Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aggie Bonfire

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 04:55, 3 September 2007.

Aggie Bonfire edit

(self nom) This article has been worked upon by a team of Aggie editors and I believe has attained FA status. Please review and give us some support or feedback. Gig 'em! Co-nominated by — BQZip01 — talk and Karanacs 13:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have near total support (or at least all issued addressed) at this time. Is there anything else anyone would like to add/address? — BQZip01 — talk 19:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of critiques so far:

Support Comment Oppose ???
8 5 1 1*
* No apparent opinion; clarification requested

Concerns reasonably addressed (certifying completion is up to the reviewer)
Concerns not yet addressed

Support I was solicited to comment at this FAC, but as I have no specific background in the subject or significant prior history with the nominators I feel comfortable supporting this article for FA, with some non-contingent suggestions:

  • Although it began as a pile of trash, Aggie Bonfire quickly grew into an organized annual event. The first clause of this sentence, while quite poetic, leaves something to be desired. How does "a pile of trash" become "an organized annual event?" I would start with "The tradition began with a pile of trash..." or something.
Reworded. Karanacs 14:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, terms "Aggie Bonfire" and "Bonfire" are often used throughout article without definite article "the." While it's obvious the article is talking about "the Aggie Bonfire," the use of definite articles would make the language flow more naturally.
The name of the event is "Aggie Bonfire," although Aggies generally shorten that to just "Bonfire." As a proper noun, it doesn't need an article. Karanacs 14:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • During this time period, University of Texas students, unhappy with the premise behind Bonfire, tried multiple times to ignite the stack early. I would say "symbolism of" rather than "premise behind."
Fixed. Karanacs 14:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To ensure safety during Stack, the organizers maintained a perimeter around the working area, and allowed only safety-trained students through. While I understand "Stack" is a specific stage in building "the Stack," the process of building could be confused with the sum of the objects used. I would say, "To ensure safety during the 'Stack' period...."
changed
  • The Fightin' Texas Aggie Band began building the outhouse, ending the tradition of stealing Bonfire's components. I'm not registering to read the link. What, pray tell, is "the outhouse?"
In the previous section, it mentions that the final piece of Bonfire construction is placing an orange outhouse on the top of the stack, symbolizing at University of Texas (tu) "fraternity house." The outhouse was usually stolen from a neighboring farm. Karanacs 14:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although women were allowed to serve coffee and provide first aid in the late 1960s, in 1974 they were officially banned from both Cut and Stack. Why not Push? Perhaps a visual chart or diagram could better illustrate the building process than a wikilink.
A chart has been added to depict the stages of construction. Karanacs 14:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1996, a student died in a car accident on his way home from Cut. Another use of colloquial referent.
Colloquial, yes, but in this context, it is accurate and best for this article — BQZip01 — talk 20:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond that, I have no other issues. The article throughout seemed very precise with measures and such, and the remaining sections, I thought, handled the tragedy with great sensitivity and frankness. All in all, reading about all the ingenuity and organized teamwork that went into building the bonfire reminded me of some of the greater efforts involved in building the encyclopedia, except that Wikipedia is much safer and less strenuous, of course, and most of us aren't trying to light it on fire. Best Regards to All, Ameriquedialectics 08:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do our best not to give our detractors any ideas ("...most of us aren't trying to light it on fire."). Vandalism is bad enough... :-) — BQZip01 — talk 14:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (edit conflict) This is my first time examining a FA candidate, so I don't know if I'm experienced enough to give a straight up or down vote. In any case, I have the following concerns, forgive me if they're not entirely accurate:

As I said, I don't feel expierenced enough to give an up or down vote on an FAC, but I do feel that just about all of my conerns have been adressed, and have struck all comments I'm not worried about anymore. --YbborTalk 00:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This lack of capitalization is intended to be derogatory towards the school. For a long time they were the only public university in Texas. When A&M became a University, that overglorified junior college in Austin (just a joke people) began to refer to itself as The University of Texas, implying that A&M was not a real University. In contradiction to their claims, A&M began using the term t.u. as a derogatory term to emphasize the past where they were the only one, but they are not any longer. — BQZip01 — talk
I see. And what's the reason for reversing the order of eltterss? And is it appropriate to be using the dergatory abbreviation? (two of its three apearances are in quotes, the other is in unquoted, and references the outhouse. Maybe just spell it out Before the outhouse reference.)--YbborTalk 19:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I guess I could have made that more clear. "t.u." stands for "the university", all in lowercase to show the disdain for that "school" (if you can even call it that...it really isn't a rivalry as much as it is a psychotic hatred...) — BQZip01 — talk 20:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, from the t.u. disambiguation page: "the University of Texas is not the university of Texas, but just another Texas university."
  • "Known within the Aggie community simply as Bonfire, the annual fall event symbolized the students' "burning desire to beat the hell outta t.u."[1]" First of all the link to that reference is dead, and it looks like it shows up in a lot of other places as well. Second, I don't know anything about the Bonfire, but is it referred to as "Bonfire" or "the Bonfire"? Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me about grammar can say what's more appropriate.
It is referred to as both. Generally, "Bonfire" refers to the event itself, but can mean the entire process of building the structure. "the Bonfire" refers to the physical structure itself. — BQZip01 — talk
The link opens for me. I've added the DOI to that reference, however, which should help. As for the grammar, the event's name is "Aggie Bonfire," which is often shortened to "Bonfire." (Aggies are not very creative when it comes to naming events.) Because it is a proper name, it doesn't require the article. Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over the years the bonfire grew to an immense size, setting the world record in 1969." might help to be more specific. World record for height? weight? heat? attendees?
Height. Corrected. — BQZip01 — talk 20:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just who is an "Aggie"? Reading the articles on both colleges, it seems to be Texas A & M students, but you might want to make that explicitly clear.
I added an explanation that the A&M students are Aggies into the first sentence of the section Early years. Karanacs
  • "they constructed Bonfire from debris and pieces of wood that Aggies "found," including lumber intended for a dormitory that students appropriated in 1912." What specifically did they appropriate? The lumber or the dormitory?
rewrote this sentence to hopefully be more clear. Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the university made Bonfire a school-sanctioned event so that the administration would have more control." Perhaps it's nitpicking, but should you specify the college administration, and not, say, the Roosevelt administration?
clarified. Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 1960s, membership in the Corps of Cadets became voluntary for students at Texas A&M." - Surely a specific year is available here?
Added specific year
  • "Unfortunately, the stack they built that year was willingly dismantled for the first time in Aggie history." Unfortunately seems POV.
Removed POV. Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1969, the stack of logs set the world record at 111 feet (30 m) tall.[3][8]" Just to be clear, ref#3 says it was 111 feet, while ref#8 says 109 feet. There's a reason behind the use of 111, right?
