Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/August 2014

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2014 (diff).

Statue of John Bunyan, Bedford edit

Nominator(s): Rich Farmbrough, 01:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC).

This article is about The Statue of John Bunyan, Bedford. The statue is of a giant in English and Christian literature, was produced by a significant sculptor and artist, was commissioned by a notable member of the nobility, and has been much remarked upon in the 140 years since its unveiling. The unveiling itself was a nine-days wonder. Rich Farmbrough, 01:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC).

  • Comment by Cwmhiraeth

My immediate impression of this article concerns comprehensiveness and balance. Here is a statue erected in Bedford to John Bunyan, but who is the man? Why is he famous and what connection does he have with Bedford? As far as I can see, there is not even a wikilink to the Wikipedia article on him. I would also expect to see more about the sculptor and the creation of the statue. At the moment the article is unbalanced because it concentrates on the unveiling ceremony almost to the exclusion of anything else. I would oppose this article becoming a featured article in its present state. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, my concern was not to duplicate material on Bunyan and Boehm, but there is no reason that significant sections cannot be written on both. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC).
I guess some duplication is unavoidable, I'll have another look in a few days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on prose and comprehensiveness and other things:

  • We have nothing to explain who Bunyan was, why Bedford might want a statue of him, what the significance of "The Pilgrim's Progress", whether the sculptor was indeed "significant" as you say in your nomination... Perhaps a "Background" section to start with, with sub-sections about Bunyan, Bunyan's links to Bedford (if not already explained), the sculptor, the commissioning nobleman, etc. Then describe the statue; then the opening ceremony (in moderation - this is an article about the statue, not the ceremony); then subsequent commments about the statue etc
  • You say that it has been much remarked upon in the 140 years since its unveiling, but there's nothing about that in the article. What do critics say about it now? Is it listed or similar?
  • We have an opening "sentence" that reads "The Statue of John Bunyan on St Peter's Green, Bedford, Bedfordshire, England is a bronze statue of John Bunyan, sculpted by Sir Joseph Edgar Boehm, it was erected in 1874, and unveiled on 10 June of that year." - that's not good writing
  • We have a red link Bunyan Museum but a "See also" link to John Bunyan Museum - are there two museums here, or one? Why the link to High Holborn
  • We have a red link category
  • An external link that is in fact being used as a reference and should be included there, and another external link of no relevance to this article
  • Poor image choice and presentation - why do we need Bunyan's will, or two photos of the statute in what is a very short article? The text is sandwiched by the images throughout.

And that's before we get to issues such as correct italics, whether it's "The Pilgrim's Progress", the "Pilgrim's Progress" or Pilgrims Progress... I suggest you withdraw this, rewrite and expand the article, then visit peer review before coming back to FAC. BencherliteTalk 11:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry Rich but this isn't even GA class yet, in fact it would need a fair bit of work to be B class. Nowhere near FA level. As Bencherlite suggested it should be withdrawn asap.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too brief and not fully researched for an FA. A quick closure would be my advice here.--Retrohead (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2014 (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 archived by Ian Rose (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2014 (diff).

Dylan Thomas edit

Nominator(s): FruitMonkey (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the poet and writer Dylan Thomas. Thomas was well known in Britain and the United States during his lifetime and he is still recognized today. Notable works include "And death shall have no dominion" and "Do not go gentle into that good night" and in the US 'A Child's Christmas in Wales'. A lot of hard work went into getting the article to GA standard and a (limited) peer review was conducted earlier this year. Although time maybe against us I would like to get this to FA standard in the hope of making the front page on 27 October, the centenary of Thomas' birth. FruitMonkey (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Dylan_Thomas_photo.jpg: what steps have you taken to determine the copyright status of this image or to search for alternatives? Also suggest using {{Non-free_use_rationale_biog}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Shudde

I don't have the time for a full review. But I'll add some comments that you'll hopefully find helpful.

  • There are a few duplicate links.
    • I have not included the duplicate links from the lead, but I have removed 5 or 6 from the main body. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • References should be provided for the notes that are unreferenced.
  • check it complies with WP:DASH -- think there are some spaced mdashes in there
  • I'm not an expert on poetry or literature (by a long way), but what is the convention regarding names? You use "Fern Hill", but then Quite Early One Morning, and later 'Under Milk Wood' -- so not sure here, do we use ", italics, or '?
  • "was born in Swansea, in on 27 October 1914," -- English
  • It's possible to work this out from the date of birth, but because of it immediately follows a discussion of Thomas' father, in "His only sister Nancy" it's not clear who his refers to.
  • "The children spoke only English though their parents were bilingual in English and Welsh, and David Thomas gave Welsh lessons at home" -- maybe "The children spoke only English though their parents also spoke Welsh, and David Thomas gave Welsh lessons from home"
  • "which could be translated as" -- "can be" still right?
  • "The red-brick semi-detached house at 5 Cwmdonkin Drive, in which Thomas was born and lived until he was 19, had been bought by his parents in the respectable area of the Uplands a few months before his birth." -- this is a tough read for me. Maybe "Thomas was born in the red-brick semi-detached house at 5 Cwmdonkin Drive, Uplands, that his parents had bought several months earlier, and he lived there until he was 19."
  • " It is considered that Thomas was indulged by his mother" -- by who?
  • "Thomas' formal education began at Mrs Hole's dame school a private school on Mirador Crescent" maybe "Thomas' formal education began at Mrs Hole's private dame school on Mirador Crescent"
  • "In his first year one of his poems was published in the school's magazine and before he left he became its editor" -- seems redundant that it happened before he left, how about "In his first year one of his poems was published in the school's magazine, of which he eventually became editor" ?
  • "only to leave under pressure 18 months later" -- any more information on this "pressure"?
  • "Thomas continued to work as a freelance journalist for several years during which time he remained at Cwmdonkin Drive where he continued to add to his notebooks" -- close repetition of "continued", maybe "Thomas instead worked as a freelance journalist for several years while remaining at Cwmdonkin Drive, and continued to add to his notebooks"
  • "close to the newspaper office in Castle Street" -- does this refer to the South Wales Daily Post?
  • " In all, he wrote half his poems while living at Cwmdonkin Drive before moving to London." -- this was mentioned earlier in the article, can probably be removed
  • "It was the time that Thomas' reputation for heavy drinking developed." -- I think maybe "It was at this time that Thomas' reputation for heavy drinking developed." - although not 100% clear what "this time" is
  • "In spring 1936" -- this is something I'm a bit sensitive about (being from the Southern Hemisphere), but there are quite a few examples throughout this article of seasons being used to describe times, when months would be much better. Saying he holidayed somewhere in the summer is fine, but saying something happened in the spring or winter is not. I always have to think in my head ("northern spring = southern autumn"). Would be good if this could be avoided. I may not list them all here, so please go and have a check through the article.
  • " Laying his head in her lap, a drunken Thomas proposed." -- I assume this was the night they met?
  • "In spring 1938" -- see above

Done for now. I'll hopefully get back to this, but like I said, I can't guarantee that I'll have the time. -- Shudde talk 11:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments
  • "In 1939 The Map of Love appeared as a collection of 16 poems and seven of the 20 short stories published by Thomas in magazines since 1934." -- this reads poorly. Also violates WP:NUMERAL. How about "Seven of the twenty short stories published by Thomas in magazines since 1934 were included alongside sixteen [unpublished?] poems in the collection The Map of Love in 1939." -- still not clear on this whole sentence. It needs work.
  • "There Thomas collaborated with Davenport on the satire The Death of the King's Canary, though due to fears of libel the work was not published until 1976." -- what kind of work was this (play, novel?), and why did they fear libel?
  • "At the outset of the Second World War, Thomas was worried about conscription and referred to his ailment as "an unreliable lung"." -- I think this needs a direct citation, and it isn't explicit here, but did he refer to his ailment as unreliable long because he feared conscription and thought this would help him avoid it?
  • "After being rebuffed he found work with Strand Films providing him with his first regular income since the Daily Post." -- not sure about this. Maybe "After being rebuffed he found work with Strand Films which provided him with his first regular income since the Daily Post."
  • "daughter, Aeronwy in London" --> "daughter, Aeronwy, in London"
  • "In September Thomas and Caitlin moved to New Quay in West Wales which inspired Thomas to pen the radio piece Quite Early One Morning, a sketch for his later work, Under Milk Wood." -- again not clear, did the move, or the new area inspire the piece?
  • "Of the poetry written at this time, of note is "Fern Hill", believed to have been started while living in New Quay, but completed at Blaen Cwm in the summer of 1945." -- again with the seasons. Also "Of the ... of note"
  • Regarding the first paragraph of Broadcasting years 1945–1949 Maybe play with the language here, Quite Early One Morning (by the way, what kind of broadcast was this?) is repeated in close proximity. Also why did the BBC change their mind and eventually broadcast it?
  • "In the second half of 1945, Thomas began reading for the BBC Radio programme, Book of Verse, broadcast weekly to the Far East[69] providing Thomas with a regular income and bringing him into contact with Louis MacNeice, a congenial drinking companion whose advice Thomas cherished." Not sure about the punctuation here. Maybe split into two sentences.
  • Can more be said about why Margaret Taylor was such a generous patron of Thomas?
  • "for his parents[78][79] who lived there from 1949 until 1953." -- there a reason those citations can't be moved to the end of the sentence?

