn't this kind of redunant to the first sentence of that paragraph?
Yes. I merged the two sentences. Ceoil (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now I think that sentence is a tad too long. Sorry. :) Some of that could probably be streamlined. Zagalejo^^^ 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! No pleasing some people ;) Shortened now. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reworked this a bit to avoid passive voice construction and an apparent contradiction between the paragraph's first and second sentences. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looks good now. Zagalejo^^^ 05:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bosch's The Haywain triptych (interior)
Is "The" necessary here? I know Strunk and White recommend dropping the "The" in a title when preceded by a possessive.
OK. Zagalejo^^^ 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no perspectival order in the foreground, instead it comprises a series of brief motifs wherein proportion and terrestrial logic are abandoned. (center panel).
Should that be a semicolon, instead of a comma?
OK. Zagalejo^^^ 17:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One woman carries a cherry on her head, a common symbol of pride at the time: "Don't eat cherries with great lords - they'll throw pits in your face." (center panel)
Where did that quote originally come from? It doesn't sound like it would be Glum's original phrase.
OK. Zagalejo^^^ 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dendrochronology dates the oak of the panels to c. 1460–1466, but internal evidence suggests that the painting itself postdates Columbus' voyages to the Americas. (provenance)
Any reason why we don't mention the pineapple in the body of the article?
  • I'll see what I can find re pineapple. Ceoil (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was having difficulty working it in in a way that didn't make the sentence awkward or discursive. I didn't want it to usurp the entire paragraph. We can certainly try again, though. Kafka Liz (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good to me. Zagalejo^^^ 17:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The enigmatic scenes depicted on the panels of the inner triptych of The Garden of Earthly Delights have been studied by many scholars, who have often come to contradictory interpretations.[57] The complex objects and ideas presented in the work have been analysed in relation to many different symbolic systems, including those of alchemy, astrology, folklore, heresy and the unconscious mind. (interpretation)
This is really nitpicky, but I think these sentences flow poorly. Each has a similar structure (The foo have been...The foo have been.) Would it be possible to recast one of them in the active voice?
  • I've rephrased the second as A number of different symbolic systems, including alchemy, astrology, folklore, heresy and the unconscious mind, have been used to analyse he complex objects and ideas presented in the work., which is not perfect either. Somebody else might have a better wording. Ceoil (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Interpretation", two out of three consecutive sentences begin with "Supporters of this view". Zagalejo^^^ 02:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed now. Modernist (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Zagalejo^^^ 17:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, all of my specific comments have been addressed. I should read the article another time, since it seems that there have been lots of other changes, but I think this article is on the featured track. Zagalejo^^^ 05:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with enthusiasm

  • First, let me apologize profusely for waiting so long after seeing this appear on the FAC page to review it thoroughly. I was thrilled, thrilled I tell you, to see this article here. I've used this painting to give people an idea of what it's like to think too fast in my head.
  • Is this a typo? Belting observes than despite the fact that the creatures in the foreground are fantastical imaginings,
  • A question: is this not categorized as surrealist? (As per the question of a legacy, Sir John Tenniel's drawings always reminded me of this painting. But that's me.)
  • This is being discussed on talk at the moment. Ceoil (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean that a surrealist cat should be added (no), or that the obvious influence on surrealism should be mentioned (yes)? Ceoil (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was this a parable of some kind? "Don't eat cherries with great lords - they'll throw pits in your face."
  • Its Lutheran saying, still popular today. I never hear it used myself, but Glum says so, which is good enough for me. Ceoil (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Interpretations you have a repeated phrase, "Supporters of this view". Can you variate it?

I enjoyed this article, and I thank the editors who worked on it. --Moni3 (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support Moni, glad you enjoyed it. Ceoil (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I was one of the peer reviewers and find it has improved since and is up to FA standards. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is about my fifth time thanking you, but thanks again ;). I'm still toying with your mouse-over idea from PR, and we not have a large enough img in the article body to accommodate it.

Comments: a great effort, a very nice article, and "The Garden" is one of my favorite paintings. Good to see Wikipedia getting such a well-written article. The problems I noticed:

  • About half of the "Interpretation" section is about Fränger's hypothesis. Yet you state that "his conclusions are regarded by many scholars as a hypothesis only, and built on an unstable foundation." Kind of too much emphasis on a scholar whose theories are not particularly highly regarded, hmm? (Indeed, the three books I own on the painting all either condemn Fränger or ignore his theories altogether.)
  • You are absolutely correct about weight, though the books I have devote roughly half of their final analysis to him. The thing is, his analysis and descriptions of the paintings are par none, and most of this conslusions are generally accepted, but his final analysis (the heritical sect) is not. And its that final conclusion only that is not highly regarded. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, it occured to me that this is the case, but by that time I've already posted the comment. Maybe a little clarification is required in the "While commentators accept.." sentence (i.e. "this conclusion" instead of "his thesis"); but then maybe its just me. Jashiin (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its not just you! I need to tighten this up. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see the paragraph is changed now, looks good. Jashiin (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jashiin, I think this is the major o/s issue. Do you have any recommendations as to which sources might be useful? Ceoil (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC) should[reply]
I'm not sure what "o/s" stands for.. I assume you're asking for sources for doubts about Fränger's hypothesis. Unfortunately I am no expert at all and the only sources I can provide are the same Belting book (p. 17: "[Fränger's] interpretation of the painting [...] had to be based on the assumption, as Fränger himself admitted, that it had been commissioned by someone in a heretic sect - an assumption for which there is no basis, given that the identity of the owner is now known.") and the Taschen book on Bosch, by Walter Bosing (p. 8: "Despite the attention which Fraenger's interpretation exerts on modern sensibilities, however, his basic premise is very questionable. We have no historical evidence that Bosch was ever a member of the Adamites or that he painted for them. In fact, the last certain reference to this group in the Netherlands appears at Brussels in 1411."). Jashiin (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[o/s = outstanding]....Ceoil (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, I thought Belting's hypothesis - that the central panel depicts the world in which the Fall has never happened - was more or less well known, and thus deserving of more than a passing mention in the article (and surely he must be cited.)
Yes, good point. Working on this. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is covered now. Jashiin (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pointing man is described by Belting as a possible autoportrait (which would be in line with the one in The Temptation of St. Anthony) - probably worth a mention?
Page no please (I'm knee deep in books, tired and confused. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its p. 57 in my 2007 edition; the last paragraph of "Another World". Jashiin (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a group of people in the lower left corner of the central panel, one of them pointing at Adam and Eve in the left panel - now, I don't remember exactly, I believe Belting took this gesture as a "this is where we come from" sign. I'd say this is definitely notable enough to be included in the article.
  • There's also a snake in a tree in the left panel, a probable reference to Biblical snake. Again, see Belting's book.
  • Can't include a mention of everything in this incredibly detailed 5 paneled work. I'm at 33 kB "readable prose size" at the moment, and its growing. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm Considering daughter articles. Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought these two examples are particularly important (the first links the two panels, adding emphasis on the "temporal and spatial connection", the second provides Biblican context - well, I'm not too sure about the second, might be just a snake :). But by all means its difficult to choose what to include from such a wealth of material; lets say it was just a suggestion, I'll strike it out. It would be nice if you considered it for the daughter articles, though :) Jashiin (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brief mention of the snake and its symbolic meaning added. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, I think there's too much overlap between "Interpretation" and the sections on individual panels; it was kind of confusing for me. Then again, I realize that writing about the pictorial content of the panels flows more naturally when you add interpretations to it.. eh.
The idea is that the description discusses specific motifs and symbols, while the Interpretation is a general overview of intention, and what the work as a whole may have been intended to convey. I'm aware of this, working....Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now that you mention this, it does make sense, and is probably the only way to deal with the problem. So I'm striking this out as well. Jashiin (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I thought some statements were problematic:

  • the large central panel, which may be either a moralisation on earthly temptation and sin or a celebration of sexuality (in the lead) - the article offers more versions than these two, no? Perhaps it would be better to simply say that the exact meaning/intent of the central panel is unknown.
  • I went for: The intention behind the large central panel is unknown, and theories range from the belief that is was painted as a moralisation on earthly temptation and sin, to the idea that it might represent a celebration of sexuality. Ceoil (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! Jashiin (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bosch painted three triptychs in his lifetime, each of which presents distinct yet linked themes addressing the history and faith of humanity. - I read this as "Bosch only painted three triptychs", which is obviously wrong. If you meant "three triptychs on similar themes", the sentence needs to be reworded and a reference for "similar themes" provided.
  • in contrast to Bosch's two other great triptychs - I suggest removing "two other great" due to NPOV issues and the fact that there are many more triptychs (and finding a citation that the ones you mention are "similar" would be difficult).
  • Removed "two other" at least. Um, do you not think Belting 85 is sufficient . Maybe should be rephrased as "world triptychs". Either way, I'm not fond of this stubby fragment. Ceoil (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I've reread Belting. He draws a line between "true triptychs" and "merely paintings with three wings", which is kind of um.. wrong? I mean, "The Temptation of St. Anthony" surely has a kind of a narrative, and the outer wings of any Bosch triptych also provide one. Anyway, I think what you suggested here, "world triptychs", would be better than the current revision.
  • Instead, this panel shows humanity acting with free will but damning itself through sinful deeds, specifically sexual abandon - as there are many interpretations and you can't really say that they are damning themselves, can you?
  • Havn't checked the ref, but damning themselves seems fine to me. Suggestion? Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that "damning" implies an interpretation of the picture. "Shows humanity acting with free will, engaging in various sexual activities", or something similar (can't think of a better wording, but surely something better must exist :), would just describe it, which is the goal of this particular part of the text, no? Jashiin (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see now how it could be confusing. I went for "engaging in various ..." as suggested. Ceoil (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to a belief common in the Middle Ages, before the fall Adam and Eve would have copulated without lust, solely to reproduce. - citation needed.
  • Covered by Gibson 92-93 one statement later. Ceoil (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The panel shares a common horizon with the left wing, suggesting a temporal and spatial connection between the two scenes. - citation needed.
  • Good catch. Now cited to Linfert, 106–108. Ceoil (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • devices implying that she bears a secret. - citation needed.
  • This has led some commentators to theorise that the panel represents the world if the two had not been driven out "among the thorns and thistles of the world". - this is what I've been talking about, either Belting should be mentioned or this whole viewpoint better represented under "Interpretation".
  • I specifficallt attribute Belting here, though its a common enough conclusion. Ceoil (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The knight's tail curls back to touch the back of his head, which references the common symbol of eternity; the snake biting its own tail. - citation needed.
  • Covered by Fränger, 135 later in the para. Ceoil (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many elements in the panel are faithful to earlier iconographical conventions of depicting hell. Bosch's innovation was in describing his hell scene not in a fantastical space, but in a realistic world with elements of day-to-day human life. - both sentences need citations.
  • Drawn from Belting 35 cited later in the para, though Belting does say the garden "represents an extraordinary heightening of iconographical conventions". Thoughts? Ceoil (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reread that bit from Belting and I guess its fine the way it is. Jashiin (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Musical instruments often carried erotic connotations in works of art of the period, and lust was referred to in moralising sources as the "music of the flesh". - needs a citation; and isn't it more likely that music was considered something that people succumb too easily to?
The short para is covered by Bosing, 60. And both are true (music of the flesh & something that people succumb too easily to). Ceoil (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jashiin (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jashiin, many good content related points above. Many thanks, they are very astute. It will take a few days to work through them. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bulk of the second half of your comments related to the density of citation; usually (actually) all statements preceding a ref are covered by that ref ie i don't say: statement 1(ref1) statement 2(ref2) statement 3(ref2); if you know what I mean;) Still these things are worth checking, and I'm working through an audit of all you mentioned. Ceoil (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see it now :) It just occured to me that usually the density of citation is a little bit higher; here things were unclear at times. Anyway, if other reviewers are fine with the density (which seems to be the case?), I am fine with it as well, and apologize if I caused some unnecessary researching. Jashiin (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, its really a matter of preference, and it was a good excercise to go back and check the refs considering the article has been so heavily reworked in the last week. Ceoil (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not very fond of "See also"'s myself. Anyway we have Category:Hieronymus Bosch paintings. Ceoil (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Modernist added a link in the article text. Ceoil (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that all the issues I've raised above were addressed, I wholeheartedly support the nomination. This is my first time as a FAC reviewer and it is great to know that my vote goes to such a wonderful article about a fantastic, awe-inspiring painting. Ceoil has reacted extremely well to all suggestions, as did other editors involved; all in all, this a great effort fully deserving of the FA status. --Jashiin (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request Can reviewers strike comments they feel are resolved. The feedback has been very constructive and helpful so far, but I'm afraid I'll miss something given the volume of suggestions....Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. Awadewit, Zagalejo and Jashiin all have substantial issues to be resolved. Bear with me. Ceoil (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments just getting started.I am a neophyte on the criticisms and commentary but it reads well. (i.e. I trust that the discussion above is leading to a consensus on this tricky area) Well done. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::The Garden of Earthly Delights (or The Millennium)[1] is a triptych painting by the early Netherlandish master Hieronymus Bosch (c. 1450–1516), now in the Museo del Prado in Madrid. - sounds like painter is in Madrid. I'd reword it to "The Garden of Earthly Delights (or The Millennium)[1] is a triptych painting by the early Netherlandish master Hieronymus Bosch (c. 1450–1516), and is now housed in the Museo del Prado in Madrid." Or, put 'exhibited' for 'housed' and maybe drop the 'and'. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Art_Manual_of_Style#Museums_and_collections deprecates the housing, locating and residing of works of art, and similar TimeLifery. I don't really think it is ambiguous, but the comma and "now" could be dropped. No doubt it is nearly always on display/exhibited but it is best to avoid this also. If elaboration is needed, which it isn't really, "in the collection of" is best. Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an unhappy side-point, I went to the Palazzo Ducale in Venice last weekend to see his Last Judgement, and the two outer panels were off display, and under restoration. Ceoil (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The word 'Bosch' appears in each of the first four sentences. I know it is hard to do but maybe rewording so at least one can be removed would be prudent. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been expecting you, Mr Casliber, given your (now famous!) interest in mushrooms, and the often psychedelic interpretations of this work ;). Working on your so far points. Thanks so far. Ceoil (talk)

Har, couldn't miss reviewing one of my favourite paintings now could I? heheheCheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oh, how I enjoyed this! I've done a string of copyedit fixes, mostly minor punctuation tweaks. Some other issues:

Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be consistent with 'right-hand' vs 'right hand'. Likewise, twentieth-century vs 20th-century.
  • "covered from head to foot in light brown body hair." - light brown, or light hair?
  • light brown. How do I rephrase this? Ceoil (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Light-brown body hair. qp10qp (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! Changed. Ceoil (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The central water-bound globe in the middle panel's upper background. The globe floats in water" - this seems redundant (water-bound, floats in water).
Awful stuff. Removed now. Ceoil (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in an hallucinatory depiction of the consequences of sin" - the h in hallucinatory is hard; why 'an'?
  • Dunno what this means; hard h, but I take you at your word, it reads "a hallucinatory" now. Ceoil (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A grey hooded figure" - is the figure grey, or the hood?
  • Its a grey figure in a hood; reworded. Ceoil (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I largely rewrote the sentence beginning "The monster is sometimes" because it just didn't parse. Please make sure I didn't botch it.
  • Was an improvement. Thanks! Ceoil (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The giraffe image caption leaves me looking for an elephant, which is doubly (triply?) confusing since there are indeed three animals visible. Could we drop mention of the elephant, since that's covered by the article text?
  • "Detail from the center panel showing two cherry-adorned dancing figures who are perched by an Owl." - 'perched by'? and why is Owl capitalized?
  • Fixed. Capitalised Owl? God knows; the Owl ... scary. I had a fair few owls and bats around where I grew up, and I've always associated Owls with dread. A worrying tell. Ceoil (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, dear fellow, I wonder if you should consider taking the weekend off. I mean for your health. This picture is clearly starting to get to you—and the last thing we want is for you to go the same way as poor Fränger. qp10qp (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would, but I don't want to dissapoint the Cat, who has expectations. Ceoil (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is adorned by nude figures cavorting both with each other and with various creatures; some of whom are realistic, others are fantastic and imagined." - kludgy use of a semicolon to distinguish from commas; rephrasing could fix this.
  • Rephrased. I went for "hybrid" instead of "imagined", which is more accurate, I think. Ceoil (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption for the exterior panels image should convey the same uncertainty about the 3rd day issue that is expressed in the article text.
  • There is no uncertainty about this. Its the article body that is vague. Must fix, bear with me. Ceoil (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now reads The exterior panels show the world during creation, probably on the third day, after the addition of plant life but before the appearance of humanity. Ceoil (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Exterior section is now in agreement, but the lead needs a little tweaking for this. Maralia (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done: likely during the third day. Ceoil (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That same image impinges on the section header below; please move it to the right side.
  • This is a brouser issue. I have ie5 and the most recent firefox, and a res of 1152 on windows. And it seems fine. Ceoil (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also on firefox, but 1440x900 widescreen. Of course not everything can be optimized for widescreen, but I don't see that there would be any sort of aesthetic loss from moving the image to the right in this case. Am I missing something? Maralia (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because the triptych was publicly displayed in the palace of the House of Nassau, it was visible to many, and Bosch's reputation quickly spread across Europe." - 'reputation' feels imprecise here; aren't you really getting at the spread of his influence?
  • Can of worms. See the talk page on efforts to establish his influence. Ceoil (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Went for "reputation and fame". Ceoil (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "interpretation of his work can be an extremely difficult and dangerous area for academics" - dangerous? :)
Well yes, dangerous. The realm of conjecture is not a safe place to be for academics. Ok for consultants, bad for academics. It destroyed Fränger. Ceoil (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't really come across in the text; you make it clear that Fränger's conclusions are largely rejected, but not until much later in the section, and without any commentary on the impact on his career. No opinion on whether you should elaborate on this, but without a better connection with 'dangerous', it reads as hyperbole (the perils of art criticism!). Maralia (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Took out the word dangerous. Now reads interpretation of his work can be an extremely difficult area for academics as it is largely reliant on conjecture. Ceoil (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the left panel shows human beings' initial state of innocence in Eden, the center shows the subsequent corruption of that innocence, and finally in the right panel, their punishment in Hell." - there's a disconnect in syntax here, with verbs being given for the first two but not the last one.
  • Dunno what you mean here, as a self confessed semi-literate. Can you look after this yourself, you seem handy with prose :). Ceoil (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've rewritten it; I'm not terribly pleased with my rewrite, but it's better, I think. Maralia (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "E. H Gombrich drew on a close reading of Genesis and the Gospel According to Saint Matthew to suggest that the central panel is, according to Linfert, "the state of mankind"" - Gombrich suggested something according to Linfert?

On the whole, the prose is very good, the images lovely, and the reference formatting excellent. On a personal note, I'm so very pleased that the article introduces scholars (i.e. "the art historian Ludwig von Baldass"); a 'new' name with no context really disrupts the flow for me. Thanks for a really interesting read. Maralia (talk) 04:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these. The article will be much tighter after the suggestions are resolved. Ceoil (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One additional item:
  • The Dürer image and its lengthy caption extend more than a paragraph past the subsequent section header for me. If the bulk of the image caption was moved into the main text of the Sources section, it would help solve that issue from two angles. Thoughts?
Make sence. Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maralia (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support but I have a few quibbles that I'd like to see addressed.

  • Okay, I minored in art history, but what exactly is a "true triptych"? Probably should explain that.
The reference says: A "true triptych", or "world triptych", is generally considered one which addresses the history and fate of humanity. We had a longer, clumsier definition in the text earlier, but this Belting ref seems adequate..Modernist (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is one of the issues I raised above (search for "world triptych"). Belting clearly forces his own POV in the book, that some of triptychs are "true triptychs" and some are "merely paintings with several wing panels". He does mention "art historians" who use the term "world triptychs", so I suggested this should be used instead of "true" to avoid POV and, more importantly, clarify the situation for the reader (because "world", with the subsequent explanation already included, is easier to understand than "true"). Searching books.google.com for instances of either term, by the way, yields practically nothing. Jashiin (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is only referring to Bosch's triptychs - most triptychs just have a Virgin & Child, Crucifixion etc in the centre, and saints, donors etc on the outer wings. If either term is used, explanation is needed. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The definition is more specific now in defining "true triptych". Hopefully more clear. Modernist (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still see this as a rather POV-ish issue, mainly due to the word "true" (i.e. other triptychs are then, logically, "false", and I'm pretty sure that the line "the three panels in each are necessary and essential to the meaning of the whole" can be disputed (i.e. one may argue that in "The Temptation of St. Anthony" you have to examine all three panels to get the full scope of the narrative), but I guess if Belting and others approve of the term its not that bad. So I withdrew my earlier comment about this. Just wanted to mention the issues that might arise in the future. Jashiin (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, cut so "True triptych" is mentioned in the lead only, accompanied by a footnote. Gone from the lower section, which now reads Bosch painted three large triptychs in which each panel are necessary and essential to the meaning of the whole. Each of these triptychs present distinct yet linked themes addressing the history and faith of humanity. Can I go home now please ;) Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Triptych section, last sentence shouldn't that be "altar" not "alter"?
  • Any reason we're going with Netherlandish and not Dutch?
Most definitely! See Netherlandish - Bosch was much too early for "Dutch", and in fact the area where he spent his whole life, round 's-Hertogenbosch, only joined the Dutch Republic very late, in 1648, essentially by conquest, so that it was not subsequently trusted with provincial self-government, but ruled by the Federal government. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, perhaps "spendid" not "splendorous"?
  • MOS issue, shouldn't the quotation from Psalm 33 be in quote marks, not italics?
  • Left panel, any reason not to use "contemporary" rather than "contemporaneous"?
Actually we are using both. Contemporaneous is used to describe the Europeans of the day and what they saw, which is less ambiguous and more time specific than contemporary, while Contemporary is being used to describe travel literature which in context seems okay. Modernist (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't hit me, but perhaps convert the measurements into Imperial units?
Should be both or metric, as even Anglo art historians use metric these days. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was asking for both, with the imperial in ()'s. That's all. I'm too old to learn to think in metric. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right panel, fifth paragraph, the first sentence is awkward, especially the part "earlier iconographical conventions of depicting hell." I think you want to lose the "of" there.
  • Sources and context section, fourth paragraph, the last sentence is lacking context for why this is significant. Why is that particular engraving important? Where is this scene reproduced?
The previous sentence gives the context (or one interpretation of it), but evidently not clearly enough. The location in the Bosch should be added. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, last paragraph, the first sentence is very dense. "...actualized and made empirical regions previously only idealised in the imagination..." errr. do you mean that the areas no longer were regions where artists and poets could imagine anything they wished? I'm not sure exactly what is meant by this sentence and it's rather hard to understand.
All in all a very nice article on a very strange painting. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Ealdgyth, tending to you remaining suggestions now. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support from one fortunate enough to have seen the original. I have made some minor edits, [17] GrahamColmTalk 13:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and ce. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support for an excellent article. JNW (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator For the sake of disclosure, the article has grown from 28 kB readable text since nom'd,[18] to 38 kB, however this has largely been in responce to gaps highlighted by reviewers. A "legacy" section is being sketched here, which will likely add a further 5 kB. Most additions have been commented upon, just remembering B-movie. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good memory; different situation :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 27 May 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 01:36, 27 May 2008 [19].

Preity Zinta edit

previous FAC

This article, about an Indian actress, is already a WP:GA. It has had a long history on WP. It first achieved GA status, A status thanks to the great help of User:Blofeld of SPECTRE, and after failing its first FAC, was nominated for GA reassessment, delisted and returned to B. However, it marked the beginning of new understandings, collaborative work, and with help from User:Dwaipayanc and User:John Carter, it has improved a lot and came back to the GA position.

Now, after months of hard work, two peer reviews, I think it finally meets the FA criteria. Please leave your comments, and I'll be more than happy to address any of them.

With best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 17:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: double-check links; current ref 52 ("Preity Zinta's column for BBC website gets overwhelming response") appears dead. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Shahid • Talk2me 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support -This article in my view has been FA standard since Christmas time at least and on assessment of why it failed FA before I believe this has been improved even further and any outstanding issues have been addressed. Well referenced, informative, well written article, an excellent source of encyclopedic imformation, uses the most reliable sources possible, given that she is an Indian actress not an American. It looks like a solid article all round and given the incredible amount of work and nurturing put into it over the last 9 months is a clear FA for me. Any outstanding issues which caused it to be demoted before I believe have been fully addressed. I think Wikipedia should be proud to have such a developed article on an Indian actress, many editors on here are using the article as a prototype for how an article on an Indian actor or actress should look like and has since seen the development of other articles based on the structure of this one. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 18:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Significant contributor. Please don't forget WP:FAC instructions: "If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Moni3:

  • I strongly suggest you put the article at WP:LOCE right now to have experienced English writers assist with those elements of style that continue to elude even accomplished writers. For instance, the first paragraphs in Personal life have very little variation of beginning. They mostly start with "Zinta..." You're offering a very well-researched article that needs minor (but many) tweaks in the style to make it flow brilliantly.
  • Some of Zinta's films seem to have made an impact due to their addressing complex social issues in Indian culture. Those social issues may not be self-explanatory to non-Indians. You may have to include examples of her impact. For example, she played an young single mother in one movie. This would not be a big deal in the US. Can you provide perhaps phrases from critics, or examples of the reaction to these apparently controversial roles?

I wish you luck with this article. --Moni3 (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, and for the encouragement. The article has been listed on WP:LOCE for over half a year now, but results are still pending.
In regard to your second comment, yeh, these roles were quite racy by Indian standards, that is why she has been credited with bringing a change. But these roles are by no means new to Indian cinema. I did add critics' comments for almost every role, but some films miss reviews on the net, and if there are, they're either unreliable or missing details regarding those particular issues. I will try to find something. Shahid • Talk2me 19:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just because she's written a couple of columns (which, in the case of celebrities, are pften ghost written/rewritten by somebody else) doesn't make her a columnist. indopug (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you, and I didn't want to write that she's a columnist initially. But the sources you can find in the section, clearly describe her as columnist. Furthermore, in the lead, right after writing that she is a columnist, there's a sentence "having written..." which makes it quite clear why she is described as columnist, giving the reader the space to make his own conclusions. Shahid • Talk2me 19:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I should have added "She was seen blowing kisses at Yuvraj Singh" :) Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!!! Well done, I'll add that ASAP! :) Shahid • Talk2me 07:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

All other links worked and checked out fine for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
indiaFM is the leading Bollywood entertainment website in India. All the Bollywood stars make appearances on there, it is one of the best known sites featuring content re Bollywood, reviews, news, interviews. It is also rated always very highly on Alexa's ratings.
boxofficeindia.com is a leading site for box office figures in Bollywood. Their "about us" and "disclaimers" sections are quite clear and detailed about their way of working. Not only Wikipedia, but famous and reputable newspapers like The Times of India, Hindustan Times etc use it as a source of information (see this article for example).
IBOSnetwork.com is also a well-known site for box office figures in India. Again, their sections prove that.
Shahid • Talk2me 07:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave these out for other reviewers to see your answers, since we don't see a lot of Indian films at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, Lage Raho Munnabhai and Satyajit Ray are the only Indian cinema-related FAs so far. Shahid • Talk2me 16:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the February WP:GA discussion I stated:
  • Here is my problem with the current lead. All award winning actress WP:FA's except Judy Garland state clearly in the first paragraph a summary of her awards in a manner similar to two-time Filmfare Award-winning actress:
    Angelina Jolie - She has received three Golden Globe Awards, two Screen Actors Guild Awards, and an Academy Award.
    Jenna Jameson - By 1996, she had won the three top newcomer awards from pornographic film industry organizations. She has since won more than 20 adult film awards
    Bette Davis - two-time Academy Award-winning American actress of film
    Diane Keaton - Academy Award-winning American film actress,
    Vivien Leigh - She won two Academy Awards
    Miranda Otto - Logie Award-winning Australian actress
    Sharon Tate - Golden Globe-nominated American actress.
    • Miss Zinta still does not make clear the nature of her success in the first paragraph of the lead like the vast majority of other FA actresses. Critical recognition is one of the first things a reader looks for when reading an actor/actress page. Please consider adding the phrase "two-time Filmfare Award-winning actress" to the first paragraph of the lead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tony! The reason I don't add this, is a decision taken by editors of Wikiproject:Indian Cinema. If it was a National Film Award, I would have definetely added it, like we mostly do on Indian film related articles. But Filmfare, as it was decided, are not cricket scores, they should not be used to "rank" actresses in terms of awards won.
Another reason is the previous FAC, at which one user said it was POV to start an article like that. And believe me, there is a big difference between Filmfare awards and the Oscars.
Thirdly, the awards are already mentioned a number of times. In the first paragraph it says she won a Filmfare Best Female Debut award; in the second, she won the Best Actress award. Also the infobox provides that.
I'm enormously impressed with your keenness to see this article in better shape. I'm grateful for that. Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 07:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes remember I added this before but it was removed. I thought it should be more specific to mention it in the intro too ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I gather National Film Award is the top award and Filmfare Award is a lesser award. In the U.S. there are four or five lead worthy awards: Academy Award, Golden Globe Award, Emmy Award, Tony Award, Screen Actors Guild Award. If you have won or been nominated for any of these, the totals go in the lead paragraph. All other awards basically don't make the lead. I am not sure of an in between solution where they belong in the lead, but not summarized in the first paragraph. Thus I am confused. You currently are standing behind having a summary of who she is scattered throughout the lead. If Filmfare is important enough for the lead, it should be in the first para, IMO. It is probably as big as a Logie Award, but I don't know. I don't really buy this argument, but if Filmfare is the equivalent of a lesser US award I would let it slide.
  • I absolutely do not buy the argument that saying she is a "two-time Filmfare Award-winning actress" would be POV. It would not. See actresses above.
  • Your third argument about standing behind scattering the awards is not so hot. Basically, it seems to be the prevailing standard for important critical acknowledgement, but if it is not an important award, it can slide.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you always compare this article to American actresses' ones. See articles like Cillian Murphy, Eric Bana. I'm doing something which was already decided a long time ago. The Filmfare is an important function, but as many here, I think it's a big POV saying she is award-winning before mentioning her occupation.
Filmfare Awards is definitely a prestigious award ceremony, it is, and one of the oldest and most prominent film events, alongside the NFA.
However, in contrast to the National Film Awards, which are decided by a panel appointed by Indian Government, the Filmfare Awards are voted for by both the public and a committee of experts. Also, National Awards are given to every possible actor in India for his work, in all the regional languages, regardless of what industry he works in, while the Filmfare — only Hindi films (Bollywood).
It was a decision, and as you see, several articles don't introduce awards in the first para, ie Cillian Murphy, who won some Irish award, and received a Golden Globe nomination.
Shahid • Talk2me 07:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT - Despite my continuing unresolved quibble, the article is fantastic. It continues to evolve toward a higher level of quality and refinement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not "In addition to being an actress, Zinta has written columns for BBC News Online South Asia..." since you agree with about her not being a columnist? Please delinks individual years in the filmography table. Didn't she change her name from something like "Preeti Zinta" a while back due to numerology issues? (Hence the weird spelling) Please try to ensure that a word is not repeated many times in close proximity, it reads very poorly--"The film, based on the 1991 film". indopug (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the sources show otherwise. She was born Preity Zinta, she was never known as Preeti. These are not individual links, they link to list offilms of each mentioned year, but I'll remove it if you want.
As for the latter comment... What do you suggest? Maybe to change it to "movie"? :) Shahid • Talk2me 13:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Yeeah remove those year links, how is a list of films released that year useful? No, I think "movie" is not professional/formal. The Silence of the Lambs (1991) is fine. I don't think we have to go with the sources on the columnist; its not as simple an issue as fact or non-fact. If somebody is of the opinion that somebody else (who is already famous BTW) is a columnist after writing just four columns, then it remains just that—an opinion. The only reason she was given the opportunity to write a column in the first place was because she was already a famous actress. Ask around for other editors' opinions too, maybe we can reach a consensus. indopug (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I'll remove them now. I have asked one editor for his opinion re columns/columnists. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 14:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well - rephrased as you suggested, removed links to years. Still waiting for the editor to reply. Thank you. Shahid • Talk2me 14:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I'm the person mentioned above or not. I might change the phrasing of one sentence to "In addition to her work as an film actress, Zinta regularly perfoms on the stage, and has written a series of popular columns for BBC News Online South Asia". I also note that I am probably less than objective about the subject myself, having been involved in the article for some time, but do not see any serious impediments to Supporting the article. And if there are any other specific concerns about phrasing, I ask that anyone specificy them here, so that we can all do what we can to address them. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Noting the buried support in the comment above; please refer to WP:FAC instructions when declaring Support or Oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Removed columnist, and rephrased as suggested by John on my talk page. Thanks for the comments, Indopug. Now what are we gonna do with the "Columnist" section? Shouldn't it be renamed? Shahid • Talk2me 17:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to column writing. Shahid • Talk2me 22:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This article seems to have improved tremendously since the last time I saw it. Congratulations to everyone involved for that. However, the question here is whether it is ready for FA-hood. The answer, imo is a firm NO. The improvement of the last few months notwithstanding, the article falls short on many counts. For one, sources - boxofficeindia.com, ibosnetwork, indiantelevision.com etc., are not WP:RS sources for claims as exceptional as box-office figures etc.,. Secondly, though I am not a stickler for "brilliant prose" as long as it flows smoothly, is reasonably well-written and all other more important things like sources, NPOV, UNDUE etc are taken care of, I must still say that this article needs several rounds of cpedit before I can call it even "reasonably well written". More than the prose, the article needs to be checked for content and encyclopedicity. Sentences like --

"Zinta, a self-confessed tomboy in the early stages of her life, was influenced primarily by her father.[10] As a child groomed in an army household, she grew up with values such as discipline and punctuality.[10]"

are not even encyclopedic. It goes without saying that every child is influenced by its parents and "grew up with values such as discipline and punctuality" is just fluff. And all this is sourced, I think (correct me if I am wrong) to an indulgent page 3 interview with a newspaper(?). I am sure, the article has more such instances.

Also, "References" are not the same as "Notes"/"Footnotes" and it would greatly help if the ==References== section listed all the references which the notes source from. Also, I think the footnotes need to be made consistent for style and syntax. And given that the entire article is sourced to websites, it may be a good idea to explore some way of optimising the referencing, so editors dont have to keep tripping over lengthy {{cite web|....}} tags in edit-mode. Sarvagnya 22:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office India the official website for statistics on the Indian Box Office not a valid source???? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarvagnya, boxofficeindia.com is a leading site for box office figures in Bollywood. Their "about us" and "disclaimers" sections are quite clear and detailed about their way of working. Not only Wikipedia, but famous and reputable newspapers like The Times of India, Hindustan Times etc use it as a source of information (see this article for example). So let's assume we can't use BOI, but we can use Hindustan Times; they use it as their source of information, as you can see in the ref. So what else can you do? It's clearly reliable. And I'm not going to discuss it here, it was already discussed and accepted by User:Spartaz and User:Nichalp who are great contributors, and you are not the one to decide what a WP:RS source is, and what a WP:RS source is not. Your way of presenting your views as obvious facts is IMO wrong, the right way is to ask what the reliability of the source is, in an appropriate manner, as it was done by another editor in this very FAC. We cannot always wander around the same issue. Shahid • Talk2me 13:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, disregarding my personal preferences for books and non-tabloid newspapers, which are not available anyway, if someone is used by another as a source of information that doesn't mean the first is reliable, since reporters interview eyewitnesses who are primary sources, but the eyewitness put up their own blog, that doesn't become reliable. Unfortunately the way the world works is that the "reliable news sources" get stuff of random people and turn it into "solid info" - I'd like to get a personal benefit if being used by a reliable source makes one reliable - because the ToI copied my Wikipedia articles - then I could declare myself to be a notable cricket pundit and put my OR on Wikipedia. Unfortunately not, from a pure vanity point of view. :( Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh I agree, but there must be some guideline for that. Boxofficeindia.com is a very well recognised website, and the info on there is precise and correct. I know that ToI have unreliable sections like cricket.indiatimes, ipl.indiatimes, but the original site newspaper is very reliable, and it uses and mentions boxofficeindia quite a few times. But let's assume we cannot base ourselves on only one source even if it's a newspaper, but we have also Hindustan Times (! the link given). All of them, major newspapers, use the source -- and use means, they say "according to boxofficeindia.com..." Why shouldn't Wikipedia? If they can, I can't see why Wikipedia cannot.
The site iteself looks great in terms of readability and reliability. Everything, their "disclaimer", "about us" sections are detailed. Their way of working is clear, they are very clear about everything. They also often answer questions addressed to them be readers. It's clearly a credible/reliable source. Sarvagnya was the only one to claim that it's unreliable during the first FAC and during this one. If I wasn't sure of this site's reliability, I would certainly have removed that in the time of the very first FAC. The main problem with Indian sites is their lack of international/wide recognition. That's why they're often considered unreliable. Shahid • Talk2me 04:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your point "not even encyclopedic" is not valid unless you write what policy you are basing your claim on. This sentence was copyedited several times, and is now very well balanced and sourced. We say that she was primarily influenced by her father, and it is not an obvious fact. Also, you never know what kind of a family a girl can be grown up in. It can be a poor family or a criminal one. Other FAs about actors/singers also describe the person's childhood. I believe it is encyclopedic. I was quite sure you would oppose when you see this article, but nevertheless, it's your decision. Shahid • Talk2me 13:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as Sarvagnya has told, many sentences in this article are based on Zinta's interviews (page 3 or not). However, I don't think this can be a point of objection, since the words are from the horse's mouth. Regarding the syntax of references, the article consistently uses one style (cite web), which is not only ok, but recommended. --Dwaipayan (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding influences on the subject, such content is obviously very relevant when on is writing an encyclopedic biography article. In fact, I have reason to believe that, in at least some encyclopedia articles, it is even expected. I would ask the person who objects to such content to examine that such information is even included in some infoboxes, like Template:Infobox artist and Template:Infobox philosopher. If information on the influences of a person is significant enough to even be included in those infoboxes, I cannot see how similar information is not significant enough to be mentioned in the article itself. John Carter (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:

Along with Ness Wadia and others, Zinta in 2008 acquired ownership rights for the Mohali Twenty20 cricket team of the Indian Premier League.[104] The group paid $ 76 million to acquire the franchise, and have since renamed the team Kings XI Punjab.[105]

  • Shouldn't this be in the ==Other work== section.
  • Was it really renamed the team "Kings XI Punjab" or simply named? If the franchise was renamed then what was the previous name?

Side comment: A controversy not mentioned in the article which was telecated by TV channels that some of the players of the team were shabbily treated and asked to move out of the Taj hotel to a less opulent place to accomodate some her guests". KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. I changed it to "named" - you're right. But I don't think these two sentences can be shifted to the other work section. There is one - columns, one - Humanitarian work, and one - stage performer. So I don't know where I can add it in. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 13:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the craze and coverage of IPL increases, and Zinta has involved herself in a heavy way with the team, perhaps it was time to create a subsection for her owning the cricket team. The subsection has now been created. Please see if it suffices.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does suffice and the section shall grow as the IPL progresses. BTW I feel the title should be something like "Ownership of IPL team". KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subsection renamed "Ownership of Indian Premier League team".--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The article has tremendously improved since its last FAC. Overall, it is well-written, informative, cohesive and most importantly, well-sourced. Great job guys and all the best with this article!! --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 18:51, 1 May 2008


Oppose—Much improved, although I still had to remove some overlinking. Not at all sufficiently well-written. Needs fresh eyes by a good copy-editor throughout. Here are just a few examples from the lead (you'd think the lead would be better than the rest, actually).

  • Now why would I object to the linking of "English language"? Second sentence, too. Makes fools of us.
    • You mean you want the link to be removed? Shahid • Talk2me 14:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's flab and a lack of cohesion here, right at the start: "She subsequently displayed her range, taking on a number of roles as characters of a diverse nature, and in doing so, has been credited with bringing a change in the image of Hindi film heroine." "Range" means what? I don't want to have to ponder it in reverse after finishing the sentence. "Roles" and "characters" are hardly worth differentiating here, are they? "characters of a diverse nature"—five words could be just two. Remove comma after "so". "bringing a change in" could be just one word.
    • Done - Changed to "She would subsequently take on a variety of character types, and in doing so has been credited with changing the image of Hindi film heroine." Please tell me if that's OK. Shahid • Talk2me 16:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS issues: " the science fiction Koi... Mil Gaya, her biggest commercial success to date"—"science" was hanging at the end of the line for me: hyphenate it here, since it's a double adjective, yes? "To date"—what date? This is worthless in the future, so remove it and just make the statement; someone would have to update it either way.
    • Done - hyphenated and removed "to date". Shahid • Talk2me 19:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cross-border"—Some people may be in on the secret, but to know that it means "India–Pakistan border" is too much. We shouldn't have to hit the link (piped, it turns out) to discover this.
    • Changed to "star-crossed" as per John's below suggestion. Done? Shahid • Talk2me 19:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tony, and thanks for the comments. Let me please take a glance. Also, I must say, writing the lead is IMO probably the most difficult task in writing a BLP article. :) Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 14:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about removing the link completely? Cross-border romance doesn't necessarily have to take place in India. It's quite universal. Shahid • Talk2me 14:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not knowing the details of the subject, would calling them "a star-crossed romance of a Indian and a Pakistani" work? John Carter (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that yes! But is "of a Indian and a Pakistani" necessarily needed in the lead? Shahid • Talk2me 15:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've begun copyediting this article, and have finished the lead. I'll get to the rest of it soon (probably tomorrow); perhaps folks can have a look at the lead and let me know how they feel so far so I know if I'm on the right track, or if there are other things I need to look for? Thanks. – Scartol • Tok 15:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support: Well written, notable and valid. Furthermore, two relatively back to back featured articles on the Main Page, Satyajit Ray and this, would trigger off a large influx of effort towards Indian films. Universal Hero (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just noticed someone changing the first sentence of Early life [20] and was surprised to find the reference [21] didn't support the sentence. It's also geared to kids and was used four times. I've replaced one with a recent Times of India article that supports the line (possibly a self-referential copy from here, though.) The reference for the 1975 year of birth [22] is only a couple paragraphs, and another ref from the same site, also used in this article [23], says 1974. The article should at least cite something like The Tribune [24]. It might be good to check some of the other refs and replace the weak ones with better sources. Gimmetrow 06:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was a very common mistake before 2004-5 but then started to change. Since 2005, it has changed and even in interviews she indicates she was born in 1975. Now every article clearly states she is 33-year-old. Regarding the source, I confused it with another source in this sction. You can see the old discussions in the talk page archive regarding her age. The Rediff source was added because it is the most recent one. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 09:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, can we do anything to reduce use of sources geared to kids ("My Fundays")? What indicates that [25] is "not a reliable section in this site"? Just wondering, because many of the Rediff pages don't look very strong. The Tribune link I give above is more recent than the Rediff one used for the year of birth, by the way. Gimmetrow 00:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is "geared to kids"?
No problem. I'll add the Tribune, the problem is that I didn't find it in the source. BTW, Rediff is very reliable.
As for the site, the sections ipl., cricket., are almost always conducted by who knows who, not the site's principals, and take their info from the net. Note, only these sections. Others no. Shahid • Talk2me 04:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the Tribune site does not give us her full date of birth. Shahid • Talk2me 12:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does, it just has the two parts separated by a couple paragraphs. "Geared to kids" means the "My Fundays" page is written for children; it has "telekids" in the url. It's only being used twice now so it's not so bad. However, the article has lost the definition for ref #28. Gimmetrow 20:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Three non-free images that don't appear to improve the reader's understanding of the article and thus fail our non-free image policy WP:NFCC, notably WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Black Kite 17:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These images provide a critical commentary. Please see WP:FU. Also, please see other FAs like Diane Keaton and Cillian Murphy among others -- all use FU images. Shahid • Talk2me 18:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:FU is a guideline on using non-free images; WP:NFCC is the relevant policy. None of the images are discussed in the text, and thus fail WP:NFCC#8 (and probably WP:NFCC#3a as well). Black Kite 20:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well there appears to be a significant misunderstanding in perception of what is acceptable. Many people believe the use of the images is within guidelines as yes the text does discuss these films. Have you not read the article? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that the editor resisting the inclusion of the photos may have a point. However, I would ask him to review the two FU pictures in Cillian Murphy. The amount of discussion of the roles and images in both articles seems at least to me to be roughly similar. I acknowledge that Murphy has only two such images, while this has three, and that might be a significant difference. But the amount of direct discussion of the images, and the works from which the images are derived, seem to be roughly similar, and Murphy was only recently promoted to FA. If we were perhaps given clearer indications as to how he perceives the usage to be different, I think that would be very welcome. John Carter (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I had seen that FAC review I would have argued that the first image fails WP:NFCC as well, to be honest (OK, it shows Murphy as the evil villain, but does it really say anything the text doesn't?). The second one, as I mention below, appears to hit NFCC#8 sufficiently. Black Kite 21:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed regarding the first image. Not entirely sure what the second image actually illustrates though, maybe the "androgynous" part or the fact that he makes a passable female? I'm not trying to be smart or anything, by the way. I hope you realize that. I'm just not sure. John Carter (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
as a trial I'm removed all the copywrighted images and I have to say I think it affects the quality of the article. Two of the images I consider encyclopedia. The larger beatuiful picture of Zinta in KANK, the bottom one however I have to admit was more decoratative but the teenager mother and image of her with Khan in a Filmfar award winning role I think are encyclopedic and help understanding and visualize her role as an actress ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They don't necessarily all have to be removed if they can be critically discussed in the text. For example, what the lower image in Cillian Murphy shows is clearly discussed in the text next to it, and the image thus improves the reader's understanding of that passage. If the images in this article can be shown to be justified by the increased understanding of the reader, that's fine, but they can't really just be random images of the actress in various films. Black Kite 21:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Diane Keaton article has four screenshots. Does this mean it should be demoted? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, yes, it should. Unfortunately the problem of articles passing FAC despite failing NFCC has been going for a long time - I only became aware of it recently whilst doing some NFCC patrol with my sock. Black Kite 21:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still firm on your oppose? Shahid • Talk2me 21:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that those images have now been removed. Please comment on the actual content of the article thankyou. Many FA's have passed FA with many screenshots across wikipedia. Perhaps its time the site stuck to one policy as double standard is isn't a good look ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree. After all, we do have a policy regarding the use of non-free images and I would have thought that it would be the de facto standard to which all articles should adhere. I do need to make it clear that it is not the use of non-free images per se that is the problem - if they can used in a way that is aligned with WP:NFCC. Obviously I have struck my oppose now the images have been removed, but I will certainly have a look to see if there is a policy-compliant manner that at least some may be used. The problem is that most of images of Zinta uploaded so far are just "here's a picture of one or two people in a film" type images. I tried hi.wiki but their article doesn't help [26] (many other wikis don't allow NF images at all, though).Black Kite 22:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"They don't necessarily all have to be removed if they can be critically discussed in the text." - but all of the images are critically discussed in the article. Kya Kehna was her first major breakthrough, as well as Kal Ho Naa Ho, which won her the Best Actress at the Filmfare. Apart from that. Her role in KANK was appreciated and the film is Bollywood's biggest hit in the overseas market ever. So what are we doing now? I first want you guys to make some rules clear. If it cannot be used here, it cannot be used in other articles including the so nice FAs about Cillian and Diane. as your quote above provides, I'll add as of now two images from the first two films I mentioned. They are clearly and specifically and critically discussed in the article, and the rationale itself, if you see, is perfect. Comments? Shahid • Talk2me 14:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No - critical discussion means that the image itself is discussed, not that the film that it portrays is discussed. As a rule of thumb, the question you need to ask yourself is "if I removed this image, would the article be more difficult for the reader to understand?" Black Kite 19:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, I agree completely. And that was exactly what I felt while adding the images. It took quite some time to do that. The images illustrate the info of the text perfectly. For example the Kal Ho Naa Ho image illustrates the film as being a tearjerker, and the award she won is mentioned as well. It provides a critical commentary on the film and its contents. so does the KANK image, so does the Kya Kehna one. It was a long and hard work writing and composing the rationale, explaining everything in details. Have you seen the rationales? And without the images, it's definitely difficult for the reader to understand more about her and her work in an Indian film industry, especially considering the lack of knowledge people across the globe have about Bollywood and Indian cinema. Shahid • Talk2me 21:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support


Much improved, support conditional on sourcing issue below. Oppose, copyediting needed before this is ready. Problems easily spotted - several errors found just in the first paragraph of the lead.

    • I don't care for the phrase "in Bollywood" as that is not a physical location to my knowledge.
Yes, but it is an internationally recognised term, which makes it much easier for the Western reader to understand, who does not really know what Hindi cinema is. Shahid • Talk2me 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "She has appeared in Hindi films produced in Bollywood, as well as Telugu and English-language movies." Grammar.. need parallel structure of phrases.
Changed. Please tell me if it looks better now. Shahid • Talk2me 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stylistic but ungrammatical commas - example: "After graduating with a degree in criminal psychology, Zinta made her acting debut in Dil Se in 1998, followed by a role in Soldier the same year."
mmm I really don't know what you mean. Shahid • Talk2me 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that commas are used where you might "pause" in speech but they are not proper grammar. Generally speaking, you do not use a comma to separate a clause that does not stand on its own as a sentence. In the example above, the clause is "... followed by a role in Soldier the same year."
Thank you for the explanation. I've removed the comma, and I'll try to address this point in other sentences with improper grammar. Shahid • Talk2me 11:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please give some more examples for that? Because I'm not sure. Shahid • Talk2me 16:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like most of them have been fixed. I will remove any others I see. --Laser brain (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "She would subsequently take on a variety of character types, and in doing so has been credited with changing the image of Hindi film heroine." Grammar.. missing article.
There is no article about Hindi film heroine. What's the grammar problem? Could you please elaborate? Shahid • Talk2me 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means there should be a "the" before "Hindi film heroine". Or made plural. But this is an exact quote from one of the cited sources. Gimmetrow 22:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I meant. If it's an exact quote, why isn't it in quotes? Anyway, maybe we should rephrase instead of quoting poor English. --Laser brain (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not an exact quote. I thought "the" would be a bit odd as it is not a definite term, so I added "a". What do you say Laser? Shahid • Talk2me 11:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I see
(source) "Credited with bringing a change in the image of Hindi film heroine"[27]
(here) "credited with changing the image of Hindi film heroine."
My mistake. Gimmetrow 19:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many sentences are too long, containing a mess of commas and semicolons and expressing too many ideas. Readability is affected. Example: "Zinta, who describes herself as a tomboy as a child, has emphasised her father's military background as having a lasting impression on how family life was conducted, asserting the importance of discipline and punctuality to the children."
Done - divided into two. Shahid • Talk2me 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - but the whole article needs attention to this matter. --Laser brain (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh OK no problem, I'll try to figure these out. Do you have some additional examples? Shahid • Talk2me 11:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has fixed the ones I spotted. --Laser brain (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand what you are trying to say here: "Introducing Zinta as Preeti Nair, a middle-class Delhi girl and Khan's fiancee, the film was considered an unusual launch for a newcomer, as her role called for only 20 minutes of screen time." I don't see where your source backs up anything about this being an "unusual launch" for a newcomer.
Oh sorry yeh. The ref comes right after the following sentence. Would you like me to separate the sentences into two? Shahid • Talk2me 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I see it now. It is fine. --Laser brain (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Laser brain (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments Laser_brain. Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think overall this is a quite good article. I've been trying to fact-check the sources. For the most part they do back up the article, but they are sometimes used in odd ways. For instance, this article has all of three sentences on Zinta, but it was referenced four times (now three). This article is largely about her films, but it's used to reference a quote about boarding school. This isn't really wrong, but it would seem more natural to have more cites from the longer, more substantial articles. Finally, about being "credited with changing the image of the Hindi film heroine" - this was cited to the three-sentence one I just mentioned. OK, but it doesn't really explain how. This article, however, is precisely about the redefinition of the Indian heroine, and mentions Zinta. That seems to me more on point. Gimmetrow 22:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh thanks. I think articles should not be necessarily long to qualify the sourcing. The Indian Express is a reputable newspaper, and it mentions her in particular. I think it's btter than a source from the Hindu which does not discuss this specifically. Good to note that I have cited a book reference about this claim which is a bit important. The other Hindu about the borading school has a perfect friend of her talking about her own life, childhood and loneliness at boarding school. So I guess it's OK. Shahid • Talk2me 22:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm trying to get at is this: when I read a sentence, I have certain expectations of the type of statements and sources used to back it up. If a sentence says "she redefined the Hindi film heroine", I generally expect a bit more than a three-sentence blurb in a collection of news shorts with one sentence saying "Credited with bringing a change in the image of Hindi film heroine". A few brief, high-level sources like this are fine, but citing a lot of these can be a let-down to those readers who might read the sources. With some other articles I've used other sources already present in the article to replace cites to such brief blurbs; it helps reduce citation overload. Are you interested in doing something like that here? Gimmetrow 05:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't really think the length of the text in the source is a problem. As long as the source is reliable, I think it's fine. And the specific article (from The Indian Express) we are talking about is a very good article, with many separated sections. On the other hand, the new source from The Hindu does not seem to say anything specific about Zinta at all. So I think The Indian Express is far better, and this one, TheHindu, should be removed. I also have a book reference for this claim.
I'll later add the Tribune source you suggested me to add. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 15:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, don't. I'll find something better. Gimmetrow 00:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changes

I've made some significant changes to the article since it was nominated. I must have removed around 15 commas from the article. I hope now that most of the earlier concerns have been addressed. I've also added a different screenshot which I consider more encyclopedic and some other free images of her in the article which I believe enhance its quality.

♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One sourcing concern while I was re-reading the article. Under the Success heading, you write of the film The Hero: Love Story of a Spy, "It was the most expensive Bollywood film of the year, but failed to recover its production costs at the box office." The source provided does not back up either claim. All it shows is the gross and net for the film. It does not show production costs, but if one assumes that the net was figured by subtracting production costs from the gross, then the claim is false. If a film failed to recover its production costs, the net would be negative (meaning the film lost money). --Laser brain (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted Laser. Strangely the The Hero: Love Story of a Spy article says it was the third highest grossing film of the year. Either it was absurdly expensive and despite being the third highest grossing still didn't win back its costs, or something here is false. Perhaps Shahid could find a source? Also this sentence I feel should be added as it fills in a bit more on what the film was about

"The film, about a spy network involving terrorists and a corrupt Indian army officer starred Zinta as Reshma, a villager who becomes part of this network". ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 15:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it was not only the most expensive film of the year, but the most expensive Bollywood production up until then. As stated by BOI, the film was the third top-grossing film of the year. And it's right. It just that considering its very high costs, it expectedly did not succeed in recovering its production costs at the BOI. So, as you see, it was the third top-grossing buts verdict is "below average" -- meaning -- flopped.
Here are the sources:
  • The Tribune: "The Hero, shot at a mind-boggling budget of Rs. 55 crore, sank without a trace."
  • Rediff (pre-release): "People have declared it the most expensive Hindi film ever made."
  • IBOS - box offcie overciew standard: "Billed as the most expensive film in 2003. Loser for producers, earner for the distributors."
Which one should I add now? Shahid • Talk2me 15:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fleshed out that bit and added some new sentences. To address the concerns by Laser earlier I've actually added two references ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one more to backup the claim:) Shahid • Talk2me 16:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think we can finally say... Done! ;) Shahid • Talk2me 17:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great job, both of you. Highlighted my support above as I consider the matter resolved. --Laser brain (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My concerns have not been addressed and my oppose stands. I will be explaining in greater detail soon. Sarvagnya 23:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful if you specified which concerns you are speaking of. Your concerns about the "unencyclopedic" nature of influences on the subject of a biography are apparently contraindicated elsewhere, as has been indicated above, and thus may well qualify as simple opinion. The objections to the cite web template seem to run contrary to existing practice. Your other concerns about separating notes and refernces might be reasonable, although other entertainment FAs such as James T. Aubrey, Jr., Kroger Babb, Eric Bana, Rudolph Cartier, Jackie Chan, Emma Watson, and others use basically the same format. Having said that, I think we would be very interested in hearing the specifics, preferably as soon as possible. John Carter (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarvagnya -

Serious issues still remain with this article -

1. Non-RS sources - boxofficeindia.com is NOT a WP:RS source. Just because some RS sources quote it here and there, doesnt mean boi itself qualifies as one. For that matter, wikipedia is also sourced by RS sources routinely (often without attribution) and yet wikipedia is not a RS source. A RS source is one which has the credentials to be commenting on the issue. And to boot, the Indian film industry to a large extent is unregulated even today and Indian Box Office figures are notoriously unreliable. As such, box office figures are "exceptional claims" and "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". BOI is a questionable source and far from "exceptional". And when did Microsoft (msn) become a RS for Indian cinema articles? 2. Prose is still way below the average FA standards. The early life section reads like something from a comic book or something ("According to Zinta, she enjoyed schoolwork and received good grades; in her free time she played sports, especially basketball.") 3. John Carter's waving away of my comment about the "influence" sentence with his response stating that the "Influence" is also a field in infoboxes is disingenuous. The "influence" there (in infoboxes) refers to those who have been influences professionally.. ie., if Zinta's acting skills have been influenced by others, it would need to be noted. Did Zinta's father influence her "acting skills"?! 4. And like Gimmetrow (?) notes, most of the sources are used in curious ways. This greatly runs the risk of WP:OR. To quote from WP:NOR, --

Specifics, please. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, this article is one hell of a quote-mining job. One glaring example is in the bombastic claim made in the lead. It is claimed in the lead that -- "She would subsequently take on a variety of character types, and in doing so has been credited with changing the image of a Hindi film heroine.[2][3]" (!!).

Now, this entire bombast seems to be sourced from a pathetic -- "...Today we have Miss Universe (Sushmita Sen), Miss World (Aishwarya Rai) and any number of Miss Indias. One of our biggest stars, Preity Zinta, was better known as the "Liril" soap girl not so long ago."

If one reads that piece, it is clear that the context is entirely different. In fact, the article only seems to be stating that the yesteryear 'vamps' have been replaced by the mainstream heroines. Whatever it is, it supports nothing of the sort that is being claimed in the lead. This is blatant WP:POV and WP:OR. I am sure there are several such cases throughout the article. More later. And once again, the prose is way below even reasonably acceptable standards. Sarvagnya 01:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, that was actually a cite I added. The one formerly in the lead (#24 now and still used later in the article where the same claim is met), was [28]. It had the line "Credited with bringing a change in the image of Hindi film heroine, the dimpled lady from Himachal is known for her steadfast approach and honesty" and said nothing else. This article, after mentioning those three women, says "The notion of a vamp in Hindi cinema, therefore, became extinct the day this generation arrived in the 1990s", which seemed to me more on point. Gimmetrow 01:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Sarvagnya (paragraph by paragraph) So you said before. However, that point has not clearly yet been established, and others seem to disagree with you. On that basis, if you were to seek to indicate that it is not reliable enough for the purposes for which it is used, I think that there would need to be some evidence to support that presented. I haven't seen any, barring your own statements to that effect and your attempt at circular reasoning above. We, by the way, aren't an RS because of vandalism. Simple assertion by editors of at best tangential points about how Indian Box office figures (and do you mean the site or just Indian cinema in general - please specify) aren't reliable, without sourcing, are even less reliable than the source they seek to indicate is unreliable. You have to date, that I can see, provided no such sourcing. You haven't demonstrated they are "exceptional claims", so there is no need for "exceptional sourcing". You should note by the way that boxofficeindia is currently seemingly used as a source in roughly 250 articles as per here, and I can't find any official complaints regarding its quality in any of the pages listed. On that basis, I would have to assume that what you are saying here is simply your own unverified opinion. And msn, whether you knew it or not, is now linked to NBC, one of the more generally reliable sources for most of the material it discusses. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC) One sentence can be adjusted. If you have other concerns, please list them. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you seem to have waved away the point I was making by attempting to misrepresent it. My contention is that, in any instance when an individual has themselves expressly stated the influences that shaped their lives, it is reasonable to mention them, particularly when those influences can be seen as being reasonably relevant to whatever the subject of the article is best known for. For a person of the few years this subject has had, it actually is rather likely that the influence of her father impacted her work ethic, memory ability, ways of expressing herself, etc., all of which are, actually, relative to acting skills. Also, for someone who has been, if I remember correctly, called the "only man in Bollywood" or some such thing for the courageous stance she took regarding attempted extortion, and who also took a degree in criminal psychology, which I don't think is generally considered a particularly "feminine" occupation, she has displayed a degree of courage and inteegrity which is not only remarkable, but also seemingly a significant factor in her current notability. That would make the influence of her father even more directly relevant to her biography. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try to control your language, please. If the citations make that claim, are you really in a position to counter them, with no evidence presented by you yet to the contrary yourself? If you have other sources to add, please feel free to add them. Until and unless you can yourself verify that your claims are indicated by other sources at least as reliable and verifiable as those used, WP:AGF would indicate that we accept the only real evidence which has been presented to date, which, to date, has not been by you. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with John. Sarvagnya, I must say, you're working too hard.

  • You say, "boxofficeindia.com is NOT a WP:RS source" - Interesting, and who are you to determine that? You are just one of million of users here. I think you mean "in your opinion" it is not, even if all the other factors contradict your opinion, no? What you said, should be said in a different way: Sarvagnya is not the one who gives the final verdict about what a RS is, and what a RS is not. I'm not even going to explain again why it's an RS, I've had enough. You are the only user who has problems with this site, while editors like User:Nichalp and User:Spartaz supported me with this source back in time. Interesting, none of all those great users here has had problems with it no? ToI and Hindustan Times, and here have a Rediff use it as a source of information. Isn't it enough for you? So take western sites, like Times Online for example. What else can you do?
    I repeat, your way of presenting your views as obvious facts is wrong, the right way is to ask what the reliability of the source is, in an appropriate manner, as it was done by another editor in this very FAC.
  • The 'vamp' source was not added by me. It's happened during the FAC, I've now removed it. BTW, to support this, as you say, "bombastic" claim, I even added a book source (24) back in time. If you haven't seen that, it means you did not even pay attention to details.
  • The early life section was thoroughly copyedited by User:Scartol. As one of the greatest copyeditors on here, he did not have any problem with this. Again, Tony and Laser above have not had any issue with that info either. Angelina Jolie, see her early life section to get some knowledge and familiarise yourself with how an "Early life" section in a BLP actor FA should look.
  • Shahid • Talk2me 06:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that at one time there was a problem with Box Office India as a reference because the website for some time had a dead link for a home page. This HOWEVER was sorted out months ago and it now has a home page. Box Office India is the OFFICIAL SITE FOR INDIAN FILM STATISTICS and I wouldn't expect an encyclopedia like wikipedia to disregard an offical source which is strongly encouraged across all subjects. There are no other film statistics sites that could be considered more reliable than this for Indian film. It is an official source. Strong evidenc eof this is top Indian sources in themselves like ToI and Hindustan Times use it as a source of information themsevles very regularly. Other than this Sarvangya's argument that it is poorly written is complete nonsense. Notice how he quotes the same lines from Zinta's childhood to make the whole article seem like it is written like a comic. Your're case Sarvagnya is a very weak one it has to be said. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I appreciate the generous title which has been bestowed upon me, I must note that my copyedit of this article was hurried and shouldn't be referred to as thorough. I would also point out that several of the changes I made were later reverted to the original wording.

That said, I fail to see what is wrong with the following sentence (which I revised, and which was not changed later on): "According to Zinta, she enjoyed schoolwork and received good grades; in her free time she played sports, especially basketball." The "According to Zinta" part is a bit awkward, but (since I didn't have – and still don't – time to go to sources) I assume it's a fair attribution, and seems necessary (since we're not hearing this from a third-party biography). Maybe we could compromise by using "Zinta told NAME OF MAGAZINE that she enjoyed schoolwork...". If we're unimpressed with what she recalls about her childhood, that's not really an issue of prose style. Balzac read a lot of books as a child, and used this detail later when writing his novels. Hopefully that doesn't make the article about him sound like something out of a comic book? – Scartol • Tok 15:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Scartol, please accept my apologies if you felt hurt. Also please note that my comments were in no way about your work.. not in the least. In that sentence I quoted, the problem is not so much with the prose as with encyclopedicity. I've already stated above that much of the article reads unencyclopedic and here, I was just alluding to that. I posted that message in some hurry last night, so looks like I might have got something wrong. Please note that my comment is not about your work. There is only so much that a copyeditor can do with quote-mined screed. Having said that, it is still my opinion that the prose (and content) of this article is way below FA standards. That however, has nothing to do with you. Thanks. Sarvagnya 16:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I must say, Honoré de Balzac is a damn good article! :)
Well now I think what you said is a direct evidence to the above editor that there is nothing unencylopedic (or a comic book huh!) in adding information about her background and early life. Shahid • Talk2me 16:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just went through and did some copy-editing. I have to say, I find the article awfully uninspiring. It's basically a whole series of sentences saying "and then she did this" "and then she did that" "and then she did the other." It's practically a list: List of things done by Preity Zinta. This is a WP disease, of course, but one would hope that featured articles tried to break the mould. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just out of question. How on earth would you expect an encyclopedia article on an actress to read any differently?? If the article covers her life and career of course events of films are going to be following this she went on to ... etc. Are you not familiar with biographies on actors on wikipedia? Given that there isn't any information as in other topics on wikipedia where the article content would be completely different and be able to cover different aspects of something. The Zinta article is supposed to inform the reader what she has done in her career and life and it does this very well. You;re missing the point of it ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 08:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I am missing the point. And I am familiar with biographies of actors on Wikipedia. Indeed, I mentioned precisely that this was a common trait. There are various ways in which featured articles could try to break that mould, however, perhaps by taking a leaf from some of the articles about writers, which are in general less tied to chronology. I admit that this will be more difficult with an actor who is currently active (as is the case with Zinta), and so for whom there are fewer secondary sources, if any, that attempt a broader overview. NB, as I said, I think that this is a challenge for FA writers; in most cases, it would require a radical structural revision between GA and FA, which understandably few editors are willing to take on. WP works by accretion, and seldom by radical revision. NB also that I'm not opposing the nomination on these grounds. But I think it's worth a mention. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And as for an example, perhaps Jackie Chan might be one. (Or even, perhaps strangely enough, Jenna Jameson.) Again, however, I recognize that it may well be difficult to write such an article about a figure such as Zinta. No harm trying, though. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Jbmurray! Thanks for copyediting the article! I think you have full right expressing your opinions fairly like you do. Thanks again, Shahid • Talk2me 09:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed Jbmurray, also thanks with any edits you did. Writing an article on a contemporary actor or actress is an extremely difficult to write a decent encyclopedia article on, particularly a non-english world actress. I've said it many times that being able to write a full, informative but thriving article on a current actor with a completely neutral tone and balance is really not an easy task and in all the subjects I've come across on wiki has to be one of the hardest to write. Even with film direcotrs there is more room for further angles to add to articles such as examining their techniques of filming, use of camera angles, cinematic style etc which would make it seem more "inspiring" but with actors aside from old icons such as Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee etc this isn't really possible in this case. It isn't a fault of the actual article itself its just the subject in hand which is different from many traditional style articles. I think the Zinta article has other qualities in that it covers some of her controversies which to me are very interesting, and other aspects of her life an career. Many other articles on actors wouldn't even venture much into this. I think its pretty near the most informative and best article that could be written for her. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 13:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on sources. With regard to the disagreements on the use of boxofficeindia.com, it maybe worth recalling that the unit of currency of wikipedia is not The TruthTM; instead our modus operandi is attribution. That is, Wikipedia does not itself assert facts, it reports what the sources state. In the argument that "Indian box office figures are notoriously unreliable", the word "unreliable" is not being used in the technical WP:RS sense, but is a point of view on the accuracy of the figures: as John Carter points out, without attribution, this point of view is original research. The solution, when there is uncertainty as to the accuracy of a source is to attribute the information clearly. The ultimate answer to the question "Who decides whether a source is reliable?" is simple: the reader. With this in mind, I suggest that the first couple of times that boxofficeindia.com is used to support a precise figure, a phrase such as "according to Box Office India" is added to the sentence. The reader is then alerted to the possibility that the figures might not be accurate. On the other hand, many of the citations to boxofficeindia.com are supporting relative statements such as "the third highest grossing film of the year". These less precise claims probably don't need such a caveat.
Perhaps the only person who knows the true earnings of a film is the producer's or film company's accountant: this person, despite knowing the truth more accurately than any other source, is actually not a reliable source per WP:RS :-) Similar issues apply to biographical information sourced to interviews with Zinta. As long as readers know that these "facts" come from Zinta, they are free to use their own judgement on the size of the pinch of salt with which they take the claim. Geometry guy 17:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WOW, that's an amazing analysis -- I agree with you Geometry guy!! Thank you very much for the comments. Shahid • Talk2me 17:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Geometry guy I am also highly impressed by your understanding of this. You said it exactly. According to Box Office India.... - this would report the statistics given but does not immediately assume that this is the "actual". Wikipedia is all about such fact reporting from other sources and given that Box Office India is considered the leading site for film statistics and the second largest in the world it leaves most normal editors as to conclude whether this is a pretty accurate fact or a completely wrong one. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words. I look forward to the addition of suitable "according to" phrases to the article. Geometry guy 18:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Geometry Guy, your "analysis" is fascinating but unfortunately, it is completely at odds with policy and as such, doesnt fly. The reader most certainly does not dictate what sources we should use. WP:RS and WP:SPS (in this case) do that. Unless it can be demonstrated that the site measures up to the said policies, it simply does not belong on wikipedia. Period. Adding "according to.." is no solution at all. "According to..." is used when you are quoting an expert. And we have not seen any evidence so far that BOI even remotely qualifies as an "expert". Sarvagnya 00:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't fly, period? I'd be interested to hear what is the precise definition of "expert" according to WP:NPOV. We provide the best sources we can. There's a minimum standard, but the main point is that there is no original research: we attribute, and let the reader decide. There is nothing fascinating here, it is common sense. Guidelines do not dictate what we do: the goal is improving the encyclopedia and guidelines are a (valuable) means to that end. Geometry guy 20:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well now the article only uses BOI twice. 2 references out of 110 odd isn't a major cause for concern any more. I really don't think it would affect the article if the remaining two were simply taken out. As has been said the article is extremely well referenced anyway. It doesn't have to be big issue if people act maturely in response to this ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 13:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't want to vote or make a final comment on this yet (I've read most it once now, excepting a couple of parts I skipped - I need to read it again after an interval of day or 2 or so to be more clear in my mind about any concerns I have). Any concerns I did have on my first read did not correspond to those mentioned by the only oppose on this FAC. But I'll look at it again later to be sure. Anyway, I am commenting so that my first impression is known to those who worked on it - I found the article insightful, very informative, and I was impressed by some parts of it too. Of course, my emphasis is on whether it is comprehensive and prose aspects. To produce this sort of reaction from me, particularly on a first read in WP, is not just rare, but also means that the contributors have put in a lot of work, and should be proud of their effort, particularly in these areas. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ncmvocalist, thank you very much for the comment. Looking forward to your comments. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 21:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Purely on prose, for a film article that is a biography of a living person, I'm reasonably satisfied with the entire article (except with some parts of the early career and early background sections). May make the necessary revisions soon, so that I can add my support vote too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious.. where is it mentioned that we have different prose requirements for BLP articles? Sarvagnya 00:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (moderate contributor). Satisfies the criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-written, incredibly well-sourced - but most of all well-organized and good structure, which leads to overall good flow through the article. Great work. Cirt (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the second screenshot (Image:KHNHLS.jpg) still clearly fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable by text) and WP:NFCC#8 (doesn't add to understanding). I don't see why it's necessary, to be honest - it's just a random screenshot; at least the first screenshot shows some of the look and feel of the film. Black Kite 10:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
remember I did replace it initially with the image that showed her face which I believed was more encyclopedic. I can understabd Shahid's view though that the image depicts the drama and content of the film and the New York location. Would anybody object to restoring the Image:KHNH23.jpg which in my view reveals more about her acting? Would you also think this image is inadequate Black Kite? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless a non-free image increases the reader's understanding of the text of the article then it shouldn't be used. If the image is doing that, it shouldn't be there. For example, there's no need to have an image to show that the film is set in New York, because you can merely have text saying that. If an image "shows the drama and content of the film" then it needs to reflect the text. Incidentally, I Support as the article currently stands.Black Kite 15:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't an image is there to also illustrate what the text says? The matter is, Black Kite, that this image IMO does add. For example, the fact that the film is a tearjerker is illusrated very well. The location - New York (not said, and cannot be added), Indian-American - well you would still be able to imagine her wearing a Sari, and look very traditional, but the screenshot shows the opposite and in addition to that it shows more than everything else her acting skills. She cries with her lover who is going to die.:) What do you think? Shahid • Talk2me 15:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've just described it without an image, which sort of proves my point. Why couldn't the fact that the location is New York be added, btw? Black Kite 16:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
haha:) Yeh, but I also said "well you would still be able to imagine her wearing a Sari, and look very traditional, but the screenshot shows the opposite" which cannot be written... New York is a production note, which someone back in time considered irrelevant here. Shahid • Talk2me 16:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
remember also that we are waiting for two or three free images to clear in the commons which help improve the article visually also. These will be readded asap ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 15:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh but I want the career section to be clear visually more than anything else. She is first of all an actor. I really agree with Black Kite that an image should provide an understanding of the matter. I'll later look for such images. But I believe the KHNH image is very relevant here. Apart from the fact that the film is a milestone in her career, it adds a lot to the understanding, something the text cannot replace. Shahid • Talk2me 15:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NB on the use of film stills, the SCMS has tried to argue forcefully that they are fair use. Here's more or less their position: "that the use of stills to illustrate serious works of film scholarship constitutes 'fair use' within the meaning of section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976." But this is ЭLСОВВОLД's territory much more than mine, and no doubt this argument has been discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia. I suppose that one issue might be whether Wikipedia is a "serious work of film scholarship." --16:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not so much an issue of copyright law on fair use as it is a matter of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia aims to be free content and for this reason our fair use guidelines are stricter than the law requires. This is something I fully support. However, there are many shades of opinion as to how much stricter our fair use guidelines should be. There are those who want to make this a science, whereas in my view, it is an art, requiring judgement, not wikilawyering. I am discouraged when I see editors bowing to the authority of other editor's territory. The ultimate rule is WP:IAR: if an image is legal under fair use, as almost all of the images which have been used in this article are, then the key question about whether to include an image or not is "does this improve the encyclopedia?". All editors can contribute to such a discussion. Much as I respect those who regularly contribute their advice on image copyright issues, this advice can be wrong sometimes: one such editor has misunderstood international copyright law recently, another has misunderstood guidelines on album covers. No one is a fount of all wisdom. I find the image being discussed here a particularly compelling demonstration of Zinta's range as an actress beyond the typical Bollywood cliche. But don't believe me: argue the case and reach consensus. Don't settle for "fails NFCC#8", which isn't consensus at all. Geometry guy 21:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Policies automatically have consensus - if they don't, they get changed. "Fails WP:NFCC#8" is a policy statement. If you wish to dispute it, the correct place is WT:NFCC, where there currently is a discussion about WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 (though that discussion isn't really relevant to the image above). In the past, editors that use WP:IAR as an excuse to override policy usually find themselves realising that it's not a very good idea. Yes, there are images that fall on the borderlines of fair use policy, and to be honest, in those cases I usually err on the side of keeping them, even though we probably shouldn't. But where images clearly don't coincide with the policy, then it would be wrong of me not to point that out. Oh, and incidentally, since you're referring to me, your opinion that I have misunderstood the guidelines on album covers doesn't make it a fact, it merely makes it your opinion (and one which has consistently been rejected in the past). Black Kite 22:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No they don't: nothing automatically has consensus. Policy and guidelines reflect consensus, they do not determine it. It is not possible for every wikipedian to watchlist every policy and guideline talk page. Instead we rely upon the fact that we have a common goal: improving the encyclopedia. And I am pleased to see you show some flexibility yourself in this respect. Everything is a matter of opinion: my opinion of your fallibility (we are all fallible) is based on this, this, and this. Geometry guy 23:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely that is just semantics though - I'm quite happy to refactor "policies have consensus" to "policies reflect consensus" if you wish. Regarding the album covers, this isn't the place - see your talk. Black Kite 01:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gguy, thanks for this. I didn't particularly want to debate this particular image, so much as suggest a source for discussion about such images in general and ask for feedback. (NB in saying this is ЭLСОВВОLД's territory, I mean more that he's much more familiar with the debates and has thought about them a lot; I have been willing to disagree with him in the past, and will no doubt be willing to do so in the future, too  ;) ). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Prose still needs work. Also the sources do not look the best. I note that at least one of the sources seems to be not WP:RS. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 01:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you think "one of the sources seems to be not WP:RS", you should say which one, or the nominator has no reasonable way to address your complaint. Likewise, merely saying "prose still needs work" doesn't give the nominator anything to work with. Gimmetrow 02:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This oppose is not actionable IMO. I'll ask Sandy. Shahid • Talk2me 09:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The prose has quite a few quotes. Can some of the generic quotes be removed? For instance in the media section: "I felt humiliated as it spoiled my reputation and character in public." Does this say anthing that just having "she felt..." wouldn't say? At the end of the personal life section: "Thereafter, the controversy came to an end.96" This is an abrupt statement and I can't figure out what it has to do with the source. Gimmetrow 02:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you suggest to remove "Thereafter, the controversy came to an end."? Shahid • Talk2me 11:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is flexibility (such as has been shown in the first screenshot), and then there is ignoring a policy completely. Since the New York image is back in the article, I change to Oppose again. I don't see how we can promote an article that doesn't follow a policy. I've thought about all the ways to back this image compliant, but it adds nothing to the article that couldn't be written in prose, its content isn't referenced in the text at all and so I can only assume it is decorative. Black Kite 07:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that it's OK, because it's your right. But because I respect you, I must say that it's IMO very unfair to oppose a nomination only because of one image, especially considering other FAs like Diane Keaton and Cillian Murphy, which have four and two images respectively. I believe it adds to the understanding, you don't - so it's mostly a matter of POV here. Shahid • Talk2me 09:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it adds to the understanding, you should demonstrate how and also why the same cannot be said in words. If it is there to simply show that it was in New York, then it doesnt add any value to the article at all. New York as the city where it is set is not critical to the movie at all. It could have been set in Timbuktu and it wouldnt have made a difference to the storyline or the melodrama. Sarvagnya 16:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite, as I said the film features Zinta as a young American woman. In contrast to the Kya Kehna image, you can see her here in a more modern look, which is not an obvious fact. Also the first image shows her smiling and dancing while this one - crying on the bridge of New York. There is a very new aspect in this image, which breaks from the mood in the previous one. We see her acting skilld im more dramatic scenes. What do you say? Shahid • Talk2me 16:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to do with her acting, the different roles, etc. The first photo is from a film that earned her first nomination for Best Actress at Filmfare, but the second photo was from the film where she actually won. The content is referenced in the text. Changing a vote to an oppose solely for that 1 bit is questionable, but I'm not sure if the caption has been changed between now and when you changed your vote. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't like to do it (the rest of the article is fine) but I'm just worried that if we "let this one go" it'll set a precedent for future FACs. Black Kite 19:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern. Don't you agree with my explanation above? Shahid • Talk2me 19:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the problem is that none of what you've just said is mentioned in the text (or in the image caption). Even an attempt at explaining why the image is important would give the image a chance. Black Kite 19:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused at this Black Kite. The image clearly states that it shows Zinta in a Filmfare award winning role and the text discusses it is a tearjerker. The image demonstrates this and shows her in the role accordingly in a dramatic and key scene and helps to understand the atmosphere of what that film was like. I really can't see what it is further you are looking for. It meets exactly the same criteria as the first image does. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 19:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. I don't think the oppose is valid as of now, unless/until any further issues are specified. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be absolutely on the nail as regards to policy, then the first image probably struggles to pass NFCC as well. However, there is at least some discussion of her appearance in the film in the text. I see that you feel the oppose is invalid; however, in that case, you need to change a policy, namely WP:NFCC. The talk page for proposing changes to policy can be found at WT:NFCC. There are already too many Featured Articles that drive a coach and horses through our non-free image policy, and I am really loath to see another one do it. But since you ask for specifics (as if I mentioned this enough times above) then how does that image help you understand the atmosphere of the film? What would be lost if it was removed? (WP:NFCC#8). The fact that the film is a tearjerker and the image shows that is fine, but what is there that couldn't be mentioned in prose? (WP:NFCC#1) It's two people hugging each other in New York; that's all it is; unless it's actually referenced in the text with why the image is important, it's really not needed. This is a really well-written article, it's clearly a good candidate for FA, but I'm really at a loss to see why such a well-written article needs that particular image, except for decoration, and no-one's answered that yet. Black Kite 22:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reasoning. The image could be seen as just showing that the movie is about an unhappy romance set in NYC, which could be said in the text, making it effectively redundant. Would I be justified in thinking that, for instance, an images of Fred Astaire in Royal Wedding, with significant textual descriptions of the importance of the images and their importance, would be more in line of what you're thinking would be called for by policy? John Carter (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a good example of "adding to understanding", where an image can make clear what a large block of text probably couldn't (or would certainly be unwieldy). The relevant policy statement is WP:NFCC#8 (there's currently a discussion on the second clause, but it's the first one that's important anyway). Black Kite 22:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your oppose makes more sense now, but, criterion 8 of NFCC is written in such a way that indicates there is no need for any NFCC images in the article because of the other 2 images. So if enforcing the very poorly thought-out and expressed criterion 8, they'd both have to go. I, like several editors, would've supported getting rid of the second line of the criterion, but what I don't understand is why 1 extra image is causing this much of a headache for you - it's not going to make the same difference in the same way if prose and comprehensiveness is altered. I'd totally agree with you and also oppose if it was several images, but when it's 2 (and clearly different as a role, scene, happy vs sad, apparent age, etc. etc.) I really at am a loss why you're so keen to enforce it against 1 measly image. Again, if it was several images, then it would be a different story. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could argue that I don't see why it's so important to include it, of course. The reason is; it's very difficult for non-free image editors to try and explain to people what is and isn't acceptable when they can turn round and say "But that article does it, and it's a featured article! It must be OK!" You only have to look at Today's Featured Article to see yet another FA that violates WP:NFCC, but I'm sure you can guess what would happen if I tried to delete the offending images now... which is why I'm trying to do it at FAC stage. Black Kite 06:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, as one of the editors insisting prose and comprehensiveness particularly need to be at a high standard prior to FAs passing (so that standards don't drop), I can understand what you're saying. But enforcing FA criterion 3 is quite a lot easier than copy-editing every FA that is/was below par (just getting copyeditors for FACs is difficult enough). Images either meet or don't meet NFCC, and those that don't can form an actionable oppose if you bring it to FAR, and editors are compelled to remove them accordingly (and they most probably can be deleted by you after). As it's one of those criteria that can be more easily and efficiently enforced on older FAs, I'm encouraging you to take this concern further, even if it's today's featured article, rather than confining it to some new FACs. There will be less eyebrows raised this way, too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you examine the text discussion in the article the text which accompanies the second image is actually a lot more detailed than the first. In terms of article discussion and then illustration in my experience the second image has more validity than the first image particularly as it illustrates the drama and atmopshere of the film and the role which won her her first Filmfare. The first image is useful but it actually doesn't do as much to support the text in the article which describes her role as a pregnant teenager dealing with the hardships of society, not exactly depicted in the image. Sure you can dismiss the second as two people hugging each other in New York big deal, but anybody who knows the film, Zinta's career and Hindi cinema would agree that it is a symbolic one. I understand you are concerned that one article with images which passes can be used as a weapon to justify non free images in other FA articles in the future but please think about THIS article and its content only. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I must say if this image was in better conditions I would add it, or this one in which you can see her playing a 50-year-old woman (from Veer Zaara), I would. Black Kite, please tell me, what should I do now to make this image relevant? Shahid • Talk2me 13:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, you are dead on when you say -- "..they can turn round and say "But that article does it, and it's a featured article! It must be OK!". It was months ago that I'd myself raised the same NFCC issues you've raised now. And believe me, the argument used then to try and shut me up was to point me to Angelina Jolie and Cillian Murphy .. - "Look! they use it.. AJ is FA.. they use it.. so can we!". For the record, I also hereby include NFCC vio as one of the reasons for my oppose in addition to the other issues I've already mentioned. Sarvagnya 16:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and from what I recall I clearly stated that either we permit fair use images or we don't. All I want is consistency in articles and I wouldn't expect a decent encyclopedia to retract from this. Either we permit them all across wikipedia or we don't. However the agreement on whether to use fair use images or whether limited screenshots are acceptable in that they cannot be replaced by free content in discussing film material was split entirely down the middle. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 17:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Sarvagnya, the reason for which you always opposed to have FU images was completely different from Black Kite's one, and you had never cited the policies he has. Also, the point that other FAs use it is very relevant, because they editors should also work to remove them first if they think its incorrect usage. Shahid • Talk2me 16:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite, please tell me, what should I do now to make this image relevant? Shahid • Talk2me 16:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either: reference it in the text, in a way that explains why the image is relevant and improves the reader's knowledge; or remove it. Unfortunately, there's no middle ground. Black Kite 18:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to abstain as I won't have enough time for this. But, when I am back, and if this is still here, then I will make my vote. Good luck guys! Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ncmvocalist. Shahid • Talk2me 07:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It is comprehensive and well-written. Axl (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • With reference to the reliability of the sources on box office numbers, please see my rather comprehensive investigation at the RS noticeboard, summarised in this diff. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (since I'm going on Wikibreak and cannot participate any longer. I still do believe this article goes into unnecessary details, that hasn't changed.): The article goes into a lot of trivial details in the Other work and In the media sections, which can be drastically cut down.
  • Column writing: We've already determined that she's not a columnist and that celebrities writing columns ain't a big deal, so we do we need a discussion of each one of her columns? Cut down to about 2-3 sentences please (I would suggest removing from the lead too).
  • Stage performances: Anil Kapoor, Aamir Khan, Aishwarya Rai and Gracy Singh.; Amitabh Bachchan, Aamir Khan, Shahrukh Khan and Aishwarya Rai;(Shahrukh Khan, Rani Mukerji, Saif Ali Khan, Arjun Rampal, and Priyanka Chopra); Akshay Kumar, Saif Ali Khan, Sushmita Sen and Celina Jaitley. - Ok I get it, she performed with a number of top stars. But do we need any of these names? Just make the first sentence "Zinta has taken part in several stage shows and world tours since 2001 along with many Bollywood co-stars." and all the meeaning you want to convey is done, without the pointless lists of names.
  • "Zinta attended a blood donation camp..." How is that even remotely notable? And that quote too ... reads more like a magazine article than an encyclopedia.
  • Does the Suchitra Krishnamurthy accusation really need such detailed coverage? Rather than just a mention?
  • "Zinta made three appearances on the Indian talk show Koffee with Karan" - everybody has made appearances on KWK. I don't know of a single Bollywood star who hasn't been on that show!
These are just examples, there is still much further scope for cutting down to bring down her non-film work to appropriate sizes. I'd even recommend merging the three section into one concise one that discusses her public image and personal life (which seem really intertwined by the way). This would also cut down many of the repetitions such as the the Bharat Shah case being mentioned again. indopug (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you in that those topics you mentioned are trivial to her life. Thats just your opinion. I'm not sure all those names have to be mentioned in the stage performances section but the article doesn't cover anything which is really that trivial like "Ooh Zinta is a size 5 shoe and her favorite food is custard cream pie" She loves horses". It highlights the most important events and committments she has in her life. Visiting a blood donar camp in other work is of note I believe. I am always keen to avoid repetition and perhaps some of the other work sections could be merged but its not a major flaw is it. Also many are likely to never heard of Koffee with Karan on here, and three times is worthy of mentioning in her tv appearances. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Indopug - Sorry but I do not find any of your concerns valid.
  • We have discussed only one thing re her columns, and concluded only one thing - she is not a columnist. It does not mean that we have to cut down the entire section - especially when it has such a huge coverage on the net and she was recognised for her work.
  • If we describe a stage show, isn't it important to mention with whom she performed? It's exactly what comprehensiveness means.
  • Blood donation is trivial? It's part of her humanitarian work. She supported the cause and encouraged other people to donate blood. So why is that trivial?
  • KWK - Well not everybody takes part on the show -- Salman Khan, Aamir Khan have not. And this is not related whatsoever. The info is relevant for her regardless of what others have to do.
  • Also good to note that you have not cited any policy or guideline which can support your points. Shahid • Talk2me 12:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, but I want to know what others' think, if you don't mind. I'm going to cite WP:WIAFA #4 "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." Shahid, I do find your definiton of "compehensive" funny; why don't you list every co-cast member (not just major ones) whenever you discuss any of her movies? That adheres to your definiton of "comprehensive" doesn't it :D. What I mean is that so many actors have come on that show, for example: you wouldn't cite the number of times Brad Pitt has been on Oprah/Jay Leno/Larry King will you? indopug (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please give me a quote that either says or implies mentioning cocast members is bad/unacceptable/discouraged. But I think it is very important to note who she is working with, because it's part of the idea. Saying "She did that and that there and there in that and that and that year" is not a good prose either.
The matter is not that; the matter is that your oppose is based on your POV. If we describe her actions, we do not go into unnecessary detail. Unnecessary detail is if we say: "she has played the lead in a film directed by Yash Chopra, one of the greatest filmmakers in India who has been in the industry for almost 50 years" - that's unnecessary detail.
I can somehow agree with KWK, because I find it as a valid point. But that's not the matter. The matter is the general comment I cannot understand. If you think that her supporting blood donation is unnecessary detail, so I don't know what necessary detail is. Shahid • Talk2me 14:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood my sarcasm (regarding the cast-members) but lets ignore that. While I agree maybe mentioning a few co-stars of her movies is useful sometimes, I don't think mentioning who she went on tour with has any point. Ask yourself this: what exactly is the reader supposed to gain by knowing the names of the people she did a tour with? Don't you think that listing out "Anil Kapoor, Aamir Khan, Aishwarya Rai and Gracy Singh" makes the article move away from the concentrating on its subject (Priety Zinta) and rather focus on auxillary details regarding on one of her tours? As an analogy, we do not name of the assistant director and make-up artist of every movie she acted in do we (in the prose of this article)? Why, because its just detail; and adds nothing to the reader's understanding of Priety Zinta but rather just makes the prose long-winded. Not naming the asst. director here does not imply non-comprehensiveness, does it? Same goes for her touring co-stars. I'll defend the rest of my points later. indopug (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Defend? I don't know what "defending" has to do with this FAC. Our goal is to see another FA (although it's clear this FAC won't pass). Just like we mention her co-stars in films because it's part of the film detail which is important, we mention her co-"performers". It's very simple. We give detail about her world tours, and it includes giving the costars. I can't see what the problem is, and can't see how an asst. is related at all.
Furthermore, I'd like to tell you something regarding columns. You say, "We've already determined that she's not a columnist and that celebrities writing columns ain't a big deal" - it's not precise. We've determined that she cannot be called columnist, but we have not determined "that celebrities writing columns ain't a big deal". It actually is a big deal, considering that we're talking about BBC, and her joining a lineup of South Asia's most renowned commentators. The fact that an Indian young female actor was appointed for that is important, regardless of her being a popular or famous one. And don't forget that, above-all, we are talking about popular columns.
Also, merging all the subsections would be a real mess, considering she has supported humanitarian causes, has written columns, has performed on stage and has gone into business as well. Shahid • Talk2me 17:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By "defend" I mean that once you've dismissed all my points as invalid, and I would like to prove that they are indeed not invalid. I believe that by following my points we will reach the goal of another FA; since you disagree, I must put forth a defence of my points. Coming back to the article you've said "We give detail about her world tours"; that's precisely what I don't want you to give, because this article is about her not her world tours. While a brief critical discussion of her movies is very important in this article (mentioning the premise of the movie, her role and her co-stars), a critical discussion of each of her world tours is not being done. So do the names need mention? No. As an exercise delete the lists of names from the Stage performances sub-section and then read it (in the preview); you will find that the your understanding of the Priety Zinta article will not have reduced even a little. And that those lists of names really never added value to the section. Also do you think it is interesting in any way to read "Anil Kapoor, Aamir Khan, Aishwarya Rai and Gracy Singh." and then soon after "Amitabh Bachchan, Aamir Khan, Shahrukh Khan and Aishwarya Rai"? Of course not his eyes will automatically skip over the items and ocntinue reading. I would like this concern of mine addressed first, either by acting upon my suggestion or giving a good reason better than "It's very simple". I have given about 3-4 solid reasons in favour of removing the names while you've none supporting its inclusion. (Even Blofield is iffy on the inclusion of the names, if you've noticed) indopug (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You misinterpret something here; we are not warring so what Blofeld or this or this editor thinks. We are trying to make this article better. World tours and stage shows are by all means a part of her career as an actor, a performer. As you said, the article "is about her not her world tours"; you can say it "is about her not her films". Do you thing that in doing so you would invalidate the mention of costars as well? I think it's wrong. Her world tours are as important. She is an actor in the first place yeh, but she is also a regular stage performer and has now signed another stage show with the Bachchans. I think it's important detail who she is working with. I don't really know what policy/guideline/whatever you can use to validate your point. I'm sure that it's a matter of common sense, and anything else. And though I respect you and find your previous comments very valid here I tend to differ from you. Shahid • Talk2me 19:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Prose comments from the lead only:
  • "She has appeared in the Hindi films of Bollywood," Why the Hindi films? Why not just "appeared in Bollywood Hindi films?
Removed the. "Hindi films" is needed because that's not the end of the sentence and other languages are mentioned. Shahid • Talk2me 13:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She would subsequently take on a variety of character types, and in doing so has been credited" Tension between tenses (conditional and perfect).
Is that critical? What do you suggest? Shahid • Talk2me 13:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not critical, but it's just a bit wordy and awkward. You could try separating it into two sentences, so that the tension disappears. You could try shortening the idea ("Her subsequent portrayals of diverse female characters has been credited with..."). BuddingJournalist 13:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Separating it into two would make it too much, because the less sentences we have describing something, the better. The second strikes me as a bit odd. Shahid • Talk2me 14:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't agree with your first point; it all depends on the situation. Although in this particular case, shortening and eliminating redundancies is the better route, in my opinion. What is "odd" about that? BuddingJournalist 14:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit ambiguous, and the "Her portrayals have been credited..." is not correct, because we are talking about her. What do you think about changing it to "she subsequently took on a variety..."? Shahid • Talk2me 14:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That takes care of the tension. "took on a variety of character types, and in doing so" is still a bit wordy in my opinion. BuddingJournalist 14:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find it wordy. The fact is that there must be two parts in the sentence, which also somehow connects itself with the previous one. She subsequently - makes the tie with the previous sentence. And then there are two parts - "She did something" --> "result" - it's too short to be separated or shortened. Shahid • Talk2me 15:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "publicly speaking her mind and openly expressing her opinions" I don't see the difference between these two.
I don't see a diffrence between speaking one's mind, and expressing one's opinions. Shahid • Talk2me 13:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference? To me, "speaking one's mind" is just a phrase meaning expressing one's opinions. BuddingJournalist 13:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to consult someone. Hope you don't mind. Shahid • Talk2me 14:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BuddingJournalist 13:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Shahid • Talk2me 13:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I find frustrating about this nomination is that despite several peer reviews nobody addressed the "problems" it had at the time. It was precisely the reason that was conducted to avoid such problems when it came to be reproposed. Why was Giro or whoever not asked to identify its flaws at the time? This is an FA nomination yet it AGAIN has turned out like a peer review and a request for criticism page. Shahid has worked magnificently at trying to attend to the whims of all here, yet people keep throwing problems in his face and each time he tries to address something somebody else comes up with 6 more "problems". People have turned seemingly trivial "issues" it has way out of proportion into an argument as to why it doesn't quality for an FA. If you look at the main picture it is an overall very good article and covers everything that should be covered about her in a well written and informative way. Still nobody has come up with a strong single reason as to why it shouldn't be an FA. Anything anybody has identified is either based on their own individual views or a single sentence or word or quote or image which automatically is a reason to fail it?? I find it astounding that articles like Emma Watson never had this degree of fuss and this article in my view is more informative and of a higher standard than that. The fact is this article has twice the number of references and details (being on an Indian actress too) when the availability of information on Emma Watson must be huge. This article is in no way inferior to this in the way it is written either, yet one has been passed as an FA but this one still waits and waits and wait and waits..... The question is will everybody ever be happy with it? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 15:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two points - 1) FACs should not be brought to nomination if strong issues preclude them from being featured - the whole idea of the process is to polish off articles which are practically there, and therefore viable candidates usually should only have smaller, more nitpicky issues. 2) Unlike GAN, FAC is not a rubber-stamp-type process - it is intended to be rigorous and nominators are expected to want to hear a thorough critique for the purposes of making their article stronger, tighter, and more exemplary, and thus the most effective FAC nominators tend to aggressively attend to the vast majority of comments, concerns, and objections as swiftly as possible. Comparing one nomination to another is somewhat fruitless, because the circumstances are always completely different with regards to the pre-nom state of the article, the quality of the available sources, who comments on the nomination, etc. No two are ever much alike. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, it ensures that the article is at a high standard - this is good for both the encyclopedia (including the WikiProjects the article falls under) and for those involved, even if it does take some time to get there. Addressing valid concerns (including Girolamo's), and gaining approval of the wide community ensures that the nom is going in the right direction - which it is. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No your're misundertanding what I'm saying. Of course you expect to see light criticism at an FA and the writers of the article working hard to attend to it, believe me I think FAC's including this one should be discussed between far more people than this. Whether the concerns are valid or not all I am saying is that there has been more to deal with than I anticipated. That isn't to say that anybody who opposes is wrong to do so, I apprecaite as much input as possible and want the article to be as sound as anyone, what I am saying is that I wish more of these points had been brought up earlier given that it has gone through much discussion and peer review to get here. Now it seems much progress has made thanks to the hard work of everyone involved. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 09:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this won't be the best FA (prose could still use some work, sources aren't the best but that is largely the nature of the subject being covered) but it surely won't be the worst. I think it is comprehensive (maybe could use a little more about her roles in some of the films) and I disagree about some of the calls to cut down on certain sections. I think FA's need to be good and meet criteria--not be perfect--and I hope this improves even as an FA. gren グレン 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Over-reliance on quote mining.Bakaman 21:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Girolamo Savonarola (consolidated by user)