That was an oversight. I changed it to 109' 10", since the first source said "nearly 111". Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite the new height restrictions, in the 1970s, the Guinness Book of Records listed the Aggie Bonfire as the largest Bonfire in the world.[3]" You've essentially already said this.
It set the record even after the height restrictions were in place (primarily because everyone ignored the height restrictions, but I didn't have a source for that). Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I mean it's redundant. this sentance adds no information from the sentance that says "In 1969, the stack of logs set the world record for the height of a bonfire at 109 ft, 10 in (30 m) tall." Except that it was recognized by Guinness, which I guess is significant, maybe you can combine the sentances. --YbborTalk 19:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The recognition seemed to be for the largest continual bonfire (annual events or otherwise). Kinda hard to put that into context without the actual book handy. — BQZip01 — talk 20:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "symbolizing a t.u. fraternity house" You've already explained "t.u." you don't need to wikilink it again.
IAW WP:MoS, "...[D]uplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article may well be appropriate...Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection. Thus, if an important technical term appears many times in a long article, but is only linked once at the very beginning of the article, it may actually be underlinked." (emphasis added by — BQZip01 — talk)
  • Link the first occurrence of "wedding cake", not the second. same with outhouse.
Done. Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To find their own place in the Bonfire hierarchy, students founded the all-female Bonfire Reload Crew to provide refreshments to those working at cut and stack.[13]" perhaps you should clarify to say "female students" instead of just "students." Although it may seem redundant, "female students" is the subject that found its own place in the "Bonfire Hierarchy."
You have a point there. Done. — BQZip01 — talk 20:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the 1994 Bonfire was burned, two tons of lime was spread on the Polo Fields in an effort to stabilize the ground. This layer hardened to a consistency similar to concrete.[6]" The cited source says nothing about 1994 and lime, two tons, or concrete. find a source for the statement or remove it. (As a minor aside, it'd be nice to have a note in the citation that that work is a PDF.)
Found the actual citation for this. Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Collapse section talks about rescue efforts. I'd be interested to know how many students were actually rescued if that information is available.
I was there minutes after it collapsed and people were injured and pulled from the wreckage in an ad hoc manner. No tallies were taken (Texas Task Force 1 could have pulled out 14 people, but before anyone else arrived there could have been many more that were rescued). In short, I don't think there is information regarding that specifically. Even if there were it would be a vague reference. One of the heroes was actually trapped in the stack himself and later died from injuries sustained in the collapse. Think we should add story? It is accurate and I knew Tim; we were in the same history class. I think the picture could easily fall under fair use. Your thoughts? — BQZip01 — talk 20:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forums aren't really reliable sources. Is there another source? --YbborTalk 12:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A different source was used. Karanacs 14:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forums may not be reliable sources, but they certainly can be. This one is and can be backed up. Same goes with the picture, which will forever be burned in my mind. Do you feel a paragraph about Tim Kerlee is appropriate here? — BQZip01 — talk 18:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Within hours, over 50 satellite trucks were broadcasting from the Texas A&M campus.[6]" The cited source says "approximately fifty." Don't assume it's "over" 50.
Fixed. Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A quickly organized official memorial service was held less than fifteen hours after the collapse."{{fact}}
The citation for that paragraph notes that the memorial was held at 7 pm on the day of the collapse (that's about 13 hours after the accident). Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, swing and a miss there. 7 P.M. minus approx 2:30 A.M. equals 16.5 hours. Changed accordingly. Darned higher math... — BQZip01 — talk 19:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what happens when I do math in my head! Thanks for catching that. Karanacs 20:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Aggie students, who normally sit only when the opposing band plays, stood throughout both performances and gave both standing ovations.[29]" The word "only" seems misplaced here since you are talking about standing, not sitting, if that makes sense.
I think I'm not the only one confused here. What exactly are you saying? Hopefully this will clarify your concern: The 12th Man stands the entire football game except when they sit down for the opposing band's performance. Clear enough? Do we need to rephrase this? If so, do you have any suggestions? — BQZip01 — talk 19:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that by introducing the word "only," you're implying that they sat at a time when the normally don't. I would suggest rephrasing this to either "Aggie students, who normally sit when the opposing band plays, stood throughout both performances and gave both standing ovations." or "Aggie students, who normally stand only when the Aggie band plays, stood throughout both the the home and away teams' performances and gave both standing ovations." My personel preference is with the former. --YbborTalk 19:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They stand at all other times of the game, so, yes, they sit only at halftime when the opposing band plays, but not during any other part of the game. Yes...those games that run into overtime get VERY tiring... — BQZip01 — talk 20:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, don't they have chairs in Texas? ;) In any case, I would still drop the word "only" to something like, "Aggie students, who normally sit when the opposing band plays, stood throughout both the home and away teams' performances and gave both standing ovations." --YbborTalk 12:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. They don't have chairs on the student side, only cheap aluminum benches that are scant inches above their concrete base. As for the word "only", removing it implies that they sit when the opposing band plays and doesn't show that this is the only time during the game that they stand (in this case, it means they stood for the entire game...4+ hours). — BQZip01 — talk 20:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The stadium was so quiet that a baby cry was the only noise made and it was heard across the crowd of more than 86,000." {{fact}}
I'm not sure how that sentence sneaked in there, but it has been removed. Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to revert those changes and bring in an additional reference. I was there and WOW was it amazing to have 86,000 people in absolute silence. — BQZip01 — talk 19:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
section re-added & referenced. — BQZip01 — talk 20:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The most moving tribute to the fallen students was left at the Systems Building..." most moving? sounds like POV
Rewrote those sentences to be less POV. Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many people further blamed the school for the accident, saying that, in the name of tradition, they turned a blind eye to an unsafe structure being constructed with very minimal engineering and safety protocols followed." "many people" seems like a Weasel Word, and there's no citation. Similar problems throughout the controversy section.
Citation added. The volume of people involved in the lawsuit substantiates "many". — BQZip01 — talk 21:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In one of the six lawsuits filed as a result of the tragedy, plaintiffs alleged that A&M officials violated the Bonfire victims' right of due process by placing those victims in a "state-created danger" by not ensuring Bonfire's structural integrity and by allowing unqualified students to work on the stack.[32]" The ref is a broken link, so can you tell me how those safety concerns have anything to do with due process?
That link is not broken -- it opened fine for me. The fact that people have to ask why it's a due process violation explains why the portion of the lawsuits targeting the university keep getting thrown out. Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, when I first oppened it it gave me a white screen with a error number, and text etc. must have been temporary. Works now. --YbborTalk 19:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Bonfire memorial section, what portion of the memorial is pictured?