Done for today but making progress. -- Shudde talk 11:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American tours, 1950–1953
  • "John Brinnin invited Thomas to New York, where in 1950 they embarked on a lucrative three-month tour of arts centres and campuses." -- might be good at this point to say who Brinnin is (or why he would be inviting Thomas to New York)?
  • "1950 is also believed to be the year that he began work on 'Under Milk Wood', under the working title 'The Town That Was Mad'." -- maybe say what Under Milk Wood is -- it's not a poem right?
  • "Despite Cleverdon's urges, the script slipped from Thomas' priorities and in early 1951 he took a trip to Iran to work on a film for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company." -- when you say "he" here not sure whether that means Cleverdon or Thomas. Looks like this is implicitly clarified in the next sentence.
  • "That spring" -- see above
  • "Despite a range of wealthy patrons ..." -- is there a reason why, despite all the financial help he has received, Thomas is in such financial trouble?
  • 'Thomas would describe the flat as his "London house of horror"' -- maybe 'Thomas later described the flat as his "London house of horror"'
  • "The second tour was the most intensive of the four" -- has that he eventually undertook four American tours been mentioned yet?
  • " The trip also resulted in Thomas recording his first poetry to vinyl" -- does this mean " The trip also resulted in Thomas first recording his poetry to vinyl" ? If so the latter is more accurate.

-- That's it from that section. -- Shudde talk 11:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Tks Shudde for your detailed review thus far but this FAC would still need more eyes on it plus more prompt addressing of outstanding comments by the nominator, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2014 (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 not promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2014 (diff).

Murder of Ross Parker edit

Nominator(s): Shakehandsman (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to submit the article on the murder of Ross Parker for FA review. It concerns a murder carried out shortly after the September 11th attacks, in Peterborough, England and the article gets a reasonable amount of interest, even today. Although its my first submission here, I am an experienced editor, I've helped review other submissions and I'm fully aware of the standards required. The article is stable, achieved "Good Article" status over two years ago and there have been considerable improvements and expansion since then so hopefully it isn't too far off. I've put a lot of work into it and have a fairly comprehensive understanding of the case as a result, therefore i should be able to address most queries reasonably swiftly.. Shakehandsman (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from Curly Turkey edit

  • It is also suggested the case demonstrates how society has been forced to redefine racism so as to no longer exclude white victims.—Whoa! It's one thing to say that anti-white violence may be downplayed in the media, but I don't think there's ever been a time when racism has been defined to exclude white victims, however a particular editorialist may choose to spin it. An issue so serious is not helped with this kind of hyperbole, and hyperbole has no place in an encyclopaedia. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't think there's ever been a time when racism has been defined to exclude white victims". Well, Wikipedia's article on racism includes the "prejudice plus power" view of racism in its lede as one definition. Combining that definition with the view of some (seemingly including Easton) that even a murdered 5 foot 5, working-class child who works in a bar and has a weak leg was automatically "powerful" simply because of his skin colour, then its clear that white victims could be excluded. Easton's piece is controversial and seems somewhat flawed and I don't really wish to support him, but it is one of the more prominent examinations of the wider aspects of the case, and the idea that event was so significant that it caused a concept to be redefined in some people's minds is extremely important (even if we don't agree with all the arguments used to come to such a conclusion or their assertion that the whole of society subscribed to such a view in the first place). I think the text makes it clear that this argument is only a suggestion and not necessarily a fact, so there's no problem there, though I'm open to suggestions for further tweaks. It would be fantastic to include some analysis of Easton's argument in the body of the article, certainly others have tried to do this in the past, but we don't really have any reliable sources for doing so in the context of the Parker case and therefore I was wary about including material that was too unrelated to the subject at hand. Again, if people have ideas for critiquing of Easton's comments I'd be more than happy to hear them. Anyway, many thanks for being the first to comment on this FAC discussion.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"One view holds that racism is best understood as 'prejudice plus power'" is hardly a definition excluding whites from being victims of racism. Think of the treatment of Poles, for example, under the Nazis. Nor is it the only definition: Black supremacy is hardly new, or unknown. Easton's is a particular interpretation of the events; the wording suggests that "racism excluding whites" is an accepted fact, and it's not. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually Easton who cites the "prejudice plus power" definition as mostly excluding white victims in itself. For the record I completely disagree with most of his arguments but at the end of the day, it really isn't up to us to agree or disagree with particular views or dissect them. His analysis is very prominent and significant and we consider the BBC to be a reliable source. We're hardly spoilt for reliable sources for such material concerning Parker, and this makes these important arguments perhaps even more worthy of inclusion still. If his arguments are "wrong" in some way (which may well be the case), then as far as Wikipedia policies are concerned, that's largely irrelevant.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're not understanding: of course you quote what Easton said, but you don't present "racism excludes white victims" as an established fact, which is what your wording does. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well the material in the legacy section had the problem you identify and I actually fixed that just prior to your comment, so thanks for prompting me to look into this. I think the other material concerning Easton is ok and fairly clear, though if there is consensus that it needs tweaking then I'll be happy for a small change to be made.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kaldari edit

  • Definitely needs a proofreading from the Guild of Copyeditors. There are grammatical problems all over the place. Some examples:
    • "...such as the Anthony Walker and that of Stephen Lawrence."
    • "In 2006, a Times investigation by Brendan Montague in examined British newspaper archives for coverage of racist crimes, finding..."
    • "...at a local public house The Solstice..."
    • "As noted by Justice Davis, had the crime occurred post-2005, then it is likely…"
I'm not exactly the greatest wordsmith, so I've submitted a request at the Guild of Copyeditors for someone to review it. I've improved those first three examples though.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improper use of {{cquote}} template.
Done. Replaced with quote box.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original research: "...although neither mentioned the racial dimension of the crime…"
Done.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking. There are lots of unneeded links like gangster, pray, fingerprints, etc. Also sometimes the same word is linked twice in a section.
Done - all three links removed as well as "taxi". I'm quite good at avoiding duplicate wikilinks and so could only find one instance of a term linked twice, that is also fixed now.--Shakehandsman (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Britishisms: "keen footballer", "later in a takeaway". Try to use more generic/universal English, such as "avid football player", "later in a restaurant", etc.
Done for first example. As for the second, "restaurant" tends to refer to an establishment where one dines in, so the term "takeaway" is required. The article is written in British English so I don't think there's a problem here (people can click on the wikilink), I've changed it to the compromise of "takeaway restaurant".--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some wearing balaclavas." This doesn't seem to be mentioned in the cited sources. Perhaps another source needs to be added here or the statement removed.
Done. Sourced added.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Twice in the article it mentions there were "up to 10 attackers". Is it possible to be any more specific, like "four to ten attackers"?
Four people were prosecuted (and three of those convicted), but I don't think there'a any doubt that there were more than four present at the scene and therefore it would mislead the reader to suggest otherwise. Other sources such as the BBC give a figure of "about 10" for the number of attackers so it seems to be fairly widely accepted in reliable sources. I chose "up to" over "about" as it seemed preferable at the time, though If people prefer the later then I'd be happy to change it.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotation doesn't match source: "to find a white male to attack simply because he was white"
Fixed - the wrong ref had been used and that one had a slightly different quote in it. Correct ref now in its place.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The part about the impact on the parents doesn't seem very encyclopedic. It seems like something that a newspaper or magazine would include for emotional impact, but feels out of place in an encyclopaedia.
I'm a little unsure about this, I'm certain all the facts within the section need retaining and while I can see your point of view, the scope of WikiProject Death includes how people cope with death and we shouldn't ignore such aspects of a case. The fact that the room was left untouched is a little different to some other aspects of the article, but at the same time it's relevant and part of a legitimate area of study. I've tweaked the text slightly with info from a further source (the term "even" was pretty inappropriate and wasn't helping matters). Any suggestions for further improving integration would be welcome.--Shakehandsman (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ahmed Ali Awan, brandishing the bloodied knife, exclaimed 'cherish the blood'". As this wasn't a public exclamation, I think we need a source here, like "According to witness X...", otherwise it sounds like we're repeating heresay as fact.
I'm unsure about this one too. Numerous reliable sources report on Awan's use of this phrase, so it seems to be widely accepted. I think it may being going too far to identify the source of every such claim 100% of the time. It's certainly warranted in the "trial" section, and perhaps the "appeal" section too, but it seems less useful elsewhere, particularly where we need a more concise presentation of the key facts. I supposed we can say "is alleged to have said" or something like that, but I'd really like to keep it as short and simply as possible seeing as it's in the "murder" section and so not ideal to introduce further persons at that point.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is also suggested the case demonstrates how society has been forced to redefine racism so as to no longer exclude white victims." This sentence is awkwardly worded. Can you rephrase it better (preferably not in the passive voice)?
  • Sourcing: The article seems to rely almost entirely on contemporary newspaper articles (mostly from the Peterborough Evening Telegraph). Are there no books or scholarly articles that discuss this case?
As stated in the article, the media failed to covered the case sufficiently and I expect that some of the more interesting coverage are only in existence thanks to those who complained about the BBC and media's previous failures. There's no reason to assume academia and publishers would be any better than the media, and while I'd welcome the use of such sources they don't appear to exist at present. I have spent a considerable amount of time searching for material about the case, and pretty much every available reliable resource that i can find has been used to produce the article, and if anything, academics and publishers have been even worse than the media in failing to cover this case. Anyway, there's certainly a major opportunity here for any author, researcher or documentary maker seeking an interesting topic to work on.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Kaldari (talk) 05:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nigel Pap edit