Oppose - several issues, mainly with referencing:

  • The second reference appears superfluous to the third one, and is probably too weak on its own to support the claim.
It's not that weak. It says that has played diverse roles. Also, the more references we have, the better. Shahid • Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do most actors not play in a variety of roles? I don't think that alone is notable enough to require a ref. Quantity of references is not important - quality of references are. See Ramón Emeterio Betances, which I picked at random from the FAs - it only relies on two primary references for the most part. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it supports the fact that she played diverse roles and the third ref backs up the second part of the sentence only, although it's better sourced in the career section. Shahid • Talk2me 20:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ask because I am not familiar with Bollywood - is it common for actors not to play a variety of roles? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead: "India's top-grossing film in the overseas market that year" - delete; this information is superfluous to the lead and is not as directly relevant as the award.
Right. Removed. Shahid • Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did she actually graduate with a degree in criminal psychology? The source is unclear - she says "Yes, I actually did English honors and then I did an advanced program in criminal psychology." It's unclear to me if she graduated with an English degree with honors and also did a criminal psychology program as something like a minor, or if they were dual degrees, or what have you. The language is too ambiguous to indicate whether or not English was discarded or not, or whether the "advanced program" was perhaps a graduate-level study.
Well, almost every source in the article describes her as a "criminal psychology" graduate. Shahid • Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough, although it would be nice to hear it from the horse's mouth. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the video link you provided, she clearly says that she "graduated with English honors and then I went ahead and did criminal psychology", so it's clear that she got an English degree; whether or not the criminal psychology was simply a minor, a program, a degree, a graduate program, or something else remains unclear. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm sure The English Honours is the minor here. She doesn't say she earned a degree. It is not necessarily her graduation from university. I must say she was not that clear about that in the video interview. Criminal psychology is the degree here, and she is mostly known for her criminal psychology degree. As I said, every possible source describes her as a "criminal psychology graduate".[33][34][35][36]. Oh and this one makes some things clear... What do you say? Shahid • Talk2me 17:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misreading - the ToI article makes it clear that criminal psychology was a master's degree. Which would make the English Honors her undergrad degree, just as she said herself in the video. It's also unclear if she graduated from the masters program, as per the video interview. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She was not clear about that in the video, and I provided not only ToI, but Tribune, Rediff and Sify as well. She has always been described, everywhere as a criminal psy. graduate. Psychology was a postgraduate degree. What do you suggest to do now? Shahid • Talk2me 03:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We go on the quality of the source, not the quantity - her interview trumps massively repeated incorrect information. From looking at some of her other interviews, she usually glosses over it, which leads the ambiguity which would allow something like this to occur. However, in the video interview, her exact words are "I graduated with English Honors and then I went ahead to do criminal psychology". The graduated with English Honors is completely umambiguous. As for the criminal psychology part, it is mentioned in several interviews as a "program", not a degree, and the ToI reference I mentioned specifically calls it a Masters program. If you have some evidence on the part of the press that Zinta was fabricating any of this, then her own testimony can be dismissed, but otherwise the video interview source has priority. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of all the sources is fine, and the quantity only supports the matter. The video interview and the sources do not contradict each other. As she said and as the quote states, she went on to do criminal psychology. She did English honours, nobody claims otherwise. Didn't she say she had done criminal psychology after all? As mentioned in the sources, criminal psychology was a postgraduate degree, which only makes her words in the video clearer. She has always said she had graduated with criminal psychology in her interviews. See for example her CNN interview:
The interviewer asks: "Now you went to school and graduated with criminal psychology, correct?"
And Zinta answers: "Yes, I actually did English honors and then I did an advanced program in criminal psychology."
It means that she was graduated with criminal psy. which was, as supported by the sources, a postgraduate degree. I also remember her interview on Simi Garewal's show, where she describes her psychology studies and what particularly she liked about it. Unfortunately I can't find this video on the net - it's been removed from youtube.com. Shahid • Talk2me 15:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read that again - I actually did English honors and then I did an advanced program in... - English is the Bachelor's degree; crim psy is the Master's. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe! That's exactly what I'm saying - it was a postgraduate degree. So what's the problem now? Shahid • Talk2me 12:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article text doesn't support what we (or she) are saying - "initially majored" implies that she switched majors, which she didn't. She went onto a graduate degree in crim psy after gaining an undergrad in English honors. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did she graduate from these programs?
1998. She got the offer of Kapur while doing her last exams at uni. Shahid • Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, can you source it? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I don't mention it. Shahid • Talk2me 20:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is generally considered a notable detail which should be included in a biography. Can you add it (with appropriate sourcing, of course)? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a source for that. Shahid • Talk2me 17:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very valuable if you could keep digging... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No source could be found for her graduating years. Since the year(s) are not mentioned the article, IMO, Giro can reevaluate the requirement of the inclusion of these years.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there no chance that the institutions she attended would have publicized the fact? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • IBOS is a questionable source, and its own disclaimers indicates that its stats are derived from better sources anyway. (keeping this on my stet docket...)
  • Birth details don't appear to be sourced.
Now they are. Shahid • Talk2me 20:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information on brothers is not in its reference.
Has this been addressed? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMO resolved Yes, this has now been addressed. A reference from an article in Washington Post has been added, saying her brothers' occupation. Unfortunately, the article is not available free. Registration/purchase is required (and that has been mentioned in the reference). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info on the Perk commercial is unsourced - neither the commercial nor the year can be sourced to the refs provided.
It is sourced; please see the Rediff source. The year is from an interview I'd seen. I did not find a net ref for that. If you want, I'll remove the year. Shahid • Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your attestation that you saw it would not be a reliable source, so no, I'd need the reference for the year. The info is still unsourced as far as I can tell - there's nothing in the ref discussing a birthday party where she met a director or anything to that effect. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find a ref that's why I said that I would remove the year if you want. The birthday party comes from the CNN interview. That is a kind of info I would never add without a net source. Shahid • Talk2me 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where? I don't get any results in the article when searching for "party" "birthday" or "1996". Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My bad - it's ToI. Added. Shahid • Talk2me 20:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First paragraph of "Early career" is almost entirely unsourced; ref does not provide the information.
It is, the CNN interview covers it. The only thing not mentioned is the name of the film, which is in the Rediff interview. Shahid • Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where? I don't see anything at all mentioning Kapur or the film. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you'll have to look with some more observation. She describes her first meeting with Kapur. Shahid • Talk2me 20:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll elaborate, the part where the interviewer asked her how she had become an actress. Shahid • Talk2me 20:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And there's another one. Shahid • Talk2me 13:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soldier's delay is unsourced and appears to contradict Ref 15.
Well I actually heard that in an interview. Both KK and Soldier had been delayed. Soldier's delay was very short though. Shahid • Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that will need a source, not your assertion that you saw it in an interview. The reference seems to imply that Soldier was not in the running to be her first film. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a source. Shahid • Talk2me 13:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 16 (Jyoti Mahajan) is too weak and spurious - better sources exist to prove commercial success.
What sources? Shahid • Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that's the best source you have to show that the film was a commercial success, then I'd say it's unacceptable for that use. Surely you can find something more germane rather than a passing reference with no box office figures whatsoever? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added, now you have two back to back refs. Shahid • Talk2me 20:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I accept the second one; the Mahajan one is better dropped. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Shahid • Talk2me 17:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarity to Silence of the Lambs may be construed as OR without sources.
OK, will add sources later. Shahid • Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Have added a source in the film article. Shahid • Talk2me 07:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done? Well the source in the Sangharsh article (if that is what you meant) states the exact opposite of what you claim in the article. In that interview, the interviewer suggests that the movie is "lifted" from Silence of the lambs and the interviewee disagrees saying that resemblances, if any, are just superficial! How does that translate to "The film, based on The Silence of the Lambs (1991),.." ? Sarvagnya 01:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no interest to write that. It was what I've read several times. First of all, there is a difference between "remade" and "based". And here are the refs.[37][38] Shahid • Talk2me 04:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see anything in the only provided source which even mentions Silence of the Lambs. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a source in the film article. If it does not suffice, tell me and I'll add one of the above links. Shahid • Talk2me 17:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it needs to be in this article, too. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this very minor detail has to be sourced in the article, not here. The article is the source. Unless there is some exceptional claim. Shahid • Talk2me 04:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, all claims in this article need to be sourced in this article. This is currently an unreferenced assertion, and without any appropriate sourcing, is an OR/POV issue. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources", but all claims require sources. As per WP:BURDEN, I am challenging you to either add an RS ref or remove it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can say the same about Jolie, and ask for sources to prove that her film Gia was indeed based on the life famous model Gia. It is a detail that has to be sourced in the film article. The fact that Zinta's role in Lakshya was modelled after journalist Barkha Dutt does need referencing here, but a film being based on another film is mentioned and referenced in the film article itself. It's a film detail which has even nothing to do with Zinta herself, and I don't find it exceptional at all, as long as the film article has that sourced. I can't see what the problem is, after all you have seen the source. I don't make up stories. Shahid • Talk2me 15:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am challenging the information as OR - the burden is on you to show otherwise. This is a critical issue, and I absolutely will not drop my oppose without this being dealt with. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I disagree with that. If it was the standard, every possible film detail would require a source. I agree, the burden of proof is on me. You challenged the info, and I provided reliable sources on the film article (where it actually belongs). And if you're still challenging the info, I can easily prove that by referring you to the film article. Shahid • Talk2me 12:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved I've provided a Times of India reference that tells Sangharsh was based on Silence of the Lambs.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem really is "based on", which implies that the rights were bought and that the filmmakers publicly recognized it as an adaptation. It needs to be rewritten to reflect that it is unauthorized, then - it neither had the rights, nor has it formally acknowledged the basis, and the original ref Shahid brought up actually shows the director to be denying the matter. Perhaps "with a plot considered to be lifted from" would be a better phrase. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That only takes us up to "Breakthrough", but in the interests of keeping both reviewer and editors from being overwhelmed, I'll continue when these concerns have been addressed. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Shahid • Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to start looking at the following sections, but if my remaining concerns can be taken care of in the meantime, it would be greatly appreciated. Keep up the good work. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Oppose comments:

  • First ref in Breakthrough section does not actually backup claims of unexpected success.
Done It does. The source says that it was a surprise hit. Many other sources support the claim. If you want I can provide. Shahid • Talk2me 12:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My fault - didn't catch it on the first go-around. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK :) Shahid • Talk2me 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All Filmfare Awards noms and wins need sourcing.
DoneIt is sourced in the article of her awards. Shahid • Talk2me 04:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, assertions made in this article require sourcing in this article. (To be perfectly clear, all information across all articles require the appropriate sources within the articles - redundancy is to be expected therefore.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well but that's why the awards article exists. We cannot source any such thing - it's too much. If there wasn't a daughter article, I would source it, but the awards article is actually a part of this very article. And good to note that the award categories themselves do have Wiki articles. You certainly wouldn't ask to source that Meryl Streep won an Oscar for Sophie's Choice. Shahid • Talk2me 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All article information needs to be referenced within this article. There aren't exceptions which state that it's fine to omit references where the information is duplicated on other articles. Are you implying that you can't find references for this? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Not only can I find sources, I also have prepared footnotes with reliable sources on the awards page. As I said, the award page is just a daughter page, and is by all means a part of this very article. The article links to it as "further information". I really can't see what the problem is. Shahid • Talk2me 12:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done IMO Resolved In the "Filmography" section, all Filmfare nominations and wards have now been sourced. These, however, have not always been sourced in the text. Reasons: one, they are sourced in the Filmography section; two, for the sake of easy readability of the text (which already has large number of inline citations). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've removed the sources as of now. The awards article is part of this article. It is linked only in this article. I can't see how it matters. I'll see what Sandy has to say. Shahid • Talk2me 11:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
explanation No, List of Preity Zinta's awards and nominations is not considered a part of Preity Zinta article. That's an independent article which the reader may or may not chose to read while/after reading Preity Zinta. That article may be considered as a "daughter" article or "supporting" article. Having a daughter article is not a must for an FA, neither it precludes the main article have references.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Dwaipayanc. If they remain sourced in the filmography, then that is fine. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote in the last sentence of the first Breakthrough paragraph should be dropped - it comes across as peacock, and doesn't even apply solely to Zinta. India Today can also be dropped from the sentence - the ref identifies the source. Something simpler like - "she became identified as a part of a new generation of..." would be much more to the point.
Done It was added during this FAC as to address another comment. I have removed the quote, but India Today gives some credibility. What do you think? Shahid • Talk2me 12:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough.
  • Mission Kashmir plot needs to be tighter. Instead of "through the eyes of Aaltaf", something like "through the eyes of a _____", with the blank identifying what Aaltaf is that makes his POV so different. (e.g., a local farmer or a politician). Furthermore, the Hindu review is a poor choice for "generally well-received", with tepidly faint praise at best.
I don't know how to describe him in one phrase. As for the review, I thought that generally well received xonstituted exactly a faint review. I like the review because it's simple. Maybe removing the "generally well-received" would help? Shahid • Talk2me 04:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Generally well-received" doesn't seem faint - "decently received" does. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Decently received" -- mmm do you want me to write that? Maybe its better to remove the description and leave the quote only? Shahid • Talk2me 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One or the other, I suppose. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is better according to you? Shahid • Talk2me 12:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done IMO resolved "generally well received" removed. Only retained the quotation from the review in The Hindu.
The film narrates the story of altaf and others. It does not have Altaf as the story-teller/narrator. So, the film is not built from the viewpoint of Altaf (or anybody else). So, removed the phrase "through the eyes of...".--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which brings up a far larger point - has Zinta (or her films) received any bad reviews? If so, why are they not represented? To argue that there are none, frankly, stretches credulity and gives a strong impression of cherry-picking.
First of all, during this time and even later in the 2000s Zinta received mostly positive reviews. The reviews you see on the article are representative and they represent the majority view of critics. We can do nothing if this is a fact. The only really "bad" reviews she received were for Lakshya (she was not criticised, but mostly described as "just adequate"), Jaanemann (where she was criticised for playing a small role) and Jhoom Barabar Jhoom. We have already discussed that with another editor back in time. But the conclusion was clear because we cannot fight critics, and after all maybe that's the reason behind her popularity? Shahid • Talk2me 04:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does help to address criticism concerns to occasionally pepper in the odd contrarian review, simply to show that there were other minority views. Also, mentioning those bad reviews of the three films above, even if Zinta avoided the criticism, would help - I only see the last one mentioned as having bad reviews within the article. It is important to show that she has acted in films that have fared poorly as well, and as would be expected from any prolific actor. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I don't ommit any such details, everything is presented. In the Lakshya quote you can see the critic saying "she was good without being spectacular. This was actually the general reception, although there were many positive reviews for this film, but I thought this one represented the majority view. In the Jaanemann case, all critics agreed that she acted well, only some criticised her for taking such a small characters. One critic said that she was an "ornament thorughout", and that's mentioned. Shahid • Talk2me 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "(see below)" link fails MOS - it would be better to simply link the words "the trial of Bharat Shah" to the section.
Done I linked "the trial". Is that OK? Shahid • Talk2me 12:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you made the entire phrase "the trial of Bharat Shah" into the link, it might be clearer - linking "the trial" gives the impression that perhaps the word trial is linked. Shah can still be linked when the trial is discussed below. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Done Shahid • Talk2me 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "taboo issue of surrogate..." - neither link shows any evidence of something as strong as taboo. Controversial would be more appropriate, given the references.
Done Shahid • Talk2me 12:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MSN India reference, I say again, is a poor choice when plenty of stronger ones exist. These are exceptional claims, and therefore require exceptionally stronger sources.
Do you think it can be removed without replacement? Shahid • Talk2me 12:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Shahid • Talk2me 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence in the second-to-last paragraph of Breakthrough seems to imply that all of the honors and recognition was a direct result of CCCC. Is that really the case, or are you trying to say that all of the recognition began to come in starting after her work in that film. The meanings are completely different. Furthermore, the sentence (or at least the sources) probably are better placed in the lead, to support similar claims made there.
As mentioned in the article, she was recognised not only for CCCC, but for her range of roles (which are quite different from typical roles), including the previous Sangharsh, Kya Kehna. The recognition was not a direct result of CCCC. It was the time when people started considering her as an actress of substance who plays diverse roles. What do you think? Shahid • Talk2me 12:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it needs some copy-editing to make it clearer, then, that this was not all the result of one film. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you have an idea to rewrite "after the release of this film"? Shahid • Talk2me 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might be easier just to rewrite that sentence from scratch. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well the sentence itself is IMO fine - the first clause is misleading here. Shahid • Talk2me 12:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully resolved. Rewrote the sentence as follows, "Following the portrayal of a wide range of characters in Kya Kehna, Sangharsh and Chori Chori Chupke Chupke, Zinta was recognised for her versatility as an actress, and credited with establishing a new image for leading actresses in Bollywood". This sentence clarifies that the recognition of the versatility and he credit is not the consequence of the film Chori Chori Chupke Chupke alone, but her portrayal of a wide range of characters in several gilms. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's Breakthrough. If these comments, as well as the remaining previous ones, can be addressed first, I'd be happy to continue. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part 3 -

  • I see that there's been some reversion regarding adding her cricket team ownership to the lead. I would have to agree that owning a major sports team is notable enough for inclusion, especially as she apparently is the only female owner in the league, and certainly far more notable than having had four newspaper columns published by virtue of her fame. The ownership certainly has occupied a more substantial portion of her life and responsibilities, for one.
  • What exactly is meant by "a patriotic drama"? Patriotic by whose standards?
  • The Hero reference is insufficient to back up the claims made by it - it is essentially a promotional press release, and the bombastic and exceptional claims should presumably have better sourcing than a BBC Shropshire preview blurb if they are true.
  • Why isn't Armaan's unexpected box office failure (as discussed in the Tribune ref) noted, when several other films' are? I can see it did well critically, but the article seems to imply that no one anticipated anything but success for it.
  • "(according to boxofficeindia.com)" needs to be deleted; the reference already exists in the article.
  • The "Success" section is rather long; it may be prudent to split it into two or three shorter sections. (At the moment it takes up two whole screen-heights on my monitor.)
  • "received a significant reception worldwide" - what is a significant reception? Something like "had a strong international release, including a screening at the Berlin Film Festival" might be more appropriate.
  • The reference to Yash Raj as one of the largest production houses doesn't seem to directly cite that fact. While I don't doubt that it's true, I'm also sure that there are numerous exceptionally better sources to show this.
  • "The film was another Yash Raj big-budget film" - this needs some polishing with a copy edit.
  • Salaam Namaste claims to have garnered her with several nominations. Can this be sourced within the article? I can see the ref for the Filmfare nom in the filmography, but that's only one award nom.
  • Why is the rest of the NYT's fairly negative review of Salaam Namaste overlooked?
  • The "As of April 2008" paragraph needs references.
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 15:26, 26 May 2008 [39].

Louis Lambert (novel) edit

I'm self-nominating this article because I have spent many long weeks toiling over it, poring over many books by and about Honoré de Balzac. Many thanks to Outriggr and Awadewit, who provided helpful (and kind) feedback at the peer review. Thanks in advance for having a look. – Scartol • Tok 01:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support—participated in peer review. It's pristine! –Outriggr § 03:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Sources look fine, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support As a recent peer reviewer, I already found few improvements to suggest. A wonderfully engaging article that is well-researched. Thanks for all your hard work on improving Balzac-related articles, Scartol! Should we start calling you are our French literature expert? :) Awadewit (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you should call me our English language expert, because I know the difference between "our" and "are", and I proofread! (Ooh boy, I am gonna get it for this one.) Seriously, though, thanks again for your careful reviews, the both of ya. – Scartol • Tok 15:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too funny! My students' writing is infiltrating my own! Ah! Awadewit (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the GA reviewer who recommended it be taken here, I have no concerns and fully believe the article meets FA criteria. --Kakofonous (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I missed the PR lovefest due to lack of time, but I doubt I would have had anything constructive to say. This is another jewel from Scartol. Balzac still goes right over my head, but I'm nonetheless impressed with the time and energy put into his articles. Well written, correct formatting, exemplary sources, etc, etc. Great work, as always. María (habla conmigo) 15:41, 22 May 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 15:26, 26 May 2008 [40].

Thomas Cranmer edit

previous FAC


Self-nominator. In reference to the previous FAC, I have completely rewritten and expanded the article and I believe all previously mentioned criticisms have been addressed. It is now based on modern secondary sources (no old sources, tertiary sources, or private websites). --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - in the notes you can delete the link to the book in a second time (ex. ^ Pinco pallino p 9 ^ Pinco pallino p 12), but the article seems ok :) --Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 15:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Technically according to our MoS, that is correct. I use Template:Harvnb for formatting the citations and it is not clever enough to not provide a link after the first link. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back. One can use the Ref=none parameter. However, the major problem with this is if the first cite is edited out for some reason, the next cite is not automatically linked and will probably remain missing. I would rather make certain that the cites are linked to the references. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is my first set of comments; more later. Feel free to ignore them. Also feel free to reformat their presentation on this page, if it aids clarity. here we go: — Ling.Nut 15:56, 19 May 2008 — continues after insertion below
Thanks for your comments. I will address these individually. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, he succeeded in publishing the first officially authorised vernacular service, the Exhortation and Litany.
    I presume a vernacular service is one in English instead of Latin? That term is not particularly transparent. Plus the link to Exhortation and Litany is a link to a stub. Would a footnote be preferable? I really do not know.
I linked "vernacular" to wiktionary. The link is a stub, but it can either be expanded in the future or merged with another article with a new redirect. In either case, I think the link remains useful. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It took him a surprisingly long eight years to reach his Bachelor of Arts degree during which he began to collect medieval scholastic books, which he preserved faithfully throughout his life.
    During a surprisingly long eight-year period spent reaching his Bachelor of Arts degree, Cranmer began to collect medieval scholastic books, which he preserved faithfully throughout his life.
  • Cranmer’s first contact with a Continental reformer was the humanist based in Basel, Switzerland, Simon Grynaeus, a follower of the Swiss reformers, Huldrych Zwingli and Johannes Oecolampadius. In the summer of 1531, Grynaeus took an extended...
    Cranmer’s first contact with a Continental reformer was with the humanist Simon Grynaeus. A follower of the Swiss reformers Huldrych Zwingli and Johannes Oecolampadius, Grynaeus was based in Basel, Switzerland. In the summer of 1531 [No comma!] Grynaeus took an extended...
  • This was all the more remarkable given that he set aside his priestly vow of celibacy.
    This was all the more remarkable given that the marriage required him to set aside his priestly vow of celibacy.
Changed to your formulation. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He did not take her as his mistress as was the prevailing custom with priests for whom celibacy was too rigorous.
    Priests usually took mistresses? Good place for a {{fact}} tag, unless that fact is verified in the cite in the sentence immediately below!
For those who found celibacy too difficult. This really was prevailing practice. Depending on how high in office, a priest, bishop, or cardinal would have one or more mistresses and of course the resulting illegitimate children. Depending on the location, this could be openly practised or kept hidden. The sentence can be verified in Basil Hall's article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scholars note that Cranmer had moved, however moderately at this stage, into identifying with certain Lutheran principles.[18] This success in his personal life...
    Ambiguous. What was the success: the marriage or the move to Lutheranism? If it's the latter then I catch a faint whiff of POV.
I changed it to "progress". The point being made was that something was happening or moving at least in his private life, but he could not get Charles V to budge (the political life). --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cranmer opened his court on 10 May inviting Henry and Catherine to appear.
    This was a bit confusing, for a couple of reasons. First: we had been talking about Anne for a while; Catherine was lost in the murky mists of one or two paragraphs ago. [Note my lack of a short-term memory]. Then suddenly Catherine is the one invited to appear... I lost track. This whiplash (for me and my poor memory, at least) can be fixed simply by finding a nice term to describe Catherine and contrast with Anne. I dunno, "first wife" or "she whom henry desired to dump like yesterday's TV dinner" or something. Second, was Henry actually married to two women at the same time' for a brief period? If so, then i think you need to hit this point with a bigger hammer.
I put in Catherine of Aragon. That makes the name unique and should helpfully prod the recall mechanism of the brain. :) Henry was not married to two women because he got the first marriage annulled which retroactively defines the first marriage as never having occurred. Of course, that invites the obvious question of what would happen if he never got the annulment. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • with men who followed the new thinking such as Hugh Latimer.
    with men such as Hugh Latimer who followed the new thinking.
  • Under the vice-gerency (1535–1538)
    Vice-regency is a much more familiar synonym. I'm a little afraid you'll have to spend the rest of your life watching for well-meaning people changing "gerency" to "regency" every other month or so...
Unfortunately, they are not synonyms. The vice-regent is a deputy of a regent (to be facetious an example would be Edmund Blackadder) and the vice-gerent is a deputy of a top boss (in this case, the king). There is a hidden comment in that section which should reduce the WP:AGF changes. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...which created another set of institutions that gave a clear structure to the supremacy.
    Dude, I'm trying to sound smart here, but really, I'm totally lost. You've short-handed what seems to be a nontrivial political maneuver into a single, opaque phrase. Cheshire cat and all that.
I added "royal". The royal supremacy was rather ill-defined. Who was really at the head of the church, the king or the archbishop? What Cromwell did was to make sure that it was the king at the top and Cromwell created additional institutions in the name of the king. For example, the office of vice-gerent was clearly above the archbishops and Cromwell could also call his own synods. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • outfaced
    .. means what?
Meaning to make someone submit. In this case, to make his clerical opponents to submit. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A balance was instituted between the conservatives and the reformers and this was seen in the first attempt at defining what Henry’s Church now believed: the Ten Articles. It had a two-part structure.
    Competition between the conservatives and reformers reached a balance, as made clear in the first set of guidelines drawn up regarding the beliefs of the Church of England as it became independent from Rome: the Ten Articles. The document had a two-part structure.
  • Ling.Nut (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Okay, so Ayris & Selwyn is a collection of works by other authors? I can see how you did the referencing, but I think I would have listed each article in the references (using a format like this example Duggan, Charles (1965). "From the Conquest to the Death of John". In Lawrence, C. H. (ed.). The English Church and the Papacy in the Middle Ages (Reprint edition 1999 ed.). Stroud: Sutton Publishing. pp. 63–116. ISBN 0-7509-1947-7..
Otherwise, sources look good. Links checked out fine. I'll be back later to review fully. (cackles). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I use Template:Harvnb for formatting the cites along with Template:Citation for formatting the references. I like the fact that the two work together in wikilinking. The only problem is that Harvnb does not have many parameters to add article info, so the article info is placed after the cite template. I could make it work to the format you described by listing every article in the book separately in the References section and naming the article author in the Harvnb cite. But then someone might question why every article from one book is listed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I use cite, because it has the handy {{cite encyclopedia}} which covers this type of work. (I'm not a fan of the Harvnb system, it makes the whole ref section blue and that's annoying to read to me, but that's a editor choice). I'd just list the articles that you use, not all the articles in the book. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The wikilinks in the Notes section can be removed while using Harvnb (Ref=none parameter). I find the links handy especially if there is a long list of references. I changed it to the format you described. The articles are now listed separately in the References section. I only listed the articles I used, although that turns out that to be nearly all of the articles in the book. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have recently peer reviewed this article and any issues I might have had with the article were dealt with there. Once again, I am delighted with RelHistBuff's attention to detail and care in putting together a biography of an important Reformation figure. The article is sourced to reliable biographies, appears to be comprehensive (I am no expert!), is well-written, and excellently illustrated. Thanks for your dedication to this project, RelHistBuff! Awadewit (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I also peer reviewed the article, and all issues that I borught up were fixed. This is an excellent article about an important topic. Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Greatly improved since I commented on the first FAC. The flow and style are not always great. Some points:

— Johnbod 01:04, 21 May 2008 — continues after insertion below

  • "His parents, Thomas and Agnes (née Hatfield) Cranmer, were of modest means and were not members of the nobility. Their oldest son, John, inherited the family estate, while Thomas and his younger brother Edmund were placed on the path to a clerical career." Mixed signals here; no one said they were of the nobility, and people of "modest means" in the late C15th did not have a "family estate", or indeed usually the money to put 2-3 sons through a grammar school. Better before peer review perhaps!
There is not much that could be said about Cranmer's family, but everything written is from the source. They were certainly not members of the nobility, but they were not destitute either. Hence, I used the words "modest means". This is supported by a quote from the source, "Thomas's father, Thomas senior, styled himself esquire in his will, although his wealth was probably dangerously modest to claim such a status". However, in any case Thomas senior had enough possessions to make a will and the heir was John and he made provisions in his will to educate his remaining two sons. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably he farmed/owned land, as no trade or profession is given. Esquire gives context - minor gentry (I notice that is what the BBC external link calls them)? "Modest means" is really entirely in the eye of the beholder, and 'modest wealth' far from being the same - one is income, the other capital. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "modest wealth". Neither Ridley nor MacCulloch state what was Thomas senior's profession. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt because he didn't have one. What do they say exactly? Both the short BBC article & the EB agree on minor gentry, and I see web-links referring to a manor held. The later family need better coverage too, as others have said. Johnbod (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE "Master’s degree, he took a different course of study..." - from what? Especially as you then say "He began studying theology..." only after becoming a fellow. Is this right?
I missed adding details on the BA curriculum. I added it now. Yes, he began studying theology only after his fellowship was reinstated. It is from the source. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although he was not yet a priest, he was forced to forfeit his fellowship, resulting in the loss of his residence at Jesus College. In order to support himself and his wife, he took a job as a reader at another college. When Joan died during her first childbirth, Jesus College showed its esteem of Cranmer by reinstating his fellowship..." Clunky. All fellows were required to be unmarried until the mid-C19. He lost his job as well as his residence, is it necessary to stipulate "In order to support himself and his wife..." when he takes another? "Regard" or "opinion" would be better than "esteem".
I am not sure if everyone knows that fellows were required to be unmarried at the time (at least I didn't). That is how both sources phrased it. What would you suggest to make it better? I changed "esteem" to "regard", although I believe "esteem" is supported by the source in the quote, "The College authorities seem to have extended an altogether exceptional indulgence to Cranmer, for there is no other record of a Fellowship having been given to a widower during the next two hundred years". --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about: "...he married a woman named Joan, forcing him to forfeit his fellowship, which meant he lost both his income and his lodgings at Jesus College. He was able to find a job as a reader at another college." Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE "When Cardinal Wolsey, the king's Lord Chancellor, had selected several Cambridge dons...." "had" is not needed here, and OED gives the first use of "don", as in University don, in 1660 (though Wolsey has the first cite of the Spanish title usage in English in 1523), so I think this is anachronistic - "scholar/s" would do. "In a recent discovery of two of Cranmer’s letters.." - better: "In two recently discovered letters by Cranmer..." - or does that upset the anti-passive fetishists? "Upon Cranmer's return from Spain in June 1527, he was given a personal half-hour long interview with the king. He described the king as "a man who is the kindest of princes."" better: "Upon Cranmer's return from Spain in June 1527, he was given a personal half-hour long interview with the king, who he described as "the kindest of princes."" No?
Agree to your changes. But just to mention that the use of the word "don" is straight from the source: "Lee was a Cambridge don..." --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE "He tasked Cardinal Wolsey with prosecuting his case..." not really encyclopedic style, certainly in UK English.
A copyeditor put that in; I thought "task" was only a noun, but I thought it was a minor issue, so I took no action. I have now returned it to the original text. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE "Two fellow Cambridge associates, Stephen Gardiner and Edward Foxe, joined him..." fellow associates is redundancy.
Removed fellow. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was all the more remarkable given that he set aside his priestly vow of celibacy." I think we mean "broke", don't we?
Hall used "rejected"; MacCulloch used "set aside"; Ridley used "converted to the Lutheran view as regards to". I think "set aside" is best because it is neutral. Depending on one's point-of-view, Cranmer's action can be taken negatively or positively. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Set aside" seems less neutral, and vaguer, than "broke", which rightly or wrongly is certainly what he did. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate verb would depend on the context. A polemical account would certainly use "broke". An apologetic account would use "reject" (Hall for example said, "rejection of priestly celibacy as one of the tyrannous laws..."). Neither is appropriate here because the context is about what may have been his first step toward a reformed view. MacCulloch's chose the right verb. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE "This progress in his personal life, however, could not be matched in his political life as he was unable to change the mind of Charles to support Henry's annulment." "Charles' mind" or just "pursuade Charles to" surely? You might mention Catherine was his aunt.
Agreed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE I find Cranmer's meteoric promotion to Archbishop of Canterbury is still underplayed (a big beef last time too); this was surely an extraordinary leap that deserves more emphasis. You also don't mention the minor livings that I think he already had, which you should.
Added sentence on the surprise of his promotion (from Ayris). --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pope Clement VII was furious at this defiance, but he could not take decisive action as he was pressured by other monarchs to avoid an irreparable breach with England." Hiding out in Orvieto (was it?) from the rampaging armies of Catherine's nephew, more like. Or was he back by then? Firmly under the Habsburg thumb anyway.
The source said that he could not take action because the King of France did not want England to break with Rome and the Emperor, Charles, was uncertain just what kind of drastic measures was needed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pope Clement VII was furious at this defiance, but he could not take decisive action as he was pressured by both the Emperor and French king, who could not agree on a course of action, with France wanting to avoid an irreparable breach with England." is clearer then. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE "He intervened in religious rows..." disputes? controversies?
Changed to disputes. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE, though expansion still desirable, imo. "Hence, in matters regarding the king's spirituality, the archbishop was eclipsed by the Vice-gerent Cromwell.[32" seems a bit imprecise - how either could have much impact on "the king's spirituality" seems unclear, and "eclipsed" seems odd. This is an important point, and an unprecedented move, and could do with expansion and clarification.
A copyeditor changed it "spirituality"; I changed it back to the original which was "spiritual jurisdiction". The verb "eclipse" was used twice by Ayris in this context and I think it is an appropriate one. There are no statements of an explicit hierarchy, but Cromwell had the power to inhibit and augment Cranmer's role. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE/OK "On 29 January 1536, when Anne miscarried a son, the king again had thoughts on the biblical prohibitions that haunted him during his marriage with Catherine" - "with a son" is normal usage I think. "that had haunted him" (although that should maybe be referenced anyway).
I am confused. What would you like changed? I believe "miscarried a son" is correct. I changed to "had haunted" and added a cite. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE "Behind the scenes at the Court, Cromwell had decided to bring an end to Anne." - "bring an end to" is a bit informal, & that it was TC's own idea needs a reference.
I changed it to "turn against" and added a cite. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A balance was instituted between the conservatives and the reformers and this was seen in the first attempt at defining what Henry’s Church now believed: the Ten Articles" - awkward end, better rephrased. "by recognising only three sacraments: baptism, eucharist, and penance" add number before - 7. "The second five articles were about the ceremonies used in the Church and reflected the views of the traditionalists" - liturgy, rituals? Icon link in the next sentence is not really right - all about Eastern Orthodoxy. Next sentence "by" not "between".
Rewritten. Removed link to icon until a better one can be found. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Religious image or iconoclasm seem the best. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those points done, but an external link to the text of the Ten Articles would be useful both here and at 39 Articles - none at present. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put in an external link to the Thirty-Nine Articles as hosted by the Anglican Communion. Of course this is not the original Elizabethan version. I don't know what has changed between the original and modern versions. I can find online weblinks to other articles about the Ten Articles, but not to the text of the Ten Articles. The text can be found in books (it is a long document). If there is a site that hosts the text of the Ten Articles, then go ahead an put that in the External links section. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got to stop now, I will try to return soon, but really the prose needs a good check-over. Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many points cleared & marked DONE. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent article! I am not an expert so I cannot comment on the discussion above, except to say I found no problems with the prose. Well done to all contributors. GrahamColmTalk 15:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I deleted the images. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Hooper should be easy to find in the NPG online database, where it no doubt came from. It is certainly PD-old of whatever they are calling it these days. The Anne Boleyn should be easy enough to find (since Hever castle has a lot fewer paintings than Cook County Library has books). Likewise the Cromwell. The Pilgrimage of Grace is surely PD-old too, but a poor Victorian image & no loss. But a little work will restore the others. The article is light on pictures as it is. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are not images that I uploaded, so if someone could tell me what to do to fix them to be legal, I would gladly do so. Otherwise, I will hunt for legal images. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed up three of them - it was not hard to find sources for them. Awadewit (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those 3 restored, thanks Awa! (my edit summary wrongly says Bucer for Cromwell btw). Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boleyn is still problematic, as the source is a link to the image itself (i.e. there's no support for the 1525 date). Perhaps an alternative image? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not that one! 1525 is wrong, and I have updated it. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Awadewit for fixing these, but I guess I need something for my own edification, at least so I know what to do the next time. I can see what was done in Image:JohnHooperBpGloucester.jpg by looking at the diff from the history, but what was done with Martin Bucer (nothing seems to have changed), Thomas Cromwell, and Anne Boleyn (there is no history?)? --RelHistBuff (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bucer was just removed from the article. The other images are hosted at the Commons, so you just need to hit the "description page there" link to get to the page with the history. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Perhaps you forgot to click though to Commons for Boleyn and Cromwell? But indeed nothing has been done to Bucer - I'm not sure why he & the Pilgrimage were struck though above. Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I struck because they've been removed from the article. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still on images, I see here and here the shaky "Stephen Gardiner" is considered not be of him at all, which seems right to me. The NPG has 2 later prints, based on apparently the only portrait that might be authentic - not sure where that is. Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the tip about clicking on description page of Commons. I think I understand what to do. Concerning Gardiner, if it is from 1510, then it is certainly not Gardiner. I took it down for now and will try to look for another one as well as a Martin Bucer engraving somewhere and upload them later. But at this stage does your oppose still stand, elcobbola? --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but only because Boleyn hasn't been fixed. The new NPG source would support this, but not the version currently being used. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is Plate 1, and discussed on pp.42ff. of The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn: 'the Most Happy' By Eric William Ives, here. Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page says the date is 1525. Perhaps we should simply say "16th century" for the time being? Awadewit (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has never given a date, but comparison with the NPG info on their version and books I can't be faffed to cite here shows 1525 is certainly wrong for the actual painting, & probably too early for the lost original, whatever that was. Even "16th century" is not certain. See above. Johnbod (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the description on Commons for the other Boleyn picture and put the new image in the article. I also found another Bucer engraving which is used in MacCulloch. I used MacCulloch as the source of the metadata in an updated description. I have little experience in the handling of images on Commons so I hope I did this right. Is there some practical instructions on what kind of image metadata is required for FA? WP:IUP reads like legalese and in any case it is not very informative. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New Boleyn looks fine (and Bucer, too); I've stricken the oppose. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments I lean towards support, but have some prose concerns, and would like to at least get something about his family, which was left hanging in exile under Henry VIII. — Ealdgyth 19:26, 21 May 2008 — continues after insertion below

Ouf! Fortunately, I had advance warning of a big batch of comments coming from Ealdgyth. :) I will start on these tomorrow. --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given how large the article is... I think this was rather a small batch myself (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead ... second sentence in the first paragraph, "...which resulted in the breach of the English Church from the Roman Catholic Church..." just reads awkward to me. Maybe division instead of breach? And shouldn't it be "Church of England" instead of "English Church"?
I changed "breach" to "separation". Concerning the use of "English Church", I was trying to avoid an anachronism. The Church of England is now a separate entity/communion, but at the time of Cranmer, the "English Church" or perhaps the "Church in England" (geographical or provincial definition, not ecclesiastically separate yet) was part of Roman Church but departed on a different path. Perhaps I am being too fussy, though. I don't mind using any of those three. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand the problem, maybe "English Church" is the best compromise here, although I remain open to other suggestions. Church IN England just seems clunky. Why couldn't Great Harry have been consistent???? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, third paragraph, first sentence '...expedite major reforms..." Ugh, sounds like a business meeting. Maybe "...quicken the pace of reform."? or "...hasten the pace of reforms."?
I changed "expedite" to "promote". Thank goodness I still have my Roget's! --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like promote better than my suggestions, done! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead, last paragraph, second sentence, when you say "He was imprisoned for over two years, after which he made..." the "after" implies he was let out of prison after two years THEN he made the recantations. Perhaps "Imprisoned for over two years, he then made ..." or something similar.
Agree. Changed to your formulation. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early years ... first paragraph, next to last sentence, how long was a term then?
Used years instead of terms. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the service of Henry section, first paragraph, next to last sentence, should University be captitalised? I believe it was several universities that were consulted.
At first I thought that you must be right. But then when I took a look at MacCulloch, he used "University". This seems to imply that Wolsey relied on Cambridge experts. Looking at the context in the book, on the previous page he mentioned a Cambridge Hebraicist and on the next paragraph he discussed about Cranmer's role in the University. Since Lee, Gardiner, Sampson, and Foxe were all from Cambridge, I assume the "University" must refer to Cambridge specifically. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Urf. I really don't like the University there. Think you feel safe going with Cambridge Unversity? Maybe something in all those articles I just dumped on you... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the articles on Wolsey, unfortunately. I am one of those contributors that try to do everything by the book (source) and keep my own interpolations at a minimum. But I think this one can be easily done. A small "u" doesn't exclude Cambridge! --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, third paragraph, first paragraph. I think I'd say "Cranmer's first contact with a Continetnal reformer was with Simon Crynaeus, who was based in Basel, Switzerland and was a follower of the Swiss reformers Huldrych Zwingli and Johannes Oecolampadius." which puts the name up closer to the action, as it were.
Agree. Followed your formulation using a dependent clause. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appointed Archbishop section, second paragraph, fourth sentence, shouldn't the second phrase be "Catherine did not appear nor send a proxy."? I think I'd say "or" rather than "nor" but that's a personal preference.
Agree. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, third paragraph, second sentence, the second phrase reads awkward to me. Perhaps "...he renewed Erasmus' pension that had previously been granted by Archbishop Warham."?
Agree. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section and paragraph, sentence starting "John Frith was condemned to death due to his.. " I think I'd say "for his views" instead of due, but again, a personal preference.
Agree. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the vice-gerency section, perhaps you need to explain what the vice-gerency is, since it's going to be very unfamiliar to most folks, and while you've linked it, it won't hurt to give a quickie explanation so folks don't have to leave the page to understand.
Added definition. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, second paragraph, first sentence is awkward to me. Not sure how to word it better though. I suppose saying Henry had a guilty conscience isn't supported by the sources... or that he was an idiot won't work either...
Changed slightly (used the verb "reflect"). --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably should explain what Convocation was, not just wikilink it.
Added clause. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reforms reversed section, first paragraph, might explain what auricular confession is to folks, who probably have no idea what it is.
Added clause. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from the king section, fifth paragraph, I think I'd drop "roles" from the sentence starting "However, powerful reform-minded nobles Edward Seymour and John Dudley returned to England during the summer from roles overseas and they were able to turn the tide against the conservatives."
Agree. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Foreign devines section, last sentence of the first paragraph, what exactly are you attempting to say with "images suspected of attached devotion"? do you mean "suspected of attracting devotion"?
MacCulloch said "suspicion of devotion attached to it". I understand this to mean an image that is suspected of being venerated. From here, I cannot read more into MacCulloch's analysis, but I would assume actions such as kissing, kneeling, lighting candles, etc.. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is a good point to use a direct quotation from the source, that way the awkward wording gets passed off to someone else, and you have someone to blame for it. (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the most elegant of solutions, but it is one. I use quotes and cited it. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, next paragraph, do we know if John Chrysostom did write the Ad aesarium Monachum?
Both Hall and MacCulloch just say that the epistle is by Chrysostom (no footnotes on whether modern scholars say that it is true or not). Gardiner, at the time, debated with Cranmer about the letter so I put in the word "allegedly". If I go strictly by the sources, I should remove that adverb. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll try to do some digging on this, after I get through the morning crap to-do list. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Working on this, hope to be able to clarify it after some research tomorrow. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I added a cite based on the article you sent me. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Book of Common Prayer section, was it still the Abbey of Chertsey? Or shouldn't it be the "former abbey of Chertsey"?
It should be former. It was already half-demolished at the time. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thought so. Granted, we are getting past my normal time period, but I was pretty sure all the monasteries and chantries had disappeared under Great Harry. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, first paragraph, next to last sentence "eucharistic encounter" is very awkward. Perhaps "..and believed that the eucharist's presence was only spiritual." Although this isn't the best formulation either, for something so freaking complex.
I saw "eucharistic encounter" in an book or source somewhere and I thought it was nice alternative. Anyway I changed it to "presence". --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final reform programme section, second paragraph, I know it's usual to refer to folks by their last name, but I really think, given Peter Martyr's last name, that it is best to use his full name at all times. (first sentence of this paragraph)
When I first started out, I thought I would avoid the problem by using "Vermigli". But all the sources (Hall, MacCulloch, Ridley) use "Martyr" and they do not seem to have a problem with using his last name after introducing his full name the first time. What I tried to do is a compromise. Instead of giving his full name every time which would look a little strange if his name appeared only a few sentences apart, I used his full name whenever he was not mentioned within a couple of paragraphs. I might have missed a few, so I will check it over again. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just hate using a last name like that alone, I think it can lead to confusion issues with some of the readers. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did add a few full names so that there are no isolated "Martyr" and the full name is always nearby within the context. But if you think it is a serious enough problem that they all should be the full name, then I would rather change it to Vermigli. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, third paragraph, I think there is some punctuation errors and something just awkward with the sentence starting "The new book removed any possiblity of prayers for the dead which, would imply support for the doctrine of purgatory." If they removed the prayers, wouldn't that imply that they no longer supported the doctrine of purgatory? And I believe the comma is misplaced anyway. Strongly suggest rewording this sentence.
Reworded. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much clearer now, at least to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section and paragraph, sentence starting "While traveling in the north of the country...", the phrase "when he was based in Newcastle." do you mean Dudley or Knox? If Knox, wouldn't it read better "John Knox, then based in Newcastle."?
Agree. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention a couple of times in passing a canon law revision, but never really say what it was about, just that it didn't pass and that Cranmer was involved. Perhaps this needs to be explained better?
Expanded that paragraph. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I know that the real reason they tried to put Lady Jane Grey on the throne was that she was Protestant, but you probably should mention that she was indeed a blood relative of Edward and Mary's, not just that she was Dudley's daughter in law. Otherwise it really looks like she had no blood claim at all to the throne, which she did, just Mary's was much better.
Changed to mention Jane's relationship with Edward rather than her marriage relationship to Dudley.
  • Probably should mention his children by the second marriage and that he did bring back his wife to England after Edward took the throne. We kinda left her hanging back when he sent her into exile under Henry VIII.
I had mentioned to Karanacs in the peer review that I would put something in the Legacy section. I just added a paragraph on what happened to the whole family. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, an excellent article, just some quibbles and concerns about awkward prose or jargon. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to support. All look resolved! Another great article, now on to Jan Hus!

Generally Support. Because the sources are offline and out of hand I can't really do a proper review of the article, but it is a pleasure to read. The reviewers above are doing a good job finding points to fix, but these are really very small detractions and I see you're addressing them. Wnt (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support An excellently well-written, well-referenced and well-organized article. In a few places, the density of inline citations felt a bit low, but nothing very troubling. The final few sentences depicting Cranmer's Catholic and Protestant biographers seemed out-of-place, seemingly subjective and sweepingly apodictic; so I softened the wording somewhat — please check that I didn't change your intended meaning! Willow (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I can add citations for specific sentences on request; I try to make sure every paragraph is cited. Your wording definitely improved what I had originally. I just wanted to mention though that Ridley's paragraph on the subject of the various biographers was even harsher and I had to soften his phrasing! Null's description is more scholarly and very detailed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Cranmer mourned Henry’s death and it was later said that he demonstrated his grief by growing a beard. I think this mentions only the least important part of what MacCulloch says about the beard, which was a statement of rejection of the Old Church. Jennifer Loach makes the the same point in her Edward VI. The reason I raise this obscure point is that I was going to add a nice line about the beard to the caption of the white-beard portrait (since the other images have neat descriptive comments), but I didn't want to seem to contradict the article's statement that he grew the beard in mourning. I think the beard is more significant than just that. qp10qp (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the point on the rejection of the old Church (both in the text and in the caption). --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:27, 26 May 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 15:26, 26 May 2008 [41].

Operation Passage to Freedom edit

Article about the mass migration from North to South Vietnam in 1954 after the partition. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Sources and links look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have some reservations about some of the phrasing in the "Media and Public Relations" section: particularly "The Americans revelled in what was a mass migration of unprecedented success" - is that a direct quote? If not, should it be stated in WP's voice? - and also "the accounts were invariably sensationalistic, demonising..." - the "invariably" is strong, and should be attributed. Otherwise, OK. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just chopped off the first sentence. It seems pointless anyway. I chopped the invariably as well. Not really necessary. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Support, brilliantly written and almost there. Just some minor fixes/suggestions:
    • I'm not going to ask you for journal sources this time. :) But, have you looked to see if anyone has copies of those old Catholic magazines? It would be neat to be able to cite the original sources.
    • "Under the terms of the agreement, Vietnam was temporarily divided at the 17th parallel pending elections in 1956 to elect a national government that would govern a reunified country." I tried thinking of a way to reword this but I'm coming up blank. Can you say something other than "elections to elect" a "government that would govern"?
    • "Dong had wanted to press home the Viet Minh's military advantage of the Viet Minh ..." I'm unclear what this is saying.
    • "... and were neither able to deal with nor anticipated so many refugees." This one is stumping me too, but I don't care for it. --Laser brain (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the last three points. For the first point, the book cited the names of the articles and their date of publication, so I have added these. The pieces were either uncredited or the book didn't bother to write down who wrote them, but I suspect the former, since he credited all the other things that he cited. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Maralia (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I fixed a few typos, blips in formatting, etc. Some remaining issues:

  • "For the US, the migration was a public relations coup, depicting the flight under American auspices of Vietnamese from the perceived oppression of communism to the "free world" in the south." - some confusing word choices here: 'depicts', 'the flight under American auspices of Vietnamese'
  • "We can neither concur with in the brutal enslavement of millions of compatriots" - is this direct quote properly transcribed ('concur with in the')?
  • "The vessels were provided by communist nations such as Poland, as well as empty French ships heading back north to fetch more southbound anti-communists." - this could use rephrasing
  • "One story was that the communists had done a deal with Vietnam's traditional enemies China" - how about 'had a deal' instead of 'had done a deal'? 'Vietnam's traditional enemies China' reads oddly; why not singular?
  • "In 1963, simmering discontent over Diem's religious bias exploded into mass discontent during the Buddhist crisis." - discontent...discontent
  • "The indigenous population in the central highlands complained bitterly about the intrusion of ethnic Vietnamese onto their land, and resulted in a greater audience for communist propaganda in the frontier regions." - it's not quite clear what hinges the two halves of this sentence together.
  • "According to a report by the Commissariat of Refugees (commonly known by its French initials of COMIGAL), the South Vietnamese government agency charged with overseeing the exodus, French aircraft made 4,280 trips, carrying a total of 213,635 refugees." - too many phrases here
  • The mentions of COMIGAL could still use a bit of smoothing out: COMIGAL is 'introduced' in two separate sections (Evacuation and Social integration).

Thanks for another good read. Maralia (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked all of these. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support My concerns have been addressed. More info on the air evacuation effort - as suggested by DHN's perceptive question below - would be great, if sources can be found. Maralia (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The article should discuss what happens to these northern refugees after 1975. Did they stay in the south, return home in the north, or leave the country altogether? DHN (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of them moved to the US etc of course, but none of the books bother discussing it so we don't have a RS. They don't discuss them separately to native southerners anyway, so we don't know. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Air evacuation - air evacuation is only mentioned in one sentence - number of people and number of trips. Could something else be said about it? Which airports were used? Seems like a major undertaking with more than 4000 trips within 300 days (average of 14 trips a day), about 3 times the number of flights as the Berlin Airlift. What are the monetary costs of the evacuation? Of integrating the refugees? DHN (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to describe the mass exodus of Vietnamese who fled the communist" - this is awkward for mine..."exodus...who fled" is the issue; I think removing "who fled" and then rewording somewhat will help. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed redundancy. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support; generally a great read. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Firstly, isn't the first sentence missing a "from"? Exodus of X from Y to Z, right? Secondly, the sentence says that this is a term used by US Navy. Does that mean others use different term(s) to describe the event? If so what are those? Shouldn't they be mentioned in the beginning? Arman (Talk) 10:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "300-day grace period,"—not idiomatic. "300-day period of grace".
  • Ellipsis dots: three of them, not two, and why not use three plain periods, spaced either side: ""We cannot recognise the seizure by Soviet China . . of over half of our national territory"."
  • "Article 14(d) of the accords read:"—"stated" would be more normal.
  • Maybe it's true, but my POV antennae are bristling at the caption "Anti-communist Vietnamese refugees move from a French landing ship to the USS Montague during Operation Passage to Freedom in August 1954." Now, who says that all of those people were anti-communists? Every one of them? Or were some there for economic, cultural or other personal reasons. It's all too easy to paint history in simplistic terms. This article needs to be very careful to avoid generalisations and assumptions that might later be seen as plain wrong or unbalanced.
  • "The US also ran a propaganda campaign through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to enhance the size of the southward ..."—Also is not good at the opening of a new section, because it refers back so intensively to previous text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 10:54, May 23, 2008
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 16:33, 24 May 2008.

The Wiggles edit

previous FAC (00:03, 17 April 2008)

Self-nominator --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This marks the fourth time this article has been nominated for FA. In addition, it has been through three peer reviews, a copyedit, and a GAN. As this article's main editor, I have gone on the record, on its talk page, my feelings about the process. One of its weaknesses has been its subject; few editors know about The Wiggles or seem to be interested enough to give the feedback this article has needed. I have followed every reasonable recommendation that has been made, so this article has been greatly improved, even since its last FAC. Most significantly, I have expanded this article by adding two new sections. It is now more like an article about a music group in its structure and tone, and deserving of promotion. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Well, it's not the *most* reliable source, but I think it's adequate for our purposes. It happens to be the website of Murray Cook's old band, before he went to university, met the other guys, and helped form The Wiggles. Although WP:SPS policy says the following about self-published sources:
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
I think that keeping the BSL site is acceptable because it falls within the "largely" wiggle-room. (Pun intended, haha.) It is self-published, but I think its creators are trustworthy enough to keep it in. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've left this out for others to decide for themselves. For myself, I'm thinking it's on the fence enough that I can deal with it. Would be nice if it could be replaced with a better source, but... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Links checked out fine. *IF* I have time, I'll try to get around to reviewing this more fully. I make no promises, I'm quite stretched for time right now. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support with the following quibbles.

  • Lead, the "the world's biggest preschool band" needs a direct citation on it.
Done.
  • Lead, there are a lot of sentences that start "They..." consider rewording a few.
Ok.
  • Musical style section, first paragraph, shouldn't it be "The Wiggles write new music..."? Wrote implies that they don't write new music any more.
Changed; I also changed some of the tenses to present tense in that section.
  • Reception section, last pargraph, shouldn't it be "Scholar Kathleen Warren, the group's former professor at Macquarie Univerisity, has been a consultant..."? Using the past tense implies that she is no longer a consultant.
Done; similar problem as above.
I'm not a copyeditor, by any means, so don't take this as meaning that the prose is perfect. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Hello again. Maybe this time, eh? :)

Hi, Di. Here's hopin', mate!

  • I'm going to do a rewrite of the lead asap, I spotted a few issues there...
Feel free, have at it!
  • "a popular pub rock band that had Top 40 hits in Australia during the 1980s." - is there a ref for this?
Fixed & clarified.
  • "seemed reminiscent of the misfortunes of Pete Best, the 'fifth Beatle' who famously departed the Beatles before they became the biggest band in the world" - who said this?
Um, the ref, from an article about Welcher, is cited immediately after the quote.
  • "Field, to test out the effect of their music on children, gave a copy of their album to one of his young students" - reword this...start the sentence with "To test out..."

I don't believe in starting sentences with prepositions. ;) How's about this for a compromise: "Field gave a copy of their album to one of his young students to test out the effect of their music on children..."

  • "became teachers,[10] but on their manager's advice, they toured..." - what's this got to do with them being teachers?
Well, they were going to school to become teachers, but took a year off to tour as The Wiggles to see if they could make a living out of it. Perhaps it needs some clarification: "Field, Cook, and Page began their teaching careers,[10]..."
  • "music has "enhanced their lives"" - is it necessary to quote here?
Removed quote.
  • ""Lights, Camera, Action, Wiggles" aired on Channel 7 in 2003, and "The Wiggles Show" in 2004 and 2005" - I think these should be in italics (check MOS:ITALICS)
Thanks for changing it.
  • "was different than his band mates," - "to that of" would work better then "than" IMO
Followed suggestion.

(more coming later)
dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Wiggles write new music each year since their inception" - tense..."have written", I think
Notice that I rewrote that section to present tense. I made a change a few sentences later ("They wrote songs individually at first, but eventually would write as a group...") to make it more clear.
  • The use of "X reports" in the style section is odd...I'm not sold on using "report", can you try another word?
Sure, boss. Reports → states. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2003, when the group performed..." - currencies need to be noted in this paragraph. eg. $, $ (see where the link goes).
Got it.

Yeah, that's about all I got. Going to work on lead now. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have some issues with the lead as you changed it. See article's talk page. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards support I didn't know anything about this group before I read this article and I believe it is an excellent introduction and description. It would appear that the editors have sifted through every possible newspaper source - I'm impressed! I checked every source as I was reading. Almost all of them appear to be reliable newspapers. The one problem I had is listed below. Here are the questions and suggestions I have:

Thank you; the key to this kind of thing is setting up a Google search, which has been responsible for most of the additions that I've been able to make to this article.
  • Has anyone checked to see if Kathleen Warren has published anything on The Wiggles in a peer-reviewed, academic venue?
I just did a brief Google search, and I was able to find one good source, which I will include the next chance I have. I discovered, however, that Warren has written some things for The Wiggles (mostly related to Dorothy). She warrants her own article. I could find nothing peer-reviewed, unfortunately. I've talked about that extensively in this process. Blue's Clues has had more academic review, probably because the guys are teachers, not researchers, and everyone else involved with them are performers, not academics.
  • It would be nice if more could be said about the group's musical style. From the article talk page, I understand that the sources are limited, however.
Something else that has been documented. I included everything that's out there, I'm certain. I hope that doesn't impede the article's progress.
  • Is it possible to quote some song lyrics? I am unsure if lyrics fall under copyright protection like the audio clips.
Hmm, I think they are under copyright protection. I'm not sure how quoting their lyrics would add to the article. There is a mention about their "simple lyrics", and this in the "Musical style" section: "The Wiggles music isn't all that far removed from what we did in The Cockroaches, just a different subject matter", Field stated. "The Cockroaches sing about girls and love and stuff like that; The Wiggles sing about hot potatoes and cold spaghetti".[44] I think to do more would fall in OR territory.
As someone who studies literature, I guess I am always keen to include some of the "original text". :) Awadewit (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The videos are discussed so often - is it possible to obtain a fair use video clip?
Again, I don't think there are fair use videos.
  • In 2008, the group was part of a "ticketing scandal" - This suggests that the group was involved in the scandal, but as far as I can tell from the source, they were not. Perhaps this sentence should be reworded?
Done, changed to: "In 2008, the group found themselves in the midst of a "ticketing scandal";[48]"
  • In Australian English, are collective groups referred to in the singular or the plural? I thought it was a little odd to read "The Wiggles are..." and "Their original members..." instead of "The Wiggles is..." and "Its original members..." - Interestingly, sometimes in the article the group is referred to in the singular and sometimes in the plural. I'm not sure that there is a pattern, though.
Something else that has been discussed. This is what was said:
According to this, the correct usuage is, "The Wiggles were." Right from the article: Proper nouns that are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and BrE; for example, The Beatles are a well-known band; The Giants are the champions.
I went through this very extensively, unless it's been vandalized. So it's pretty consistent: "The Wiggles are.." and "The group is..." because it's correct usage.
So, you see "Wiggles" as plural, I take it? Ah, I see. Ok. Awadewit (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's because it is an ad. I changed the ref, though, to "See..." The answer to your question is no, there is not a better source. The CD ad is an example, since it lists the song. There's also the music clip.
I think we might have to remove that piece of information, then, sadly. Advertisements are not reliable sources. Awadewit (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this objection. However, there is the "Ignore all rules" policy: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I think we should follow this policy in this case. This source, which lists the songs in a Cockroaches album, is the only source that portrays that "Do the Monkey" was originally a Cockroach tune. The Cockroaches is both old and obscure enough that they don't have a website or even a listing on Amazon. I think it's an important enough point to retain the reference, with the compromise of "See..." --Figureskatingfan (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is important, too. However, I do not think it is acceptable to ignore the RS policy. We must present our readers with reliable information - this is not. Awadewit (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I went ahead and deleted this reference. I was able to download the audio sample of "Do the Monkey" that makes the same point, anyway. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mulligan, Mark. A brief history of nearly everything BSL (DOC). Retrieved on 6 August 2007. - This footnote needs a web source. The link is to a document, but including the website where it is published is also necessary.
This is very odd. For some reason, the reference tag doesn't list the source. I suspect it's due to the .doc extension, so I hope that my solution is adequate.
  • This link wasn't working for me. I only got the ads.
Hmm, I was able to get it, even after I cleared my cookies and internet files.
Working for me today - internet weirdness, I guess! Awadewit (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm no fair use expert, but the two audio samples seem to illustrate very similar ideas. I wonder if perhaps we should stick with one?
I respectfully disagree. "Get Ready to Wiggle" shows where they got their name, and "Do the Monkey" is an example of an old revamped Cockroaches song. The perfect solution is to get a sample of the original Cockroaches tune. I own the song, but I haven't been able to transfer it to OGG format. I'll work on it again.
That would be wonderful. Awadewit (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woo hoo! Done! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who studies children's literature professionally, albeit that from the eighteenth century, I would like to commend this editor for his/her work. It is not easy to write about children's media without descending into the cutsey or the pedantic. I think that this article has hit on an excellent tone. Awadewit (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, what a nice thing to say. The Wiggles are the real deal--actual musicians with real performing and song writing skills. They respect and don't speak down to their audience, so I tried really hard to follow their example in their article. Both my kids are disabled, and the guys have really influenced them and our entire family in positive ways, so they at least deserve a FA in WP. They make a real difference, unlike so much of children's entertainment that's out there. So thank you.

Comments: I see unencyclopedic tones every now and then. "although their performances were full of energy", maybe "very energetic" is better? "piggybacking": that's quite colloquial. Also isn't there any discussion in the media of the criticism of the band? They must've been subject to an awful lot of parody for being extremely annoying to adults, like Barney is. Being somebody who works music articles a lot, seeing a Reception section in a band article in a rather odd. Generally, the critical reception to the band's records is distributed throughout the article along with discussion of the respective record. Why aren't the band members consistently referred to by their last names; that is required to achieve encyclopedic tone. indopug (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indopug, thanks for your input. The "unencyclopedic tone", to be honest, has been a struggle in this article, both due to my inexperience as a writer and editor, and due to the subject matter. I've made the two changes you've suggested. Criticism of The Wiggles, as has already been discussed, is quite rare. (See this, last point, where I say that The Wiggles aren't Jamie-Lynn Spears, and that they're boring but cute.) A previous version of this article had a "trivia section" and examples of parodies of The Wiggles (on Jimmy Kimmel, for example), but it was recommended to delete the section. It was put on a separate article (Cultural references to The Wiggles) instead.
Regarding the Reception section: it's here because The Wiggles aren't just a music band; they're a children's entertainment unit, with TV shows, videos, and live shows. I made a conscious decision to not structure it like other band articles, although after some good advice, I was definately influenced by them. (I was also influenced by Sesame Street.) Unlike other bands, The Wiggles aren't a group defined by their CDs, so it's unrealistic to structure their article that way. Plus, there are simply no sources out there reviewing individual albums. See the challenge?
Finally, your issue about the use of the guys' first names. That was also previously discussed, in the previous FAC. It happens one time, in the paragraph about their stage personnas, where they're called by their first names. I think that makes the paragraph clearer, so I think it should remain.--Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment; I just realised there's only a brief passing mention of "Wake up Jeff", whilst there's a fair bit of talk of their finger-wiggling technique. IMO "Wake up Jeff" needs a bit more discussion as it's rather iconic of The Wiggles. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. However, where do we draw the line? There are lots of iconic stuff: "Fruit salad yummy yummy"; "D-O-R-O-T-H-Y"; "Wags the Dog he likes to tango"--should I go on? What should be included and what not, and where can be find sources for it? Anyway, "Wake Up Jeff" is discussed on Jeff Fatt's article. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that those other things aren't as notable as the Jeff meme. What do the sources say? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources say very little about iconic memes of The Wiggles. If they did, it would've been included. It already has stuff about their schticks and characters. And like I said, Jeff's narcolepsy is discussed on his bio page. To be fair, though, I'll see about adding that info over here.
Di, I don't know what we were arguing about. I guess I was asleep, har har. There's already something about "Wake up Jeff" in the article--in the reception section. I did add the line about how the practice was developed, though.--Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have addressed every single issue brought up about this article. Can someone please pass it, please?--Figureskatingfan (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't really how FAC works! :) Articles are passed by SandyGeorgia after a set period of time and when there is sufficient support; I don't think this FAC has either yet. You'll just need to wait a bit more! :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, Di. I was expressing some frustration about the process.--Figureskatingfan (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further

Thanks for your clarifications above. I just have two more things:

  • I think it would improve the lead if you could take "The Wiggles have been called...four million CDs.[3]" from the first paragraph and make it the last paragraph. As I see it, that bit talks exclusively of the quantitative success of the band and moving it to the end would make the lead read analogous to the the article's body itself (first History then Reception). Further, I always get the feeling that whenever an article has its subject's success very close to the start, it is trying to (pardon my phrasing) shove POV down my throat that this "<subject> is ZOMG so awesum". What I mean is just after being introduced to who The Wiggles are, I confronted with "they are the biggest kids-rock band ever" with nothing (so far) helping me put that success into perspective or even telling me just why they are famous at all. Note that this reworking of the lead requires no major rewording, just shifting of text.
Didn't mean to shove anything down your throat, mate. ;) So I went ahead and made this change as per your advice/recommendation.
  • Like any obsessive rock music fan should, I take offence to the quote, "seemed reminiscent of the misfortunes of Pete Best, the 'fifth Beatle' who famously departed the Beatles before they became the biggest band in the world". Although it is a quote, and not an encyclopedic statement, it is factually incorrect. If you click on the link, you will see that "Fifth Beatle" is a term that is variously accorded to many individuals close to the Beatles (some more deserving than Best, who didn't just leave either, but was acrimoniously fired). While this is tangential to the issue at hand, the quote obviously conveys misinformation to the reader. Could you remove the quote and rephrase the sentence? Of course, you could just replace "the fifth Beatle" with "..." in the quote, but I think the whole thing would work better without a quotation anyway. indopug (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I'm pushing your buttons all over the place! At least they're not Capt. Feathersword's magic buttons. Anyway, I'm only obsessive about The Wiggles, so I didn't know the above info. Thanks for pointing them out, and I made the changes as requested.--Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You know what? I was really sleepy when I wrote that. A lot of the meaning and significance is lot without it, so I think its fine. I've reverted it back. indopug (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I reviewed this at Peer Review some time ago and am glad to see how it has improved since. A few suggestions:

  • Add "other" for clarity in The band gained popularity in the United States in 1998 when Lyrick Studios, the producers of Barney & Friends, began distributing Wiggles videos in the US and advertising them in their [other] videos.
  • Possible word change, use "from" instead of "to" in Moran's background in musical theatre was different to that of his band mates,...
  • Give the year for their honorary doctorates

Great work and perserverance, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The above suggestions have been followed. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I find no further problems regarding a possible unencyclopedic tone; the article is very good. indopug (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, this needs rewriting: "The group has decided to play a different kind of children's music.[4] They are not tied to one style or genre of music and are able to experiment in the studio." I think there's some tense issues in there. indopug (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is an article that I've contributed to heavily, but Figureskatingfan has been the driving force behind getting it to the quality that it's at. I've not voiced my opinion on previous FAC's because I didn't feel that the article was quite there. I do now, so I'll make one of my rare FAC appearances.Balloonman (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I formatted some incomplete citations, and I want to make sure the nominator is aware that TV.com is generally not reliable for most purposes, although it seems to be used here only to source characters played, so that seems allright. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I'm aware. And you're correct--this source is used only for the characters. I figured using TV.com was better than OR, so I took the risk. Thanks for the format changes. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 16:28, 24 May 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 16:33, 24 May 2008.