Clarified that it is the Spirit Ring. Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, that's about all I can say good work :) Keep in mind that a couple of your references have dead links, and even more are subscription only. --YbborTalk 17:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to note that the subscription URLs are primarily for the Houston Chronicle. Since this is also a print newspaper, the urls are included solely for convenience if someone wanted to further read the article. Since it is a print newspaper, a URL is not required at all to be a valid citation. Karanacs 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well aware. Just pointing it out :) --YbborTalk 19:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more: on the table titled "Stages of Bonfire Construction" you might want to put the year that system started, since it seems like it was much more ad-hoc before. --YbborTalk 19:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done — BQZip01 — talk 21:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I apologize if I reiterate something someone else said, as I haven't read anyone else's comments. Or, if the page has been corrected while I was reading. This is only a couple things I found, as I haven't had a chance to sit down and read everything word-for-word. From what I've read, you probably need a third party to come in and copyedit the article. It can be choppy at times, but there is a lot of repititious sentence structure. Anyway:

  • Don't need "However" in the lead sentence "However, in 1999"
Done — BQZip01 — talk 21:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many "ands" in the next sentence. It should read: "...killing eleven stundents, one former student, and..."
Disagree. "killing" applies to both "students" and "former student" making it a compound noun. As such, this is not a list and the second "and" is appropriate. — BQZip01 — talk 20:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did they kill the former student? You could say, "leading to the deaths of twelve people, eleven students and one former student, and the injury of ..."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
something like that done. Adequate? — BQZip01 — talk 21:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Early years" section
  • drop "first" in the first sentence. It becomes redundant when you are using dates, especially when the next sentence starts with that.
Disagree. The first "first" refers to the absolute first recorded bonfire in relation to the school. The second marks the first time it was on campus. Are you suggesting using a similar, but different, word? — BQZip01 — talk 20:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's unnecessary. The entire sentence can be rewritten to a more simplistic: "To congratulate the football team on a recent win, the cadets of ..... decided to build a bonfire on November 18..." Saying "first decided" makes it sound like they decided on November 18, but had the bonfire on a different day. When, according to your source, the bonfire was held on the morning of November 18.
Point taken. Rephrased. — BQZip01 — talk 21:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Six year later" should have a comma after it.
done — BQZip01 — talk 20:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • are you quoting "found" or emphasizing "found". If it's more for emphasis, then the comma goes after the quote mark.
clarification made — BQZip01 — talk 20:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After an angry farmer reported in 1935 that the Corps of Cadets had" -- Better written as: In 1935, a farmer reported that the Corps or Cadets had..., which caused the university to take control of the Bonfire and make it a school-sanctioned event". Then, I begin the next sentence with: "The following year, the school provided...." so as not to have the constant "In ..."
done — BQZip01 — talk 20:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Bonfire" the name of the event, or the actual constructed piece? It's sometimes used in sentences as an identifier for the event, and sometimes as the piece itself. It seems like you should have lowercase for the actual object being built. I don't know how they use it though, it just seems weird. The Corps handbook has a lowercase, where it is obviously talking about the event, because there is not definite article preceding "bonfire".
Addressed above. Should we add that to the lede? — BQZip01 — talk 20:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be clarified somewhere, I didn't notice a clarification of what is the event and what is the object, and why the two share capital letters.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed in the 3rd sentence of the lede — BQZip01 — talk 21:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it says the event is known simply as Bonfire, not that the structure is called "Bonfire" also. My point is that if the structure itself is called "Bonfire" and not "the bonfire" (one is being used as a pronoun while the other is as a simple noun), then that needs to be clarified. If they call both the object they build, and the event that takes place, "Bonfire" (with a capital "B") then both need clarification. Right now, the lead only explains that the event, known as Aggie's Bonfire to everyone else, is simply known as Bonfire to them. If that isn't what it is trying to say, then maybe it just needs rewording to get the actual point across.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from the 3rd sentence, "Known within the Aggie community simply as Bonfire, the construction and annual fall event..." covers both. How is this not clear? — BQZip01 — talk 21:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the title of "Organization change". It seems to cover the first two paragraphs only, and everything is just more history about the bonfire.
This addresses both the organization of the school and the stacking process — BQZip01 — talk 21:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The stacking process of the bonfire? Those are two different topics. You spend two paragraphs about the two divisions building the bonfire, and the rest on the actual buiding..but you name it "Organization change". Your title shouldn't be about the smallest portion of your information. It's part history and part design information. You could put the "stacking process" with the design change information and retitle it accordingly.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The two are inextricably linked. As the manpower available increased, so did the size and the design. Can you suggest a title that would more adequately cover both. How about "Expansion and Change"? or something like it. — BQZip01 — talk 21:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they are so linked then there should be more mention. It's like you mention these two groups, but then just go into basic bonfire designs. There's no more mention of what these two groups did together, or separately. There was an "organizers" mentioned once in that whole section. Then "Design changes" is really connected to everything about the design that was mentioned in the previous section. The last date you mention in the one section is "1970s" and the first in the next is 1978, so it wasn't like the organization section was covering the entire history. This information really needs to be together in some way. I would just call the whole thing "Building the fire", and you can talk about how the two organizations go together, how they started constructing the bonfire, and then how they decided to redesign the structure in the late 70s,  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've rearranged the two sections so that the construction process goes with design change. While the construction process began to change when the organizational structure did, part of the description in the article is specific to the new wedding-cake design, and so belongs in the Design Change section. Karanacs 14:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph about a the bonfire being "more elaborate" seems to fit more in the next section, title "design changes".