  • Kaldari points out that the number of attackers appears to be unknown. The lede currently says "a gang of up to ten Muslim youths of Pakistani background". If the number of attackers is unknown, what is the evidence that all of the attackers were Muslim, youths, and of Pakistani background?
The number of attackers is not "unknown", 4 members of the gang were placed on trial, with most admitting to being as the scene,. We don't know the exact number of attackers but the text of the article makes it clear that the sourced figure of "10" isn't exact. As for your other points, all those known to be at the scene fit the descriptions in question. Various sources note the various demographics of the gang and others arrested. At the end of the day, we just go with what the reliable sources say, so unless you have material suggesting something contrary to the reliable sources then there isn't much to discuss here.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, if you "don't know the exact number of attackers" then the number of attackers is unknown. What source states that this group of "up to ten" attackers were Muslim, youths, and of Pakistani background? Not the four men who were charged and tried, but the group of "up to ten". If this isn't in the source, it has no place in the article. Nigel Pap (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything to add to the previous reply. The text is clear and fully sourced. I regard this discussion as closed as the conversation isn't going anywhere. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the attackers were Muslim, why is it necessary to mention this in the lede? Why is Parker's religion not mentioned in the article?
There isn't a single source anywhere that I know of that mention's Parker's religion and I've certainly tried to find it. Again, should you have such information then please provide it and we will place his religion in the empty info box field where it belongs, (a field I added myself long-ago). However, note that there isn't any religious symbolism on his memorial headstone, so at the very least this may indicate that the religion of the victim and his family probably isn't too significant. The connection between September 11th and religion is fairly obvious and the article also notes that suspects chanted words such as "Taliban" and "Osama" and "Bin Laden". Sources discussing the case also mention the local "Muslim community", and evidence used against one killer mentions recordings of him stating he would pray to Allah. The purpose of the lede is to summerise the key aspects of the article reasonably concisely and text in question does so very well and is sourced to multiple reliable sources.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We do not know that all of the attackers were Muslim (see above). Even if all of those convicted were Muslim (which seems likely although we would need better sourcing than comments about Allah), there is no reason to have this information in the lede. It may be appropriate in the body, in the context of 9/11. We would not want readers to assume that Wikipedia is espousing or endorsing an anti-Muslim agenda, which is how this may be interpreted by some. Nigel Pap (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll ignore the less helpful portion of that reply and focus on the issues instead. Firstly, we already have consensus for keeping the term Muslim in the lede and its relevance is more than clear to any neutral observer for the reasons I've outlined already. They may be something interest that comes of this discussion though as I decided to examine some of the other descriptors used for the gang with scepticism, and while its clear that the term "muslim" is encyclopaedic and relevant and without contradiction the same cannot be said for the term "youths". If we try to look at this impartially and see the tests we apply to the term "Muslim", we find that "youths" is by far more controversial term as it actually fails such tests on multiples levels and therefore may need adjustment. Usual definitions of the term "youths", have an age range of 14-21, yet every single person tried, not to mention convicted falls outside of this range, with one perpetrator aged 24 and even older members known to be at the scene. Other factors may also apply allowing us to ignore the strict 14-21 age range, but any alternative definitions class "youths" as "individuals between childhood and adulthood" and see factors such as independence as important. Again, many at the scene/convicted fail to meet this definition, with more than one of those convicted being married, all of them having finished education and entered employment, and some having offspring and living independently in their own houses. So, while your'e off the mark about the term muslim in the lede, there is a possible issue with the term immediately following it. Anyway, many thanks for prompting me to take a more sceptical look at that part of the lede, it looks like we've finally identified a possible improvement, and a significant one at that.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that the statement questioned by Kaldari ("to find a white male to attack simply because he was white") is currently sourced to a court document. Is this a proper use of primary sources?
There's absolutely nothing wrong with limited use of primary sources. We've directly quoted the text in the source, use them for clear and unambiguous facts rather than make any interpretation and such use of primary sources is entirely permissible. In total I count about 6 out of 71 sources used in theh article as being primary, most of which are used for only small amounts of information. This is all well within Wikipedia guidelines.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The connection with 9/11 has not been adequately explained. Although the article says "Racial tensions in the area were high", it does not explain what this means. Immediately following 9/11, there were numerous attacks on people believed to be Muslim. This racially-motivated attack occurred in that context. Why is this not mentioned in the article?
I'm not aware of any documented racially motivated attacks on Muslims in the area in question, never mind "numerous" ones and the article does document some of the disturbances and that came about as a result of the case. If you have a source mentioning attacks prior to the murder which does so in the context of the Parker case, than that would be a useful addition, but, just as with all your other comments, I'm not aware of any such material--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218200720/http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/144_13295.htm This source used in the article says "The events in America of 11 September 2001 had given rise to hostility on the part of some of the younger white residents of the city against the Asian community. The defendants would have been conscious of this although there was no evidence that any of them or their families had personally suffered any harassment." Will you add it in, or shall I? Nigel Pap (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? One minute you are expressing concern at the use of primary sources (possibly a quite legitimate concern had the material been less than straightforward facts). Now you're instructing me to use these exact same sources much more ambiguous material and if I don't do so then you're gong to add it yourself!. He's not necessarily pressing an impartial assessment of all the events. I can't help noticing how your claim of a context of "numerous attacks" has completely transformed in mere alleged "harassment" by some youngsters. There doesn't seem to be any actual reliable secondary sources that I can find which report the information and give any detail or evidence of what may have occurred. There's no indication of any convictions or trials either and "harassment" is a hugely ambiguous anyhow. Take all together, it would appear that this harassment possibly wasn't that significant (or at least we can't really demonstrate that it was), and all the documented racial attacks related to Parker's murder all feature white victims. As it stands, this is fairly trivial material and certainly far too vague, the source is far from ideal and the context perhaps not all that neutral either. It's an appeal document and there the judge is looking for mitigating factors in the case instead of giving a completely neutral and complete picture of event. Seeing as we have third party reliable sources stating "racial tensions" then any vague suggestions of alleged harassment would be included within this phrase. If there is actual more concrete detail of known attacks and more reporting then we can expand upon this. In the mean time I regard this discussion as closed. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede currently says "It is also suggested the case demonstrates how society has been forced to redefine racism so as to no longer exclude white victims". The reference for this statement notes that since the mid-nineties, all victims are asked if they were the victim of a racially-motivated crime (not just visible minorities). The same source says "The far right has tried to exploit what it claims is the untold story of racial attacks on white people. ... Often, however, the crimes have nothing to do with race and in a number of cases, for instance Ross Parker, relatives of the victims have objected to their names being used." The statement about redefining racism is contradicted by the source and should be removed from the article.
I don't really follow much of that question I'm afraid, and some of the points seem unrelated to each other, though I think I sort of understand the first half so I'll try to address that. When it comes to defining racism it can be defined on various levels and by various different persons. The way the "law" or a government body defines something isn't necessarily the same as how "society" or perhaps politicians do so, so it could be that Easton is arguing that the case forced a change in attitudes, and for society to catch up with the Crime Survey who were perhaps ahead of the game? Anyway, while this is an interesting discussion, this isn't really the place to critique and dissect the intricacies of Easton's views and writings too much, and we're not endorsing his views by documenting what he wrote.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Easton is not an expert in race relations, nor does he speak for "society". This seems like cherry-picking one comment by one commentator, not reflecting a view generally held. I believe the point that you are trying to make is that racist attacks where the victim is white are far less frequent than racist attacks where the victim is non-white. Using this case as an example of that is not, in my opinion, a "legacy". Nigel Pap (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion that there's cherry picking going on in this article, particularly in terms of analysis of the case is beyond belief and completely laughable. One of the clearest and more interesting aspects of the case is the way it was largely ignored by much of the media, and as I explained to Kaldari, the number of available sources is limited as a result. I've searched extensively for material about the case, and there simply isn't any scope for "cherry-picking" due to media blackout, were we not making full use of all available reliable sources then there really wouldn't be much of an article to speak of. Your claim is the complete and total opposite of reality, and the article includes views of all the most notable individuals who have commented on the case in any significant fashion, and there'a diverse set of voices featured from across the political spectrum. Easton is an very high profile journalist, and the BBC is considered to be a reliable source and already have consensus that Easton's analysis is important (albeit with some minor tweaking of the wording/grammar possibly required). As for you last sentence, it almost leaves me lost for words as it 's the completely opposite of the actual facts for UK. I can't image where you'd get the idea that I was trying to push this false version of events as it's never something I'd do and breaches everything Wikipedia is about. And for the last time, it's not for us to dissect or agree/disagree with Easton's comments, and as with many of these points you just don't seem to be understanding the issues or policy and ultimately it's seeming more and more like a huge waste of everyone's time. I regard this discussion as closed as the conversation isn't going anywhere. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article should not link to a Facebook memorial page in the info box.
Wikipedia actually has a template specifically for linking to Facebook pages, so there doesn't' seem to be an issue here.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Facebook link would be completely appropriate if this was an article about a pop group, but it is about an event. The Facebook group is not in any sense the official page of the murder of Ross Parker. It should be removed. Nigel Pap (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the page again, it's hard to tell exactly how official it is. It does appear to have the blessing of Parker's family and is used for official purposes such a coordinating memorial events and documenting them. On the other hand, it doesn't actually seem to be run by a member of the Parker family, so may not technically be formal enough. Perhaps further research is needed here in order to make a decision either way? Perhaps editors who are more experienced with these matters could take a look and help with the uncertainly here?--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are there infoboxes for each of the convicted murderers? Outside of being the perpetrators of this murder, they are not notable. Their birth dates, place of residence, etc are not useful information for understanding the incident. Anything that is relvant should be included in the body of the article. In addition to this, the address of Shaied Nazir
This is standard practice for a quality article about such a crime, particularly when we consider that the perpetrators received life sentences. Note that the suspect who was not convicted does not have an info box. Their ages are relevant otherwise this wouldn't be included in the lede, their victim was still technically a child whereas the oldest perpetrator was some 7 years his senior. Furthermore, certain crimes England and Wales has different sentencing for under 18's, 18-21 years olds and over 21's, had the youngest perpetrator been a few years younger than he may have received a more lenient sentence. It's clear that the addresses are significant as discussed elsewhere, particularly in the cases of Nazir and Awan. Looking at the case form a wider perspective, sources talk about tensions between those from the Millfield area and those from elsewhere, so there are multiple reasons why the information is of note.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any information that is relevant (and discussed in the article, not the sources) can be included in the body of the article. I see absolutely no justification for dates of birth or street addresses to be used, either in the body or the infoboxes, if they remain. Nigel Pap (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't' how to reply to this really, t's obvious the dates of birth are important, in fact just reading about them has helped us to question some of the text in the lede above! About the only time one doesn't see an info box without a date of birth is when such information is unknown. Wikipedia is not censored. I regard this discussion as closed as the conversation isn't going anywhere. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dates of birth for the convicted murderers are sourced to court records. Is this a correct use of primary documents?
Yes.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPPRIVACY says "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object.". I'm going to remove these dates from the article. Given that these men are notable only in the context of this event, there should probably be a discussion before adding them back if reliable secondary sources are found. Nigel Pap (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The address Shaied Nazir is stated twice in the article. It is not clear why it is necessary to give a street address at all instead of just saying "Nazir's house".
"House" implies the actual structure that people reside in, whereas the key location is the garage at the rear of the property, so your suggested change would reduce accuracy and therefore make it worse, not better. The close proximity of the location to the murder scene is of note especially given that the gang fled there immediately following the attack.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could say "house" when you mean house and "garage" when you mean garage. You can easily discuss proximity to the crime scene without specifying a street address. Street addresses will only be helpful to those intimately familiar with the area or looking at a detailed map. Please remove the street addresses. Nigel Pap (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia is non censored and it's quite clearly the most important location of any other than the murder scene. If we look at the article about Fred West, his residence is mentioned no less than 12 times in the article (and coincidently, it also contains the name "Cromwell"). Now we're not suggesting the gang HQ is as notable as the main residence of the West's, but if such an article can defence the street address 12 times then it's pretty obvious other articles can mention notable locations too. A further street mentioned in the article is actually very well known and, contrary to your suggestion, would actually be familiar to people well beyond the local area, I can only guess you you haven't much studied or visited the East of England region? I regard this discussion as closed as the conversation isn't going anywhere. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am removing the street addresses from the article. WP:BPLPRIVACY applies here as well. Nigel Pap (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a map included in the article. It shows the location of the attack and Nazir's house, but it also includes a local mosque and the home of another of the attackers. There seems to be no reason to show the latter two locations.