2007 Samjhauta Express bombings edit

I worked on this article back in February 2007 just as news of the attack hit the presses. Police quickly arrested people suspected of having been involved in the bombing, but nothing ever panned out. As of May 2008, this case remains unsolved. I think I have patched up all holes in the article, and I believe it now meets the FA criteria. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 04:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<resolved templates, moved to talk page> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The link in the infobox (currently footnote 1) is probably unnecessary; moreover, it claims to document the fact that 68 people were killed, but (although the text itself is in Urdu) the title suggests that the number of the dead were 66. I'd just eliminate it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see a bunch of the sources call this the "Samjhota" Express. I take it that both Samjhota and Samjhauta are correct; which is more common?
  • The article's short and sweet enough; I've done a bunch of copy-editing and don't see any major problems right now. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Samjhauta" is the more common term, at least according to Google ([42] vs. [43]). Also, I have removed ref #1. The title does say "66 killed", but the actual article says 68. Thanks for the copyedit and reorganization, Jbmurray. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. In the "Details" section, the quote of railway personnel says, " I showed the signal lantern to the Attari Express which was coming in very fast... ". What is "Attari Express"? Section header "Recent developments"... should not we remove the word "recent"? I am not sure though, is not non-breaking space needed between the dollar sign and the numerical value?--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Attari Express" is part of the "Samjhauta Express". The Samjhauta Express travels to the border town of Attari (hence why it's called the "Attari Express"), whereupon passengers then board a Pakistani train to Lahore. Both the Indian and Pakistani train services are collectively referred to as the "Samjhauta Express". Also, I don't believe a non-breaking space is needed between a dollar sign and the numerical value. I have seen them placed next to one another, without any space in between. And, why is "recent" not appropriate for the section header? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Recent" - a relative term, definitely subject to change with time. What is the point of reference for "recent"? Rather, should be replaced by specific time/date range, such as Development till May 2008, or, something like that.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, nice addition of the Background section. Issues addressed. Comments. The prose is looking good; some fixes needed as follows:
    • I'm concerned with recentism in the article. There are a lot of vague references to Indian-Pakistani relations without much context. A Context heading might help, or even just a path to further reading about Indian-Pakistani relations at this time. Examples of recentism:
      • "Indian journalist Siddharth Varadarajan argued that the peace process should stay on track and that any wavering would be tantamount to surrendering to terrorism."
      • "Kasuri said that the terrorist attack would not halt his trip to India..."
      • "In regards to the upcoming peace talks..."
        • I'll add a "Background" section later tonight.
    • Your title doesn't agree with your lead sentence.. please either choose "bombings were" or "bombing was". I see that jbmurray introduced this change, AHEM.
      • Contrary to what you may have heard ( ;) ), I don't always think I'm right. Anyhow, I gambled on some kind of collective noun... Is this why I always lose money at casinos? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you may have stumbled on a new casino game: Make a grammatical choice and bet on whether another reviewer will disagree with it! What are the odds?? --Laser brain (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't care for the term "rocked" in the details heading. It's too news-ish.
    • Since you mention it in the lead, I think you need to provide a bit of context in the Details section as to why the train was being guarded by Indian military. That is unusual to western readers - we would never have military guarding a train unless there was a high-profile federal prisoner aboard or we were at war on our own soil.
    • I'm usually the last person to suggest adding a fair use image, but a photo of the damage would add a lot to the article. If not, a free image of the Samjhauta Express? --Laser brain (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree on the "background" section. I was going to mention this earlier, but this has been kind of my theme recently, and I thought I'd see if anyone else wanted to pick it up...
  • And another thing I almost mentioned, if I could be a mini-Ealdgyth for a moment... a) the link entitled "British Government condemns bomb attack on India–Pakistan train" declares it's from the "Associated Press of Pakistan" but 1) on examination, it seems to be from either Pakistan Press International or Asia Pulse Pty Ltd or possibly Access my Library, which in any case is (now) a pay site; I feel sure that the same info can be found from other sources (a quick google of Howells plus Samjhauta seemed to suggest so). b) the Times of India article now times (ho ho) out; I'm not sure if this is temporary, but it might be nice to find a more stable url. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replaced one instance of the PPI source with two other sources. However, the other remains. There are no alternative links for this PPI news report. The ToI time-out is temporary. I had the same issue, but when I refreshed, the page loaded properly. Also, the background section has now been added. I will source it shortly. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And "round midnight" is surely a little more idiomatic than "near midnight"? In general, I think a touch more copy-editing wouldn't go amiss, but it's very close. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Remove the "In recent years" phrase in the Background section, because it is largely meaningless in an encyclopedia. Also, does the background have to go back all the way back to 1947? I would've thought beginning in the late 80s and focusing on the militancy (which really isn't discussed at all here) might be more apt. That bit about Hari Singh especially seems really out of place here. indopug (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll add details regarding the Kashmir militancy. I included the Partition of India to provide the reader with some understanding of why there's a dispute over the region in the first place. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment The first sentence is awkwardly phrased. You could switch the were to was if the term 'samjhauta express bombings" is generally accepted as a single incident. Alternatively, if you don't want the plural 'bombings' to coexist with the singular 'was', you could write 'refers to the attack on the ....

  • Also, if the perpetrators were never found, can one assume that it was a terrorist attack? Perhaps the word alleged may be more accurate.--Regents Park (Feed my swans) 17:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section Tensions should be renamed to something else (Controversy?) Tension works better in the present continuous (and only one point of 'tension' is described anyway).--Regents Park (Feed my swans) 17:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to "Tension". Would "Controversy" be an appropriate title? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • On rereading it, I can see why you used Tension rather than controversy since the incident (the evacuation of the wounded) seems to have been the cause of some tension between India and Pakistan. If you prefer to use that, its fine. An alternatives would be 'Evacuation controversy'. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 22:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a fine well written article! --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 17:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a source that calls it "alleged" terrorism. Ref #1 says the leaders denounced it as terrorism, so why the "alleged"? The background section is fine now. I think "Bush administration" should be linked to the administration itself rather than the president. indopug (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • See above. Someone brought up that since we did not know who the perpetrators of the attack were, we couldn't really confirm if it was a terrorist attack. If it's a militant group, would that still be considered terrorism? The terms "militancy" and "terrorism" are thought to be synonymous, but there are clear differences. Terrorists carry out attacks to create fear, while militants do it to make a point. And...Presidency of George W. Bush is now linked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more; why not add a picture [44]? It definitely falls under fair-use. I'm surprised there isn't one already. indopug (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image added. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have no remaining concerns; wonderful work. Small question: does the linking of the publisher in the references every time count as over-linking? I'm not sure what the policy is (if any). indopug (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so; it's what I do. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 13:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, a read through this (and some very minor editing) brought up nothing noteworthy, and it's ready to go! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 13:43, 23 May 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 16:33, 24 May 2008.

Kannada literature in the Vijayanagara Empire edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because this topic discusses an important period in the development of Kannada literature. The article has been peer reviewed by User:Ruhrfisch here[45], thoroughly copy edited by User:Michael Devore and User:Risker. Image issues have been resolved with User:Elcobbola. Please provide constructive feedback. I believe the article deserves a FA status for its comprahensive content, citations and attention to historical detail. Self-Nominator: User:Dineshkannambadi, thanks Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply I have added two more images. I am waiting for clearence of few more from user:Elcobbola.thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The images currently in the article look fine. Please note there is no FA requirement for "even distribution" or, for that matter, any images at all. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Fantastic job, Dinesh. I wasn't aware of the extent of influence Kannada had on Vijayanagara (or vice versa), whose kings I (wrongly) believed mainly patronized Telugu literature. Well written and well referenced. The subject is complex for those with no previous background, but the quality of the prose keeps you involved through out. AreJay (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
    • 1) How can you not know the difference between a hyphen and an n-dash? (In the lead and lord knows where else).
    • 2) The prose? Here are a few doozies: "refers to the body of literature composed during the 14th through 16th centuries ..." (The first sentence of the lead).
    • 3) More prose? "The Vijayanagara empire was established in 1336 by Harihara I and his brother Bukka Raya I; it lasted until 1646. However, its power declined after a major military defeat in 1565 by the Deccan sultanates." (Second and third sentences in the lead). (The 1646 part should be subordinated to the second sentence: "Although it lasted until 1646, its power ..."
    • 4) Logic and cohesion problems: "The empire is named after its capital city Vijayanagara, whose impressive ruins surround modern Hampi, now a World Heritage Site in Karnataka." (Fourth sentence of the lead). New names should be introduced with references to what has already been mentioned, not to yet newer names (Hampi) and distracting asides about World Heritage Sites.
    • 5) Prose, logic problems: "Kannada literature during this period mainly consisted of writings relating to the socio–religious developments of the Veerashaiva and Vaishnava faiths, and to a lesser extent that of Jainism." (Fifth sentence of the lead). (grammar) "socio-religious" is a compound adjective, not a disjunction. (logic) If something consists "mainly" of A, what is left is not "lesser extent."
    • 6) Logic/cohesion problems: "As in the previous centuries, writing on secular topics remained popular." (Sixth sentence of the lead). "As in the previous centuries ...?" You didn't tell us anything about secular writing in the previous centuries.
    • Solution: Withdraw. Revise. Resubmit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • DK Reply
        • 1) I see only ndashes.
        • 2) What is wrong with it? If you have an issue with composed, it was written earlier and can be changed back
        • 3) Done
        • 4) I dont see what is distracting about it.
        • 5) Removed "mainly".
        • 6) Done. corrected it. Simply stated now without reference to previous centuries.
      • Solution: Continue with your suggestions, ideas right here. Risker has agreed to continue to look into cpedit issues. thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) You should have only hyphens. "socio-political," "saint-poet," and "best-known" are a compound words, they are very different from "US–China trade talks," which is a disjunction (see WP:MOS). Besides "best-known" shouldn't be hyphenated at all: contrast "the best known of the Sangama dynasty rulers" with "the best-known Sangama dynasty ruler."
2) Not sure where to begin. a) It is better to simply say "composed during the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries." b) If you are going to use "through" (i.e. up to and including)—which is an American English term and you seem to be writing in British/Indian English— it should be "during the period (lasting from the) 14th through the 16th century," where the words in parentheses are understood; but, I can't see how it would be "centuries." c) But the bigger problem is that "Kannada literature in the Vijayanagara Empire" is about the "Kannada literature" and the "Vijayanagara Empire" (the time period is secondary). The sentence should really say something along the lines of: "Kannada literature in the Vijayanagara Empire refers to the body of literature composed in the Kannada language of South India during the ascendancy of the Vijayanagar Empire which lasted from the 14th through the 16th century."
4) Please ask someone else. This is all the time I have. Good luck. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • DK Reply
      • 1) As far as I know and Risker has confirmed, we need to be consistant in what we use. I will leave this to Risker and Michael to confirm.
      • 2a-b)It was "14th through 16th century" earlier, before another user copyedited it to the current state. So you see, each reviewer sees it his/her own way and that puts me in a difficult spot.
      • 2c)Done. Copied your sentence.
      • 4) Thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: The rules for hyphenating compound words are flexible, and the use of a hyphen is often a stylistic choice. Another editor recently stated to me that British English makes more frequent use of hyphens with compound words than American English; this detail may influence the primary authors' decision to use a hyphen with certain compound words. In any case, the assertion here that the hyphen is incorrect for best-known in the article's context is not fully supported by scholarly works. For a few examples of Google online books with preview which employ a similar context and wording, and which use the hyphen, see [46], [47], [48], or [49].
It seems clear that reader interpretation of "the best known of the Sangama dynasty rulers" allows "best known" to be considered a compound word suitable for hyphenation at the author's option. Assume, as a frivolous example, that instead of notability one was referring to the intelligence of King Deva Raya II. One could substitute the single adjective smartest for best-known without further ado, further suggesting that in the article's current context best-known is acting as a single compound word.
I would, of course, defer in this opinion to someone who can validate their status as a professional copyeditor, and who can provide factual evidence to support the assertion that a hyphen is always incorrect for best-known in the article's context as currently employed. I make no claim to the exalted status of professional, but in turn I do not automatically assume it present if claimed by another. It is, however, patently true that the overall use of hyphens in compound words should be consistent within the article. -- Michael Devore (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Michael.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Michael Devore: I don't have any reference works with me right now, but the way I remember my namesake's Modern English Usage (a little dated now, but very English) talking about hyphens (in the case of a noun qualified adjectivally by another or a participle ("known") qualified by an adverb ("best")) is that one simply listened to speech: the compound form (with hyphen) has only one accent and on the first word, whereas in the un-hyphenated form, there are two accents with the second predominating. Since most people say, "He is the best-known climber" with accent only on "best," but "His is the best known of the four climbers," with accent on "known" predominating, the first is hyphenated, while the second (in which "best" is the superlative form of "well") is not. Not sure why "the best-known of" is showing up in the Google book search. People do make mistakes. Alternatively, as you suggest, it may not be a hard and fast rule. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS Well, Michael Devore might have a point. There seems to be a 15% rule. :) If you do a Google Books "Advanced Search" for the exact phrase "the best-known of" in books whose titles begin with "Cambridge History ..." (an effort to fish out British usage) you get 12 hyphenated returns out of a total of 85 (approx. 14%). Similarly, the same search in books whose titles begin with "Oxford History ..." produces 5 hyphenated returns out of a total of 33 (15%). The same search for book title "Encyclopaedia Britannica" yields 1 hyphenated return out of a total of 27. Since Encyclopaedia Britannica (for the last 50 years) has been associated with the University of Chicago and is published in the US, it probably hyphenates less often. :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC) PPS I think the 15% are errors. Doesn't make any sense in speech. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fifteen percent, assuming your figures match real-world usage, is a statistically significant figure for error in publications which are far more carefully copyedited than quality Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia typographical errors for its "best work" of already-passed Featured Articles seem to run somewhat higher; the percentage of found typographical errors for FAs can go to roughly 20% in my ongoing work there.
I therefore disagree with your interpretation of mere error in all of the works, including that in the much vaunted Encyclopedia Britannica which, it is my understanding, is comprehensively copyedited and proofed to achieve much better than a 4% failure rate. My interpretation of the evidence is that I have adequately demonstrated the hyphen is acceptable in the context it was used. As with a great many constructs in our damnably elastic English language, it is also in the minority of usage. Your figures clearly illustrate that minority status. Detailed research doubtless would lend additional support to one position over the other, but such an effort is too tedious to contemplate.
Still, were minority styles not acceptable in FAs, we would not see the perennial debates concerning unspaced em dashes and spaced en dashes for interruption, or on whether citations must follow or can precede punctuation. With that in mind, drawing the conclusion that the hyphen is "not making any sense" does not necessarily follow the evidence in my estimation.
However, if a certain style causes stress or discomfort to one or more editors, and everyone else is indifferent, then it seems a minor thing to change. I would recommend Dineshkannambadi remove the hyphen where you suggest unless he or another editor objects to the article modification. Alternatively, a slight tweak to the wording could remove the object of contention. I am not a primary author and the article does not follow my writing style (such as it is), so I will leave the hyphen decision to others better qualified to determine the best course of action here. -- Michael Devore (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
DK Reply I have requested Risker, for his/her opinion, since he/she prefered to add those hyphens. If there is no issue with removing them, I will galdly do so where required.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dinesh, this whole issue about hyphens, seems to stem from a bad case of what can only be called pretentious pedantry. Please dont lose too much sleep over it. I dont see the necessity for any changes. Sarvagnya 18:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to all for the delay in responding; real life interferes at the most inopportune moments, and I've just been getting online for very short bursts the last two days. I've reviewed the commentary above, and do note that there may have been a few &ndashes where there should have been hyphens; perhaps a misreading of the MoS on my part. As to the use of hyphens in some compound phrases, there are sometimes very good reasons for those hyphens. Compare the following:
"This is the best-known example of precambrian art."
"This is the best known example of precambrian art."
The first sentence describes the relative fame of the art piece; the second describes its quality in comparison with similar known examples. The presence or absence of the hyphen changes the meaning of the sentence. English is a living language, and there are multiple "styles" in common usage; the key on Wikipedia is to remain constant throughout a specific article. As noted, I will run through the article once again to ensure that consistency. Thanks to indopug for checking the &ndashes. Risker (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endash issue now appears to be resolved in accordance with WP:MOSDASH. Of note, endashes are properly used between two dates, (eg., 1509–1512) and between page numbers (e.g., pp. 218–220), according to MoS. I've run through the article twice now to capture all of these, and I think I've been successful. Risker (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DK Reply Thank you Risker. I think this issue is now resolved.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I've fixed all the cases where endashes were incorrectly used instead of hyphens [50]. For cases such as "best–known of the many...", I've removed the hyphen between "best" and "known" (per Fowler&fowler above). indopug (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Thanks Indopug Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - All of the sources that I'm familiar with look good. I'm not really that knowledgeable about Indian publishing firms, so I can't judge their reliability that well, sorry. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply I understand. All authors and publishing houses are however reliable.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Risker: Your example is a little different from the problem at hand. The "best" in your first example is an adverb qualifying "known" (and the "best" is a superlative form of "well"); however, the "best" in the second is an adjective qualifying "known example" (and the "best" is the superlative of "good"). In our case, both "best"'s are adverbs. Of course, Fowler's speech test still applies to your example. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as copy editor. Interesting, scholarly and encyclopedic subject, well handled in a logical and systematic way in a summary manner. There are multiple child articles related to this topic, to permit readers to find out more about the specific authors, philosophies, locales, and kingdoms. Risker (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well-written, exhaustive article. Some comments though - maybe I'm nitpicking, but here are my comments anyway:
    • 1)"..and Hari Bhaktisara, a spontaneous writing on devotion in shatpadi metre. The latter writing, which is on niti (morals), bhakti (devotion) and vairagya (renunciation), continues to be a popular standard for children" - I don't think I understand this. What is a "popular standard for children"?
    • 2)"The former was based on a 7th century Tamil work.." - Can you perhaps mention the work or the author in the footnotes?
    • 3)WP:APT and WP:AWT? "..whose impressive ruins surround modern Hampi"; "..used it to the greatest effect"; "..found immense popularity"; "This multi-linguality was perhaps a lingering legacy of the glamorous Vijayanagara literary culture.."; "So vast is this body of literature that much of it still needs to be studied.". There are quite a few examples throughout the article. Are you quoting from the cited sources, maybe?
    • 4)Red link for alankara may not look too good in a FA. --Madhu (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DK Reply I will look into your concerns today and answer point by point.thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1)Haribhaktisara is a standard book of learning for children. Added that information into the article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 2)The Tamil work is said to be by Nanasambandar. Added to inline note.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 3)I have removed some peacock terms. Yes, the source does use the term "glamorous" but I have changed it to "cosmopolitan". Regarding So vast is this body of literature..., that is what the source says.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 4)Removed red link.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like all concerns have been addressed, thanks. Good luck with the FAC! --Madhu (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - Very well written, comprehensive and well-sourced from reliable sources. Good summary style article, with more informative multiple child articles for all the sections.
Couple of comments.
This was the age of the shatpadi metre – Is the age/period referred by This is the entire period of Vijayanagara Empire?
Not sure if Nrisimhastava is the right name. Probably, it should it be Narisimhastava ?

Good job overall, and meets the criteria. - KNM Talk 05:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply The Shatpadi metre tradition reached a peak like never before during the entire Vijayanagara era and remained popular even after the decline of the empire. Poets variously used the 6 types of Shatpadi's very effectively depending on what they wrote. I corrected the spelling. Good catch.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:25, 24 May 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 16:33, 24 May 2008.

Characters of Carnivàle edit

Self-nom I believe the article meets all FA criteria, except possibly one inactionable one: Some sources are to a yahoo group that requires registration, but these are forum posts by the producer of the show (Daniel Knauf) and are thus reliable in their essence. As far as I could determine in the last 6 months, the information that he gave there is unavailable anywhere else except for fan forums that copy-pasted his messages, so I ref'ed his original messages. – sgeureka t•c 14:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (forgive my typing, I'm on the road with an unfamiliar laptop keyboard)

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://chud.com/articles/
      • Interview with Daniel Knauf, creator of the show who for some reason never discussed any indepth backstory- and mythology-related questions with mainstream sources like TV Guide (maybe because the show was not popular enough for mainstream attention, or maybe because they considered the show too inaccessible and gave up on trying to decipher it early on, who knows)
        • What makes them a reliable source for interviews though? Do they have a reputation for fact checking, etc? Ealdgyth - Talk 04:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The interview (for that matter, all interviews here) is a 1:1 transcript of the interview, so there is no fact-checking on their part. I only used Knauf's answers. Of course Knauf may be lying, but unless someone exposes him as such (which hasn't happened so far), his word stands. We can't fact-check his memory. If there are concerns that chud.com themselves messed with the transcript, I can contact Knauf and ask him to re-read the interview and confirm that they didn't mess with it. – sgeureka t•c 08:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.carnycon.com/
      • They organized CarnyCon Live 2006, see Carnivàle#Fandom
        • Addendum: The used cases were interviews with Daniel Knauf, Clancy Brown, Robert Knepper, Debra Christofferson, Brian Turk, all interviewed by Beth Blighton at CarnyCon Live. Beth Blighton is a fan who started the CarnivàleYahoo Group (Knauf's preferred message board where he made 135 posts so far), and she was also one of the main organizers of CarnyCon Live. Daniel Knauf basically vouched for her in this Yahoo Group post (registration required) and also gave his agent's contact info for proof that he is himself. You can read the relevant parts of the post in the Update of Talk:Mythology_of_Carnivàle/Archive_1#Non-deletion_rationale.
            • Are we only referring to information about the convention itself, in which case they would be a reliable source for the information about the con, or is it used for more information than just about the convention? Ealdgyth - Talk 04:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The interviews were used in the article, and the interviews were held at CarnyCon, and then hosted at that website. If the information is not factual, then the interviewed producers and cast were lying. But there is hint of such. If there are concerns that Beth Blighton (who has the best reputation in Carnivàle fancircles since she was involved with almost everything) messed with the transcript, I can contact Knauf to vouch for her actions. – sgeureka t•c 08:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.dvdtalk.com/
      • A non-fannish DVD reviewer, used for nothing but reception. DVD Talk (still) has a wiki article, so I considered their site notable enough when I started the characters article.
        • If it's used merely as a "review" site, it can probably pass muster. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.dvdverdict.com
      • A non-fannish DVD reviewer, used for nothing but reception
        • Assuming it's used merely for a review, it can probably pass muster. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://carnivaleinterviews.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_archive.html
      • Holds the dozens of interviews between Beth Blighton and the producers and the cast, in this case Daniel Knauf.
        • What makes them a reliable source for interviews though? Do they have a reputation for fact checking, etc? Ealdgyth - Talk 04:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • See above for "Beth Blighton". – sgeureka t•c 08:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.centimes.demon.co.uk/Fragments/carnivaletcatranscript.html
      • This is the only available transcript of the Television Critics Association Press Tour in 2003, no video available anywhere anymore. Answers by Daniel Knauf, Ronald D. Moore, Carolin Strauss (former president of HBO), Nick Stahl, Clancy Brown, and some more actors. Doesn't make the site reliable per se, but their answers correlate with what they've said in DVD commentaries, interviews etc., so I have no doubts about the authenticity of the transcript.
        • Do they have a reputation for fact checking, etc? Ealdgyth - Talk 04:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • All that I could do is ask the website owner if he still has the video or audio tape of that session, or ask Knauf to confirm that this was more or less what was said there, according to his memory. I can also replace the one instance where this source was used in the article, with a Yahoo Group post by Knauf, I think. – sgeureka t•c 08:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.mooncross.net/carnivale/transcripts/chat_knauf.html
      • A chat log of one of the many web chats with Knauf, also with actor Brian Turk, organized by Beth Blighton
        • As a general rule, chat logs aren't considered the most reliable sources, they can sorta squeak by when held by an otherwise reliable source. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Best I can do is ask Knauf to confirm his answers weren't messed with in the chat log. – sgeureka t•c 08:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://clancybrownfanclubblog.blogspot.com/2003/12/clancy-brown-interview-part-2.html
    • http://www.savecarnivale.org/html/carniecast_clancy.htm
      • The official fan website with to coordinate efforts to resurrect the show after its cancellation, partly managed by Beth Blighton. Holds a chat log with Clancy Brown, with the chat organized by Beth Blighton.
        • For information about the effort to save the show through the organization, probably might squeak by, but probably not reliable enogh for other information. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The same chat log is also available at various places online, e.g. the Yahoo Group. The best I can do is ask Beth Blighton to confirm that the chat log hasn't been messed with (I don't have the contact info for Clancy Brown). – sgeureka t•c 08:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.dvdtown.com/
      • A non-fannish DVD reviewer, used for nothing but reception
        • Assuming it's used merely for a review, it can probably pass muster. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://carnivaleinterviews.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_archive.html#108450441517912015
  • You already mentioned the problems with the mailing group posts. I'm assuming you mean current ref 3 "Pitch Document and Character biographies?" Also the Current ref 23 "Re: Stray thoughts on HBO's meddling"? And current ref 39 "Chat with Daniel Knauf"? And current ref 63 "Re: Prophet, Prince Usher"? And current ref 96 "Re: S2 Finale"? And current ref 97 "Re: in response to dan's letter"? and current ref 99 "Re: even more Carnivale questions"? That's a pretty large chunk of referencing sourced to a newsgroup.
    • I know that that's a lot, but there's the choice to leave the reader (the viewer) in the dark or not. Imagine Lost got cancelled after the second season, but the producers only chose to reveal their story intentions some time later in fan circles in a documentable fashion when the mainstream sources have already moved on to the next shows. "Pitch Document and Character biographies" is a ~40-page Microsoft Word document in two parts that Knauf had given to Beth Blighton years after the cancellation, and which explains all the hidden layers of the characters' past that the show never really got to reveal. Beth Blighton chose to host the document(s) in the Yahoo Group after Knauf gave his okay. – sgeureka t•c 13:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use hbo.com along with HBO as the publisher on a lot of refs. Pick one for consistency? Personally, I prefer HBO. Same sort of deal with ew.com, variety.com, usatoday.com, nytimes.com, etc.
    • The show aired on HBO, so it's HBO. The interviews etc. were (only) published online, so it's hbo.com. Some things were only said on DVDs, so it's HBO Home Video. Some online editions of newspapers can be very different from their print counterpart, so where I know the articles to have been published in regular newspapers (but were sometimes published by others later online), I used the normal name; where I only found online articles and am unsure about print publication, I used the ".com" version. (I.e. there is consistency.) Should I still change hbo.com to HBO etc. anyway? (No problem.) – sgeureka t•c 16:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The way I understand these things, and please someone else correct me, the publisher would be HBO since it's their site. The work would be HBO.com, but the actual company publishing it would be HBO. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like the original way of sourcing these better. Just as book publishers have different divisions that publish different things a modern media company like HBO has several different, large, divisions and it makes sense to distinguish between them where possible. Ditto for distinguishing between articles found online and in printed versions of news providers. In short I think removing detail in the sourcing of the article is a bad thing.--Opark 77 (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 87 "Fleck romances Carnivale" is lacking a publisher.
I'm on the road again, and the link checker tool doesn't like this hotel's ISP, I am getting a LOT of timeout errors, which I suspect are related to the hotel ISP. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll address the other two issues in an hour. Thank you for your input. – sgeureka t•c 13:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses on questions about reliable sources need to reference WP:V policy. Answers like "they organized so-and-so" or "I think they're reliable" don't resolve the query. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. I've added some more details above. Please let me know if and what sources still don't pass the reliability hurdle, since I believe all do. – sgeureka t•c 16:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're back into the territory covered by some of the most obscure recent FAC topics here. In general, interviews need to be published/hosted by reliable sources just to assure that they are reporting the words of the interview properly. While I agree, there isn't much sense for them not to, we are dealing with someone who is living and thus greater concern needs to be put out to make sure that we are reporting their words correctly. On the other hand, this topic doesn't seem to have generated a lot of mainstream press coverage. I think the best we can do, and the best I can do, is leave this information out there for other reviewers to judge for themselves. As a personal opinion, I"m a bit leary of chat logs and the like. I'm not trying to imply that the hosts of these sources aren't perfectly honest individuals, it's more that I'm leery of setting a precedent for other subjects. WP:RS purposely sets the bar high on allowing the use of these sorts of sources, and like it or not WP:RS is policy. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand and mostly agree, but the precedent has already been set with the FAC, FAR and AfD of Spoo. (Not that this would help me with this FAC, or that I endorse that article.) If I got confirmation from Knauf (I haven't approached him yet), would that help with keeping the chat logs as sources? Because if I can't keep them for a successful FA, I'd rather withdraw this FAC than removing the info from the chat logs and/or message board posts. Best, – sgeureka t•c 21:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll point out that the Spoo FAR was in Sept of 2007, about eight-nine months ago. I'm just really leery of using interviews on fan sites or chat logs on websites. I won't oppose, but I don't like the feel of the concept at all. To me, they don't fit in with WP:V which says Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Maybe if he hosted the interviews himself, they might fall under the self-published rules, but as they stand they don't appear to me to satisfy the "reputation for fact checking" requirement. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Meets FA criteria. Regarding reliable sourcing, The writers are a reliable source as it's their show, so no matter where they give that interview, be it on video, in a DVD commentary, in a book, or to their fans in a forum, its still reliable. It's the person giving the information that needs to be reliable, no matter what format its in. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Wow, looks like a really nice article. Most of my comments are fairly pedantic/nitpicky.
    • The main supporters of Brother Justin's storyline - "supporters" makes them sound like cheerleaders. How about "cohort" or something, in need of a better word? Think of anything better?
      • I chose "supporting characters".
    • the original character backgrounds only appeared as fractions of the character summaries on the official HBO website - the original bios were only a fraction of the length of the online bios? Likely it's the other way around.
      • Overcomplicated grammar. I changed it into "the original character backgrounds appeared in a summarized form on the official HBO website", although I am trying to think of a better sentence
    • part of the show's so-called Pitch Document - "Pitch Document" in quotation marks like so?
      • I added the quotation marks, but I think there is a risk that people might mistake the quotation marks as mock-quotes and will expect a real title later in the article. Maybe I'm just reading too much into this.
    • "dust bowl" used in lead; "Dustbowl" used in first subsection. Sweep through for consistency.
    • Daniel Knauf gave the latter as Ben' chain gang background - "Ben's chain gang background"?
    • Are we referring to Brother Justin as "Justin" or "Brother Justin"? Seems to be an on/off mixture of both.
      • Depends if the focus is his job or his family. But I switched to "Brother Justin" for constancy in all cases but two, which reference him as a kid
    • "[t]he only psychic Houdini was unable to debunk" - do we really need to square bracket-ise the caps-to-no-caps transition? We're quoting the same word.
    • In the "Characters affiliated with..." sections, make sure there's consistency when writing "(Seasons ...)" or "(seasons ...)" after the characters' actors.
    • Lila, who will become a major obstacle for the carnival's success - why future tense?
      • Because the character will only become an obstacle down the road. I switched to "Ruthie repeatedly approaches Lila, leading to Lila turning into a major obstacle for the carnival's success."
    • Why is Ruthie a "talker" but Jasper a "barker"? Both link to barker (occupation).
    • "Ferris wheel" or "Ferris-wheel"? Pick one and sweep through for consistency.
    • she killed her husband Hilton Scudder in the night of Henry's birth - "on the night"?
    • The producers generally preferred actors who were not strongly identified with other projects, but were willing to make exceptions such as for Adrienne Barbeau as Ruthie - maybe mention what projects Barbeau was known for.
      • Frankly, I don't know her from any of her other works even after reading her wiki article, but I have heard quite often how big a star she is. I wrote "make exceptions for established actors such as Adrienne Barbeau (Ruthie)."
    • Adrienne Barbeau (Ruthie) got cast after her first audition - "was cast"?
    • namely because "they don't play significant parts in the first few episodes." - maybe say "according to Phil Gallo of Variety".
    • Australian The Age stated that - "Australian newspaper", maybe, and maybe journalists name (Wendy Tuohy) because newspapers generally don't write their own articles ;)
    • Loving the use of exactly 100 refs. Don't add or remove any!! :D
  • Very, very nice stuff. I'm desperate to go out and rent the DVDs now! —97198 talk 13:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your thorough review; I tried to implement your notes. – sgeureka t•c 21:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support Great article, and a good read too. I'm not personally concerned with the reliability of the refs; the refs with raised issues are interview transcripts and don't contain any controversial information that could be really contested. —97198 talk 07:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent article. Referencing uses the most reliable sources available and since a range of sources are included it is acceptable to me.--Opark 77 (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well -written, well-researched, well-sourced and strikes thhe right balance for an article about a fictional subject. An outstanding example of what a list of fictional characters can be and possibly the new metric by which to gauge future such nominations. Eusebeus (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable sources concerns raised above have not been resolved. Please ask Black Kite (talk · contribs) or Elcobbola (talk · contribs) to check the images, and I'm spotting MoS issue: perhaps you can interenst Epbr123 (talk · contribs) in running through the article (I noticed MOS:CAPS#All caps in the citations and WP:PUNC issues on logical punctuation, Epbr may want to have a closer look). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • RS - see below. Black Kite was only concerned about one image, which I have removed now. ALLCAPS in the refs is for a doc file, which is case sensitive, so I won't change it. I have fixed the punctuation per MOS, and I don't think it is necessary to contact Epbr for another MOS check. – sgeureka t•c 08:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose for several reasons:
    • 1a: No substantive peer review or other process to check the prose for FA readiness. And it's far from the professional standard required by FA. The very second sentence, "Created by Daniel Knauf, the show aired on HBO between 2003 and 2005 and traces the disparate storylines of an ensemble of fictional characters revolving around two main characters: young Ben Hawkins working in a traveling carnival, and a California preacher named Brother Justin Crowe." is wordy, redundant, and contains mixed tenses. The very next sentence, "Carnivàle, a serial drama with a complex mythology, had a large cast, amounting to eighteen main cast actors over its two-season run." Confusion is already setting in.. the first sentence reads "Carnivàle is...", suggesting the show is currently running. But.. it "had" a large cast. A thorough copyedit by an uninvolved editor is needed before closer scrutiny is possible here.
    • 1c: Many absolutely unacceptable sources. No Yahoo! Groups, please. No authentication, no fact-checking, no anything. I won't rehash the outstanding items Ealdgyth posted, but I concur that they are not reliable sources.
    • 3: The rationales for the fair use images in use here are completely inadequate. The images are not the subject of critical commentary. --Laser brain (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the source Daniel Knauf (100% reliable as he is the show creator), or is the medium he chose to present the information? Anyway, I emailed Daniel Knauf, and he replied. I have copy-pasted the content of the email below (I'll leave out my real name, my email address and his email address, but I can forward the email to anyone who is interested (please don't publish the private information then anywhere), or I can ask Knauf to do the OTSR ticket thing if there is still doubt about the reliability of the sources. Although I admit that I haven't read every little blurb about Carnivàle in magazine (who has?), but being quite a Carnivàle expert now, I stand by my opinion that I have used the best sources available, and I'll rather let this FAC fail than remove them (except for maybe the mooncross transcript, which wouldn't be a big loss). Edit: Knauf has already suggested on Sep 16, 2007 to have skeptics contact his agent Pete Stone in this yahoo message (registration required) if they doubt it is him at yahoo, so I didn't ask him a second time to confirm he is himself.

Knauf's email

Von: "Gene Otto" [my note: this name is one of Knauf's online identities together with "fboffo", as e.g. seen here - registration required] [removed_Knauf's_email_address] An: sgeureka [removed_my_email_address] Betreff: Re: Request for confirmation of your old interviews and chats, if you don't mind Datum: Wed, 14. May 2008 16:45:55 -0700 Thanks for all the hard work. I just happened across your articals and was kind of stunned at their scope and detail. Hey, maybe you could work on my Wikipedia entry"Daniel Knauf"!? It's looking kind of thin compared to the other stuff now. Heh... In any case, everything you have listed in the below email is accurate and I officially confirm that I said everything that's attributed to me. If they have any questions, they can reach me through my agent, Pete Stone, at ICM in Los Angeles, (310) 550-4482 Daniel Knauf

Original Message ----

From: sgeureka [removed_my_email_address] To: Daniel Knauf [removed_Knauf's_email_address] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:46:24 PM Subject: Request for confirmation of your old interviews and chats, if you don't mind Dear Mr. Knauf, I bought Carnivàle on DVD last summer and I am still hooked (Carnivàle unfortunately never aired in my country). Since my main online pastime is being a wikipedian, I wrote several wikipedia articles about Carnivàle. One article already became a Featured Article months ago and may appear on the wikipedia main page someday. Another of my articles, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_of_Carniv%C3%A0le , is currently a Featured Article Candidate, and the only real opposition is that some editors still doubt the reliability of some online interviews and chats you supposedly did. If you aren't busy otherwise, can I ask you to confirm that you participated in the following interviews and chats, and/or that you stated the following? I know Beth didn't mess with the transcripts etc., but wikipedia doesn't know this, and they won't just take my word for it. But your word would be a big help. If you reply, I'd forward your reply to the candidacy page without publicizing your email address. Greetings from Germany, [removed_my_real_name] ( sgeureka, email [removed_my_email_address] ) Interview chud.com with Knauf before the season 2 premiere: http://chud.com/articles/articles/1255/1/THUD-INTERVIEW-DAN-KNAUF-CARNIVALE-PRODUCER/Page1.html - (Knauf) "We have a detailed, fully developed mythology, rules and backstories for all the characters, but we use those as a foundation rather than part of the visible structure. We learned to trust that the buried details would surface in their own time, that the story would unfold organically, without the sense that the writers are giving it the whip." Interview Beth with Knauf at CarnyCon: http://www.carnycon.com/bally/dan.html - (Knauf) the Creature of Light is Ben. - (Knauf) "Who's the Tattooed Man?" And "Who's the Usher?" And in the very first episode of the first season, who do we see in that cornfield that we recognize, with a tattoo on him? - (Beth) The Tattooed Man? - (Knauf) Yeah, but we also see one of our characters, and people have even done screencaps and discussed this. - (Beth) Well, I saw Justin. - (Knauf) Right, they've seen Justin! - (Knauf) We all know that Apollonia, when she was alive, exercised INCREDIBLE control over her daughter. And she really kept her daughter under tight wraps. And she'd done so since she was a baby, cuz she's lived inside her daughter's head. And so, when did things go wrong? When Sofie began rebelling against that. And once she couldn't control her daughter anymore, well, what did she do? First, she tried to drive her mad, maybe drive her to suicide. And when that didn't work, she tried to kill her. - (Knauf) Lodz was one of my favorite characters. Samson, I think, is my favorite. But Lodz was right up there. And killing him off was not easy. It wasn't an easy thing to do. But, first of all, it served a purpose to the story, and it was planned. But, second of all, it tells people, "Look, all bets are off." Interview Beth with Knauf shortly before the Season 2 premiere: http://carnivaleinterviews.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_archive.html - (Knauf) when I'd originally designed Brother Justin, I'd always thought of him as being a recurring character but not a regular character. [...] And it was clear from the pilot that we had nowhere to go. So we sat down and put our heads together, and basically I guess what you could say we did was took him back in time about a year or two. And we sort of decided, let's show a little bit of his path and how he got to where he ends up. How he starts out as sort of an ordinary Methodist minister in a little town. - (Beth) And you added the Sister Iris character then? She was not originally in it? - (Knauf) No, she wasn't. Summer 2003 Cable TCA Press Tour with the producers and actors, including you: http://www.centimes.demon.co.uk/Fragments/carnivaletcatranscript.html - (Moore) I think there was also the concern early on, as Clancy alluded to, there was an actual historical figure named Father Coughlin, who was an Irish Catholic priest and we didn't want it to be this is the Father Coughlin story. It felt like every time we went into that terrain, that that sort of took us there and we weren't trying to tell his particular tale. - He was certainly somebody that has an historical reference for us, but he wasn't the guy. Dan Knauf chats live - March 1, 2005: http://www.mooncross.net/carnivale/transcripts/chat_knauf.html - (Knauf) fan, the Iris Justin releationship is just as warped and incestuous as ever. She is, after all, procuring surrogate "sisters" to fuck (the maids) to relieve the pressure.

[end]
    • I am very uneasy about all this. It seems like almost the whole article is sourced to primary sources (HBO and other supposedly original documents) and many of them are based on circumstantial information. --Laser brain (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go over the image FURs again, although I feel they that the article has enough critical commentary about the look of the things that the images identify.

  • Image:Carnivale Season 1 Cast Promo.jpg - no problem I guess
  • Image:Benhawkins.jpg - identification of main character, in article: Of the many actors auditioning, the producers found that Nick Stahl brought a "particular introspection" to the character, "project[ing] a great deal of sensitivity, of quiet intelligence, of pain."[12] They also felt that his seemingly little-trained physique worked well for the 1930s period. [...] In reviewing the first three episodes, The New York Times commented that "Ben is a taciturn hero, and Mr. Stahl does a remarkable job of wordlessly conveying his character's moods and yearnings, as well as his ungainly grace."[14] Boston.com regarded "Stahl, with his watchful eyes, [as] one of the show's strengths. He has a boyish face, but the grim expression of a worn-out elder,"[15] and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer said Stahl "speaks volumes with his eyes and weary frown, so much so that his understated portrayal almost carries the series."[16] [...] Ben wore the same clothes in both seasons, and to make them look identical, around twenty multiples of his coveralls were made by hand. It took over six weeks to apply all stitches, patches and the roughly fifty holes, plus the aging process.
  • Image:BJustin2.jpg - identification of main character, the section is so long that he could be spun out into his own GA article, in article: Referring to Brown's portrayal as "a man of God in Carnivale," the Los Angeles Times saw Brown's "eyes always betray[ing] him as someone who, all things considered, would probably be happier caving in your skull and smoking a cigarette afterward than talking to you for another minute."[35] [...] Brother Justin's clothes were made period-correct from the beginning, but the character's foreboding presence was enhanced by fitting his frock on the waist and making the shoulders look bigger than usual for that time period.
  • Image:Carnivale Scudder Belyakov.jpg - important characters who don't appear in Image:Carnivale Season 1 Cast Promo.jpg, that's how a dream looks in Carnivàle
  • Image:Carnivale Libby Costume.jpg - example for period look of clothes, 10 major costume and make-up award noms+wins, in article: "The stripper clothes of Rita Sue and Libby were influenced by Mae West, harlot movies and silent films of the 1920s and 1930s, with additional research put into Asian harlots, Latin dancers and Hawaiian dancers."

As for the other stuff, I have fixed a couple of MOS issues, and I have read and tweaked the article again for prose. I'll approach the suggested editors soon. – sgeureka t•c 10:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support after the prose has been polished up. It's quite good now, so why not coax someone else to sift through it: should be a quick job. Don't just correct these samples, please.

  • "before filming of the first season began"—missing word.
  • "appeared in a summarized form"—reduce to two words.
  • "the writers are benefited with more flexibility"—ouch.
  • "Ben has displayed inexplicable healing powers since childhood, and with the beginning of the series, he has also begun to suffer dreams and visions of people unknown to him."—what does "also" add? And there's another idle one shortly after. Weed them out, please.
  • "Season 2 concludes in Ben setting out to confront Brother Justin in California"—not "in", but "with". And another noun + -ing glitch. I'll borrow this for the exercises in this issue I'm writing. Try the existing one. TONY (talk) 04:41, 22 May 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 17:48, 22 May 2008.

Tropical Depression Ten (2007) edit

I'm actually excited for this one. I believe this article deserves to be featured, as it will provide a standard for future articles on weak storms. Thus, it will feature those such storms. This is the first FA nomination on a tropical depression, which is the weakest of all tropical cyclones. The depression formed near Florida last September, and quickly dissipated. It has passed the GA criteria and A-class criteria, and I personally believe it also passes the FA criteria. Though it might seem short, it is longer than our shortest FA, and the article is comprehensive in dealing with the topics associated with the depression. Here goes nothing. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 10:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • I'd like to see the lead expanded into two paragraphs if possible.
  • Convection gradually became better organized, with a well-defined band in its eastern semicircle and intermittent thunderstorm activity near the center. Despite its overall poor organization, with a poorly-defined circulation...—This is making no sense to me. Firts, you say it's beginning to organize, and it has a well-defined bandind feature, but then you go on to say it's poorly organized.
  • The circulation became better defined as convection modestly increased over the center, and within 6 hours of its development the system transitioned into a tropical depression.—MoS breach?
  • The tornado destroyed 20 homes, left 30 others severely damaged, and injured one person, and caused power outages for about 300 people.— You could probably remove the first "and", as it bogs down the sentence.
  • Also, seriously, shouldn't preparations go before impact, instead of between it?
That's all from me. Good work overall. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede expanded. That sentence I clarified, as the convection was somewhat organized, but the overall structure, including circulation and outflow, was poorly organized. Fixed the next two points. For the impact section, I felt the need to have the Eustis tornado mentioned first, since it happened before the system became a depression. Then, I listed preps, which were followed by impact. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current ref 10 "David M Roth "Tropical Depression #10" is lacking a publisher. I believe it's NOAA?
  • In the real picky department, you sometimes put the author/publisher like Reuters first in the bibliographical entry, sometimes after the title. Can we stick with one system?
Sources look good. Links checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support with one little quibble.

  • In the storm history section, third paragraph, the verb in the first two sentences is "was forcasted" which is repetitious. Consider changing one.
Otherwise reads well to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Article is terrific, it fulfills all of the featured article criteria. This will serve as a great model for writing articles on tropical depressions. Hello32020 (talk) 21:49, 19 May 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 17:48, 22 May 2008.

Jack Marsh edit

An article on the first indigenous Australian to play first-class cricket. Jack Marsh was the subject of racism rows, and he was accused of illegal bowling technique. This led to the early end of his career and sparked controversy over whether he was discriminated against. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support done a little tinkering, would be nice to stubify those redlinks (might get started on that later today) but overall I can't find anything amiss. SGGH speak! 08:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "The selection made him the first Australian indigenous first-class cricketer." No, see [51] & [52].

Phanto282 (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pick-up. Teh book said "first indig in interstate cric" - Obviously I didn't pick up the subtlety about it meaning post-1901 cricketers. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random comments

  • >> Marsh dismissed Australian Cricket Hall of Fame members and Test cricketers Victor Trumper and Monty Noble, but was called for throwing.

Get rid of the "Australian HoF members". Very awkward

Done. I shouldn't have put that in the lead anyway.
  • >> Marsh was called a total of 17 times during the innings, the most in a single instance in Australia.

Use "innings" or "match" intead of instance

Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • >> As a result, Marsh was effectively excluded from the Australian side and his first-class career was limited to just six matches in which he took 34 wickets at an average of 21.47.[30] In later years, Marsh experimented with the googly. The Australian Test batsman and captain Warren Bardsley rated Marsh alongside Fred Spofforth and England's Sydney Barnes.[2] The comparison to Barnes was praise indeed; Barnes was the only bowler in Test history with over 120 wickets to have a bowling average under 20, with 189 wickets at an average of just 16.43.[31] Bardsley said that the only reason that Marsh was "kept . . . out of big cricket was his color".[1]

The line about the googly breaks the flow. Either the comparison with Barnes should be moved elsewhere (or to a new paragraph), or the googly thing should be moved. Tintin 14:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Two of your printed references are lacking publishers: Armstrong and Cashman.
Sources look good. Links checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mattinbgn has kindly fixed this. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Mattinbgn

As always, this is another great article from Blnguyen.

  • Would a link for "racial discrimination" be appropriate?
Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he also traveled interstate to race" - anachronism? - New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria were not states at this time.
Done, asleep again. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Marsh also gained prominence in the inner-southern Sydney suburb of La Perouse, which had a large indigenous population, while demonstrating his boomerang skills" - this reads a little clumsily.
Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following its merged with South Sydney, Marsh then played for Sydney Cricket Club" - grammar error?
Done, asleep again. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sydney Cricket Club" - the Sydney Cricket Club linked is the renamed Balmain Cricket Club and not the Sydney Cricket Club that Marsh would have played for.
The content of the article seems to indicate that they are talking about the same club, because it mentions playing against Easts and Paddington. Marsh is recorded as playing against Paddington. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking again, it seems as though from reading the SCC article, that the old BCC and the SCC that the author refers to are the same thing, becuase the history talks about a BCC at the turn of the century. So it seems they are the same - maybe the author mixed up his names? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not convinced they are the same club. Balmain CC had a long and proud history (and Balmain the suburb was fiercely parochial - see Neville Wran and "Balmain Boys Don't Cry"); I would be surprised if; (a) The club changed its name from Sydney to Balmain and then 100 years later changed it back or (b) the RS used the modern name for the club rather than the correct name at the time. However, I have a proposed solution: perhaps the Sydney Cricket Club article could include a sentence to effect of "At the turn of the 19th century, a club by the name of Sydney Cricket Club was in existence and playing regular fixtures. Based at (Moore Park???) players included Jack Marsh, etc.)" Your thoughts? -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Colts XV", this will need explanation in some form for non-cricket aficionados
Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "because Curran withdrew from his position by lunch on the second day" - would "the lunch break" be clearer and perhaps a link to List of cricket terms.
Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "just a month after he was no-balled" - replace "no-balled" with "called for throwing" - more specific
Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which remains the highest individual score compiled at the Adelaide Oval in a Sheffield Shield match." This claim needs an inline citation
Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before sailing to an innings victory" - sailing is colloquial, I would also consider a link for the term "innings victory"
Done. But where is the article about cricket margins of victory? I can't see it at List of cricket terms, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I generally use Result (cricket)#Statement of result -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Marsh bowled six of his opponents" - linked bowled
This was already linked in an earlier instance. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...his action was passed Sammy Jones as being fair" - grammar needs correction
Done, asleep again. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph starting "Certain hypotheses were presented for Crockett's actions." terms such as "certain quarters", "cynics" etc. seem vague. Is there any way we can be more specific about the people who put forward these conspiracy theories?
Unfortunately Whimpress did not attribute these theories to their owners and adherents. I did tweak some of the words to make it sound less suspicious but do feel free to tweaj as necessary. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "raised eyebrows among cricket observers" - Is "raised eyebrows" a little colloquial?
Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Marsh and Henry dismissed one another, each being bowled for nine to create a symmetry in the scorecard." - Is this encyclopaedic enough for inclusion?
Well the book actually noted that! I didn't make my own noting from the scorecard. But feel free to remove if it is silly. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, great work. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support.GrahamColmTalk 17:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved GrahamColmTalk 17:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that some of the comments made above have been addressed and I have made some suggestions here:[53].

  • Who was Sammy Jones? He is only mentioned once and in a sentence that is not grammatical.
Done, asleep again. Mentioned that he is the second umpire. They umpire in pairs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the use of the English and Englishmen odd in places. Would English side or English team be better?
I'm not sure why they would be odd, but I don;t mind if you change them. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lastly, Certain hypotheses is a little vague.
I changed this to various, since there were a few of them. I replied to a general remark about this in Mattinbgn's section above. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an engaging article and one that I will be pleased to support once the reviewers' comments have been actioned. Well done. GrahamColmTalk 16:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Support - Not only an interesting read, but a high-quality one. These are all the problems I could find, not counting a few already mentioned above.

  • "and had was overlooked for national selection." Second word needs to go.
Done, asleep again. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Club cricket: "Marsh also collected the prized scalps of Test batsmen and future Australian captains Monty Noble and Syd Gregory." There are complaints above about informal language, and "collected the prized scalps" may be another example.
Fixed, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reaction to Crockett: "that he felt himself to be ready to officiate in Test matches." I think it would sound better in a shorter version: "that he felt ready to officiate in Test matches."
Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which organized and the sponsored English tours to Australia". Say good-bye to "the".
Done, asleep again. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later years: "In retirement ," Comma has to be moved.
Done, asleep again. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just like Graham, I will fully support once all concerns have been addressed. Great job. Giants2008 (talk) 20:19, 18 May 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 17:48, 22 May 2008.

Trevor Linden edit

While Kaiser matias, and I'm more of an assistant-type editor, we've agreed on starting the FAC process. Linden has near-divine status in British Columbia because of his long career with the Vancouver Canucks. While he has never won the Stanley Cup, he has set numerous records with Canucks' franchise and has been, since he was drafted second overall in 1988, the Canucks' leader, even although he has no worn the captain's C since 1998, when he was traded from Vancouver. Linden rejoined the team in 2001, and while he played the most recent season, he has most likely retired. As for the article itself, the state looks good, I've checked all the tools in the box in the upper right hand corner, and all looks fine, too. Maxim(talk) 13:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a co-nominator, I'll add my piece here. Like stated, Linden is seen as a god in Vancouver, and all of British Columbia. I've spent the last few months greatly expanding the article, and at the urging of Maxim, decided to forgo the GA process and dive straight into here. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved --Maxim(talk) 01:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Still some spelling/grammar issues:
  • "Since joining the league in 1988, he has played with four different teams, the Vancouver Canucks (in two stints), New York Islanders, Montreal Canadiens, and Washington Capitals". Should be a colon, not a comma
  • WHL needs to be defined when introduced
  • "Throughout his career, Linden has been recognized as a respected leader both on and off the ice". "Both" is redundant
  • "a position he would hold for eight years". Should be "a position he held"
  • "Trevor was a skilled athlete, playing sports such as baseball, golf, volleyball, basketball and speed skating, other than hockey, which his was most important sport." Can we reword that to make it less awkward?
  • "After one season playing with Medicine Hat Midget Tigers team in the Alberta Midget Hockey League (AMHL), Linden joined the junior Tigers". Change this to "After one season playing with Medicine Hat Midget Tigers of the Alberta Midget Hockey League (AMHL), Linden joined the WHL Tigers"
  • "incluidng 2 goals in the championship game". Typo.
  • Is it possible to touch up Image:Trevor_Linden_draft_photo_1988.JPG? It's extremely dark.
  • "a month, less a day, later," remove this
  • "Linden tied for the Canucks lead in goals with 30, the first Canucks rookie to reach that milestone, and was second on the team with 59 points in his rookie season." Try "Linden finished the season tied for the team lead in goals (30) and second for assists (59). He was the first Canucks rookie to score 30 goals."
  • "in voting for the Calder Trophy, given to the rookie of the year," Typo (should be a period)
  • "and Linden scored seven points in the Canucks seven-game series loss". Should be "Canucks'" (possessive apostrophe)
  • "In the playoffs, although they were seeded seventh". Change this to "Although they were the seventh seed in the playoffs"
  • "Playing the New York Rangers". Already linked earlier in the section
  • "Linden went up against Rangers captain Mark Messier and led the Canucks to a game 7 scoring twice in the final and decisive game, only to have the Rangers win by a final of 3-2." Change this to "Linden went up against Rangers captain Mark Messier and led the Canucks to a game 7, where he scored twice, despite losing 3-2"
  • "In the 49 games played over the year, he scored 9 goals and 31 assists". Try "In his 49 games that season..."
  • "AT the conclusion of the season, Linden's contributions to the Vancouver community were recognized by the NHL when he was awarded the King Clancy Memorial Trophy." Typo. Also, change it to "At the conclusion of the season, the NHL recognized Linden's contributions to the Vancouver community and awarded him the King Clancy Memorial Trophy."
  • "At the start of the 1997–98 season, with the addition of free agent Mark Messier, a six-time Stanley Cup winner, Linden gave up his captaincy. The arrival of Messier and the hiring of Mike Keenan, who coached the Rangers to the Stanley Cup over the Canucks in 1994, early through the season created friction between Linden and Keenan." Awkward. Try "At the start of the 1997–98 season, the Canucks added free agent Mark Messier, a six-time Stanley Cup winner, and coach Mike Keenan. Both were with the Rangers when they defeated Vancouver in 1994. Friction between Linden and Keenan developed early in the season."
  • "The situation, perhaps, was brought to a peak after a 5-1 loss to the St. Louis Blues, the team Keenan coached before joining the Canucks. Keenan openly blamed the loss on Linden in front of the team, a moment Linden refers to as his "darkest time"." Try "After a 5-1 loss to the St. Louis Blues, the team Keenan coached before joining the Canucks, Keenan openly blamed Linden for the loss, a moment Linden refers to as his "darkest time". (This one was tough to phrase, if you have something better, throw it out there)
  • "the Islanders 3rd round choice". Should be "the Islanders' third round choice"
  • "With Washington, Linden reached the playoffs for the first time in four years in 2001, and the only time with the Capitals." Get rid of "and the only time with the Capitals"
  • "After only 28 games with the Capitals spread over parts of two seasons, scoring only 3 goals and 4 assists, Linden was traded back to the Canucks. In exchange for Vancouver's first-round choice in the 2002 NHL Entry Draft (Boyd Gordon) and a third-round choice in the 2003 NHL Entry Draft, Linden went along with a second-round choice in either the 2002 or 2003 drafts on November 10, 2001.". Change this to "After 48 games over two season with the Capitals, Linden scored only three goals and four assists. On November 10, 2001, the Capitals traded Linden and a second round draft pick in either 2002 or 2003 to the Canucks for their first round pick in 2002 (Boyd Gordon) and a third round pick in 2003."
  • "The ceremony was delayed on request by Linden, who didn't want to distract the team from the playoff race at hand." Try "Because he did not want to distract the team from the playoff race, Linden asked for the ceremony to be delayed."
  • "A few weeks later on March 8". Try "On March 8..."
  • "new CBA negotiations". Define "CBA"
  • "A late-season game against the San Jose Sharks on April 13, 2006, marked Linden's 1,000th game with the Canucks, making him the first player to do so." Try "Linden became the first player to play 1,000 games with the Canucks on April 13, 2006 when they faced the San Jose Sharks."
  • "Notably, it was Linden's sixth game seven goal of his playoff career". You should make that "game-seven" to avoid confusion
  • "The season would not go ideally for Linden, who was a healthy scratch 23 times." Try "The season was not ideal for Linden, who was a healthy scratch 23 times."
  • "In March 2008, Linden was selected as the Canucks nominee for the Bill Masterton Trophy,[40] given to the player who best exemplifies the qualities of perseverance, sportsmanship, and dedication to hockey, by the Vancouver chapter of the Professional Hockey Writers' Association, the group that selects the winner". Try "In March 2008, the Vancouver chapter of the Professional Hockey Writers' Association selected Linden as the Canucks nominee for the Bill Masterton Trophy..."
  • "Jamie played 4 games with the" Should be "Jamie played four games"
  • "in an attempt save the NHL season from being lost" Try "in an attempt avoid losing the NHL season"
  • "with Linden admitting that he was unable to sleep the night before his first game back, due to excitement Try "with Linden admitting that he was too excited to sleep the night before his first game back."
  • "On April 5th, 2008, the Canucks final game of the 2007–08 season, Linden was given a standing ovation before the start of the third period by the Vancouver crowd". Should be "On April 5th, 2008, the Canucks' final game of the 2007–08 season, the Vancouver crowd gave Linden a standing ovation before the start of the third period"
  • "His first appearance on the world stage was" should be "He first appeared on the world stage"
  • "His first senior international tournament was the 1991 World Championship, in which Linden contributed one goal and four assists in ten games, as Canada won the silver medal" should be "His first senior international tournament was the 1991 World Championship, in which he contributed one goal and four assists in ten games as Canada won the silver medal."
  • "Scoring 1 goal and 4 assists, identical totals to that of his previous World Championship tournament, Canada would finish fifth" should be "He scored one goal and four assists as Canada finished fifth"

That's all I've got. Let me know when you're done.-Wafulz (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Maxim(talk) 19:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll check it out tonight.-Wafulz (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Sorry, but I'm finding a lot of issues early in the article.

  • Lead: Do the consecutive Memorial Cup titles need a reference here? Both are cited later.
    • It doesn't hurt. And also, for purely editing purposes, the lead has all the long book cites so you can you use a contracted form later. :-p
  • "Linden was member of the 1998 Canadian Olympic team" This should be "a member".
    • Fixed.
  • "Linden led the team to within two goals of winning the Stanley Cup in 1994." This seems unusual. It's more common to say "within one game".
    • Fixed.
  • Move the citation for Linden being named NHLPA president to the appropriate section.
    • Fixed.
  • The citation on him negotiating with NHL owners is repeated later. Is placing it in the lead really necessary?
    • See above.
  • Define and link NHLPA.
    • Fixed.
  • "humanitarian contribution" Should this be contributions?
    • Fixed.
  • Early life, second sentence: Comma after basketball? This is nit-picky, but this would match the list of teams Linden played for in the lead. One or the other should be changed.
    • Fixed.
  • "An excellent student through school" Through school seems awkward. In school seems like what you're going for.
    • Fixed.
  • "with Medicine Hat Midget Tigers" With "the".
    • Fixed.

Giants2008 (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I can take another stab at thorough copyedit. I do, at times, forget to fix jargon/CAPITAL gbbrsh so a second look over probably wouldn't hurt. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 23:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add a couple quick reference notes

  • Current ref 52 has a formatting error. I think you placed a slash instead of a pipe.
    • Fixed. Thanks. :-)
  • I happen to own the American version of NHL Hockey: The Official Fans' Guide (current ref 20), and the page number is different in mine. The 1994 Finals are on page 106 in my version. If it's different in the Canadian version. that's fine. Double-checking the page number wouldn't hurt, though. Giants2008 (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I have no clue, Kaiser matias has the book, while I don't... probably there's a difference in the versions. Maxim(talk) 23:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right in regards to the page number. I simply added the total number of pages of the book when adding the reference, as is the case for the other print sources. If it's an issue, I can fix that all up. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • When WP:CITE states that page numbers should be given, I do believe they mean specific numbers. I recommend changing them if possible. Giants2008 (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • What is the source for the career stats section, and page number issues needs to be sorted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does the career stats need a reference listed with it? After all, the source is listed, in the External links section, stating that it is the career stats for Linden. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read WP:GTL: if a site is used as a source, it doesn't belong in External links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Understand now. Added a better reference that is more in depth. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved Giants2008 (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back with more issues.

  • "earning a goal". Earning seems unusual in this sense. Is there a different term that could be used?
    • Fixed.
  • Hyphen for full time.
    • Fixed.
  • 7 seconds should be seven seconds.
    • Fixed.
  • In the last sentence of Early life, the top two draft picks are handled in a repetitive way. Some variation would be nice.
    • Fixed. First overall is a redundancy.;-)
  • NHL career, Vancouver Canucks: Current ref 14 is not after punctuation.
    • Fixed.
  • "The Canucks made the playoffs in 1988-89 season" Either add the or remove season.
    • Fixed.
  • "eventual Stanley Cup champions" In this form, the last word should be singular.
    • Fixed.
  • Typo: Cancucks.
    • Fixed.
  • Linden again scored at least 30 goals, with 32, the fifth time in six seasons,". I like this: "Linden scored 32 goals, the fifth time in six seasons he had scored at least 30,".
    • Fixed.
  • Game seven of 1994, while bringing back great memories for this Rangers fan, has a few problems. First, 7 should be spelled out. He didn't lose the game, his team did. There is also a missing period.
    • Fixed.
  • 2007 should not be linked by itself.
    • Fixed.
  • 9 goals in 1995-96 is another number issue.
    • Fixed.
  • The first half of the last paragraph of the section looks bad. It appears you were making a change but forgot to delete the old text. This is what's there now: "At the start of the 1997-98 season, the Canucks added free agent Mark Messier, a six-time Stanley Cup winner, and coach Mike Keenan. Both were with the Rangers when they defeated Vancouver in 1994. Friction between Linden and Keenan developed early in the season. The arrival of Messier and the hiring of Mike Keenan, who coached the Rangers to the Stanley Cup over the Canucks in 1994, early through the season created friction between Linden and Keenan. For what it's worth, I prefer the first version.
  • 7 goals. I have to ask, is this how you want it? If so, some earlier single-digit numbers are spelled out.
    • Fixed.

I was hoping to drop my oppose after a second look, but I still maintain that the article needs a thorough copy-edit. Giants2008 (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I haven't re-copyedited it yet, I was waiting for your response.;-) I will go through this new list of issues and take another stab at copyediting, likely tomorrow, as I don't have time now. (Just posting so you know I saw this post and will fix stuff.;-) Maxim(talk) 23:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've fixed everything in the list; I'm going to do a more thorough copyedit now. Maxim(talk) 12:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've attempted a more thorough copyedit as well. --Maxim(talk) 13:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you fixed ref 14, a space was created before ref 15.
  • Fixed.
  • I'm waffling on the seventh game thing, as it would officially be called Game 7, but it may not work well with the sentence. After another look, this may be better: "and led the Canucks to a seventh and deciding game. Despite two goals by Linden, the Canucks lost, 3–2." It also breaks up a long sentence. My apologies on this one.
  • Fixed.
  • You didn't fix the start of 1997–98, the most serious issue I found last time.
  • Fixed.
  • New York, Montreal and Washington: Link 2000-2001 NHL season
  • Support. With this laundry list of fixes complete, I'm now ready to Support. I think it's ready now. Thanks for putting up with me. Giants2008 (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay. Still on the road, so didn't check links. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
medicinehat.ca is Medicine Hat's website....-Wafulz (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gathered that, but what makes a city's hall of fame page reliable for biographical details on a living person? I'm not saying that it is necessarily unreliable, but it's not a normal source to be using for biographical details. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the background section detailing the city Wall of Fame, it says that to nominate a candidate, background information was supplied, and then a member of City Hall interviewd the individual candidates.
As for the second source, not being the one adding it, I haven't a clue about it. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should nix that second source. It's got way too much advertising and doesn't look reliable.-Wafulz (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks like it meets the criteria to me now.-Wafulz (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I went through and fixed a couple minor issues (spacing, duplicate links), and centred the text in the career stats tables. Well written article, and complete. But god those 1980s Canucks jerseys were horrible... Resolute 16:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: For now, I'll stick to just stating the problems I found:

  • The Order of British Columbia should be put out in it's proper name
  • Please look at other article of winners of things like the Order of Canada, Order of British Columbia. The guideline is to leave it as John Doe, OC, born ...
  • Maybe when you mention his father, Lane, it should be right away mentioned who he was, not in the next sentence.
  • Fixed.
  • And mentioning that his father also had a cattle farm seems rather unimportant.
  • Fixed.
  • Mentioning the other rookie to score 30 goals would be helpful, in Vancouver Canucks, 1988-1998 I think that would be Pavel Bure.
  • I don't get this comment.
  • Switch info about his assists and points in his sophomore year.
  • Don't understand you...
  • I read in the lead that he was made captain at 20, then later in this section at 21; which is it?
  • Damn. There's a bad source, I've removed it; I checked at least 5 others and they all said 21.
  • Division Title, not win, and mention which season.
  • Done.
  • In the New York, Montreal and Washington (1998–2001) section, it says, when traded to Washington,

...Going with Dainius Zubrus, and New Jersey's 2nd round choice...

It sounds better with, traded along with.

  • It makes for plain, generic, thus boring prose. I think there should be some variation.
  • Expand a bit on the 2000-01 playoff when Linden went with them to the playoffs for the first time in four years.
  • I don't see anymore details that can be added. His team simply made the playoffs, and it was his first time in four years.

That's all I found so far.

Let me just say though I haven't been with the Canucks for more than six years, I have always found Linden to be one of the best Canuck player there is. I hope he'll stay for another season. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 21:20, 21 May 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 02:16, 21 May 2008.

Sinestro Corps War edit

Self-nom. This article has been my pet project for the past nine months and was my first GA. I've carefully nurtured it from a short stub unworthy of an encyclopedia into a well-sourced and well-written article. Now, with the storyline having been concluded for five months, I think the article's finally ready for FA. Thanks very much! Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments for now. Thanks for writing it. I like what I have read so far and I have made some suggestions for the Lead section. [54]. Can we improve on:
  • using the title of ?

My edits are just suggestions and I will write more comments later. GrahamColmTalk 00:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Plot section is very long in comparison to the rest of the article (and in absolute terms as well). Suggest it be shortened. Mangostar (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to cut it down as much as possible, but it's a big and complex plot. I'll keep looking for ways to shrink it down, though. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks much better now, though I haven't reviewed the rest of the article. Mangostar (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Try giving the plot summary more real world context. Like add "In Green Lantern #25 . . ." and the like. Cut down on the details; focus on the broad strokes. See if you can get the plot summary down to three of four paragraphs. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm uncomfortable with doing real-world context like that within a plot section. It breaks the in-universe flow to constantly jar back to out-of-universe and would get messy and clunky if we did it for all eleven issues. Heck, it might even make the plot section longer than it is now. But you're right, it should be edited down to three or four paragraphs. Let me meditate on how best to do it, and I'll implement it as soon as I figure it out. I would like to note that I'm glad these are the only complaints so far! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 06:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely favor real-world context over the fictional context. I would help more with the plot summary, but I want to avoid spoilers, in case I ever decide to read it (I used to really like Geoff Johns' writing until Green Lantern: Rebirth came out) WesleyDodds (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should definitely read it, it's excellent and nothing like Rebirth's writing style. I'm trying to preserve the fictional context in the plot section so my "Storyline and character changes" section will make sense to a casual reader. I've also cut down significantly on the plot section, removing about 3k worth of text but I still haven't figured out how best to fit it into three or four paragraphs without sacrificing quality. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment How come the plot in this article is word for word the same as Sinestro Corps#The Sinestro Corps War, I don't think we're supposed to have duplicate infomation. --Gman124 talk 03:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information in Sinestro Corps should be drastically cut or excised completely. Any plot summary belongs in this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some editor copy/pasted the original version, it seems. It should have no bearing on this article's FAC. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Wesley regarding out of universe. As I am unlikely to ever read the book, I am happy to edit accordingly. Hiding T 13:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
have never read another article on Wikipedia whose plot section was done out-of-universe and I completely disagree with rewriting it as such. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with you (HM), this is a long-standing back-n-forth concerning fiction and "plot summaries". Some editors like to inject the "why" of why an author did such-n-such, and how the plot related to other things "in comics", either the publisher's publications, or comics in general. From what I've been reading of other articles, however, it seems to me that such information is better laid out in a separate section, so as to not break up the plot summary. (Which could lead to confusing out readers.) - jc37 20:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to edit it if it is going to cause an edit war. However, I feel the plot summary of this article is too long at present and unbalances the article by going into unnecessary detail. I think some of the plot points are perhaps minor in detail, for example "Sinestro reveals to Kyle that "Ion" is the embodiment of willpower itself, much like Parallax is the embodiment of fear. After removing Ion from Kyle, Sinestro uses the death of Kyle's mother to inspire fear in him, allowing Parallax to possess him." could just as easily be summarised as "Sinestro manages to depower and possess Raynor.". If the plot summary was handled more succinctly, I feel it could be trimmed back to four paragraphs or so, and I'd feel happier about it. I'm comparing it to current featured articles, which have far shorter plot summaries, The Well of Loneliness, Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman, Original Stories from Real Life, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and The Illuminatus! Trilogy. Hiding T 13:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am a hard core enforcer of WP:WAF, and support the out-of-universe plot summaries, because it simply makes the article better. I gladly point out some examples of out-of-universe plot description. In the comics range, see e.g. the FA Anarky, which is a superb example of why Alan Grant made Anarky the way he did and why Anarky acted in manner X in arc Y. Or on a lower level, Clone Saga: you have all the wild plot twists explained by greedy, power-hungry editors. Also see Harry Potter (character), in which real-life info by J.K. Rowling is used to explain WHY she made Harry an orphan, WHY she made him act the way he did (citing e.g. the Iliad and The Sword in the Stone). Look at them, it is WAY better IMHO than just retelling the plot. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are multiple reasons I do not feel an out-of-universe plot summary would work here. First, the overall out-of-universe explanations are already present in a separate section, which more clearly organizes them. Second, the storyline meanings and themes I wish to convey are present throughout the entire story, and cannot be attributed to a single spot overall. Third, the plot section is already massive - I fear that adding out-of-universe context could expand what is already a tenuously massive and complex plot summary into an unreadable mess. Fourth, there's not enough information as to the storyline to detail who came up with what part since it was by and large a joint effort. Finally, the article works perfectly fine with an in-universe plot summary - why fix it if it ain't broken? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I just think you should add things like "In Green Lantern #25 . . ." That shouldn't be too hard to work in. Consensus is in favor of an out-of-universe approach, and given the plot summary is really the article's only major flaw right now, you should would with Hiding to rework it per suggestions provided. WesleyDodds (talk)
  • I'm still pretty against this since my primary "template" for this article was Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, which does an excellent job of showing how an in-universe plot summary plus an out-of-universe explanation can work. However, I will bow to the will of the masses. I'll have the necessary changes done by the end of this weekend when I can get a hold of my books again. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can only base the plot synopsis on Empire so much, because that was a single film, and this is several issues of comics. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both are part of an over-reaching story arc... - jc37 02:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Empire is part of a film trilogy (later augmented by the prequels). "Sinestro Corps War" is a complete story, made of over a dozen separate comic book issues. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've disagreed with you about this since the discussions at talk:Xorn, and I disagree now. But that aside, since this seems to be a philosophical question rather than a true MoS one, this FA shouldn't get hung up on your or my preference. - jc37 03:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it actually flows from the manual of style, Wikipedia:WAF#Plot summaries. That's the basis of my concerns regarding length and real world perspective. Hiding T 18:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm basicaly describing the "apples vs. oranges" dilemma. A multi-part comics crossover is different from a two-and-a-half hour movie, just like there are differences between a television show season and a short story, and that naturally there would be different approaches to how to write about them. That's all I was saying. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that we're discussing the layout of the page, not the content of the page (in this thread anyway), and that the concern was about the integration of "real-world" info within the plot summary, I think I was assessing your point correctly, or at least within the context of this thread. What do you feel that I am missing? - jc37 04:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comment about basing the plot summary on the Empire article was intended to be separate from my comments about in-universe writing. I think that's where the confusion arises. It was just a general comment that while it's good to follow an FA fiction article as a guideline, we're dealing with uncharted territory here, since this is the first quality article about a comics crossover, and there may or may not be special problems we have to deal with when writing the plot summary. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(de-indent) Holy cow, people. I didn't base anything off of ESB except my approach to the article; i.e., a plot summary section, a section about the production (or creative process, in SCW's case), a storyline interpretation section, and so on. That said, I wholeheartedly concur with WesleyDodds' assessment of this as new ground for comics-related stylistic writing. We shouldn't rush into a decision or devolve into bickering, which we're coming dangerously close to doing. Seeing as how we're establishing a precedent, we should take special care to examine all the pros and cons of both styles. We'd be doing both ourselves and future editors a disservice by doing anything else. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 07:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(re-reads the above text) - I'm not seeing "bickering", but discussion. (At least that wasn't my intention, and I don't believe it was WesleyDodd's either.) People can disagree without it being "bickering". : )
"I didn't base anything off of ESB except my approach to the article..." - That was how I was reading your remarks. However, unless I have misread, there were content concerns as well.
That aside, I suggest that the rest of the article be dealt with first, since dealing with the plot summary can be controversial. - jc37 08:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Being still on the road, I didn't really check the external links. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent question about the Newsarama sources. Newsarama is a reliable source about comic books, as shown by its listing here on Wikipedia. It posts news stories in the form of forum posts so that the comic book community can more readily respond and discuss each story individually. The other WP:COMIC members can (hopefully) back me up on this.
Comic Book Resources is another comics news site of similar caliber and reliability as Newsarama, and also has a Wikipedia article. While Comic Book Bin does not have an article, I believe them to be of a high enough quality to constitute a reliable source. I've taken special care to only use the most promiment comics news sites when writing this article, as there are numerous less reliable ones just a Google away.
I will look at ref 28 when I get a chance later tonight. They likely just moved it to a different URL. Thanks for your help! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Damn, CBR just reformatted all their links. I'll go through and repair them all tonight. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have corrected all CBR links to their proper locations. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For those interested, see also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References. - jc37 01:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newsarama is considered a reliable within the industry, it does tend to post corrections and their is editorial oversight. Yes, it is an online magazine which uses forum software to publish, but it isn't the comments which are being sourced, to my knowledge, it is the reporting itself, published through forum software. Hiding T 18:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a storyline, so shouldn't the title always be formatted in quotation marks? There's quotation marks in the infobox, but the body of the article uses italics. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fought somebody about that on another article and think it's just as stupid now as I thought it was then. I'm very hesitant about changing it unless it's written down somewhere, and even then I have reservations. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 07:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I think it sould be quotations (publications are in italics; stories are in quotes), regardless what consensus decides the formatting needs to be consistent throughout the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well then we can do that! However, in this case it's actually not my mistake (yay!) because the infobox template automatically places the title in quotations. I have no control over it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the template is formatting to quotations, that's probably a good indication that the title should be formatted in quotations throughout the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Few ¢...
First off, the intent of the infobox is for story arcs, but it has been pressed into use for notable single issue stories ("Flash of Two Worlds"). Looking at where some of the articles have gone it may be worth adding a logic point to the 'box so that arcs that are collected in a self titled trade, or set of self titled trades, cold be converted to book titles.
The long and the short of it here though is that we're still dealing with a story, not a publication. As such, my understanding of grammar is that quotation marks are used. The same goes for mentions of "The Blackest Night" in the article — story arc, not a magazine. - J Greb (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've never had a crossover reach this far before in the featured content process, and we shouldn't rush to make any decisions that will set precedents. Now, I personally believe that crossovers should err on the side of being publications in terms of stylistic approaches. It is undeniable that they are storyline, but it is difficult to strictly define them as that when they are so much more. Not only should crossovers have separate infoboxes, they should be stylistically done as publications. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Hemlock, we have had far ranging story arcs — "Knightfall", "The Death of Superman", "Disassembled", "War Games", etc — and they are all still stories, not publications. The only real difference here is that "The Sinestro Corps War" and "The Blakest Night" are stories that the writer envisioned as the 2nd and 3rd parts of a longer, untitled story with the 1st being published not as an arc in another magazine, but but in a magazine that used the story title as the publication's title.
And as for setting precedents... I'm sorry, but the precedent is to use quotes with stories, even serials, published in periodicals. To argue "Yes, it is a story, but it's so important that it must be treated as a publication," is dictating importance from the article. Let me repeat that, it is Wikipedia stating with the article that this story arc must be treated specially and as a new thing.
I've stated before that the arc 'box could be tweaked for arc that are, in whole, reprinted as a trade or a series of trades. I don't like that idea since it devalues the fact that the arc were originally published as stories, but it can be done. - J Greb (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(de-indent) Let's try this from a different angle. My overarching point is we need to differentiate crossovers from storylines. I personally define a storyline as a story set within multiple issues of a specific publication, like the "Hush" storyline from Batman or the current "Secret Origin" storyline from Green Lantern. A crossover is, to me, a story spanning multiple publications, like Crisis on Infinite Earths, No Man's Land, Final Crisis or Sinestro Corps War. I also think we're overemphasizing the role of trade paperbacks in how we approach comics articles on Wikipedia. We should be addressing storylines and crossovers through their original publication context, which would be as a comic book issue. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I am trying to come at it through those eyes. At the base of that is: Even if the story moves from issue to issue of a series, or multiple series, it is still a story and should follow the established conventions for titles. When it is referenced it is "The Story". Some stories that run through multiple series do have their own, self-titled magazine, like Crisis on Infinite Earths, Zero Hour, Final Night, and Final Crisis. In those cases the reference is going to be to the core story, the self titled publication, and wilt be The Story.
"The Sinestro Corps War" does not have that self-titled, core series. Treating it as a publication is wrong. At the point of moving an article to FA status, the impitus should be to follow a professional writing style, not a personal "I prefer it this way" one. Using an article on Wikipedia to push that view is wrong. - J Greb (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. I will make the appropriate changes. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plot