I'm leaving this paragraphi n the Organizational change and expansion section. The structure became more elaborate under its previous design. The new design came later. Karanacs 14:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the "new design" is not a completely distinct topic. Whether it's a new design or an old design, it's still part of the building of the bonfire, and thus connected to the section above. You generally don't have information so connected separated by a full section header. I would retitle the whole section, then when you start talking about actual building process, I would turn that information into a subheading (maybe Building the bonefire), and then move the "design changes" into that section as a subheading as well. They are too connected to be separated by a full section heading. Sections are made when you are going into a new topic. This is still the same topic, just a different aspect of that topic. Unless you only have 1 subsection (which usually should not be done), but you don't because the buidling of the bonfire can be its own subsection, as well as the design changes can become a subsection. The bit about the two organizations is a good lead into those subsections.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm understanding your concern. The change to the wedding-cake design is a pivotal point in Bonfire history because it inspired a huge change in (and expansion of) the work schedule (which is detailed in that section) and was a direct cause of the eventual collapse. Giving the change its own section emphasizes its importance. The way I see the article: section 1 (early years/1900s-1950s) describes the origins of the tradition, section 2 (org change/1960s), describes the initial catalysts for change (new leadership structure, new pool of workers, university restrictions), section 3 (Design change/1970s) marks the beginning of the modern Bonfire, section 4 (controversy/1980s), details the first organized protests of the event, section 5 (later years/1990s) gives information about the event's popularity, and the last sections deal with the collapse and demise of the tradition. I don't mind renaming "Organizational change and expansion" to something else (I just haven't thought of what that should be). Does anyone else have an opinion? Karanacs 14:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that being a section in its own right should not be. It's part of the construction. It's all design, whether it's the original way, or the new way that caused a collapse. It's part of the same topic, thus it should not be separated like it is a different subject. It should be a subsection. The new subject would be the collapse because of the new design, which is already a section. You are separating the design changes because they led to the collapse, when they are still part of the same initial topic of constructuion. You cannot say "this is the 70s" since you have two sections that have events taking place in the 70s. So, the sections are obviously not broken into clear decade events.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this sounds an awful lot like an opinion ("I think it would be better this way") and not a technical problem/writing error ("XXX violates the MoS" or "Quotes generally follow a heading of this magnitude"). Those in the Aggie community desire to present it in this manner (the university and those affiliated with it), and we (the editors) believe it best emphasizes the process. Personally, I view this as the best way to present this information. The two are inextricably linked. The changes in the university led to changes in the design/build. Without this context, the changes just seem to be random. I think this just might be one of those times we agree to disagree, but I do not believe this should hold up the nomination. Fair enough? — BQZip01 — talk 02:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you're condeming my suggestion because I'm not part of the Aggie community? How unbiased of you. I didn't realize one had to be part of that community to provide stylistic improvements. I'll take my opinions and go then, and I've already stated that you need to find someone not connected to this article at all to come in an copyedit it. It's very choppy. There's a transition problem between statements, it almost reads like everything was in bullet form and you just removed the bullets. I'd try the League of Copyeditors. That being said, good luck on this FAC. The article is not bad, it just needs polishing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I've stated my concerns re: the use of definite articles, it seems legit per this piece referenced by the article: [1] Beyond that, the casual references to various stages in the building process did seem confusing to me initially, but the visual chart makes these much more interpretable, and I haven't seen other obvious grammatical irregularities. While the section structure does shift in time frame and topic occasionally, I think this is mainly to provide some context to the main subject, rather than present a strictly chronological narrative. I think the current section structure may be as good as it can be given the material. That being said, I agree with Ybbor re: the dimunitive references to UT using "t.u." in non-quoted plain prose, which I did not notice previously. You guys who have gotten articles to FA before know Wikipedia is for everyone, and not a place for extending campus rivalries and conflicts. We are all Wikipedians first, and I can't see how anyone would have expected to get this article through FA with biased references to their main rivals in it. As I would have had to object to this article making FA had they remained, I just removed them per WP:NPOV & WP:NOT. The quoted references I left. As the article is, my support still stands. Regards to all, Ameriquedialectics 08:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you removed the part explaining that A&M students refer to the University of Texas at Austin as "t.u." but didn't remove it from the quotes, I think it can cause confusion. When someone not familiar with Aggie tradition reads, "the burning desire to beat the hell out of t.u." isn't he (or she) going to wonder who "t.u." is? My vote is to either put back what you removed or take out the other two mentions of "t.u." →Wordbuilder 13:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(for those reading this through top to bottom, Bignole Amerique took out two of the three references but left the quote alone)
Bignole, no one is condemning your opinions because you aren't part of some group. The statement I made, "Those in the Aggie community desire to present it in this manner..." is in reference to how Texas A&M chooses to represent itself publicly, not how people from a certain Wikiproject chose to portray it. This article is intended to educate the English-speaking world on something that is, by definition, part of a subset of Americana. The terminology used within the community is important to understand so that the emotions between the schools are conveyed as part of the article. If you are unfamiliar with Texas A&M, you may not know that the Aggie terminology used here is extremely tame and all of the terms are appropriately spelled out and defined. I reverted your changes for two reasons:
  1. The first instance introduces the term and gives a fame of reference for the quote IAW WP:Lede: "Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked." (emphasis added)
  2. The second instance you removed expands upon the statements in the lede IAW WP:Lede: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article..."
This event and the associated terminology is part of the rivalry and is used appropriately with respect to terms that are used, but also not used gratuitously. I believe your job as a reviewer is to make suggestions for corrections, not to actively make them yourself when the submitters and others disagree with your assertions. We could have easily used "t.u." in every reference to that school, but actively chose not to because that would be gratuitous. In the order they are used, the instances used:
  1. provides a definition for the term t.u. (see above)
  2. is in a direct quote that states the purpose behind the subject of the article.
  3. and is appropriately used to describe another part of the subject of the article. (see above)
In order to make the last usage more palletable, I have provided an additional reference to show that the term is used appropriately (the link is from the OPPOSING SCHOOL's website). That it is a derogatory reference is immaterial. In the instances used, it is appropriate. — BQZip01 — talk 15:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(restore indent) For the record, I removed the terms, not BigNole. To quote WP:NPOV#A simple formulation:
  • Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.
And WP:NOT#DICTIONARY:
  • ...Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. We are not teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep, or a British gent. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.
As the article is about the bonfire, the history of building it and tragedies associated with that, I don't think the use of slang terms to refer to A&M's main rival in ordinary prose is appropriate. I am willing to allow for explanations of such terms when and where they pop up in quoted material, which may be considered allowable in cases like this:
Aggie Bonfire was a long-standing tradition at Texas A&M University as part of a college rivalry with the University of Texas at Austin, known as t.u. by Texas A&M students. For ninety years, Texas A&M students built and burned a large bonfire on campus each fall. Known within the Aggie community simply as Bonfire, the construction and annual fall event symbolized the students' "burning desire to beat the hell outta t.u."
but not in cases like this:
Once the stack was finished, an orange outhouse, symbolizing a t.u. fraternity house, was painted with derogatory statements about rival University of Texas at Austin and then placed on top of the stack.
Which suggests "t.u." is not a derogatory term in itself. All the references provided in support of this term make it clear that its use is considered vulgar or derogatory by all parties.
While I don't want to oppose over this issue, I'll have to at least rescind my support if this matter isn't satisfactorily rectified over the weekend. Best regards to all, Ameriquedialectics 19:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be contradicting some of your own guidance
  • "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used."
  • "I am willing to allow for explanations of such terms when and where they pop up in quoted material, which may be considered allowable in cases like this"
To quote specifically from the cited article:
It’s the longtime rivalry that prompted the annual Aggie bonfire (which was discontinued after it collapsed in 1999, killing 11 students and one former student). The 55-foot-tall bonfire, started in 1909, symbolized “the burning desire of Aggies to beat the University of Texas in the annual football game.”