Nigel Pap (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mosque is large, both in terms of capacity and in its height and the only significant landmark within the entirety of the map area. Landmarks are well worth including in such maps in aid the understanding of the reader. Landmarks are displayed by default for maps and, unlike the other more important locations, it has not been modified or highlighted in any way to make it stand out any more than other landmark or any part of the map. In the case of Awan, he was the ringleader of the gang and his residence is the second most significant after the Gang HQ. The rear of his property is very close to the murder scene and actually overlooks it, it has been alleged that he even looked out from his garden to view the police activity at the murder scene just hours after he killed Parker. Therefore, as with the gang HQ its useful for the reader to understand just how close together these various locations actually are. Looking at Awan's defence, he claimed to be at home at the time he was committing the murder, and it's useful for the readers to understand visually just how quickly he could have arrived home after committing the crime. I must also correct the impression you're giving that the map simply shows the houses of two of the perpetrators, it actually shows the entire property boundaries too, and in the case of Nazir it highlights the actual gang HQ.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the mosque involved in the murder? If not, leave it out. Nigel Pap (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well Mayor's Walk, Link Road and Dyson Close are in no way "involved" either, nor is the railway line nor, nor many of the public footpaths and other streets shown. However, I will not be airbrushing any or these map features out of existence any more so than I will a Mosque. A church would be shown too were there one in the area, as would any building of significance. The murder of Lee Rigby article includes a school, and library and we shouldn't pretend that those structures don't exist either. Please stop trying to remove the biggest landmark by far from the map. Wikipedia is not censored and next we'll probably have a fuel company demanding the removal of their petrol station too. I regard this discussion as closed as the conversation isn't going anywhere. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shakehandsman, I assumed that you took an image from OpenStreetMap and added the homes of the convicted killers in the same way that you added the "murder scene", but I see that they are actually on the OpenStreetMap map. It appears that someone using the name "shakehandsman" added not only those sites, but also the mosque. So when you say "it has not been modified or highlighted in any way to make it stand out", you neglect to mention that it would not appear at all if "shakehandsman" had not deliberately added it to the map shortly before you made the image used in the article. Nigel Pap (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did indeed edit open street map, that is quite clearly where the map came from. I explicitly gave OSM as a source for my work, I haven't hidden anything and I have been completely open about my changes on there. I registered at OSM in order to create this content and obviously I would have chosen a fake username had I wanted people not to view all my edits. Anyone reading my talk page policies can see just how much I value openness and it's something I've gotten a lot of respect for on Wikipedia. The point is that the Mosque has exactly the same formatting, font and standard symbol of any comparable building or landmark, such as say St Mark's church which is in the same area (and actually smaller than the Mosque). I've used bold text for key features on the article map, not to mention various colours and much larger text too, even capitals for the murder scene itself. The Mosque on the other hand is unaltered and untouched from standard OSM settings in every single way possible, I dare say that I haven't "disclosed" changes I made to the petrol station either. At the end of the day, and as seems to be generally the case with your edits, you're looking at the issue from completely the wrong perspective. You should be focusing on content not contributors and on policy and assuming good faith. OSM is far from a finished project and appropriate additions should be applauded not criticised. What matters is that the map is accurate, of a high standard, with no missing information and aids understanding. We're not going to airbrush major structures out of existence - Wikipedia is not censored.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that the mosque does not incidentally appear as landmark on the map. It appears only because you put it there. You added it with the same intention that you added the other sites, so that it would appear on the map (and the image you created from it). I am not asking anyone to censor anything. There is simply no reason to include the mosque on the map. The National Front have apparently used this killing as a propaganda vehicle. I don't think you would want anyone to misinterpret your efforts as an anti-Muslim agenda would you Shakehandsman? Nigel Pap (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Coordinator's comment - This discussion is drifting away from whether or not the article meets the FA criteria. Google Earth and Maps clearly show the mosque as a major landmark, and that the map in the article is accurate enough for our purposes. That it is a mosque and not a church or a Tesco Superstore is not relevant. We cannot be held responsible for how the information in Wikipedia is used. What we must do is to ensure that it is accurate, verifiable and written from a neutral point of view. Please keep this discussion to the Featured Article Criteria; anything else does not belong here. Graham Colm (talk) 11:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Graham, I have no experience with these discussions. In an article where a group of men who are questionably identified in the lede as Muslims have sought out and murdered a "white male", unnecessarily showing the largest local mosque becomes a question of neutrality. The map can easily show the relevant information without including the mosque simply with a different cropping. However I will continue this discussion somewhere else. Nigel Pap (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dank