I've shortened the plot to five paragraphs. I hope I've not introduced any factual errors, and I hope I've covered the broad thrust of the storyline and the essential plot points. Hiding T 22:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job! I'm going to add a few necessary details here and there, but the overall result is fantastic. We should probably add short blurbs about some of the big Sinestro Corps players' fates, esp. Superman-Prime since his defeat here directly ties into his arrival in Countdown. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded some changes. We should make at the very least a passing reference to the battle on Mogo since a good chunk of the story takes place there in the GLC title, but I'm at a loss as to where to squeeze it in. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had the feeling that was more to show something happening in that comic than to advance the plot. I have expanded the references to credit creators, story titles where I could find them and publication dates. I think this plot section is better balanced within the article, and hope it meets other people's objections? Thanks to Hemlock for catching major cock ups on my part. Hiding T 23:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, good catch on the issues refs! The reformed plot section certainly gets my vote. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's next? We appear to have cleaned up all three major issues: dead links, plot summary length and stylistic details. Have we missed anything? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I feel the plot is shortened enough and is written well. Gman124 talk 02:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support All the major issues have been addressed. I've gone through and cleaned up much of the prose. Watch out for passive voice constructions and overly long sentences. Two final things: the issue numbers should be listed in the lead in order to give an effective overview of the topic (one of the first questions the general reader would ask is "Where do I read it?", but all the article gives you is "some issues in two Green Lantern titles" until you get far into the article--and no, listing them in the infobox isn't enough, because infoboxes are supplements to the prose, not replacements), and try to clarify in the prose who said what when quoting a source in some places. In closing, this will be a fine model for other comic book crossover articles to follow. Good work. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see both Sinestro Corps War and "Sinestro Corps War"... The reference style seems odd to me in many ways:

  1. mentioning (a), (w) for artist and writer etc is rather difficult to grasp for the noob.
  2. Do we even need to list the colourer, letterer etc. A ref seems to be an odd place to list the entire credits of an episode. I remember Superman titles used to just have "Jurgens and Breeding" on the cover, not any of the side artists; so maybe we do something similar here? Besides, there so many red links now.
  3. do refs back to the comic book issue need to exist at all? It seems redundant: "In issue #21, the heroes ... attempt to rescue fallen comrade Kyle Rayner" and then an inline cite pointing to issue #21 ... what's the point of having that ref at all? Most wiki plot summaries go unreferenced anyway, because obviously the material they are describing is the ref itself. indopug (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see Sinestro Corps War? I thought I had gotten them all. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was right at the beginning. I fixed it. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reference style is that agreed by the Popular Culture Association. It's the style we've adopted on Wikipedia, and I don't think it is awfully confusing to the noob, no more than any other reference style. For example, Harvard style is awfully confusing to people who haven't come across it before. No, we don't have to cite the letterer and colorist, but they are artists who have worked on the book and therefore should deserve some credit. It's not a real issue to remove the links around their names, they were only there to see if they blue linked. The refs do need to exist though. For the Sinestro special, we're citing a specific story within the comic book, and for an FA we should always provide full reference details per Wikipedia:Citing sources. Hiding T 13:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment = This may be a minor-ish thing, but can we replace the infobox image with the cover as published? Either with this or, preferably, this. - J Greb (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more partial to the unadulterated art (but maybe that's just cause I'm a sucker for van Sciver's work) because it's the common thread between the initial release and the trade paperbacks. But if we have to pick one, let's go with the Sinestro Corps special cover since the TPB image isn't very high-quality. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Actually, it looks like the usage of inaugural issue covers is the norm for other crossover articles like Crisis on Infinite Earths and Infinite Crisis. Looks like we should follow suit. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm going to flip-flop back to the unadulterated art. The other crossovers have as-published images because they had a miniseries to correspond to the crossover, whereas SCW does not. It could be confusing to go to an article with the title "Sinestro Corps War" then look at the cover that says "Green Lantern: Sinestro Corps Special". The current art (whose pre-eminence has already been established by its usage as the arc's TPB cover) is much more suitable. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support My main issue (change to out of universe plot) was addressed, and very much useful info on background, sales and reception. You cannot do much more on something like comics, which usually lack "hard" references (e.g. books, newspapers, magazines). —Onomatopoeia (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who cares very much about reliable sources, I can assure you these are among the most notable sources of information in the comic book industry. Here's the Comic Book Resources staff and editorial list. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a considerable effort to ensure that the sources were reliable during this article's development. These are the top three comics-related news sites. Their high esteem within the comics community is shown by how much access they have to industry leaders. Most of the sources, especially the Newsarama ones, consist of interviews with SCW writers and artists like Geoff Johns, Ethan van Sciver and Ivan Reis. There's even an interview with DC's Executive Editor Dan DiDio. Clearly he feels that Newsarama is worth at least something if he's spending his time talking to them. I think he even did a regular column on their site during Infinite Crisis, and his Marvel counterpart Joe Quesada did the same during Civil War. If there's one part of this article I'm most proud of, it's the success we've had in cutting through the multitude of useless blogs and fansites to obtain reliable, factual information. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As one final aside, it is critical to note that Newsarama is not a forum site. They're a news site, but their articles are posted in forum form. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, our guidasnce on reliable sources states that Sources should be appropriate to the claims made. In that light, the Comics Journal analysed comics websites which carry news a couple of years ago, and concluded that they tended to rely on press releases and quick questions and answers with creators, and that they tended to correct mistakes as they went, striving for accuracy. Some limited investigative journalism took place, mostly at newsarama and the pulse, and that coverage was skewed somewhat to the promotional rather than the critical. So at the comic project we tend to evaluate them as reliable for sourcing the opinions of creators. They are also useful for sourcing production details, background info and reception. Now, if we look at the information we are sourcing from these sites, which is after all what they have to prove to be reliable on, I think it is acceptable to assert they can reliably record the thoughts of the creators. Is there a reason to doubt they accurately report Geoff John's assertion that he and Gibbons incorporated ideas from Alan Moore's run, or any of his other assertions? Is it possible they made this up? Likewise where they interview other creators and editors. Are they appropriate to the claims they make? Which claims do you think they are unreliable on? We don't assess sites as simply being reilable or unreliable, it's not a binary position; for example, I wouldn't trust the Lancet to be reliable on string theory, would you? If they had to cover it, I'm sure they'd be as diligent as they could, but I wouldn't use their coverage over more specialist journals. So, given we assess based on the level of claims made, which particular claims do you believe they cannot reliably record? For example, we cite newsarama for this statement; "Geoff Johns announced in October 2007 that the conclusion Green Lantern #25 would be delayed two weeks." [55] We don't make any greater claims than that, we don;t go as far as quoting his assertions, we simply summarise newsarama's reprinting of a comment, and their contrasting it with the solicitations. We cannot do this, for us this would be original research. But newsarama can, and have. Do you believe newsarama have not checked that John's is the source of the comment? Given The Comics Journal's interviews, Brady's assertions and analysis of comics sites, and given their nature and past actions, I believe this unlikely. I think it would better help the conversation if we can identify for which claims the site is unreliable, since that is the context within which we assess reliability. Hiding T 11:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

  • Link and qualify everybody for the first time after the lead. "Johns and Gibbons" → "writers Geoff Johns and Dave Gibbons". Make sure they are only referred to by last name thereafter.
  • If it is formatted as "Sinestro Corps War", then why Green Lantern: Rebirth? Is the formatting for One Year Later correct? its own article has inconsistencies.
  • How does that Superman cover picture satisfy our fair-use criteria #8, i.e how does the cover of the comic book significantly increase our understanding of the prose? I do not see that cover picture being discussed at all in the article.
  • Further formatting issues, its article tells me it should be Newsarama.
  • Why does the awards section have a 2007 that links to 2007 in comics? I don't see anything relevant discussed; remove the link. Why is Eagle awards linked twice?
  • Blue Beetle #20 → wikilink?
  • "Altogether, "Sinestro Corps War" turned Green Lantern into one of DC Comics' most profitable titles" --> why Altogether?
  • "Ganthet and Sayd, two Guardians of the Universe ... the "Black Lanterns", who represent death and the "absence of human drives and emotions"." → long sentence. Split please.
  • I'm going to bring up that referencing in the Plot issue back up again, because I wasn't quite convinced by the arguments to the contrary. Firstly, there is absolutely no policy on Wikipedia, not even the FA criteria, that requires you to "add ref tags to everything". Also, apart from the problems of redundancy and self-reference I've indicated above, there is also the problem referencing back to the primary source causes here. The plot summary, no matter how objectively written, is your interpretation of the plot; if anybody else wrote it, it would be considerably different. (Of course, this is not an issue on Wikipedia and rightly) However, by adding ref tags onto your interpretation, you give the reader a feeling that somehow this is an accepted interpretation given by secondary reliable sources (much like how the themes section is attributed to secondary sources hence is construed as reliable).
Another way of looking at it is that if you use the comics themselves to reference the plot, then why don't you use them to reference the Themes section too? That is because the primary sources are not themselves "reliable" sources since they require your interpretation of them. hence remove the refs, the "In issue #28, this happened" way of summarising is sufficient, correct and elegant. indopug (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the references in the plot section, to rebut:
  • The fact that you state that the plot summary os an interpretation is surely a very good reason why we do referemce the issues being summarised, so that people can verify that the plot is summarised correctly. That to me is the very basis of the verification policy, and I am at a loss as to why a featured article would somehow disregard it. I do not, however, accept that it is my interpretation of the plot. It is, per WP:PSTS, descriptive and not interpretative. Unless you are suggesting our policy is wrong and it is in fact impossible to describe primary source, at which point I suggest we evaluate our whole goal, since the way we summarise secondary sources is also in fact describing primary source. It was that very point that brought Wikipedia:Verifiability into being.
  • As to what featured articles are expected to do regarding references, our manual of style states All included information needs to be attributable to reliable sources, and all sources (including the primary sources) need to be appropriately cited in the article: reference all information and cite your sources. Featured articles are expected to comply with the MOS. Also, according to WP:CITE#HOW, inline citations are mandated by the featured article criteria, and are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged. Now you have stated the plot summary is likely to be challenged, therefore it needs citations. If it is not likely to be challenged, it still needs inline citations since we need to reference primary sources used per the manual of style and inline citations are mandated.
  • Regarding primary sources not being "reliable sources", I suggest you read WP:NOR which makes it quite clear primary sources are reliable sources. Now if you want the plot summary rewritten so that it actually references each comic book panel to better comply with WP:NOR, that can quite likely be achieved, but again, inline citations are mandated. As to the themes section, a theme is indeed an interpretation. A description of what happens, per WP:PSTS, is not. Hope that clarifies for you.
  • As to the citation style, please see WP:CITE#FULL, which states All citation techniques require detailed full citations to be provided for each source used. Full citations must contain enough information for other editors to identify the specific published work you used. Given that inline citations are mandated, it follows that full citation is mandated based upon this statement that all citation techniques, which would include inline citations, require detailed full citations. Hope that clarifies my position and my assertion that the reference style is mandated by the featured article process. I'm urrently having trouble sourcing one final rebuttal, but I hope you will extend me good faith on this; in one page when assembling my earlier post on this I read that a plot summary of a serially published work should cite the individual episodes to better allow verification. When summarising the plot of a single work, this is less necessary, since there will be no confusion over which source to check. From my point of view, not only is this style mandated by the featured article criteria, it makes good sense and seems good practise. Other featured articles do so, I am unclear why it would be objectionable here. Hiding T 17:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am basing this on the fact that none of the film or novel articles cite their plots, and I believe that is for good reason too. WP:NOR clearly states that "To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." Clearly, you are violating this in the plot section, but its been deemed fine, so no problem so far. Now consider a lay reader who doesn't know that on Wikipedia Plots are the interpretations of a non-reliable single editor, but who obviously knows that the plot summary is a description of the source material. Now when he sees the ref tag at the end of one particularly interpretative sentence, he believes that the ref (the primary source) definitely backs the sentence, which is not the case because (from WP:NOR) "it should make no analytic ... claims about the ... primary source." To summarise all plot descriptions violate WP:NOR; but by adding references you pretend that your interpretation are backed a certain source, that also summarises the movie/book/comic. I am sure that nowhere in the "Sinestro corps" series there is an overarching summary like in the article; its all artwork and dialogue between characters. The reader is fooled into believing that your OR isn't OR at all, but backed by sources, which isn't the case per WP:PSTS. Add to that the sheer ridiculous redundancy of "In issue 37, this and this happened... Reference: issue 37." That's OBVIOUS. In any case, per your arguments, are you saying that all other movies/novels are incorrect in not citing the priomary source as a reference? indopug (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how much further this discussion can go, since I disagree that describing the events depicted within a comic book is an interpretation, and I can find nowhere in policies where this is stated. I've made my case, I've grounded it in policies, guidance and best common practise. You have as yet failed to do the same, instead contining to assert your own interesting theory. It appears to me that if we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, it would be interpretation that "a" comes after "b" in the alphabet. I've already rebutted the point you make regarding films and novels; here we have a work published serially with different authors and artists involved for different "chapters" or "scenes". You are comparing apples and oranges. Hiding T 19:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And to go further, I'm not sure I understand you at all. You seem to indicate that because the plot summary may be an interpretation, we should not include references to allow readers to verify the events described are accurately summarised. This seems to fly in the face of established policy. An attempt to describe without making analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims, which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge has been offered, with full sourcing provided so that reasonable, educated persons can verify the information. If they find the information is not accurately summarised, they may edit accordingly. That is the very basis of Wikipedia. You appear to assert that sources are provided to "back" what you state in an article; this is incorrect. They are provided so that others can check and verify the accuracy. Wikipedia is not a research paper in which assertions are made; it is a tertiary source in which summaries are written. Hiding T 19:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Therein lies our disagreement, you believe that plot summaries are not interpretative, but I do. I believe that adding a ref to a particular plot summary implies that it is reproduced in a similar way in the source (requiring no further analytical interpretation on the part of the reader), because that is how it is in the other sections; more-or-less direct reproductions from the sources with no interpretation requires at all. Again, I believe WP:V doesn't at all apply here, because you already have given the source, "In Green Lantern (vol. 4) #21 the heroes Hal Jordan, John Stewart and Guy Gardner attempt to rescue fallen comrade Kyle Rayner," in the sentence itself. Anyway, I will drop the matter, but do address my other concerns. indopug (talk) 20:25, 20 May 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 02:16, 21 May 2008.

Mulholland Drive (film) edit

There is no featured article candidate, yet you may see a featured article candidate... Sometimes (most of the time?) the benefit of Wikipedia is to the writer instead of the reader. I was unable to avoid the pull of rewriting this article when I became completely obsessed with the film after seeing it in late March. Much deliberation has gone into the article's contents. If you have not seen it, no doubt you will find the article confusing as it is a David Lynch film and his works are invariably bizarre. But I, and other editors, have done our best to diminish the confusion as much as possible. If you have seen it, you may still be confused or wish to see one particular interpretation of the film dominate the article. It deliberately questions any theory of what transpires (although you can find what really happens on my user page). I will do what needs to be done to see it featured. Thank you for reading it. Self-nomination, freakishly obsessed major contributor. Moni3 (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow, the sixth word I read got me rushing to add an FAC comment: this film is a mystery film?! Our own article defines it as "a sub-genre of the more general category of crime film. It focuses on the efforts of the Detective, private investigator or amateur sleuth to solve the mysterious circumstances of a crime by means of clues, investigation, and clever deduction." Er, how exactly is any of this central to Mulholland Dr.? The term "mystery film" and its definition seems to evoke images of a whodunnit rather than this movie. Are you sure you don't mean the more general suspense film? Anyway,that's my two cents, on to reading the rest of the article. indopug (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, suspense film redirects to thriller; something else then... indopug (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, therein lies the basis for multiple categorizations. Betty and Rita are amateur sleuths working to discover Rita's identity and find a dead body. But it unravels after that. For the sake of simplicity, so readers' heads don't explode in the first paragraph, mystery, film noir, and surreal are all apt and interchangable descriptions. Grammar, sentence structure, and the limits of English to describe what transpires should be taken into account. --Moni3 (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay. Still on the road, so didn't check links. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had no reason to suspect they are fansite reviews or otherwise suspicious since both have author names, and both are very high quality reviews: well-written, factually accurate, and somewhat neutral. I got the impression that writers sell their reviews to several outlets - the citation I had such a hard time hunting down from LesbiaNation/New York Times Syndicate did that and I found him on SciFi weekly.com, I think. I used the reviews to cite comments on the DVD and one issue with sound, since both reviews went into detail about the sound quality on large AV systems. If you're going to strike an oppose (heh) I'll try to find other sources, but I'm ok with these for what they're being used for. As for the magazine, are you asking that the name be changed from New York to New York Magazine? --Moni3 (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the first two up for other reviewers to decide for themselves. As for the third bit, I'm not sure, since I'm not sure if this is the magazine that's being cited or the website for the magazine. At first, when I read the ref, I though it was the city of new york that was the publisher, since it just says New York in the reference. I think adding "magazine" or "magazine website" would help clarify my admititly faulty initial reading (grins). More looking for clafication of the exact nature of the publisher to be made explicit. I don't have concerns over the reliablity of the site, just want to make sure the ref is not unclear. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed New York to New York (magazine). --Moni3 (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. I'm done here! Good luck! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Support Very well-written and sourced! Some minor fixes are needed but you haven't far to go.
    • In the last sentence of the lead, you mention The Elephant Man as one of Lynch's finest works but you don't mention it again or provide a citation. If anything, you should mention Eraserhead since your Village Voice source does (Critical reception heading).
    • The Plot heading is great, but the first sentence "The story may not be linear and exhibits several instances of temporal disorder." goes a little bit into "interpretation" which is original research without a source. I like the sentence, but can you source it to something?
    • I just don't know about Image:Rita Poster Mulholland.jpg. True, you are showing something that you directly describe in the Plot section, but you really need critical commentary to make a strong fair use case. Since you don't actually critically analyze that scene anywhere, I suggest taking that image out.
    • "Naomi Watts and Laura Elena Harring were cast by their photographs, a practice characteristic of Lynch." This reads like their photographs cast them rather than Lynch. Suggest: "Lynch cast Naomi Watts and Laura Elena Harring b their photographs, a characteristic practice of his."
    • "They objected to the nonlinear storyline, the ages of Harring and Watts, whom they considered too old, that Ann Miller's character smoked, and a close-frame shot of dog feces in one scene." Rough sentence... can you reword and make more parallel?
    • Something bothers me about the "A 'poisonous valentine to Hollywood'" heading. Maybe it's that it's not really parallel to the next subheading. Or maybe it's because I never come up with clever headings.
    • "The soundtrack of Mulholland Drive was supervised by Angelo Badalamenti, who collaborated with Lynch on his previous projects Blue Velvet and Twin Peaks." That's not all.. Badalamenti was involved with Lost Highway and others. Maybe say "... including Blue Velvet and Twin Peaks" if you aren't going to list them all.
    • I really don't care for the tables in the Awards heading. Are those WikiProject styles? There is not enough space between them and they have different heading sizes, column widths, etc. Not a good visual. --Laser brain (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eraserhead changed.
      • The first line of the plot, I hope can be supported by the sourced comment in the lead that states it is an "offense against narrative order", the entire first part of the Interpretations section, and the Style section that discusses Lynch's use of deception and surreality. I, who take a vastly different interpretation from the majority of what has been written about the film, do not consider stating the story is nonlinear to be interpretive. I would like that sentence to stay, and I think the rest of the article supports it.
      • I like the image. I want to keep it, so if I have to add material I will. Let me work on that.
        • Looks good now. Black Kite or Elcobbola may bring it up yet. --Laser brain (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lynch casting by photographs changed.
      • Undoubtedly A 'poisonous valentine to Hollywood' appeared and was so perfect it begged me to use it as a subheading. Begged me!
      • Will rewrite the odd unparallel sentence. Did that. --Moni3 (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Angelo Badalamenti changed.
      • I stole, rather shamelessly, the table from Pulp Fiction. I admit I'm rather helpless with tables and images. Any assistance anyone can provide would be appreciated. --Moni3 (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I will see what I can do with them in the next day or so. --Laser brain (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, given the shortness of my comments:
    • "The story may not be linear and exhibits several instances of temporal disorder." This abrupt beginning to a section leaves me with a slight feeling of temporal disorder as well; could this be fleshed out into another sentence or two, or perhaps moved to the end of the section as a conclusion paragraph?
    • I notice some overlinking; Ann Miller and feature film off the top of my head. These are so close to the lead that it doesn't really make sense to link them again. Another (though hardly surprising) is Mulholland Drive; please check throughout.
    • "When I saw it the first time. I thought it was the story of Hollywood dreams, illusion and obsession." Shouldn't there be a comma instead of a period after "time"?
    • "Lynch moves between scenes in the first portion of the film using panoramic shots of the mountains, palm trees, and buildings in Los Angeles, whereas in the darker part of the film, sound transitions to the next scene without a visual reference where it is taking place: at Camilla's party, when Diane is most humiliated, the sound of crashing dishes is heard that carries immediately to the scene where dishes have been dropped in the diner, and Diane is speaking with the hit man." Extremely long sentence that should definitely be split. I also see some grammatical issues with it.
    • "del Rio, who popularized the Spanish version" Even though "del" is not a proper noun, shouldn't it be capitalized at the beginning of a sentence? --Kakofonous (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Made changes for points 2, 3, and 4. For the first, I want the sentence to stay at the beginning, because it prepares the reader for the confusion in the plot. However, expanding it may go into interpretation. It's generic enough to state that it jumps around in time, without pointing out where and what it means. For the last point, I... don't know. I think it's fine to stay lowercase, but it is not stated in the MOS about Spanish names. If anyone can answer this, I'd appreciate it. Thank you for reading it. --Moni3 (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All words at the beginning of sentences are to be capitalized. I've seen this issue before a few times, and I've made the correction. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now I know. Thanks, Erik. --Moni3 (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments - right let's get started...Prose and content looks good. I think this will get through but I have noted a couple of things...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
is a 2001 mystery film written and directed by David Lynch that exhibits elements of film noir and the surreal. - 'elements' has a noun and an adjective. It would be nice to have either two nouns or two adjectives but i can't for the life of me think of alternative words, so I don't think this is solvable nor is it a deal-breaker really...

strongly acclaimed.. - ? Sounds an odd combo to me - I'd say 'highly acclaimed'
The last sentence in the lead is sorta just sticking out there and should be placed in a paragraph and the ref formatted properly.
temporal disorder. - odd phrase, why not just 'disturbed time sequence'? I work in psych and it sounds like a DSM IV diagnosis :)

Harring considered it ominous - 'ominous' to me means 'threatening' rather than pertaining to an omen as such - might need another word or phrase.

::He also exhibits Betty as extraordinarily talented.. - 'portrays' I feel is a better verb, or 'depicts' if you like.

abilities go noticed - umm, huh? Should this be go unnoticed?

Gotta run. More later Apart from these few bits above, the prose is a fine read and there is alot of extra material highlighting plot structure and interpretation of a Lynch film. I was musing on whether there was more to say about the idea that each of the two sequences can be seen as a dream of the other but that has been explored well so all good. Well done. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Sentence in lead moved, strongly changed to highly, disorder changed to disruption (though I liked it as temporal disorder), ominous changed to fateful, exhibits changed to portrayed, and go changed to are. Thank you very much for reading and commenting on it. --Moni3 (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: criterion three concerns:
    • Image:Rita Poster Mulholland.jpg - I share Laser Brain's concerns; prose seems perfectly adequate to convey that a name was gleaned from a poster (WP:NFCC#1). It is indeed a "nice" image, artistically speaking, but that is not sufficient for inclusion. There may be a place for it in the "style" section if the film's/Lynch's composition (cinematography) can be critically discussed, but I don't see any significant contribution (NFCC#8) as the article currently stands.
    • Image:BettyMulholland.jpg is not low resolution (NFCC#3B).
    • Image:Mulholland Drive Mr Roque.jpg - in additional to prose being perfectly adequate to describe the effect (dwarf with large prosthetics), the styling applied to a "minor character" with "only two lines" does not seem significant enough to the film itself or our understanding to warrant a fair use image. The subject of the image, additionally, is too small a part of the frame to adequate fulfill the intended role (i.e. style being discussed is quite hard to discern in this image). As hinted before, the "Rita Poster" image may be a good "replacement" in this section if adequate supporting prose can be provided. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the images were in the article before I came to it. What would satisfy NFCC#8 for Image:Rita Poster Mulholland.jpg? Moved Image:Rita Poster Mulholland.jpg to Characters, and dropped another to the Style section. --Moni3 (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see what I can do with Image:BettyMulholland.jpg. Low resolution now. --Moni3 (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with you about the inclusion of Image:Mulholland Drive Mr Roque.jpg. It rarely matters how many lines characters have in Lynch films. Many of them are put there for surrealist affect, which is just why Michael J. Anderson was in this film and why his photo illustrates the Style section. Lynch's films often include moments where the viewer is faced with something on the screen that really makes no sense and is absurdly out of place. I can see if a better shot is available of him, but his depiction was a super close shot of his mouth, his chest and face in the chair, or all the way across the room like what is seen in the image now. --Moni3 (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this fantastic article about a surreal film. I raised most of my issues on the talk page, so there is nothing major here. A lot of film articles on Wikipedia very much need critical analysis, and I think that this article sets the bar very well. Perhaps two minor issues to point out that don't really detract from my support: 1) There is one subsection under the Style section. Is it possible to have two subsections or have the Soundtrack subsection stand out as its own section? and 2) I think that the layout for the awards could be improved, especially in terms of making the column widths consistent. Otherwise, great work! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soundtrack section fixed. I set the width of the table to 55 and it looked simply awful, so I didn't save it. If you know how to make it better, please do. --Moni3 (talk) 02:14, 21 May 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 02:16, 21 May 2008.

Hours of service edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I've put a lot of hard work into this article, and I'd like to see it featured on the main page. This is a self-nomination, I've been almost the sole contributor to this article, and frankly I'd like to get some fresh perspectives on the article from other editors. Its been through GA and PR so I think its ready. ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Well-written and presented clearly, and the sources have been improved. Karanacs (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. I thought the article was well-written and presented clearly but I think the sources need to be improved. I understand that many of the statements need to be cited to the FMCSA, but I think other statements could probably be cited to newspaper or trade magazine articles.

    • Which statements do you think should not be cited to the FMCSA? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the purpose section, I think I'd swap the first two paragraphs. It makes more sense to me to describe first who this affects, then why it was put into place, especially since the bulk of the remained of the section discusses fatigue.
  • I'm not sure why this is inserted into a sentence: "see also: circadian rhythm sleep disorder) " - the sentence is discussing a conventional sleep pattern, of which the sleep disorder is not. This should probably be incorporated into the paragraph with a brief (one-sentence?) description of what it is.
    • Well it describes what is not a conventional sleeping pattern. But you're probably right so I removed it. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOSDASH, need to use ndashes for numeric ranges 7–8 instead of 7-8.
  • There should be citations at the end of every sentence which contains a quotation, even if that citation is used at the end of the next sentence. That way we always know where this quote came from, even if someone later inserts another reference. I saw this problem in the History section.
  • In the paragraph beginning "In 2005, the FMCSA changed the rules again", why is practically in italics?
    • For emphasis of course. Technically, they didn't eliminate splitting... but effectively eliminated it. Nobody uses it anymore, but it is still there. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the definitions section should go above the History section, as many of those terms are used the history section.
  • What makes mobileawareness.com a reliable source?
  • is layover.com a Reliable source
    • I would think so. My problem was finding anything that stated what I needed to cite. There isn't one single page out there that says "police officers may check a truck driver's log book" (at least not that I could find) so I went with the first thing I found. Other than this website, I would probably need to cite this from a book. But this is a relevant fact that should be in this article. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that it's a relevant fact. Have you tried searching google news? I searched for "hours of service" truck log book and got a lot of hits. Here are two that may be especially relevant. [56] [57] Karanacs (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those articles mention nothing about police officers checking log books. Perhaps I should remove the mention of log books and just state that "police and dot may stop truck drivers for inspections" using the articles you have provided. I will see what else I can find and wait for your reply. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Update: I have removed and replaced this source with this article from the New York Times. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would replace HowStuffWorks.com with another site
    • Again, same problem. No sources could be found that stated "weigh stations are run by states". Regardless, I think it's a reliable source. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This NYT article is a start [58] and here's one from the St. Petersburg newspaper in FL [59]. Google news is a great resource for newspaper articles.Karanacs (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Howstuffworks.com is a sub-site of the Discovery Channel but if you insist, I will change it to the NYT article upon a reply. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • About.com is not a reliable source.
  • I would not consider alk.com to be a reliable source.
    • This is used as a reference for the product they sell. Is there any question that this product is used for its intended purpose? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is that these are all primary or self-published sources. The article should rely on independent, third-party sources. Surely there is a newspaper article somewhere about it? Karanacs (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see no reason why alk.com and werner.com can't be used as primary sources. I make no interpretations and am simply stating what these companies are intending to do. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not consider The Linebaugh Law Firm to be a reliable source for this either.
  • Is http://www.coopsareopen.com/news/log-book-schmog-book.html a blog? Blogs are not considered reliable sources generally.
  • I would not consider http://www.werner.com/content/res/drv/paperless/faq/ to be a reliable source
    • Used as a reference for the company itself. I don't see how else I should source the statment that their rationale for EOBRs is "...to ensure drivers are in compliance with the federal regulations..." --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 01:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes the following sources reliable?
  • http://www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx?storyid=19039 looks like a letters to the editors column? What makes this a reliable source?
      • I have cited this for the "this rule is confusing and impractical for most drivers, resulting in many drivers taking the full 10-hour break." This is a news-oriented website which is run by the American Trucking Associations. The ATA is the ACLU of the truck industry. The statement in question was taken from a letter to the editor from one of the major trucking companies, which represents a fair number of drivers and is representative of the industry as a whole. What makes this an unreliable source? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you only using it for that information, and is there not any sources for the rest of the paragraph after the first sentence? Generally a "letters to the editor" column isn't going to be a reliable source, and it's not a good source for "resulting in many drivers" since it's just one source. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, it is only used for that information. I have searched desperately for any other sources for this bit of information, and the only results I get from google are message boards and blogs. I suppose if this source is that unreliable then it can be removed, as this information is essentially unverifiable although it is common knowledge within the industry. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Update: I have removed this source and cited the statement from this website. Page 199 of the PDF file is a survey of drivers who use the split rule before and after the 2005 change. Oh yeah, that took some digging but I finally found it. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being on the road, I didnt check external links. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I"ve left these last two out for others to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help, I appreciate it. I will keep seaching and hopefully find better sources for these last two. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:57, 11 May 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 02:16, 21 May 2008.

M-35 (Michigan highway) edit

Self-Nomination I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel the subject is notable with an interesting history and the article is worthy Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose, quite a few basic issues with organization, prose and jargon need to be solved with a thorough copyeditor before this is ready for FA. Examples:
    • Some of the wording doesn't seem consistent with other road articles I've reviewed here that use the term "segment" where you use "portion". Is there a reason for one over the other?
      • Variety in prose? No one word is more correct than another in regards to a roadway, IMHO. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "One portion between Ontonagon and Baraga was retained as a discontinuous portion of M-35 and eventually redesignated as another state trunkline." I'm not sure what this means.. retained as a discontinuous portion? Discontinuous from what?
    • "The northern end was moved out of the City of Negaunee into Negaunee Township to avoid mining activity near Palmer." The physically moved the end of the road? Or was this during the planning stage? Clarity needed.
    • "... running along a more direct alignment ..." Road jargon, no idea what this means.
    • "According to the 2008 MDOT State Highway Map, taking US 41 results in..." Before you say this, I think you need to discuss how US 41 is an alternate route.
    • Basic grammar: "The description of the bridge used from the MDOT website says..."
    • The headings where you discuss the route are disorganized and have no logical flow.. they jump all over the place. For example, in the Menominee to Gladstone heading, you start out by describing the southern terminus, move on to other things, and then in the third paragraph we're back at the southern terminus again. --Laser brain (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also reorganized. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You fixed my examples, but have you made progress toward finding a copyeditor as I requested? --Laser brain (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, but any suggested editors are otherwise occupied. Davemeistermoab did a cursory copy edit already. I'm willing to entertain suggestions, but the M-28 (Michigan highway) article has had an open LOCE request pending since it passed the ACR. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, LOCE is not really functioning these days. I understand and empathize, but it honestly needs to be done before close consideration is possible here. If you're unable to locate an experienced copyeditor at this time, recommend withdrawing the nomination until the article can be made ready. --Laser brain (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • A friend of mine who is an English teacher has agreed to copy edit the article in the next day or so. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copy edit update: User:Finetooth has agreed to edit the article. Other requests were made as well. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copy editing looks to be completed by Finetooth. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - quoting LB, but I'm not so oppose; the article is good but you can do best modifies (cfr. LB). --Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 11:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources look good. : Being on the road, I didn't check external links. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved, ErgoSum88 (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks good, but I have a few issues:
    • Route description "M-35 is primarily a two-lane roadway, except the section between Escanaba and Gladstone." Makes me wonder how long the four-lane section is, or how far it is between Escanaba and Glastone. One or the other will do.
    • Henry Ford "He could not wait to travel up north to enjoy the clean air and wilderness in the Central Upper Peninsula." If this is not a direct quote, can we change this to something a little more encyclopedic?
    • Henry Ford "The Huron Mountain Club was not in favor of the highway either. The highway would open vast reaches of the back country, leading to the Club's fear that it would destroy the wilderness aspects of the Huron Mountains." I would suggest combining these two sentences.
    • Henry Ford "A Michigan Attorney General's opinion provided a way for the road to be stopped. This opinion stated that construction could be stopped if two-thirds of the property was owned by objectors to the project." Combine these as well.

I think that's all. I'll have to read it again but so far it looks good. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Sentences combined. Thanks for the suggested improvements. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links check shows 3 dead links. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • They all worked for me. WLUC-TV6 reorganized their site, so I pulled the URLs there. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --ErgoSum88 (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
      • some WP:DASHes seem unnatural. Make sure you are using the correct of the three types in all places.
        • All usages of dashes is in compliance with MOSDASH. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • First para-I think general would be better than overall
      • Is the airport on the east or west of the highway?
        • I meant the Delta County Airport.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Added the information, but I think it might muddy up the prose slightly. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes the sentence is currently ungrammatical at present. The phrase "passing to the south and east..." modifies its nearest noun, which is Lake Shore Drive. You better split the sentence in two.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe the "shortest state trunkline highway" fact could be more promininent if not mentioned in the lead
        • It is in the lead. "... it is the UP Hidden Coast Recreational Heritage Trail, which is a part of the Michigan Heritage Routes system. Along the southern section of M-35, the highway is the closest trunkline to the Lake Michigan shoreline." Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I thought talking about the "shortest" fact in the lead might be appropriate. It seems relatively notable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I changed it to: " Along the southern section of M-35, the highway is the closest trunkline to the Lake Michigan shoreline. making it the shortest routing between Menominee and Escanaba." How's that sound? Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The M-91 designation was first created. . . when?
        • Both are original, 1919 creations. Added that. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 2nd para- Spell out the date.
      • fix the precision of the board feet conversion. I doubt it is 1.00 cu. m.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • 250 board feet to 3 significant figures is 0.590. I missed an extra 0 in that template. Thanks. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Most maps showed M-35 continuing north and looping to L'Anse." needs further explanation and possibly a citation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What's to explain? Also, there is a portion of the 1932 MSHD map as an image in the article showing the looping of M-35 up through Northern Marquette and Baraga counties. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does that upper west sliver of Lake Michigan have a name like UP Bay or something?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • O.K. I see it is Green Bay. I think this term should be used more prominently in the article and probably in the lead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added the Bay of Green Bay (body of water named after the town, not the other way around) to the lead. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Should the first para in Route Description be in the WP:LEAD?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That paragraph is a mini-lead for the route description section. If I add anything more to the lead, I run the risk of the lead becoming too long. Plus, that's what the rest of the article is for. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Should you link the cities again so close to their earlier links?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was requested at the A-Class Review to follow WP:MOSLINK and re-link in each section, lead, RD and history. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why don't you use the North-South direction parameter in the infobox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The two termini are labeled in the infobox, same as the other USRD FAs. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is Y-shaped a Fork in the road.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Under American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines,. . . So is the longer route going to lose federal funding or its designation or something?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • US Highways are no more likely to be federally funded than any other state highway. They're all just state highways that keep the same number and shield across county lines as part of a coordinated system. Also, US 41 has been routed that way since 1926. According to Chris Bessert's michiganhighways.org, US 41 was supposed to follow a different routing from Powers, MI directly to Marquette, MI that would remove it from Escanaba, which is why it takes the longer, inland routing. In fact MDOT owns CR 557 in Marquette County if they ever complete the 1920s plans after 80+ years. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Try {{Quote box}}--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The block quotes are part of the text. That template segregates the quotes to much and makes it look outside of the main article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some say it is unbecoming for refs to be non sequential such as [4][3][9].--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • A change in reference usage above that point renumbered them. It's fixed now. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moderate support Pretty good article. A copyedit would never hurt, but for the most part it's good enough for my support. The ACR pretty much took care of all my concerns. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hope you don't mind my saying so, but "pretty good article" and "a copyedit would never hurt" are not the criteria for a featured article. Criterion 1a is "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". Are you saying you believe this article meets criterion 1a? --Laser brain (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand that, and I do, in fact, know what criterion 1a, as well as the other criterion, is. I am not a professional writing, and I do not have a prefect feel for what professional prose consists of. Therefore, it is my opinion that the article, while it could use a copyedit, is generally written well. If you feel my opinion on the article is in error, please feel free to let me know. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I've helped review this article on a couple of occasions (A class review, etc.) and have seen this article progress quite a bit.Dave (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Downright support - I've peer reviewed this article god knows how many times for the nominator, he the heck needs a FA sooner or later. But for real, I feel this meets all criterion, especially after the recent copyedit. Good job on the nominator's and copyeditor's parts.Mitch32contribs 20:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. To clarify what Juliancolton was (I think) trying to say above – or perhaps to just throw in my own $0.02 – a copyedit would never hurt any article. The banner that goes on top of an FA's talk page implies that there's still room for improvement, and featured ≠ perfect. I'd already picked apart this article with a fine-toothed comb twice, and still managed to find one more thing to fix before I came here to give my formal support – and that's right after Finetooth finished his copyedit. Does that mean it's not deserving of FA-status? In my eyes, no, it means that it's 99% perfect, which seems to fit the definition of a featured article exactly. -- Kéiryn (talk) 00:39, 21 May 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 02:16, 21 May 2008.

    Krulak Mendenhall mission edit

    Article about US policy mission to South Vietnam in 1963, best known for JFK's famous question to his two advisers as to whether they visited the same country... Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose, I'm sorry but this is not ready for FA yet. Some basics need to be addressed before closer examination is possible. The prose is unpolished and in need of a thorough copyedit. Issues are easily spotted just in the lead: "The stated purpose of the expedition was to investigate the progress of the war by South Vietnam and the American military advisers against the Viet Cong insurgency." (Clarity, reads as if the war was the advisers vs. the Viet Cong); "... religious discrimination of President Ngo Dinh Diem escalated." (by, not of); "Following the raids on Buddhist pagodas on August 21 which left an estimated triple-figure death toll" (which -> that). The images are placed such that some headings are not left-aligned. No journal or newspaper sources? --Laser brain (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time of the expedition it was a government secret so there would be no newspaper sources. I didn't find anything on JSTOR and the three books are all by history professors anyway, so we should be fine. I have done a copyedit and expand of the lead, which was the only part I forgot to ce last week. Hopefully the main body is more representative. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The lack of wikification in some sections concerns me. Wizardman 22:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a few, but mostly the article discusses the same thing over and over. Also because the article is about a policy debate, there was not much proper noun usage. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Support My one complaint here is that the lead seems a little a long; could it be shortened any? Otherwise it meets my criteria for FA status, so I have no complaints. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've pruned it a bit, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright then. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, great work. Detailed comments Looking good - some fixes needed yet.
    Issues resolved. --Laser brain (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Work still needed on image placement - at least two of the headings are not left-aligned.
        • Should be fixed now. It looks fine in my view (Firefox, 1440x900). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • At 1680x1050, Kennedy bumps the Debate heading. But, maybe it's a non-issue. Most people probably don't run resolutions this high. --Laser brain (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Following the raids on Buddhist pagodas on August 21 that left an estimated triple-figure death toll..." I'd prefer a more detailed estimate than that. "Triple-figure" could mean 100 or 999.
    Tried to tweak. It says estimates range up to a few hundred. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's all the source says, that's what we say. --Laser brain (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The general felt that the Vietnamese soldiers' efforts in the field would not be affected by unease with the Diem's policies." Why "the Diem's" and not just "Diem's"?
    Simple error. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The self-immolation of Buddhist monk Thich Quang Duc at a busy Saigon intersection was a public relations disaster for the Diem regime, and as protests continued, the Army of the Republic of Vietnam Special Forces loyal to his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu, raided pagodas across the country on August 21, killing hundreds and causing extensive damage under the declaration of martial law." There is a bit too much going on in this sentence. Please separate the self-immolation from the rest of it and be more specific about your subject when you say "his brother".
    Fixed I think. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "... Krulak ordered Mecklin to leave the film in Alaska" suggest Krulak was Mecklin's superior which I don't think was the case. Suggest something other than "ordered". Maybe "allowed"?
    Changed to "called upon"
      • "Krulak was a short and fiery marine known for his belief in using military action to achieve foreign affairs objectives." I think this is a bit POV.. can we just say "Krulak was known for his belief..."?
    Yes. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • When you list the three measures Phillips recommended, consider using bullets unless they are meant to be chronological. Check MoS for punctuation on these. --Laser brain (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I;ve fixed these. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A good article on an interesting topic which meets the FA criteria. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • I suggest you make the one-line quote in the lead inline.
    I would rather not, because the quote came to be the symbol of the mission in history books. In some books, which are more into an overview of Vietnam rather than the events of 1963 specifically, there is often only 1-2 sentences on this mission, and the quote is always one of them. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redundancy: As news of such tactics spread across the capital, some monks sought refuge in the Saigon homes of ARVN officers; there's a few others as well (with the word "all"), maybe some that I didn't find.
    I don't believe this is redundant. The source implies that this was not a general and majority/widespread thing that was done by monks. As for "all", that is to indicate that Krulak\Mendenhall thought that *all* groups felt something or other, rather than just society generally, since that might mean 75% in general but maybe 0% in certain social subgroups and so forth. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The mission was led by United States Marine Corps Major General Victor Krulak and Joseph Mendenhall, a senior Foreign Service Officer experienced in dealing with Vietnamese affairs." - inconsistent phrasing, probably grammatically incorrect; should be rephrased.
    Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.." - should there be two periods? I'm not sure, so I didn't change it myself.
    Yes because his name is Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. so at the end of the sentence we need 2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I might find more later. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - Editors I've encountered seem extremely divided over redundancy... ah well, not that it matters. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:46, 21 May 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 01:51, 19 May 2008.

    Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi edit

    Respectfully self-nominate this article about an American-trained doctor who served in the Imperial Japanese Army during World War II and was killed during the Battle of Attu. The article was peer reviewed and passed an A-class review with WP:MILHIST. Cla68 (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments/Questions resolved --Moni3 (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments/Questions by Moni3 I enjoyed this article and found it very interesting and compelling. I would like to support.

    • His diary mentions that he is looking forward to destroying the enemy down to the last soldier, then in the next paragraph letters to home allude that he's looking forward to meeting some of his old classmates? Is the diary propaganda? Any indication that the Japanese military was reading what he was writing, or influencing it in any way? That's an odd juxtaposition.
    • I italicized Chicago Tribune, then noticed no publications are italicized. Is this a non-American style thing I don't know about?
    • While reading the article I wondered if Tatsuguchi's faith in Seventh Day Adventism had any impact on his views of war. Is there any mention of it in his diary?

    Well done. I learned a lot and have some stuff to think about. --Moni3 (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe he wrote that "destroy the enemy to the last soldier" line in case any of his superior officers read his diary, but the sources don't speculate on that so I couldn't write that in the article. For the same reason it appears that he didn't discuss his faith in his diary except for maybe his last entry. Thanks for italicizing Chicago Tribune. The publications should be italicized so I'll check that. The footnotes use the author's names, not the publication titles. Cla68 (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, beautifully written and very interesting. I only found a few minor issues and fixed them. --Laser brain (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Sources look good. Did not evaluate the Japanese language source, as I'm not fluent (not even close) in that language. As I'm still traveling (I do promise I have a home!) I didn't check links. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Minor copy issues, raised at Milhist A-Class review, now fixed. Compelling, interesting and well-researched story. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the helpful edits and support of the article. Cla68 (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, excellent. Do try and write another before they drive you into the desert with muttered imprecations. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I need to point out though that OrangeMarlin, Roger Davies, and several other editors really helped out on making this article complete. Cla68 (talk) 14:50, 16 May 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 01:51, 19 May 2008.

    Formation and evolution of the Solar System edit

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has undergone massive improvement since achieving GA status. I would like to make it a co-nom between myself, Ruslik0, and Ashill. Thank you. Serendipodous 16:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Co-nominator: I indeed co-nominate this article. ASHill (talk | contribs) 16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alignment fixed, and I added a source for Image:Voyager_2_Neptune_and_Triton.jpg. ASHill (talk | contribs) 19:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a perhaps-slightly-sketchy source for Image:Pierre-Simon Laplace.jpg. ASHill (talk | contribs) 19:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, although obviously not the direct source of this copy of the image, that "source" provides what the spirit of IUP is effectively asking for (confirmation of copyright status - in this case, a 1842 creation date to support the PD-Art tag). Good enough for me. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Comments, leaning toward support. This is a very good article already and only minor tweaks should be needed to get it up to par. I'm going to have accretion nightmares for some years to come now. Some examples:
    Issues resolved. --Laser brain (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lead is promising. As a layperson, I was confused about the inclusion of this sentence: "Since the dawn of the space age in the 1950s and the discovery of extrasolar planets in the 1990s, theories of planetary formation have been both challenged and refined to account for new observations." I'm not sure what you are trying to say in relation to the topic of the article.
      • For some reason the word "end" at the end of the lead doesn't sit well with me. Do astronomers really say a solar system will "end"? The word implies a time period to me ("Your time has ended") not a physical entity. You wouldn't say, "My neighbor ended when someone shot him."
      • "Sir Fred Hoyle elaborated on this premise by showing that all the elements in the universe heavier than helium were in fact created..." The phrase "in fact" is generally superfluous.
      • "This means that Uranus and Neptune probably formed closer to the Sun—near or even between Jupiter and Saturn—and later migrated outward as discussed below." I would avoid language like "as discussed below" because it is unlikely to be checked and changed if the article ever undergoes splitting or reorganization.
      • Later, you do it like this: "One such giant collision is believed to have formed the Moon (see below)" where the "see below" is a wikilink to the heading. I like that a bit better, and you definitely need consistency in the cross-references.
      • "Even so, the Solar System will continue to evolve as time goes on." Can remove "continue to" or "as time goes on".
      • I read several sentences that contain multiple constructions like "eventually", "over time", and "as time goes on" that become redundant. Please read through for these. Example: "However, over time, the probability of a chance encounter with a star increases, and planetary disruption eventually becomes all but inevitable."
        • Actually, I'd like to suggest that the sentence should read "cumulative probability", just to be clear that it doesn't mean the incremental probability.—RJH (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've made the change. While I do think it's appropriate, I fear that the term may be jargonny enough that it only helps those to whom it would have been clear anyway that the cumulative probability is what is meant (while readers who might be confused wouldn't be helped by the term). ASHill (talk | contribs) 02:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd prefer to see Notes and References split up (see Ima Hogg for example); it's a much cleaner look and easier to follow. Not a deal breaker.
      • The Further reading heading should be expanded a bit if possible - are there really no other major works on this subject that you haven't used but that someone might like to read? --Laser brain (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Re lead: I reworded the sentence slightly to now read "Since the dawn of the space age in the 1950s and the discovery of extrasolar planets in the 1990s, the models have been both challenged and refined to account for new observations." Planetary formation, as it said before, wasn't mentioned beforehand and thus may have been out of context and confusing. Does this help?
        • Re Notes and References: There are a ton of sources referenced in this article; every ref footnote is a different source with the exception of the Zeilik & Gregory textbook, which is already split off as you suggest. (For comparison, Ima Hogg has just 11 different sources listed in the References section.) I'm not sure that implementing that suggestion would really help clarity for this article. Or am I missing your point? ASHill (talk | contribs) 19:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whoops, I see what you mean. Disregard that comment please. --Laser brain (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've given the article another read-through/copy edit with attention to extraneous wording and the other writing issues you've raised; I think it's improved. I don't think one sentence you mentioned ("However, over time, the probability of a chance encounter with a star increases, and planetary disruption eventually becomes all but inevitable.") does have redundant wording in the context; I can't see a word to trim without changing the meaning. ASHill (talk | contribs) 03:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Citation formatting concerns resolved SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recurring note: Because these recurring issues have come up in about half a dozen (at least) of the recent planet FACs, I'm going to mention it up front this time. I do not understand why we see these recurring issues from the same nominators on multiple FACs, causing reviewers to type the same information and ask for the same corrections repeatedly. 1) The article mixes citation templates with the cite family of templates, causing inconsistent citation and breaching WP:CITE#Citation styles. 2) The article uses incorrect endashes in the citations, and you can ask Brighterorange to fix them. 3) Dates are incorrectly or inconsistently formatted in the citations (see WP:MOSDATE) and there is also 4) inconsistent formatting on author names (please pick one method and stick to it, see crit 2c). After so many FACs, I do not understand why this recurs; perhaps working with someone who understands citation and MoS before presenting FACs would help, or perhaps the message hasn't been clear in the past FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      1. The article uses the citation template for a very limited, specific purpose which I do not believe causes any inconsistency, as we discussed at Talk:Formation and evolution of the Solar System#Citation templates. The citation template is only used in the Further Reading section and thus does not cause inconsistent formatting within the References section, where cite xxx is universally used. Moreover, the inputs to the templates are chosen so that the citation templates in Further reading produce the same output style as cite book. The citation template is used to allow Harvard citations of Zeilik & Gregory, a textbook which is cited repeatedly with a variety of page numbers. If there are any citations which appear inconsistently formatted within this article due to the differing templates, I will certainly fix it, but I don't see any examples of that.
      2. Brighterorange did run his script, and I'd appreciate if you could point out a remaining incorrect endash as an example so we can fix it.
      3. I fixed a few dates that were not correctly formated. I believe now that all full dates in the references are autoformatted.
      4. The author formatting is, I believe, consistent: We use First M. Last, if available, or F. M. Last if the full first name is not available. I do see we missed that some authors are separated by semicolons and some by commas; I'll fix that. ASHill (talk, contribs) 20:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Author formatting fixed; removed all semicolons and 'and's. (I think I got them all.) ASHill (talk, contribs) 20:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        1. (edit conflict) The bibliographic style in Further reading differs from the rest of the article, giving an unprofessional appearance. If that is the only place where citation is used, why can't they be swtiched to cite book, to agree with the rest of the article? What is accomplished here by mixing styles?
        2. Thank you for contacting Brighterorange this time; perhaps the problem occurs because other editors add citations after he goes through, or because you all don't realize that his script can only detect numbers, not letters? They seem fine now (or my eyesight isn't detecting what it did last time through :-).
        3. I don't spot any remaining date issues, thanks!
        4. I see the article is inuse and you're quickly cleaning up these issues, but the author thing is still very unprofessional looking. One reference refers to H. F. Levison, while the very next reference refers to Harold F. Levison. Notice that almost all med/bio articles (which use Diberri's template) consistently return Levison HF for Pubmed entires and eliminating the messy punctuation and inconsistency in names (just a suggestion); it would be stupendous if these astronomy article would pick a consistent author format and stick with it, for professional bibliographic formatting. See autism, for example, as a sample of clean and consistent author citation.
          I apologize for taking up so much space on your FAC, but it's important to get to the bottom of this once and for all, as it recurs. I'll cap all of this off once everything is resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (outdent; edit conflict) Re point 1: Because Harvard citations are repeatedly used in footnotes to refer to the textbook listed in Further reading. I wish cite journal was compatible with Harvard citations, but it's not. I think the utility of wikilinking the harvard citation is more useful for a reader reading the references than the format drawbacks of using different templates and, as I mentioned above, I've massaged the templates to produce what I believe are identical formats anyway. If others feel strongly otherwise, the Further reading could be converted to cite book and the Harvard citations could lose their wikilinks.
    • Re point 4: That's because in one article, the author lists his name as "Harold F. Levison" and in the other he lists his name as "H. F. Levison". We cite authors the way they name themselves in the cited work, and we obviously can't assume that H. F. Levison really is Harold F. Levison if that's not the name he uses in the first work. ASHill (talk, contribs) 21:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are not identical formats: pls look more closely. That is exactly the point raised in WP:CITE#Citation styles. There is a consistent way to refer to repeat use of book sources and page numbers without resorting to an inconsistent biblio style, which is to just type "Zeilik & Gregory (1998, pp. 118–120)" between ref tags. If the Harvnb system and the citation templates can't get in sync with the cite family of templates, they can't both be used in one article. If that little blue link is so important to a few editors, you should all go over to the citation template and argue for the few small changes needed to bring them in line; otherwise, per WIAFA, this article needs a consistent biblio (by the way, one of the references is listed as Further reading, which is incorrect). If you must use Harvnb's, the entire article should use the citation template and not the cite family; that is what WP:CITE and WIAFA crit 2c says. At least on the authors you've gotten rid of the rest of the inconsistency, so that's an improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where do we use all caps? There's one referenced article that uses them in the title (HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE/NICMOS Imaging of Disks and Envelopes around Very Young Stars), but we need to use the same capitalization as they do for their title, ugly and inappropriate as it is. (I've been bugged by that and rechecked the original paper multiple times.) ASHill (talk, contribs) 21:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, you don't; that's the point of MOS:CAPS#All caps. And incorrectly listing a reference as Further reading doesn't allow skirting of 2c, which requires consistent citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources listed in Further reading are intended as Further reading, per the guideline: "[I]f an item used as a reference covers the topic beyond the scope of the article, and has significant usefulness beyond verification of the article, you may want to include it [in Further reading] as well. This also makes it easier for users to identify all the major recommended resources on a topic." I've renamed Further reading to References, renamed References to Notes, and removed the Further reading source that wasn't explicitly cited. ASHill (talk, contribs) 21:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, I missed the author order in the further reading. To get technical, that's because of the use of the last=and first=parameters, which is consistent between citation and cite xxx, but which is not the author order we're using on this article. I discovered Template:Anchor, which I have used to put the further reading in cite book templates with author=rather than first=and last=and still get the anchor. I believe the concerns are now addressed. ASHill (talk, contribs) 21:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the speedy response, Ashill; I'm almost reluctant to cap these comments, as I'm afraid these same issues will appear on the next astronomy FAC, but I'll keep my fingers crossed :-) By the way, Ashill, I've had to alter your sig here, since a bar in sigs bombs out caps; would you mind changing your sig in prefs to remove the bar ?? That will be a recurring problem at FAC, since commentary you make after the bar will be lost if anyone caps opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 01:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Otherwise sources look okay. Still on the road, so didn't check links. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can sub the link with Mirriam Webster online; it gives the same information.
    Probably a good choice to back it up with MW. A quick perusal of the other site didn't give me much information on where they got their information, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    * I'm assuming the author of http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/moon/index.html is a noted astronomer?
    Sarcasm aside, that page is the personal page of Mike Brown, the astronomer who discovered the object it describes. You can't get more notable than that.
    I'm sorry you thought I was being sarcastic/flippant/whatever, but it was a genuine question. Not everyone is an expert in every field, and better to ask than to assume. I had a feeling it was someone notable inthe field, but wanted to double check. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    * Same for this site http://www.dtm.ciw.edu/sheppard/satellites/?
    Scott S. Sheppard is a faculty member of the Carnegie Institute of Washington. He has published papers in Science.
    * And http://www.astro.washington.edu/balick/WFPC2/?
    Bruce Balick is chair of the Department of Astronomy at the University of Washington.Serendipodous 07:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I struck the last three, and will be happy to strike the first when it's backed up with MW. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It already is. Serendipodous 12:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved, ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - I made a few minor changes for clarification. Although I'll need further clarification for this issue:
      • Planetary migration "The migration of the outer planets is also necessary to account for the existence and properties of the Kuiper belt, scattered disc and Oort cloud,[26] regions beyond Neptune sparsely populated with icy bodies which lacked enough mass density to consolidate into a planet, as accretion in its region was too slow to enable planetary formation before the solar nebula dispersed." I'm not sure if the "accretion in its region" is referring to only Neptune or the whole area of the Kuiper belt, scattered disc, and Oort cloud. If so I would change the commas after ref 26 to parentheses or em dashes and change "its region" to "these regions" to for clarification.

    Also, for future reference, it would be nice to use the {{convert}} template whenever using metric units (or vice versa) to placate those who are familiar with imperial units (unless there is a compelling reason not to). This also conveniently places non-breaking spaces between numbers and units automatically. Overall, an extremely good job and one of the best FA candidates I have seen yet (although I haven't been here for that long), very well-written with engaging prose and asthetically pleasing! A !vote of support will be forthcoming as soon as this minor issue is resolved. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, that was hard to follow. Planetary migration should be more clear now. ASHill (talk | contribs) 03:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A well-composed article. This one deserves to be on the front page. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support—A good article with only a smattering of minor issues.
    Issues resolved RJH (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The notes have inconsistent date formats: 2008-02-03; 21 August 2001; July 21, 2006; December 31, 1998; 28 January 2005 and 23 April 2008. Please pick one and stick with it.
      • Something bothers me about the text surrounding the sentence: "T Tauri stars have far stronger stellar winds than more stable, older stars." It doesn't quite flow as well as it should, jumping from mass migration to the strength of T Tauri stellar winds and then back to the solar wind sweeping up matter. Perhaps the statement about "far stronger" needs to be made relevant?
      • In the "Terrestrial planets" section there appears to be some confusion about the order. I see: (a) large bodies collide and merge; (b) terrestrial objects migrated only slightly, and (c) these objects collide to form the terrestrial planets. I almost suspect that (b) belongs at the end of the paragraph. Do you agree?
      • The paragraph that begins "Water is too volatile to have formed..." is too jarring a jump from subject matter of the previous text. Could this be smoothed out with a segue?
      Thank you.—RJH (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I believe all your comments have been addressed. (I had to log out to see the inconsistent dates in the notes because they're all autoformatted. When logged out, the access dates all appear as ISO dates (2008-05-17), while all other dates appear as 17 May 2008. Because the cite journal template explicitly requires that the accessdate parameter be in ISO format and apparently doesn't reformat the dates for not-logged in readers, I think that's hard to avoid; I don't think putting the publication dates in ISO format by default is desirable.) ASHill (talk | contribs) 14:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technically, you should put all the dates in the same format so that non-logged in readers see the same thing, but since Wiki can't seem to make these cite templates consistent with one another, I'm turning a blind eye. Try to get this next time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for a superb article.
    • Issue resolved GrahamColmTalk 17:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please allow me one nitpick; can something be done about roughly? This word occurs roughly 16 times. GrahamColmTalk 12:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've smoothed it a bit :) (bad joke) Serendipodous 13:16, 17 May 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 00:07, 17 May 2008.

    NeXT edit

    previous FAC | 2nd FAC | 1st FAC

    I worked on this article a lot quite some time ago. It has been nominated for Featured Article status three times, but has failed all three. As the article is now, I believe it definitely meets all the FA criteria. — Wackymacs (talk)

    • Support agree with above. Although one or two more citations in the lead would be helpful. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 04:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All links checked out as good. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will update the access dates now. — Wackymacs (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Refs 2/4/9/20/30/34/35/36 have been fixed. — Wackymacs (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: criterion three concerns:
      • Image:NeXT logo.svg has no fair use rationale, see WP:NFCC#10C and WP:RAT.
        • Fair use rationale added.
      • Image:NeXTcube.jpg originated from this site, per the description page. This site releases information under "Creative Commons 3.0 BY-NC-SA". The NC condition (non-commercial) means we cannot use it on wiki per WP:IUP, WP:TAG and Jimbo.
        • Please clarify: This image is already on the Wikimedia Commons, and permission has been given from the Copyright owner. Also: "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation license,".
          • I'm not sure what's unclear; the copyright license at the source is contradictory to the license asserted at the Commons. Image's are often uploaded with incorrect information. Unless there's evidence to the contrary, I trust the source, not the Commons/Wikipedia. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Image:NeXTSTEP desktop.jpg is not low resolution (NFCC#3B). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What constitutes low-resolution? — Wackymacs (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Technically, no more than 300 pixels horizontally or vertically. I'm not a huge stickler for this, but 1152 × 900 is excessive. I'd be satisfied at ca. 400 or 500 horizontally. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The screenshot is now 500 × 390 pixels. — Wackymacs (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Items addressed. Karanacs (talk)
    • I think this needs a citation "but was a major boon for Next's image in the computer industry."
      • There's no sure way of verifying this, so I have removed it. — Wackymacs (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need citation for "At the time, most workstations and high-end personal computers shipped with a hard drive between the size of 10 and 40 MB. "
      • I looked into this, and found that some workstations which competed with the NeXT (which were also released in 1989), didn't even have hard drives as standard. So, I reworded it, and I have added a citation. — Wackymacs (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need citation for " This was becoming a problem, as the user needed to swap between floppy disks to load an ever-growing number of applications. " (the problem part, not the fact that they had to swap disks)
    • Need citation for "At the time, a 640 MB drive cost approximately US$5,000. "
    • Need citation for "These drives were relatively new to the market, the NeXT being the first computer to use them. They were much cheaper than hard drives but they were slower and made it impossible to move files between computers without a network since there was only one magneto-optical drive on the cube"
    • 20% of the words in this phrase are "large" -> "BusinessLand, a large office-supply chain which had a large sales force that targeted large companies " (please fix)
    • "Canon invested US$100 million in 1989, a 16.67% stake" - Okay, I assume this means they invested in Next, but that ought to be made more clear
    • Need citation for "At the time Jobs was concerned that the market was quickly stratifying and the window of opportunity to introduce any new platform was rapidly closing."
      • Removed that sentence. This was written a long time ago, and finding references is hard for statements like that. — Wackymacs (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need citation for reason Ross Perot resigned from the board of directors
      • Fixed. The reason given for his departure in the article was wrong... I found an article in PC Week which stated he left to spend more time at his own company. — Wackymacs (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need citation "The magneto-optical drive was expensive and had performance and reliability problems despite being faster than a floppy drive."
    • Need citation for "After a few years, most of the magneto-optical drives had failed and become useless"
      • Removed that statement - it's not very factual at all. — Wackymacs (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need nonbreaking space between a number and the word million. I fixed a few but there are a lot more
    • Need citation for "the lack of success by other new desktop platforms (such as the BeBox) suggests that the age of unique hardware designs was over, it is an open question as to whether the systems would have been more successful had they avoided the performance and price problems by including a hard drive in the first machines, and had found a more cost-effective RAM setup."
    • Need citation for "Although these ports were not widely used, NeXTSTEP gained popularity at institutions such as the National Reconnaissance Office, Central Intelligence Agency, First Chicago NBD, Swiss Bank Corporation, and other organizations due to its programming model."
    • Need citation for "At the insistence of existing Mac developers, Apple included an updated version of the original Macintosh toolbox that allowed existing Mac applications integrated access to the environment without the constraints of Blue Bo" (the fact that the existing Mac developers insisted)
    • Need citation for "The payroll schedule was also very different from other companies in Silicon Valley at the time. Instead of getting paid twice a month at the end of the pay period, employees would get paid once a month in advance."
    • This sentence needs context or should be removed "The announcement of the first NeXT release occurred at Davies Symphony Hall in San Francisco with the usual Jobsian fanfare which characterizes Apple events."
    • Need citation for "Other companies started work to duplicate the "top to bottom" OO system of the NeXT, which was considered by many in the industry to be the "next big thing"
      • I have reworded this slightly, and added a citation. — Wackymacs (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose Apart from the quality of the sources that Eagldyth brought up, large portions of this article are uncited, including statistics, quotations, and attributions of motive. I've tried to list the sentences/phrases that need citation here.

    • There is a citation needed tag in the sentence "The NeXT Computer was slower than many Unix workstations becoming available at that time, but cost about half as much"
    • Need a citation for "Meanwhile, a typical PC included 640 KB of RAM, the 8086, 8088, 286 or 386 CPU, a 640×350 16-color or 720×348 monochrome display, a 10 to 20 megabyte hard drive and no networking capabilities."

    Karanacs (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, you've certainly got a point there. I have fixed a couple of those, and I'll keep working to fix the rest. Thanks. — Wackymacs (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Karanacs (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Why are references listed under "Further reading"? Shouldn't that section feature works that were not used as sources in the article (hence the name "Further reading")? BuddingJournalist 01:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, much improved. Hopefully you address Awadewit's concerns below. --Laser brain (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Comments: Still some outstanding minor issues below. --Laser brain (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose, 1a, organizational problems, and other issues. This article definitely would have benefited from a peer review before coming here again.[reply]
    Issues resolved. --Laser brain (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fair use rationale used for Image:NeXTSTEP desktop.jpg is not complete. Please use {{Non-free use rationale}} to ensure you get the required fields.
      • The writing in the lead is clumsy.. poor word choices in places:
        • "NeXT Software, Inc. (formerly NeXT Computer, Inc.) was a computer company headquartered in Redwood City..." Formerly.. well technically, it's formerly both of those names since it no longer exists, right? Maybe use "previously".
        • "... after his resignation from the then-Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.)." Eep.
        • "In addition to its hardware, NeXT developed the NEXTSTEP operating system, later retooled as a programming environment, called OPENSTEP, capable of running on several different operating systems, most notably Solaris." Too many commas, too many phrases, too many ideas.
        • Avoid beginning sentences with "This..." in reference to previous concepts. Restate the concept.
        • "On December 20, 1996, NeXT was bought by Apple..." Undesirable passive voice.
      • "The division failed to release upgraded versions of the Macintosh and most of the Macintosh Office." Hm.. "failed to release" connotes something other than "did not release". What, exactly, are you implying?
      • Stylistic but ungrammatical commas proliferate the article. Do not use commas to segregate clauses that do not stand on their own.
      • Many sentences are excessively wordy - please get an uninvolved copyeditor to go through the whole text.
      • "In his role as chairman, Jobs visited university buying departments and faculty members to sell Macintoshes." Prose.
      • Re: "Freshmen" running PCs in their dorm rooms.. I'm the least politically-correct person you'll ever meet but that term is plain anachronistic now. It links to a disambiguation page.
      • "In 1987 he invested $20 million in exchange for 16% of NeXT's stock, pricing the company at $125 million." So, was NeXT public or private? You don't mention that up to this point and it seems like a key detail. It's not in the infobox either.
        • This information is now in the infobox. — Wackymacs (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "By mid-1986, it was clear that no existing operating system (OS) would be able to meet their tentative specification for an object-oriented programming environment and user interface." Who made this determination?
      • "The Motorola 88000 RISC chip was originally considered, but the needed quantity was not available at the time." What was the needed quantity? What is Newsbytes, a PR wire? If so, need to find a different source.
        • Newsbytes is newswire - a suitable and verifiable source according to WP policy on the matter. — Wackymacs (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Uniquely, the NeXT Computer used a removable-medium 256 MB magneto-optical drive (MO)..." You've already wikilinked and defined the "MO" acronym in the previous paragraph.
      • "By 1989, the machines were in testing, and NeXT started selling limited numbers to universities with a beta version of the OS installed." What OS? You haven't written about NeXTSTEP yet, except in the lead. You're trying to be chronological but not succeeding, because you've only described the hardware. You might be better off having separate headings under this section that describe the hardware and OS development.
      • "In 1988, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates commented on the NeXTcube..." What's the NeXTcube? You haven't told us about that yet. In the last paragraph, you said "NeXT Computer". Are those the same?
      • "BusinessLand was an office-supply chain that had a vast sales force selling..." A sales force selling?
      • "Compaq could not equal IBM's sales force, so BusinessLand abruptly stopped selling the brand." I don't know what this is saying, or what brand it is referring to.
      • "This was a drastic change from NeXT's original business model..." Avoid beginning sentences with "This..." in reference to previous concepts. Restate the concept.
      • "The machines were finally released on the retail market in 1990..." Which machines? NeXT Computers? NeXTcubes?
      • Jargon alert: "Color graphics options were also available for these models in the form of the NeXTstation Color and the NeXTdimension graphics processor board for the NeXTcube."
      • "Pre-production motherboards and enclosures were produced, but the NRW did not enter production before NeXT exited the hardware market." More passive voice and excessively wordy. Couldn't you just say, "NeXT pre-produced some motherboards and enclosures but exited the hardware market before full production."
      • "Publication was ceased in 1994, after four volumes had been released." Why passive? Either "Integrated Media ceased publication..." or "Publication ceased..." No comma.
      • "NeXT sold 20,000 computers in 1992 (controversially, NeXT counted upgrade motherboards on backorder as sales), a small number compared with their competitors." Controversially according to whom? Does the citation at the end of the paragraph cover that statement and claim?
      • "Several developers used the NeXT platform to write programs that would make them famous." This could be interpreted in two ways.. they wrote the programs thinking it would make them famous, or they incidentally became famous after writing the programs. I know which one it is, but not every reader will.
      • "A number of programs shipped for NeXT computers..." The term "shipped" is software industry jargon.
      • "In 1993, NeXT dropped their hardware business and re-named to NeXT Software, Inc., laying off 300 employees of 540 total employees;" Prose, wordiness.
    I haven't the constitution to make it through the rest just now, but the issues should be clear. One or more serious copyeditors needed before further consideration. --Laser brain (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for now I agree with Laser brain. The article needs some serious copy editing. If a good copy editor sat down with the article for a day, they could improve it markedly. There are areas that need some explanation for the lay reader and wordy sections. There are also some grammatical errors and paragraph arrangements that could be improved. Awadewit (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been alerted that the copyediting pass by Gusworld is complete, but I see a long list of questions on the article's talk page created by Gusworld as s/he was copyediting that has not yet been fully dealt with. It looks like an excellent list of points. When that list has been fully dealt with, I will look at the article again. Awadewit (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that those are merely suggestions for improvement, and are not intended as ways of meeting the FA criteria - which is what matters here. — Wackymacs (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are suggestions for how to improve the writing and questions about missing content. If you do not feel that they need to be addressed, it is a good idea to explain why not on the talk page so that other editors like myself can understand your rationale. Awadewit (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. I see those as suggestions on what to add, in terms of context. Gusworld has already improved the writing (that is the whole point of a copy-edit). — Wackymacs (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I'll reread the article now, but as a copyeditor myself who creates the exact same kinds of lists as Gusworld, I wonder if they appreciate having their comments ignored without explanation or having their comments struck out (this is against talk page guidelines). Thinking about an article in such depth requires a lot of time. It is a courtesy to copy editors to respond to their comments. Awadewit (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • After rereading the article, I am still opposing. The prose of the article still needs to be improved. I have drawn all of my examples from the first section of the article, but these are pervasive problems throughout the article.
    • There are several one-sentence paragraphs that should be incorporated into other paragraphs or expanded into full paragraphs. Ex:
    • In 1984, Apple co-founder Steve Jobs was the head of Apple's SuperMicro division, which was responsible for the development of the Macintosh and Lisa personal computers.
    • Several times in the article, ideas and things are not fully explained to the reader. Ex:
    • As chairman, Jobs visited university departments and faculty members to sell Macintoshes. Jobs met Paul Berg, a Nobel Laureate, at a luncheon held in Silicon Valley to honor François Mitterrand - Silicon Valley should be linked; Berg should identified as a Nobel Laureate in Chemistry; Mitterand should be identified as the President of France
    • The first major outside investment was from Ross Perot, who originally saw NeXT employees and Jobs featured on the television show The Entrepreneurs. - Identifying Ross Perot in a phrase would help the reader
    • The article does not explain its jargon very well. Ex:
    • "Berg suggested to Jobs that he use his influence at Apple to create a 3M workstation, featuring more than one megabyte of RAM (hence the name), a megapixel display and megaflop performance." - "megapixel" is not linked or explained nor is "megaflop" (a word I grossly misinterpreted until I asked my geeky roommate about it)
    • There are still basic errors of grammar in the article. Ex:
    • "Apple CEO John Sculley ousted Jobs his day-to-day role at Apple, replacing him with Jean-Louis Gassée in 1985"
    • There are areas of vagueness: Ex:
    • "The board of directors sided with Sculley, while Jobs toured Europe and the Soviet Union on behalf of Apple." - What was Jobs doing?

    I hope that these suggestions help. Try to look for the same problems throughout the article. Awadewit (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Alright, I have fixed the above issues you mentioned. I am going to go through the rest of the article ASAP. — Wackymacs (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize, but I do not have time to read this article again right now. A family issue has very suddenly arisen that requires my attention. I may be able to read it again in about a week. I'm very sorry. Awadewit (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have returned and reread the article. Awadewit (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, I am still opposing on prose (now everyone knows how my students feel!). I have reread the article again and I still think that the problems I outlined above remain. The two most serious issues are the explanation of jargon and organization. Let me try to describe these issues in more detail.

    • The article does not explain its jargon very well.
    • Example: Berg suggested to Jobs that he use his influence at Apple to create a 3M workstation for higher education, featuring more than one megabyte of random access memory (RAM) (hence the name), a megapixel display and megaflop performance. A megaflop denotes the computer performance in flops (FLoating point Operations Per Second), which are used to measure computer performance. - A technical explanation has now been added (thank you!), but it is not seamlessly integrated into the prose and an explanation for why these components were brought together is not in the article. Why would these particular components have made the 3M ideal for the wetlab environment, for example? I feel like some pieces of the explanation are missing. Throughout the article, I just could not get a handle on the underlying reasons for many of the details offered. This is one of the hardest parts of writing about any technical subject. All of the connections seem obvious to the writers because they know them, but someone like myself who has only a passing familiarity with computers can't see all of those connections. They need to be explained to me. :) I need to learn.
    • There is less information now, unfortunately. As I have tried to explain, when I read the article much does not make sense to me. I have listed problem areas below. Awadewit (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Organizational issues.
    • General comment: At times the article adheres too rigorously to its chronological structure which makes it difficult for the reader to understand the topics being presented. This has also resulted in short, stubby paragraphs.
    • Laser brain was the one who suggested sticking to a chronological structure, and now you want me to do something completely different. I think it's extremely readable as it is, especially now that it has been reorganized a bit again. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not suggesting something completely different. I'm saying that at times the chronological structure gets in the way of understanding the topic. I'm not asking you to restructure the entire article - I'm asking you to rethink paragraph and sentence order, for example. Awadewit (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Example: In the first two paragraphs of "First generation", the specifications of the computer are not grouped together. For example, the CPU sentence comes well after the first description of the specs and next to the description of the case (it is my understanding that the CPU and the case have nothing really to do with each other). Then, there is a discussion of factory production followed by a return to a discussion of specs. To me, this doesn't make much sense. Details of sales are also split between the beginning and the end of the section. I think it would make more sense to describe the Next Computer and then its production, grouping together similar ideas into topical paragraphs: description. production, sales, etc.
    • Example: The "Next Software" section discusses two major topics: porting of software and the changes in Next's business model. However these two topics are spread out confusingly between several paragraphs. Again, I would explain everything about the porting in one or two paragraphs and everything about the changes in the business model in another set of paragraphs. It is hard for the reader to really figure out what is going on here, especially a reader like myself who is not all that familiar with computers.
    • Example: "Corporate culture and community" - Here again there needs to be some paragraph reorganization. For example, there should be an architecture and building paragraph. The information on these topics is too diffuse.
    • I would like to see an expansion of the "Impact on the computer industry" section. To someone who is not familiar with the details here, I am still struggling to understand what Next contributed. This section in particular needs to be explained in plain terms to the lay person, I think.
    • The prose is also a little wordy and choppy at times, but these problems are much easier to fix than the above. I feel that if the above problems could be solved, one sweep by a good copy editor would resolve any other minor issues.
      • It has been copy-edited 3 times already. List the exact problems, with justification of why it means this article doesn't meet FA criteria 1a for engaging prose. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Two examples where the sentences don't flow into each other yet:
          • 1) NeXT changed its business plan in mid-1986. The company decided to develop an object-oriented programming environment, hardware, and a Unix-like Mach-based operating system instead of just a low-end workstation. A team led by Avie Tevanian, who had joined the company after working as one of the Mach engineers at Carnegie Mellon University, was to develop the operating system. The hardware division, led by Rich Page, one of the cofounders who had previously led the Apple Lisa team, designed and developed the hardware. NeXT's first factory was completed in Fremont, California in 1987.[7] It was capable of producing 150,000 machines per year.[7] NeXT's first workstation was officially named the NeXT Computer, although it was widely referred to as "the cube"[19] because of its distinctive case designed by frogdesign.[20]
          • 2)Jobs found office space in Palo Alto on Deer Creek Road,[53] occupying a glass and concrete building, which featured a staircase designed by I. M. Pei, a Chinese American architect.[53] The first floor used hardwood flooring and large worktables where the workstations would be assembled. To avoid inventory errors, NeXT used the just in time (JIT) inventory strategy.[53] The company contracted out for all major components, such as mainboards and cases, and have the finished components shipped to the first floor for assembly. The second floor was the office space, which had an open floor plan. The only enclosed rooms were Jobs' office and a few conference rooms.[53] As NeXT expanded, it required new office space. The company rented an office in the San Francisco Bay in Redwood City.[51] The new office was designed by I. M. Pei. It was dominated by a floating staircase with no visible supports. The open floor plan was retained, although it was now very luxurious, including $10,000 sofas and Ansel Adams prints.[51]
            • This is a minor issue, though, like I said. I am fully willing to copy edit the article myself, after the jargon issue has been resolved. Awadewit (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jargon:

    • The company decided to develop an object-oriented programming environment, hardware, and a Unix-like Mach-based operating system instead of just a low-end workstation. - What does this mean? I don't know.
    • Eventually, Canon released a NeXTstation which used the Intel GX processor. - Why?
    • The magneto-optical drive was replaced with a 2.88 MB floppy drive. - Why?
    • However, 2.88 MB floppies were expensive and did not succeed the 1.44 MB floppy. Realizing this, NeXT utilized the CD-ROM drive. - This is a little confusing - it is separated from the previous sentence. Did not succeed in the computer industry at large? Just in Next computers? Why did Next choose to use the CD-ROM? Were there other choices available?
    • NeXT's long-term aim was to migrate to a RISC architecture. - What is RISC? Why would they want to migrate to that?
    • NeXT started porting the NeXTSTEP operating system to PC compatible computers using the Intel 486 processor in 1992. - Could we link or explain "porting"? I had to look it up.
      • I have linked 'porting'. It is sort of hard to explain in one sentence, unless you want lots more jargon... — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why was Next ported to the platforms it was? Were they the poplar ones at the time? Was Next contracted to do so?
    • Apple favored this option over others, which included continuing development of the Copland operating system, and purchasing BeOS - Could "BeOS" be explained in a parenthetical?
    • Object-oriented programming and user interfaces became more common after the release of the NeXTcube and NeXTSTEP in 1988. - Was this caused by Next, though? The sentence after this seems to indicate a causation but this one does not.

    Here is an example of a good explanation:

    • The magneto-optical drive manufactured by Canon was used as the primary mass storage device. These drives were relatively new to the market, and the NeXT was the first computer to use them.[25] They were cheaper than hard drives but slower (with an average seek time of 96 ms). The design made it impossible to move files between computers without a network, since each NeXT Computer had only one MO drive and the disk could not be removed without shutting down the system. - It explains what a magneto-optical drive is (I didn't know) and why they were used. Awadewit (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope these suggestions help. On a practical note, sometimes it helps to make a little outline of what you want each section to cover. The outline can help you organize the information because you can see the larger topics more easily. Awadewit (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment This is to both Laser brain and Awadewit: Gusworld is copy-editing it at the moment, and he will incorporate his changes very soon. (Hopefully it will fix all outstanding issues).— Wackymacs (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments Concerned about the prose.
      • "featuring more than one megabyte of RAM (hence the name)" What name?
        • 3 Ms-> 3M (Megabyte, Megaflop, Megapixel). — Wackymacs (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "A megaflop denotes the smallest scale computer performance in flops" How is this the smallest? One flop < One megaflop.
      • "a tentative specification was drawn up" For the workstation?
      • "including the precise angle used (28°) " Huh?
        • Meaning the angle the cube was tilted at for the logo. Since this paragraph is discussing the logo, I thought this is was obvious? — Wackymacs (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Perot originally saw NeXT employees and Jobs featured on the television show The Entrepreneurs." "Originally"? BuddingJournalist 18:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed to "first" instead of "originally". — Wackymacs (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments
    • I think the lead needs some work...it doesn't seem to mention the impact, despite there being a section on that.
    • I agree that the lead needs some work. I would further suggest reorganizing the paragraphs - one for the chronological history of the company, which removes some of the excess details (e.g. how much money the company sold for), and one for a description of what the company did. The current arrangement is a little confusing. Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Short paragraphs like "In total, 50,000 NeXT machines were sold" stand out as needing attention

    The prose is generally good overall, just these minor things. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The lead has been improved, and the short paragraphs merged into longer ones. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - All seems OK now... dihydrogen monoxide (H2O)

    I have made numerous little edits, mostly to the intro and history. I've removed any "expose" that was better left in articles on that topic (FLOPS for instance). It's nice to see how this article has evolved, I wrote the initial version some time ago, and I see broad strokes of it in there even though practically every single word has changed! Maury (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment (minor) The intro says that WO was not very successful, but the body says it was very successful. Both of these statements could be considered true, but they are confusing. I would suggest removing the "successful" in the intro entirely, and slightly expanding the section below to note that it was initially successful but was later crowded out. Maury (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Citation formatting resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of the citation formatting needs cleanup. Because two styles were mixed, there is inconsistent page numbering and inconsistent date formatting, resulting from mix of citation and cite family templates. All of the citations need cleanup to one, consistent style and format, including page numbers and date formatting, and removing citation templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • They all look fine to me. Ealdgyth didn't notice anything when they reviewed the citations. Please list which ones need fixing. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I got it. I have removed the 'pg.' from the page=part of every citation. Anything else? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Listing them shouldn't be necessary: first, do a search, find within the text on citation, and replace them all to cite templates (unless you want to migrate the other direction). Then, when you're finished with that, scroll to the bottom and look at your citations. You'll see some have pg. some will have p. some pp. etc; make them all consistent, one style or the other. Then notice all the unlinked dates in citations as a result of the citation template, which handles dates differently than the cite family. Yes, I know Ealdgyth didn't notice; she's been traveling and has been busy (that's no explanation for why subsequent reviewers didn't at least glance at the citations). When you're finished, there should be only one type of citation style used, no citation templates, the same kind of page number formatting on every citation, and consistent date formatting and linking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I left you plenty of samples, there's plenty more to do. Just to be sure you understand, see WP:CITE#Citation sytles. The {{citation}} template returns a completely different format than {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite web}}, etc., so the two styles can't be mixed within an article, or inconsistent formatting results. You have to pick one: either citation or the citet family. Once you have picked one, you have to handle dates and page numbers consistently. I hope this helps; there's much more to do still. Editors and reviewers should scroll through the citations and notice the inconsistencies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (undent) They look fine to me. But I don't see any examples to check. Maury (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Look at the edit history for about a dozen examples, and compare the page number formatting in these citations:
    • Stross, Randall (1993). Steve Jobs and the NeXT Big Thing. Athenium, 80. ISBN 0-689-12135-0.
    • Stross, Randall E (1993). Steve Jobs and the NeXT Big Thing. Maxwell Macmillan International, pp. 289–374. ISBN 9780689121357.
    • Linzmayer, Owen W. (2004). Apple Confidential 2.0. No Starch Press, 323. ISBN 1-59327-010-0.
    Different templates handle page numbers differently; they need to be consistent. The first and third citation need a p. There are other examples in edit summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I have fixed them all now (dates, page numbers and publisher formatting). — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I picked up a few missing page nos; note that the cite templates themselves are inconsistent, and you have to manually add the p. on books for consistent formatting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Comment nextstep is sometimes written NeXTSTEP, but other times NEXTSTEP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.55.16 (talk) 12:46, 16 May 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 00:07, 17 May 2008.