“At the very top of the bonfire we perched an outhouse painted orange with ‘t.u. frat house’ written across to represent UT,” explains Ross Epstein, president of the Capital City A&M Club in Austin.
I have rewritten the article to have a quote instead of paraphrasing this section of this article, but that shouldn't be the standard for inclusion in the article. Verifiability is the standard, not positive/negative/neutral word choice. As a direct quote, I assume your concerns have been addressed?
In addition, we are effectively burning something in effigy. Now addressed as a quote, it would be similar to someone quoting a terrorist burning an image of President Bush and saying, "the terrorists fashioned a stick figure to symbolize the evil tyrant" This is a gross exaggeration, but I hope it helps make my point and I hope you can keep the support. — BQZip01 — talk 21:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying to work with me on this. While you have satisfied my concerns so far as policy goes, there is a subtle but distinct difference between quoting potentially offensive material that someone else said or wrote, and seeming to express or produce such material "yourself" as an author of plain prose. I would rather not have any references to the "t.u." signifier at all, but as the material does seem to require it, the plain text references should be in explanation of its reproduction in quotes, not an apparent extension of "the goal" or ideological purpose of the bonfire in an NPOV encyclopedia. I didn't write the WP:NPOV and WP:NOT policies, but they are there, I merely tried to bring consensus here in accordance with them, to the extent the material itself can be brought into accordance, that is. Ameriquedialectics 21:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then we agree! Thanks for working with us on this. — BQZip01 — talk 22:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does--"In the late 1970s, a College Station police officer was fired after trying to ignite Bonfire several days ahead of schedule. Students spotted the officer and chased him across campus before he could succeed in his mission.[3]"-- have to do with the design change? Did his actions force them to rethink their designs? It should explain that better.
moved it to another place — BQZip01 — talk 21:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "another student lost two of his fingers at cut when logs crushed his hand." -- "at cut". I guess that means "at cut site". It isn't necessary, you've identified where they are already.
"Cut" is an event like "Bonfire" is. They are both proper nouns. — BQZip01 — talk 20:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If "Cut" is an event, like I assume then it's best to just remove it altogether. You've already mentioned the event already, when you were discussing where the accidents were happening, and reading it so soon just comes off awkward, especially since it's lowercase. It just reads better without it, and the meaning isn't lost.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — BQZip01 — talk 21:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 1980s also saw" -- "also" is unnecessary.
Disagree the entire previous paragraph is about the 80s. This paragraph is in addition to those problems. — BQZip01 — talk 21:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one week before its scheduled burn date before anyone was injured" -- how about simply: "...schedule burn date to prevent injury".
Done — BQZip01 — talk 21:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was also approached for a review of this article in preparation for a Featured Article status. I do not have a specific background on the topic nor do I have any connection with the article as a previous editor. Based on a cursory read of the article, the following main points should be considered:

Length
the amount of detail at 44 kilobytes is sufficient for an encyclopedic article and adding or expanding the article will lead to a call to create separate "sub-articles."
Length won't be an issue. Actual article size is less than 30kb.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bzuk, I assume this is a complement and not a problem? Please clarify. — BQZip01 — talk 05:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Graphic "look"
the use of photographs is effective although the introductory photograph is larger than normal. A change to the standard "thumb" size may have to be made if ten or more photographs are used.
I assume this is a complement and not a problem? Please clarify. — BQZip01 — talk 05:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tone
A number of instances of editorializing are noted without adequate citations to corroborate the statement. A general rule for a GA candidate is to have a minimum of one citation per paragraph and more if there are contentious areas to consider. Some wikilinks do not add to the reading- no need to wikilink "tractors," "bulldozers," "forklifts" and "feet." Providing a lot of wikilinks is not usually a problem but if they are not meaningful, they should be eliminated.
Please be specific on instances of editorializing. We've removed what we've identified, and if you see other instances we'll be happy to take a look at those specifically. Karanacs 14:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Style
A divergence in writing styles is not as noticeable given that there are many authors/editors at work here, but an experienced editor can make a difference in at least establishing a consistent style, for example using an active "voice" throughout. The use of paragraphing is not consistent and the excessive number of "spellos" and "typos" jumped out at me. These are some minor errors that can be corrected:
  • Date inconsistencies: Settle on one format throughout, is it 08-22-07 or 22 August 2007?
Where specifically are these dates not formatted correctly? All appear to be correct in my version. — BQZip01 — talk 05:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number inconsistencies: The traditional way of writing numbers is to have zero to ten expressed as words and 11+ shown as numerals.
"traditional"...there's a loaded word when it comes to Aggies...
In all seriousness, your version of "tradition" does not seem to be inline with WP:MoS: "In the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers (from zero to nine) are spelled out; numbers of more than one digit are generally rendered as digits, but may be spelled out if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred and 3.75, 544, 21 million)." (emphasis added). — BQZip01 — talk 05:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalization: Be consistent in use of capitals, e.g. Bonfire as opposed to bonfire (and use articles, "the Bonfire")
Please see the discussion above on articles. Bonfire is the name of the event and the name of the structure. We wouldn't say "I'm going to the Lollapalooza", and neither do Aggies say "the Bonfire." Karanacs 14:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraphing: At least one section has a single paragraph. For an effective "read," paragraphs should maintain a four-five sentence structure (not a hard-and-fast rule, however). An inconsistency in coverage is also noted in that some of the sections established are overly long while others are much too short.
Please be specific. "Some" is really vague. — BQZip01 — talk 05:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Syntax: A minor point, but this sentence, "At least two of the students killed in the 1999 Bonfire collapse were beneath the legal drinking age yet their autopsy results showed high blood-alcohol levels, however, inconsistencies in some test results led to questions about their accuracy." probably should be written as "At least two of the students killed in the 1999 Bonfire collapse were beneath the legal drinking age and their autopsy results showed high blood-alcohol levels, however, inconsistencies in some test results led to questions about their accuracy." As well, the sentence is overlong and could read better as two sentences.