  • My reaction to the lead was pretty much the same as Curly's. Both the reality and the appearance should be that this is an encyclopedia article that looks at the problem from a critical distance and doesn't take sides in questions concerning racism. - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well as I said I'm happy to tweak the phrasing if there's a consensus to do so and that appears to be the case now, I don't think it takes sides, but as the author I might not be the best judge of that, and if it's possible to interpret it as doing so then I need to make the content clearer. Kaldari has identified possible grammatical issues with the sentence too, so it does appear to need attention for other reasons anyway. Thanks for the feedback.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Having been open well over a month, this review seems to have stalled without anything approaching consensus to promote developing, so I'm going to archive it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2014 (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 archived by Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2014 (diff).

Health issues in American football edit

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 16:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the title suggests, this article is an overview of the health issues that come with playing American football. This article was a collaboration between me and ChrisPond, and just recently passed through a good article review by Wizardman with virtually no issues found. This is a broad overview of the topic - in particular, the article covers injuries (both common and uncommon) that come with playing the sport, the effects these injuries have on athletes post-career, and the measures taken to try and reduce injuries throughout the history of the sport. Standard media sources like newspapers and magazines are used, but many of the sources here are published works that come from reputed scientific/medical journals. In addition to images, there are also several informative tables that are used to demonstrate the statistics of injury in the sport, both internally and in comparison to other sports. In all, I'm confident this meets the featured article criteria. Toa Nidhiki05 16:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • There are a few links to check out.
    • All link issues have now been corrected. Toa Nidhiki05 18:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The football helmet, although a scapegoat for concussions, ... What does this mean?
    • It means that although helmets are often blamed for concussions. Toa Nidhiki05 15:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One area I found to be underrepresented was heat strokes / heat exhaustion in football, it's been covered in the press beyond a passing mention. According to The New York Times: "In a period of less than 20 years, 40 high school football players have died from heat stroke, according to the National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research at the University of North Carolina. The numbers have increased in the past decade, the center found." [1]. It's a 1(b) and 1(c) question for me. These links may be of use too: [2] [3]. Seattle (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'm afraid this review has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2014 (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 not promoted by Graham Colm (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2014 [4].

Geiger–Marsden experiment edit

Nominator(s): Kurzon (talk) 08:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Geiger-Marsden experiment, a landmark experiment by which Ernest Rutherford discovered the existence of the atomic nucleus. I have thoroughly rewritten the article to a better standard and would like to see it considered for FA status.Kurzon (talk) 08:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As of the current version, I have to say this isn't at the level I expect an FA-article to be. The main points of contention are mostly:
  • First there is a complete lack of any sort of mathematical details, or quantitative experimental details. The qualitative aspects are mostly fine (Thomson = everything goes through, minor deflection, Rutherford = most goes through, but some have very very large deflections), but cross sections formulas and data plots for Rutherford vs Thomson vs Experiment are missing. Sources are old enough that they ought to be public domain by now, if not fair use can be claimed.
  • The GM experiment was the start of all of nuclear physics. This only has a very small mention, barely an afterthought. This needs to be greatly expanded upon, at least until the discovery of the neutron / discovery of nuclear structure. Possibly up to at least to the SLAC deep scattering experiments which found that protons and neutrons themselves have substructure, but that might be overkill.
There are other more minor things, but these two are complete dealbreakers for me. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some minor things:
  • [5] mentions some prior results. In particular, there's E. Rutherford (1906), Phil Mag 12 143 seems to warrant mention. Maybe the "discussions" of the 1906 results by Kucera & Masek, Bragg, Meitner, Meyer are relevant too, but maybe not. Those papers should at least be read to confirm.
I'll add more things later. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, if I was an actual physicist, these demands would be easy to meet.Kurzon (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FA means amongst other things that, and i quote, an article is 1 a) well-written, b) comprehensive, c) well-researched, d) neutral, e) stable. It highlights wikipedia's best articles, regardless of how difficult it is to write them. My objections isn't to say your recent work since ~April has been bad, unappreciated, or didn't improve the article. It simply means that I don't think the article, as currently written, can stand next to the likes of photon, quark, or equipartition theorem. Maybe others will disagree, maybe they won't, but the point here is that FA reviews are meaningless they were free passes just because you worked hard. I worked hard on many articles, and they aren't featured. That's fine. And I worked very, very, hard on a few articles and they got featured.
It it was easy, everyone would do it. Remember that people are willing to help, but this is a volunteer project and people have their own lives to live. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get the point. Good thing I have the weekend ahead of me to brush up on my trigonometry.Kurzon (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't take the comments as a personal attack. The criteria are quite lofty, it's no shame to not get to them, all that matters is that the article gets improved, and this process will help in that regard. Hekerui (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for working on this. As Headbomb wrote, a big part of the achievement of Rutherfords and others was the quantitative analysis, giving the differential scattering cross section in relation to the angle, this must be included in the article in some way. The lead should also be expanded to properly summarize the article. I find it one of the biggest lifts in writing a good article, but it's the most important part of it. Best regards Hekerui (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, User:Hekerui, what do you think of it now?Kurzon (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read it in great details, but the experiment results figures (which can be lifted from the original articles themselves) are still missing from the article. Likewise, the math of Thomson scattering isn't present. Referencing is weak, and whole sections are in need of wikification. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found two web pages that detail the maths behind Thomson's prediction: this one, and this one. Each does the maths a little differently. Which do you think I ought to copy? Kurzon (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of the two, Hyperphysics is the best. The first one gives only back of the envelope estimate of the deflection angle, Hyperphysics is more explicit in its assumptions. Also, [6] will come in handy for the nuclear physics/deep inelastic scattering section. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Headbomb, how about now?Kurzon (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make this less painful for everyone involved, I don't think this article has a chance of improving to FA-level within a reasonable amount of time (e.g. weeks). There simply are too many issues with it, touching almost every aspect of WP:FACR 1a) to 1e). The article is better than at the start of the FAC, and is still being improved, but with several major areas of content simply missing from the article (1b and 1c), and referencing being mostly based on web resources aimed at intro-level (and the references they provide) it's nearly impossible to work on addressing issues relating to 1a and 1e. The article simply need to spend more time in the oven, with all content present and solidly referenced through and through, drawing heavily on historical review articles, books, and things like Rutherford's Nobel Lecture. If I were Kurzon, I'd withdraw the nomination for now, without any prejudice against a later nomination. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article wasn't getting any attention until I nominated it. I submitted it to peer review as I was supposed to but nobody took notice. Nobody ever takes notice of peer review requests.
If I can't get FA, can somebody at least upgrade this articles quality scale score? Right now it's just a C-class. Somebody, give a me a cookie.Kurzon (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John edit