    Master Juba edit

    I've been working on this article for some time now, and I think it's finally had enough spit and polish to qualify for our featured articles. The subject is a 19th-century African American dancer who made quite a stir in both the States and Britain. There was a peer review, and all comments there have been addressed. Thanks for any and all comments and criticisms. — Dulcem (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose, this is not ready for FA yet. Prose issues are easily spotted, as Wackymacs points out. The narrative is confusing; I was lost from the first sentence where you write dancer (or dancers) and had to read a considerable way before I realized that you are tentatively tying several personae together. Far too many "likely" statements cause verifiability concerns. At the minimum, this needs thorough treatment by an experience copyeditor before closer examination is possible. --Laser brain (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: We should see what we can do about narrating in a less confusing way, but the simple fact is that the historical record is confusing. We don't know if "Master Juba" was one person or a conflation of several. William Henry Lane is certainly the most likely candidate, but it would be the dreaded original research to assert that "Master Juba" and "William Henry Lane" are simply one and the same. - Jmabel | Talk 23:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I've tried to address many of Wackymacs's and Lazer brain's concerns. The ones that remain, I'll explain here:
      • Dancer or dancers: This seems to be the main issue with the article. The truth of the matter is that there is a lot of ambiguity and uncertainly in the historical record. Dancers who were called Juba or some variant are found in press releases, critical reviews, and playbills. They might have all been the same person, but then again, they might not have. There's no way to know (and I don't think that WP:V requires that we find out the unknowable, only that what is in the article be backed up by reliable sources). Since a dancer called "Boz's Juba" toured Britain with Pell's Serenaders, (biased) period sources have treated at least three of these dancers as the same person. Historians in the 20th and 21st centuries have often followed suit, but a few (including Stephen Johnson, the most recent) have cautioned about the possible conflagration of several figures into one.

        That means that there are two ways to approach the topic: 1) Treat all the Jubas as the same person and write the article as a standard biography article (with birth and death dates, real name, etc.) with a few caveats here and there that these facts may not all pertain to the same person, or 2) Make it clear that these are possibly several different people we're talking about. I've tried for Course 2, as I find it more honest, but many of the older sources (from the 1940s to the early 2000s) take Course 1, so it's possible that their approach has colored the current article. I'll sweep again and try to make the ambiguity more clear (there's an oxymoron!). However, this means that words like likely and possibly become inevitable and unavoidable. To not use them is dishonest. And as for Wackymacs's advice that "If you are uncertain about something, I think you should not include it", well, if we follow this, there will be no article.

      • "Juba soon went beyond the routines of the day": The point isn't that he broke the status quo, it's that he surpassed it and ran circles around it. All modern sources and the majority of period sources support the assertion that Juba was the best minstrel dancer of his day.
      • beat the best white dancers: What's wrong with beat? I checked two dictionaries, and neither calls it informal or slang. As standard English, I don't see why we should avoid the word.
        • I find it a bit too informal, too, in this context. I've changed it to "defeated" unless you have a problem with that. - Jmabel | Talk 20:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No problem; if two people have an issue, it's no biggie to change it. I thought "bested" would have been good until I realized it would have read "bested the best". Dang language. — Dulcem (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "including the period favorite": I'm not sure why this is POV. Until Juba, Diamond was undefeated in dance competitions. He was the most famous dancer of his day until Juba came along. Would "period champion" be better, maybe?
      • Red links: I am unaware of any FAC criterion that forbids red links in articles, whether they be in the main body or in the references. Red links are inevitable in a poorly covered subject area like 19th century American minstrelsy. I'd even argue that they are a good thing to have, as they show us where our encyclopedia needs to be expanded. That said, I do intend to try to turn them blue as the FAC progresses.
      • Citations: I can find nothing in WP:CITE that forbids footnotes after words or commas. In fact, it includes this note:

        Material may be referenced mid-sentence, but footnotes are often placed at the end of a sentence or paragraph. Frequently, a reference tag will coincide with punctuation and some editors put the reference tags after punctuation (except for dashes), as is recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style and others. Some editors prefer the style of journals such as Nature, which place references before punctuation. If an article has evolved using predominantly one style of ref tag placement, the whole article should conform to that style unless there is a consensus to change it.

    • So, I guess I'm not trying to be obstinate or obtuse. I just wanted to explain why some of the concerns above aren't really problems in my opinion. Thanks to both of you for your critiques so far. — Dulcem (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The statement about citations was incorrect. WP:CITE says: "Material may be referenced mid-sentence, but footnotes are often placed at the end of a sentence or paragraph. Frequently, a reference tag will coincide with punctuation and some editors put the reference tags after punctuation (except for dashes), as is recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style and others." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still needs a complete copy-edit from someone not already involved in the article. Some issues still remain. — Wackymacs (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, Jmabel is taking a crack at it. Let's see what he is able to achieve regarding the copy-editing concerns. Regarding the redlinks, I have to side with Sandy here. A "perfect" Wikipedia article should link to those things that are notable and relevant to the subject at hand regardless of whether they exist yet on Wikipedia or not. You specifically questioned linking to Pete Williams dance house for example, but a Google Books search here shows 70 sources that could be mined to write such an article. Believe me that I will continue to bluelink these as time goes on. — Dulcem (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Sources look good. As I'm still on the road, I didn't check external links. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Supprt: I've made various tweaks and changes, and rewritten the first paragraph substantially. I think it's an excellent article, well-sourced, and that it meets all the criteria. Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops, I appear to have broken one of the citations in merging our edit conflicts, but I can't figure out where the problem is. Sorry... Tuf-Kat (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I think I was the one who broke the citation; it's fixed now. Thanks for your copy edit and support! — Dulcem (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Comments, leaning toward support. Much improved. Some misc fixes needed:
    Issues resolved. --Laser brain (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure the term "free-born" is going to have immediate meaning to global readers.
      • "According to an August 11, 1895, piece in the New York Herald..." I think "piece" is a little too informal.
      • What is the Harvard Theatre Collection? If it is a published work, it should be in italics.
      • There is a bit of overlinking of names.. you link Frank Diamond and John Diamond multiple times. Please check all names.
      • "Despite this apparent level of integration into the act, advertisements for the troupe set Juba apart from the other members." How so?
      • Check MoS on your blockquotes.. you have some mixtures of three-dot and four-dot ellipses. One of them starts with a lower-case letter.
      • There are a couple quotes where you use a double-hyphen instead of an em dash... not sure why. --Laser brain (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for taking another look. Regarding the blockquotes: ellipses are rendered as three dots to indicates omitted material, while four dots indicate omitted material plus a full stop. The hypens versus dashes in blockquotes are in keeping with the typography of the quoted material, hence the inconsistency. I'll address your other concerns soon. Thanks, — Dulcem (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, your other concerns should be addressed now. (The Harvard Theatre Collection is a collection of old playbills, advertisements, newspaper clippings, and the like related to early American popular culture, so no italicizing is necessary.) Mind taking another look? Thanks, — Dulcem (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - Lots of issues with the writing quality. Fails criteria 1a:

    • In the lead, you say "...of an African American dancer (or dancers) active" So which is it? Dancer or dancers? Later in the sentence, it seems to be talking about 1 person, which would be dancer, not dancers.
    • I think you should rewrite the lead to conform with the standard for Biography articles. For example: "Master Juba (born William Henry Lane c. 1825 — 1852) was an African American dancer active in the 1840s who was one of the first black performers in the United States to play for white audiences." (Obviously not exactly like that, but I think you get the picture)
    • "Scant" is a weird word choice. Try scarce, limited, rare, hard to come by. (Just a few examples of better words)
    • "Juba soon went beyond the routines of the day" - very wordy. You could possibly say that he did not conform to the status quo, for example.
    • ..."and beat the best white dancers" - Beat? Why not outperformed or "won against"?
    • If you are uncertain about something, I think you should not include it. For example, "possibly the same man" - Not very encyclopedic.
    • Lots of red links throughout the article.
    • Red links are not a problem, not an issue, and not a valid oppose. If the article can attain notability, it should be redlinked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, I personally feel that a featured article should not only read well, but should look as perfect as possible. What is the likeliness of Pete Williams's dance house ever being created, for example? — Wackymacs (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are primary and secondary sources linked? (At start of Early life and career section)
    • ..."In this environment, Juba learned to dance from his peers," In what environment? You've just started a new paragraph.
    • Per WP:CITE, put citations at the end of a sentence straight after the period (or, full stop) - instead of in the middle of a sentence after a word or comma.
    • Cite doesn't say that, and never has (at least in my recent memory). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like the red links, this is about making appearance as best as possible, as a featured article is meant to be an example of Wikipedia's best work, correct? — Wackymacs (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Penny press seems like a seldom-used word. I suggest adding a small explanation, or just putting "cheap, tabloid-style paper" instead.
    • Try to avoid using words like "apparently". See WP:WTA
    • "What is certain is that" - Wordiness
    • Please remove red links in the citations.
    • As above, most of these red links are completely unnecessary as it's very likely those articles will never be created. — Wackymacs (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional issues:

    • "corroborated" - complex word choice, try "supported", "confirmed" or "verified" instead.
    • "Nichols never identified the dancer as Juba; later writers drew this conclusion" - What conclusion? "Nichols never identified the dancer as Juba" is not a conclusion.
    • "Historian Eric Lott writes of the irony of this arrangement: a black man imitating a white man imitating a black man." Is that a quote after the colon? If so, quotation marks should be used.
    • You keep saying John Diamond throughout the article, when after the first few instances, Diamond would suffice.
    • "This advertisement from the July 8, 1844, New York Herald is typical of the publicity the matches generated:" Is, or was? So far, I've seen "was" used more commonly in the article.
    • "Around the time of these challenge dances, in 1842," - I don't like the colon usage here just for the sake of giving a year. Why not "sometime in 1842, around the time of these challenge dances,"
    • The first instance of London, England should be linked in the European tour section.
    • In the Later life and career section: "Marian Hannah Winter" should be: "American dance historian Marian Hannah Winter" - I think it's best to state who she was again, because people might miss out the "Early life and career" section.
    • "However, a review from Manchester implies that it was the former:" - Should put 'Manchester, England' and link it.
    • Avoid words like "raved".
    • "In large part," - I don't think this adds anything to the sentence.
    • In places, you use "wrote," in others, you say "wrote:" - notice the difference, colon or comma?
    • "musical bits" - bits? Very informal.
    • "The terms juba dancer and juba dancing became common in variety theaters after Master Juba popularized them." - No citation? Who says they have become common?
    • I hate to bring this up, but some paragraphs seem very short, while others are very long. You could improve the overall flow by reorganizing and re-paragraphing the text. For example, the paragraph that starts "Historian James W. Cook has suggested" is only one sentence long. The paragraph that follows is ~10 sentences.
    • Oppose - I am still opposing based on prose issues:
      • "including the period favorite" - Slight POV. Who says John Diamond was the most favorite at that time?
      • What exactly is a "challenge dance" ?
      • "The identity of Boz's Juba is open to doubt." - Not sure about "open to doubt" - why not "There is some doubt as to Boz's Juba identity.", for example.
      • "Documents next show Juba back in the United States" Next show? Consider reword.
      • "Playbills tell us, broadly, what Juba did during his performances." - Not a good introductory sentence to this section. Try instead: "Issues of US magazine Playbill have explained what Juba did during his performances."
      • "While he was clearly a remarkable dancer," - WP:POV!
      • Sorry if I seem harsh- it is excellent work, and you've done a brilliant job finding out this much information about a person from such a long time ago.

    — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    — Wackymacs (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, most of your concerns have been tended to, and I'll take a closer look at the rest soon. For the record, this is what I have not yet addressed. Some of it I disagree with, while the rest I intend to look at more closely.
    • Allegations of POV in "period favorite" and "remarkable". At the moment, I think these terms are perfectly supportable, but I will think about this.
    • The bit about irony and Lott is not a quote, so I've clarified to make this more evident.
    • There was also a Frank Diamond at the time, so I was being cautious. Nevertheless, I think the John Diamond/Diamond balance is now fine.
    • The advertisement from the New York Herald is still in existence, so we use is here.
    • Some short paragraphs: I'll look at this.
    • "The identity of Boz's Juba is open to doubt." I don't see a problem with this sentence. Can you elaborate on why you think it should be changed? Your proposed alternative is more ambiguous and wordier.
    • "Playbills tell us . . . " The magazine Playbill is not intended here; rather, playbill is used in the sense of "a poster announcing a theatrical performance" or "a theatrical program". I think Wikipedia is currently in error by making the wikilinked term playbill go to the magazine; there should at the very least be a disambiguating hatnote to event programme. At any rate, the sources I used unanimously call these publications playbills, so we should probably follow suit.
    • I simply assumed it meant the magazine, after looking it up on Wikipedia. I think the usage of theatrical jargon in this article could be cut down. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a theatrical article, so theatrical terms will have to be used, plain and simple. I've added disambiguating language to both playbill and event programme to clarify this. But the term is not marked as "jargon" in any dictionary I've consulted, so the word is fine. — Dulcem (talk) 00:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've clarified that Manchester is Manchester, England, but I disagree about linking it, per WP:CONTEXT.
    • I'll take a look at the "wrote:" vs. "wrote," thing.
    • The citations to Winter and Knowles apply to all of the preceding material in that paragraph, so the stuff about juba dancing and juba dancer entering dancer jargon are sourced already.
    No worries about harshness; this is FAC after all. :) I'll see about your remaining concerns soon. Thanks, — Dulcem (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bit more:
    • The "short paragraphs" are not actually paragraphs at all. Notice that these bits always proceed or follow a block quote. If the quoted text were shorter, it would be included in "quotes like this", but because it is several lines long, block quotes are needed. Nevertheless, the block quotes are part of the same paragraph as the material that proceeds them and often that follows them.
    • Quotes should be cleaned up now ("wrote:" vs. "wrote,"). Quotes that are introduced by colons are those that have no tag such as "said" or "wrote" before them; others are introduced by a tag word and a comma.
    • "period favorite": Favorite means "A contestant or competitor regarded as most likely to win" according to this dictionary. How is it POV to say that Diamond was the reigning champion and was thought to be the most likely to win in his matchups with Juba?
    • "While he clearly was a remarkable dancer": How is this POV? Remarkable means "Attracting notice as being unusual or extraordinary" in the same dictionary. He was the most written about performer in 1848 London, which was crowded with entertainers at the time. Certainly this qualifies as "attracting notice" and "unusual".
    Your remaining concerns are listed above. — Dulcem (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me make myself clearer. Remarkable: "worthy of attention, striking". Who says he was either of those? Who says it is so "clear" that he was a remarkable dancer? You are assuming the reader will agree. Not 100% of the existing world agreed with this statement, surely? Same goes with the period favorite comment about John Diamond. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is an unfair complaint. Adding a specific citation for those two claims seems overkill to me. He is clearly remarkable -- that's primarily what he's famous for: being remarked upon for his dancing by various observers. The statement doesn't say that everybody in the world saw his act and thought it was remarkable, it says that it "clearly was remarkable", and it clearly was -- no other performer from that period is remarked upon like Master Juba, and that's well-supported by the references that already exist. We know that he is "worthy of attention" because people paid attention to him like they didn't to the numerous other dancers of the era, and we know that he is "striking" because people wrote down how they were struck by his act, both points are well-illustrated by the quotes used throughout the article. Adding a citation seems silly - but per WP:CITE, you're allowed to demand one - probably just about every source in the article says something roughly equivalent to "clearly remarkable". The "period favorite" claim is in the lead, and statements in the lead are not generally required to be cited, unless they're particularly controversial, so long as they're supported elsewhere in the article (which this particular claim appears to be, in the "Early life and career" section, and it is elaborated upon in the well-sourced John Diamond (dancer) to boot). Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Tuf-kat here. The language is not POV, it is a summary of what sources say. --Laser brain (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support given edits in the last week or so (many of them mine). - Jmabel | Talk 06:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for Wackymacs' current objections:
        • (I don't care between the two quotation styles, if MoS is clear then follow it.)
        • The statement about John Diamond is an appropriate summary of something that should not be controversial.
        • "challenge dance" is reasonably well explained in the article, including how one was judged in that time and place. If anything, there is too much there, but it's not quite enough to make a good article on "challenge dance" (an article we should certainly have at some time).
        • "The identity of Boz's Juba is open to doubt." I prefer the current wording to Wackymacs' choice, but wouldn't fight over his one.
        • "Documents next show Juba back in the United States" Seems fine to me, but I wouldn't argue over a reword. In any case, this seems extremely petty: are we really going to prevent something from becoming a featured article because one or two wordings are not entirely to one particular Wikipedian's taste? I would never oppose an FA over believing that a wording or two was not completely to my taste. This is a collaborative work. Not everything is going to be worded exactly the way I would word it.
        • "Playbills...": clearly here as a common noun, not a proper noun.
        • "While he was clearly a remarkable dancer..." - Above and beyond Tuf-kat's and Laser_brain's remarks: as with Diamond being the "favorite", this is an absolutely uncontroversial statement. Could anyone read the many cited statement in this article, and the many comments of different authors about Juba, and doubt that he is remarkable? It is simply a matter of stating the obvious as the setup for the following clause. To do so is simply good prose. - Jmabel | Talk 06:25, 15 May 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 00:07, 17 May 2008.

    Nine Inch Nails live performances edit

    previous FAC (18:03, 4 April 2008)


    Self-nomination The article's previous nomination was closed before sufficient votes were given, so I'm hoping to get enough responses this time. All The majority of the concerns from the previous FAC have been addressed, and little has changed with the article since then. Any comments and suggestions are welcome and appreciated. Drewcifer (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - I don't think it's entirely accurate to say all the concerns were addressed. When the previous nom closed I was still opposing the article but reviewing changes. I can spot at least 2-3 of my issues that were decidedly not resolved. One major item is white space. The way you've chosen to layout the article leaves huge chunks of white space at higher resolutions. --Laser brain (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I misrepresented the conclusion of the previous FLC, I thought I had take care of everything. I reworded the nomination slightly to reflect this. My monitor is a fairly low resolution, so perhaps you could tell me which sections in particular are problematic? Drewcifer (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Any section that contains an image and precedes one of those collapsible boxes is not scalable because of the box. In other words, as resolution increases, the text continues to shrink around the image but the box continues downward, leaving whitespace. I'm not sure how to better describe the issue. --Laser brain (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment All the sourcing issues from the previous FAC were resolved, I double checked quickly them again, and they look fine. The link tool is showing two dead links and a timeout though, you might want to check those. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support, I took a fresh look at this today after not reading it for a while, and it looks vastly improved from when this nom was posted. I'm changing to support. Oppose, I am disappointed that this is listed here again without much changed in the article. There was ample opportunity for a substantive peer review as I recommended last time but I see that has not been done. Outstanding concerns:
    Issues resolved. --Laser brain (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Layout problems, see comment above.
      • Prose (1a); comma usage and other unpolished prose. General copyedit needed by an uninvolved editor.
        • A substantive copyedit is still needed. Issues still easily spotted, and in many places the recent copyedit introduced changes but not necessarily improvements. --Laser brain (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first sentence is still confusing.. why use the term "component"?
    I'm really not sure how to respond to this as a criticism. "Component" implies that NIN in the studio is part of a bigger entity, ie "Nine Inch Nails". NIN live + NIN in-studio=Nine Inch Nails. Each is a component to the larger whole. Seems pretty straight-forward english to me.
      • "In 1991 the band then embarked on a world tour that continued through the first Lollapalooza festival, where the band 'stole the show' despite numerous equipment problems." Like what?
    The source does not specify, but is this really that important of info? Does the article really need to say "The wha-wha pedal was unplugged" or "An amp was broken" or "The mic stand was missing a washer" or any of the other 100 completely mundane, uniteresting, uber-technical things that might have gone wrong? Looking at the article's scope (NIN Live Performances as a whole) is such detail necessary? Drewcifer (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's not important, take it out. I'd rather it just say they were successful instead of saying they were successful despite problems but not specifying what the problems were. It's unusual for a professional band to have such technical problems that a journalist felt compelled to write about it. We're not talking about the things you mentioned, we're talking about problems major enough for the audience to notice. --Laser brain (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I found a source that specifies the technical problems: "monitors weren't on, guitars were out of tune, the mic stand was nowhere to be seen." Seems like pretty mundane stuff to me. What do you recommend? Drewcifer (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's a judgment call. If they are mundane then I recommend just taking out that phrase in the interest of being concise. --Laser brain (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why nothing about the visual production of the shows prior to 1999? You answered in the last FAC that you couldn't find anything, but unfortunately that's not good enough for FA. --Laser brain (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So, I've made a few big edits, hopefully to fix the above problems. I had the article copyedited by a third party. I decided to take out the tables (since they were a formatting issue, but also since some people have already mentioned this as something they weren't too fond off), and moved them to List of Nine Inch Nails tours. Let me know if there's still any high-resolution formatting issues. I also added some pre-1999 stuff in the visual elements section. Drewcifer (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much for all of your help and your support. Drewcifer (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I had trouble getting beyond the first sentence. Why is it "generally understood to be a separate entity" rather than "is a separate entity"? And what do the words entity and component mean here? BuddingJournalist 23:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is generally understood to be seperate since they are officially one and the same. It's impossible to say definitively "is" since such rhetoric has never come from the NIN-camp. Admittedly, it's a messy situation language-wise. "Component" implies that it is part of a larger whole. "Entity" was a little wierd, so I reworded that part. Drewcifer (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I redid the lead from scratch. Let me know what you think. Drewcifer (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the "generally understood..." is gone (which had been bothering other editors too, it seems), so that's a non-issue now. However, the lead could be improved:
    • "Nine Inch Nails as a live band has toured throughout the world" Why the "as a live band" qualifier? Seems redundant. Don't tours generally feature live bands?
    • "including perfvormances" typo, and "including" is not the best word here. "giving performances" or just "performing".
    • link frontman
    • "Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor, though typically in complete creative control of the band's musical direction in-studio, has assembled a live band to interpret each major Nine Inch Nails studio release" I did not understand the "though" here. Did he release creative control in assembling these live bands?
    • "These performances have usually been in the form of promotional tours...in many festivals...many other single performances" Long sentence. Conflict between "usually" and "many" other performances.
    "since its inception - Reznor" hyphen is not used for separation.
    "always-changing" "always" is not the best modifier. Try "constantly changing"
    I also skimmed the rest of the article and noticed that your transitions to quotations need work (commas, capitalization, flow, etc.). BuddingJournalist 17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've addressed all of your concerns, I think. If there's any further quotation-issues, let me know. Drewcifer (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I also have problems with the lead section. To have "is generally understood" in the first line of an article isn't good; starts of articles should be more definitive. "Component" is an odd word. "Representation" or "manifestation" might be better. It's not that unusual for a studio artist to assemble live bands when going out on tour, especially when the artist tends to play most/all the instruments himself/herself; think Stevie Wonder or Paul McCartney. Smallish bands with well-defined personnel will add players on tour; think Genesis or R.E.M. or Nirvana. So there should be some way of getting this across. Also, the lead section seems too short. A paragraph summarizing the challenges/successes or failures/commercial and critical reactions to NIN live would be helpful. Does the NIN sound translate to the concert experience? Or do they adopt a different sound/approach? Is NIN more commercially successful with records or on tour? What type of venues do they play, and what are the grosses like? What has been the critical reaction? Indeed, the article as a whole needs to explore these topics more. I see some interesting reviewer comments buried in footnotes ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Follow-up: The "Critical and commercial success" section that's been added would be better called "Critical and commercial reaction" or "Critical and commercial reception", so that you don't prejudge the contents. I seen both those names in other tour articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I redid the lead from scratch, let me know if you like it. Also renamed the Critical/commercial section. Drewcifer (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I like the article in general, it is very thorough in my opinion. some other editors bring up some good points I also support: Critical and commercial success could be expanded and summarized in the lead; how does the NIN live show compare with the average "concert experience"? Also, I'm not sure if the History sections flow very well; I think some more detail of what the live band did during hiatus' and recording times could help. If the flow is improved, I am prepared to give my full support.
      As for Laser brain's comment of how copyediting is still needed, could he provide some specific examples? I thought my copyedit did well in improving the natural soud of some sentences. I am not an expert in proper writing or grammar, but I think there was some good improvement. -- Reaper X 16:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reaper_X, I hope my comment didn't come across as unappreciative! We actually do need an expert in proper writing and grammar to copyedit this and other FA candidates. Random examples, but they are everywhere:
        • Grammar/prose: "Certain songs in particular are typically accompanied with specially-designed visual aids, including synchronized lighting effects and projected stock-footage montages."
        • Comma usage: "The concert was cut short, however, as the meeting was raided by a fictional SWAT team, and the audience was rushed out of the building."
        • The article is almost entirely written in passive voice, which has the effect of obscuring or eliminating the subjects of sentences. Example: "In April, a 'resistance meeting' was scheduled in Los Angeles, where game participants were invited to attend a fictional Art is Resistance meeting, and were rewarded by an impromptu concert by Nine Inch Nails." Aside from being overly long, passive voice completely eliminates the subjects from the sentence and we don't find out who scheduled, who invited, and who awarded. Many of your edits introduced even more passive voice into the article. --Laser brain (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I took care of the language issues you pointed out above (I know they were just examples, but its a step in the right direction). In the meantime I've asked for another person to give the article a further copyedit. As for some other points of business: I completely redid the lead, let me know why you think. To respond to some of Reaper's comments: I think it's very unnecessary to mention what band members did during touring hiatuses. After all, the topic of the article is NIN live performances, so what happens between those performances isn't really that important, unless particularly notable. I also expanded the critical/commercial section, and mentioned it in the lead. As far as the History section's flow, goes, could you give some more specific examples? Drewcifer (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I thought flow could be improved with the mentioning of the band members activities between performances, but you bring up a very good point. That and I appreciate your expansion of the critical/commercial success. So...
    • Support I love the comprehensiveness of this article, especially considering the subject matter. -- Reaper X 03:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your help and your support! Drewcifer (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've gone through the article and begun some copy-editing, per Laser Brain's request for a "General copyedit needed by an uninvolved editor." I'm attempting to remove some awkward wording, and such. I've also added tags to two statements I believe need to be clarified. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments.

    • No bold word in the lead? Done by AtaruMoroboshi (talk)
    • "has performed and toured throughout the world, including performances" - performance overuse...possible reword? changed to "has performed throughout the world, including tours in North America.." Done by AtaruMoroboshi (talk)
    • "It was poorly received and was asked to leave the tour after 10 dates" - "it" seems to refer to the tour...clarify that it refers to the band?
    Reworded.
    • "In 1991, the band then embarked" - would it read better without the "then"?
    Definitely. Fixed.
    • "Early tours and Pretty Hate Machine tour (1988–1991)" (section title) - why is PHM in italics?
    Fixed.
    • "After the Self-Destruct tour..." - Drewcifer's always telling me about short paragraphs; here's one for him. :)
    Ouch. Fixed. 22:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "Reznor held auditions in December 2004.[34] Reznor stated" - change second Reznor to "he", perhaps? Done by AtaruMoroboshi (talk)
    • "During the first arena show in 2005, Jerome Dillon was forced to stop midway through the show and was subsequently hospitalized.[clarify]" - I dunno, it seems clear enough to me—perhaps remove the "through the show" to make it a bit more crisp (and remove the clarify tag).
    I'm not really sure if I follow you on this one. Removing the phrase would make the fact incomplete and worded awkwardly.
    Aah, you're right. In any case, suggest you remove the clarify tag, unless you can think of a way of clarifying further. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Since the release of the Ghosts I-IV" - italics?
    REWORDED
    • "in support of Ghosts I–IV, also stating that "the band has been reformed"" - change album title to "it" (I suggest) and cite the quote.
    REWORDED
    • "purchasers legal name." - needs an apostrophe. And is this section really necessary?
    FIXED APOSTROPHE and MERGED WITH PERFORMANCE 2008.
    • "Nights of Nothing Tour" - Nights of Nothing is only mentioned once elsewhere in the article, as a song. I'm a bit confused.
    REWORDED SLIGHTLY (Nights of Nothing isn't a song, it was a three-night showcase of Nothing bands. I've clarified the language to reflect that).
    That works. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and some other musicians[clarify]" - "and others" would work better if you don't want to name them.
    REWORDED (the problem is that each performance had differing supporting musicians. So I didn't name them, but instead reworded as you recommended.)
    • Might want to use WebCite on ref 48
    That is so COOL! I'm very glad they finally made something like this. Archived the page, and I'll be using that alot in the future. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's, erm, been around since 2003 ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously? Well I feel silly. Drewcifer (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done offline, so I didn't have a chance to check images/links. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, thanks for the support and all the help. Drewcifer (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. At a quick look, the article appears comprehensive and well-cited. However, the prose needs a great deal of work before this is ready for FA status. I stopped reading closely in the first section of the history section and just skimmed the rest. These prose examples come from the lead and the first few history paragraphs; I suspect the same problems are rampant through the rest of the article.

    • I have no idea what this is trying to say "re-interprets studio albums in promotion of new studio releases."
    I've reworded this sentence "While Reznor controls the creative and musical direction of Nine Inch Nails in-studio, the touring band re-interprets the studio albums for a live setting." AtaruMoroboshi (talk)
    • This sentence is really awkward "The live performances have served as promotional tours as both supporting and headlining acts, such as festivals Woodstock '94, Lollapalooza 1991 and 2008, as well as many other single performances, such as during the MTV Video Music Awards."
    This was addressed by Ceoil AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Awkward wording " no member of the live band has remained constant since its inception"
    wording changed to "The only constant member of the live band is Reznor himself" AtaruMoroboshi (talk)
    • There are some basic grammer mistakes:
      • " on stage attitude" needs a hyphen
    done AtaruMoroboshi (talk)
      • verb agreement: "Critical and commercial response to Nine Inch Nails live performances have generally " - have should be has
    done AtaruMoroboshi (talk)
      • "include a fourth members" - member should not be plural.
    done AtaruMoroboshi (talk)
    • Awkward wording "only with occasional instrumental and vocal contributions made by live-band members or other guest artists" - should be something like "with occasional instrumental and vocal contributions from others"
    Reworded to "with occasional instrumental and vocal contributions from others artists". AtaruMoroboshi (talk)
    • remove redundancies: " to interpret the songs in a live form during tours" to "to interpret the songs during tours"
    reworded to "Reznor has typically assembled groups of backing musicians to interpret songs during tours" AtaruMoroboshi (talk)
    • Why are some names of band members in italics? I think that might be a violation of WP:ITALICS

    Karanacs (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The paragraph before the names says that names in italics are members who have contributed to studio releases. Drewcifer (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggestion to Asterisk as opposed to italicize. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, switched italicization to cross-marker thingie. Drewcifer (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What does "re-interprets tracks" mean. Ceoil (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's understandable that there is some of the confusion. The Nine Inch Nails album performance of a song verses the stage performance of a song is often sonically different. Where as others artists may perform a song live much like it was recorded, the Nine Inch Nails live shows often feature different instrumentation entirely, from musicians who had no hand in the original recordings - effectively re-interepting the source material. It is further expanded upon in the history section. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What you want to say is that they rearrange songs for the stage, not reinterpret. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Lightly tinkled with the prose, and Support now (as alt music project member). Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank so much for your help and support. Drewcifer (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments
    • Left-aligned images should not be placed directly under level two headers (===), see WP:MOS#Images. indopug (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed, but the article seems the worse for it. I would have though image promixity to the relevant text should override. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Currently reading through the article. I appreciate that the tours has been given its own list article, as I suggested; it particularly helped get rid of the collapsable boxes, which I felt were redundant and ungainly. Given the trimmed-down scope of the article now, I would strongly suggest this article be renamed Nine Inch Nails backing band, since that's basically what the article is about, and Reznor has made it clear he essentially is the band (per the famous credits in every NIN release "Trent Reznor is Nine Inch Nails") and only needs a full band for gigs. It's a much better, clearer title for the article. I'll follow up wih more comments as I go through the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree. While the article does encompass the live band - it is in the context of the live tours of Nine Inch Nails. The article additionally addresses touring on the whole, visual elements, and the live performances. The article title "Nine Inch Nails Backing Band" is too narrow. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't think there needs to be as much focus on the visual elements and live performances. The majority of the article deals with the changing lineups; that's a fine enough scope to devote the article to. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I too disagree. If one were to break the entire article into its proportional focuses, I would say that the lineup changes is much less then half of the article's content. There's 6 sections, and only two of which deal with the lineup (the Live band members section obviously, and only portions of the History section). What your suggesting seems a little self-fulfilling to me: that the article's focus is too broad AND that the article should be renamed to be more specific. Drewcifer (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just think you can get the same points across with a better title. "Nine Inch Nails live performances" is awkward and a bit esoteric. People see "Nine Inch Nails backing band" and it's clear what the article is about. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly my point: the article isn't exclusively about the backing band. There's much more here. Though renaming the article NIN backing band would obviously make the line-up portions of the article make more sense, it would also make whole sections of the article out-of-place. For instance, why would "Visual elements" be in an article about a backing band? This is exactly why I said it was a self-fulfilling change, since neither step works without the other. Drewcifer (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nine Inch Nails "backing" band isn't ideal. But I would expect an article titled "Nine Inch Nails live performances" to be a discussion of specific performances. Maybe the article is too general for that title. Lemme think. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not tied to the current article name, though I oppose WesleyDodds suggestion. As a possible compromise that addresses the full scope of the article, what about "Live Elements of Nine Inch Nails" or "Elements of Live Nine Inch Nails" - but really I don't know the scope of this FAC. Perhaps we should take renaming discussions to the talk page? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    AtaruMoroboshi, AFAIK its outside the scope of FAC, and yes, should be taken to article talk. Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I bring it up here because if the page is moved the FAC needs to be renamed as well. Renaming discussions are often settled in FAC (one I was personally involved with was the moving of "R.E.M. (band)" to R.E.M.). As for the names Ataru suggested, I think those would be too cumbersome and not helpful to the general reader. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, I've finished reading the article. Here are my comments.

    • I think that first paragraph in the History section could work as part of the lead. Just start off the History with Reznor hiring band members.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Establish more context for the creation of the live band in the prose. My suggestion is to summarize the quote in "Early tours and Pretty Hate Machine tour" ("I could have just gone out with tape machines or 50 keyboards . . .") in the section. The quote box itself can stay; I just think Reznor's rationale needs to be better established in the body of the article.
    • I remember reading that Reznor said the sound of the live band influenced the sound of Broken, ie. very heavy and guitar-oriented. Can something about this be included?
    • Some of the Year Zero project details seem unnecessary.
    Comment What specific details do you believe need to be unnecessary? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Live releases" section can be done away with.
    I disagree. Most band articles have some sort of discography section, and since the live band has had an output in the form of a few live releases, I'd say a similar section applies here too. Drewcifer (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Critical and commercial reception" section seems somewhat redundant, given there are constant references to how each tour was received in the History section. Still, only somewhat redundant; there's plenty of good information in the section itself. Remove redundancies and possibly move some stuff around.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The band member chart seems pretty superfluous.
    I disagree. The cool thing about the chart is that it sums up alot of the article in a single pretty small chart. Granted, the code is pretty massive, but the chart itself is pretty compact. And for being so small, it offers alot of information, synthesized for the reader's convenience: who played when, how long they were part of the band, who played what instruments, who replaced who, the relative tenures of each member, the various incarnations of the group, major tours, major releases, etc, etc. It certainly doesn't take away from the article, and I would argue it offers up alot of information. Drewcifer (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other article renaming ideas: "Nine Inch Nails live band", "Nine Inch Nails in live performances". Having read the entire article, very little would have to be changed in the prose to accomodate a change to either of these names, or my aforemention "Nine Inch Nails backing band". It would most require some rewriting of the lead and the removal of some superflous details.
    I'm not against the idea of renaming the article, but I don't think that any of the suggestions so far serve the topic better then the current title. Drewcifer (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of the facts in "Guest artists and collaborations" are unimportant, since they're one-off occurances. The ones I think should be kept are the Lollapalooza '91 "Head Like a Hole" jams (if they were performed regularly; I vaguely recall that they were) and the David Bowie team-ups. These can be integrated into the history section.

    Aside from that, there's some awkwardness in the prose that I'll try to fix myself. Otherwise the article is pretty solid. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:18, 14 May 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 00:07, 17 May 2008.

    HMS Cardiff (D108) edit

    Self Nominator: The main issue raised in this article's "A" class review, was the need for a copyedit, this has since be done by Maralia (it's also had a peer review since then). I'm going AFK now, but I'll next be able to reply at approx 17:00 (UTC) tomorrow, cheers. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 04:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Otherwise, sources look good. Some of the above questioned sites are probably reliable, they are just way outside my field of study. Better to question than assume. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WC2H 9EA is a London post (ZIP) code, of course (I'm impressed that there is an article on WC codes).--Grahame (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi guys thanks for commenting;
    • I'm a little unsure what you want me to do, shall I replace all the sources that come from the websites you listed above?
    • Phoenix is the publisher (here's a little piccy: File:Phoenix Publishers.jpg ), at the moment the ref text says "
    Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The rusted name pic was taken by Griffiths911 then given to that website (it's run by former crew). He also took the Lynx and SAS pics, although obviously he didn't take the Boeing and Canberra pics (he was on Cardiff at the time) he was sent them by an Argentine friend and then he sent them to me (hence why he isn't called "author" but "source" instead), I didn't know about the published thing. The Canberra pic must be over 25 yrs old though, as it was destroyed during the war. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can vouch for the Lynx and SAS images, that's enough for me. The "rusted pic", however, should have further support given the contradictory implication present on the website; it would be best if Griffiths911 provided an email to OTRS. Publishing and existing are different notions; there's no doubt it existed in 1982, but we need to support the claim that it was published at least 20 years ago. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just remove the rusted name pic and get Ken to add it at Commons under public domain. Don't know about the Boeing and Canberra pics though, I can't find them on Google, what should I do? I'll next be able to reply at approx 12:00 (UTC) Ryan4314 (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They should be removed, or at least commented out if efforts to confirm the PD claims are still ongoing. WP:IUP aside, Wikipedia, and especially featured articles, just shouldn't be representing images as PD without underlying support/evidence. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Excellent work, Ryan. Very brief comment: does the "Early career" sub-section have potential for expansion? The sub-section's title also seems awkward but, hey, that's subjective. SoLando (Talk) 15:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I could expand it using this source, although I worry that anything I add might mess up the flow, but I'll give it a shot :) Ryan4314 (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to go AFK for a bit, I can probably attempt this at about approx 18:00 (UTC) tomorrow. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, would you mind giving it a quick check over though please. I'm on a different computer and I don't have my tools, like spell checker for example :s Ryan4314 (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've given it a copyedit. Great work. SoLando (Talk) 23:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments I gave this another quick copyedit pass. A few issues:

    • "where she shot down the last enemy aircraft of the conflict" - 'enemy' is needlessly POV; just 'Argentine', please.
    • "Cardiff spent the rest of June acting as the Local Anti Air Warfare Coordinator around the islands." - Why capitalize this role?
    • "In the same year she participated in the US Navy Fleet Battle Exercise as an integree to the Digital Fires Network." - Is this meant to be intégrée? Whatever it is, please use something less obscure. Also, what is 'Digital Fires Network'?

    Maralia (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Will do - (add) Just for the record the "enemy" bit wasn't me being malicious against Argentina, I believe my motive at the time, was to try and make clear that the kill she made was actually against an enemy aircraft, as opposed to the other 50% of her "kills" that was against a friendly aircraft unfortunately :(
    • In the source it's referred to as "LAAWC", shall I put LAAWC up in brackets?
    • Gets me! LOL I didn't actually add this bit, I haven't a clue about it either, I'll get the guy who added it to simplify it
    I'll make a start on these tonight, cheers Ryan4314 (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done the first two, the user hasn't replied to me re; the "Digital Fires Network", so I'll try and simplify it (just need some time to research it), didn't want you all to think I've stalled or something ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't have much luck, I'm still a little foggy on the whole affair, so I decided to remove it instead, it's hardly of great relevance ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just saw the email, The DFS is hardly insignificant ;)
    I'm in the middle of delivering some training at the moment so if this can wait til Monday I'll look at it. The problem is probably that I'll need to write an article on Naval Fires first, to avoid explaining the whole lot in here. Unfortunately the issue is much wider than the Naval Gunfire Support Article is both crap and not the whole story.
    ALR (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies for the "insignificant", I only thought so as I literally know nothing about it, lol I didn't even realise the "Fire" bit meant "gunfire", I thought it was about flamey fire. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Naval Fires is the delivery of fire effect from the maritime environment, that includes Naval Gunfire Support (either ashore or anti-surface), maritime launched cruise missile (either from surface or submarine) or fire effect from sea-based aircraft. the Digital Fires Network is a co-ordination network to ensure that delivery of effect is synchronised from different platforms with a shared recognised picture. That makes sure that the desired effect is achieved, resources are not squandered where they're not required and the force are responsive to the needs of the land or air forces.
    ALR (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is great, now it needs to be put into accessible, encyclopedic language. Woody (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it needs sourced; meeting notes, architecture diagrams and my own trainers notes won't do.
    ALR (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • SupportComment I think this is a very good article. It has been copyedited a number of times which has improved the flow. It seems to meet all MOS requirements. The sourcing has improved greatly since the A-Class review; though I still have a few questions. Source 13 (The Gulf. HMS Cardiff—The 1982 Ship's Company.) is a link to an image, it doesn't verify anything. Source 48 (Archive copy at the Internet Archive) doesn't list the actual information. Use {{cite web}} with the archiveurl= and archivedate parameters. Fix those, and I will support. Well done. Woody (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Amended Woody (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replaced [13], and changed [48] to {{cite web}} (could you check I did this properly please). Ryan4314 (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That placates me; I support now. With regards to the gap in the available knowledge that Tom highlights, that is not unusual. Finding verifiable sources is extremely hard and sometimes the ships simply haven't done anything of worth. Regards Woody (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of worth??? Charming.
    Lots of valuable military activity is routine and therefore not reported, either in the media or in other literature. Mind you there does seem to be a bit of a culture of recent trivia in many ship related articles, whereas more substantive less recent history is missing, because sources aren't easily available. T42s in the 80s were workhorses, in that time she probably did three major deployments and a host of minor jobs.
    ALR (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what I meant ALR, and you know it. By worth, I mean nothing that got noted in reliable sources and nothing out of the ordinary for a ship of that size in the 80s. If you can find the information in reliable sources, then please list it. Cardiff is most well-known for her action in the Falklands, which is why, unsurprisingly, that is what is concentrated on. Woody (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    lol ALR, plz don't piss off my only Supporter ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, should have included a smiley. I suspect your usage typifies the current view that the civilian population, even those who are informed and knowledgeable, don't really understand what modern operational forces do. Much of the work on the cold war doesn't deal with individual platforms, but it does talk about the operations which went on. Most of the sources for now are probably ephemera.
    ALR (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I wasn't that offended, and Ryan, I am hardly going to change my comments because of a disagreement with another user ;) Most sources are ephemeral I agree, which is why specific books regarding the Cardiff should be used over online sources. If only such books existed. Woody (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, feel free to tear into each other lol! On a serious note, I am looking forward to reading about DFN when you get round to starting the article, as a civilian I could proof-read it for you both, to make sure it's understandable. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
      • Is the sentence "On a lesser note, Cardiff’s rugby team fared well in this period by reaching the finals of the Mid-Ships Rugby Competition and defeating a team from Llandaff Rugby Club." really needed in article reated to a destroyer in the Royal Navy? If not, then I would suggest ommitting it.
      • Was there no availiable history for the ship from 1982-1990? It seems a little strange that there would be an eight year ommission between two points of conflict. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This issue has been raised before in the GA and "A" class reviews, I can't find any online sources (here's a list of most of Cardiff refs I've found), but your welcome to look. I could find out from former crew what she got up to, but obviously if I can't find a ref for it (one that's need to be up to FA standard), it'd be fruitless task. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Ok then, the article meets all existing criteria for FA, but do keep an eye out for any info that on that missing eight year time period; sooner or later it will become an issue again, either at a peer review level or at the FAR(C) level. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ɬ

    • Generally supportive of FA, although acknowledge that I've already provided some input. I have a couple of areas which more thought could be put into though.
    • I don't know if this vague comment is intended as a support; if it is, the declarer should bold per WP:FAC instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • She later participated in the build-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq as part of the Royal Navy's Armilla Patrol; Cardiff thwarted attempts to smuggle oil out of the country, but was not involved in the actual invasion. is not really all that representative of the contribution. Armilla patrol wasn't a precursor to the Iraq invasion, the Op had gone on in various guises for in excess of 10 years. I think come the time of Telic it was known as Op Bolton anyway... I think perhaps the current phrasing puts undue weight on the Bush family feud.
    • What other Battle Honours did CARDIFF hold? I'm pretty sure that it would have been more than two, her predecessor hulls probably gained some as well.
    • You might want to explain LAAWC.
    • Cardiff didn't fire the lightweight torpedo, her cab did.
    • The history gap is a bit of an issue, but already covered elsewhere. Buckshot has already pointed you towards Naval Hysterical branch who might be able to source something for you.
    ALR (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I knew about how long the Armilla Patrols have existed, didn't realise the wording made it seem like an operation made especially for the build-up to Iraq. I'll reword it, plus it's articles explains it's a regular deployment anyway. The Royal navy reference for it (which is later in the article per WP:LEAD) still refers to it as Armilla Patrol instead of "Op Bolton".
    • "Bush family feud"?
    • I'm not 100% sure, but I think a ship's specific article (i.e. D108) only talks about the battle honours she earned, whereas her namesake's article (i.e. HMS Cardiff) talks about the name's legacy of battle honours. I don't think she (D108) has any other battle honours, she wasn't involved Yugoslavia, and I don't even think ships in the Yugoslavia campaign got battle honours, campaign medals for their crews yes, but I don't know about a battle honour. Anyway I've asked Tom about it, hopefully he'll get back to me.
    • There was an explanation of this, but it was suggested that I remove it during her A-Class review.
    • Have you got a ref for this? The "Report of Proceedings" ref (June 2nd) confirms it was an STWS launch. If you're interested, Ken also posted this on the SAMA forums regarding the incident;

    Having just posted something relating to torpedoes and HMS Broadsword I had a 'flashback' to our torpedo saga;

    We had just arrived with the reinforcement group and everyone was a bit twitchy. All was quiet this particular day when the sonar lads picked up a contact.............bedlam ensued. We were on our own, no other units were near to assist us in prosecuting this possible submarine. It was going to take time to get our Lynx helicopter airborne armed with the right weapon so we opted do it ourselves and if required use our STWS (Shipborne Torpedo Weapon System). We twisted and turned and closed this 'submarine' which was now on a steady heading towards us at slow speed.............'stalking us'.

    " Cardiff zooms towards the submarine and launches a torpedo from the STWS launcher "Thooomp"...........delay............"Kerboooom". Captain leeps out of his chair and runs toward the ladder heading for the bridge............."PWO, I'm orf to the bridge to smell for diesel", smiling like a little boy in a toffee shop.

    All the radar lads are still staring at their screens bewildered and wondering what has just happened...........no submarine. Just a great lump of rock on the seabed and a very keen sonar crew. When this incident is reported to the Admiral he is heard to say "Funny how the new boys react every time a shrimp farts".

    Ryan4314 (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Armilla went through a number of names over time, it was Bolton in the late 90s early '00s. I think my main issue is with the wording implying that it was related to Telic.
    • Family Feud, really just my take on the legitimacy of the Iraq invasion.
    • No problem, I just find it odd not to aggregate the battle honours.
    • No problem, I didn't think the Batch 1 had STWS, but clearly they did.
    ALR (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just saw the question you asked Tom. It might be that US policy is driving Wikipedia again. In the UK the ship bears the battle honours associated with the name, rather than just the hull. It means that the hulls have history and tradition ;)
    No point in fighting the Wikipedia system though.
    ALR (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you think of the wording now? Go easy on Tom, he probably just doesn't understand that we do things differently in the UK, that a ship is eternal, living through her namesakes. I'll rephrase the question to him. In regards to the STWS, I have a great little crown piccy of Cardiff firing a torpedo in the Gulf in '82, I'll e-mail it to you :) Ryan4314 (talk) 18:07, 14 May 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 22:29, 14 May 2008.

    Diorama (album) edit

    A highly popular album by Silverchair. Well written, uses reliable sources, etc. (well, that's my opinion!)—I think this article is FA ready. As well as a GAN reviewer, there is quite a bit of peer reviewing in the talk page archives. I'm happy to act on any new suggestions. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I think "nothing that" should be "noting that" unless I'm mistaken? naerii - talk 01:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Comments ...And my Aussie music education continues, courtesy of Dihydrogen Monoxide. Close to ready; however, some things to consider:
      • I seems odd to write "ARIA" twice (in the context of awards) before finally explaining the acronym in a sentence. Can we fix that?
      • "Johns initially wrote eight songs, only to later erase all record of them later..." Can we make this more specific? If the album is digitally recorded, he just deleted the files? If analog recorded, does this mean he destroyed the masters?
      • The Metacritic stuff.. who are Ink 19 and Dot music? If those are amateur reviewers logged into a web site, especially anonymously, I don't think we want to include that as a reliable source. I'm not familiar with that site.
        • Since they're on Metacritic they aren't amateur, but since they don't add much (couldn't find full reviews) I've removed them anyways. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You said a couple times that Johns wrote most of the album, but I don't recall reading about anyone else being involved in the songwriting process. Parks did some arrangements, but did anyone do any songwriting? --Laser brain (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved comments from Efe - Efe (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Hello DM. Here's my comment on this article:

    • the album saw Silverchair lead singer Daniel Johns co-produce for the first time, alongside David Bottrill. I usually read this kind of phrasing and its sounds awkward. --Efe (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm...maybe it's just me, but I'm not seeing the issue (removing saw would make it worse, IMO). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Its not actually an issue and maybe its just me who felt its awkward. Anyway, would be better if reworded. --Efe (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
          • Do you have any suggestions? I really can't see how to make it flow better... dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Like, "...the album was co-produced by Silverchair....for the first time, alongside..." Something like that. Im not into fixing because me too have troubles with grammars and brilliant prose, but as a reviewer, i felt its ackward. Anyway, its just my opinion. BTW, that "..., alongside David...", its like David also produced a Silverchair album for the first time, or he is? Its ambiguous. --Efe (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Johns wrote most of the album, utilising a piano, I think its beter to put that "utising a piano" first then comma to avoid many commas in a single sentence. --Efe (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Diorama charted successfully and was moderately well received by critics. Thats vague. Please be specific.
    • And there's a lot of minor stuffs in that para, like percent in this and stars in that. How important are they? You can probably summarized that as one, regarding to the preceding comment. --Efe (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose I don't need to include the AMG/RS scores, they're mostly there for variety. Removed. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was eventually certified triple-platinum by ARIA. Diorama won five ARIA Awards in 2002. Stubby sentences. --Efe (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Silverchair performed "The Greatest View" at the ceremony; the song was subsequently nominated for "Highest Selling Album" in 2003. What is the significance of that performance why its in the lead? And, was "The Greatest View" nominated for "Highest Selling Album" of "Highest Selling Single"? --Efe (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Daniel Johns' home Do you need to state that in the infobox? Very specific. --Efe (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • April-October, 2001 This should not be linked. --Efe (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delink 2002 under "After All These Years" in the infobox. --Efe (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 2. Is the date the publication date of the access date? If its the former, confine it with parethesis; if the latter, change the format for consistency. --Efe (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same through with ref 3, 7 and 8. And, do not link that incomplete date in ref 3. --Efe (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please go over with the format for consistency issues. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment

    For this to reach FA, all quoted material must have direct citations. For instance, He worked with others in developing the album; Van Dyke Parks (Beach Boys, U2) collaborated on orchestral arrangements, and the pair spent much of their recording time attempting to describe the music in metaphorical terms, with Johns describing Parks' orchestral swells as "tidal waves" and violins as "a flock of birds". do not have one. I believe this is covered by the following citation but it must be cited. --Efe (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done (your guess was correct). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments

    I did a ce; mainly converting the #1 to number one, and so forth, because it vastly improves readability and improves the way the text "looks". Do we need to have colour-coded infoboxes? Its rather ugly, and I really don't see the point of it. What they won and what didn't win is clear enough without the colours, but the red and green rather jumps at you when you're just scrolling down. indopug (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm...I copied that formatting from Silverchair discography, and I've used similar formatting on all my other album articles. I don't feel strongly about it (I rarely do), but I'd rather keep it—do you have a significant objection? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hate that glaring colors as well. Maybe you can use light gray? Don't worry, though, its just my opinion. --Efe (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose for now based on what seems to be extensive copyediting required. No issue with the comprehensiveness but the text needs much work. I'm aware that some of the text I'm commenting on below has been changed in the last few hours. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved objections from Peripitus - Peripitus (Talk) 21:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • References
    • The fact that one of the labels was "Eleven" is not referenced anywhere and only listed in the lead and the infobox - should be in the body.
    It's now mentioned in the Album and single releases section. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • General bits
    • Where mentioning a third-party organisation or reviewer it would make the article far clearer if, the first time used, a couple of extra words were added to make the source unambiguous. Eg: "three star critique from Rolling Stone" - from the printed magazine, website or a named reviewer ? Metacritic, All Music Guide, Triple J etc - a reader of the article would be hard pressed to know what these where unless they already knew. Often it's expanded on later in the article where it should be higher up.
    OK, I've looked through and tried to fix all cases of these, please tell me if I've missed any. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wording - mostly in order from the top
    • "Released on 31 March 2002 by Eleven, the album saw Silverchair lead singer Daniel Johns co-produce for the first time, alongside David Bottrill". Does not mention what "Eleven" is, "Silverchair" is redundant and an album seeing a band is stretching language a trifle far. Perhaps "It was released by Australian record label 'Eleven: A Music Company' on 31 March 2002. Lead singer Daniel Johns had co-produced for the first time, alongside David Bottrill" - though I'm unhappy with my version too.
    I had reworded this after Efe's comments ("Released on 31 March 2002 by Eleven, the album was co-produced by Daniel Johns and David Bottrill, both doing so for the first time on a Silverchair album.")—is this OK? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Johns wrote most of the album, utilising a piano" - "Utili[s

    *Oppose per 1a. This is FAC, and not FLC. The "Response" section has all these tables listing various things, and such information can be written out. These sections prohibit the article from being "engaging". LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • The tabular data is, for the most part, already described in prose. Do you think the tables might be useful to readers who want a quick reference? Say someone came to the article to find out how the album charted. The tables might be more useful to them than having to read through the prose to find it. Just something to chew on. --Laser brain (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've removed the (clearly unpopular) awards tables. The Charts table is a stalemate on album articles, so I've kept that. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as GA reviewer. Another great one from DHMO. Burningclean [speak] 22:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Being a GA reviewer is not a good basis to cast your support. And besides, there is a great disparity between a GA and an FA. =) --Efe (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Current ref 24 is lacking a publisher. David Frickie "Silverchair See Past Tomorrow"
    All fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Being on the road, I didnt check external links. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments
    • I gave this a review before, but I have some new thoughts:
      • Can we get a reference for the "210,000 copies" statistic (doesn't have to be in the lead, though).
        • Platinum = >70,000, thus triple platinum = >210,000. I've added that somewhere in the article. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Johns commented on the difference between what resonated well on piano compared to on guitar" sounds awkward to me. Can't think of a way to reword it atm though.
      • Attempted reword. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "...he had written songs with the intention of Imbruglia singing them" Maybe "...he had written songs with the intention that Imbruglia would sing them"? Or "...he had written songs with intending for Imbruglia to sing them"? Neither one is great, but the wording just sounded a little weird there.
        • "Johns also denied rumours that he had written songs intending Imbruglia to sing them." OK? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still think the last sentence of that paragraph about the article's title seems a little tacked on there, with the rest of the paragraph being about the inspiration for songs. I don't suppose you could get away with putting it in the lead? It's kind of an introductory point, what the name's about.
        • Yeah, that sentence will probably seem the least out of place in the lead... done. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "...the band '[reverted] back to their grunge sound'." So 'reverted' is part of this article, not the original quote? Why not just "...the band reverted 'back to their grunge sound'"?
    • Just suggestions, if I'm off base on any of them feel free to ignore. Similarly I've made some tweaks to the article which can be reverted if they weren't helpful. delldot talk 18:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Contractions: wasn't, weren't, maybe others.
    • First paragraph is rather short; could it be expanded or merged?
    • "Lead singer Johns wrote most of the album at a piano, while the band took a 12-month break" -> shouldn't be acomma. (this comment is in direct violation of Giano's essay! :O)
    • "Silverchair worked with composer Van Dyke Parks on Diorama, which contains numerous orchestral arrangements and power ballads, as opposed to the post-grunge music typical of their earlier work." - very awkward phrasing, maybe "Silverchair worked with composer Van Dyke Parks on Diorama; the album contains numerous orchestral arrangements and power ballads, as opposed to the post-grunge music typical of their earlier work."
    • 'Five singles were released; "The Greatest View", "Without You", "Luv Your Life", and "Across The Night" appeared on the ARIA Singles Chart, and "After All These Years" was released as a promotional single.' - grammatically incorrect, should probably be two sentences: 'Five singles were released; "The Greatest View," "Without You," "Luv Your Life," "Across The Night," and "After All These Years". "Across The Night" appeared on the ARIA Singles Chart, and "After All These Years" was released as a promotional single.'
    • There's a lot of '"stuff",'. This should be "stuff,". (comma before quote)
      • The comma only goes inside the quotation marks if it's part of the quote, I believe? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can't find much else at the moment, the majority of the article looks good. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Support - For the last one, I always learned it as the comma always goes in the quotes... oh well, maybe I remembered incorrectly or there's an odd difference in grammar standards from country to country. Everything else has been addressed nicely, so... Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - I've agreed to do a quick copy edit for this article, and will place comments and questions here.

    • Does reference #8 confirm that he suffered from reactive arthritis? I see it is linked to him having therapy. (Integrated into article) Risker (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quotes from source: "Silverchair frontman Daniel Johns thought his debilitating reactive arthritis would end his career." and "I've been doing physio and treatments constantly every day from 11am until 5pm. I do physiotherapy, then I get these really painful massages which break the hardened fluid in your legs, arms and back" (quoting Johns). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should the US charts (Billboard, Hot Tracks) be identified as American? The charts for other countries are specifically identified, and since this is primarily an Australian band, it might be useful. (Integrated into article) Risker (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the Album and single releases section: "The band's tour in support of Diorama would take its name from "Across the Night", which took Johns nine hours to write on a sleepless night"...was that the intended tour, or did they actually tour? (integrated into article) Risker (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as copy editor. Risker (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quick question. Been copyediting (see history) today, and came across this sentence: Johns wrote much of the album at a baby grand piano; he had taught himself the instrument and began composing with it during the band's post-Neon Ballroom break. This leads me to believe that Johns did not start learning to play piano until after Neon Ballroom. Is that true, or does this need to be reworded? If it needs to be reworded, I propose a very simple addition:
    • Johns wrote much of the album at a baby grand piano; he had previously taught himself the instrument and began composing with it during the band's post-Neon Ballroom break (bold for emphasis). I would normally just make a change like that, but if he really didn't learn piano until post-NeonBallroom, then it should stay as is. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, you're correct; as far as I can gather from the sources, he taught himself the piano during the post-Neon Ballroom break; he couldn't/didn't play it before then. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just gave a quick peek at their official site's tour archive[61], and it seems they played Lollapalooza in August 2007. Risker (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice work Risker. Did you look at my first question, by chance? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I believe I have addressed both questions - took the Lollapalooza out (the reference article was from 2007 too), and have clarified the piano bit to state this was the first album where he used the piano for composition, which concurs with the reference source. Risker (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Risker! I see the change to both of my "concerns" I'm content with the Lollapalooza fix, but still, the "piano" fix seems iffy. It still sounds like Johns didn'tstart playing piano until after his third album. (Neon Ballroom). I'll change it in a sec, tell me what you think! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Added "previously" to the sentence I had problems with. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me. I suppose though it might be an idea to ask DHMO... ;-) Risker (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, possible misinterpretation of the given source (just looked over it and I swear there was a link to Neon Ballroom given somewhere once...), but the current version is fine. Thanks for your help, Keeper and Risker! :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support now after the with only a couple of comments - Peripitus (Talk) 13:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • In the lead the sentence "While Bottrill had worked on albums for a wide variety of other bands, Diorama marked the first time lead singer Johns undertook production duties" has two issues. a wide variety is not more descriptive than just variety. Secondly the end reads poorly. I haven't fixed this as I don't like my version as well.
    "Though Bottrill had worked on albums for various other bands, Diorama marked the first production work by lead singer Johns."
    • Album and single releases section paragraph 1. When discussing the chart ratings the word "number" is used to what seems excess. I prefer "The album peaked at number seven in New Zealand, number thirteen in Austria, number forty in Switzerland, and number 116 in France"...but I don't know if this is grammatically acceptable.
    • I don't think that "Additional personnel" should be a section break - consider just a semicolon at the start of the line to bold it.
    • Item one (lead paragraph, last sentence) changed. Used your sentence, except changed "work" to "credit", more specific. And presumably, as a band member, he "worked" on the production. This, I presume, would be the first album that he received a sleeve "credit" for it though in an official capacity.
    • Removed the "numbers" for clarity and readability.
    • Made additional personnel a bolded line instead of SB. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No objections to these changes, thanks Keeper. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This FAC has (had) two unsigned caps and several declarations at the end of sentences rather than beginning (see WP:FAC instructions). If nominators will keep their FACs more readable, by contacting editors when they aren't following instructions, it will save me time. Caps need sigs or I'll remove them; I need to know who capped the comments. And when declarations are buried at the end of sentences, I may miss them on subsequent read-throughs. I read every FAC every day, but I can't guarantee then that when I go back to tally at the end of a week or two, I will see these declarations buried at the end of sentences. Please, when reviewers haven't adhered to the FAC instructions, ping them for a revisit; have mercy on my eyesight and typing :-) Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I apologise for any eye or finger damage that has taken place because of this FAC. As I said on my talk page I'll try to keep a shorter loose on commentators in future. :) Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there are 7 supports, I think the only oppose is resolved, it doesn't appear that images have been reviewed. I'll see if this is clearer on my next pass through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I count seven supports and two struck oppositions (one later supported), with no opposition concerns still outstanding. In terms of the images, the album cover has the standard album-cover-rationale, and the audio samples use User:Giggy/Audio which has been OK'd in prior FACs. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. My apologies, SG, I never actually came out and said support (as copyeditor), not sure if you were counting me or not. I'm an FA n00b, sorry I don't have the formatting down yet or if anything I've done to this point has been out of process/out of place. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:50, 13 May 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 22:29, 14 May 2008.

    Myst edit

    Well, on the 2nd I noticed this article was in need of a cleaning, so I started in on it. I was having issues finding good sources, (as I haven't been able to find hard copies of newspaper articles without paying for it (capitalist swine!) but I was still able to find some good reviews and such from Salon and a few of the magazines of the time. (I'm nom'ing this 'cause my other nom has stalled, and it's a video game again, deal with it, I'll do something different when I do something different.) Cheers, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Sometimes you write The Stranger capitalized and linked, sometimes the Stranger with only the "Stranger" part linked. Be consistent.
    • There's a few contractions I spotted; I'm not sure if there are more, but try to weed those out.
    • Why is this a reliable source? Couldn't this be cited to the original NYTimes article?
    • Perhaps you could expand the short subsections of "Remakes and rereleases"?
    • Some redudancy; for example: "Exile was not developed by Cyan; instead, Presto Studios developed the title and Ubisoft published it."
    • "The game's popularity has led to a significant cultural impact." - source? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 02:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I've fixed all the issues with 'the Stranger', and all contractions I saw besides those in quotes have been fixes. The source in question is from Salon, which I believe fits WP:RS criteria as have a staff and a reputation for fact-checking. The NYT article is off the net. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Otherwise the sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    World village link is being used for an interview. SNPP link is written by David Basner, who is a Writer/Associate Producer at MTV. Steve West is Cinemablend's games editor, I'm going to see if he's been published elsewhere. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes World village a reliable site for interviews though? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please attribute the two statements (not the quote) sourced to worldvillage.com so the reader can decide how reliable the statements are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All the refs for the worldvillage are based entirely on the Miller Brother's comments, not what the author or interviewers are, although they aren't quotes. Are you sure they need special distinction? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Some minor fixes needed, will support then. No obvious prose hickups, balance is good, relevant images with proper FU rationales (except for Image:RealMyst Box.jpg, where I am neutral on whether it is really needed.) To be fixed:

    • The "(The) Stranger" linking and the contractions like already expressed above
    • The "Story" section doesn't divide when the story is told in a video (i.e. the player is passive), and when the played takes over the part of the Stranger (i.e. the player is active). But I think this should be made clearer (even though part of it is already explained in the "Gameplay" section).
    • "A lot can be done with texture. . . ." - I bet the three/four dots should be unspaced.
    • Myst: The Soundtrack -> Myst: The Soundtrack
    • The "Reception" begins with the words "extremely popular". While the following sentences support this claim, it should be reconsidered to lower "extremely" to "very" for POV reasons. This may be just my personal opinion, so if you do not share it, ignore it.
    – sgeureka t•c 10:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixes above implemented. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. – sgeureka t•c 20:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved — Wackymacs (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - It's great to see this at FAC, because this was one of my favorite games, but some changes are needed until I can support:

    • In the lead, you say "... and distributed by Brøderbund (among others)." - Clarify the others instead of being ambiguous - You should not assume the reader will look at the infobox. For example, "... and distributed by Brøderbund, and later Midway Games, Mean Hamster Software, and Sunsoft".
    • In the Story section, "Under obscure circumstances, a mysterious person known as the Stranger finds an unusual book titled "Myst"." Under what obscure circumstances? Needs clarification.
    • No citation for "Each image was edited and enhanced using Photoshop 1.0." (In Development section)
    • Why is Hypercard in Italics? (In 4th paragraph of Development section)
    • Have you considered citing the Story section?
    • In some places, you say Myst, in others, its just Myst. So which is it?
    • No citation for "At first, the developers had no idea how they would actually create the physical terrain for the Ages." (In Development section)
    • "Myst was an extremely popular and commercially successful game." Remove "extremely" - slight POV.
    • "Myst still received criticism of some aspects" Prose - consider instead: "Some aspects of Myst still received criticism."
    • No citation for "In addition to the main Myst saga, Cyan developed Uru: Ages Beyond Myst, which was released on November 11, 2003."
    • Nice work so far.

    — Wackymacs (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For the Myst-Myst thing: "Myst" refers to the island in the game, not the game itself. I'll prolly reword those occurrences to "Myst Island" to increase understandibility. I'll get hopping on the above, thanks for the review! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I've fixed all the rest of the above issues; the manual backstory has been explicitly stated, cited the pieces in question, removed POV and fixed grammar. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost there. There is still no consistency with the name formatting. For example, in the development section, you have "The Myst creative team consisted of the brothers...", but later on you have "The original Macintosh version of Myst was constructed in Hypercard." And both of those seem to be talking about the game itself, not the island. So why suddenly Italics? You need to go through the entire article and check. I still like your previous suggestion to change those occurrences to "Myst Island". — Wackymacs (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you add references for the release dates and age ratings in the Infobox? (I have had a look at some video game FAs, and they all do the same). — Wackymacs (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Release dates and rating ref'd in the infobox. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support — Wackymacs (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)
    • Comment The scores in the reviews box need references. Gary King (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    added. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are the publishers for all of the references italicized? Gary King (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is quite a mess in the FAC, article name, and FAC templating here; please sort it out, remove all the redirects, put the FAC to the correct page and article title, since I don't have admin tools to fix it all. What is the article title? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Will someone decide if that's the name, so we can correct the nom and the redirects? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No response, so I'm going to begin to try to correct this myself SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Corrected with a cut-and-paste since I can't move over a redirect. The FAC is now at Myst, where the article is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, Where did you get the release date for the Masterpiece Edition? Your ref says it was released 2000 instead of 1996. Also every other site I checked list the release date as 1999 (GameSpot, IGN, MobyGames), so which one is correct? --Mika1h (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The ref to the release date (5/2000) is from Ubisoft's product page.[62] Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Well written and referenced, but I do have a couple of observations. The remakes section consists of rather small subsections. I was wondering whether it might be better to merge those subsections into two subheadings, something like "PC remakes" and "Handheld versions". The second thing is that I personally think that a comparison shot of a scene in Myst and the same scene in realMyst may be more useful to readers than just the box art. Just a couple of thoughts, but it all comes together rather well regardless. -- Sabre (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Images not checked, reliable sources not yet resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Checked images; most of them are free as Ubisoft screenshots. The box cover has a decent rationale, as does the Simpsons image. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The three images are now on Commons as Attribution-Ubisoft. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments I've copyedited this just now (and for the record, it was a hell of a lot easier since I actually know this game). Some remaining issues:

    • "The graphics were shots of fully rendered rooms, to the result of 2,500 frames in the game, one for each possible area the player could explore." - 'to the result of' is weak. There are only 2,500 frames in the whole game?
    • "This careful processing made the finished graphics look like truecolor images despite their low bit depth and space-saving; the stills went from being around 500 KB in size to around 80 KB." - 'despite their...space-saving' reads as though there's a missing noun. The second half of the sentence would benefit from a better verb (were reduced?).
    • "Available only in Europe in December 2007, this new version of Myst for the Nintendo DS promises" - a couple issues: it wasn't available only in Europe in December but rather since December, right? And why the future tense verb for something already in existence?
    • "Entertainment Weekly reported that some players considered Myst's options of choice an exercise in "virtual morality"." - options of choice?
    • "Writing about Myst's reception, Greg M. Smith noted the perplexing response that" - the lead-in to this quote is really wonky.
    • "Unlike most games in the Myst series, players can customize their avatars, and the graphics are rendered in real-time." - misplaced modifier; clarify this with something like 'Uru allows/offers customizable...'
    • The site under external links piped to "Information about the availability of CD soundtracks from the Myst series" stinks strongly of a click-through sales deal with Amazon.

    Maralia (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • My problem with 'options of choice' wasn't singular vs plural - it was that the two words are entirely interchangeable and I thought we could come up with something better. I just went to the EW article in hopes of inspiration, but found that the only 'virtual morality' mention is this sentence: "Self-described Christians who initially conceived Myst as an exercise in virtual morality, the brothers never dreamed so many people would find their fictional world a religious experience." Unless I'm missing something here, that 'virtual morality' reference definitely refers to the Miller brothers' perception, not that of players.
    • Is there a typo in the new MacWorld quote? "vocabularies that don't understand you,"
    Maralia (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support My concerns have been addressed. I changed the template used to stack the old/new stills, and split the caption which compares them. I feel pretty strongly about the stack method - the edge of one image smashed against the edge of another was visually disturbing - but I wouldn't argue if you prefer the single caption to my split one. Maralia (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still waiting for reliable sources to be resolved and images to be reviewed (pls ask Elcobbola (talk · contribs) or Black Kite (talk · contribs)). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll leave a note with Elco, (you already have) and I've already left a message for Ealdgyth[63] (appears to be travelling so it may take some time.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Source observations/comments:
          • Cinemablend has been replaced.
          • Do we really even need to cite the appearance in the Simpsons (the questionable David Basner source)? It doesn't seem likely to be challenged. Failing that, would citing the Simpsons DVD on which the episode appears, for example, be acceptable?
          • World village is indeed on the line. However, given the relatively advanced age of Myst (especially for a video game ... and no pun intended) and in the absence of evidence that the information exists elsewhere, I'm not sure that there is a reasonable expectation that it can be resourced. Removing the information would probably be detrimently, so I'm okay with it (acknowledging, of course, that stricter interpretations have merit). I do note that Kadrey, Richard (1997). From Myst to Riven. Hyperion Books ISBN 9780786863655 appears to address development in detail; has it been consulted? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking for a copy of From Myst to Riven because I do want to use it for Riven at least, but I don't think it has much on Myst itself- it's more about the fallout from the game becoming a hit, to th development of Riven. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Image:Simpsons-Myst.png appears purely decorative. Why is seeing an "aspect of the game replicated in pop culture" necessary (NFCC#3A) to understand Myst and is any contribution truly significant (NFCC#8)? Isn't "Elements from Myst made appearances in an episode of the The Simpsons" good enough (NFCC#1)? The {{Non-free television screenshot}} only allows for the illustration of critical commentary of the image's contents. A single sentence (used merely as a example of a cultural occurrence) -- in an article unrelated to the episode or The Simpsons as a series, nonetheless -- does not appear to constitute critical commentary. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed image. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional support: Finally Herr Fuchs brings a game I've played. (Oh sweet nostalgia of when CD-ROM drives used a caddy; has it really been 15 years?) A few prose tweaks seem needed:
      • "Myst was generally critically praised" seems awkward; "was generally praised by critics" would seem preferable.
      • "Edge stated the obvious flaw..."; this seems to be OR?
      • "Some critics complained ..." WP:WEASEL; the preceding sentences do a good job of identifying the source of comments. Why doesn't this follow suit; which critics?
      • "The Miller brothers also collaborated..."; use of "also" seems to be an "additive term", on which Tony might frown (I'm not a prose guy, but going over once more to check for this sort of thing might be helpful). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reworded the above, clarified who was saying what, and swapped around the Edge comment- they stated the flaw was "obvious", but it didn't come off clear in my writing. Speak for yourself about 15 years: I got the hand-me-down computers in my house, and I was rockin' the 2x speed CD caddy until 1998! :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:19, 13 May 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 21:25, 13 May 2008.

    Tibet during the Ming Dynasty edit

    Self-Nominator. Although there were some discrepancies on the talk page on what the most neutral and NPOV title for this article should be, the current title is fair enough. The prose is up to professional standards, the article is very comprehensive with many different sub-sections treating individual topics of modern scholarly debate, and the sources used are reliable. Although there were some initial arguments about where citations were needed, this issue has pretty much passed, the article is thoroughly cited, and it is now stable.Pericles of AthensTalk 04:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 35 "Grand Education Minister Qamqu Gyaincain: A History of the Nam Family" is this a book? If so it needs to be formatted like the other books in the footnotes. Needs a publisher, etc. too.
    • The Illich, Marina reference, is the Power, Politics and the Reinvention of Tradition a book? If so it needs to be italicised to match the rest of the references.
    All other links checked out okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just fixed both references. Thank you for commenting!--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot to mention article size in my introduction; as of now the article has a total of about 75 KB, although it has only 42 KB of actual prose writing (I checked using my personal sandbox). This is not to say that the article needs to be cut down or expanded any further, just to let people know before someone addresses anything about article size.--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For anyone who might be interested, as of now the article's prose size is 48 KB, as shown in my sandbox at User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: image licensing concerns:
      • Image:16th Century Tibet repousse.jpg needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. Who is Conan Lang and how can we confirm he has rights to release as GFDL?
      • Image:Hongwu1.jpg needs a verifiable source.
      • Image:Mongol Empire map 2.gif has no source, no author and no license information.
      • Image:MapAK1.JPG description contains "(Karte: A. Gruschke, Freiburg)", which implies a "self-made" source, as uploader is "Gruschke". Image, however, is not of a resolution, format or coloration typical of self-made works. Uploader, additionally, has multiple deletion warnings/license issues at Commons talk page. Quack?
      • Image:Drepung monastery.jpg does not have a source. Author is asserted as "Philipp Roelli", but uploader is "Dbachmann" and a "self" license variant is not used. How can we confirm Roelli has indeed licensed this as GFDL?
      • Image:Imperiestro-Ŭan-Li.jpg: "The German Wikipedia" is not valid as a source.
      • Image sandwiching issues in the "Assertions in the Mingshi" section, see WP:MOS#Images. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll see what I can do in regards to contacting those who uploaded these images and getting proper sources for them.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the images in question, I have taken each and every one of them out of the article, replaced some of them, and contacted everyone who uploaded them, except for the Mongol Empire map, I didn't even bother since I found an immediate replacement (even though it is a great animated image, with absolutely no information, I don't even want to trust the person who downloaded it to begin with).--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Questions Have LaGrandefr's issues been addressed? I see an edit war-ish thing happening a few days back. Are the Chines characters required in the prose of an article in the English Wikipedia? It really breaks the flow for the many who cannot read them. It is especially problematic in the Tables for administrative offices and officials' titles where the Chinese characters aree half the text in the table. More comments later indopug (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chinese characters are only necessary when there is no existing wikipedia link for that person, place, or thing in the article. As for the tables, since that is not the prose of the article, I don't see too much of a problem with Chinese characters for each of the administrative units mentioned. Edit-warring with LaGrandefr is off and on; I think a compromise has been unanimously reached though, since little of the new material he added recently has been deleted.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did find one instance where there was an unnecessary bulk of Chinese characters placed in parenthesis in the prose of the article (in the "inheritence, reappointments, and titles" section); I have since deleted that.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressed comments by Collectonian (talk · contribs)
    • Oppose The article seems to be in need of some thorough copy editing. The prose does not flow well throughout and is a bit unwieldy. In the "Armed intervention and border stability" section, the last statement is self-referencing which is generally a no no. Ditto the last statement in the "Tribute and exchanging tea for horses" section. A few of the sentences leading into a quote are missing their refs (refs should be at the end of the sentence as well as in the quote). I'm also concerned about the stability issues. The edit warring and arguments over its title are still relatively recent. Some of the arguments are still on-going and the descent from civility during some of the recent "discussions" does not reflect well on the future stability. Just yesterday there seems to be an agreement on possibly renaming the article again to Tibetan history during the Ming Dynasty. Collectonian (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, it does need a copy-edit job. I would contact the Leage of Copyeditors, but one of their requirements is that the article be stable, and with User:LaGrandefr still lurking around and making a disruptive appearance once about every week, the article will continue to be potentially unstable. I have fixed the technical issues you had with the article, including the self-referencing statements and quotations needing inline citations on sentences before the actual blockquote. I will talk to User:Bertport and see what he still thinks about the title of the article. Personally I think the title is the least contentious issue that the article has as long as the title is completely neutral; "Tibet during the Ming Dynasty" and "Tibetan history during the Ming Dynasty" are both perfectly acceptable in this regard.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You may want to try contacting one of the editors at WP:1FAPQ#Project resources instead. LoCE has been extremely slow to respond in the last few months, and might not get to the article before the FAC is over. Collectonian (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I have contacted User:Scartol about this.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Scartol is unfortunately busy, so I've contacted User:John Broughton instead.--Pericles of AthensTalk 04:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Broughton is now cleaning up the article. There has been no sign of User:LaGrandefr since he was blocked from editing for 24 hours on May 2, so the article seems stable once more.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking better, but still see a few statements that appear to be unsourced in the first two sections. Collectonian (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support—well, that is, I don't object on the basis of 1a. Tony (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "outside of"—my pet hate; what is "of" doing?
    • Chinese Ming Dynasty (opening). And analogous items.
    • Does "r." mean "reign"? Why is it needed where this is explicit in the text?
      • Response: Yes it does mean reign, and I will get rid of that one "r" where it is clearly and explicitly mentioned as Jiajing's reign period, not his birth and death dates.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • MOS says not to space em dashes; spaced en dashes are fine, or unspaced em.
      • Response: Originally, there were no spaces, but someone added them. I have reverted that.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be complaining if there were more Chinese characters in the text. Footnotes are quite possible.
      • Response: That's not a half bad idea; I think that would be a good compromise, so I'll shift Chinese text into footnotes as you suggest.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Captions: year ranges: two- or four-digit closings? I'd prefer two, but one is not.
    • I haven't reviewed this for content; the writing is good, on the whole. Tony (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    PS MOS says that metrics are the main units unless US-related. Tony (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I will fix the units right now.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your support, Tony. I will get to these issues as soon as I can. Right now me and User:Bertport are doing some major reorganizing in the largest section of the article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, I didn't find any prose issues on a quick read-through. Some subjective things but nothing worth complaining about. I do note that some of your image placement causes headings not to be left-aligned. I thought that was in the MoS but now I can't find it. --Laser brain (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support. I've actually played around with pictures a bit, and the title in question is no longer left-aligned, so no worries if it was ever a problem to begin with.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Overall, excellent job of attributing all the opinions and "facts" to their proponents, which leads to a remarkably non-POV article. The prose is also very good. Little things:
    • "rejected the invitation of Kublai Khan (r. 1260–1294) to appear in his court, so instead Kublai invited Drogön Chögyal Phagpa (1235–1280), leader of the Sakya sect, who came to his court in 1253" - if Kublai ruled from 1260, how did he have a court to visit in 1253? I think I am missing something.
    • Quotations of less than 4 lines shouldn't be broken out (WP:MOSQUOTE)

    Karanacs (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure if I should have elaborated in the article, but Kublai was a Mongol prince and potential heir with a large appanage before he was ever the Khan of Khans for the Mongols, or even an Emperor of China for that matter. Also, I'll fix the quotations you speak of.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a sentence to explain this.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I also fixed the quotations in question, the ones which were blockquoted but were less than 4 lines as you distinctly mentioned.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It is a very good article. References are very good. Anyone doing who is interested in the history of Tibet will find this article userful. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Article is written very well and fulfills all of the criteria, including references and comprehensiveness. Hello32020 (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I'm having quite a time sorting out the citations. Some of them are notes and some are sources, many are in Chinese, so it's hard to determine what source is citing what text. Have you considered separating notes (translations) from sources? See Gettysburg Address; it's going to take me some time to sort through this article (particularly with Ealdgyth absent). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a great idea! I just fixed the article so it looks exactly like the Gettysburg Address set up. This {{ref label}}/{{ref note}} thing is a bit different than the Cref note stuff I have used in articles like Song Dynasty, but it works just as well.--Pericles of AthensTalk 05:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks; I'll have a fresh look tomorrow. It had me flummoxed :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, it's no big deal, I mastered it in 5 seconds; if I can do it, you can do it. The ref simply brings you down to a different section of an article where you have to spell out the contents outside the brackets, so that it looks like this at the end section: "{{ref note|Chinese text|a|a}} Chinese text: 俄力思軍民元帥府." That's pretty much it.--Pericles of AthensTalk 05:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond this, the article has seen major recent expansions and improvements in the past day, even in the introduction. Have a look!--Pericles of AthensTalk 07:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - the article weighs up historical knowledge with balancing the views of scholars and historians on the subject very well. It is well structured, well written and well referenced. I can't see how we could ever have a better article on the subject. The only minor quabbles I would have is that in the mid section of the article I think there may be just one or two too many quotes which could either be reduced slightly or converted to prose. But this is only very minor and just a thought. I take it all of the references have been checked for reliability? Clearly a great deal of thought, study and work has gone into this article and it deserves recognition as an FA. Well done to the article writer! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your kind assessment of the article. I'll see what I can do about the excessive amount of quotes.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed one rather large quote into prose so far.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent. I approve highly of the images too. So many editors don't think images are important but they in my view contribute towards a great article. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 19:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, and I like your signature! Especially the citation needed. Lol.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:45, 13 May 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 21:25, 13 May 2008.