Altered accordingly. Separate clauses now separated by a semicolon. — BQZip01 — talk 05:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notes/References Style guide usage
The number of references are extensive given that there is plethora of reference material available but mainly in newspaper and periodical sources rather than specialized works. The "Further reading section" should follow the "References" section. I am not a fan of the templates used in the article and if I was rewriting it, I would ditch the present templates and "scratch" cite/reference the entire article. The repeat note from a single source is also apparent and should be incorporated in the usual Wiki note wherein the repeated citations are grouped together, perhaps as a Harvard citation. Most of the section is composed of an end notes section with no clear indication of the reference sources. The style guides that Wikipedia advocates (although anything goes here as long as the main editing is consistent and follows a sensible pattern) allows for some variance. There are minor typos noticed in the references that can be cleaned up but that is only a minor issue. FWIW Bzuk 22:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I moved the Further Reading section below References. I also fixed the two typos I found in the references. If you see more, please let us know. Karanacs 14:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you aren't a fan of templates, but in Wikipedia it is a valid method by which to source material. This seems to be more of a preference rather than a violation of the MoS. There aren't many "specialized works" on Bonfire and those are not a requirement of an FA; verifiability is. — BQZip01 — talk 05:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article is very detailed and well-referenced. I think the only issue is the overall length. Not sure what could be cut, but on reading I had the feeling that the details about the car accident in the "Later years" could be removed. Also, the ordering of the sections seemed a little odd, perhaps the Controversy section should go after the chronology sections or merged into the "Aftermath and Controversy" section. --Claygate 03:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed below with Wordbuilder... — BQZip01 — talk 20:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Well-written, informative, and fully referenced. I do agree with Claygate that the part about the pickup wreck seems out of place. Aside from that, no problems. DISCLAIMER: I am part of WikiProject Texas A&M; however, my contributions to this article were minor (only a few punctuation and grammar fixes). →Wordbuilder 17:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may seem a little out of place, but it is important to show that recorded injuries started to happen more and more frequently. By including it here, it begins to show potential problems and alludes to problems later, IMHO. — BQZip01 — talk 20:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Comprehensive, easy to read, proper referencing. I see no substantial reason for not promoting this article. That said, I am concerned by a few items:

  • The article relies very heavily on one article (the first). Bring in more to replace this if you can. Also, it can be difficult to see where the reference goes to in that article with so many statements referencing it. The article has anchor tags for the sections, and you could cite with those. (like Cadets as Honest Souls)
As an academic article, I would concur, but this is wikipedia, where the standard for inclusion is verifiability. The cited source is one that is loaded with facts and the entire article is not based on one article, so I think this is fine as is. — BQZip01 — talk 23:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the intro, Thanksgiving could be linked, and 1999 should not.
Wikilinked Thanksgiving (good catch). If you will read the link to 1999, you will note that it is one of the major events of the year. This is annotated as a comment in the editable code (or whatever you call the edit page for each article) for the page. — BQZip01 — talk 23:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "known as t.u.": Known to who? Why does this link to TU? Also, why is it lowercase? If the page on University of Texas at Austin uses uppercase, then why not here? Is it a slight to Austin by A&M students? If so, that's not encyclopedic.
the following phrase explains who: "by Texas A&M students." Again, if you will read the coding in the page, you will see the rationale for the disambiguation link. Lowercase explained on the disambiguation page. It is a slight of the school, but as part of the rivalry, this page touches on that in two separate quotes and an explanation of the term is needed IAW WP:MoS. This discussion is further addressed above within BigNole's comments. — BQZip01 — talk 23:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right... why on earth would anyone do it like that? That really doesn't seem appropriate at all. Just because it's a quote and has a hidden comment defending its use doesn't mean anyone can say whatever they want. It wouldn't be encyclopedic to quote "Canadians are also known as Canucks to some people" and then refer to them as "Canucks" through the rest of the article, even in quotes. I would highly recommend removing "beat the hell out of t.u." as it simply does not add to informativeness of the article, as well as remove "known as t.u. to students" and change the outhouse quote back such that it isn't a quote and that it uses their proper name. The disambiguation page also doesn't mention this. Additionally, neither of the referenced pages says that either the A&M community as a whole or any subsection thereof refers to University of Texas at Austin as "t.u.", just that the three individuals who are quoted do. It seams like the editors want the page to be derogatory and/or inflammatory, and is that really the case? If so, I'll just remove my support for the candidacy. It seems like a silly slight to the other school, and I really don't care about rivalries, but I hope no user would take personal offense if I requested that an administrator check the article for neutrality.--Patrick 01:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are certainly not intending to be inflammatory or derogatory. The article uses the term "University of Texas" 5 times. It uses "tu" in reference to the school only in a direct quote, or, in 1 case, as an explanation of why it is used that why in the direct quotes. The quote "burning desire to beat the hell outta tu." is the slogan of Bonfire, and as such deserves a mention in the article. If you google the phrase, you'll find 141 separate resulta, all referring to Bonfire (there are an additional 54 instances if you use "out of" instead of "outta"; 0 if you google "beat the hell outta/out of UT). In the interests of clarity, however, I've found a source (the Dallas Morning News), that explains what the term refers to. "tu frat house" is the official name of the outhouse that sat on top of Bonfire; the quote explaining this comes from The Daily Texan, the student newspaper of the University of Texas. If they were offended by the term, I'd assume they wouldn't print it. Karanacs 02:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The disambiguation page (now) shows the proper terminology, as a previous version was edited out. I additionally added one MORE link. Is THIS satisfactory? Or do you just want to make sure it is censored so that everyone always sounds good?— BQZip01 — talk 19:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't "Aftermath and controversy" and "Bonfire Memorial" be subsections of "Collapse"?
They could be, but I would consider a lawsuit a separate section as well as consideration as whether or not to continue Bonfire as linked to, but not part of, the collapse. — BQZip01 — talk 23:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused as to what "a swerving car" has to do with the bonfire, and why it caused the first fatality. Did someone swerve while looking at the bonfire, or because of the trees, or because roadsigns were stolen?
<chuckle> point taken. This sentence (also already addressed above) shows the beginnings of problems with safety at Bonfire and its associated events. — BQZip01 — talk 23:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can just remove the "by a swerving car" if you don't want to explain it, or add "swerving car at the event." Right now it seems the car could have been anywhere.--Patrick 01:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The stadium was so quiet that a baby's cry was the only audible noise heard throughout the crowd of more than 86,000" sounds is awful close to original research, despite the reference to the DVD, and maybe this can be said without the baby.
How is it anywhere close to original research?
"The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified)." (emphasis added)
This is shown/heard on the video of the event and is NOT original research. I'll admit I was on the field for this performance and it was AMAZING how quiet it was. Perhaps a suggestion as to how it should be rephrased? — BQZip01 — talk 23:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If in an interview on this DVD an attendee says "it was so quite that a baby's cry was the only audible noise heard throughout the crowd" then it's ok. But if this information is only accessible by watching the DVD and inferring that a baby is indeed heard crying, then I think it is original. Wouldn't this completely depend on where a given person (or the camera's microphone) was in the stadium, or could all 86,000 hear the baby cry? And that it's "the only audible noise" is doubtful. I bet someone watching the same DVD can hear attendees breathing or picking their noses or whatever. I understand the editors want to emphasis the quietness, but do it in a phrase that is verifiable and factual, such as "the crowd of about 86,000 observed the moment quietly." This is much noted in the next reference, so I don't know what the DVD reference does.--Patrick 01:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you listen to the DVD, then you will hear only a baby cry. FYI
"I really don't care about rivalries..." If you don't care. What is the problem? Do you mean you don't care for rivalries?