Question Are we in American or British English here? If it's the former, why is that? --John (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note - This nomination is premature. The article is not ready for consideration for promotion to FA. See Headbomb's comments above. Graham Colm (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2014 (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 archived by Ian Rose (talk) 06:11, 17 August 2014 (diff).

Courtney Love edit

Nominator(s): Scottdoesntknow (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about singer-songwriter Courtney Love of the band Hole, and I believe it has reached Featured Article status; it is well rounded, heavily researched and documented, and I have worked tirelessly at prose and other issues for several years now, and feel that it has come full circle at this point. It appropriately discusses all facets of her career and projects, and has been carefully constructed/edited to evenly cover her duplicitous public career, image, and personal life. Scottdoesntknow (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment by Curly Turkey edit

  • Yikes! Please see WP:LEADCITE—citations in the lead are discouraged except in special cases. The density of citations especially is a reader-unfriendly eyesore—I recommend reading WP:BUNDLE. Not against the "rules", but&nbso;... ugh! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed and taken care of. I moved all the appropriate citations out of the lead and into the body of the article alone. I wasn't sure if this was an issue as I don't recall it being brought up during the GA review. I left the citations in the lead however on her date of birth, since it's the main place it is mentioned and because the date has been contended before. Scottdoesntknow (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review from John edit

I only got to "battles with drug addiction". If all of the article is written like this, it will fail on prose. I will finish reading it, but this early tabloidism fills me with horror and foreboding. --John (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just go through it first and then address everything at once rather than make a sassy remark? Scottdoesntknow (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to reviewers' remarks like this doesn't give reviewers confidence that you'll be open to their feedback. I, for one, don't see any sass in the comment. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to feedback, but it hasn't even been read yet. And "fills me with horror and foreboding" is dramatic. That's all I'm saying. No hard feelings. Scottdoesntknow (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- There still appear to be several statements with up to five citations, and others without any citation at all. The latter issue particularly needs to be addressed before this is considered for FAC. Taking that into account, along with the lack of commentary here for the past two weeks, I'm going to archive this nom. I'd suggest that after resolving the points noted above you take the article to Peer Review before renominating at FAC (which requires a minimum two-week wait in any case). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2014 (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 not promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2014 [7].

Taylor Swift edit

Nominator(s): Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 06:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the well-known singer-songwriter, Taylor Swift. It has a lot of references, and I think it deserves to be a featured article as the content, description and context are well-written. The article is already a good article, but i think it is more than that. The words typed into the article are well-written (like how I said earlier) and it gains a lot of viewers. For your opinions, feel free to comment. :) Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 06:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note -- You don't seem to be one of the main contributors to this article -- have you contacted any of them about nominating this, per FAC instructions? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Sorry, this is not ready at all to become FA. In fact, this article doesn't even meet GA criteria in its current state as far as I'm concerned. For starters, I see many malformatted refs:

  • "Philly.com"
  • "Readingeagle.com"
  • "Words-of-whimsy.blogspot.co.uk"
  • "Blogs.mcall.com"
  • "EW.com"
  • "Articles.philly.com"
  • "Daily Telegraph"
  • "Dailymail.co.uk"
  • "BMI.com"
  • "Majorlyindie.com"
  • "TIME"
  • "Azstarnet.com"
  • "Gactv.com"
  • "Usatoday.Com"
  • "VisualHollywood.com"
  • "seventeen.com"
  • "MTV.com"
  • "UsMagazine.com"
  • "Lefsetz.com"
  • "NYTimes.com"
  • "Billboard.biz"
  • "Berkshireeagle.com"
  • "online.wsj.com"
  • "Post-gazette.com"
  • "Hotpress.com"
  • "music.yahoo.com"
  • "Nashvillescene.com"
  • "Abcnew.go.com"
  • "Standard.co.uk"
  • "Theboot.com"
  • "Blogs.tennessean.com"
  • "Nymag"
  • "Blogs.villagevoice.com"
  • "UPI.com"
  • "Marquee.blogs.cnn.com"
  • "entertainmentwise.com"
  • "Music-mix.ew.com"
  • "Entertainment.time.com"
  • "NY Daily News"
  • "Raretaylorswift.webs.com"
  • "StarTribune.com"
  • "Azcentral.com"
  • "Countrystandardtime.com"
  • "M.billboard.com"
  • "Instyle.co.uk"
  • "Articles.latimes.com"
  • "Latimesblogs.latimes.com"
  • "Itunes.apple.com"
  • "Tasteofcountry.com"
  • "Deltaskymag.delta.com"
  • "Twitter.com"
  • "Articles.chicagotribune.com"
  • "K955fm.com"
  • "People.com"
  • "Channelguidemagblog.com"
  • "Nymag.com"
  • "accessAtlanta"
  • "Creme.co.nz"
  • "SlantMagazine.com"
  • "Voices.washingtonpost.com"
  • "Savingcountrymusic.com"
  • "Joplinglobe.com"
  • "Refinery29.com"
  • "Nashvillescene.com"
  • "Social.entertainment.msn.com"
  • "Uncut.co.uk"
  • "Elviscostellofans.com"
  • "Vindy.com"
  • "Musicconnection.com"
  • "Huffington Post"
  • "Blog.music.aol.com"
  • "Transcript.cnn.com"
  • "AfterEllen.com"
  • "Newmusiclive.ca"
  • "Kcrw.com"
  • "Main.stylist.com"
  • "WWD.com"
  • "E! Online"
  • "News.sel.sony.com"
  • "Newsday.com"
  • "Bizjournals.com"
  • "Ukeonline.com"
  • "Artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com"
  • "Nbc.com"
  • "Looktothestars.org"
  • "Finance.yahoo.com"
  • "Google.com"
  • "Prnewswire.com"
  • "abclocal.go.com"
  • "Vh1.com"
  • "Boston.com"
  • "Huffingtonpost.com"
  • "Oomscholasticblog.com"
  • "Scholastic.com"
  • "Wfmz.com"
  • "Queerty.com"
  • "Looktothestars.org"
  • "Tampabay.com"
  • "Makeawishna.ca."
  • "Mainewishna.ca"
  • "3news.co.nz"
  • "Mass.wish.org"
  • "PennLive.com"
  • "Politico.com"
  • "Sparklyflower.posterous.com"
  • "Au.eonline.com"
  • "Starpulse.com"
  • "Allstatenewsroom.com"
  • "Sys-con.com"
  • "Rttnews.com"
  • "blog.cmt.com"
  • "Realestalker.blogspot.com.au"
  • "Shine.yahoo.com"
  • "Forbes.com"
  • "People (magazine)"
  • "US Magazine"
  • "Popcrush.com"
  • "Popsugar.com"

Additionally, there are many incorrect uses of italics (i.e. printed sources like Billboard (magazine) and Los Angeles Times should be italicized, non-print sources like MTV and VH1 should not be italicized). Furthermore, I see a number of dead links, and references are very inconsistent with using/not using publishers. Worst of all, there are bare URL's, refs missing work fields, and many unreliable sources used such as New York Post, "PopCrush", "Hollywood Life", Daily Mail, "Star Pulse", "Entertainmentwise", and Blogspot.