    Interstate 15 in Arizona edit

    Self nominator - I started improving and expanding this article after it had already achieved GA status. I believe it now meets all the criteria of a featured article and submit it now for community opinion. Holderca1 talk 21:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support I made a few very minor edits for wikilinks and clarification. Otherwise, a well-written article. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I have reviewed the article at the ACR level and it was excellent. (For transparency reasons I disclose that I did start the article; however, it was very different back then [64]. I did eventually nominate the article for GA but was not involved at all in getting it above the start-class level.) --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment
      • It seems to me that road FAs should mention the control city in each direction for various stretches. I just learned the term, and find it interesting and relevant. I would think the finest articles on roads would include this information.
      • As usual, I wish I could look and see more shields. In this case with the prominence of blue shaded roads either shields or a visible legend would probably make the map more usable. I admit the shade of blue might be a little light for some to confuse it with rivers, but many still will. With shields or a visible legend this would be less of a problem. Of course,. I am not a road expert, but find the articles interesting and useful and wish I could encourage a different standard than that which seems to prevail.
      • Which properly cited sentences refer to the scenic section of the road. I seem to be missing them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I look at the second sentence of the Mohave County paragraph, I wonder if a typical traveler on this road is heading to Grand Canyon National Park, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, or Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument and if any of the exits is a primary route to any of them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The two nearest control cities on the official FHWA list are Las Vegas and Salt Lake City. There are no control cities actually within Arizona for I-15. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article mentions Vegas and Salt Lake, but there aren't even any cities along the stretch in Arizona, much less a control city.
        • The map is being used to show the location of the highway in Arizona and not as a navigational aid to a traveler. Even if the other highways were shielded, they wouldn't be very helpful since I-15 doesn't connect to any of them.
        • Are you asking about which sentences describe how its scenic (there are a few that cite reference 6) or sentences that use the word scenic (near the end of the history section)?
        • The only destination that is primarily accessed is the Virgin River Gorge Recreational Area. None of the ones you mentioned are primarily accessed from I-15 in Arizona.
          --Holderca1 talk 13:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The main image here and the main images in the three tourist attractions that I mentioned suggest that from some directions it should be part of the main route because no other near roads are shielded. For example, it would seem that if I wanted to go Grand Canyon National Park from Los Angeles I would travel I-15 in AZ although I would not exit from I-15. Of course, you need WP:RSs for this thought. I guess it might not belong in the article if that is the case. However, for such a short stretch it might make sense to say that although there are no major tourist attractions in the segment, that the route is commonly used by eastbound visitors to the GCNP who exit I-15 in UT at exit XX z miles east of the border. Also, this route is a segment of the most commonly traveled driving route from almost anywhere in the Midwest to almost anywhere in Southern California. I don't want to mess up standards that would cause 5000 articles to have to be rewritten if I am way offbase, but that seems to be a sensible statement for this article based on a quick test of maps.google.com. Of course, it might not be WP:ATT to anything that would pass WP:RS.
          • Is there a better term than pulloff? rest area? scenic area?
          • Are there links for port of entry and weigh station.
          • I don't see detail about the most expensive interstate in the text.
          • Please bold article title and its variants in the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I see what you are getting at this section of highway is definitely used as a through route for destinations beyond both ends of the stretch in Arizona. For example, for someone to go from Salt Lake City to Los Angeles, they would travel on this stretch, my only problem is that may be better placed in the main Interstate 15 article. Lake Mead National Recreation Area should definitely be mentioned in the Interstate 15 in Nevada article, but would it be appropriate here? I'm not sure.
            • Looking at satelite photos of the area and these pulloffs appear to be nothing more than an extra wide shoulder to allow drivers to safely pull over without fear of opening their car door and getting run over by a truck. Rest area and scenic area both imply to me as an area off the highway, but separate from the highway. The source uses "pullouts", but I am not sure if that is any better than pulloff.
            • Weigh station was already linked and I added a link for port of entry.
            • The last sentence of the history section mentions how much per mile the Interstate cost. Are there particular details that you want to see?
            • Per MOS:BOLD and WP:LEAD, descriptive titles shouldn't be bolded. --Holderca1 talk 19:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    • This photo caption "An uncommon sight - cliffs sheathed in clouds" could be considered POV. I know that it's well known in the U.S. that Arizona receives very little rain, but nowhere in the article source or discuss that clouds are rare in this area.Dave (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Comments Good work - the prose is professional, it is well-sourced, with only some minor fixes required. Licensing of images reviewed/verified.
      • Pardon my ignorance, but does the title imply that this highway is not named I-15 outside of Arizona, or it ends outside of AZ, or you are only discussing the AZ portion of it? I can't say the lead makes it clear which is the case.
      • "In the U.S. state of Arizona, Interstate 15 (I-15) is an Interstate Highway that passes through Mohave County in the far northwest corner of the state." Odd start.. can you say, "Interstate 15 (I-15) is an Interstate Highway that passes through Mohave County in the far northwest corner of the Arizona."? It feels like you went out of your way to say you are talking about an Arizona highway but it doesn't flow well.
      • "The highway has been signed and designated the Veterans Memorial Highway..." Why not "The highway is signed..."?
      • "... were routed via the northerly routing ..." Can we reword this? Routed via routing...
      • "When the Interstates were planned, the decision was made to save 12 miles (19 km) over US 91..." Make active voice and specify who made the decision.
      • "To help expedite the construction of the portion of the segment through the gorge..." Can you eliminate either "the portion" or "the segment"? They sound like the same thing.
      • "The highway is of little importance to the transportation needs of Arizona since it does not link any Arizona communities..." Does your Arizona Daily Sun source back this up? I can't verify because the issue is so old. At any rate, I think it's dangerous to make a statement that the highway is not important to AZ and source it to a 36-year-old source. What they said in 1972 may not be true now.
        • Perhaps a good way to confirm this is to cite the current population of Littlefield (the only town along the freeway). Would that suffice?Dave (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is short.. have you contacted a few other editors at the Roads project to make sure you haven't missed any significant sources? --Laser brain (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • One thing that I see missing in the article is the traffic data, I.E. How many people use this freeway. I dont' know if Arizona makes this data public, but both Utah and Nevada have the "AADT" data on their DOT websites. I think using the first counter in Utah and Nevada would suffice, if the AZ data is not available. Dave (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe I have addressed most of your comments. Regarding your seventh comment, the Arizona Daily Sun source does back this up. Although the source is 35 years old, it is no less accurate today in this regard than it was when it was published. There are no census-designated places along the route. The only community, Littlefield, is a part of the 86432 zip code which has a population of 1,053. The highway doesn't connect with any other Arizona state highway and someone in Phoenix, Tucson or Flagstaff would have to travel through Nevada or Utah to drive on this highway. As far as your last comment, the article did go through the Wikiproject's A-Class review process. I have added traffic volumes per Dave's comment. --Holderca1 talk 20:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Article size is too small; the map needs work as well. Dabbydabby (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Support Dabbydabby (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read WP:WIAFA; there is no length requirement for a featured article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • For a completely rural highway less than 30 miles long, I think the length is adequate. If you feel something is missing, let me know. Also, could you be more specific about the map? --Holderca1 talk 00:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Map is not in SVG. Also, the map should zoom-in on I-15 in Arizona. Dabbydabby (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Uh, maps do not have to be in SVG - read WP:USRD/MTF. Please become more familiar with Wikipedia and USRD standards before opposing on an FAC - it is evident that you do not know these standards. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • In some situations I would agree with you, but there aren't any details that would be revealed by zooming in on this particular highway. There are no cities or state highways along the route. What details do you feel are being missed by not zooming in further? --Holderca1 talk 12:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support My concerns above were all addressed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    -.-' Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 12:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure what this means. --Holderca1 talk 12:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - Sources look good. As I'm on the road still, I didn't check links. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - Holderca1, I apologize for the piecemeal review I've done, I've had a lot of disruptions this week. I see one more issue with this article (last one I promise). The main article Interstate 15 mentions the Arizona portion is part of the CANAMEX Corridor yet this article doesn't touch the subject. That should be fixed IMO.Dave (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. --Holderca1 talk 20:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support — well written. No obvious issues jump out at me. Everything looks well sourced to RSs so I can't oppose at this time. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved on talk, struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please conform with WP:LEAD. Conversation on the Project talk page notwithstanding, there is no reason that WP:LEAD can't be followed, as here. If an individual Project puts practices in place that differ from WP:LEAD, that should be taken up on the talk page at WP:LEAD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the lead has a redundancy, which isn't promising.
    If it passes through, obviously it's a portion. When I see a redundancy in the first sentence of the article, I'm concerned about copyediting. Perhaps Laser brain (talk · contribs) or Malleus Fatuarum (talk · contribs) can be enticed to review and copyedit the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What part exactly doesn't comply with WP:LEAD? The opening sentence was actually changed to its current version based on comments from Laserbrain. He has reviewed the article and currently supports the article as can be seen above. --Holderca1 talk 01:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Redundancy removed, LEAD issues resolved at Project talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Fine description of an interesting segment of the Interstate highway system. The edits and tweaks have addressed the minor issues raised by others and I see nothing further needing to be changed in order to qualify for FA status. Glane23 (talk) 17:36, 13 May 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 21:25, 13 May 2008.

    Le Quang Tung edit

    Commander of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam Special Forces. A bit of an obscure fellow, I've included everything in the books... Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Sources look good, no external links to check. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments: all about prose. Otherwise fine.

    • Early life: the first three sentences, each introduced by a subordinate clause, read strangely. Recast?
    • "As pilgrimages to the pond became larger" Clumsy? "As more people made pilgrimages to the pond"?
    • "Nhu would then use the scare to round up" > "take advantage of the scare"?
    • "They officials mined the pond". They > the? Mined > blew up?
    • Check for EngVar? Criticise and organise (BE) but maneuvred (AE)
    --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed I think. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments I made a few edits to add missing/drop stray words, fix punctuation, and wikilink some dates. A few prose issues:

    • "Serving a family dictatorship concerned purely with maintaining unadulterated power, Tung's military background" - misplaced modifier
    • The President Ngô Đình Diệm image is impinging on the section header below it; please move it to the right side.
    • It's late, I'm tired, and these coups and counter-coups are confusing, so forgive me my stupidity: who is the blockquote from? Could you make it more clear?
    • "The brothers were made to kneel over two freshly dug holes, shot into them and buried." - This is awkward. How does one shoot somebody into a hole? Something like "Forced to kneel over two freshly dug holes, the brothers were..." would help separate what they were made to do from what was done to them, too.
    • "The body of Diệm in the back of the APC, having been executed on the way to military headquarters" - misplaced modifier; also, what is 'the APC'?
    Maralia (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support My concerns have been addressed. Thanks for an interesting read (and a quiet hurrah! for an article that does not rely on any online sources). Maralia (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support looks good and meets the criteria. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:05, 12 May 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 04:59, 11 May 2008.

    2006 Atlantic hurricane season edit

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel, after months of on and off work, it meets all the criteria. I rewrote it a while ago using the same format as 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and 2003 Atlantic hurricane season, and I went through a PR, and now I can't see anything wrong with the article. Thanks, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 19:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the refs, decide, NOAA or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Or at the very least, put the abbreviation in ()s after the first usage of the full name. Right now, it's NOAA in the first ref, and then spelled out with no explanation in the second, which is odd. You also alternate between the abbreviated version and the full name. One or the other for consistency.
    • http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/easyhurdat_5106.html NHC Hurricane Research Division "Atlanti hurricane best track" current ref 1 deadlinks for me.
    • Same for http://www.wmo.int/web/www/TCP/Meetings/HC28/FINAL-REPORT-HC-28.pdf which is current ref 38 "Tropical Cyclone Programme RA IV Hurricane Committee..."
    All other links worked fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I fixed the refs and removed the dead links. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Support Comments/Weak oppose. A better reference is needed in the Alberto section. Any reason Unnamed Tropical Storm is all capitalized in its section? Also, any reason there isn't a link to Beryl's article in its section? In the impact section, two tropical storms made landfall in the United States. However, Beryl made a direct hit on Nantucket, which is in the United States, so is there a reason that sentence is limited to Alberto and Ernesto? Check your sources. For the Chris section, it developed as a tropical depression on July 31. Also, in the Ernesto section, the article says 5 deaths were reported in Haiti, but the article says only two were. caused $500 million (2006 USD) in damage mostly in the United States - the $500 million damage figure was solely for the United States. My biggest problem with the article is the redundancies in wording and weak prose, thus potentially failing criterion 1a. The tail end of the front spawned a low pressure system which tracked to the northeast along the front. ...having little or no effects. It dissipated on July 21 having had no major effects on land. Tropical Storm Chris started off the month of August when it developed on August 4 as a tropical depression which originated from a tropical wave that moved off the coast of Africa. The wave traversed the Atlantic, soon reaching the Caribbean, before organizing into a tropical depression. (awkward) Several of the sections say something along the lines of, "The storm became a depression on X day. Tracking west-northwestward, it intensified into a tropical storm." The impact section doesn't seem terribly useful. The other featured season articles split the impact by areas, not by storms. After all, each storm paragraph already went into some detail with the impact. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, thanks for the suggestions. About the impact section, while other season FAs may do it one way, if there isn't a real problem with the way this article does it than I don't see a reason to change it. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • done I think I got everything. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regarding the impact section, I feel it is redundant with how the format is. The season summary lists each storm, then the impact lists each storm. I feel the format of the other seasons is better, since it is split by area, not just by storms. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • So would you suggest removing the impact section altogether? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not at all. I think it should be organized by area, not by storm, like the other season articles. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Alright, done. Ready to support, or do you still see issues? If so, would you mind giving specific examples? Thanks, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm not quite ready to support, but it's getting there. Rather than using the standard formula for the first paragraph, I'd much prefer to see something interesting that explains the article. The 2006 Atlantic hurricane season was an event in the annual cycle of tropical cyclone formation tells the reader very little, after all. I'd like a less jargony and more thorough explanation for why the season was so inactive. As that was probably the biggest feature of the season, it deserves more than just a short paragraph in the lede (which was added to the article while the season was still active). In the table for Predictions of tropical activity in the 2006 season, why does Record low activity have 2 hurricanes as the record low? If the time period is limited to 1950-2006, that should be indicated, and also probably be explained why it stops at 1950. Regarding the sentence, On December 5, 2005, Klotzbach's team issued its first extended-range forecast for the 2006 season, predicting a well above-average season (17 named storms, 9 hurricanes, 5 of Category 3 or higher); first, does that mean the very first ever forecast by Klotzbach, or only the first for the season? Second, it could use clarification in prose. The way it is worded might suggest 17 named storms, as well as 9 hurricanes, of which 5 Cat. 3 or higher. Quick little thing. You say On May 22, 2006, NOAA and then later On August 8, 2006, the NOAA. The former links to the acronym, while has the acronym piped, but is there a reason one has the NOAA and the other doesn't? I still don't think you get why I was meaning for the impact section. Detailed impact isn't very necessary, since there are sub-articles for every storm, and the List of article has an impact paragraph. I'd like to see an overall impact review for each major location (Mexico, Caribbean, US, Bermuda and Canada). The storm names section is a bit awkward. Sources are needed for the Accumulated Cyclone Energy section, as well as the storm names section. The latter has some redundant information, and is the phrase and the first to have no names retired in the 21st century. really needed? The season was only the seventh of the century. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Ok, I think I got everything. If I still havn't gotten the impact section right, please let me know. Thanks. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I'm still not happy yet. For example, the sourcing still needs to be better. In the impact section, the first two references do not support the first three sentences in the section. Also, for Mexico, when you say "For the most part" - that implies part of Mexico did receive significant damage during the season in the Atlantic. Alternatively, you could mention the Pacific hurricanes that affected Mexico, if you were comparing activity between the basins. Also, any reason the US is listed first in the impact section? I'd like to see mention of Caribbean impact, since that's where the most direct deaths occurred (Haiti in Ernesto). The sentence in Forecasting uncertainty - "several of the tropical cyclones in the season were forecasted with error." - cannot be supported by a single reference to a graph of Tropical Storm Chris. I still feel a dedicated section of the season's lack of activity should be included, perhaps including that first paragraph of forecasting uncertainty. Is a retirement section really needed? The wording could be improved, all around, and in particular there are many redundancies in the writing of the storms section. After Gordon's passage through Britain... after winds of 80 mph (130 km/h) affected the country." Any reason for present tense - "damage totals up to $250,000 (2006 USD)" - in Alberto's section? In Ernesto section - "and dissipating over Upstate New York" - the article and TCR do not say it dissipated over New York, rather being absorbed over Canada. The image of Gordon and Helene should indicate which one in the picture is which. Overall, more work is needed for now. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Any better? I think I got everything except for the lack of activity section which I'm looking for information for. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Let me know when you get that section, then I'll look at it again. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    <--

    • Regarding the forecasting uncertainty, the section is pointless if it only talks about Chris. If Chris was the only poorly forecasted storm, than that info should go in the Chris article. If there were others poorly forecasted, then the others should be mentioned. You have the facts wrong in the lack of activity section. and three attained major hurricane status, which tied with 2002 for the least since 1997 - the source doesn't say that. Unless I'm counting wrong, there were only two major hurricanes during the season, which would be correct as the fewest since 1997. Please double check your facts to make sure the refs add up. Again, only two sentences mention the actual reasoning for lack of activity. I'm still not happy with the prose (criterion 1a), and I very much recommend getting a copyeditor to look over the article, as no one but yourself (and one other minor edit) has edited the article since it's been on PR. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I removed the section about Chris. Regarding the copyediting, do you know of anybody I could ask? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seeing as you got a copyeditor, the prose comment has been addressed. Generally, I support this becoming featured, as featured does not mean perfect. I still feel the content in the storm section could be better. For example, the Ernesto section doesn't mention at all that it affected Haiti or Cuba. I'm not a big fan of saying that a tropical wave organized into a tropical depression, as it's factually incorrect and oversimplifies things. A tropical wave can lead to the formation of a tropical cyclone, by creating the impetus for convection, but the wave itself doesn't form into the tropical cyclone. It's the same reason one tropical wave can spawn more than one storm. In the impact section, there still is no proper source for the sentence that says no hurricanes made landfall in the United States, the first such occurrence since 2001; the first reference in the section links to an article about Alberto. I still wasn't please about the Mexico section in impact, so I fixed it myself. I'd like better wording for Canada saw the effects of several tropical cyclones. The season impact table looks awkward where it is. Could you move it elsewhere so there isn't too much beneath it? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support An interesting read, well referenced, very readable. Thank goodness for slow hurricane seasonas! Dincher (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question (not supporting or opposing yet): In the lede, it says, "However, no tropical cyclones formed in the month of October, the first time this had happened since the 1994 season." Does that mean that the record is for the lack of formation of storms during October, or the lack of formation of storms during and after October? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just checked the 1994-2006 seasons, and it means it was the first time since '94 that no storms have formed within the month of October. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved, --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'd like to support this article, but I can't quite yet.
    • "Because of several factors, including a rapidly forming El Niño event, Saharan Air Layer over the tropical Atlantic and the presence of high pressure area to the Azores high situated near Bermuda contributed to a below–average season." What does that mean?
    • "By late July, a tropical wave emegered off the coast of Africa and traversed the Atlantic Ocean. " Emerged? Merged?
    • Why is Landfall capitalised in the last row of the table in Season impact?
    • The article tells us that the 2006 hurricane season began on 1 June 2006, and officially ended on 30 November 2006, dates which by convention delimit the period of each year". But we're also told that Tropical Storm Zeta is considered to be part of the 2005 season, even though it didn't form until 30 December 2005. These two statements don't appear on the face of it to be consistent.
    • "The table on the right ..." I don't believe the text should make any reference to, or assumptions about, the layout actually seen by the user. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding comment number four, those dates delimit the period by convention. Zeta was a very unusual storm, and was considered part of the season because, although it formed in 2005, it persisted into January of 2006. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I just don't understand what's meant by "convention" in this case then, because it seems to me that the convention would have Zeta in neither the 2005 nor 2006 seasons, as it started after 30 November 2005 and before 1 June 2006. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I think I got everything. How does it look? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely moving in the right direction I think. I'm not sure about the Storm names section though. Retirement is an exceedingly small subsection that would probably be better merged? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I agree about that. I removed it, as most of it was redundant to what was already said. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm trying to do what I can to help, but will you please read through the article carefully, and sort out the obvious errors. What does this mean, for instance? "On 12 September, a vigorous tropical wave moved off the west coast of Africa on 11 September". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. I should've seen that earlier. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The official start of the Atlantic hurricane season is 1 June ...". If you can clarify what this official start/conventional date stuff really means then I may be inclined to support this article. Is there a starting gun on 1 June? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's sort of like a season of the year. Take Winter for example. Even though there are specific beginning and ending dates to Winter, snow or ice can still occur outside those dates. Same thing with the hurricane season dates. While storms in theory can for any time of the year, the majority of the activity occurrs between the dates of June 1 and November 30. I tried to work it better in the article. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't doubt that most hurricanes do indeed happen between those dates. I still don't understand why that makes them "offical" or "conventional" start and end dates though, when it is quite clear from the example of Zeta that the season is determined by the calendar year. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It can indeed get confusing. The official Atlantic hurricane season, as defined by the National Hurricane Center, is June 1 to November 31. Essentially, these are dates that somebody determined are when the majority of the storms form on average. But it has been determined by a large discussion that if a storm is active in two years, it is considered part of both seasons. I hope I cleared things up for you. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 11:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This idea of an official season still seems very strange to me, but that's not your fault, or the fault of this article. I'm switching to support now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the support, and an even further thank you for helping me copyedit it. It really helped. :) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I found far too many MoS issues in this article (and items we've been over before on other hurricane FACs). Please ask User:Epbr123 to check the article, and please read my edit summaries so these won't need to be corrected on future FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry about that. I requested help from Epbr123, and I'll go through and check the article right now. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:21, 10 May 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 04:59, 11 May 2008.

    Cygnus X-1 edit

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria and it is on an important astronomical topic. The article has undergone a PR and is now a GA. Hopefully it is reasonably accessible to people who are unfamiliar with astronomy, but it is necessarily technical in scope. I'll try to address any issues that arise. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment At first glance, this article seems ready for FA. I don't have too much time right now, since I'm working on my own FAC, but I might come back later and give a deeper analysis. But for now, the article seems to be in really good shape. --haha169 (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments Support
    Issues resolved, Ruslik (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1) "while the remaining matter may be passing through the event horizon of a black hole." This is not technically true. In the frame of the remote observer it takes infinite time for the matter to reach the event horizon. So the matter is only approaching the event horizon. The same error is in the second paragraph of 'Compact object'.
    I'll make it clearer. —RJH (talk)
    2) The article says about the supernova II explosion and direct collapse to the black hole. However there is another option: supernova 1b/1c.
    Good point. I'll just remove the "type II".—RJH (talk)
    3) The first paragraph in 'Jets' says much about potetial energy, but little about angular momentun. The momentun must be carried away (by jets for instance) to make accretion possible.
    Okay the text now mentions angular momentum transfer.—RJH (talk)
    4) The 'HDE 226868' subsection does not provide a diameter estimate. If it did, it would be evident that the scales in the last figure are wrong, because the size of the disk is much less than the size of the supergiant. The size of the super giant is actually comparable to the semi-major axis.
    Yes, the disk probably shouldn't even be visible if it were drawn to scale. I kind of knew that, but unfortunately there aren't many other images to choose from. I'll add a note. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it possible to provide estimates of the radius and luminosity (absolute magnitude) of the supergiant? I suppose they are 40–50 solar radiuses and −7, respectively. Ruslik (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay I added some ballpark figures and a justification for the large error range.—RJH (talk)
    Does 3-700,000 mean 300,000-700,000? If so, one zero is redundent—700,000 is so high a luminosity! Only some WR stars have smth close to this value. Ruslik (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it does. I'm going by table 1 in Ziolkowski (2005): log(L/Lsun) = 5.46–5.82 for T=30,700, then rounding. But I'm not sure what you mean by a redundant zero, unless you believe it should be 30,000–70,000.—RJH (talk)
    I think what I can do is put in a statement like "at the estimated distance of 2,000 parsecs", which would limit the range of possible values. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope my comments will be helpful. Ruslik (talk) 08:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes they were very helpful. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, the article now seems to satisfy FA criteria and I support it. Ruslik (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you.—RJH (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All other links checked out okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Condensed discussion—RJH (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd rearrange the lead a little to make it more accessible by placing speculation on how heavy and what it is (i.e. the last sentence of para one) after the first sentence in the lead, before going off into discovery etc.
    Done.—RJH (talk)
    I'd also state how far the system is away from ours somewhere in the lead nevermind, I did that myself. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Discovery and observation sorta launches into talking about X ray emissions without noting why they might be worth looking for. I know succinctness is the key but an explanatory sentence would be good to frame the significance as a preamble.
    I attempted to accomodate this without overly bloating the discussion.—RJH (talk)
    With further observations strengthening the evidence, the astronomical community generally conceded that Cygnus X-1 was most likely a black hole by the end of 1973 - I reworded this (as it was ungainly) to the active but you may want to check the meaning. Would this sentence be better after the following two?
    The sentences are in chronological order.—RJH (talk)
    Fair enough. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For this reason, Cygnus X-1 is identified among a class of objects called a microquasar; an analog of the Quasar, or quasi-stellar radio source, now known to be distant active galactic nuclei. - sentence jags from singular to plural, so choose one and make al nouns agree in it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is fixed now.—RJH (talk)
    collaminated is a fairly unusual word - I'd wikilink it to a wiktionary or WP meaning or substitute a plainer one. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed.—RJH (talk)
    In HDE 226868, a mention of the absolute magnitude'd be helpful.
    I'm not sure I can do that. The distance estimate has a high margin of error and the magnitude would also need a correction for interstellar extinction, so I don't feel confident that I could come up with an accurate value. In the interest of correctness I'm electing to leave that unspecified. Sorry.—RJH (talk)
    Fair enough, I supposed 'supergiant' is at least a succinct term to highlight the star is big and powerful.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually scratch that. I found a reference that computes the absolute magnitude based on the star's line widths. So that item is complete now. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In summary, a great choice of topic matter and something that should be on hte main page one day. I think it's nearly there though I do get a niggling feeling some of the middle bits are a bit dry and could be difficult to follow, yet I am unsure how or indeed if they can be written in plainer English without sacrificing meaning. I'll look over the midle again a bit later today. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes it is a little dry, unfortunately. Some of the data is quite remarkable, at least to me, but I thought it best to stay away from gushiness. =)—RJH (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support then, I think we are 'out of the red', so to speak - no deal-breakers left for mine...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments on the lead from a lay-person's perspective: (feel free to ignore if you disagree.)
      • "most reliably identified as containing a black hole" This kind of threw me. To me, "most reliably identified as containing..." connotes that the data is the most reliable and confirms that it does indeed contain a black hole. But the rest of lead implies only that this is "most likely to contain black hole" Or perhaps this a standard scientific phrase with which I'm familiar?
        • I tried to re-word it so the meaning is clearer.—RJH (talk)
      • "was discovered in 1964 using suborbital rocket launches from" Bit of a stretch for "using". Better would be something like "was discovered in 1964 by sub-orbital X-ray instruments launched from" and tweaking the next sentence accordingly.
      • "a progenitor star" Link?
      • Got through the lead all right, and I think it's reasonably accessible to lay-persons such as myself. :) BuddingJournalist 21:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for your review. I appreciate that you took the time to look it over.—RJH (talk)
    • Comments I really like this article, especially the detection section which I think has a lot of really great narrative -- articles tend to be dry without it, IMHO. However, I have to say that two minor things bug me. For one, I think the introduction is far too long, and rather disorganized. I believe that it could be cut down by well over 2/3rds, and would be happy to give it a go myself if that's kosher. For another, and this is minor, the references are highly unordered. The very first ref is on the name (why?!) and it's numbered 11. Some editing here might be in order? Other than that it's a great article, and when I saw that it did manage to note Bolton I was convinced it was comprehensive. Maury (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Condensed discussion of lead, RJH (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lead section satisfies the length requirement for Wikipedia:Lead section and it is written to cover the article. Hence it meets the style guidelines. I'm not clear that shortening it by 2/3rds will be beneficial in that regard. Perhaps you could post your prefered lead to the article talk page and we can see whether it satisfies the MoS? As for the references, well that's just the way wikipedia lays them out. The infobox is at the top of the article source text and that's where the numbering starts. I'm not clear why the number ordering should even matter since they are hyperlinked. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great idea, I should have started with that. Here's hoping the formatting isn't too messed up:

    Cygnus X-1 (abbreviated Cyg X-1) is a compact X-ray source in the constellation Cygnus. It is one of the first black hole candidates to be discovered and is amongst the most studied astronomical objects in its class. As the estimated mass of this object is 8.7 times the mass of the Sun it is sufficiently compact to be a black hole. The X-rays it produces are believed to be the result of matter being stripped from its binary companion, a blue supergiant variable star known as HDE 226868, as its gasses fall toward Cyg X-1 forming an accretion disk and are heated to millions of Kelvin (K) in the process.

    This system may belong to a stellar association called Cygnus OB3, which would mean that Cygnus X-1 is about five million years old and formed from a progenitor star that had more than 40 solar masses. If this star had then exploded as a supernova, the resulting force would most likely have ejected the remnant from the system. Hence the star may have instead collapsed directly into a black hole.[1]

    Cygnus X-1 was the subject of a friendly scientific wager between physicists Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne in 1974, with Professor Hawking betting that it was not a black hole. He conceded the bet in 1990 after observational data had strengthened the case for a gravitational singularity in the system.

    I believe this has all of the same information, with the exception of the history, in a more compact form. Details on any of the statements are well covered in the article body, and the specifics don't seem to be required. The history definitely isn't, and follows immediately after anyway. Maury (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mmm, not quite. In fact it has issues that cause me concern. It does not list the date of discovery, as was requested earlier in the FAC. Mass does not equal density, so the statement about compactness is incomplete. The compact object is not stripping matter from the companion, and it is unclear that the X-rays are caused by the heated gas. It also does not mention the jets, which are key physical features.—RJH (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, simple enough:

    Cygnus X-1 (abbreviated Cyg X-1) is a compact X-ray source in the constellation Cygnus. The X-rays it produces are believed to be the result of gasses being heated to millions of Kelvin (K) in an accretion disk around the object, consisting of stellar wind from its binary companion, a blue supergiant variable star known as HDE 226868. A pair of jets arranged perpendicular to the disk is ejecting part of the in-falling material into interstellar space. Estimates place mass of this object at 8.7 times the mass of the Sun and its size at 300 km or less, sufficiently dense to be a black hole. It is one of the first black hole candidates to be discovered and is amongst the most studied astronomical objects in its class.

    This system may belong to a stellar association called Cygnus OB3, which would mean that Cygnus X-1 is about five million years old and formed from a progenitor star that had more than 40 solar masses. If this star had then exploded as a supernova, the resulting force would most likely have ejected the remnant from the system. Hence the star may have instead collapsed directly into a black hole.[1]

    Cygnus X-1 was the subject of a friendly scientific wager between physicists Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne in 1974, with Professor Hawking betting that it was not a black hole. He conceded the bet in 1990 after observational data had strengthened the case for a gravitational singularity in the system.

    I believe that addresses the concerns noted above. The only other issue is that it "unclear that the X-rays are caused by the heated gas ", but this is the baseline assumption and has been for the 20 years that I've been following the story. The "minority report" is interesting, but is covered in sufficient detail in the body (ie, one sentence). BTW, if it is reasonable to state that the object is not "stripping" the gasses from the binary, the caption on the image needs to be changed to reflect this. Maury (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately your write-up is still ignoring the prior comments made by others in this FAC. It does not discuss the discovery date and method, the distance from the Sun, and it was requested that your last sentence, first paragraph, be placed near the top. I modified the image text and implemented several of your suggested changes. It is more compact now. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps the discussion of the lead could be moved to article talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry.—RJH (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support: lead much improved. Maury (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you.—RJH (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, very good article. I did not really notice any prose issues. Some minor issues follow, though they are not deal-breakers:
      • I was wondering why the first citation is numbered "11" and then I looked in the infobox. Are all those citations a WikiProject standard? The infobox should not contain anything that's not written in the prose, where it can be properly sourced. I think the citations in the infobox are superfluous.
        • Required per FA criteria. I disagree; the infobox is not superfluous and is normally requested if it is not present.—RJH (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I didn't say the infobox is superfluous, I said the citations. Yes, citations are required by FA. However, as is the case with the lead, citations are not normally needed in the infobox if the same information is cited in the text. That's why I asked about it. If there is a reasonable explanation, I'll consider the matter dropped. I hope that is more clear. --Laser brain (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay, well there is information in the infobox that is not duplicated in the text, and I don't think it would add anything to do so. Also, it has been my experience there are those who do want the references in the lead section to be accessible without having to hunt through the article body, even if it results in duplicate citations. I think that logic also applies to the infobox. So I think I'm fairly satisfied with the current citations. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The Uhuru satellite was launched in 1970..." Make active voice and specify who launched. --Laser brain (talk) 05:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. This is amazingly accessible to non-astronomy buffs like me. Minor issues:

    • Generally, articles should have standard units as well as metric (mi in addition to km)
      • It is a scientific article, so the appropriate criteria of the MoS applies. "In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic." That's also my personal preference. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wasn't sure about that, as I don't review many scientific articles. Thanks for clarifying. Karanacs (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quotes should have a citation immediately following - "to the outrage of Kip's liberated wife")
      • The entire paragraph is cited. Duplicate citations would just get consolidated back into one. Or at least that has been my experience. =)—RJH (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Karanacs (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Recurring theme, once again, a planetary FAC with formatting issues in the citations. Please, as I've said before, you can ask User:Brighterorange to run his script which will correct the endashes, and this one also has faulty emdashes. Because someone else will do this work for you all in a second, I'm not understanding why the planet FACs keep appearing here with faulty dashes. Please ask Orange to run his script, but because some of the citations also contain faulty emdashes, and some of the page ranges include letters, his script will miss some that will need manual intervention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I did the GA review for this one, it was a great article then, its an even better article now. I can find no reasons not to support. Acer (talk) 23:59, 10 May 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 04:59, 11 May 2008.

    J. R. Richard edit

    previous FAC

    I am re-nominating this article for featured article status. The article received opposition in the previous FAC because of of an issue with a fair use image I used and because of some copyediting concerns. I believe these concerns have been addressed. The article no longer contains that fair use image (in fact, there are no images at the moment, but I will probably find some free image that has some encyclopedic value for the article). Milk's Favorite Cookie (talk · contribs) and I have copyedited and removed some of the weasel words and superfluous stats that previously pervaded the article. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 01:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment If no free images can be found, I believe you can use fair-use images, which I'd like to see in the article. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it's more complicated than that. Per criterion #1 of WP:NFCC, fair use images should be used when a free equivalent cannot be found. In the previous FAC, some users commented that the image had a weak fair use rationale, since Richard was a famous baseball player during the 1970s and 1980s who is still alive. Free images might be difficult to come by, but it's not impossible. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 01:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, very well then. It's not a big deal, but an image of some sorts would make the article slightly more appealing. I'll do a full reading of it later or tomorrow. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: double check links; one appears dead. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    All other links checked out okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may offer an opinion, I believe Retrosheet is a RS. Here's a Sports Illustrated piece on the site.[65] Giants2008 (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All four websites are authoritative baseball sources. I think my explanation here will demonstrate why all four meet the reliable sources policy. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 16:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sports Illustrated on Baseball Library: "a comprehensive source with Britannica-like accuracy".[66] Giants2008 (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC) P.S.: I clicked on a random team page at Baseball Library, and look what I saw on the bottom: "Game information provided by Retrosheet".[67] If SI calls Baseball Library an accurate source, isn't it indirectly saying the same about Retrosheet? Giants2008 (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006
    • Have you considered summary style?
      • The article is not abnormally long, so I don't think splitting the article is necessary. If the article was twice as large, then I would definitely consider doing this. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 05:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you consider converting the Harvard style footnotes into direct references and eliminating the "references" section? The mixture looks odd.
      • The books in the "References" section are all covered in the footnotes section. It's quite customary, as far as I know, to have a "References" section listing all books used and a "Notes" section for individual footnotes and comments about the text. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 05:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • I would like to see a citation for "In the winter of 1994, Richard was homeless and destitute and lived under a bridge in Houston." I remember hearing the story somewhere, but statements like that should always be cited. Perhaps current note 2 (Sporting News) would be useful for this.
    • Should there be a comma before the second "and" in the above sentence?
    • Since you have his time as a Christian minister cited in After baseball, you don't need that referenced in the lead.
    • It wouldn't hurt to have his final career statistics referenced. It should be easy enough to find a good source for that.
    • I meant in the text of Attempt at a comeback, not the infobox. Giants2008 (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if the infobox should be referenced. Does anyone know the rule on this? Giants2008 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reference in 1979 season, currently number 64 (1979 pitching splits) should be after parenthesis
    • This isn't fixed at all. It's still in the same place. Giants2008 (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't like the way this is worded: "an organization founded by Mudcat Grant that consists of the all African American pitchers who have won at least twenty major league games in a single season".
    • You accidentally removed "of". Please re-insert. Giants2008 (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I clicked on the Black Aces link, and it appears that Richard was the ninth member, not eighth. Does Grant exclude himself from the group?
    • Another statement I'm not crazy about: "On September 6, Richard made his major league debut with the Astros in the second game of a doubleheader at just 21 years of age against San Francisco Giants." Try this instead: "On September 6, Richard made his major league debut at just 21 years of age, in the second game of a doubleheader against the San Francisco Giants." The previous sentence says he came into MLB with the Astros, so it doesn't need to be repeated. Giants2008 (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Milk’s Favorite Cookie (Talk) 02:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Milk’s Favorite Cookie (Talk) 13:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There was one more. I've taken care of this now. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 02:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are you telling me this: "On June 9, in a start against the Cardinals, Richard pitched more than five innings and struck out 12 batters" and why do you say more than five innings.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Milk’s Favorite Cookie (Talk) 02:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to think about the new sentence. It is rare when you see a but also without a preceding not only.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seasons need to be linked using {{by}}.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not mandatory as far as I know. Was there some sort of decision that all baseball articles needed {{by}}? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 03:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't need the template, but the first time each season is referenced it should be linked, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not a fan of linking individual years, when they aren't that relevant. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 02:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • On what basis do you mean the years aren't relevant. Does that mean you should only use league season links when the subject is mentioned in the league season article for an athlete bio.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's exactly what I'm saying. I think season links should be treated just like normal year links. Unless there's some change to MoS which says I'm mandated to include season links (or if you convince me otherwise), I don't intend on adding them. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you add a table of career statistics. See Roger Clemens or Chris Young (pitcher).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • More comments

    • In 1979 season section, please link year in June 23, 1976.
      Done. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 18:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mainstay with the Astros: "lost pitching ace Don Wilson". I would prefer staff ace, or ace, or staff leader.
      How about "pitching staff ace"? Staff ace, ace or staff leader might seem ambiguous to our readers unfamiliar with baseball. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 18:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's up to you. I'm a baseball fan, so I am used to such terms. If you believe they are too confusing for a general audience, go with your version. Giants2008 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Breakout season: "Richard entered the 1976 season as the pitching staff ace". Remove pitching?
      See line above. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 18:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be a good idea to link to baseball years at first mention (example 1976 in baseball. I'll leave a decision on this up to you, though.
      Most of these years are linked when they appear as full dates (June 23, 1976 for example). Individual year links are needed if they're going to provide some meaningful relevance to the article. I don't think the links would do that. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 18:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After his professional baseball career ended, Richard returned Louisiana and invested in some business ventures." Returned to Louisiana. I'm also curious what other business ventures he got involved with besides the ill-fated oil deal.
      Fixed. I'll do some digging regarding the business ventures, but I don't think I'll find anything that I haven't already mentioned. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 18:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since he probably didn't get much media coverage then, I understand that could be difficult to find. If you can't find anything, perhaps you should just mention the oil deal? Giants2008 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Richard entered the 1978 season as one of the Astros' best pitchers since the team's creation in 1962" needs a reference. Giants2008 (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Removed. Replaced with "Richard entered the 1978 season as the Astros' Opening Day starter." Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 18:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - 1a is pretty solid and I'm working trhough and copyediting a bit more. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, much improved. I don't see any other issues. --Laser brain (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose per 1a, although leaning toward supporting. Prose issues are easily spotted - a thorough copyedit by an uninvolved editor is needed. Additionally, some sections contain a lot of sportscaster-type language, especially where you are describing his performances. I've tried to point those out below. Have a fresh pair of eyes look for these. If you can imagine a Bob Uecker saying it, it's not good language for an encyclopedia. Many issues follow, but please get the general copyedit.[reply]
      • "Richard played his entire Major League, from 1971 to 1980, with the Houston Astros." Missing word?
      • "... he was selected by the Astros as the second pick in the first round of the 1969 amateur draft." Too wordy.. why not "... the Astros selected him with the second pick in the first round of the 1969 amateur draft."
      • I'm not sure a stroke is considered an "injury".
      • "... and he held the team's career record in strikeouts (1493) until 1987." Instead say "the team's record for career shutouts"
      • "Richard became involved in unsuccessful business deals and went through two divorces, which by 1994 left him homeless and destitute." The way is is worded, it's hard to tell what exactly left him homeless and destitute. It sounds like it was the divorces.. but surely it was the business deals or some combination of the two?
      • "That year, he was the starting pitcher for Lincoln High School..." The only one?
      • "In one game as a batter, he hit four consecutive home runs..." Wasn't he a batter in every game?
      • "Upon graduating from high school, he turned down more than 200 basketball scholarship offers to sign with the Houston Astros, who had made him the second overall pick in the 1969 amateur baseball draft, behind the Washington Senators' selection of outfielder Jeff Burroughs." Way too long.
      • "After the Astros drafted Richard, he was sent to play for the Covington Astros" Unnecessary passive voice.. just say "After the Astros drafted Richard, they sent him to play..."
      • What is "high-A" minor league baseball?
      • "During the season, his fastball occasionally rose over 100 miles per hour, and his slider over 93 miles per hour, which were both considered faster than those of most major-league pitchers." Sounds like he threw one fastball and it just flew around, occasionally rising over 100 miles per hour.
      • "Richard wore number 50 on his jersey..." I think the "on his jersey" part is understood without being stated.
      • "He pitched five innings of two-hit, one-run ball after giving up a leadoff home run to Pete Rose in the first inning." Pitching five innings of "ball" is sports jargon. Was the Rose home run the one run? It reads as if the one run was after the Rose run.
      • "He finished the season with a 13.50 ERA in only six innings of work and was again promptly sent back down to Triple-A..." Is the word "promptly" really needed?
      • "He pitched four innings of one-run ball and three innings of two-hit ball in his next relief outing." Sportscaster jargon.
      • "He picked up the win..." Ditto.
      • "Richard again pitched more than six innings but earned no decision after the Astros' bullpen collapsed..." Was anyone hurt when it collapsed?
      • "After starting a July 4 game against the Braves (which he won), Richard was sent into the bullpen to create room for Tom Griffin..." More sportscasting. He was not physically sent into the bullpen.. it's a figure of speech, right?
      • "At the end of the season, he stood atop the Astros' pitching staff..." Hmm.
      • "... he improved his fielding from the previous season by going the season error-free with a 1.000 fielding percentage." I think "going the season" is an awkward phrase.
      • "Richard also hit well at the plate..." As opposed to where?
      • Also, you might want to qualify that he hit well for a pitcher, as I think those stats are miserable for a normal batter.
      • "He closed out the first half of the season with back-to-back games with nine and 12 strikeout performances, against the Reds and Dodgers, respectively." Just messy.. rewrite please.
      • "He won his first four decisions that season but those victories were quickly followed by four losses." What's the difference between being "quickly followed" and just "followed" by four losses?
      • "Later examinations showed that Richard was suffering from extensive arterial thoracic outlet syndrome, that is, his clavicle and first rib pinched his subclavian artery during the pitching motion." Run-on sentence.
      • "Richard was granted free agency by the Astros on November 7, 1983, but the Astros still had faith in Richard..." Source? Your next source is just trade statistics, so you don't have a source showing why they re-signed him. --Laser brain (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • UPDATE I have exams over the next two days, so I won't be able to address article concerns until Wednesday night. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support As one of the top contributors, I think it seems to meet all criteria. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ( talk / contribs) 21:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reliable sources unresolved: the article is almost entirely sourced to retrosheet.org, the personal hobby site of a baseball fan, which says "Retrosheet makes no guarantees of accuracy for the information that is supplied"; the site gathers data from volunteer baseball fans,[68] and says,[69]

      In order to volunteer or to obtain more information, contact David Smith at the address, telephone number, or e-mail shown below. Retrosheet is an all-volunteer organization and the costs of daily operation are largely borne by individuals who generously cover their own expenses for postage, photocopying, etc. There is one substantial continuing expense for the organization and that is the DSL connection for our computer server, which holds our website. We do request donations to help us with the monthly cost of the Internet connection.

      Sports Illustrated as cited above says, "It now operates from the basement of Smith's Newark, Del., house, which holds 11 file cabinets of data and a DSL server." and "All Retrosheet's data is proofed and checked against day-by-day and season totals maintained by the Hall of Fame," yet the website itself "makes no guarantee of accuracy". This needs to be resolved, because the article is almost entirely sourced to this site. Is this over-reliance on internet research, and can the article not be cited to better sources ? The other question is why he isn't covered by reliable sources? Is this the standard of referencing we expect in a featured bio? Also, there are strange spaced emdashes throughout the citations; they could be changed to spaced endashes or colons. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What sort of reliable source could you have for statistical data? I doubt MLB or organizations like SABR would actually upload logs for every single baseball game ever onto the Internet. Remember, who are the people behind sports organizations like Retrosheet, Baseball-Library, and Baseball-Reference? They're all a bunch of average Joes who are deeply interested in baseball. I don't see how one person can be more reliable than another when all they're doing is recounting numbers, not facts or opinions. Do you have any alternative suggestions? I will fix the dash issues. I think MFC changed all the dashes in the refs a while back from en to em. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wish I had a solution, but I'm stumped. If it were one or two statements, I wouldn't be so concerned, but I'm not yet convinced it's reliable, yet I'm realizing that almost the entire article relies on this one source. SI says "checked against ... Hall of Fame", but does that statement have any meaning for non-Hall of Famers? If Hall of Fame really had the data, you could get it from them, and it would be reliable, which is why I feel that SI statement appears meaningless. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • How about a query at WP:RSN? I've pulled out all of the relevant info about the site in my post above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Hall of Fame has data for every single baseball game and stats for every single player. Retrosheet just takes the HoF's data and uploads it to the Internet. I wish I could reference the stats to the Hall of Fame, but they have not made their stats available online. I'll see if there's some sort of huge baseball encyclopedia with game logs. Anyway, inquiring at RSN would hopefully resolve this matter. As I mentioned before, Cricinfo was similarly started by an average Joe, who just began compiling statistical data for matches and player careers. Should we bring this site up as well? It's the most common reference in any cricket FA. Dashes fixed now, by the way. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • When I've inquired about cricinfo in the past, I recall being given satisfactory answers establishing their reliability (I think that was long ago on a FAR); the problem here is that the SI mention of retrosheet is not convincing, especially considering retrosheet itself says it's not accurate. Dilemma to be resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Since the Major League Baseball site has a similar disclaimer, why is it presumed accurate?(look for 7C).[70] I'm not giving support at this time, so I could care less. I'm just asking if these disclaimers are common. Giants2008 (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Thanks, Giants2008:[71]

                    7. C. MLBAM DOES NOT WARRANT THAT: (1) THE WEBSITE OR THE SERVICES WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE; (2) DEFECTS OR ERRORS IN THE WEBSITE, MERCHANDISE OR SERVICES WILL BE CORRECTED; (3) THE WEBSITE, THE MERCHANDISE OR THE SERVICES WILL BE FREE FROM VIRUSES OR OTHER HARMFUL COMPONENTS; OR (4) ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE WEBSITE, THE MERCHANDISE, OR THE SERVICES WILL BE ACCURATE OR RELIABLE.

                    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, using your previous logic, MLB.com shouldn't be considered a reliable source. What do you think? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's something that should be explored in terms of WP:V: specifically the information at WP:SOURCES relative to WP:SPS, including factors like the organization's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, staff, differences between MLB and a self-published hobby site, etc. WP:V is the policy we need to conform with; perhaps you all can find something in there that can help resolve this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For example (when in doubt, go back to the policy :-) google "David W. Smith" retrosheet baseball, by searching through returns there you might find something that will establish him as an expert published by reliable sources, per WP:SELFPUB:
    And, going to scholar.google.com, I come up with some book, is that his? (Update, yes, per our article on him, it is.) And, our own article on him, David Smith (baseball historian), gives a lot of links (a New York Times article for example) that might fulfill WP:SPS. By digging through info like this, you might be able to establish that he's a published expert per the criteria at WP:SPS, but somebody has to do the research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Somebody has to do the research? Are you referring to the volunteers who helped upload stats? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ack, lost a whole big update to an ec; give me a minute :-) No, I'm suggesting that by researching that info (what you find on google, scholar.google as well as the links in our article on him), you might find that David W. Smith meets the WP:SPS requirements, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I think the key is in there; establish that Smith is a published, recognized expert per the wording at WP:V. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done some searching for you...
    • WP:SPS, " ... whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". (The first link isn't working for me?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed. Giants2008 (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You want more, you got more...
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/sports/baseball/16score.html Is the New York Times a good start? In fact, searching for Retrosheet there turns up quite a few articles that use Retrosheet data. The link is long, so I'll spare you.
    http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/cs/896032.html ESPN article using data from Smith. Giants2008 (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec, still on the last piece: it's not who mentiones Retrosheet, it's whether they establish Smith as an expert published by reliable third parties. Focus on that.) When combined with the rest, this is a good direction:[72]

    In addition to the page-long story in the Scorecard section of Sports Illustrated, Retrosheet has been featured in the two books. Alan Schwarz devotes five pages to the organization in his book The Numbers Game: Baseball’s Lifelong Fascination with Statistics, praising Smith for both taking on the task and making sure the information would be free and accessible to the public. “In the end,” Schwarz wrote, “Retrosheet has become a celebration of baseball built by fans for fans. Their sense of community and love for their favorite sport pulse through every web page.” Smith, originally a consultant to author Jane Leavy, became a part of her book Sandy Koufax: A Lefty’s Legacy.

    This is the kind of info that should be brought forward on at WP:RSN; anything that establishes him as an expert published by reliable third parties. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think the ESPN source is going the right direction, as it shows a reliable sports org using his data. When Ealdgyth queries reliability of sources, these are the sorts of answers that are needed (not a blurb somewhere praising him as a good guy with a computer in his basement :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm satisfied now with this, but I still think Nishkid64 should compile the most relevant pieces of "supporting evidence" to the WP:RSN thread to be clear and to get outside opinions, since retrosheet may be used in other articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the cached version: [73] Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got more ESPN articles if you want them. Just let me know. Giants2008 (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The udel site doesn't thrill me because it's kinda PRish and could be biased; what is of interest in the udel article is that it mentions that Smith's work was covered in two books. We're after, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". If ESPN uses him, that's a very good direction, and the kind of info that should be included over at WP:RSN. I'm satisfied now based on what I've seen, but don't want to be one-person judge and jury, since no one else had dug into this before I looked, and when Ealdgyth queries reliable sources, the answers don't always focus on WP:V. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take that as a yes...
    http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stark_jayson/1355292.html Smith teams with an SABR researcher for some data
    http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=1853737 His work is mentioned at least twice here, in the same breath as the official Elias Sports Bureau. Giants2008 (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My only problem is that you're relying on a person's expertness to determine whether he can copy numbers down properly from the HoF databanks. I'm only pressing this issue because there are other baseball stat reference sites like Baseball-Reference, The Baseball Cube, Baseball-Library and Baseball Almanac, which might rely solely on the work of non-experts. All of these sites are used in hundreds, if not thousands of baseball articles as sources. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 04:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't write WP:V, but FAs have to comply with it :-) If those sites don't conform to WP:V, their use in FAs has to be explained, and if they aren't reliable, they shouldn't be used anywhere. But that's beyond the scope of this FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I think we should be careful ruling out sites because of reliability disclaimers that exist for legal reasons. That was why I posted the MLB.com page. The other issues are more valid in my view. Second, are both of you under the impression that what you see on Retrosheet comes from the Hall of Fame? They take scorecards from Major League Baseball teams, sportswriters, newspapers, and as a last resort fans, and input them into their computers. The Hall of Fame totals are used to check for errors. At least that's how I understand it. Let me know if you want a page from them on this. Giants2008 (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree with Giants2008 about the disclaimers that are on webpages. Most sites carry those, mainly for legal reasons, so the presence of them shouldn't necessarily mean that the site itself is unreliable. For that matter, most published books carry a similar disclaimer, it's part of the litigious society we live in. When I'm evaluating sources, I generally don't take much notice of them either way. The lack of them actually makes me more leery of a site because in my experience most "home grown" sites don't have legal disclaimers. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That particular source has already been resolved; there's only one questionable source remaining (see the top of the FAR). I hope you're back soon, Ealdgyth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I got lost in the FAC discussion! I'll let you go ahead and hide anything that's resolved. Should be home Wednesday, but tomorrow morning is probably my last chance at reliable internet! Renaissance faire this weekend though! Fun! Ealdgyth - Talk 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This one is resolved, but You Are Needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment—no prob with the prose, but (1) the table of scorings is in PUKEY colours. Aargh. Does it pass our "accessibility" policy? (2) The many "Sports Reference" refs—the tables there are appallingly malaligned: is that just my browser? Is it a trustworthy site? Tony (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am red-green colorblind and had no problems viewing the table. This may be a problem for other editors, though. They're should be a non-color legend though, and I think I'll add that. Sports-Reference is a reliable source in my opinion—it was started in 2001 by a math professor at Saint Joseph's University, who then took it in full swing and even created Sports-Reference, LLC. The tables on there look fine to me...maybe it is your browser? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm reluctant to have the Career Statistics section included in this article at all per [discussion]. Granted, it's been quite a while since that, so I do not know what consensus is on those. Plus I don't see why the colors are needed in that section. My apologies if this has been discussed already, if so let me know. Wizardman 22:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The colors have since been removed. The stats were taken from MLB.com and Baseball-Reference; I've referenced to both. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I meant the colors in the team section (i.e. HOU still has the brown and black). Not sure if that's necessary. It doesn't realy matter to me though, the article looks good otherwise. Wizardman 00:13, 11 May 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 00:51, 10 May 2008.

    Funerary Monument to Sir John Hawkwood edit

    Self-nomination I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it is a well-referenced and thorough piece about an important work of art. It originally started as a paper for an art history course (the other paper I wrote for that course, Tomb of Antipope John XXIII, recently became featured, and the prof liked this one better...). The article is currently recognized as a Good Article and all the images are free. I hope that you'll support this article, but I'd also be glad to attend to any actionable objections. Savidan 03:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - Sources look good. And by one of my favorite painters! Cool! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick comment for now, the three indeeds do not sound encyclopedic. --GrahamColmTalk 20:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed them. I look forward to your comments once you've had more time to look at it. Savidan 03:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support for the current version. A beautifully written and engaging article. I'm tempted to comment on the discussion below but Savidan is more knowledgable than I. --GrahamColmTalk 20:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments Generally seems rather dense & lacking in general explanatory material to help those unfamiliar with the subject area(s). The destination of all the links needs checking: I spotted Ranuccio Farnese, relief and others. Is Captain-General very helpful? Guild of Saint Luke mentions the Florentine apothecaries, and would be better than "guild", as would Perspective (graphical), rather than "visual".
    • Was Hawkwood a mercenary for the English?
    • "Actus" on the inscription needs explaining.
    • Some context on equestrian statues at the time would help, not to mention sculpted monuments.
    • Has the fresco been "moved repeatedly since its creation"?

    Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your comments, Johnbod. There is no article for Ranuccio Farnesese; I originally pointed the link to the disambiguation page in the hopes that one would be created. I have rerouted it to House of Farnese, which can at least tell the reader about the importance of his family. Relief is pointing to the correct place. Capital-General is helpful I believe, as it explains the importance of the rank in general (although an article about the title as it specifically applied to Florence would obviously be more helpful). I have rerouted the Guild and perspective links as you suggested.
    • I would have to say, yes, Hawkwood was a mercenary for the English during the Hundred Years War, although obviously your question gets to the matter of the definition of mercenary, particularly in an era when "official" militaries were less formalized than they are today.
    There is no suggestion of this in Frances Stonor Saunders's - Hawkwood: The Diabolical Englishman (2004) (US edition: The Devil's Broker: Seeking Gold, God, and Glory in 14th Century Italy (2005)). Johnbod (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit that the exact command and remuneration structure of the English during the Hundred Years War is not really my expertise or the subject of this article. Upon further searching, I've found that his service in the Hundred Years War is really just a footnote to his real career which occured as a mercenary in Italy; nothing definitive either way. I'll try to make the article vaguer until someone finds something definitive. It is pretty clear that both the Great Company and its derivative, the White Company, were mercenary organizations. Caferro's chapter in "The Hundred Years War: A Wider Focus" makes this clear, but not explicit. Don't know if this Google books link will work. Savidan 20:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He was just a normal soldier, who rose sufficiently to be knighted. The question is whether, when he then took his company off raiding, he was acting independently or (more probably) with official approval. Either way, he was not a mercenary - bandit maybe. This is before the Great Company period. Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, his use of the title "sir" is a rather curious thing and not proof of (official) knighthood. I'll add a footnote to the article to that effect. Savidan 21:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's something a bit better supporting an ambiguous wording: Caferro says that the claim that he joined the black prince's army as a longbowman "lacks direct evidence" and presuages it with "according to tradition." Caferro describes his service as "directly under a subcontractor." Savidan 21:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Saunders agrees about the longbowman thing, but that does not make him a mercenary. "Subcontractor" is an odd term to use, presumably referring to the standard "thirds" system for splitting booty of the feudal army. Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I overlooked the Caferro link, & now I've read it, there is nothing there that can support "mercenary" for his period in the English army. I'm a bit worried though that Cafarro seems to think the denarius was an English medieval currency.... Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Be that as it may, do you think that there is anything that needs to be added to the article as it currently stands vis-a-vis the HYW. I've already removed the offending text. Savidan 22:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe a short phrase, as it was where he became a commander - I'll look at the two bios & add something. Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added a footnote explaining the italianization/latinization of Hawkwood's name.
    • I will provide a link to the equestrian statue article, but am extremely cautious about adding such "context", as it is difficult to provide such content without falling into the trap of original research. If you could be more specific about what you are looking for, perhaps I can find something sourced to include.
    • This was in a footnote, and I am beginning to think that it should be moved into the body of the article, and will do that now.
    As to your general comment about the article being "dense", I would prefer if you could try to keep your comments specific and actionable. Give as many examples as you need to, but its very hard for me to remedy your concerns in the abstract. Savidan 00:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It wouldn't be original research if you used the excellent library you have access to, would it? At the moment the article just lacks an overview on the artistic side, which is rather overwhelmed by the historical. "Relief" needs at least "effect" added. Johnbod (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough about the relief (although I think this is implied by tromp d'loeil). What I mean is not that I can't find sourced content about equestrian statues, but that I think it would constitute original research to add such content to this article without a source which makes the connection between the painting and another equestrian monument or the genre as a whole. As far as I can tell, the only real relevance here is the possibility that it contributed to the selection of Uccello and the manner in which the fresco was modified to be less warlike (both already mentioned). Savidan 01:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the article already points out the way the painting attempted to achieve the effect of an equestrian statue, I don't see why it would be OR to add a bit on what equestrian statues existed at the time, and what they might have meant for a contemporary viewer. In fact such comparisons with the Uccello are not hard to find, I'm sure. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, are you only looking for a general summary of the state of equestrian statuary at the time or do you have any specific connection to the Hawkwood in mind? Savidan 02:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a sentence. I consider it to be a bit tangential to the subject of the article, but I think it satisfies the underlying rationale in your comment. Savidan 03:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments I have given this a copyedit, fixed a couple stray dashes, and tweaked a few references to add full stops. (I also tried to roll back one of my edits, instead rolled back all of my edits, and then had to fix it - it's really not my night!) Some remaining issues:

    • I'd like to see the main image size bumped to something like 250px; there is precedent for this in an article about a work of art.
    • "The fresco is ... a relatively well-known aspect of his career" - can a tangible object really be an aspect of one's career?
    • "Hawkwood first married Donnina, the illegitimate daughter of Bernabò Visconti, in 1377." - why the 'first'? Did he marry again later?
    • "Hawkwood's massacre at Cesana in 1377 during the twilight of his papal employment during the War of the Eight Saints" - please fix during...during; also, 'Hawkwood's massacre' is peculiar phrasing.
    • "Hawkwood had principally served the Visconti of Milan and their allies in Pisa, Lucca, and Siena, principally against the interests of Florence" - fix principally...principally please.
    • "Sensing that Hawkwood was likely to be in his final days, the ambiguous plans of the Signoria might well have been meant as a tomb rather than a cenotaph;" - This sentence needs a little work: the first phrase modifies the Signoria, while the second phrase is about the plans of the Signoria.
    • Two different dates, March 17 and March 18, are given for Hawkwood's death.
    • I know it's really hard to work this into prose, but some context regarding the slew of critics/historians who are mentioned by name would be helpful to readers. Salmi and Hartt, in particular, are not interwiki linked, not listed in the Notes or References, and are never even mentioned by their full names.
    • The Masaccio mentions need some work: his name is inconsistently spelled; the first mention is not interwiki linked; and some context would be helpful (what is 'eye-point perspective'?).
    • "Although the fresco is often called "monochrome", its background is dark red, the horse and tomb are accented in red, black, white, and orange; 3.5 m from the horse's hooves to the top of Hawkwood's cap." - I can't tell what the '3.5 m from the...' phrase is meant to convey here.
    • "This style has even been as an example of synthetic realism in line with the late Gothic movement." - there is a verb missing here.

    Thanks for an interesting read on a topic under-represented at FAC. Maralia (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your copy editing and your thoughtful comments, Maralia. I have done as you say with the image, although it is likely to get undone as the policy favors not specifying image size. As the the marriages, I have removed "first" as there is actually scholarly disagreement over the number of Hawkwood's marriages, though this aspect of his biography is not relevant to this article. I think you said it exactly about the art critics: their biography is not germane to the painting and would break the flow of the article. I wish that we had an article aout them to link to; I'll try to at least cite everyone who is mentioned by name. The 3.5 m thing was an artifact of writing process which shouldn't have made it into the final article. I believe I have remedied your other comments. Savidan 23:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support My concerns have been addressed. Well done! Maralia (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments:

    • Is there a better picture of the fresco? The actual one is much greener than the photograph shows.
    • I thought Hawkwood's biography drifted rather from the point and skips material highly pertinant to his links with Florence. For instance, according to Saunders' The Diabolical Englishman, which curiously is listed in the references but not actually cited, Hawkwood was operating a protection racket in Florence and was essentially paid not to attack it with his own men.
    • I also have a feeling that the fresco was apparently based on a grave effigy (no longer extant). Any information of this?
    --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments, Roger. I chose from the available images on Wikisource for the picture of the fresco and this was the only one. Even though photos of two-dimensional works of art are probably uncopywritable, I wanted to avoid trawling the internet.
    I have added information on Hawkwood's financial arrangements with Florence during the War of the Eight Saints, which is what Saunders is referring to. The reference was added by another featured article reviewer. I left it because it provides a good extended biography, even though I don't think its the best source for an article about the fresco itself.
    Hmmm, interesting theory about the grave effigy. Hawthorne, Leader, and Vasari (as translated) describe the fresco itself as an "effigy", but do not mention the use of a grave effigy in its painting. Have you read this anywhere or is this just your hunch? If its someone else's speculation, I am glad to include it. ;) Savidan 14:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not my hunch: I really don't do much original thought :) The only problem is I can't remember where I heard it. It may have been at the Duomo itself as I was reading Saunders (and the Merchant of Prato) at the time. In fact, I have a postcard of the fresco as a bookmark for the book. I was sure it was mentioned in Saunders though. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you mind double checking those? I don't have access to either. Savidan 21:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added something. Basically she speculates that Uccello took the face from the faded work by Gaddi and Arrighi, which was in turn based on Hawkwood's death mask. I haven't added anything about the effigy because I think I'm confusing it with the proposed sculpture, which presumably would have been based on a death mask. Hope this helps, --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a ton. I think it's a good touch. Do you have any other comments about the article? Savidan 12:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pleasure. I'd love to add bits but I'm quite busy with RL stuff at the moment. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues. Karanacs (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • This sentence seems a bit too long to me. He fought for England during the Hundred Years War and then with the "Great Company" which harassed the Avignon Papacy; after gaining command of the "White Company" from Albert Sterz in the 1360s, Hawkwood led the company across the Alps in 1363 in the employ of John II, Marquess of Montferrat, to take part in his war against Milan. Can it perhaps be rephrased or broken up?
    • condottieri is italicized sometimes and not italicized others. This should be consistent
    • I feel like the section on Uccello is a little out of place in this article. I understand that you'd need the first few sentences which descrive why he might have been chosen, but the rest of his biography does not seem to belong here. I think the article would flow much better without this section.

    Karanacs (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I certainly would not agree with just removing the section on Uccello! The main problem with the article is too little art-historical contecxt, not too much. But, like the rest of the article, it has too many facts, and not enough interpretation of them. Perhaps we are saying the same thing though. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's very possible. As currently in the article, the section on Uccello just doesn't fit -it's full of facts that appear to have no bearing on the monument. If those facts could be more explicitly linked (in a non-OR way) to the monument then there wouldn't be an issue. Karanacs (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe I have remedied the first two comments. As to the Uccello section, the objectives here were four-fold: (1) to provide a bare bones introduction to Uccello's work as a whole, while inviting readers to read that article for anything more specific, (2) to place the fresco within the timeline of his biography and other works, (3) as a corrolary of the previous, to give context as to Uccello's standing at the time of the commissioning and to invite a comparison to where his career went afterwards, and (4) to show the basic similarities between the fresco and Uccello's other works, which gives the reader an idea of why he might have been chosen for the commission and has implications for the uncertain attributions of his other works. In light of this, perhaps you could clarify your comments: do you disagree with these things being legitimate topics for inclusion in this article, or do you just not think the current material achieves these objectives (and if the latter, could you be more specific?)? Savidan 22:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think the current material achieves its objectives. Only the first two sentences and last two sentences of the section appear to have anything to do with this article; the rest of the section appears to me to have little connection with the topic. Is there information comparing and contrasting this work with the others that he did? Is there information about what impact his previous work had on this one? There probably is useful information in this section, but the linkage between that information and the artwork in question needs to be more specifically drawn. There is also little transition between this section and the one after it - it seemed jarring to me to go from one to the other. Karanacs (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll go back and look at my notes and reread the section to myself. I thought it was bad form and hurt the flow to explicitly mention the fresco in every sentence. I think that this is the bare minimum context that would be given about the author in any work of art history. Doing what you say is obviously an improvement if sources exist (which they don't necessarily; this is a medium-level obscure work), but I'm not sure that doing so should be a prerequisite to keeping what's there. But let me look at this again before we go any farther. As for the transition between the sections, do you think this would be more appropriate before the commissioning section? Savidan 01:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've rewritten the section. I hope that my rewrite of it also addresses your comment about the flow into the next section. Otherwise, my previous question still stands. Savidan 04:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a definite improvement, although I think the sentence about his life after Hawkwood is still a bit misplaced. I think for best flow this section would go between recommissioning and modifications. The Style section already begins with a great transition from Modifications. Karanacs (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, I guess I concur. I'll do as you suggest. Savidan 16:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Well-written and now flows better. Karanacs (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnbod, as I think your comments allude to, it is very difficult to guage and remedy generic comments, especially when they are presented along with their opposite. Could you please be more specific than "too many facts" or "not enough interpretation"? (Which facts do you find extraneous? What sourced interpretation is missing?) Your previous, more finely-tailored comments were extremely helpful. Savidan 22:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Tentative support The prose is quite good - I didn't really find any issues. However, I'm uneasy about this because it doesn't appear to have had a peer review or exposure to relevant WikiProjects where a subject matter expert might have checked it. It could have factual errors and omissions and I wouldn't know it... I don't think I could fully support until an expert has looked at it. Misc issues:
      • "The fresco has been restored (once by Lorenzo di Credi, who added the frame)" Writing "once" implies it has been restored more than once... if so, by whom and what did they do?
      • In the Background section, you introduce the Signoria but we don't know who/what that is.
      • There are a few places where you put citations right before em dashes and it looks funny. Maybe you can find a way to use other punctuation or reword the sentence so you don't run into that. It's not a big deal, however. --Laser brain (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments, Laser brain. I'll leave a note at the relevant wiki-projects; in my experience, peer reviews don't result in much unless you come to them with specific issues or unless the article is a real basket case. Do you have such an expert in mind? As for the other issues raise: yes, the fresco has been restored more the once, and the other restorations are detailed in the last paragraph of the "Modifications" subsection; I've just added a link to the Signoria of Florence article; I'll look into this last part, but I think there are some places where em dashes are helpful. If it doesn't distort the references too much I'll move some of those to the end of the sentence. Savidan 01:02, 9 May 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 00:51, 10 May 2008.

    Aeneas Mackintosh edit

    Self-nomination: I'm nominating this article for FA because it has been extensively reviewed. Various improvements, particularly to the images, have been added. I believe it is now an appropriate FA candidate. Mackintosh is a largely unknown polar hero, with an accident-strewn career that ended tragically. His determination to do his duty is deserving of wider recognition, hence this article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Note: I copyedited this article and participated in its peer review. I read through this article again today, and found only a few minor tweaks needed; I took care of them myself. Well done, Brian. Maralia (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I like the rewrite of the last paragraph of the lead. One thing I meant to address before is this phrase: "his traditional, hierarchical approach to command failed to establish good relations with most of his men". It wasn't his approach that failed to establish good relations. I don't have a great suggestion for how to rephrase it (which is, I think, why I got distracted and neglected to mention it before), but I'm sure you can come up with something :) Maralia (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I 've tweaked it. For "approach to command" read "style of command". Surely better? Brianboulton (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the Tent Island image I relied on information given in Commons that the author had released this to public domain. If this release is suspect, then I can delete this image, which is relatively unimportant in the article. The RossSeaParty was taken from Commons, again on the information that it was free for use. This is a much more important image. The Mackintosh.jpg image was downloaded by me from a Belgian website on peer review advice that, as it was over 100 years old, it would be free for use. Again, this is important. The article could stand the loss of one, but the loss of both of these two images would be serious. I am somewhat of a novice with regard to images, tending to accept what I am told. Can someone advise me as to whether there are means whereby I can claim fair use, or some other basis, for keeping these images? Brianboulton (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just the image version of WP:V; you needn't be overwhelmed by an unfamiliar area. The images don't have licensing problems, they just need to explicitly state where they came from (e.g. what is the URL of the originating website, from what book were they scanned, etc). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have replaced the Tent Island image with a much better one, which is definitely PD (US federal govt.) The URL of the website which provided the Mackintosh photo is http://www.hetlaatstecontinent.be/geschiedenis/expedities/endurance_rosszeegroep.html - where do I record this? (sorry to be so ignorant). The RossSeaParty group image was, as I say, taken from Commons. I don't know what more information I can give. Should this be deleted? Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've added the above URL to the Mackintosh.jpg image page, as its source. If that is now all right, that leaves the group image. I didn't download this, and I can give no information about its source other than what it says in commons. Advice, please, re deletion or other action.
    Options might be to contact the uploader (si vous parlez français:Like tears in rain (talk · contribs)) to see whether s/he could provide the source, to upload or replace with a sourced alternative, or just remove/comment out of the article pending deletion/location of a source. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've actually found another copy of the same photograph, here [74]. If I uploaded this to commons, giving the URL, would this do the trick? (This is my final attempt to save the image. If this won't work then the photo goes). Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I' ve replaced the group photo with another version, this time with a proper URL source. I trust this answers the final query concerning use of this image. Brianboulton (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • You say in current ref 9 "Mackintosh biographical details on New Zealand Heritage page. Is this "Meet the Crew: ALA Mackintosh" down in the sources? Or is it another different website? If you don't use the Meet the Crew site, put it in the external links section. If it is the same, I'm still a little leery of the site, who's behind it again?
    Full disclosure, I read the article over at PR and checked on the sources then. They still all look good except for the above quibble. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Meet the Crew" is a page in the Antarctic Heritage Trust (New Zealand) website. I've altered Ref 9, and the source details, to indicate this. My initial lack of precision in defining the source may have confused, but I don't think there's anything questionable about the site. The one piece of information gleaned from it (Mackintosh's naval reserve commission date) isn't central to the article, and could be dropped if you have serious doubts about the source. Brianboulton (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that you've jogged my memory, I can live with the source. You have to remember how many sources I look through in a week.... Ealdgyth - Talk 11:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE TO REVIEWERS: due to a computer breakdown my access may be restricted for the next few days so there may be slight delays in my responses to issues raised here. Brianboulton (talk) 10:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sending a Get Well Soon card for your computer :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Sandy. It may be terminally ill I fear. I'm using a back-up computer to deal with day-to-day business, so reviewers can continue to leave comments here and they will be picked up by me. 212.139.101.27 (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well again. Brianboulton (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. As I am drawn to ambiguity and multi-faceted histories, this is an excellent one. My general impression is that Mackinstosh put the lives of himself and his crew (and the dogs!) in unnecessary danger to live up to...something, but the article acknowledges that history often remembers people in multiple ways, and stories are never simple. It could serve as a moral for foolishness, or as a model of bravery, but it does neither - or does both. Excellent job. --Moni3 (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. This is an engaging, well-written and organized article. Great job! Karanacs (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Comments. For the most part this is an engaging, well-written and organized article. I had one bit of confusion and one tiny detail that I think should be changed.[reply]

    • I'd like to see his full birth in the lead, not just the year.
      • I've no strong feelings about this so I've done as you suggest.
    • In the caption of the picture for the members of the Ross Sea party, I am not sure which man is Mackintosh. There are two rows of men seated (one in chairs, one on the ground). Perhaps you could clarify which row?
      • Yes, I've altered the caption to specify middle row.
    • 'm a little unclear as to what happened after the Aurora broke loose. In late June Mackintosh told 8 other men that they had to manually lay the depots? What happened between then and September? Where were the other three men, if only 6 set out in Sept?

    Karanacs (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • OK, there were actually 10 men marooned - the nine others who "pledged their support" didn't include Mackintosh. I've changed the text a bit to clarify. Also, I had omitted a certain amount of detail at the start of the second depot-laying section relating to who did what, but I've put in some more text now, which I hope clarifies things: one man remained at base, three came back early, six went on to the final stage of the journey. Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 9 May 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 00:51, 10 May 2008.

    Ngo Dinh Can edit

    The younger brother and assistant of President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - the sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Done for the persondata. I have not used an infobox in this case because it would not provide any extra convenience value to anything in the lead. If we have a cricketer or sportsperson, yes, because it will provide quick access to stats and lots of numbers which can't be packaged into the lead. I looked at other politicians like Manmohan Singh and John Howard and in those cases the infobox provides links to things like official posts, dates of office, elections won, etc. However, Can had no official position at all, was never elected, had no official power, and had no family at all, so the infobox would basically be empty except for a comment with dates of bith/death and "unofficial warlord/ruler of central VN" which is all in the first sentence. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments This is a good article, but there are some prose issues. I will go through the entire article and see what I can do. In the meantime, I hope you can clarify some things in the article for me:
      • first para, "Rule": what applications?
    Applications for government allocated grants and business licenses. Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • same para: I tried to fix the sentence regarding Can's grafting practices. I wasn't familiar with the word before I read the article, so my wording might be inaccurate. Please look into this.
    Clarfied. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • second para, "Rule": Is the mention of Nhu necessary in the first line? I think it's fine if you just said "Cẩn was also often in conflict with his siblings on internal matters".
    I explicitly mentioned Nhu and Can because they were the ones who explicitly (unofficially) controlled the two halves of the country, the others didn't run military organisations. Thuc mainly did religious-based interference rather than territorial based interference. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • same para: Could you elaborate on the matter of establishing an office for the secret police in Saigon? The reader is left wondering what happened.
    No because the book didn't tell us the outcome. It only gave an example of conflict. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • first para: I understand that Can overruled the appointments because he wanted more power for himself, but this might not be clear to other readers. I have added an "explanation" of sorts to that line. Tell me what you think. By the way, do you think this fits nicely in para 1?
    I removed the clarification since the previous sentence alreadt says he had unlimited power. It fits ok as an example of the unlimited power that he overruled centrally decreed decisions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Rule": I rearranged the paragraphs a bit. There are still some issues with para 2, though. The Scigliano quote about the Ngo extended family seems a bit random, given that you were just describing the competition between the brothers two lines earlier.
    Yeah, moved it to the first about the generalities of his power. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments by User:Dweller

    Ah! Another one off Blnguyen's production line. Great stuff. Here we go:

    • "This is a Vietnamese name; the family name is Ngô. According to Vietnamese custom, this person properly should be referred to by the given name Cẩn." I'm still a little bothered... Margaret Thatcher, according to English custom, should be called Margaret, but referred to as Thatcher in a formal report, like a newspaper, or an encyclopedia. I assume you mean the latter. Indeed, I think you've said as much. But please do reassure me!
    • No, in Vietnam, people are always referred to by their first name nowadays, since there are too many Mr Nguyens, Trans and Les. It's basically the same boat as HARBHAJAN Singh, YUVRAJ Singh, etc. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in charge of the central Vietnam" presumably includes a typo
    • "stretching from ... to the border at the 17th parallel, where he ruled as a virtual dictator". Two problems - who ruled as a virtual dictator (ambiguous) and the syntax makes it seem like the dictator ruled at the border only
    • New parag at "In his youth"
    • "Effective" twice in two sentences
    • "secularised the region with aggressive promotion of Roman Catholicism" sounds like a contradiction in terms. Is it because you're coming at it with a Buddhist POV?
    • I think "strongman" is a term to avoid unless you mean a chap wearing a bearskin bending iron bars into pretzels in a fairground sideshow
    • Early years section should most definitely begin by laying out the family, given it'll have such an important part in the story. A simple family tree diagram would be nice, too.
    • "The leading revolutionary of his time, Châu has been captured" PEACOCK/OR and a tense problem there
    • "met with" implies more than coming along and listening to a lecture as one of (presumably) a mass of people
    • If nothing's known of his youth, say so
    • Parag starting "Vietnam was in chaos..." has little referencing and several fat claims that should be referenced, including those opening words themselves.
    • "During this time, Cẩn actively organised a clandestine support base for Diệm in central Vietnam." You've not yet said who Diệm is in the main article.
    • "He helped crush" - presumably Can, not Diem. Crush is a weaselly metaphor that's a bit obscure. Are we talking wipe out, or suppress politically?