"...but I hope no user would take personal offense if I requested that an administrator check the article for neutrality." nope. Go for it...if you really want to. — BQZip01 — talk 19:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the article regarding the assassination of JFK could be linked in "Organizational change and expansion."
Wikilinked assassination to the JFK assassination page.(also a good catch!) — BQZip01 — talk 23:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck on promotion. I've updated the support count above.--Patrick 21:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article is very well written with plenty of sources and references. It has what I would consider to be proper and appropriate sectioning with enough information to completely cover the history of Bonfire without giving too much information. In short, I find no flaws with it that have not already been addressed. Thank you BQZip01 for asking me to review this. Theturtlehermit 01:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I had some comments for the article at first (see the article talk page#comments), and they were completely taken care of. The article, with its combination of fine prose and moving multimedia, makes for an excellent presentation of what Wikipedia should be, and what all articles should work towards becoming. I am honored to be invited to review this article (seeing as how I haven't really been active in the formal FA process before)! - NDCompuGeek 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I think the article is very close and should get there soon. At this time, I have noticed what seem to be a few minor problems with the article. For instance:

  • I think the chronology table uses too small a font. I think 100% font size would be a better choice.
I've made the text bigger, but I think if we make it bigger than this it doesn't look quite right in the article. Karanacs 13:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chronology of the table does not seem to apply to the current bonfires. For instance, I learned today that the 2005 bonfire burned on the Saturday prior to the game, not 1-2 days before as indicated by the table.
I changed the table heading; the bulk of the article refers to the pre-1999 Bonfire. Karanacs 13:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the Student bonfire is not the official Aggie Bonfire, though many of the same traditions are emulated and used.
  • Bonfire Memorial section ends in a one-sentence paragraph. Can this be combined into another paragraph?
The guide to layout says that single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, not necessarily eliminated. In this section, all but this sentence refer to the official Bonfire memorial, and I don't see a good way to incorporate the final sentence into the other paragraphs. As this is the only single-sentence paragraph in the article, I'd like to leave it as is. Karanacs 13:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see more on the environmental considerations. For instance the 2005 bonfire happened amidst court proceedings relating to a county-wide burn ban. This is not mentioned in the article.
See next item.
  • As a general comment, I think the recent years section could use some expansion, but i will not oppose on this item alone.
The "Recent years" section is intentionally short and is a mere footnote to the history of the Aggie Bonfire. Student Bonfire, officially, has little to do with the official tradition of Aggie Bonfire. It would be like talking about rugby and mentioning the American version of football came from it and then not mentioning the Super Bowl. Certainly the two are related, but not INTERrelated.
  • Please run the semi-automated peer review on this article. When I ran the script, it pointed out that the lead is too short, that some dates may be inappropriately linked, and that there might be some weasel words.
I ran the script at JohnTex's request and came up with the following (those in bold are my (— BQZip01 — talk) responses):
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
Lede size is NOT required to be as depicted in the chart at the bottom of WP:LEAD. I tried splitting the second paragraph, but it looked awkward. I'll leave it if this satisfies your problems with it. — BQZip01 — talk 18:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Years...can be linked if they provide context." In this case, the sole link that fits this description is 1999 and this event was one of the newsmakers of that year and this link provides that context.
"There may be..." is not an actionable item IAW FAC criteria. — BQZip01 — talk 19:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fixed a single missing wikilink — BQZip01 — talk 19:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • allege
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
both instances of this term are specified in the article. As stated by the javascript program "This javascript cannot determine if a citation is provided; if all weasel terms are covered by citations, please strike this." Please take that into account when making such future claims...
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
This is hardly an actionable item: "Watch for..." In addition, some MAY be perfectly acceptable. Please be specific.
It has...
— BQZip01 — talk 18:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta run now, more soon... Johntex\talk 04:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, looks doable, but too many MOS breaches. WP:MOSNUM breaches in the lead, pls fix and check throughout. Incorrect punctuation on image captions, see WP:MOS, full sentences are punctuated, sentence fragments are not. Overlinked, see WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSLINK, common terms known to most English speakers need not be linked. Surely Aggies know what a t-shirt is, what tractors and bulldozers are. Bonfire Memorial section has WP:DASH breaches, no spaced emdashes on Wiki. Refs look good. Bonus: 77KB FAC with lots of checkmarks and a tally box; please don't add checkmarks to my commentary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...looks doable, but too many MOS breaches." What exactly does "looks doable" mean? — BQZip01 — talk 06:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "WP:MOSNUM breaches in the lead, pls fix and check throughout. " I found a single nbsp missed in the lead. Where else in the lead is there a breach of the said MoS subsection? — BQZip01 — talk 06:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Incorrect punctuation on image captions, see WP:MOS, full sentences are punctuated, sentence fragments are not."  Done Checkmark added intentionally (see below for reason). — BQZip01 — talk 06:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Overlinked..." specified terms de-wikilinked. — BQZip01 — talk 06:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bonfire Memorial section has WP:DASH breaches, no spaced emdashes on Wiki." Could not find the dashes you specified. Please be more specific. — BQZip01 — talk 06:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Refs look good." Thank you. — BQZip01 — talk 06:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "77KB FAC with lots of checkmarks and a tally box" There are no size requirements for a nomination's is is not a requirement of the nomination process. The "tally box", as you so call it, is merely a summary, not the results of some vote. This also is not prohibited in the FAC process. As such, both of the items are not even close to a reasonable justification for not supporting the article as they have nothing to do with the article at all.. — BQZip01 — talk 06:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tone of this critique is out of line and is condescending, IMHO:
  • "Surely Aggies know what a t-shirt is, what tractors and bulldozers are." No one said we didn't know what they are. Wikilinks aren't for Aggies to use definitions, but for everyone. If this was the only issue I had with your review, there wouldn't be an issue and I would assume good faith...however...
  • (repeat of above) "77KB FAC with lots of checkmarks and a tally box" There are no size requirements for a nomination's is is not a requirement of the nomination process. The "tally box", as you so call it, is merely a summary, not the results of some vote. This also is not prohibited in the FAC process. As such, both of the items are not even close to a reasonable justification for not supporting the article as they have nothing to do with the article at all.