As for prose/coverage itself, definitely could use work. The fact that she registered to vote on her 18th birthday is trivial, same for 2008 being her "first election" the George H. W. Bush bits, her Kennedy affiliations (except for dating RFK and Ethel's grandson Connor), her "interest in American history", and properties owned. The "personal life" section could be scrapped, incorporating her dating life and Forbes earnings into "Life and career" section, especially given how there's a subsection with "tabloid interest" in its title that goes into the scrutiny she faced for her dating life. Since this article mentions that Joe Jonas and John Mayer wrote songs about her, I'd say go into detail on that- "Dear John" raised many eyebrows and so did "Paper Doll". "Acting career" can also be incorporated into "life and career", and I'd put "politics", "philanthropy", and maybe "product endorsements" in a section titled "other ventures". The "philanthropy" section seems rather bloated, and its paragraph on her LGBT-related actions belong in the "politics" subsection. "Ditzy" in "ditzy valley girlfriend" seems POV, too. Info on how many songs she wrote on her albums belongs in her album articles, not here. Do NOT include "TBA" for her upcoming album unless that is the album's title. A better title for "Awards and nominations" might be "Achievements", and here would be a good place to include some info on her commercial success. Also, "Swift has been the recipient of seven Grammy Awards, fifteen American Music Awards, eleven Country Music Association Awards, seven Academy of Country Music Awards, and twelve Billboard Music Awards"..... try Swift has received.

With all of this being said, I suggest withdrawal. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Temperatures Rising edit

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1972-73 American television sitcom Temperatures Rising. I have greatly expanded the text of this article and believe that it now features a fairly comprehensive history of the series. I want to upgrade this to FA level. Please offer any suggestions you can to improve it. Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, anyone there? It has been more than three weeks since I made this a FAC and not one response! Jimknut (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimknut, I think you might have better luck taking this through WP:GAN first. That might help to get rid of lingering prose and sourcing issues. For example, Find a Grave is not generally considered a reliable source. Once you've done that, to get to FAC you would need to deal with consistency problems, both in the references and in terms of compliance with the Manual of Style, as these issues are not generally covered at the GA level. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I could indeed do better at the GAN level, but I really do want to push this article to an FA. As for lingering prose and sourcing issues, no one has commented on them so I have no idea which ones need updating. As for Find a Grave, I have used it to establish the birth dates of Paul Lynde and Sudie Bond. In both cases photos of there graves stones are displayed with the years of their births shown. Jimknut (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank edit

  • Has there been any discussion, for instance at WP:TV, on whether this should be one article or two? What you're calling the second format was a show with a different name, a different cast (except for one character), different subject matter, different tone, and on a different night, after a hiatus. I don't know the answer to this question, but I'd at least like to see a discussion about it. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, there hasn't been any discussion at WP:TV on whether this should be one article or two. My opinion is that it should stay as one article because, despite so many alterations, it was officially the same show (i.e. the network toted it as such), much like, for instance, how The Virginian became The Men From Shiloh in its ninth season. Likewise, M*A*S*H is covered in one article even though it shifted from being a sitcom to a comedy drama and changed actors and characters during its run, although these changes were more gradual than the changes made to Temperatures Rising. I think, then, that separate articles would be appropriate only if there was an official spin-off, such as how The Jeffersons spun off from All in the Family, or if the revised version came many years after the original ended, such as the 1971-75 and the 2010-12 runs of Upstairs Downstairs. Jimknut (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd like to see some discussion on the point among interested WPians. - Dank (push to talk) 17:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment edit

This has been open nearly a month without attracting enough commentary to determine consensus to promote so I'll be archiving it shortly. Personally I think the nominator's response to the question of one vs. two articles makes sense but let's see what the TV project discussion throws up. After that I'd suggest GAN, per Nikki, before returning to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2014 (diff).

Ancient Trader edit

Nominator(s): → Call me Hahc21 05:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Trader is a turn-based strategy video game developed by Slovakia-based studio 4Kids Games. It was released on 27 June 2010 for Microsoft Windows and the Xbox 360, and on 17 December 2010 for iOS. The game was designed using Microsoft XNA, and its year long development cycle was executed by six individuals. The game consists of a player exploring and trading in a sixteenth century cartography-influenced map with the ultimate goal to collect three artifacts to defeat the game's main antagonist, a sea creature called the Ancient Guardian. → Call me Hahc21 05:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by JimmyBlackwing

My main focus during FAC reviews is criterion 1a, so that's what I'll be judging below.