    *"Sài Gòn". Second instance wikilinked instead of first. Also, I'm a little concerned by calling it that, instead of Saigon, which is the more universally recognised spelling in English. I am sure we have a MOS guide to these things - what does it say? (Same would apply with other Vietnamese words familiar in English like Viet Cong) At the least, I think (in the absence of looking at policy, cos I'm lazy) first instance could be "Sài Gòn (Saigon)"

    • Ok. I put the brackets there. Yeah it's a bit unusual to use S G but it would be inconsistent with diacrticsi otherwise. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pedantically, I think one vetoes a thing. People are blackballed or some other metaphor. I suppose the easiest would be to go with "vetoed the appointments of..."
    • "corrupt practices, such as graft" del comma
    • "He required a fee to the" from the
    • No it's correct. the Ngo family was the NRM. They wouldn't approve contracts unless the businessmen made a donation. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. I must have misread this; it's quite clear. How embarrassing. --Dweller (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *W "black market" and "trafficking"

    • "Cẩn had once tried to set up an office for his secret police in Sài Gòn by showing Diệm his long list of detained political opponents, but insisted that he not have to report to Nhu." I don't understand, partly because I have no grip of the geography. Was Saigon in Nhu's area? What's the connection between Can's list and setting up an office somewhere? A bit mysterious.
    • Fixed. Yes, SG was Nhu's area. I guess he was bragging at how good he was at autocracy Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quote reads ""[h]e is also considered"... Clumsy. Not sure what's wrong with the he, but why not put he outside the quote and start with the word "is"?
    • "in a much larger scale" on a larger scale
    • "Cẩn assumed that around a third of the rural peasantry were Việt Cộng sympathisers. He reasoned that they were of such a significant proportion" first sentence defines the proportion, so opening of second sentence has a redundancy. Try merging the sentences.
    • "so as to render the hamlets ineffective by intimidating other villagers from the inside." - I don't know what this means. Perhaps "ineffective" is the problem... ineffective at doing what? What's the purpose of a hamlet?
    • To lock the peasants inside teh fort and the VC on the outside. But all the peasants inside were already pro-VC, a lot of them. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't understand the sentence, I'm afraid. --Dweller (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Perhaps explain the Popular Force first before comparing them with what his brother had done

    • "the program had aroused" an ordinary perfect tense "the program aroused" will do fine
    • ...and that sentence needs a cite
    • The dissidents comment perplexed me, because I don't know the history. What other dissidents were there to suppress, other than Viet Cong (who, presumably, the US were seeking to suppress!)
    • Presumably Can ignored his brother about going to Japan, but how could he do that?
    • Book doesn't say. I guess the thing about them having total power in their respective regions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Cẩn thought that the US government was responsible for an explosion during the Vesak shootings in order to destabilise the regime, with whom relations had become strained." sentence needs reworking.
    Yes, it's better. If "explosion" means bomb-like, rather than massive increase, I'm happy. --Dweller (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Local Buddhists began to believe that the fish was a reincarnation of one of Gautama Buddha's disciples." cite
    • "They mined the pond" - mined? Which type? I can't think any type of mining would be effectual against a fish? Did they let off explosives in the water?
    • Book doesn't say anything more than "mined". But I presume they put underwater bomb-type things. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the army came in after the explosives and the machine gunning, who did the exploding and the shooting?
    • "The grenading of the point finally killed the carp." What point?
    • That carp story's a cracker. Has it been on DYK?
    • No because I didn't find that until the 2nd phases of article expansion. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The killing backfired," unfortunate use of the militaristic-sounding metaphor
    • Buddhist crisis seems to continue in next section
    • "a young 37-year old general" Peacock, POV etc
    • "double crossed" POV
    • "Diệm and Nhu were executed at conclusion of the coup." Missing "the". And executed used twice in one parag with two different meanings. Suggest you alter the first.
    • "Following the downfall of Ngô family" missing "the"
    • Parag beginning "Following the downfall of Ngô family" needs more citations, esp. re atrocities
    • Wikilink "junta"
    • "thousands of irate townspeople walked three kilometres to Cẩn's house on the city's southern outskirts where he lived with his aged mother, demanding vengeance." Presumably he didn't live with his mother, demanding vengeance from her.
    • What's the US State Dept got to do with a Catholic seminary?
    • Article states that the junta were American-backed after they took over. Does this mean the US backed them after the fact, or did they back the coup?
    • "instructed that" remove "that" as it's not reported speech, but a direct quote
    • Wikilink article's first use of White House
    • Quote includes errors in English. Either needs fixing or judicious use of "sic"
    • It comes verbatim from a cable. Cables are written without conjunctions and articles like that. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. Not sure how you could "[sic]" it. Maybe Verbatim Cable text at end of it? --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why suddenly switch to "Saigon"? (See comment above) Inconsistency
    • "Trí would only promise safe passage to Saì Gòn in an American plane where embassy officials would meet Cẩn" end of sentence depends on Saigon being subject, but it's switched to being the plane
    • "He had intended to ask for asylum in Japan." Drop the "had"
    • "The ambassador told Washington that asylum was unnecessary saying "It seems to me that our reason for giving him asylum therefore no longer exists"." Definitely one missing comma, arguably two
    • "It was reported that General Nguyễn Khánh—who had deposed Minh in a January 1964 coup—offered Cẩn exile if he handed over his foreign bank deposits. Cẩn refused, saying that he had no money." needs one or perhaps 2 citations
    • Wikilink General Nguyễn Khánh
    • "Cẩn refused, saying that he had no money." Technically, that's not a refusal, but a protestation!
    • After that sentence, you need to say that he was actually sentenced to death. It's implied, but never stated
    Looks like you fixed this. --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Đôn suggested" - what, at the time? Dangerous! Brave man.
    • Fixed. It must have been later because Khanh put Don under house arrest when he took over. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Khánh commanded" - I thought he was President? Is this a retrospective? Either way, what's the relevance?
    • Fixed. This was when Can was around, Khanh controlled a corps in Can's zone. Made the connection obvious that Can presided over Khanh's activities. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "assisted ... onto a post" I doubt it. Try "assisted ... to stand alongside a post" And it needs a comma after "post"
    • "conveniently overlooking" POV
    • "which had been stored in foreign banks" try inserting "indeed"?
    • It'd be nice to have a short section at the end that looked at his legacy, or how he's viewed by modern day historians and by the Vietnamese people, or something, but not essential. Does anyone mourn his memory? Is he officially memorialised (even negatively?)
    • Diem and Nhu are born in an unmarked grave. The Ngo family had little support apart from Catholics - In expatriate communities, and in the area where I am, he is unofficially considered at teh local Vietnamese Catholic church to be a saint. By the Buddhists negatively of course. But inside Vietnam, they are generally ignored by the govt. But I don't have any sources about this, it's just general street chatter. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Wouldn't want any OR. Fine. --Dweller (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reference 12 - accessed date is irrelevant for paper-based. And if it's internet based, where's the link?
    Looks like you fixed this. --Dweller (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two sources missing ISBNs
    • I note that the template includes no diacritics. Why is this? As you know, I'd be happier without diacritics in the article, so this is an important question
    • Dunno. This article is in a minority becuase of the GA reviewer mainly. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry to be a pain. Anyway, I'm done now. --Dweller (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support notwithstanding miniscule issues still open, above. Another cracker, my unpronouncable friend. --Dweller (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Excellent article. Maury (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Couldn't really find any more prose issues, I think Dweller got them all. A few minor points on images; "Ngô Đình Nhu (right)" could be expanded (say he's shaking hands, and who he's shaking hands with), and it might look better with an image in the top right corner of the article—seems a bit bland for now. But otherwise, excellent work. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed caption. I would normally do an image in teh top, but since the subject has no pictures, it would be distracting to have a pic of something else. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:56, 9 May 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 00:51, 10 May 2008.

    Touch Me I'm Sick edit

    After months of FAC reviews this is my first actual FAC nomination. I've been working on this article for a (unnecessarily) long time and think it fulfills all the criteria. "Touch Me I'm Sick" had a rather sparse peer review and was Alternative rock Wikiproject Collaboration of the week a long while back. Brief intro: "Touch Me I'm Sick" is pretty much the first-ever grunge song and vastly influenced the early 1990s alternative music scene.

    Concerns should be taken care of quickly; Thanks, indopug (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: External links that are reviews should be included in the infobox, not the external links section. The Mudhoney topic template seems rather red; is there any use in a navigational template with most of its links being articles that aren't yet created? -- Naerii 06:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For song articles, reviews aren't listed in the infobox, because very few publications actually review singles. Besides, the All Music Guide review is more a description of the song and the impact its had. As for the navigational template--apart from the issue being rather tangential here--well, red links are not evil. Somebody, maybe even me, will create articles for those songs. indopug (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support as a member of WikiProject Alternative music (who helped out with sourcing during the project collaboration). I remember when this became a Good Article I thought to myself, "It's ok enough to attain GA status, but it could use some work". Rereading it again I am impressed by its current state. No outstanding issue remaining as far as I see. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    All other sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The page I've linked to is only a list of concerts Mudhoney have played in 2007, and a lists of songs played at each of those shows; hardly controversial info. I'm using it to cite that the band still play "Touch Me I'm Sick" at almost every concert. As for the fan site itself, its been around (and updated) for more than ten years; even the BBC website included a link to it--click on Loads of Mudhoney articles and reviews. indopug (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Leaving this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ptn/mudhoney/about.html SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I admitted it is only a fansite. Is it alright if I remove the reference but leave the information there? The site is only being used to prove that the band still play this song regularly at their concerts, hardly a controversial fact. indopug (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think it's important to know that they play the song regularly. Elton John plays "Rocket Man" regularly, but it's not really worth mentioning. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. (grudgingly, due to the nature of example used) indopug (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments I've given it a quick copyedit, mainly fixing punctuation around quotations and adding nonbreaking spaces. Remaining issues:

    • Some habits are showing through in your writing. Please review instances of the following to make sure they're necessary/appropriate:
    • scare quotes - "dirty", "blunt", "classic"
    • emdashes
    • words like 'claims' and 'contends' are kind of loaded and not recommended per Wikipedia:Words to avoid
    removed the "scare quotes" (sorry couldn't resist :)), and fixed the rest too.
    • The first paragraph of the Release and reception section could use reworking - there's nothing terribly wrong with it, but the prose could be improved by reordering some of the sentences and reducing use of passive voice.
    Kinda changed it a little bit.
    • "they are acknowledged as "the true founding fathers of Grunge"" - this is a case where it would be helpful to say in the main text where the quote comes from.
    Thing is the BBC webpage I got took it from says "It's often said that Mudhoney were the true founding fathers of Grunge". Wwouldn't attributing it to the beeb--"The BBC acknowledges Mudhoney as 'the true founding fathers of Grunge'"--imply that only BBC believe so, rather than the general critical consensus as is the case? The Allmusic ref (#20) included also says pretty much the same thing, albeit in different words.
    The beginning of the problem here is the verb 'acknowledge'. As you say, it implies belief rather than just reporting. It's probably better to take a step back and use a full quote. FWIW, I actually prefer the Allmusic statement - "Mudhoney were truly the band that made the '90s grunge rock movement possible." - as it's a stronger statement (not just a 'people say' comment) and it's attributable to a specific person.
    Done, but with a different quote. "Although Mudhoney never accomplished this level of mainstream acceptance, according to All Music Guide's Mark Deming, the band's "indie-scene success laid the groundwork for the movement that would (briefly) make Seattle, WA, the new capital of the rock & roll universe"."
    • On the Courtney Love pquote: Unless you feel there is a strong need for it, it would be better not to interwiki link within a quote. Also, there is no need for a period at the end of the description.
    It isn't linked to wiktionary, but piped to striptease. (if this is what you mean)
    What I mean is that it's distracting to have a word linked in a quotation, MOS advises against it, and in my opinion 'stripper' isn't a word that needs linking badly enough to warrant it here.
    Done
    • The last paragraph of the Legacy section needs some citations.
    Done, although I thought it was kinda redundant, because the book especially was self-referential.

    Thanks for a good read. I appreciate your work reviewing FACs, and good luck on your first one. Maralia (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the review and the copy-edit, someday I'll get around to figuring out logical punctuation. indopug (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck resolved issues, and elaborated on a couple remaining ones. Maralia (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support All my concerns have been addressed. Well done! Maralia (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks! You helped the article become a whole lot better. indopug (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments.

    • "was released as the band's, and independent record label Sub Pop's, debut single on 1 August 1988" - this sounds awkward, even though I know what you're saying. Suggest you mention the label after the release date...
    Done. "Recorded in March 1988 at Seattle's Reciprocal Recording studios by producer Jack Endino, "Touch Me I'm Sick" was released as a single on 1 August 1988. It was Mudhoney's debut release, and the first-ever single to be issued by independent record label Sub Pop."
    • "that all got flipped around" - any reason why?
    You know the band (especially the singer) has always given the impression as if they prefer the B-side "Sweet Young Thing"; but nothing concrete that I can cite or quote. If you see later in the article, Mark Arm refers to "Touch Me" as a "b-side toss-off".
    • Ref 4; copyvio issues (does operationphoenixrecords.com have permission to print the interview? If not, use {{cite news}} or similar, and no URL)
    "The following Maximumrocknroll, Flipside, Suburban Voice, and HeartattaCk punk zines...are out-of-print, and each zine has given me permission to post this information online."
    • Ref 13 needs to be duplicated for every quote from that essay
    Done. I found only one other instance.
    Done. Thanks for the useful find.

    dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks a lot man 13:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Support One thing you are got to fix is that Touch Me I'm Sick wasn't the first single released by Sub Pop. The first single was Hunted Down by Soundgarden. --Freedom (song) (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the support and the observation, but it seems to me that although "Hunted Down" might have been released earlier, "Touch Me I'm Sick" is the first commercial 7" single ever released on ... Sub Pop according to Allmusic. So my guess is that "Hunted Down was only released as a promo; making the "Touch Me" the first single. Case in point, Sub Pop's "Hunted Down" page lacks a single cover, using the Screaming Life/Fopp cover from much later; another indication that it was probably a promo release. See also: Sup Pop's first single: Mudhoney's "Touch Me I'm Sick" at the BBC. indopug (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked the Azerrad book and the pages cited don't say it was the first single. A few pages before, it says the Soundgarden single came out in July 1987. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I got a press kit from Sub Pop at work about their 20th anniversary. I believe the label listed the Soundgarden single as its first, but I'll check on that. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for confirming--I removed the mention from the lead as well. I also found this site that catalogues three Sub Pop singles that came before "Touch Me". Now if we can't take as fact something both the Allmusic and the BBC say ... well, that's worrying. indopug (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's always a case-by-case basis even with reliable sources. Given Azerrad interviewed all the members of Mudhoney plus Pavitt and Poneman, he would be the most reliable source on this subject from what is available. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good you have fixed it. Good job on the article. --Freedom (song) (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nice work. Just a few small things:
    • It was recorded in March 1988 at Seattle's Reciprocal Recording studios by producer Jack Endino - Was Endino also the engineer. In my understanding, engineers 'record'.
    Oh, I'm not sure whether was the engineer; I'll change the "by" to a "with"
    • What is a blunt bass line.
    Per the source (AMG). And, er, I don't know how to change it.
    Just put in quotes. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I had it as "blunt" bass line, but a reviewer above was concerned it would be a scare quote. indopug (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't please everyone. Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, but you can - I'm the one who complained about scare quotes earlier, but I'd be perfectly satisfied with direct quotation of the word or the phrase, with a cite. Maralia (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But that'll unnecessarily complicate a sentence that is just a simple description of the song (provided by a reliable source that is cited). I believe blunt is an apt (and uncontroversial) description and am inclined to leave it as it is. If its still a problem, will adjectives like "driving" do? indopug (talk) 06:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Go with "blunt bassline". Don't worry, maaaaaaaan. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll read the rest later. Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the copy-edit, but ""Touch Me I'm Sick" was a hit on the indie charts"--there are no independent charts in Seattle, so I'll replace "charts" with "circuit". indopug (talk) 23:11, 8 May 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 00:51, 10 May 2008.

    Hugh Trumble edit

    Self-nomination – I'm nominating this article for featured article status because I feel it meets the featured article criteria. The article is comprehensive, fully referenced, neutral and stable. I have tried to take on board criticism about other cricket biographies I have listed here including minimising jargon and making the article accessible to all readers, not just cricket enthusiasts. The article has been peer reviewed and is now listed here for your comment. Mattinbgn\talk 10:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All information from the original upload of the images to en.wiki was kept when they were transferred to Commons. You can see the original upload information in the Original upload log underneath the image. -- Mattinbgn\talk 19:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mop holders can see the deleted pages, perhaps, but not the general populace. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be seen if you follow the image through to Commons; i.e. Commons:Image:HughTrumbleOlder.jpg and scroll down. That is all the information that is available. If that is not acceptable, then perhaps the images should be tagged for deletion as unsourced. At the risk of seeing other Featured Articles sent to FAR, Clem Hill and Archie Jackson have PD images with the same (lack of) sourcing information. -- Mattinbgn\talk
    If that's all that's there and all information has indeed been retained, the implication is that they were uploaded without source information. We need to know where they came from (e.g. a URL, "user X scanned this from Y", etc.); I don't see any such source information? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I meant above. All the information I have is there, there is nothing else. I didn't originally upload them (the original uploaders can be seen in the original upload log) and have no idea where they came from. They were available on en.wiki and I used CH2 to move them to Commons as they were tagged as in the public domain. If the sourcing is unacceptable, then perhaps they should be tagged for deletion as unsourced. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, and I certainly didn't mean to imply you'd done anything wrong. Regardless of their past, the images don't have sources now and that is a problem. The threshold for inclusion at Wiki is verifiability, after all, so deletion may indeed need to happen. Before that extreme, however, Phanto282 (talk · contribs), the original uploader for three of the four, appears to still be an active editor. Perhaps a query on his/her talk page would be best before taking the deletion route? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    {restarting) I don't want the images deleted or removed but I was attempting to clarify if the lack of source information is grounds for deletion or if it just meant they could not be used in this article. Deletion, of course, would need to take place under Wikicommons policies, guidelines and procedures. I have taken your advice and asked the uploading editor to assist. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Image:HughTrumbleOlder.jpg now has a source. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The uploading editor (who incidentally does a great job in finding old images for use in WP:CRICKET) seems to be away from Wikipedia for a while. I have found what I believe to be the sources of two of the images here and here. Of course I don't know for sure that these are the sources but it seems to me very likely. Can I amend the sourcing of those images or do I need to upload them again? -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, the sources have now been amended. At this stage I have been unable to find the source for the cigarette card image. I suspect it comes from an online auction catalogue somewhere but I can't seem to track it down. I will remove the image for now until I hear from the original uploader, I trust that would mean your concerns on images are satisfied. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is there a particular reason why the French spelling of debut is used? BuddingJournalist 21:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the risk of sounding like a sheep merely following orders from a dumb program, it is the suggested spelling by my browser (Firefox) using an Australian English spellchecking add-on. Happy to change if necessary. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh, interesting. I just checked my Microsoft Word spell-checker (American English) by typing "debutt" and its first suggestion was début as well. ::shrug:: I must say, I hardly ever see début used anymore, but I asked out of curiosity more than anything. :) BuddingJournalist 21:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen this issue discussed before at FAC and FLC. My own position on it is that it doesn't matter, so long as it's consistently applied. It's hardly obscurist. --Dweller (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Easier to change to "debut" if that is less distracting -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments (forgive my typing, I'm on the road with an unfamiliar laptop keyboard)

    I'm on the road again, and the link checker tool doesn't like this hotel's ISP, I am getting a LOT of timeout errors, which I suspect are related to the hotel ISP. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • CricketArchive is a site dedicated to cricket statistics and records. One of its general editors is Philip Bailey who has been described as taking "this abtruse branch of science to levels that in other fields win Nobel Prizes" (Wisden 2004, p.9) by Matthew Engel, the editor of Wisden Cricketers' Almanack. For the purposes that it is used for here—scorecards and averages—it is as reliable as any other published source on the topic. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll concur with that - it's pretty damn reliable and highly regarded by the cricket WikiProject. --Dweller (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can probably live with that statement on reliablity, but going to leave it out for others to see and decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck, resolved issues. Dweller (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    :Oppose by User:Dweller I loved this article. The guy's story is well-written and interesting. I also love his moustache, which I would be happy to see included mentioned in the article, esp as you mention his other physical distinctions! Mostly pernickety comments, but there are quite a few, mostly easily fixed. Or argued down of course:

    Thanks for the thorough review. I am starting on them now. I love the moustache as well, but can't find any comment on it. It must have been reasonably standard facial hair for the time! -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What a shame! :-) --Dweller (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *"He is one of only three bowlers to twice take a hat-trick in Test cricket." I think it'd be easier for readers to split into two wikilinks, so that hat-trick has its own link, making it very easy to understand what it is.

    • Agreed and done. I hope the manner in which they are linked is clear enough

    *"Contemporary observers ... regard" regarded?

    • Changed by an earlier reviewer here. At the moment I am reading The Stuff of Thought by Steven Pinker and I had to really slog through the section where he is discussing tense and aspect. To me, the way it was originally written "sounds" better but I am happy to take guidance from those with more knowledge in the area.
    • Maybe there's an ambiguity. I thought you meant commentators of Trumble's day, but perhaps you mean people alive today. Given this confusion, perhaps it would be best to replace it with either "Modern observers" or "Observers in Trumble's day"? --Dweller (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is exactly what I meant, but it must be ambiguous. Reworded per your suggestion. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:59, 6 May 2008

    *Hall of Fame comment might need a little gloss, as it sounds like he was neglected for 100+ years, which is obviously not the case! How about mentioning which tranche of inductees he was in, or some such?

    • Agreed but pondering the best course of action. I will return to this one.
    • Added that the ACHOF was established in 1996, so he didn't have to wait that long. Hope this is suitable. -- Mattinbgn\talk 13:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "solid" lower order batman - bit obscure for some readers. Try dependable?
    • Much better and included. Thanks
    • Does one think "on" the game or "about" it?
    • I would say either but will change for clarity
    • "In England in 1899 with the Australian team" take the last 4 words out of the link
    • Done
    • "1000 run – 100 wicket" looks like a sum. replace the dash with "and". And both should be plural.
    • I never thought of that but taking a second look perhaps it does. Changed per your suggestion
    • "In his last Test match, Trumble took a hat-trick, his second, in front of his home town supporters in Melbourne." Looks like too much detail for the Lead, esp as first hat-trick's not been specified, except at top where the feat of two has already been discussed, so drop for repetitiveness too.
    • I thought this was a great way to finish the cricket playing section of the lead. After retiring from cricket, he is asked to return to the field after his national team suffered a devastating loss. In his last Test match, played not only in his home town but on his home club ground, he takes a second hat-trick to win the match. That is fairy-tale boys-own annual material and I think important to keep in the lead.

    *"Off the field, Trumble worked for a bank, rising to the position of branch manager" I'd expect probably 2 wikilinks in there

    • I assume you mean "bank" and "branch manager". Linking a standard English word like "Bank" seems to me to be overlinking. I am not sure what article I would link to for "branch manager" but reading again the meaning is not clear. I will reword. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have now added the full name of the bank and a link per SGGH's suggestion. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's a "warder"?
    • The source provides no context. However, according to my Concise Oxford Dictionary: warder: n. 1. Brit. a prison officer. 2. a guard. When reading the source and writing the article, it seemed clear to me that "prison officer" is what was meant by warder and I must admit I had no idea the word was used to mean "guard" in general. I could reword to prison officer but I don't know that I have enough context to make that assumption. Advice from others would be welcome
    • Further, his family's relocation to Ararat, Victoria is more evidence for "warder" meaning "prison officer" Ararat was home to a large prison/mental hospital (now a tourist attraction!) and it is not unlikely that the move was based on a posting to this prison. Once again, this is all assumption but not unreasonable I would have thought
    • Never mind. From here, "Irish-born William Trumble, lunatic asylum superintendent". Reworded now. An idle thought; I wonder if William Trumble was at Kew Asylum when Harry Trott was committed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this needs the specific citation in the right place. I left a tag in the article. --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *I'm very worried about his public servant brother, who sounds like he had a truly massive demotion in his career. I'm more inclined to think there's a misunderstanding about him being "secretary for defence 1918-27". To my mind, this sounds like being a Minister of Government, which would mean going on to be "official secretary to the high commissioner for Australia in London" is a huge and unlikely step-down. Was he in fact a secretary working in the defence ministry? Sorry, that one might be an awkward one to sort out and I might just need to rely on you faithfully reporting what the RS has garbled.

    • From the original source "Trumble was appointed acting secretary in November 1914. He was secretary of the department from February 1918 to July 1927. His career was dramatic. As a comparatively young acting head in 1914, he had come through the civil service, whereas his predecessors had both been naval officers. Trumble had new ground to break." In Australia, Ministers of government are called just that - Ministers. They are politicians and Members of Parliament. Departmental secretaries are public servants (civil servants in British English) who manage the department. Ministers set policy, the department secretary provides advice to the minister and implements policies set by the Government. See Australian Public Service#Organisational Structure. Hence, Trumble was not a secretary but "the" secretary for the department, in other words the senior public servant in the department. Given the use of the term "secretary of defence" elsewhere, I will try and reword.
    • Now reworded and explanatory note added. Advise on the wording of the note is eagerly sought. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pedantically, he can't return "to suburban Camberwell" as he hadn't lived there before, though I know what you meant.
    • Reworded
    • "urged his sons to hit it when bowling" has an unfortunate ambiguity for those unfamiliar with jargon and line/length bowling. Try replacing "hit it" with "aim at it"
    • Reworded using your suggestion
    • Pitch is an ambiguous word, used twice in three sentences to mean very different things. You wikilinked the first - wikilink the second too, if necessary to Wiktionary
    • Rather than a link to Wiktionary, I have reworded. It seems using "pitch" to mean "bounce" is specific cricket jargon
    • Batting graph is really too small. And it's squashing the text between it and the smashing cigarette card image, which is a breach of MOS I think.
    • It certainly is a breach; MoS states "Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other". My problem is that there is nowhere else where it really fits and shrinking it down was the only way I would keep it and all the photographs without squashing the text too much. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now moved thanks to the new section, where it does look much better. -- Mattinbgn\talk 13:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (In similar Test cricket FA bios, I've used a statistical summary section, which allows the graphs and stats to breath a little and is the honey for the stats fans bees. Just a thought and not essential.)
    • A confession here. I used to love cricket statistics when I was younger. I would sit down with the ABC Cricket Book each season and memorise the highest scores, biggest partnerships, 5-wicket hauls etc. As I have grown older, I have less and less interest in statistics and now my eyes start to glaze over reading about them, let alone writing about them. My favourite part about writing cricket biographies is researching and writing the personality and style sections. Even writing a season-by-season rundown on a career can become a drag. However, since a statistical section was suggested in the peer review as well, perhaps it is worth having a shot at writing one. I will let you know how it goes. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I have had a shot at it. The prose for this new section has not been peer reviewed obviously so feedback is eagerly sought. -- Mattinbgn\talk 13:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Move the summary of 1889-90 season to after the beer (needs a link) story.

    • Summary moved. Similar to "bank", linking "beer" seems a little gratuitous to me.
    • Do we know who the friend was? Player? Spectator? Administrator? Name?
    • I can't be more specific. From the RS, "To revive his spirits at lunch a friend suggested a glass of beer, his first taste of it" (Robinson, p. 90.)
    • "only the one wicket" is colloquial English. Drop the "the"
    • Done
    • Why mention his batting before his bowling in the first Test - in fact, I wouldn't mention the batting at all, other than perhaps he batted at number 11. No-one would have expected him to make runs
    • No real reason for mentioning his batting first other than he batted first. I included his batting here as he was later considered an all-rounder. This gives some idea about where he started from. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He retained his spot in the Test team for the second Test at The Oval where he failed to take a wicket." I would revise that to "Despite this lack of success, he retained his spot in the team for the second Test at The Oval where he failed to take a wicket."
    • Were there just 2 Tests or were there more for which he was dropped after those dreadful figures? If just two, I'd note it as "second and final Test".
    • The Third Test was abandoned due to rain before play started. Trumble was selected but obviously didn't play and the match is not recorded as an official Test match. This is unlike the similarly abandoned 3rd Test in Melbourne in 1970-71, whose status as an official match is disputed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the squad to tour England in 1893" wikilink some to our tour article

    *You report Wisden complimenting his batting for 1893, but no stats (presumably they were for the tour games, because if he'd done much with the bat in the Tests, you'd have said so)

    • You are right: he did stuff-all with the bat in the Tests, 58 runs in three Tests. In all first-class matches he was much better, 774 at an average of 22. I will try and add something to the article to that nature. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "only the one Test" colloq. again
    • Fixed
    • I've noticed some inconsistency about Second Test vs second Test. Please check.
    • Fixed
    • "In the first innings, England scored 75 runs with Trumble taking 3 wickets. England fought back in their second innings, scoring 475 runs—Trumble failing to take a wicket—and winning the Test by 94 runs." Awkward transition from perfect tense. The rest of the article is perfect tense (which is less journalistic and more encyclopedic)
    • After indicating my struggles with aspect and tense earlier, I don't know if I should be embarrassed that I had to look up perfect tense to understand what you meant. Even after reading the article, I am not sure if my reword has fixed the problem. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Trumble was selected in the Australian team to tour England in 1896, despite a poor domestic season in 1895–96 where his place in the touring squad was seriously questioned by pundits." Why "where" his place? "and"? "when"? or just a semi colon?
    • My wording was terrible. Yours are better, but I think my reword is better again. Let me know if you disagree. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wisden's comment uses the troublesome "pitch" - I think it'd lose nothing to cut the quote two words shorter and it'd gain clarity
    • Pedantically - that's an autographed photo of Trumble from 1907

    *"The 1899 Australian tour saw Trumble score 1,183 runs and take 142 wickets, only the second Australian, after George Giffen, to score" needs a little tweak. Either replace the comma after wickets with a semi colon or possibly a colon, or make it a full stop and add some words like "He was"

    • added semi-colon. A big improvement, thanks. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some MOS-breaking use of ... In mid quote, you'll need spaces before and after the dots, and I prefer to see them non-breaking spaces
    • fixed
    • Would be nice to spell out his age when he became captain
    • Wikilink Tasmania

    *Not sure what's intended by "the only time that Trumble captained his country in Test cricket"

    • I thought it worthwhile to specifically spell out that these Tests would be the only two that Trumble would ever play as captain. He was a fill-in captain for a limited period only. I have replaced "time" with "occasion" if it helps.
    • Nice if you could add stat about how many hat-tricks had previously been achieved in Tests, to show the rarity of the feat
    • Team photo looks measly-sized. And "famed 1902 Australian touring team" sounds like POV.
    • I have not set an image size per WP:MOS#Image size. I can override viewer preferences to make it larger but I thought this was discouraged. Your advice? -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have decided that increasing the image size is the lesser of two evils. Hopefull it wont upset those readers which preferences set differently. I have also added some context (referenced) I hope meets NPOV requirements. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "With the ball greasy" I think that needs a "[wet]" for clarity
    • Age on retirement please
    • "relying on his change of pace and accuracy" misleadingly implies that he'd change his accuracy
    • I saw that myself much earlier in the writing process and made a mental note to come back and fix it but it slipped my mind. Thanks for picking it up.
    • Why's there a dash in "1,183–runs"? Perhaps a non breaking space was intended.
    • I don't have a dictionary to hand, but think "long prehensile" is a tautology. At least (if it isn't), the two adjectives need a comma. And prehensile would be best with a wiktionary link (it's a lovely word, but my English is native, fluent and educated and I'm still not 100% certain what it means)
    • From the Concise Oxford: prehensile: adj. Zool. (of a tail or limb) capable of grasping. Wiktionary has a better definition for my purpose; "adapted for grasping especially by wrapping around an object" While it may be a tautology insofar as "adapted for grasping" could assume length but I would prefer to keep both, with a comma as suggested. The term "prehensile" as I have used it is meant to suggest long and strong fingers capable of wrapping right around the ball. Note that there is an article on Prehensility but only in the strict zoological sense rather than the metaphoric sense that I intend. I have linked to the wiktionary article. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "they contorted themselves" - from context, I imagine that should be "they were made to contort themselves"
    • "in the know" is a colloquialism. Not sure how to address it, as it's probably the perfect expression. Wiktionary?
    • Linked to Wiktionary. I did think about a reword such as "in on the joke", "aware of the joke" etc. but none have quite the meaning I am looking for. -- Mattinbgn\talk
    • Section headed "Outside cricket" deals a great deal with... erm... cricket.
    • You are right of course. The section is about Trumble's deeds other than as a player. Would "Off the field" be better? Neither "Post retirement" or "Later life" quite fit. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He was instrumental in attracting cricketers such as Bert Ironmonger—who Trumble saw" whom
    • Aarrgghh! "Whom" is what I had to begin with!. I spent a good twenty minutes searching the web for advice on the usage of who/whom and after reading what I had found, I was none the wiser. I took a punt on a 50-50 chance and got it wrong! Now changed back. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the Melbourne Cricket Ground grew to a stadium capable of seating over 70,000 spectators." I'm afraid that made me laugh. What a cheap way of expanding a stadium - what on earth did they feed it? :-)
    • Really? I thought "grow" was a fairly standard metaphor for "increase in size", such as economic growth, exponential growth etc. Anyway, if the metaphor is distracting it shouldn't be used. Now changed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both sets of Hall of Fame material should be in one place. Move the earlier mention to here.
    • You cite Warner calling him "Hughie". Any thoughts on whether that (or anything else) was a nickname? Presumably not "that great camel"!
    • I can't find any mention of a nickname in the sources I have to hand. Warner's use of "Hughie" is interesting. The suffix "ie" is a common Australian English diminutive, cf. "Warnie", "Boonie" etc. I guess Warner picked it up from Trumble's Australian teammates. I would have thought someone of Warner's background would have been more likely to say something like "Good old Trummers" rather than an Australianism. By the way, "Hughie" is the name of the Australian rain god whose blessings are often requested by Australians with the plea "Send her down, Hughie". Trumble is seen as a possible derivation of this term[76] but I think it extremely unlikely. I will keep looking for a nickname. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry for oppose, but thanks for a terrific read. Drop me a line when you respond. I may not be back though before Tuesday. --Dweller (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No need to apologise for the oppose. FA status is a means to an end, to improve the article, not an end in itself. It is pointless supporting an article that is not up to speed. I have responded to all your concerns listed above and I think we still need to reach agreement on two points; the inclusion of Trumble's second hat-trick in the lead and compliance with MOSNUM. I think all the other points have been addressed but your feedback is sought on those matters as well as the new statistical analysis section. Thanks again for the review; it has taken my entire Saturday to get through it! Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 13:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    *Note to FA Director, (in case you're thinking of closing this anytime soon) I plan to review Maatinbgn's responses tomorrow and have high hopes of switching to support. --Dweller (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Other Dweller comments "unstruck":
    • "6 wickets" should be six, later "3 wickets" etc. Please fix all per MOSNUM
    • I don't want to throw this FAC discussion off-track by discussing the ins and outs of MOSNUM but I have a real problem with the guidelines as they apply to sporting scores. For example, how should the following sentence be written:

      "Trumble took 6 wickets for 59 runs, including a 9 over spell of 5 wickets for 10 runs"

      Following MOSNUM, this should be "Trumble took six wickets for 59 runs, including a nine over spell of five wickets for 10 runs". The mix of numerals and words appears strange to me. If the exception—"Within a context or a list, style should be consistent (either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs)"—was allowed in this case, then this sentence would be inconsistent with the remainder of the article. I would suggest that consistency within an entire article is preferable and that the use of numerals be allowed in the context of sports scores such as runs, wickets, goals, points etc. The opinion of MOS gurus on this point would be welcome and I am happy to take this discussion elsewhere if others feel it worthwhile. Of course, if the consensus is otherwise, I am happy to change. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)      [reply]
    • Your comment is reasonable. Happy to let this go, but leaving it unstruck in case anyone objects forcefully. --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did Trumble's improving batting returns lead to promotion up the order? Also, the reader's left to discern this improvement, rather than having it spelled out, which is a weakness
    • No doubt that it did, but I can't find a source to state that specifically. I agree that this is a weakness, but spelling this out would require either OR such as an assertion that "His improved batting saw him promoted in the batting order" or weasel words along the lines of "He was promoted in the batting order, most likely as a result of his improved batting." Your thoughts? -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you can note his promotion in the order, referenced to scorecard when it happened, and refer to improved performances using StatsGuru? I don't think using StatsGuru really breaks the spirit of OR. NB I note that the statistical summary section barely mentions his batting. --Dweller (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Switch to Support Great work and repeated apologies for being so pedantic. I am not insistent on the remaining issues about batting prowess, but I suspect knowing you that you'll make some alterations nonetheless. Looking forward to seeing that little star in the top rh corner. --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much. I will have a bash at the batting this evening. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved, Giants2008 (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - A really good article, and very interesting. With that said, here are some little issues I found.

    • Test cricket is linked twice in the first sentence. Is it possible to change the second link?
    • I changed the first one instead along with the wording. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "to his best advantage. He was at his best on the softer pitches of England," two uses of best in short proximity. Try to change one of them.
    • Comma after 1890?
    • "1896 tour of England. In England in 1899 with the Australian team," This needs some work. England and in don't read well. Try moving England further down, and find a replacement for one of the ins.
    • "achieved 1000 runs and 100 wickets "double"" It sounds like it should be "acheived a", but a and the two plural words may not work well. Again, see if you can move some words around. I might put it like this: "achieved a "double" of 1,000 runs and 100 wickets", adding a comma to 1,000 as well.
    • Reworded along the lines of your suggestion, which is much better. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Early life and career: Dash needed for Scottish born.
    • Test cricket, Early struggle: Comma after George Giffen?
    • Established cricketer: "he could not see him as a member of a team for England that season" sounds like Trumble was going to play for England. I think you mean a team going to England.
    • The wording was from the RS, but it is ambiguous. Now changed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is there nothing on the Third Test in 1897-98? Was it just not notable enough, or is this an omission?
    • Trumble didn't do much that match, but if you mention the other four matches it does seem strange to leave it out. Now added. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps mention the four draws in 1899. Having the text jump from one Test to nil to Third Test can be confusing for someone who doesn't know anything about cricket (like myself).

    More later. Giants2008 (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I have responed to your suggestions and they have certainly improved the article. If you have time, please let me know what else you find. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 12:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    More comments - Here are more things I found that could use changes.

    • Hat tricks and captaincy: "Trumble and Noble were the best performed Australian bowlers during the series". I don't like "performed" here. It looks like it should be "performing", but I think you could go without it altogether, assuming best by itself won't raise a POV red flag.
    • I should perhaps re-read these redundancy exercises as "best performed" or " best performing" is certainly redundant. I agree that "best" is perhaps POV so I have reworded to "most successful", objectively defined as having the most success in taking wickets; with the detail immediately following. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Third paragraph of section: There are two quotes from Wisden back-to-back. I think there should be a comma after the first quote.
    • Comma added. The quote is actually a single one broken up to separate the praise from the qualification. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Trumble was persuaded to return to play" Two tos. I don't think "to play" is needed, but a rewording would also work.
    • Always be careful with words like remarkable. Considered remarkable would be less POV, with a reference of course.
    • Provided quite a glowing quote, editors familiar with the source may have an issue with using him as a RS for many things but in this case as it quite clearly opinion I don't think it is a problem. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comma after Test career, by the hat-trick.
    • Outstanding could be another problem. Assuming Trumble was named best bowler of the series by someone, it would probably be safer to change to "named outstanding". I'm not really picky about these issues, but many reviewers are.
    • The quote from the RS is "Though Warner's side won the series, Hugh was the outstanding bowler, 24 wickets in four Tests". I have reworded with the objective "most successful" which he was when measured by wickets taken. -- 09:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Style and personality: Comma after large nose. There are a bunch of ands in here as well.
    • added comma, replaced an "and" with a "while" which seems to me to read better. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "relying on his change of pace and his accuracy" Drop the second his.
    • Dropping the second "his" would lead to ambiguity with a possible, incorrect meaning of "changes of pace and changes of accuracy" rather than the intended meaning where his accuracy is constant and his pace changes. I will try and reword. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have made a small change to allow removing the second "his" without introducing ambiguity. Let me know if it is unsuitable. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Legacy and statistical analysis: Comma after 69 occasions?
    • My first read of this I thought you meant I had used 69 commas in the section. I was impressed that you counted them all! A second read made it clear and it is now added -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Off the playing field: Comma after Team of the Century.
    • "and in 2004 he was inducted into the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame in recognition of his contribution to Australian cricket." There are two uses of Australian cricket here. How about "his contribution to the sport in Australia" or something similar?
    • Reworded along the lines of your suggestion -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That's it from me. Giants2008 (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All responded to, thanks again for the review. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    With all my concerns addressed, I'm giving the article my Support. Giants2008 (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for support and assistance -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I do lend my support, although I do make a couple of points that I'm sure will be quickly sorted.
      • "Off the field, Trumble worked for a bank" if it is the national bank of australasia, then why not put that in the lead?
      • For those of us with large screens, there is a large gap after the "off the field section" which is a bit unsightly
      • The space is to stop the photograph in that section bunching with the foootnotes. I could force a smaller image but that would mean overriding user preferences for image sizing. I am happy to consider other options -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1902 australian tour photo is a little small, hard to pick out detail
      • I agree, but the image as uploaded is a small one. I could set a larger size but once again this would override user preferences on image sizes and my understanding is that this is discouraged. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • On reflection, I have set the image to a fixed width of 250px as the lesser of two evils. I hope this does not inconvenience those users with other preferences. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • the image captions could be a bit more expanatory in places, rather than just stating what the image is of.
      • I have expanded the captions somewhat. I hope that is what you are after. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies if some of those have been listed above. Good article SGGH speak! 16:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks very much for your support and suggestions. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 11:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, I created Robert Trumble to fix a redlink SGGH speak! 08:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, what a great stub! -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:58, 6 May 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 00:51, 10 May 2008.

    Chickasaw Turnpike edit

    Self-nomination. I've been working on this article on and off for the past few months, starting from near-nothing in terms of content, and bringing it up to what is today. No major issues have been found in any of the PR or other review processes this article has gone through. While it may be a bit short compared to other featured articles, I believe the Chickasaw Turnpike article is of appropriate length for a road that is less than twenty miles long. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment You have been involved in the discussions at WT:USRD/MTF. Why is the main image partially shielded and partially unshielded? It seems many more roads should have shields indicating their route numbers on the main image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which roads in particular are you referring to? Every road in the vicinity of the highway in question has shields. --Holderca1 talk 00:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Chickasaw Turnpike shield cannot be displayed in the map because it is copyrighted by the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority and its use is restricted by our fair-use policies. If it's an issue, I can switch to one of the other two available maps. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Switched to an alternate map. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since they are available, is there any reason not to include both maps. In both cases all the blue and green routes should be shielded, IMO. I.E., the new map is worse from a shielding perspective than the old. I actually like seeing the full state map and the detail, if you don't mind showing both.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does it need shields? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Shields provide information. This is an encyclopedia.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both maps worked equally well for me. I saw no reason to change maps inside the infobox. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that there is more information for the reader if you include both maps.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But the thing is, it's irrelevant information. You can see where the Chickasaw Turnpike is from the map. The other roads are just put on the map to give you a frame of reference to see where they are. Who cares what the other roads are? My position is that it's not important or relevant enough for me to put the shields on. Rather than arguing ad infinitum about it, just go put the shields on yourself. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am making two points and your responded to one. I will number them so you can follow along. 1.) Two maps are better than one because some readers look on WP for travel info and want to see the local detail to understand where they are going. Seeing the big picture is not important. You would improve your article by including both images. 2.) I do not know how to add shields, but I looked at the map and wondered what the other roads were. I imagine I wonder, I am not the only one. It would only make the map better to add shields.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1) There is a link to the Commons gallery page which shows the other available maps. There is not enough room to include other maps in the article without bumping off some of the photographs. Local detail can be obtained through the third map available on the Commons page. 2) No, it would not, because the information is irrelevant and clutters the map, detracting from its quality. If you or someone else is really that curious about the surrounding highway system, I would recommend just getting an ODOT state map. 3). Consider this a WONTFIX — at cursory look at the MTF talk page shows that nobody else really agrees with the points you're trying to make here, and consensus is basically against adding extra shields. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you telling me that in an effort to describe this road you think Image:Chickasaw Tpk Mile 13.jpg is more helpful to the reader than Image:ChickasawTurnpike map.svg given the other two images in the article. Also, there are about a half a dozen templates for including a lot of images in an article without having too much clutter. See {{double image}}, {{triple image}}, & {{multiple image}} for starters.
    I don't understand your WONTFIX reference. I do concede that there is consensus that adding the shields is not worth the effort although, I don't think there is any agreement saying that shields don't make images better. Since I am not a mapmaker, I won't get involved in that debate. However, once you have an image like Image:ChickasawTurnpike map.svg and you only have three images in the article aside from the infobox, there is little reason not to include it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a map is absolutely no substitute for having an image that actually shows you what a typical stretch of the turnpike looks like. Similarly, the picture of the toll plaza illustrates how the plaza looks and is set up that you can't get from a marker on a map. Photography gives the reader an idea of what to expect to see when they use the Chickasaw Turnpike. A map cannot do that; it just shows the course the road takes. Suggesting that more maps be added and removing photographs is simply ridiculous.
    WONTFIX is a Bugzilla status meaning approximately "consider issue closed without the maintainer applying a fix." —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes WP strongly encourages at least one image on any WP:FA. A map is no substitute for that. I never said a map was a substitute for a single image. However, once you have a single image and a second image, a map may be more useful to a reader than a third image. My question is if you feel you are limited on space, do you feel your third image, Image:Chickasaw Tpk Mile 13.jpg, is more helpful to the reader than Image:ChickasawTurnpike map.svg. If the answer is yes, which I can't believe it is, then why don't you use any of the numerous templates that allow you to add lots of images?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is more useful: it illustrates a typical stretch of roadway, along with the other two images which illustrate the toll plaza and the typical style of exit signage. I am not using those templates because there's not really a logical combination of images that I feel would make sense presented next to one another, and that still doesn't address the layout problems (text squeezing/image stacking/readability in general) that including extra images produces. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Any two of those images would go togther in a {{double image}} template. For example, the toll booth and the exit would go together. Better yet they could be put together in a {{multiple image}} with the header or footer "Intersection and Interchange". Then there would be plenty of room for the other map.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
    • Although the article is fairly short, I'd like to see a longer lead.
    • Again, this is a partial interchange, only providing access to Roff for eastbound travelers and access to the westbound lanes from Roff. "Again,..." doesn't seem like an encyclopedia tone, but that's just my opinion.
    • Is it possible to write a Services section?
    • Other than that, I don't see anything wrong. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, there's no extra services available on this particular turnpike, so that isn't possible. I'll take a look at the other issues here in a moment. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, that's fine. I just also want to point out that current ref 12 is dead. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not anything I can fix; the newspaper appears to have done a redesign of their website. Using their site's search function brings up the article, but clicking the link leads back to the 404 page. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then your best bet is probably to remove the "url" and "accessdate" parameters from {{cite news}} and just keep it as an offline news source. --Holderca1 talk 12:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree. Also, if you can, you should see if you can find a source for the end of the first paragraph of the tolls section. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone

    Comments (forgive my typing, I'm on the road with an unfamiliar laptop keyboard)

    • Current ref 2 OTA History is lacking publisher information
    • Current ref 3 Legislative leader Opposes... lacks publisher
    I'm on the road again, and the link checker tool doesn't like this hotel's ISP, I am getting a LOT of timeout errors, which I suspect are related to the hotel ISP. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All taken care of. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral the article is too short, maybe try with good article. Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 16:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It already is a good article. May I direct your attention to the shortness of this road, its recent construction, and its rural setting? There's not very much more that can be said without going off on a tangent. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, are 28 km. In Italy there are short tangenziali (like this road) too. If you can't say another things about this short road, you may leave it in GAs. I don't like this freedom of nominate for FA short articles, GAs on fr.wiki are exhaustive (not short) articles, here we have very short articles, such Templon, for FA. I don't like this thing; but I don't vote oppose these articles, so I stay neutral and I abstain me.--Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 19:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is no reason to go neutral. The FA criteria has no minimum size limit. An article just has to be comprehensive, and have no missing major aspects. We are the English Wikipedia, and we don't have to do anything the other languages do. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'd say that's an irrational way of looking at things. FA is the highest honor that an article can receive on Wikipedia. If an article can cover a subject at the highest level of depth possible, and still not be promoted, then there is a serious flaw in the process. You can't exclude articles from becoming featured for being too short, when there's simply no further information that can be added because the article as it exists covers it all. And no, I may not leave it at GA, because I've written this article from the beginning intending to bring it to FA, and I'm not going to give up halfway through the job. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, it isn't comprehensive, look at the comments of TonyTheTiger. Now I have a reason for my neutral vote ^_^--Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 11:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • So you didn't have a real reason for your neutral vote before TonyTheTiger came along? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yes, I did. It's there... But don't think to the past! ^_^ --Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 15:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The reason that you gave was that it was too short; there isn't an FA criteria requiring a minimum length. If it isn't comprehensive, then please state what you think is missing or lacking in detail. Otherwise, your comments aren't really helpful towards improving the article. --Holderca1 talk 15:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • But then what do you have to say about New York State Route 174? Also, I don't care about what other language Wikipedias do. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article has not only passed GA, but it has passed USRD's A-Class Review, which is a more stringent review of the article akin to an FAC in miniature. This FAC is a process of the English Wikipedia, and while this language Wikipedia is free to borrow from other languages, it is not bound by their precedents or procedures. There's no reason to oppose on overall length, on completion of coverage. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support at this time I support the promotion of this article to Feature Article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Looks like all my concerns have been addressed; I see nothing that should prevent this from becoming featured. While it may be short compared to other articles, it is comprehensive and is an excellent piece of information about the turnpike. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose Neutral for now. I object to the removal of the local detail map that was included at the begining of the FAC.

    • I would also prefer more shielding on the maps, but do not object on that basis.
    • The WP:LEAD should be at least two paragraphs for a FAC, IMO.
    • In the lead, it is not a compromise measeure in and of itself. It is the result of a compromise measure.
    • Can you provide beginning and ending municipalities (apparently not Ada and Sulphur)?
    • Is the tollbooth bidirectional?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The toll booth is a barrier toll booth, which means it's bidirectional as a matter of course. The turnpike passes through unincorporated territory; there are no municipalities along the turnpike itself. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you telling me that if I got off at either end of the turnpike and asked where am I, people would say you are in no man's land?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • For lack of a better phrase, yes. They would probably would tell you in relation to the nearest town (i.e. west of Sulphur), but there isn't a town or city located at either endpoint. This isn't all that rare and fairly common in the western US. --Holderca1 talk 18:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first two images would look better for high resolution setting readers like myself if the first image were on the left and the second on the right. At high resolutions (my screen is set at 1680x1050) the first image is pushed down by the infobox if it is on the right.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might also want to try {{reflist|2}} for the two column footnote section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really enough references to make that change worthwhile. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "worthwhile". The effort would be to type two letters. If you are talking about whether it makes it look better. For high resolution viewer the bottom looks lopsided because every ref is short. It will look better for a cost of typing two letters. Are you just trying to get my dander up?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • And not every reader is using a high resolution monitor. My laptop is 1440x900 and I keep my web browser windows much smaller than full screen. I only recommend multiple columns when there are many references, not 16. I didn't take M-28 or M-35 to two columns until they had much more than 16. In any case one column vs. two doesn't affect content nor even really the layout. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • TonyTheTiger, please try to keep comments focused on WP:WIAFA rather than personal preferences. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I just set my computer to 1400x1050 resolution and it still has the problem with the image being pushed down by the infobox if the first image is on the right. Thus viewers at all resolutions of at least 1400 width will have the problem I described with the first image being on the right. This includes the following fairly common resolutions: 1400x1050, 1440x900, 1600x1200, 1680x1050, and 1920x1200 as well as less common resultions such as 2048x1536. This is not a personal preference.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    QueryDoes User:Imzadi1979 speak for the nominator in regard to {{reflist}}?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. While a two-column reference list wouldn't take much time to implement, I don't really see a compelling reason to do so. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am trying to figure out what reason there is not to. The reason to do so is that the page looks more balanced/symmetric, especially for high resolution viewers. The reason not to is I guess that it makes a short page look longer. Is this what you are thinking?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you direct me to the section of the MOS that handles this? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no MOS that addresses multi-column layout of refs because it is a stylistic choice. I believe that the majority of WP:FAs use it. I am just asking why you are against it in this case.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Outside of the MOS, most style decisions are essentially arbitrary. Also, if it's not in the MOS, it's not addressed by WP:WIAFA (which is what we're trying to look at here, right?), so it's really rather irrelevant. I'm not outright opposed to having two columns, but I feel it's a pointless, arbitrary change to make. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    back to Weak Oppose Neutral for no respose to recent concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    PS I didn't say "oppose", but "neutral". Don't Worry, Be Happy ^_^--Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 16:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Excellent work for such a short stretch of road. BTW, multi-column reflists cause problems for some browsers. See the discussion at Template talk:Reflist. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 09:42, 9 May 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 15:17, 8 May 2008.

    Cattle Egret edit

    We are nominating this article on behalf of the bird project for featured article. It has passed GA and had a subsequent independent review. Sabine's Sunbird and Jimfbleak 05:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support (moral or otherwise)Comments -giving this a final look over...I have seen the article develop and chipped in ovre time and feel it is FA worthy, though I'll just note a couple of things.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ''a natural rapid expansion - reads a bit ungainly to me, I think we can drop the 'natural' as is redundant once the rest of the sentence has explained how it has spread.
    Agree, done Jimfbleak (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments (Edit conflict) I havn't gotten a chance to read the whole thing, but I noticed a couple things. Is it possible to get a map that shows where the bird lives, such as the one in Bald Eagle? Also, The prose is genrally good, but in some parts it seems stop-and-start, with short sentences. I'll give a more throughout reviewing once I get the chance. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite attempts (see talk page), it's not proved possible to get adequate data to map for the whole of its huge range, although colouring all the warmer temperate and tropical regions except deserts and mountains wouldn't be far out. Jimfbleak (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, that's fine; it doesn't affect the article at all. I'd still like to see some copyediting, though. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be tricky balancing succinct vs choppy. I have scanned through it a few times over the past few months and just now found some more. I agree it can be hard as I have stared at it a few times. could you highlight some of the more obvious ones still left (and I'll see what I can do)? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, let me give it a good look-through and I'll have some examples shortly. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    More comments

    • It is a stocky white bird adorned with buff plumes in the breeding season. It nests in colonies, usually near bodies of water and often with other wading birds. The nest is a platform of sticks in trees or shrubs. — Three short, stop-and-start sentences. Also, the first two begin with "It", which usually isn't a problem, but a lot of the sentences begin with "it". Try to mix up the wording some.
    • It weighs 270–512 grammes (9.5–18.1 oz). — Another.
    • Its bill and tarsus are longer on average than in B. i. ibis. — Same.
    • A small flock of eight birds was also seen in Fiji in 2008. — Why isn't Fiji linked?
    • Breeding season in Australia is November to early January, with one brood laid per season. — What is a brood? Might want to link it or explain it some.
    • The male advertises in a tree in the colony, using an range of ritualised behaviours such as shaking a twig and sky pointing,[35] and the pair forms over three or four days. — Might want to explain what "Advertises" means. Also, what is sky pointing?
    • The pale bluish-white eggs are oval-shaped and measure 45 mm x 53 mm. — Needs a conversion.
    • They begin to leave the nest and climb around at 2 weeks, fledge at 30 days and become independent at around the 45th day. — What does fledge mean? (serious question)
    • Sibling rivalry can be intense, and in South Africa third and fourth chicks inevitably starve. — South Africa needs a link.
    • The Cattle Egret feeds on a wide range of prey, particularly insects, especially grasshoppers, crickets, flies, and moths, as well as spiders, frogs, and earthworms. — I'd give all those types of insects a link.
    • The species is usually found with cattle and other large grazing and browsing mammals which disturb small creatures which the egrets then catch. — "Which" is used one to many times in that sentence.
    • Its performance is similar when the follow farm machinery, but it is forced to move more. — Is that supposed to say "when they follow farm machinery..."?

    That's it from me. Overall, good work, but there's just a couple minor issues that I can see. Great pictures, as well. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed Jimfbleak (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Support Much better. Good work! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as GA reviewer. My only (slight) reservation would be the alignment of the image in Description, divorcing headers and text always makes it a little hard to read. However, prose and sourcing are absolutely top notch. Fine work! VanTucky 22:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree about image, moved to right now Jimfbleak (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I found it very well-written. I was wondering, however, if you could possibly explain the terms semialtricial, conspecifics, heartwater, and Newcastle disease. I had to look at their articles to figure out what they were. As they seem to be terms ornithologists would be familiar with, not explaining them is use of jargon. --Moni3 (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "semialtricial" I've removed and rewritten the choppy section, "conspecifics" I've replaced with less technical term. I don't think disease names are jargon, no sensible alternative to leaving as links. Jimfbleak (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I must say, I'm impressed. This page has improved immensely since my first attempt to create some form of an article from the previous stub, thanks to the tireless edits of you guys. Well done. Abbott75 ღ 07:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support—Excellent. TONY (talk) 13:24, 8 May 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 15:17, 8 May 2008.

    Akhtar Hameed Khan edit

    Self-nomination I believe it is time the article moves from GA to FA because it meets the criteria. IslesCapeTalk 19:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I don't believe that the section "Early life" reads particular well. It is rather disjointed. Bluap (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To me the philosophy bit needed elaboration. Hope it's better now. --IslesCapeTalk 14:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually referring to the bit before he joined the civil service. It's all "he did this", "he did that". The reference to his mother dying could be written in more elegant English. Bluap (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Improved. Added subjects studied earlier, also key influences.--IslesCapeTalk 18:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response
    • 'Hands On' is part of TVE, an international NGO supported by UN and other independent institutions.
    • Naseem Yousaf wrote a book on A H Khan. The cited text also indicates author's copyright notice. Website is dedictaed to the subject.
    • Banglapedia is a reliable academic source on Bangladesh.
    • Added. --IslesCapeTalk 13:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm, what makes Banglapedia reliable though? Are they published by a university or a reputable publisher? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a printed source, and written by the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, which appears to be a genuine academic organisation. The encyclopedia was funded both by the Bangladeshi government, and by UNESCO. I see no reason to doubt its status as a reliable source. Bluap (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    * Works for me. All done! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All other links checked out okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional support Comments I did not know who Khan was before I read this article, so it was interesting for me to review. Thanks for bringing it to FAC! A few suggestions for improvement:
    • Try to find secondary sources to support the statements currently sourced to Khan's own writings about himself. People have a tendency to represent themselves in a positive light, so it is best to verify any statements someone makes about themselves with a secondary source. Autobiographical sources, in other words, are highly unreliable.
    • Could you add a bit of detail to the "Comilla project" section? It is a little vague at the moment - I had to click to really understand what the project was.
    • The "Death and legacy" section should be written in paragraphs, rather than in bullet points.
    • The article needs some general MOS fixes. The notes, for example, do not follow a standard pattern, nor does the "Reference" list. For the "References", try following MLA or Chicago style.
    • Not all of the notes have page numbers. We have to offer readers the chance the check our sources. Awadewit (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What style are the "References" listed in? They don't seem to be consistent yet. Awadewit (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "External links" should ideally list where the link is going. It is a courtesy to the reader. Ex: "Talk given by Khan at Youtube".
    • All external links need to be written in this style. Awadewit (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure that the image of Khan is actually in the public domain, despite the disclaimer on the website. I don't think it is because the person on the website is not explicitly the owner of the image. You might want to have someone else check into this - I am no expert on these matters.
    • The question is whether the site owner has the rights to the image. I am not sure. This needs to be worked out. Awadewit (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that the editor is attempting to obtain the rights to the image over at Commons. Awadewit (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope these comments help. Awadewit (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am supporting on the condition that the image problems are resolved. Awadewit (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response Thanks for the remarks. In fact working on the article has been an ongoing learning experience. Especially, reviewers comments help discover more and more about the subject.
    • Replaced autobiographical sources
    • Elaborated on the structure of Comilla Model
    • Improved Death and legacy section
    • Citations have been streamlined.
    • External links improved
    • Have express permission from site owner on image use. However, will try to follow Wikipedia requirements as well.--IslesCapeTalk 12:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments I've done a very rough copyedit on this. Some remaining issues:

    • Some prose work is needed. Examples:
    • "Khan was fluent in five international languages" - 'international language' doesn't convey a clear meaning to me. The elaboration on this later in the article ("Khan was fluent in Arabic, Bengali, English, Hindi, Pali, Persian, and Urdu") still leaves me confused; is the intent to distinguish languages from dialects?
    • "On his two years ICS probation, he read literature and history" - what does probation mean here?
    • "During this time, he also remained President of the East Pakistan Non-Government Teachers' Association." - during what time? 'remain' implies that you have laid out when he got this position, but I don't see any mention other than this sentence.
    • "on the principle of grassroots level cooperative participation by the people" - almost all of these words mean the same thing.
    • "This strategy successfully prevented the types of 'elite capture' of local cooperatives, leading to widespread delinquencies, that had plagued the Comilla Model." - I can't understand this sentence.
    • This article suffers from overlinking. Many very common words are linked that do not need to be (examples: history, village, education), and many words are repetitively linked (examples: Sufi, rural/rural development).
    • Most, if not all, of the 'See also' links are redundant to links already in the article text.
    • The 'Death and legacy' section needs to be rewritten to remove proseline.
    • The citations in the 'Advisory roles' section need to be tightened up; for example, there should not be a credentials-related statement such as "He also briefly worked as a visiting professor at Lund University, Harvard University, and Oxford University" without a citation.
    • Only one of the items in 'Honours and awards' is cited. Strangely, the award citation for one of these is listed later under External links.
    • Some of the book citations are missing page numbers; some of the online citations need access dates; a few citations need formatting work (examples: italicize the journal Dawn Magazine; add a period at the end of "Khan (1996), pp. xii").
    • Where linked references are in a non-html format like PDF, please indicate as such in the reference listing with (PDF) after the title.
    • "Practical help was sought from international experts in farming apart from training foreign participants on rural development." - this appears to be two unrelated phrases tacked together.
    • This is now "Practical help was sought from international experts apart from training foreign participants on rural development, at Comilla Academy." which still leaves me confused.
    • Alternatively, some less common words would benefit from interwiki linking. Examples: grassroots seems a concept inherently important to this article, but it is not linked ever; common good would be a better link than 'common well-being'.
    • Did you object to adding a link to grassroots, or did it get removed during cleanup of overlinks? I still feel it would be a useful link. Additionally, please fix the two differing uses: you have 'grassroots level initiatives' and 'grassroots-level participation'.
    • Please add the citation for the visiting professor sentence (I know you meant to, but it isn't there).
    • Please add the publishers for:
    • Dr. Akhter Hameed Khan - The Pioneer of Microcredit
    • "Orangi Pilot Project"
    • Agriculture and Human Values
    • A posthumous tribute to the man who silently brought about a social revolution in Pakistan
    • 7th Death Anniversary — A Tribute to Dr. Akhtar Hameed Khan
    • I'm concerned about the provenance of the image; at the linked site, I don't see an explicit claim of ownership nor an explicit release of rights.
    • Any progress on this?

    Thanks for a good read. I had not heard of Mr. Khan before, but found this particularly interesting as I've just read a book on Paul Farmer's grassroots approach toward providing healthcare to the poor in Haiti. Maralia (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Response
    • Improved all prose work
    • Repetitive links removed
    • Common good apparently relates to the access of specific resources to specific communities. Well-being, on the other hand, has wider implications (e.g. from sanitation to microfinance, and from welfare to health provision)
    • See also links updated
    • The citation actually covers the visits, so moved to the end of para.
    • All honours and awards are now cited.
    • Added access dates to all online citations. (reworking some book citations)--IslesCapeTalk 14:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • done.

    Cheers.--IslesCapeTalk 12:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've struck/hidden resolved issues, and added a few hopefully minor ones above. I took a stab at rewriting the 'Death and legacy' section to clean up some unwieldy prose; please review it carefully to make sure I've not misstated anything. I also fixed some footnote formatting: note for the future that 'p' is for single page citations and 'pp' is for page ranges/multiple pages. Maralia (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. As for the second phase of your comments:
    • I've removed second part of 'practical help...' as it recurs in subsequent para added recently.
    • grassroots is linked now.
    • visiting professor is cited in the same page range, so i've moved citation
    • For publishers, I've replaced those that I couldn't find info of. For 'Orangi Pilot Project', you'll have to be precise as to which ref is missing because there are 2 and to me both are comprehensive. Agriculture and Human Values is a reputed journal, and per author-date style, I don't have to provide publisher info. Direct access isn't possible due to subscription restrictions, so I've linked with contents page.
    • dealing with image issues. Cheers.--IslesCapeTalk 17:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Argh! Days ago I went through all your citations and cleaned up pp./p., fixed dashes->hyphens in page ranges, added missing full stops, etc - but you keep adding new cites/changing existing ones, resulting in more that need fixing! Should I have made you fix them all yourself so you'd learn? :) Really, though, all my concerns have now been addressed except the issue of the image release. I'm ready to support once that's cleared up. Maralia (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, some people never change;) but I'm learning! Actually I've been through this article so many times that I need another pair of eyes :( --IslesCapeTalk 18:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support All issues addressed. Well done! Maralia (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (Conditional) Support. I've made some minor edits to this interesting and generally well-written article.[77] The last sentence of the Lead section is still a little untidy, but I can't find the solution, perhaps it needs splitting into two? *Special orientation seems a strange expression, what exactly does this mean?

    • I too am worried about the photograph, you need to clarify permissions for this. GrahamColmTalk 15:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response
    • Split the sentence. Pls see if it works.
    • Have simplified to as written in citation!
    Issues resolved. Karanacs (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • I believe there should be a citation for "Khan's upbringing influenced his interest in historical as well as contemporary social, economic, and political affairs."
    • This may need a citation "During the stay, he developed close friendship with Choudhary Rahmat Ali."
    • I don't like the fact that info about his children and second marriage were hidden in the footnotes. That is information important enough to be included in the text.

    Karanacs (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Well-written, well-cited, and appears to be comphrensive. Karanacs (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I'm okay with either Image:AHKhan.jpg or Image:Akhtar Hameed Khan.jpg, but not both. Placing either one in the infobox to facilitate identification is fine, but I don't see a how a second would be necessary (WP:NFCC#3A) or contribute significantly (NFCC#8) to our understanding (e.g. the latter is currently used in the OPP section; how does this image have any impact on our understanding of Khan, OPP itself or his involvement therewith? It seems entirely decorative). I've added a (formerly missing) license and completed the rationale for AHKhan.jpg, so it is good to go once the PUI is done. If you'd rather use the latter, it will need a reduction in resolution (per NFCC#3B) and a rationale added (per NFCC#10C and WP:RAT). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:29, 7 May 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 15:17, 8 May 2008.

    The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time edit

    previous FAC (00:34, 18 April 2008)


    Yes, this article was just here, but I have used the previous FAC as a peer review to improve the article, and believe I have addressed the commenters' concerns. There is much that is new about this article. Please let me know what more can be improved, or anything from the previous FAC that is still not satisfactory. This article is part of a current featured topic nomination. Pagrashtak 16:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All other links worked. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been my experience that Joystiq is considered reliable among members of the VG project, and it is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#List. If others take issue with it, it is being used to cite something that is somewhat trivial, and could be removed if it's a problem.
    For rpgfan.com, I'm not familiar with the site off-hand. Someone else added that reference, I believe, and I decided to leave it. It's only used to reference the number of tracks on the soundtrack and the duration, which could be sourced directly to the primary material. I thought it might be better for the user to reference the website, as it is much easier to check. If this is believed to be a problem, I can switch the reference to the soundtrack itself if that's agreeable.
    Addition—RPGFan is used by Game Rankings when compiling a combined score (source), which lends more credibility to the site. Pagrashtak 04:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the Magic Box, I believe it is considered reliable by the VG project, and is used extensively to source List of best-selling video games (it is also sourcing sales in this article). Pagrashtak 19:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For all those sources, we need something that proves their reliablity. 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. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Joystiq is part of Weblogs, Inc., which is owned by AOL. [78]
    As I mention above, RPGFan meets the criteria of Game Rankings, part of CNET Networks, to be included in the overall compiled score. (Game Rankings criteria). I suppose I'll end up replacing the Magicbox source. Pagrashtak 20:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Joystiq is a blog then? I'm trying to see how citing a blog, even a well known and respected blog is necessarily a reliable source. Is the person who wrote the particular blog well known in the video game field? The information it's sourcing is "Ocarina of Time contains unused development code, such as an Arwing from the Star Fox series, with attack and movement fully programmed." I need to see how this is a reliable source of information (Of course, the fact that the source doesn't say that it's unused development code is another issue.) This isn't the biggest and most important of soucing issues, granted. The RPG fan information is the length of the Japanese soundtrack, which I'm not sure really needs that ironclad of a source, but could it be sourced to Amazon or something like that? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't give a blog across-the-board approval for reliability, but I would consider some blog posts reliable enough in certain situations. It's definitely a case-by-case matter. Technically, I suppose this could be sourced directly to the video game, but it would be extremely difficult for any reader to verify. As I mentioned before, this isn't a vital fact and could be removed.
    I've already looked for the Japanese soundtrack information—Amazon was the first place I looked. They give the number of tracks, but not the length of the soundtrack,[79] so I didn't replace the source. A Google search didn't turn up anything reliable looking at a once-over. Pagrashtak 05:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to make you take out information, but even this sort of stuff needs something reliable. The bit about the development code/etc. probably doesn't need the most ironclad of sources, but it should still meet WP:RS. The soundtrack could just go to the soundtrack, if someone had it. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've commented out the Arwing sentence. The best sources I could find were Kotaku and N-Sider, which aren't any closer to RS then Joystiq. I've replaced the RPGfan references with the website for Pony Canyon. Pagrashtak 17:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, those two taken care of, did we resolve the Magic Box information or not? I got lost somewhere in here... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was giving myself a little more time to look through a Google search—I have to wade through a lot of forums and blogs. It's replaced now. Pagrashtak 15:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Oppose - For the third time, there is information on Ocarina of Time in the audio/music section of The Legend of Zelda (series) article about how the popularity of Ocarinas increased because of this game. There is actually a lot of information about ocarina of time in the audio and reception sections of the series article that is not included in this one. Also, why no character section? Or a track listing for the CD? Do those things and I will fully support :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I missed the part about ocarina sales—it's been added now. Let me know if anything else is missing from that section. There is no character section because we have an entire article about that (List of characters in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time) which is already a little long for my tastes. It's linked as a See also right at the top of the plot section, and the characters integral to the plot are covered in the plot well enough for the reader to understand. I see no reason to add a bulky section to repeat that article when the plot seems perfectly understandable as it is. There's no track listing because I didn't think the general reader would care, and its inclusion would be bulky. With gripping song titles such as "House" and "Game Over", it's not terribly interesting, either. I'm curious to see how others feel about it. Pagrashtak 00:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense, though I too would like to hear what people think about the track listing, because I believe other FA game articles include their cd's track listing. Great job! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (interjection) it's been my experience with FACs that track listing are generally not looked upon kindly, but you can always have a show/hide mechanism for the listing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker has a track listing, but it was merged in from what used to be a separate article covering the soundtrack well after the FAC. I need to spend some time cleaning it up—I might use comments in this FAC to help guide me in the soundtrack section there. Pagrashtak 04:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minor Support the article had some improvement since the failed FAC, indeed. A great job, though not as polished as the current Zelda FAs. igordebraga ≠ 02:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll take that as a compliment, considering the primary author of those FAs. ;) I fully admit that this article is not as polished as the Oracle games, which I've been actively maintaining. If you'd care to point out anything in particular, or the weakest part of the article, I'd be glad to fix it up and make the article stronger. Pagrashtak 04:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd have something to say at least about the images: in Plot, to quote Fuchs in the previous FAC, "how does a picture of Zelda and Link or a picture of Ganondorf significantly help the reader's understanding?" — specially considering the amount of cutscenes in the game, though it's hard to pick one or two to put in. And in Gameplay, the images are too similar, maybe one of Adult Link or the "lock-on" would be more helpful instead of the Hyrule Field one. igordebraga ≠ 00:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, I missed this comment earlier. As I mentioned below, I've removed one of the gameplay images. I think the images of Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf are acceptable fair use. Two images to illustrate the three main characters seems reasonable to me. Pagrashtak 04:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Really, a nicely written article. My only concern is that there seems to be a large amount of images on the article, and they seem cluttered together. I'm not so certain that they are all necessary. --haha169 (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. It's a very good article, just 2 things. 1) The images are too cluttered and 2) Aren't the notes and the references the same thing? Epass (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • One image removed, as discussed below. The References are long-form citations that some short-form refs call. See the instruction booklet notes for an example. Pagrashtak 03:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per c. three. Not only do some of the images appear superfluous, but they clutter the article badly. Image:KokiriForest.JPG appears to only be used to show Link without equipment; how does that significantly increase reader's understanding of the work? Isn't Image:ZELDA OCARINA OF TIME.jpg a better representation of the work as a whole? What about the covers, specifically Image:OcarinaMQCover.jpg? Do you need a full infobox for the soundtrack, which leaves lots of whitespace wasted below it? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree about Image:KokiriForest.JPG. I hesitated about removing it before the FAC (I didn't add it, and decided to err on the side of caution by leaving it), but now that you've voiced the same concern, I've removed it. I will stand by Image:OcarinaMQCover.jpg, however. I feel that having the box art is beneficial here. Master Quest used to have its own article, but was merged into this one, and I feel it's useful to have the box art remain. The soundtrack also used to have its own article. I'd argue to keep the image, but I could lose the infobox. I'll leave it up for the time being to see if someone else wants to voice an opinion on that. Pagrashtak 03:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some other concerns:
      • "The game received wide critical acclaim and commercial success. The first Zelda game with 3D graphics, it was praised for taking elements of the two-dimensional games and successfully translating them into the third dimension." Perhaps the second sentence should be reworded to be "As the first Zelda game with 3D graphics, Ocarina of Time was praised..." to increase flow?
        • If you insert the word As, it creates a false implication. If you say "Senator Smith is granted the franking privilege" you are stating two facts (Smith is a senator, Smith has the franking privilege) without showing that one is the result of the other. If you say "As a senator, Smith is granted the franking privilege", you now show that the second is a direct consequence of the first. In the Zelda example, we do not wish to show such a consequence, because it is false. Ocarina could have been unsuccessful.
      • " from obtaining the Triforce, a sacred relic that grants the wishes of its holder. Link travels back and forth in time to prevent Ganondorf from obtaining the Triforce and gaining control of Hyrule." from obtaining... from obtaining... fix the repetition.
        • That's a bad one—fixed.
      • "like all games in the series, Ocarina of Time has several optional side quests," we need a reference for the "all games in the series" bit; I think the Gametrailers LoZ retrospective actually might be able to cite that, if you can dig up the ref by watching the videos.
        • It's not all that necessary, I've removed the phrase.
      • This section from development: "The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, released in 2000 for the Nintendo 64, is a direct sequel to Ocarina. [...] On one island, boys are dressed like Link when they come of age.[43]" It's fair to mention Majora's Mask, as it shipped on the N64 and is a direct sequel in terms of plot, but why Wind Waker?
        • I included Wind Waker because the events of this game are a legend in that one, and boys in Wind Waker are dressed as the main character from this game in his honor. It's only two sentences, I didn't think it was that much of an intrusion to include it.

    --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Replies by Pagrashtak 20:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above oppose may be stale. Fuchs's last comments were posted 17:47, 26 April.[80] I made some changes to the article and replied 20:28, 26 April.[81] Having not received anything further from him, I asked Fuchs to respond at 15:34, 29 April[82] but have not received any reply. Pagrashtak 18:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m making me rounds, no need to fret. I guess I will go neutral until I can review the article again. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak Oppose

    Resolved issues from Buc (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In early 2006, it was ranked by Nintendo Power as the best game to appear on a Nintendo console" Sounds a bit clumsy.
      • Any suggestions? This sentence is a little tricky to reword while keeping the meaning intact.
        • "In 2006, Nintendo Power ranked it as the best game to appear on any Nintendo console." Buc (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref #4 doesn't appear to link to the right page.
      • It now points to the specific page for the game. Pagrashtak 21:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Buc (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Replies by Pagrashtak 15:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "making them unfamiliar and harder to beat" POV
    • Do we need so much info on Majora's Mask in the "Re-releases and sequels" section?
      • I would say yes. It's a direct sequel—something of a rarity in the Zelda games—and I believe a paragraph devoted to MM to explain the difference between the two is warranted and provides context. Pagrashtak 15:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still think it a bit too much detail. Buc (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a bit puzzled why the game is sometimes referred to as "Ocarina of Time" and other times as just "Ocarina".
      • For flow. For example, in this quote:"Ocarina of Time: Master Quest started as an expansion to Ocarina to be used..." I didn't want to repeat "Ocarina of Time", so I shortened it. Do you think it's a problem? Pagrashtak 15:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you mind striking any addressed/resolved comments? It will make this easier to follow. Thanks, Pagrashtak 15:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After Link kills the boss of Dodongo's Cavern" probubly better just to say the boss' name (in this case King Dodongo) as some readers may not understand the term "boss".
      • "Boss" is wikilinked, so it should be easy for the reader to find out. I think the reader would have even less understanding of "King Dodongo" than "boss". Pagrashtak 17:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Isn't that link better suited to the gameplay section and a creatures name better suited to the plot. Buc (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think so. Links are suited to the word, regardless of section. Pagrashtak 15:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Ocarina of Time is the fifth game in The Legend of Zelda series, but the first chronologically." The ref for this appears to be from the time the game was resealed so how do we know that any of the game released since then don't pre-date it? Buc (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reworded. With your other comments, you'll have to give me further feedback to let me know why they're still unresolved. Pagrashtak 16:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It been so long since I've played this game so I can't be sure but doesn't Ganondorf say something at the end about how he will one day return? Might be worth mentioning.
      • He doesn't say he'll "return", but he says he will kill Link's and Zelda's descendants. The text from the game about that bit is used right now in a reference if you want to see it. Pagrashtak 17:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not in the article though. That's my piont. Buc (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is swordfighting all one word?
      • Honestly, I'm not sure. I can't find swordfight in a dictionary, so I'm inclined to think it isn't.
  • "Reviews for the Master Quest and the Virtual Console re-release considered the graphics and audio outdated. After originally giving a rating of 10/10, IGN gave Master Quest 9/10 and GameSpot gave the Virtual Console release 8.9/10." I don't quite understand this. Is the Virtual Console version different from the original?
    • Not significantly. There are minor differences, such as progressive scan support and lack of rumble, but the core game is unchanged. GameSpot (and others) gave the VC re-release a separate review, though, complete with a score. Since the VC version was released later, the graphics and audio were approached with different expectations. Pagrashtak 15:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need to explain this. Buc (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is the coverage in the re-release section not sufficient?
          • That would do for the changes to the game, although all I see there at the moment is something about lack of vibration. Buc (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You'll have to give me something further here if my edits didn't address this. Pagrashtak 18:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for collapsing. I've made some changes, please see if your outstanding comments have been resolved. Pagrashtak 21:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Reception could do with something about how this game is often considered one of the best ever. Buc (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • These quotes are from the first paragraph of Reception: "Ocarina of Time received a perfect score from many gaming publications, including Famitsu,[51] Electronic Gaming Monthly,[50] GameSpot,[52] and IGN.[46]" "Ocarina of Time is frequently featured near or at the top of gaming publications' top games of all time lists, including those of Electronic Gaming Monthly,[4] IGN,[6] and Edge.[7] In 2006, Nintendo Power named it the best game to appear on a Nintendo console.[8] Game Trailers named it the best game of all time in their list of the Ten Best and Worst Games of All Time." Is that not enough? Pagrashtak 00:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's only part of a paragraph at the moment and read as nothing more than a list of scores with no real overall point. Buc (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know a better way of saying that Ocarina is often considered one of the best games other than telling the reader about prominent publications that gave it a perfect score and ranked it high on best games list. What exactly do you want? Pagrashtak 18:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just exspand on what you've got. Take a few quotes from the sources that gave it good score that say why they think it's so good and make it a separate paragraph. Buc (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reception section is tagged as having neutrality disputed (not surprising for this subject...), please solve ASAP. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've removed the tag. It says "Please see the discussion on the talk page." but the editor who added that tag did not say what the problem was, either or the talk page, here, or on my user talk page. If it gets re-added with an explanation, then we'll see, but that section is pretty balanced. There are five paragraphs—here's a summary showing positive and negative to illustrate why I feel it's balanced.
    1. The first paragraph gives information on sales, awards, and rankings. Everything is sourced and reflects an accurate view of critical reception in my opinion.
    2. Second paragraph covers graphics. Positive: Faces were done well, draw distances good. Negative: Blurry textures, graphics outdone by an earlier game for the same console.
    3. Third paragraph covers gameplay. Positive: Detailed, many side quests. Negative: Simple control scheme causes "unintended actions" to occur, new system has learning curve.
    4. Fourth paragraph covers audio. Positive: atmospheric and surround sound used well, immersive. Negative: Samples sound outdated, MIDI songs are "fair to terrible"
    5. Fifth paragraph covers re-release. Positive: Scores still high (9, 8.9). Negative: Called outdated, scores lower than original.

    Pagrashtak 14:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Uneasy about this one. This is much improved in the prose compared with this genre a year ago. But I'm not entirely satisfied yet.

    • Just to start, a non-actionable piece of advice: the leads of these video-game articles seem to start unerringly with exactly the same formula. If I notice this, other readers will. Overall, it reduces the quality of engagement with readers because it's so predictable—are you hinting that the video games are predictable? I hope not. You might consider varying the formula, even just by changing the order in which information is given.
      • In fact many video games are predictable, but this is not the reason for the formulaic opening. There are certain elements of video games that needs to be conveyed up front—genre, release date, regions of release, platform—which naturally sets up the easy trap of this opening. Your point is taken, and I'll try to keep that in mind the next time I write a video game lead.
    • "has several optional side quests, or minor objectives that the player can choose to complete or ignore"—is this an equative "or"? A "that is,"? And I can't tell whether is should be like this, with another comma: "has several optional side quests, i.e., minor objectives, that the player can choose to complete or ignore". Check.
      • Yes, it's intended to show equation. The extra comma is intentionally left out, as the addition would imply that not all side quests are optional. A required minor objective would never be called a side quest.
    • Trivial linking: why "composer"? Sure, "leitmotif" is a good link, but don't dilute it. Do we really need to link "North America", "Japan", "Europe" and "Australia"? Why not leave just the USEFUL links, or it's a mess of blue.
      • I took out a few—I don't think it was too bad overall, but definitely agree about the country links.
    • MOS breaches: footnote 20—"You must look for the five temples and awaken the five Sages… One Sage is waiting for the time of awakening in the Forest Temple. The Sage is a girl I am sure you know… Because of the evil power in the temple, she cannot hear the awakening call from the Sacred Realm…" Check MOS WRT three vs four dots, and the spacing requirements. The readers deserve to know which ones are real periods in the original. And it's unclear where this quote comes from. Does it appear in print in the actual game?
      • You might need to help me out a little with this. I know a lot MOS particulars, but haven't dealt with ellipses yet. Are you saying I should use periods instead of the ellipsis character? If something else is wrong with footnote 20, I don't know what it is. Yes, the quote is printed in the video game.
      • Update—regarding the use of three or four periods—I checked the game and it uses three sometimes and four sometimes. I can vouch for what is used in this article as of this post. All ellipses in the game quotations appear on-screen, are not used to indicate omitted text, and match the game in using three or four. Pagrashtak 21:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 28: ""Interview with Shigeru Miyamoto" (13 November 1998). Nintendo Power 114. Retrieved on 23 October 2007." I don't think the web site is properly named. And there are two people's names associated with the copyright of the site at the bottom. Can you clear this up? I think the refs need careful checking. Tony (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This was an interview that appeared in volume 114 of Nintendo Power magazine. The link is a convenience for those without access to the magazine. You'll notice the copyright says "© 1999-2005 A.Robinson/C.Johnson unless otherwise stated" (emphasis mine) and the top of the page identifies Nintendo Power as the source. Pagrashtak 14:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments. Good to see the NPOV stuff sorted above.