  • "please don't add checkmarks to my commentary."  Not done Understood (this is an "X", not a checkmark, as requested), but this is not a requirement of an FAC nomination either and posters can do as they please within the confines of a nomination and the given criteria. I have done so for the expressed purpose of showing that this is MY post, not yours. You cannot dictate what people can/cannot write. In deference to your request, I will however refrain from addressing further posts in this manner. — BQZip01 — talk 06:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me, BQZ. As you know very well, and as I stated above, I do not like to have my reviews chopped up like this, so your reply comes across as pointy. Pls let me know once you've respected my request and reinstated what I wrote to one paragraph so that I can easily review work needed and progress made. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC) (In fact, it occurs to me that there's a talk page guideline somewhere about breaking up someone else's commentary and separating it from their signature; pls respect that so that other editors' comments remain intact and readable. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Don't edit other people's comments, and avoid excessive markup. If you wouldn't mind reinstating my original paragraph, I'll be glad to review and strike; I do not wish to have my comments edited by others. Thanks for understanding, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your original comments have been restored, but you have been one who is clamoring for consistency within reviews with no graphics. In this review, you should note that others have made point-by-point analysis of the article in question and YOUR response is the one deviating from the norm. No one intentionally separated your comments from their signature. As you can see, points above yours were addressed properly with no ambiguity as to who wrote it. A point-by-point response is difficult in paragraph form, so I moved it into quotes. As for being pointy, yes, I am being somewhat pointy, but only for dramatic effect and to make a point, not to disrupt wikipedia. Too bad this ISN'T a talk page... — BQZip01 — talk 07:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As always, samples only for you to review and check throughout
  • WP:MOSNUM, " In 1999, the Bonfire collapsed during construction, killing twelve people, eleven students and one former student, and injuring 27 others." "In the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers (from zero to nine) are spelled out; ... Within a context or a list, style should be consistent (either “There were 5 cats and 32 dogs” or “There were five cats and thirty-two dogs”, not “There were five cats and 32 dogs”). "
  • Overlinked, further examples for you to consider per WP:MOSLINK, WP:CONTEXT, words known to most English speakers, lawsuit, first aid, insurance.
  • Bonfire Memorial, as an example, still has WP:DASH breaches, spaced emdashes are not used on Wiki. Unspaced emdashes are preferred, spaced endashes are an alternative, but you should be consistent within the article, so pls check throughout. (There are many variations of hyphens and dashes in your footnotes.) Thank you for restoring my commentary; I find it much easier to strike my text when I can find my text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Sandy. I fixed the mismatched numbers in the list in the lead (that is the only one I noticed; if you saw more, please let me know). I've also unlinked many words, including some not on your list. However, I left the wikilinks to the 2 types of insurance because I thought it was important for readers to be able to discern the difference between them if they chose. I've also replaced the spaced emdashes with spaced endashes in the Bonfire Memorial section, and fixed 2 dash issues that I saw in the footnotes. If you see any other issues with specific footnotes, please let us know which ones and we'll fix those too. Thanks! Karanacs 15:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I trust you to have gotten them all :-) (By the way, when looking for wayward dashes, you can do a text search.) I wasn't sure how to advise you to fix the numbers in the lead, as I'm not certain if they should be digits or spelled out, but since most of them were above 10, I would have leaned towards digits. Not sure on that, but at least they're consistent now; just saying in case Tony comes through with a preference for digits. I left sample edits of a few straggling issues in footnotes. Thanks, Karanacs, striking oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • Linking could use a bit of work. Why are you linking "t.u." (twice)? It goes to a disambiguation page. If you've already linked terms, there's no need to link them again (e.g. "bonfire", "college football", "Corps of Cadets"/"Corps", "feet", "meters", etc.)
Addressed below. Also addressed in previous reviews along with more information as to why they are wikilinked. — BQZip01 — talk 03:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Detractors further blamed the school for the accident, saying that, "in the name of tradition"..." Is this quotation from somewhere? If so, it needs a citation. If not, why is it in quotation marks? "Further" doesn't really work there.
Addressed below. — BQZip01 — talk 03:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text alternates between using Student Bonfire and the Student Bonfire. Is this OK? Or should it be (like Bonfire) without a "the"? 69.202.63.165 01:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the extraneous the from in front of Student Bonfire in several instances, and I've removed the unneccessary quotes. They were there for emphasis, not as a quote. Several terms are linked twice because they are in different sections of the article. It is acceptable to do that as long as they are not linked more than once per section. Thanks for your comments. Karanacs 02:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but is there a special reason for linking t.u.? It just goes to a disambiguation page. 69.202.63.165 03:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The disambiguation page provides a limited description (this is noted on the comments). — BQZip01 — talk 03:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was a repetition of "2002" near the end that bothered me. Occasional sentences seem comma-heavy (such as "Early years", second paragraph, second sentence). Otherwise, I was left wondering exactly what a "teepee" and "wedding cake" design for a "stack" meant. Does the "teepee" design mean every tree touches the ground? How big are the trees involved for each design? How does the "Replant" quantity compare with the quantity of logs in the fire now? These are (IMO) details that should be there for an article on this subject to be comprehensive (WP:WIAFA 1b). Gimmetrow 02:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "There was a repetition of "2002" near the end that bothered me."
Can't find what you are asking for. No "2002" is anywhere near another "2002". Don't know what to tell you. — BQZip01 — talk 03:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because I addressed it already. But you should check that the edit fits what you want to say. Gimmetrow 03:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Occasional sentences seem comma-heavy (such as "Early years", second paragraph, second sentence)."
rephrased 2 of 5 commas now gone. — BQZip01 — talk 03:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Otherwise, I was left wondering exactly what a "teepee" and "wedding cake" design for a "stack" meant."
The first picture is a "wedding cake" design (added to description). Phrase with "teepee" in it was rephrased to include this information. — BQZip01 — talk 03:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Does the "teepee" design mean every tree touches the ground?"
Yes, in general. The center log was later spliced from two logs, but for the most part, yes. Rephrasing now infers this information. — BQZip01 — talk 03:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "How big are the trees involved for each design?"
They are of varying sizes/shapes. There is no set manner in which they are graded/sized/etc., so I'm not sure what exactly you want here.
  • "How does the "Replant" quantity compare with the quantity of logs in the fire now?"
The bonfire now is not official and technically isn't part of the article, but more of a footnote to history. It isn't the same and doesn't have any official sponsorship, so it isn't the same structure. The info about SB is just additional information. Replant is a separately run organization on campus and DOES have University sponsorship. While the two were officially linked/related, SB doesn't have this affiliation. As such, this information is not applicable, IMHO. — BQZip01 — talk 04:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I started reading the article with a firm bias to oppose. I couldn't believe it would prove to be well sourced and lacking in POV. I was tremendously surprised by what I found and am even more surprised to find myself supporting it here. Well-written, appropriately illustrated, sourced, balanced... I can't quite believe it, but this is FA material. Congratulations to all involved. --Dweller 11:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!! — BQZip01 — talk 16:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Aggie_Bonfire&oldid=1136459106"