    • Say which year the iQue/VC releases were in (lead)
    • You should mention the time spent as young link in the lead, I think...dunno, the plot summary is pretty condensed there
    • "it is the best-selling" - past tense
    • The quote in ref 9 doesn't seem to mention what it's citing ("a control scheme that was considered revolutionary at the time but is now common among contemporary games")
      • Also, say why it was so revolutionary...
    • "(L Targeting in the GameCube version)." - I think you should just discuss the N64 stuff
    • "Link in Hyrule Field" - discus what else is seen in the image...heart meter, weapons, map, rupees, etc.
    • "to be followed by a 64DD expansion later" - "later" is not necessary
    • "a composer famous for his work on some of Nintendo's key titles" - needs source, and "some" is ambiguous...just say which ones
    • "It is cited as the "first contemporary nondance title to feature music-making as part of its gameplay"." - change "it" to "the game" and say who this quote is from

    Prose seems to improve in the latter part of the article. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done most of this. I'm not too keen about expanding the plot in the lead, I'd rather keep the in-universe part of it to a minimum and just provide the basics. As for "is the best-selling", it still is. If I say it was the best-selling game of 1998, it sounds like something surpassed it in December, which isn't the case. Pagrashtak 23:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. first point; that's fine. Second; yeah, you're right, m'bad. Support. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Issues resolved - Black Kite 19:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed some, but I have questions about the rest.
    • Clarification, really; as I said, a screenshot to show the look and feel of the game is unexceptionable (as long as it's discussed in the text) - I wondered if that was the best image we have to cover that use?
    • I don't know if we could get everyone to agree on the best shot, but it shows the context-sensitive actions described in the text.
    • Image:OcarinaMQCover.jpg isn't clear, at least to me. Master Quest used to have its own article, with that image as the box art in the infobox. ([83]) When it was merged into this article, the box art came with it. I have the suspicion that no one would bat an eye at it being used in the separate article, but it is an issue here. Did something change, or was it also not fair use in the separate article in your opinion?
    • Technically, it would fail NFCC even in a separate article, (though there appears to be some consensus that a single non-free image of the cover as the header shot for an article is acceptable - I would argue that, but whatever). However, in this context it's purely decorative - the cover itself isn't mentioned in the text, and it doesn't enhance the reader's knowledge of the actual subject WP:NFCC#8.
    • I hope you can understand my hesitation—it feels strange to remove it if I leave the boxart in the infobox, but I'll do so.
    • The problem here is that this article isn't about Link or Zelda, it's about the game, so if the purpose of the screenshot is merely to show what some characters look like (and if that issue isn't discussed in the text, which it isn't), then again it's decorative.
    • I think that oversimplifies the matter. Sure, the article isn't exclusively about the characters, but any good video game (or movie or book) article will cover the characters to some extent, as the plot section of the article does. I'm of the opinion that character artwork significantly helps the reader to understand the game in a way that text cannot. If I told you that this was the main character of a certain video game, and this was the main character of a second game, that would give you a feel for the design team's intent for those games in a way that words cannot.
    • In the interest of getting this FAC completed, I've moved the image to the character list. Pagrashtak 18:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For Image:GoldOoTn64Cart.jpg, I'm not going to push the point on #8, so I've removed it, but I don't see how it violates #1. If the licensing was incorrect and the image is free, it is not subject to NFCC. If the licensing is correct, then any replacement image would have to fall under the same license, so no free replacement is available.
    • It can be replaced by text. The licensing should be {{Non-free product cover}} , incidentally. Black Kite 23:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I'm used to #1 referring to other images. That makes more sense. By the way, it would help me if you could collapse or strike your resolved comments—this page is getting long and it will help me to not miss anything left open. Pagrashtak 23:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pagrashtak 23:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, much improved and concerns (mostly) addressed. Oppose, 1b and some misc prose and sourcing issues below.
      • Woefully lacking in production information. You tantalize by describing the large staff and stuntmen but then leave us hanging. To be comprehensive, the article really needs information on how the game was developed, why such a staff was required, the decision-making processes, etc.
      • Please take the Japanese characters out of the lead.
      • "... the game was instead released on the largest cartridge Nintendo had produced at the time." Do you mean its physical size or its data capacity?
      • I have to say I think a photo of the cartridge would add to the article since you mention it prominently in the lead, especially if it's freakishly large.
      • "Link travels through time and navigates several dungeons to awaken sages with the power to seal Ganondorf." Clarity needed.. I can't tell if the sages have the power or Link is using the power to awaken them.
      • "The game received wide critical acclaim and commercial success." Reword... things don't "receive" success.
      • "... it was praised for taking elements of the two-dimensional games and successfully translating them into the third dimension." The game did not do this, the programmers did.
      • "The control scheme introduced techniques such as context-sensitive actions and a targeting system called "Z-targeting" that became standard for adventure games." Maybe I missed it, but your source doesn't exactly back up this statement. I see "Set the standard for adventure games in 3D." but I don't see where they specify that the examples you mentioned in particular set the standard.
      • "Demand was so great that Electronics Boutique stopped pre-selling the title on November 3, 1998; IGN reported that some retail employees were unsure if Nintendo would be able to fulfill the initial demand." Hm. Implies that EB stopped pre-selling the game because of what "retail employees" thought, which is highly unlikely. Unless you have a source stating exactly why EB stopped pre-selling, better to just end the sentence after the date. --Laser brain (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've taken care of the easier ones, I'm looking into the others. As for the Japanese characters, your request (possibly) conflicts with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). As this is under discussion at the VG project, I'm leaving it for the time being but won't revert if someone else removes it. Regarding the image of the cartridge, I just removed one—you and Black Kite will have to fight it out. Pagrashtak 20:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've stricken the Japanese characters comment since this isn't really the place to debate it. I'm discussing the issue of the image of the cartridge with Black Kite; the image use policy states that a photograph of a 3-dimensional object creates a new copyright. I believe an image of the gold cartridge can be given a free license (by its photographer) and placed in the article. --Laser brain (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, it can't - it's a derivative work, and will always be non-free. Black Kite 18:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Laser brain, I've expanded the development section and removed the phrase that's not exactly supported by the ref. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Pagrashtak 06:37, 8 May 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 01:50, 7 May 2008.

    Johnson Creek (Willamette River) edit

    Self-nomination: I'm nominating this article for FA because I think it meets all the criteria. It is a Good Article that has been peer-reviewed and improved since then based on the reviewer's suggestions and those of other editors. Finetooth (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: External links seem okay. -- Naerii 03:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Johnson Creek is a tributary, about 25 miles (40 km) long, of the Willamette River in the Portland metropolitan area of the U.S. state of Oregon." seems a bit off to have "about 25 miles (40 km) long" in the middle of the sentence there. -- Naerii 03:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right. I've tweaked it to make it less awkward. Finetooth (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, well researched article. -- Naerii 18:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. A magnificently researched article about an overlooked creek in an urban area. Articles like this do a great service to Wikipedia, encouraging us all to become more familiar with our local environment. A few suggestions for improvement:
      • Can we find a more straightforward line through the first two paragraphs in the "course" section? I feel like we're going in circles, talking about the headwaters and then the mouth, and then the headwaters again and then the mouth again. I see the rationale for the current organization but I find it a barrier to reading.
      • There is conflicting information about the number of times the stream crosses the county line (8 or 5?).
      • Perhaps the information on the elevation of the headwaters and mouth is better left to the topography section. It seems repetitive to have it in two sections.
      • In general, the article could benefit from a slightly cleaner line through the prose. In long articles, there is always a balance between summary structure (where it may be necessary to repeat the same information in multiple sections) and narrative flow (as the reader progresses through the article from start to finish). Currently, I think the narrative flow suffers a bit.
    • Overall, however, this is fabulous work and deserves my strongest support. None of these issues should prevent FA status.Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the kind words and support. I have removed the stream elevation information from the Course section. It was indeed confusing because in one place I had used the elevation of the water, and in another place I had used the elevation of the high point of the surrounding highlands. I stuck with the highlands number because the edge of the watershed seems to me to be more knowable than the exact starting point of this particular stream. You are also right about the semi-illogical structure of the Course section. I will attempt a re-write later today and post a notice here when it is done. The re-write should also clear up the confusion about the eight county border crossings, five on the upper reaches and three near the mouth. When these things are done, I will consider how to improve the narrative flow. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reorganized the Course section to flow like the creek from top to bottom in a straight line with no circling. The material that was stuck onto the bottom of the earlier version has been blended with the main text, seamlessly I hope. I think the border crossings are now clear as well. I think you again for pointing these things out. I'm still working on the narrative flow. The question led me to seeing that the flood information was scattered here and there and would make more sense put together in the flood section. Finetooth (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the night, I realized that History had to come before Floods for the floods to be understood. Otherwise, a reader would be forced to read to the bottom of the article to understand the middle. I moved History up and then took the advice of User:EncMstr to tighten the lead. These two changes coupled with the moving of the separate flood paragraphs into the same section has improved the narrative flow considerably, I believe. I'm open to further suggestions, and I thank you for these. Finetooth (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the flow is much improved. Good work. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Checked and capped for Ealdgyth because she's traveling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments (forgive my typing, I'm on the road with an unfamiliar laptop keyboard)

    I'm on the road again, and the link checker tool doesn't like this hotel's ISP, I am getting a LOT of timeout errors, which I suspect are related to the hotel ISP. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Steve Johnson (author of the second site) has a PhD in urban studies and is an adjunct professor in the School of Urban Studies and Planning at Portland State University. resume. Quoting from WP:RS, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I would assume that to be the case for Mr. Johnson. The cited material does not seem to be particularly controversial, so in my view the self-published source from an academic is appropriate in this case. Northwesterner1 (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    works for me.
    Good catch on the lat-long. I replaced it with the USGS elevation number for Cottrell, which puts it 13 feet higher than before. Cottrell has moved up in the world. Finetooth (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And a further improvement. I was equating the elevation for Cottrell with the elevation for the stream source, but the source as defined by the USGS is merely near Cottrell. User:Ruhrfisch noticed this and suggested other methods. I have revised the elevation again to 745 feet citing the USGS and Google Earth, which I finally downloaded this evening. It is awesome. Thank you both. Finetooth (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I made a few minor edits, but otherwise it looks great. Wonderful work! VanTucky 02:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support In the interest of full disclosure, I was the good article reviewer and contributed to the peer review. This article has improved since and fully meets the FA criteria. Excellent job, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • support it's great; if you want, add some external links and a bibliography section. the wikilinks may be under the references.--Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 16:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your support and for the reminder about external links. We have added a short external links section. Finetooth (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ^_^ --Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 11:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I'm probably considered a "substantial contributor" (though nobody's put as much sweat into this as Finetooth, by far!) This article is highly detailed, well-referenced, well-organized. I would say we should put some more thought into how to best display the excellent course photo-map Northwesterner uploaded before the article gets to FA. I think it's best not to have the image load at full resolution by default, but because of its extreme width, any reasonable file size makes it appear tiny. I'll try to look later at what the manual of style says about wide images. I'd also like to give the most recent edition a closer read later, but am highly doubtful I'll find anything that would prevent an FA. Great work, Finetooth! -Pete (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your support, Pete. WP:MOS gives images size guidelines [here] but does not address the file size question. The current version is 300px high by 4,512px wide, and the file size is a hair over 1 megabyte, considerably reduced from yesterday's 3.44 MB. Northwesterner has posted a test page with five different file sizes here. I don't know if such a thing as a load-time tool exists on Wikipedia or if any load-time limits have been set or recommended. The map knocks my socks off, so I hope we can keep it in something like its present form. Any advice on these questions would be appreciated. Finetooth (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On my computer, the page loads first with the panorama template as a placeholder, and then the image loads. So the article is still readable while the image finishes loading. Definitely not ideal, but it doesn't cause too much havoc. Does the page load in the same way for other folks? (I have a separate concern about the wide image template: printing for offline use. Is the template coded to be ignored when articles are printed?) Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Load time tool, analyzes HTML and images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Sandy. I'm adding this to my tool kit. Finetooth (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please ask Elcobbola (talk · contribs) or Black Kite (talk · contribs) to clear the images; I don't speak images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have written to Elcobbola seeking advice. Finetooth (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not aware of policy/guidelines explicitly addressing image size as it relates to load time. WP:IUP sets forth a "rule of thumb" to upload high resolution images and then use the thumbnail parameter (perhaps implicit that the thumbnail is needed to mitigate load time) and WP:SIZE addresses being mindful of load time, but only in the context of prose (one assumes if expediting prose load time is important, image load time is also important). I have some (rudimentary) suggestions in my talk page response, but I haven't strong feelings one way or another. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have an idea, but since none of this seems like it'll interfere with FA, I'll put it on the talk page. -Pete (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much Elcobbola (talk · contribs) for responding here and for the suggestions on your talk page. We will move our debate to the article talk page and, I hope, return with a general agreement about how the map should be handled. Finetooth (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not asking about size or loadtime; I'm asking if the images are clear on Fair Use and NFCC et al. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Images (i.e. tagging and copyright) look fine. Image:Chinook.png has an odd way of going about it (hosting permission email image on de.wiki), but it's proof enough for me. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:02, 7 May 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 01:50, 7 May 2008.

    Getting It: The psychology of est edit

    Self-nomination. Stable WP:GA-rated article which has had a peer review, archived here (nothing much was brought up there, though it was listed at the psychology and books WikiProjects). I will do my best to address points/comments as they come up in this FAC discussion. Cirt (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Restart: old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I've looked through this article, and I'm impressed by the massive turn-around shown by Cirt. I can't find a single error; excellent work. :-) Qst (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I've thoroughly read this article and reviewed its content in detail with Cirt, and I'm confident it meets the FA standard. Great work! VanTucky 21:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I am going to repeat my previous comment and I will expand a bit: "I think it is a lowering of standards here to feature a book report, especially one so blandly written. We can do better." While Cirt seems to think I have it in for him and my comment on the prior nom was akin to "wikistalking and insulting me" (see this thread) that is not actually the fact and Cirt might want to note that I have not opposed his previous FAC nominations. Frankly, when it comes to featured status I do not think a bland and formulaic book report (same unimaginative template as previous work) cuts it. I have no problem with this being a Good Article and well done to Cirt on that. I do object to it being considered on a level approaching featured content. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • To satisfy my curiosity, if nothing else, can you explain which FA criteria apply your comment? I suppose "blandly written" could be a 1a objection, but you haven't supplied any actionable examples. Your opposition almost reads "I don't like the topic" which is not a valid objection. --Laser brain (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi. Do I have to know all the criteria by number to voice my opinion here? I think I described my objection well enough. But if you would like an example, the second paragraph is a good one for the sort of stilted prose I find not up to featured quality. I also mention the entirely dull and formulaic format of the article. Sorry, but I don't think that a "lack of errors" is sufficient criteria for featured status, that would be a GA requirement, IMO. Anyway, that is my $0.02. I would not be commenting on this at all except that the restart nullified my previous comment and I wanted it on record. That and Cirt's attempt at censoring me which I found highly objectionable. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, you don't have to know all the criteria by number. You do, however, have to provide "a specific rationale that can be addressed" per the instructions on this page. I'm not sure how someone who might be inclined to address your concerns can address "dull and formulaic". --Laser brain (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • < Off-FAC dispute moved to talk> Please keep comments here on-topic, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm neither supporting or opposing. I commented earlier when this article was previously up at FAC, and did a fair amount of copy-editing and working with Cirt to improve the article. Cirt has responded to these suggestions (and those of other people), and I think that the last FAC was very productive for the article.
    • The following comments from last time still, I think, apply to some extent:
      • I'd like to see more about the context of est and the debate about the methodology, about whether this is a cult, etc. This is obviously very important to understand this particular book's contribution.
      • Specifically, in the "Reception" section, est is described as part of the "New Age" movement. There should have been some discussion of that earlier.
      • There should be more on the impact (or otherwise) of the book.
    • I have a broader point: I'm sympathetic to Justallofthem's frustration that this is "a book report." But my feeling is that with a book like this, that may be the best you can do unless you go beyond the book itself.
    • I quite believe that Cirt has scoured the relevant literature for any direct reference to the book. If he's missed something, it's not much. What's required, however, is to place this book within a broader frame: here the entire debate over est, New Age-derived (self-)help movements, concern or panic about cults in the 1970s, and the like.
    • In general, for topics like this (because I have similar concerns about certain film articles that I"ve reviewed recently, too, for instance), I'm coming to think that the article has to go the extra mile to place the subject in some kind of historical, political, sociological (or whatever) context. This is, after all, what a properly academic take on a book such as this would look like.
    • I recognize, however, that this is arguably an idiosyncratic interpretation of criterion 1b, and that perhaps I should be taking my concerns there, rather than here. At worst, perhaps, what's at issue is notability, which I know should not be a consideration in these debates. But my feeling is that something can be done about the problem.
    • So while this is not an oppose, it is actionable. I do think that any moves in the direction of contextualizing the subject would make for significant improvement. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You pretty much summed up how I was feeling about it too - I couldn't have said it better myself. Sorry Cirt, I too am not opposing though. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response to Jbmurray's points

    I have, as you correctly assumed above, scoured many many many databases for archival sources about this book. What is present in this article is what I was able to come up with. During this ongoing FAC I have continued to search for additional sources, so far in vain. I have, as you noted above, responded to many of your points previously raised since before this FAC discussion was restarted. I do not feel that these remaining points are actionable, because it is not the point of this particular article to describe the history of New Age movements, est, the 1970s, etc. - that is the point of articles New Age, Erhard Seminars Training, and 1970s. To be expected to accomplish all of that here, within this article, beyond the brief background already given, is not, in my opinion, appropriate. Better to provide that context at those other articles. If more of that type of context were given in other secondary sources that already discuss and analyze this book itself, I could understand - but to go off and try to do that with other sources which have nothing to do with an analysis of this book itself doesn't seem appropriate. Cirt (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. Cirt addressed all my concerns in the last FAC where I went through the prose. I had a concern that the article may not have been researched thoroughly, but that concern has been assuaged. --Laser brain (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, again. I think the article is well-written, direct, and engaging. Makes me want to read the book, despite how creepy I think est is. --Moni3 (talk) 00:59, 7 May 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 18:17, 6 May 2008.

    Sertraline edit

    Self-nominator Paul Gene (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 21:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/sc_diglib/archColl/233.html Current ref 46 (Bernard J. Carroll) needs publisher information. Also, the title shouldn't be in all capitals.
    • Current ref 105 www.zoloft.com/ Zoloft Prescribing Information for the U.S. needs some formatting.
    • Current ref 111 "Hansen, (2001) "A Critical review of akathisia..." is lacking the journal title.
    • Current ref 126 (Levenson M. Hollan C. Antidepressants and Suicality in Adults) is a ppt file? Needs to state such in the ref as well as a publisher for the information?
    • Need to reformat all the refs with the title in all capitals.
    • Current ref 130 "CSM EXPERT WORKING GROUP" needs some formating, there is a non working link in there as well as too many capitals.
    • Current ref 150 (Food and Drug Aminsitration Division of Drug Marketing Advertising and Communications Zoloft Warning letter) Needs a publisher.
    All other links checked out okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed all the errors noted in the above comments. Paul Gene (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Excellent, well-written. Couple things though, (a) the lead sometimes strays into describing what the subject is not, rather than what it is and ends with side effects of another compound altogether; (b) it may be useful to put some "Mechanism of action" into the lead telling us, in plain/accessible language, what it does (inhibits serotonin reuptake how exactly), the article is dominated by its effects (anti-depressant + side effects) but there are a two sections of what it does; (c) structurally, I don't quite see the need for "Suicidality in adults" as a sub-sub-section, why not just a second paragraph for the sub-section "Suicidality"? --maclean 18:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    a)fixed. b)All is known about the mechanism of action of sertraline is that it inhibits serotonin reuptake by binding to serotonin transporter. Anything else is hypothesizing since the mechanisms of psychiatric disorders it treats are unknown. Such hypotheses are not specific to sertraline and are best addressed in general articles on SSRIs and antidepressants. c) fixed Paul Gene (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very minor starting comments
      • In the lead, do you think "There are indications..." could be changed to "There is evidence..." or "Evidence suggests..."?
      • As the only international trade name for a drug available in the U.S. appears to be "Lustral" in the lead, I've added a footnote stating "Medication trade names may differ between countries. In general, this article uses North American trade names." A similar note is used in Tourette syndrome, and I've considered recommending its use in drug articles; please revert if it's inaccurate. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed the lead to Evidence suggests... Paul Gene (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The new, longer lead is excellent, although I think mentioning its use in pregnancy is unnecessary. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure. It seems like a serious side effect, which may be of potential concern for the majority of sertraline users (women of childbearing age). It is also not mentioned in the prescribing information. Any other opinions - pro or contra? Paul Gene (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Thank you for your help. Paul Gene (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - sorry, something came up in RL and I have been off wikipedia. My one thing I wanted to fix before coming to FAC was to get a few more facts from outside the US to get into the article. I can do this in a couple of days if no-one else does. eg timing of licencing, rank in antidepressants etc. outside of US. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, please do it if you can. Thank you. Paul Gene (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I got some figures from 98 & 00-01, when it peaked in Oz. The note on being top seller in US needs to be in body of text too. Some other figures from UK and Europe'd be good. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added rankings for the UK, Canada and Australia. As for the other countries, I would like to point out that this is the English language Wikipedia. While the article should be comprehensive, there is no mandate to cover Europe and other countries. Unless notable, such information on approval dates and prescribing trends would amount to little more than useless trivia. Paul Gene (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did start pondering the same thing and agree. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This article seems like a great example of wikipedia's best work. One of the few minor things I noticed is that Sertraline#Controversy uses a few wordings that seem as though they could indicate bias, such as "To the FDA's credit...". I think it might also be useful to contrast the claims about Sertraline made in that section with, for example, evidence in support of Pfizer, so as to not make the entire section seem as though nobody supports Pfizer's claims about Zoloft's safety.CrazyChemGuy (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed "To the FDA's credit..." wording. Actually, there are no claims that Zoloft is unsafe in the Sertraline#Controversy part. There are only facts and quotations. An Australian guy took 250 mg of sertraline on the first day, instead of 50 mg the doctor prescribed him, had a psychosis and killed his wife. Of course, the court was correct, it would have not happened if he was not prescribed sertraline. But is it sertraline to blame, or Pfizer, or the guy himself? The reader should make his own conclusion. Paul Gene (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The history section lacks sufficient historical context. There is no explanation of why Pfizer was researching neurotransmitter uptake inhibitors. Around that time, there was a sea change in conceptions of depression (which was increasingly being considered in physiological terms rather than psychoanalytic), and the specifics of the physiological depression models influenced the choice of research at Pfizer, Eli Lilly and elsewhere; this is hinted at by the fact that it was originally being investigated not as a seratonin reuptake inhibitor but a norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. The history section should also address sertraline's changing place in the broader context of the antidepressant market, since the sertraline's market history is tied up with that of Prozac and other drugs. Also, something should be mentioned about the markets where sertraline is not approved, and why. Jonathan Metzl's Prozac on the Couch (which deals with Zoloft and other drugs as well) is a good starting point to fill some of the holes. I'll try to identify some other appropriate sources as well.--ragesoss (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A colleague of mine suggested David Healy's The Antidepressant Era as another source (probably better than Metzl's book) for putting sertraline into broader historical context. --ragesoss (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    a)This comment is unactionable. No explanation of why Pfizer was researching neurotransmitter uptake inhibitors exists in the literature, and Healy did not interview anybody from Pfizer for his books. Anything written about it would be just a speculation. b)Sertraline's market histories are very different in different countries for no easily identifiable reasons, so no lessons can be extracted from there. This was already discussed in my answers to Casliber comments when the article was a GA candidate. c)Similarly unactionable is the comment about the markets where sertraline is not approved. There are more than 190 countries, and researching even the upper 20% is an onerous burden. I have not encountered anything of notability regarding non-approval of Zoloft. And when referring to Prozac and other SSRI's and sufficient historical context please remember, this is not a book about SSRI's we are discussing, but an article about sertraline. Paul Gene (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize that this is a limited-scope article, and if there is nothing significant about why the drug was not more widely approved, that's fine. But I think the historical context of sertraline being developed during a period when medical ideas about depression and the proper treatment for it are swinging towards pharmaceuticals is key context for the history of sertraline. Just because Healy didn't interview anyone from Pfizer doesn't mean his analysis of the historical context of antidepressant development (including sertraline's) isn't significant or accurate. Asking for better historical context, when such context is discussed in available historical literature, is definitely an actionable suggestion.--ragesoss (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I submit that this comment is still unactionable. (a) First you say that you "realize that this is a limited scope article" but then you still demand "analysis of the historical context of antidepressant development". There is nothing specifically notable about sertraline as compared, for example, to citalopram development, so the general context is best addressed in general articles on SSRIs and antidepressants. (b) To say that sertraline was "developed during a period when ideas about depression and the proper treatment for it were swinging towards pharmaceuticals" is incorrect. The swing of ideas you refer to happened in 1960s and is related to a development of first neuroleptics and tricyclic antidepressants. Most of the work on sertraline has been done in the 80s, with several SSRIs on the market or in advanced stages of development, and it was by no means notable, just another me-too drug. Paul Gene (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Another key aspect of the history that is missing is the development of an industrial process for commercial-scale sertraline production. This is an important part of the history of most drugs, but for most drugs nothing has been written about that aspect of the history. Fortunately that's not the case with sertraline, which had particularly interesting problems to overcome since it used a strictly chemical synthesis to produce a chiral product : see George J. Quallich, "Development of the commercial process for Zoloft®/sertraline", Chirality, Volume 17, Issue S1 , Pages S120 - S126 (2004).--ragesoss (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is always a case that during the development of the process for a manufacture of a new drug, that the process chemists have to overcome some specific problems. Contrary to what you think ("for most drugs nothing has been written about that aspect"), the process development part is usually published in some specialist journal. There is nothing notable about it, you can find dozens of examples in every issue of Organic Process Research and Development journal. Sertraline was not the first chiral drug on the market, and including the industrial process would overburden the article with details, which are not of any interest to a general audience and beyond its comprehension, and even of no interest to specialists since as I mentioned above, there are multiple examples of a process development routine. Paul Gene (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I underestimate the general availability of publications on development (it's something that is beginning to see more attention from historians, at least, and is still underrepresented in that literature). But development process is definitely something that should be addressed in the article.--ragesoss (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure, for the reasons I listed above. Would anybody else, either professional or lay reader comment on this issue, please. Paul Gene (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    :::::: It is a great shame there is not a history section in the general SSRI article as yet, as that would be the place to have a seealso at the top of this page's history section. I am reading some stuff currently. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC) fixed.[reply]

    • Support Excellent article. Well-written, well-cited. I can't really find anything wrong with it. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - exactly what the doctor ordered :). Excellent tweak to just add that little bit of context and make it a top-quality article. Congrats. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. All I had to see were these tweaks the doctor ordered, and make sure they wouldn't make the article worse ;) I do think there's a bit too much emphasis on R v Hawkins in the "Controversy" section, but I can't fault the article anywhere else. The prose is clear, MOS appears to have been followed to the letter, high-quality sources were used throughout, and the article is as comprehensive as I could ever wish it to be... Excellent work. Now, to the Main Page! :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I hear you on the R v Hawkins case, however it was big news here in Oz and much discussed in psychiatric circles as well as popular news. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Unconditional with one nitpick. This sounds odd to me: Many of them subsequently dropped off from the study due to the side effects, possibly withdrawal syndrome, and worsening of the OCD symptoms. Is there a better way of saying dropped off from? And were they excluded by the research team or did they self-withdraw? GrahamColmTalk 16:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed wording to "dropped out of the study" as in the original. The reasons listed in the article: relapse, insufficient clinical response, not eligible to continue, adverse effects, protocol violation, withdrawal of consent, lost to follow up and others. So I opted not to specify them except the two major ones, on which the placebo (discontinuation) and sertraline (continuation) group differed.
    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 18:17, 6 May 2008.

    Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare edit

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because... it's a good game? I don't get why we need to give a reason, considering that if we nominated an article, then it'd already imply that we hope that the article will be promoted to FA status. Anyways, I've already asked User:Ealdgyth to take a look at the links, so that should be better than usual. One thing that may come up during this nomination is the length of the Plot section; in my opinion, it's as short as it can be without removing any important events, and it is still shorter than some FA video game Plot sections, including Final Fantasy XII. Cheers! Gary King (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Links work, sources look good. (Game Trailers is part of Spike TV, thus resolving the last issue from the PR). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose - This article is not comprehensive. The development section is not strong enough, by not really covering any of the development but covering marketing milestones instead. A good source of expansion would be Game Developer's March 2008 issue which features the Call of Duty 4 Post Mortem. Surely, the "Making Of" feature on the collector's edition would be of use here? There is no sales data (other than for the DLC), no breakdown on which formats were most popular, the popularity of the online game. You could also mention the piracy of the PC game,[84] the end credits song in the audio section,[85] and the aeroplane epilogue. - hahnchen 17:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      All issues have been addressed. Please recheck the article. Gary King (talk) Today, 4:17 pm (UTC-4)
      • Did it or did it not surpass Halo 3 in terms of sales? The lead suggests that it did not, yet contradicts that when it claims COD4 to be the top selling game of 2007. You also don't need that much sales detail in the lead. - hahnchen 10:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Clarified. CoD4 sold less copies for the Xbox 360 than Halo 3 did, but when adding up the units sold for every console that the game is available on, it surpasses total units sold for Halo 3. I've also shortened the sales part a bit in the lead. Gary King (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It has not been clarified. It was predicted to sell more than Halo 3, it has sold more than Halo 3, so why hasn't it fulfilled the prediction. The prediction does not refer to the 360 version exclusively. - hahnchen 17:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Fixed Gary King (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        My main concerns have been addressed. I've not had time to read through the whole article yet. The piracy bit doesn't really sit with the article, but again, that's your call. - hahnchen 16:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Despite Hahnchen's statement, I believe that the article is very good. I thought that the article would be a bunch of video game junkies coming together to create an unstable and confusing article, but instead, I got a mature and sophisticated one. Note: All of the links checked out OK. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 21:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. I like to think that every once in a while, gamers can put down the controller for a few seconds to contribute to the article :) Also, I am still addressing Hahnchen (talk · contribs)'s comments. This is also an FYI to everyone else, so please do not post the same criticism that has already been posted above. Cheers. Gary King (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Very informative, and unlike some game articles, the sections aren't unnecessarily long or surprisingly short. Just a bit more tweaking and it will be a great article. 24.6.160.190 (talk) 2008-04-27, last Sunday (3 days ago), 7:11 pm (UTC-4)
      • Umm...could you possibly expand on that in order for the editors of this article to actually achieve FA? What kind of tweaking would you prefer? --haha169 (talk) 2008-04-27, last Sunday (3 days ago), 7:45 pm (UTC-4)
    • Support great and vastly improved article (I remember the mess it was during the first GA nom) igordebraga ≠ 2008-04-28, last Monday (2 days ago), 01:11 am (UTC-4)
    • Comment This piece is under Graphics in the Development section: "Certain objects, such as cars and some buildings, are destructible. This makes distinguishing cover from concealment important, as the protection provided by objects such as wooden fences and thin walls do not completely protect players from harm as they do in other games released during the same time period. Bullet speed and stopping power are decreased after penetrating an object after calculating the thickness and surface type of the object." How is this covering graphics? It sounds like gameplay to me. What is currently ref 59 lists Official Xbox Magazine as a publisher, but that's not where the link goes. Either change the reference to the magazine (preferable, if you or someone else has access to it) or change the reference to make it clear that it's indirect. Pagrashtak Yesterday, 2:52 pm (UTC-4)
    Renamed section. Ref replaced. Gary King (talk) Yesterday, 3:23 pm (UTC-4)
    Regarding the replaced ref, I don't see the first quote in the source: 'Official Xbox Magazine called it a "multiplayer quality, quantity, and depth that rivals Halo's" and a "campaign that never lets up," with the only flaw being a few frustratingly tough areas on higher difficulties.' (ref 59) I just tried using the search function—didn't read the whole thing. Am I missing it? I didn't look for the second quote. Pagrashtak Yesterday, 3:45 pm (UTC-4)
    Fixing the quotes for OXM. They are certified by me now :p Gary King (talk) Yesterday, 3:48 pm (UTC-4)
    While IGN described the campaign as "still very linear" like that of its predecessors, "eschewing the concept of sandbox gameplay"—this doesn't come from IGN, it's from news.com.au. I'm starting to get worried about the sourcing of this article... Pagrashtak Yesterday, 3:56 pm (UTC-4)
    The top-right of the news.com.au article containing that quote says "Article from: IGN.com"; the original is here. Gary King (talk) Yesterday, 3:58 pm (UTC-4)
    Thanks, I missed that—very small text. So the article is correct when it says IGN, but is linking to the Goldstein review instead of the Ring review. Pagrashtak Yesterday, 4:08 pm (UTC-4)
    I corrected it after realizing the issue. Gary King (talk) Yesterday, 4:11 pm (UTC-4)
    Thanks for being so quick. Striking to make it clear it's resolved. Pagrashtak Yesterday, 4:14 pm (UTC-4)
    • Strong Oppose per serious WP:POV issues. You are telling me there were no complaints with the game? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) Yesterday, 5:47 pm (UTC-4)
      I've added some criticism to the Reception section. Gary King (talk) Yesterday, 6:13 pm (UTC-4)
      • You should probably explain in the lead why being predicted to sell better than Halo 3 was such a big screaming deal.
      • Lead should talk about development.
      • I feel like the Gameplay section does not give a good overview to people who have never played a CoD game before (in terms of its basic mechanics and such.)
      • "Zied Rieke was the lead designer for Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, and Michael Boon was the technical art director. The game had been in development for two years, with a team composed of a hundred people.[23] After completing development for Call of Duty 2, the Infinity Ward team decided to go in a different direction from the World War II environment of previous games in the series. They came up with two game concepts, which resulted in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and an unnamed game set to be released in the future.[23]" Development starts out ham-handed. Why should I care about this 'Zied Rieke'? Why does development start out like a credits section? It gets better by the second paragraph, but it's ungainly overall.
        Should be better now. Gary King (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) Today, 9:37 pm (UTC-4)

    • Comment: Why is this semi-protected? I see, what, four incidents of IP vandalism two days ago? --Laser brain (talk) Today, 11:30 am (UTC-4)
      The article's talk page is a more appropriate forum to bring this up. But to answer your question, the article has been semi-protected more than once in the past due to vandalism; when it is unprotected, vandalism continues immediately. Gary King (talk) Today, 11:49 am (UTC-4)
    • Comment The lead should summarize the article. BuddingJournalist Today, 7:13 pm (UTC-4)
      I've expanded the lead so that the first paragraph discusses the game's release, the second is the game's plot, and the third is the game's reception; this is the standard setup for game articles, I believe. Gary King (talk) Today, 7:28 pm (UTC-4)
    • Support after recent copyedit. Good work! --Laser brain (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose, mostly on 1a grounds but I also share David Fuchs' POV concern above. This is a long way off from being FA quality. A thorough copyedit is needed by an uninvolved editor, meaning someone outside the "club" of regular editors on this article. Attention is needed to simple grammar, comma usage, voice, unnecessarily wordy clauses, and other matters. Some examples (but by no means a complete list of problems):[reply]
      • Sweet. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many stylistic but ungrammatical commas throughout - please have an uninvolved editor check the whole article.
        • I've asked around for copyediting help from people I know, but they are all pretty busy with other copyediting requests at the moment. I will continue looking. Gary King (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many marathon, ungrammatical sentences that incorporate too many ideas. There are three just in the lead. Example: "The game has been in development for two years, and uses a proprietary game engine, and includes features that include true world-dynamic lightning, HDR lighting effects, dynamics shadows, and depth of field."
      • "Expansions" is jargon inappropriate for a general audience. Please wikilink.
      • It's not clear how a game is released on a certain date and then "available to play" on another date. You say it was released Nov 6&9, then pre-released on Steam on another date, and then available to play on another date. So the Steam buyers had to wait until Nov 12 to play the game while everyone else was already playing it? That doesn't make sense.
      • The lead is highly praising of the game... and that's a problem. Strong POV represented in the last paragraph.
      • "... managed to become the top-selling game ..." No, just became.
      • "The series' move to modern warfare introduces new weapons and technology to the Call of Duty franchise..." Do you mean the game's move? Or does your source reflect the whole series, implying other and future games, moving to modern warfare?
      • "A number of additional abilities are also present..." Why not "Players have additional abilities, such as..."
      • I don't think one "performs" a stance.
      • "The game emphasizes the use of cover..." How, precisely, does the game do this?
      • In the gameplay section, you begin using the term "player" to mean the character in the game. Those are not the same thing. The player is the person sitting at the game console or whatever, and I'm fairly certain they are never "within the blast radius of a live grenade".
        • Reworded a few of them for when character should be used Gary King (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "These characters' involvement in the plot occur simultaneously and overlap over the events in the game." Eep. Simple grammar, as I said above.
        • Reworded (not sure if it's correct? Let me know so I can remember and learn from it) Gary King (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The player is often accompanied by friendly troops, but they cannot issue orders." Who can't, the player (character) or the friendly troops?
      • "A series of computer laptops appear throughout the campaign, which contain enemy intelligence and can be collected to unlock game bonuses." Grammar.
      • "Each mode has an objective and require a unique strategy to complete the mission."
    And many more. --Laser brain (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressed a few. Will continue doing so. Gary King (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, thanks for the fixes Gary King (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Has been copyedited. Please check again. Gary King (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Having formerly been one of the main contributors to the article, I can see that the article as it is now exceeds by far whatever I could have made it into in terms of quality. Prose has been improved, the plot adequately trimmed, and the review section is nowhere near the shambles it was only a few weeks ago. I believe that the editors who have voiced the above concerns have left nothing out, and all of these concerns appear to have been adequately addressed by the nominator. Therefore, being unable to find any further issues myself, I give the article's nomination my full support. -- Comandante {Talk} 19:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks! That means a lot coming from a fellow editor of this article. Gary King (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, exact same circumstances as Comandante42. Also, I'd offer issue with David Fuch's oppose, the reason there is very little criticism included is because very little criticism exists. It's been hailed as one of the greatest games of all time, certainly one of the best on the console, and a "game of the year" candidate. There's simply not much criticism to include. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, nice to see support from another helpful editor to the article. Also, I agree that it was hard to find criticism for the game. Some exists, but a lot of what I found was from unreliable sources. Gary King (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not clear to me if Images have been checked: please ask Elcobbola (talk · contribs) or Black Kite (talk · contribs) to have a look and weigh in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have issues with the rationale for Image:Callofduty4mwfcov.jpg. The rationale states that it is used for critical commentary and discussion within the article, but I can't see any. -- Naerii 20:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated Gary King (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Image:Call Of Duty 4 MP Screenshot.jpg says it is of low resolution, but in fact it is of much higher resolution than necessary (compare to other fair use screenshots in the article). -- Naerii 20:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like the caption given to the image in the article either, come to that. -- Naerii 20:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Image shrunk, caption changed Gary King (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (mind you, I have worked on the text of this article to help gameplay, but not completely involved in the images, so this may make this comment moot):
      • Image:Call Of Duty 4 MP Screenshot.jpg
        • Would be better if it actually showed the flag being captured and one or two more player models; in fact, here's where if all the HUD can be included, it should be.
          • I'll do that if I get around to reinstalling CoD4, as I don't have it with me right now. Gary King (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not low resolution, needs to be scaled down to under 0.1 megapixels (no apparent reason to have high resolution) (fixed from (ec))
      • Image:Cod4 captain price.jpg
        • Save for showing Cpt Price, this scene is relatively non-notable (the engine shot below, however, shows him nicely, so this can be replaced). I would think that either the initial scene showing the person being dragged to be assassinated, or the bomb going off would be more appropriate to be included here (both being without the weapon model in the way). Alternatively, drop this one and use the image below (approaching the drifting tankers in the first mission during the middle of a storm is a nice dramatic shot) as it still introduces Cpt Price, and also shows the graphics at the same time.
      • Image:Cod4 game engine.jpg
        • Not low resolution, however this is a case where it can be justified that a higher resolution is necessary to showcase the lighting and weather effects. However, this needs to be stated in the fair use rationale.
          • Updated Gary King (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The image page still states "Low Resolution? yes" and "The image is web-resolution", which isn't the case. Somewhat of a side note, but it's also used in Personal computer game without rationale, and seems to be replaceable there. Pagrashtak 20:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can more be stated in the text on what modifications or other special features had to be done on the graphics engine? There's a line about it in the text, but that's all. If this cannot be justified more, and a different picture is used for the story, this should be dropped.
      • Image:Callofduty4mwfcov.jpg
        • (Nit) the FUR for this for the Call of Duty (series) is a copy/paste for this article, and technically is not being used for the exactly the same reason on the series page. Dunno if that is a FA dealbreaker or not but should be corrected. --MASEM 20:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-free images

    Black Kite 20:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit: I note after I edited, that my comments were echoed further up the page. Well, great minds think alike ;) Black Kite 20:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerns addressed Gary King (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Still waiting for image concerns to be struck or resolved here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, my concerns addressed, though I still think there could be a better image of the flag capture. It's not a deal-breaker, though. Black Kite 17:36, 6 May 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 18:17, 6 May 2008.

    Halo 3 Original Soundtrack edit

    My first album article, but I believe I've exhausted the reliable sources to use in making it as comprehensive as possible (plus it's longer than my last nom!) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - I'm now officially running away. A FA on a video game SOUNDTRACK??? What's next, Pokemon? (whimpers) On a serious note, be back later to check sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got to work on my evil laugh more with you. Scout's Honor that my next FAC won't have anything to do with a video game (actually, that's probably a lie, I want to promote Halo (series) soon... but perhaps the next one after some work?) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, Pikachu is a GA, while the games, Pokemon: Diamond and Pearl are FAs. On topic. That article seems good. Meets criteria, though I question why it is so short... --haha169 (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oopsies. I deleted the image then, although I think there is a similar one on Flickr which might have the right license, lemme check. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, i couldn't find one. I've removed the thumbox. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Schade, thanks ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, copyright holder of the image here. While I personally don't see Wikipedia as "commercial use", I've read the image policy and I understand that Wikipedia does not want to risk using "non-commercial" CC images. For this reason, I've changed the license on the original photo to allow commercial use. Feel free to include this image back into the article. bluejuh (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ugh, please put the tracklist in a collapsed table form, rather than stretching out over a ton of wasted space. (See any of the GA music of final fantasy articles for examples on how to do it.) --PresN (talk) 06:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 19:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Links all worked. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both Kotaku and Joystiq are well-known video game publications, have editors and staff writers (although often they serve as mirrors for content.)- listed as sources by WP:VG. UKMusic is being used for an interview. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly makes them RS though? 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. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of them are blogs, but well-notable ones with staff writers. Kotaku was mentioned by CNET[86] and other web-pubs such as Gizmodo[87] Joystiq has partnered with other publications including Engadget[88] and was recognized by Forbes as a "best of the web" site[89]. Haven't you been asking this of other VG FA's recently? Come on, mate, you got's to remember this stuff! ;) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been asking it, and no one's actually replied with reasons. Usually I get "The video game project says it's reliable". It's not that I'm not remembering, it's that no one is answering... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, sorry then :\ Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so what it boils down to is... Joystiq and Kotaku are blogs. Reasonably well known and respected blogs, but blogs. Are they at least written by the same people all the time or do the authors rotate around? If the same author does them all the time we might be able to work out something because the author is a respected video game journalist, etc. If the authors rotate though, it's going to be more difficult, and it would have to be justified on an author by author basis. I know some stuff about video games, but hey, I mainly play MMORPGS and strategy games, first person shooters are something I leave to the spouse. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say they are. Joystiq's Dan Dormer, for instance, writes for The Escapist,[90] while Kotaku's Mark Wilson has written for other publications such as Gizmodo.[91] --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do both of them write those respective blogs all the time or do they have other authors? It's still looking kinda borderline to me. Sorry to be a pain, but... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Escapist is a webmag, and he's written multiple items for them, but it's obviously not a full time gig. Both appear to be contributing authors to a variety of publications. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously I'm not making sense here. (it's early in the morning and I'm still on my first cup of caffeine, plus the whole HRC FAC mess warped my brain) What I am trying to ask is for Joystiq. Is Dormer the only person who writes for Joystiq? Likewise, for Kotaku, is Wilson the only one who writes for Kotaku? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No. There are multiple authors for each. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for being so paitent. Okay, so for these particular articles, they are probably reliable because the particular authors are reasonably well known in the gaming community and the facts don't need to meet BLP standards, correct? But we can't take this as a blanket "joystiq" or "kotaku" is reliable (yet). Does that work for you? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds fine. I'll point this out to the folks at WP:VG. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Another fine article from David Fuchs, I have read the article thoroughly and I think it meets the criteria. Surprising that this FAC has had so much attention but no support or opposition up to this point. James086Talk | Email 00:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - No criteria unaddressed, comprehensive, prose seems very good, readable, a free use image, seems ready for FA! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - excellent read. Manderiko (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments.

    • In the Professional reviews area; is scorenotes reputable?
    • "The score reached the Billboard 200" - billboard needs italics, 200 doesn't
    • "and broke the top twenty best-selling soundtracks and independent albums listings as well." - perhaps "and also broke..." instead of "as well"
    • The Background section uses "O'Donnell" LOTS and other stuff ("he..") very little...it's a bit hard to read...fix please
    • The music sample should probably use one of the templates we generally use for this sort of thing...see Diorama (album) for a random example of what to use
    • Reception section should go before track listing and personnel
    • "release in a Bungie podcast" - podcast has a capital P in the previous section...streamline
    • Can any of the commentary in the Reception section go in the infobox?

    dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved the sections, removed the scorenotes link (I didn't add that), fixed the grammar and podcast capitalization. The Background section uses O'Donnell lots because in many cases I can't change it up to 'he' without being ambigious; I changed it in one or two places. As for the music sample box; the templates are ugly and waste space. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Everything seems OK now. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:13, 6 May 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 18:17, 6 May 2008.

    Parallel computing edit

    previous FAC

    This is one of mine. I spent some time last year improving it, and I think it's up to FA status. I previously nominated it, and I believe all of the substantive suggestions have been addressed. Raul654 (talk) 07:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment, a very well written (and accessible) introduction to parallel computing. Sections such as the one covering GPGPUs seems a bit too choppy due to the one liner paragraphs, and could do with some editing to ensure better flow. Specialized hardware like Systolic arrays seem to have been left out. Also the hardwares described seems to focus a bit to much on von Neumann Machines; tackling parallelism from an Anti machine point of view seems to be absent. I am not exactly sure if they need to be in an introductory article, but does seem to be serious enough to hold back a support (I am open to discussion, though). But overall, is a very good article. Now we need one that tackles parallel/concurrent programming (from a programming language/compiler point of view). --soum talk 09:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article focuses on von Neumann Machines because more-or-less all modern computers are von Neumann Machines. Antimachines (that is, FPGAs and alike) are a relatively new area of parallel computing, covered in the "Reconfigurable computing with field-programmable gate arrays" section. This is appropriate weight given that they are rather small players in the field. Systolic arrays are mentioned briefly in the Flynn's taxonomy section, but I don't go into detail nobody ever figured out what they were useful for. Raul654 (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would have to agree with Raul here that the discussion of other computing architectures is given sufficient space. I had a similar objection at the first FAC, and I did some small additions to try to rephrase some parts from using von-Neumann specific terms to a more generic dependency discussion - perhaps that could be done a bit more in some parts (the "Instruction-level parallelism" section comes to mind) but in general I think the von Neumann focus is ok. henrik•talk 21:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose—Support: much improved! Tony (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)The writing needs a thorough cleanse. This article could scrub up very nicely, though. Here are random examples from the top that demonstrate the density of issues throughout.[reply]

    • "Parallel computing ... computing ... carried out ... Parallel computing ... carried out ... parallel ... Parallel computing" in the first two and a half lines. (That is, lotsa repetition, just where we want to engage readers.)
    • "bit-level parallelism, instruction level parallelism ... high performance computing"—we have to pipe to make up for the deficiencies in punctuation of many article titles. The first is properly hyphenated. His Grace has been on the warpath fixing dashes and hyphens in article titles, and good on him.
    • "getting good parallel program performance"—inelegant; what about "achieving good ..."?
    • MOS breach: hyphen used as an interrupter. Spaced en dash or unspaced em dash—take your pick, and needs to be applied consistently.
    • "Parallel computing on the other hand uses multiple processing elements ..."—Most readers would agree that two commas are required.
    • "... a problem. The problem ..." Tony (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All other links checked out okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fixed the Rabaey reference; the Hwang/Briggs reference was added by Henrik in this edit - you'll have to ask him for page numbers. I've removed nhse.org was an external link as there's no shortage of them; I consider webopedia reliable because to be frank, nothing I've seen on that site struck me as being incorrect. Raul654 (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've dropped a note on user talk:Henrik asking him to supply a page number. Raul654 (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I no longer have that book, but it is fairly general information which can easily be cited from a different source. I've done so. henrik•talk 21:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. I agree with Tony's comment about the article needing a thorough seeing to. There are way too many MoS glitches and prose problems as it stands. The article is also severely under-referenced, with too many sections being completely unreferenced.

    • "Traditionally, computer software has been written for serial computation". Traditionally? Which tradition is that? The article only discusses parallelism in digital computing; it ought to be made clear that analogue or quantum computing, for instance, are not covered.
        • Analog computing may or may not be parallel (depending on the design). Regardless, it went the way of the dinosaur over 40 years ago.
        • Quantum computing and DNA computing both might be parallel (at least theoretically) but much like cold fusion both of them are in their proto-infancy. Neither of them has ever produced a single useful result. (The most complicated quantum computing program I've heard of factors numbers up to 10). By "tradionally", I'm referring to the fact that 99% (or more) of source code out there is sequential. Raul654 (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Only one instruction may execute at a given time – after that instruction is finished, the next is executed." Seems to ignore pipelining, in which a processor will work on several instructions in parallel, although admittedly only executing one at a time.
      • First, it doesn't ignore pipelining - it talks about pipelining at length in the instruction parallelism section. Second, as you said, a pipelined processor only executes one instruction at a time (although it, by defintion, has several coming through the pipeline at a time). Raul654 (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fragment I quoted says "at a given time". What does a given time mean? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That word can be dropped and the sentence still means the same thing. Raul654 (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The total runtime of a program is proportional to the total number of instructions multiplied by the average time per instruction." Proportional to? Isn't it equal to? Total runtime? Total number of instructions?
    • "... advancements in computer architecture were done by doubling computer word size—the amount of information the processor can execute per cycle." Advancements? Were done? Increased word size increases the extent of available memory; it doesn't per se increase the amount of information that can be processed per cycle. What does "information" mean in this context anyway?
      • "advancements in computer architecture were done" - I suppose this could be rephrased. "Advancements in computer architecture were driven by doubling..."
      • Increased word size increases the extent of available memory; - true. Just one quick caveat here - increases in word size do not increase the amount of memory; they increase the amount of *addressable* memory. Raul654 (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • it doesn't per se increase the amount of information that can be processed per cycle. - very, very, very false. An 8-bit processor processes data in chunks (called "words" - see Word (computing)) of 8 bits; a 32-bit processor processes data in chunks of 32 bits. It can do 4 times as much computation in a cycle as an 8-bit processor can. Raul654 (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please don't try to patronise me. The number of bits assigned to the address of the data to be worked on does not of itself increase the amount of data that can can be worked on per cycle. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not patronizing you - you're completely and totally wrong. The word size is not just the number of bits used to address memory, it's also the size of the registers inside the processor. If you do "add R1, R2, R3" on an 8-bit processor, it adds two 8-bit registers and stores the value into a third 8-bit register; if you do it on a 32-bit processor, it adds two 32 bit registers and stores them into a 32 bit register -- 4 times as much work in a single cycle. Raul654 (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't believe that you fully understand what you're talking about. My view remains that this article should not be featured for both prose and technical reasons. Others may decide for themselves, but the article would have to improve dramatically before I'd consider supporting it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The article is correct as it stands. The "error" you have described is a result of your misconception that a word pertains only to the size of the address space. It does not. Raul654 (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    These are just some examples of what needs to be addressed in this article, there are very many more. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Following Tony's copyedit and Epbr123's MoS review, Tony1, Laser brain and GrahamColm are satisfied with the prose, and I can't detect any remaining MoS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • image:numa.jpg is a really bad image, with lines of different widths that aren't aligned and are overlapping the text, the acronym DSM is never mentioned in the caption or article (only somewhat distantly as "distributed shared memory"), and is inappropriately compressed as a JPEG to boot. It should be recreated as an SVG. The other PNGs in the article would benefit from being recreated as SVGs too, though they are decent-looking. — brighterorange (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: This important article needs further improvement before it is ready for FA status.
    Questions: What style guidelines is the proposer using for notes and referencing? We see pg and pgs as abbreviations for page and pages (with what warrant, from WP guidelines or elsewhere?). We see et al. sometimes in italics, sometimes lacking its full stop. We see quoted material surrounded by quote marks but also italicised – or just italicised. We see an opening double quote mark matched with a closing single quote mark. Some citations end with a full stop, while similar ones end without. Spaces are apparently inserted or omitted as if they were optional decorations, as in July 1998, 19(2):pgs 97–113(17). (What does the (17) mean, by the way?) I am surprised that I find no specific comment on formatting of references, above. I will oppose until some effort is made to fix it. I might help to fix it, once I see that the problem is taken seriously and worked on.
    –⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 23:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Noetica, can you pls point us to the guideline that deals with pgs vs pp. and the correct usage of et al? As I recall, when we last fought out et al at MOS, there was no conclusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading of the guidelines for page numbers (WP:CITATION and related MOSpages) turns up only inconsistencies and a failure to address the issue. There are examples with no abbreviation at all ("93–107"), with "p." or "pp." and a space ("pp. 93–107"), with "p." or "pp." but no space ("pp.93–107"). Editors also use "p" or "pp" with or without a space ("pp 93–107"; "pp93–107"), or "page" or "pages" ("pages 93–107"), or more rarely (and without support from style guides) "pg" or "pgs", with or without a space or a full stop ("pgs.93–107"; "pgs 93–107"; etc.).
    Myself I recommend only the first two of these styles. They are the only ones that major style guides advocate: ("93–107"; "pp. 93–107", preferably done with a hard space: "pp.&nbsp;93–107").
    In particular, here I have asked why "pg" has been used. No reputable style guide that I know of gives it express support, and most well-edited articles do not use it.
    But what loses me immediately is editors' inconsistency. In the present article we see this with "et al." (which almost all authorities want unitalicised and with a full stop). If an article comes before us here with three versions of the thing, I cannot think that the proposer is serious. In the present case, I have already shown that I am ready to help, once I can see that the proposer is paying attention.
    –⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 04:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I actually went in and did the cleanup you requested myself for Raul, since I have never encountered this kind of oppose before at FAC, and there are no guidelines. I did all I could; if you still see something, it should be minor enough that you might address it yourself. When there's no guideline, it's hard to know how to fix something, and even after all our discussion at MOS, I don't know how to use et al, because we came to no conclusion in those acrimonious MoS discussions. Hard to ask an editor to fix something that has no Wiki guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Raul654 (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Following Tony's copyedit and Epbr123's MoS review, Tony1, Laser brain and GrahamColm are satisfied with the prose, and I can't detect any remaining MoS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I found this article excessively detailed and technical, and I have a bachelor's in Computer Science from MIT. For example, my eyes glazed over at the explanation of the power consumption equation; I don't see why it is necessary to include this instead of simply noting that increasing frequency increases power consumption.
    I don't know if this is a consideration for FA's, so I will not vote. --Slashem (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It should surprise no one that the article is technical - it's a highly technical topic. The question is accessibility, and several reviewers have explicitly noted that it is accesible to laypeople (user:soum's comment above; user:Awadewit's comment during the previous FAC). Raul654 (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps you could answer my specific example. When you are done, I have more. --Slashem (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I give the equation and the conclusion drawn from it because it is more pedagogically sound than simply giving the conclusion. (It also happens to be a rather important equation for computer engineers - one of the few really important equations in computer engineering, actually). Raul654 (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Pedagogically sound?" I don't use Wikipedia as a textbook, not to mention this is hypertext. Your audience is not composed of computer engineers. --Slashem (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is pedagogically sound, meaning 'this is a good way of making the information comprehensible'. As for the audience, I'm aware they are not computer engineers. But as I have already said, several laypeople (like Awadewit, an english-lit major) have already said they found it accessible. Thus, I conclude that I am doing it correctly. Raul654 (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, you don't value my opinion, I won't give it to you again. --Slashem (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not that I don't value your opinion. However, the one specific suggestion you have given - that I should remove the equation (or at least that was the clear implication of your comments) - would in my opinion not be an improvement. Do you have any more specific suggestions? Raul654 (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently we have a philosophical disagreement, which may perhaps be best explored on the talk page. --Slashem (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See Relational database for an example of an article which describes a technical topic in an accessible way while leaving more detailed and technical aspects to other articles which can be linked to. --Slashem (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    BTW if you want me to shut up, you can just admit it's not a consideration for FA's, since this is the FAC page. You don't have to try to argue about the facts, the way Bush tried to deny Global Warming. --Slashem (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think this is a good article on a topic that needed coverage here. I've merged some or all of the choppy parastubs and gone through it leaving a few inline queries. Happy to cahnge to support when they're dealt with. Tony (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Replying to Tony's first inline citation:

    No program can run more quickly than the longest chain of dependent calculations (known as the [[critical path]]), <!--fix the next clause: doesn't make sense-->since the fact that the dependent calculations force an execution order. <!--And the next sentence ...-->Fortunately, most algorithms do not consist of a long chain of dependent calculations and little else; opportunities usually exist to execute independent calculations in parallel.

    Let's say you have something that looks like this:

    A = something
    B = f(A)
    C = f(B)
    D = f(C)
    E = f(D)

    You have to know A before you calculate B, calculate B before C, calculate C before D, etc. That is what the first sentence means. The second sentence says that in real life, this is not this is not a common situation. It's more common to see something like this:

    A = something
    B1 = f(A)
    B2 = f(A)
    C1 = f(B1)
    C2 = f(B1+A)
    C3 = f(B2)
    C4 = f(B1+B2)
    D1 = f(C1)
    D2 = f(C2+B2)
    D3 = f(C3+B2)
    D4 = f(C4+B2)
    E1 = f(D4)

    The first example consisted of one chain of dependent operations with nothing else to do - there was no opportunity for parallelism. Unlike the first example, which had a critical path (the longest chain of operations that must be executed one-after-another) and nothing else to do, this has a critical path (which I think is A->B1, B2->C4->D4->E1) and lots of other things to do. This will parallelize much better than the above. Any suggestions for how to rephrase the article to make this clearer? Raul654 (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the second clause raised by Tony merely has a piece of misplaced text that renders it confusing. It could be:
    • No program can run more quickly than the longest chain of dependent calculations (known as the critical path), since dependent calculations force an execution order. However, most algorithms do not consist of a long chain of dependent calculations; opportunities usually exist to execute independent calculations in parallel.
    or
    • No program can run more quickly than the longest chain of dependent calculations (known as the critical path), since calculations that depend upon prior calculations in the chain must be executed in order. However, most algorithms do not consist of only a long chain of dependent calculations; there are usually opportunities to execute independent calculations in parallel.
    Sorry, I'm not a good word nerd, Tony might improve. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I used Sandy's second paragraph from above. I also went over all the things Tony commented on - most were good, I tweaked one or two of them. I think I've addressed all of the above objections now. Raul654 (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, I do not believe there are any remaining unaddressed objections. Raul654 (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. Fulfills the FA criteria. Some comments, though: (a) "Only recently, with the advent of x86-64 architectures..." - for a topic that dates quickly (for those of us not in the know), could a more quantitative date/date-range be used? (b) I don't see anything from the "Hardware" section in the lead (c) "Automatic parallelization of a sequential program by a compiler is the "holy grail" of parallel computing." - It may be an obvious/shared feeling in the computing world, but here I think it best to cite/attribute such grand statements. maclean 19:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've fixed all of the above - added a date range for recently, hardware information to the lead, and a citation for the holy grail sentence and the one after it. Raul654 (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Ideally, the speed-up from parallelization should be linear—doubling the number of processing elements should halve the runtime". I added "for a fixed problem" to this, but I guess someone removed it. If you double the number of processing elements, and also double the work, you don't "ideally" expect half the runtime. A few Hardware sections look short and could be filled out with how each corresponds to a Type of parallelism. Quod? - (Dic nobis) 19:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • To respond to your first point - ideally, doubling the number of processors halves the runtime for any problem, be it of fixed size (like finding the first 100 prime numbers), or unfixed size (like a simulation with a variable resolution). The latter is referred to as "soft scaling". Increasing the amount of work to do obviously increases the runtime, for problems of both fixed and unfixed size. It is misleading to say "for a fixed problem size" when, in fact, linear optimal parallelization applies to problems of both fixed and unfixed sizes. (I'm the one who removed it) It would have been correct to say "for a problem of some given size" but I would assume people are smart enough to figure that one out.
      • As for your second suggestion, I don't follow -- generally, all of the types of parallel computers listed in the hardware section (multicore, multiprocessors, cluster, MPP, and grid) can and do implement all the types of parallelism listed in the article (bit, instruction, data, and task). Only the computers listed in the 'specialized hardware' section (GPUs, FPGAs, and Vector processors) are particularly associated with certain types of parallelism (specifically, they are all particularly good at bit and data parallelism). Raul654 (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think something ought to be said about problem size. Much of the parallel computing sector views additional processors as a way to do a larger problem, not so much a way to do a problem faster. Talking about runtime and Amdahl's law excludes the former. About the Hardware sections, they look short, and one suggestion for some additional content might be to mention types of applications typically found with SMP or MPP. Another suggestion would be to mention some of the network forms used in distributed computing and algorithm analysis (mesh, hypercube, and so forth). Quod? - (Dic nobis) 18:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've added "for some given problem size" to that section.
          • As for applications, you make a very good point. I've added an applications section, with a listing of the most common parallel computing problems (taken from the Berkeley paper).
          • Network forms are already discussed in the memory section. All of the network topologies you just mentioned are already explicitly mentioned in the article. Raul654 (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I missed the network forms. Content looks good. Quod? - (Dic nobis) 00:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, concerns addressed or not deal-breakers. --Laser brain (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Comments, very good article, almost there. The prose is excellent. I read this from a "general audience" point of view since I am not familiar with the subject matter, and I think it makes a very good reference. Wikilinks are present and appropriate for context and further understanding. A few minor issues:[reply]
      • "It has been used for many years, mainly in high-performance computing..." Can we make this active voice and say who has been using it? Universities, research labs, etc?
        • You're asking me to pidgeon-hole an entire industry and that simply cannot be done. The simplest answer is that everyone uses parallel computing in some form or another - every microprocessor since the 70s has had built-in bit-level parallelism and most every microprocessor since the 80s has had built-in instruction-level parallelism. Multicore-parallelism appears to be headed for the same level of ubiquity. On the flip-side, SMPs and distributed parallel systems (clusters, MPPs, grids) were for many years used in both academia (for research) and industry (to solve real-world problems), and I expect this trend to continue. Raul654 (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hyphen in lead should be a spaced en dash or unspaced em dash.
      • In the Dependences section, I think you need some verbal cue when you are transitioning from explanatory text to an example. It didn't flow well for me.
      • The code box that has the "pseudocode that computes the first few Fibonacci numbers" runs under Image:Superscalarpipeline.png for me - not a very clean look.
        • I'm assuming by "runs under" he means the picture thumbnail and the code box overlap somehow. I have been unable to reproduce this error - looks fine in both IE and Firefox up to and including 1024x768 resolution.
          • It's not that important. The code box basically appears to be determined to go all the way across the screen whether there's an image there or not. Text wraps around the image, but the image and the code box ignore each other when they cross paths. At least the code box goes under the image. --Laser brain (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "This is broadly analogous to the distance between basic computing nodes." Avoid beginning sentences with "this" in reference to a previous idea. Please restate the idea. "This classification system is..."
      • I think this topic could benefit from a "further reading" heading where you might list other prominent texts in the field that you may not have cited. --Laser brain (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. For such a broad subject, the spectrum of cited sources seems quite poor. The article should mirror the scholar literarture. -Dany —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.44.97.210 (talk) 10:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Patterson and Hennessy's textbooks, cited a number of times in the article, are considered the gold standard for computer engineering. Just read their ACM Queuecast introduction, which starts out by saying they probably don't need an introduction, since you've probably already heard of them. (Or don't take my word for it: - With co-Fellow Patterson, Hennessy co-wrote two engineering textbooks on leading edge computer architecture and design that have been used around the world. These texts have been updated four times and are considered the gold standard in this field. [92]) Raul654 (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I have made some (minor) suggestions, [93], but I won't lose any sleep if they are reverted. (I grew tired of reading a number of). It takes a lot of skill to write an accessible, encyclopedic article on computing; there are many neologisms to juggle with. This valiant effort has been successful. GrahamColmTalk 17:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – For starters, there's a lot of redundant text ("can almost always"). Secondly, there are several technical terms use that have no meaning to a first time reader unless he clicks on it. Try and provide some background context for terms such as "race condition" etc in the lead. The ToC looks bloated and untidy. Another point: When you talk about frequency scaling, it is mentioned that it was standard till 2004? What happened afterward? The current technology trend and limitation of frequency scaling could be mentioned. What would be ideal for this article is an animated image. Can this be arranged? 11:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nichalp (talk • contribs)
      • Try and provide some background context for terms such as "race condition" etc in the lead. - the lead is there to summarize the topic, not to provide background information on everything discussed therein. Background information goes in the "Background" section. If people want to know what race conditions are, they can read past the lead into the article, or click on the term (because it's linked).
        • Exactly my point. The lead should tell you about the article in short without expecting the user to navigate away from the page. Think of the parallel in a print encyclopedia:: Race condition (For more information, see Race condition on page 1024). It doesn't read right, and nor can you expect a user (especially a non technical user -- doesnt apply to me btw) to scroll down to check and see if the meaning of a race condition is covered or not. You need to provide some context so that the meaning can roughly be deduced. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The TOC is substantial, but I don't think it's overwhelming. Looking at the articles promoted to FA last week, the TOC in this article is on par with Degrassi: The Next Generation, Marjory Stoneman Douglas, and 2005 ACC Championship Game and others.
      • When you talk about frequency scaling, it is mentioned that it was standard till 2004? What happened afterward?
        • This is covered in the background section: Increasing processor power consumption led ultimately to Intel's May 2004 cancellation of its Tejas and Jayhawk processors, which is generally cited as the end of frequency scaling as the dominant computer architecture paradigm.[8] Moore's Law is the empirical observation that transistor density in a microprocessor doubles every 18 to 24 months. Despite power consumption issues, and repeated predictions of its end, Moore's law is still in effect. With the end of frequency scaling, these additional transistors (which are no longer used for frequency scaling) can be used to add extra hardware for parallel computing.
            • ) Wasn't exactly asking for the full answer, rather a brief mention of the context. I see it needs a copyedit for a better flow. I'll try and work out a draft tomorrow. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The current technology trend and limitation of frequency scaling could be mentioned. -- It is. See my response to your previous point.
      • "What would be ideal for this article is an animated image. Can this be arranged?" - an animated image of what? Raul654 (talk) 15:20, 4 May 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 18:19, 2 May 2008.

    Battle of Tassafaronga edit

    Respectfully nominate this article about a World War II Pacific War naval battle. The article passed an A-class review [94] with WP:MILHIST. Self-nomination. Cla68 (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lookin' good. I support the FA candidacy. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    All other links worked and checked out fine for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, CombinedFleet.com is administered by Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully, the authors of the book Shattered Sword, which was one of the primary sources used in Wikipedia's Battle of Midway article, which is featured. Also, they list the sources used for the information on their website here and here. Those two lists are very credible and authoritative, you may recognize some of the titles since I used some of the same books for this article. I added a full author's name and date to the two web citations. No publisher is listed that I could find on the website. Cla68 (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The publisher would be CombinedFleet.com then, I'd think. I'm leaving this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves on it. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Many of your paragraphs have only one citation. That could be very problematic. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cla acutally incorpoarted multiple books into one citation, so the paras are actually from multiple books. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Some editors like to place the citations throughout the text and some like to combine them at the end of the paragraph. I'm in the latter camp. The last 11 articles that I successfully nominated for FA were cited in the same manner by placing all of the citations in a single footnote at the end of each paragraph. Cla68 (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, that may cause some problems and I would question those FAC reviews for not having the citations split. At least have them with separate number pipings so that people can tell that there are multiple citations. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Our best writing will combine and collate several sources, without necessarily attributing each word to a specific source (one word may be supported by two sources, the next by a different two). So here. Please chill. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed the sourcing with both those images, but also replaced one of them with another that I thought was more dramatic. Cla68 (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment
      • open fire with guns. Is this redundant? (I auppoae handguns could be meant, but if so, please specify and explain.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • often mistakenly called Bull If you mean it was a play on his first name, say so; if you mean that the sources that call Halsey that are mistaken, provide sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I clarified, "with guns" to differentiate from opening fire with torpedoes. Nevertheless, I went ahead and removed the "with guns" from the sentence.
        • I removed the "Bull" footnote. Cla68 (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support My first reaction was "There's no references!" Then, I noticed how one reference tag marked an entire paragraph. Honestly, you guys did a good job; I could never flip through pages of a book and individually finding each page number, author, etc. The article itself is really nicely written as well. Good job! --haha169 (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I have one reservation: I am not really comfortable with combinedfleet.com being the only source for the very important statistic of the Japanese casualty number, especially as no source is cited there. Aside from that one issue, I think this is a great article. I gave it a quick copyedit, but changes were minimal; it's very well written and referenced. Maralia (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the edits to improve the article. I added more sources to the combinedfleet.com footnote [95]. Cla68 (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Thanks for the added sources on that statement - I noticed that the ja.wikipedia article only said that 33 survived, so I figured there was more to the story. Maralia (talk) 21:29, 1 May 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 18:19, 2 May 2008.

    Marjory Stoneman Douglas edit

    Douglas was the proverbial little old lady who wore a big hat, pearls, and told folks to go to hell. The simultaneous Grandmother of the Everglades and the Anti-Christ, depending on who was doing the describing, was a fascinating writer and environmental activist. I've had some recent input on it, I like the article and I love the subject. I'll hang around and do what needs to be done to get it featured. Thanks in advance for reading it! Self-nominator, major contributor. --Moni3 (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Thanks for writing it. Beautifully written article on a fascinating subject. I've never heard of her before, but what a grand women. Can't fault it; such professional writing. --GrahamColmTalk 21:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Very interesting article. Fascinating subject, and the style of writing is perfect! Good job! Perhaps the first nomination in a while that has a decent chance. --haha169 (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drive-by comment: I'm sorry to say that "Its impact is compared to that of Silent Spring." is completely lost on me. indopug (talk) 06:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lost because you thought Silent Spring was poop on toast, or lost because you have no idea what Silent Spring was? I can quantify Carson's book in the lead, but I can't justify its impact. --Moni3 (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    'cause I have no idea what Silent Spring is :) indopug (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I added a teeny bit of adjective in the lead, expanded an explanation in The Everglades: River of Grass section, and added a blockquote from ROG just because. --Moni3 (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Current ref 67 "City of Miami "Marjory Stoneman Douglas House" is lacking last access date. All other links checked out fine, sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooh! Fo' sho'! Done. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done! And the name is pronounced Ee-ald-gith. Or at least that's how my professor in college said it. See Ealdgyth Swan-neck. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Well-written, well-sourced, great organization and meticulous referencing style. A couple minor points:

    Overall, nice work on an interesting journalist and writer, an informative read. Cirt (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I split the sections in Awards. I added a fair-use rationale to the image of the book cover, but as usual, I have no idea what I'm doing with images. Any help with that would be appreciated. Thank you for your suggestions, Cirt. --Moni3 (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concern I'm not sure what normal guidelines are, but it concerns me that much of the information in the article is sourced to autobiographies. At least one proper (i.e. not juvenile non-fiction) biography appears to have been written about here (see http://books.google.com/books?id=S9ENcJKxXMoC). This seems like it would be preferable to sourcing to (clearly not independent of the subject) autobiographies. Mangostar (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Mangostar. I want you to know I take your concerns seriously. I don't like GoogleBooks, so I visited the Alachua County Public Library to view this book for myself. They have it shelved in Juvenile Nonfiction. It's 143 pages, and written on a middle-school level. I checked out the references used, and I don't know if you can view the references in GoogleBooks, but the author relies heavily on Douglas' autobiography. We actually used many of the same sources. I don't feel as if the author of this book in question has seen something I haven't, so I'm going to leave it out of the article. I appreciate your concern, and your push to make sure no stone is left unturned. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to earn your support. --Moni3 (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Somebody give Moni the nice nominator of the month award :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a reasonable explanation. Haven't read the article thoroughly so I can't comment more, but this doesn't bother me anymore. Mangostar (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Note: I gave this a copyedit and a reference formatting review prior to its nomination. Maralia (talk) 20:28, 28 April 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 18:19, 2 May 2008.

    2005 ACC Championship Game edit

    previous FAC (00:05, 28 March 2008)

    • This is a renomination of an article that failed about a month ago with 0 opposes and 0 supports. Since that time, it's been read four different times by different editors, and I've made the changes that those editors suggested. The suggestions and the changes that were made are on the article's talk page. Previous FA-class articles in this format include 2007 ACC Championship Game, 2008 Orange Bowl, and 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to leave a note here or on my talk page. Thank you for your time. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - Sources look good, links all worked. Great to see! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Issues resolved, Giants2008 (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - I really like most of this article, but some rough edges still need to be smoothed out. Here are minor problems I found in a partial run-through.

    • A couple of little things in the lead: "The game was the concluding contest of the regular season for both teams". I like "final" better than "concluding". Also, why is a failed onside kick worthy of mention in the lead? I think this is better: "...the Seminoles managed to run out the clock and secure a 27–22 victory."
    • Replaced.
    • Selection process: Last three words of first paragraph could be changed to ACC.
    • Replaced.
    • Virginia Tech: "Miami now had" don't think now is necessary.
    • Removed.
    • Florida State: I'd like to see a citation that says Miami was favored. A simple game recap should do it.
    • Added.
    • No. 19Florida. You can see this issue.
    • Fixed.
    • "...the first time they had earned three straight losses since 1983. Earned is normally used in a more positive fashion. Can you replace this with another term?
    • Replaced.
    • University of Virginia Cavaliers. Why is University of included for this team and no others?
    • Fixed.
    • Offensive matchups, Virginia Tech: Do we need Michael Vick linked in consecutive sections?
    • Fixed.
    • Fixed.
    • Offensive matchups, Florida State: Do we need receiver and running back linked here after being linked in the previous section?
    • Fixed. My main reason for overlinking is that someone with little familiarity with American football might find it more useful that way. I've removed the extraneous up-page links, but left a few more down in later sections.
    • In last sentence of section, write No. 10 out as number ten.
    • Replaced.

    I want to support this article, but would like to see these small problems addressed. More later. Giants2008 (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed those. Let me know what else I can take care of. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
    • Not keen on the parenthesised whole sentences such as "(Bowl games are not considered part of the regular season.) "
    • Incorporated into the sentence.
    • "No. 9 Miami " - no need to capitalise no., and it'd be better to expand this as something like "number nine ranked Miami"... if that's what you're getting at. I see you've used this kind of expression throughout - it's worth expanding for us non-experts, especially for featured material.
    • Replaced. This was actually addressed in a previous review; I'd had to choose between No. 9 or ninth-ranked, so I went to all ninth-ranked. Because numbers over 10 get numerals, I used 15th-ranked and ninth-ranked, where appropriate.
    • I haven't got to the section yet, but not sure what direct relevance the Marcus Vick dismissal has to this ACC Game article.
      • No, it's fine. He sounds like an idiot. Keep it in.
        • Ha! That made me laugh.
    • Is the attendance citeable?
    • It's cited in the first section of the game recap.
    • "...lost two ACC contests, (Virginia Tech's only ACC loss was to Miami) the Hokies..." another parenthetic nightmare for me to cope with...!
    • Well, not all parentheses are evil. :) I don't mind this one, myself, but if it really bugs you, do you have an alternative in mind?
    • It's not big deal but I think you can safely move [42] to next to [43] without too many complaints.
    • Done.
    • "threw two incompletions" any chance a slight dejargon - "threw two incomplete passes"?
      Fixed.
    • "...and had the end of the half stop another possession..." now I'm no expert but I am aware of NFL terminology to a degree. And I don't get this sentence at all!
    • Reworded. The end of the first half ended the possession.
    • In the caption "red zone" - what is that?
    • Wikilinked this example. It's also wikilinked in the "First quarter" section.
    • "...and Quarterback Marcus Vick was sacked..." is there a reason that Quarterback is capitalised?
    • Nope. Fixed.
    • "almost disastrous" a little POV...
    • Reworded.
    • "The penalties had no effect on the game" - well strictly not true. They had no effect on the final outcome....
    • This one made me laugh, too. Fixed.
    • "the Most Valuable Player award is not usually given to a player on the losing team." - sounds like WP:OR to me. Got a reference?
    • Hmmm... not really. I need to explain why Vick wouldn't be considered MVP, though. Any suggestions?
    • "...coupled with ..." + "...combined as..." - one too many!
    • Reworded.
    • Not sure the subheading in See also of "Other Conference Championship Games" is needed. It's pretty clear from the titles of the articles you're linking to what they are.
    • I'd like to think it's clear enough, but someone suggested adding that.

    That's it for the moment... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Made those fixes. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Provisional Support Great article overall.
    Issues resolved, Giants2008 (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a perfectionist, however. With that in mind, here are more comments/complaints for you

    • Single-digit numbers are supposed to be spelled out per WP:MOSNUM. I see these throughout rhe early part of the article.
    • Replaced when doing TRM's ranking fix.
    • Sneaky little things. Replaced. Let me know if you catch any more. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found one more, which I fixed myself. That should be it. Giants2008 (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Defensive matchups, Virginia Tech: There are two yards per game statistics in the first paragraph. Should these be given as exact figures with decimals?
    • I put down what the source gave me, IIRC. If it's decimals, I'd be happy to use those in the article if you think they're necessary.
    • You're right. I looked at the source and replaced them with decimals. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Ellis recorded defensive MVP honors for the top-ranked Hokies". I have a problem with this, since it implies that Virginia Tech was top-ranked, not their defense. I suggest "Ellis recorded defensive MVP honors for the Hokies' top-ranked unit, with (insert relevant stats here)".
    • Reworded.
    • Unlinked.
    • Third quarter: :... FSU did send in kicker Gary Cismesia for his second field goal of the day". Change to "field goal attempt" Try would work as well.
    • Added.
    • Fourth quarter, second paragraph: I'd like to see a link for pass interference. Again, we're trying to make this accessable for non-football fans, which you've done a great job of overall.
    • Linked.
    • "and it appeared to many fans that Virginia Tech still had a shot to make this a close game." Be careful with terms like many. Perhaps a slight re-wording is in order. I also think that shot is a bit informal. Chance is better.
    • Replaced.
    • "which stopped the clock when incomplete or were complete for a first down". Change "were complete" to "completed".
    • Changed.
    • Onside kick should be linked here.
    • Linked.
    • "A successful recovery would give the Hokies another chance at offense." I like "on offense" better.
    • Changed.
    • Of course teams can recover onside kicks inside 10 yards; they just can't keep the ball. Perhaps add legally?
    • Added.
    • Linked.

    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giants2008 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If there's anything else, let me know! JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved, GrahamColmTalk 08:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I made some comments before this FAC which have, on the whole, been addressed. They are on the article's Talk Page. There are still a few problems:

    • The second half of the second paragraph of the Lead (beginning Normally), is hard to understand. Can it be simplified?
    • Are all those three howevers in the Lead needed: Because the loss was to a Coastal Division team, however, it did not count against Florida State in the Atlantic Division standings. Close losses to North Carolina State and Clemson at the end of the season, however, almost eliminated the Seminoles from contention for a spot in the championship game. Losses by Clemson and the other Atlantic Division leaders, however, gave the Seminoles a second chance and set up an ACC Championship game between Florida State and Virginia Tech.
    • I still don't understand Although Virginia Tech made a late-game comeback, Florida State to ran out the clock and secured a 27–22 victory. Should it be too?
    • I've revamped the lede slightly to address all of your concerns. Let me know if it works for you now. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a nitpick, The punt allowed FSU to start at their own 46-yard line, - Why the own?
    • The field is 100 yards in length, and is divided into two 50-yard halves that join at the 50-yard line. "Own" signifies that the 46-yard line in question is in the Florida State defensive half. If I'd said Virginia Tech's 46-yard line, then it'd be FSU's offensive half. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's all for now. --GrahamColmTalk 15:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - A lot of hard work has gone into this article and it shows.--GrahamColmTalk 08:19, 2 May 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. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference science300 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/May_2008&oldid=215887259"