  • This referred to the lead, which still says "Slovakia-based". I went ahead and fixed it myself. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(unrelated to 4Kids Entertainment)" — This should be removed. It has no source, it isn't part of the article body and it's basically irrelevant.
  • That was my add, not Hahc's, so don't blame him. I do think it's pertinent, though; when you mention "4Kids" to an English speaker, the unequivocal first thing that comes to mind is the infamous anime-dubbing studio (because what's worse than just acknowledging the US's messed-up standards of appropriateness to bring anime to a younger audience, right?), so I added a mention. Tezero (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the concern, but it's blatant OR, and relatively few people know what 4Kids Entertainment (now 4Licensing Corporation) actually is. It needs to go. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's blatant OR that a Slovakian game design studio isn't part of the American anime licensing corporation, but not that the map is in the style of the "Age of Enlightenment"? I'm not following. Tezero (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Age of Discovery is the technical name for the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century European era on which the game is based. Cartography from sixteenth-century Europe is, to use its proper name, Age of Discovery cartography. The Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, which Chris Schilling compares to the game's visual design, is a famous Age of Discovery map. Just like abbreviating "1550-1650" to "early modern" (or "Doom, Unreal and Half-Life" to "first-person shooters"), it's simply a different way of phrasing the same information, rather than original research. On the other hand, the 4Licensing Corporation mention isn't a different way of phrasing information present in the sources, because it isn't in the sources. That's what makes it OR. If there's some source clarifying the relationship between 4Kids Games and 4Licensing Corporation, then by all means include it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need sources to establish a lack of a relationship when there is no evidence for such a relationship and the anime 4Kids, with its copious press releases, particularly relating to its business ventures, can be expected to have said something about it if they were affiliated. However, it's still something that readers could very much be confused by, because, well, that's what "4Kids" usually means in the American cultural lexicon. At the very least, I think a "not to be confused with" is appropriate.
Regarding the Age of Discovery, it would not necessarily be OR to note that the Theatrum Orbis Terrarum is an Age of Discovery map. However, it is OR to make the leap that all maps based on it in any way are inherently Age of Discovery-style cartography - perhaps Schilling was influenced by things about the map unrelated to its Age of Discovery nature. Tezero (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it has no source, then it's an original observation. That's all there is to it. The source can't be the work itself, like when Plot sections go citation-free, because the 4Licensing Corporation connection isn't part of the work. Plus, since there's no direct statement for or against 4Kids Games being related to 4Licensing Corporation, we can't (given Wikipedia guidelines) automatically assume either one as being the case. Also, Schilling is a journalist at Eurogamer (not a 4Kids member), and here's the passage of his review being cited:
  • But we can assume that the things could be confused, which leaves open the viability of a "(not to be confused with ...)". That doesn't need a source, just like "Not to be confused with ..." tags at the tops of articles don't need sources. Tezero (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, site navigation templates don't have to follow WP:OR. If 4Kids Games had an article, it would be appropriate to provide a disambiguation template at the top. But that's different from what you're suggesting, which is putting OR in the article text. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, so it's only OR if it's in the text as opposed to at the top, even if it's the exact same wording? That's a relief; I finally have an avenue on Wikipedia to place my belief that Sonic '06 is a postmodernist statement on losing your idols. Header, ho! Tezero (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since that has nothing to do with site navigation, the point is irrelevant. Again, you're grasping at straws. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its distinctive visual style is, naturally, the first thing that impresses. Artist Petr Vcelka, one of just six names listed in the credits, has taken inspiration from 16th- and 17th-century cartography - most obviously, Abraham Ortelius and his Theatrum Orbis Terrarum (the first modern atlas) - and crafted some beautiful, imaginative and exceptionally detailed art across the game's ageing, weathered maps."
  • "16th- and 17th-century cartography" is Age of Discovery cartography. However, calling it "Age of Discovery cartography" prevents close paraphrasing, while at the same time making it easier to wikilink. On top of that, it's clearer and more specific for the reader than a generalized date range would be. I can see no reason not to prefer it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are other ways to paraphrase without plagiarizing and without making original summaries of things not stated in the source. (The term "Age of Discovery" is, by your own admission, not there.) The best I think you can do is a source that describes the 16th and 17th centuries as unequivocally identical to the Age of Discovery, and even then only use it in such a structure as "sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, an era also known as the Age of Discovery". Tezero (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be tantamount to asking me to find a source before I called 1432 the Late Middle Ages. You're grasping at straws, here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd want you to come up with a darn good reason to use a numerically vague term not supported by the source just for the purpose of showing off a bit of your worldly education, yeah. And it's the same here. Tezero (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's supported by the source in slightly different words. And, for what it's worth, my knowledge of the Age of Discovery is based on Googling for a concrete era name when I thought that "sixteenth century cartography-influenced" was poorly worded. Your opposition here is bizarrely personal, on top of being irrational. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what? Fine. If you have a better idea of what OR should be than Wikipedia does, more power to you. You're the reviewer, after all. I have other obligations here. Tezero (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Sorry, that wasn't necessary. Let me rephrase: It's clear that we're not going to agree on this, but since it's a minor issue (and one that I have no idea how Hahc or anyone else would feel about), I don't think it's necessary to continue. You can keep it your way if you want. Tezero (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its year long development cycle was executed by six individuals." —> "it was developed in one year by six people."
  • Sentence rewrite suggestion:
  • "The game consists of a The player controls a ship that exploring explores and trading trades in an Age of Discovery-style map sixteenth century cartography-influenced map, while seeking with the ultimate goal to collect three artifacts that will to defeat the game's main antagonist, a sea creature called the Ancient Guardian." (italics signify an addition)
  • The Age of Discovery part is OR, I think, but rewritten similarly. Tezero (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Age of Discovery is the technical term for what Hahc is talking about. The Age of Discovery article even features the Theatrum Orbis Terrarum namedropped in the Development section. Since "large map" isn't actually related to the article body, and "makes trades" is very vague, I think my suggested rewrite is preferable. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The idea behind the game was influenced by board games and video games such as" —> "Ancient Trader's design was influenced by that of board games and of the video games".
  • Again, this was in reference to the lead. Also, removing the "of the" means, grammatically, that Elite and Advance Wars are both board and video games. I went ahead and changed this myself. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to design the overall game's appearance, and with Milan Malik to compose the game's score." —> "on the game's graphic design, and with Milan Malik on the game's score."
  • "received positive response" —> "received a positive response".
  • "Legendo Entertainment, and" — Comma isn't necessary.
  • Sentence rewrite:
  • "The player controls a ship, and their main mission is to collect and seeks out three powerful artifacts needed to challenge and to defeat the game's main antagonist, a sea creature called the Ancient Guardian."
  • Another:
  • "However, before being able to locate obtaining these artifacts, the player must explore the map and to gather amounts of three different commodities: tea, spices, and fruit."
  • "The map consists of a main sea surrounded by land" —> "The map consists of a landlocked sea".
  • A rewrite:
  • "Sea creatures and enemy ships appear randomly across the map as they and challenge the player for gold or loot commodities in a card minigame."
  • "Whirlpools act as teleports that, when activated, take" —> "Whirlpools transport".
  • A rewrite:
  • "The player can also sometimes encounters message bottles that clear away fog of war previously clouded areas of on the map to reveal hidden ports."
  • "the entire map is covered by wind clouds that disappear" —> "the entire map is obscured by fog of war that disappears".
  • "moved across the horizontal and vertical axes, but not diagonally" —> "moved horizontally and vertically, but not diagonally"
  • "located at a port" —> "docked at a port".
  • "drawing cards" —> "drawing colored and numbered cards".
  • "the player will be allowed to buy the three powerful artifacts needed to defeat the Ancient Guardian and win the game" —> "the player is allowed to buy the three powerful artifacts and win the game by defeating the Ancient Guardian".
  • A rewrite:
  • "Additionally, Defeating the Guardian awards the player with the "mythical treasure", which consists of additional loot and upgrades that were previously not unavailable in on the map."
  • I don't understand the discussion of the game's multiplayer component. Could you try clarifying it in the article?
  • "the progress will be unrecoverable if the game is closed" —> "all progress is lost if the game is closed".
  • Why do you discuss the multiplayer mode twice? Redundant information should be merged or removed.
  • "Ancient Trader is the first video game developed by Slovakia-based" —> "Ancient Trader was the first video game developed by the Slovakian"

I'll be back later to finish the review. In the meantime, a review-back on Thief II would be most appreciated. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by JimmyBlackwing, continued

Sorry for the delay; I've been busy.

  • "Four people comprised the team that worked in the development of the game" —> "The development team consisted of four people".
  • A rewrite:
  • "The music score was composed by Milan Malik, while animations were designed and the graphics were animated by Jan Ohajsky."
  • A rewrite:
  • Uh... done, I guess? None of that text is in the article with either wording now that I look at it. Tezero (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A rewrite:
  • "Levius and his girlfriend dedicated tested and balanced the game's mechanics for around two months to test and balance the game's mechanics along with his girlfriend, as well as gathering groups of and they invited friends to play the game 'without explaining anything[,] to see if they can understand the rules and controls.'"
  • A rewrite:
  • "He Levius worked with Vcelka to design Ancient Trader's appearance., and he contributed graphical Levius, who designed some details like paper textures and clouds.,revealed that The map's texture was based on a base of the maps' textures was arranged from the scan of an old military map of Slovakia."
  • Maybe include an image of Theatrum Orbis Terrarum in Development to go along with Schilling's quote?
  • A rewrite:
  • "For the Xbox 360 version of Ancient Trader, the team introduced a feature options to reduce the color saturation in the game and to change the amount of color in the game allow players to decide how much color they wanted to have."
  • "other recent genre-related" — Just drop this part.
  • "and vividness" —> "and the vividness".
  • "gave the game a score of 8 out of 10" — We know this from the review box.
  • "as to be a" — Drop the "to be".
  • "included an improved AI, new player avatars and the save feature" —> "includes improved AI, new player avatars and the save feature".
  • "it was too far from the original indie game" —> "it deviated too much from the original indie game".

The prose isn't too bad, but there are enough issues that I'm going to have to oppose until it's been tidied up. It shouldn't take too long to fix. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it needs a bit of work. I'll do it later this week :) → Call me Hahc21 04:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JimmyBlackwing, I've taken on some of these. I hope that's okay. Tezero (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking better, but there's still work to do. I left some comments above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Almost there. As for the contentious points above, I'll wait for Hahc to give a third opinion before deciding one way or the other. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be going to Wikimania so this nomination will be a bit stale until I'm back. → Call me Hahc21 05:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I'd like to go to one of those, though I'll have to learn Spanish and cobble together at least a few hundred dollars for travel money if 2015 is to be realistic. Tezero (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dank
  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
  • "Levius dedicated around two months to test and balance the game's mechanics along with his girlfriend": So, one of the goals here is to avoid being unintentionally funny, and that's funny: girlfriends generally take more than two months to test and balance. Change it to "Levius and his girlfriend".
    • Since Hahc's away, I made this fix. There's an argument that "girlfriend" is a less-than-encyclopedic tone ... that either she's involved enough that we should mention her name or a less tenuous connection, or she's not involved enough to mention, but I won't take a position. - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:JimmyBlackwing, and anyone else who likes to copyedit WP:VG articles and wants to take a look: I'm not a gamer myself, I just know a little of the lingo, so I'd appreciate any feedback.
  • I see that some of the things JimmyBlackwing caught weren't changed ... and AFAICT, I got all those in my copyediting. Feel free to go with Jimmy's suggestions instead of mine, he knows what he's doing.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dank, you may wish to know that Hahc hasn't been around lately and JimmyBlackwing has suggested that this is likely to close as no-promote soon. I suggest you come back whenever Hahc re-nominates. Tezero (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Tezero, that works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 22:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment

It's been a week since Hahc's been around so I'm going to archive this and perhaps he can have another try later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2014 (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 not promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2014 (diff).

Didier Drogba edit

Nominator(s): Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 18:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Ivorian professional footballer who is at the moment a free agent. He is best known for his career at English Premier League club Chelsea where he won three league titles, four domestic titles and the UEFA Champions League in 2011–12. He is the club's fourth highest scorer of all time, and his country's all-time top goalscorer.

I believe this article should be featured because it provides very detailed information on his entire career, especially at Chelsea and his career with the Ivory Coast national team. His personal life is also well documented. Content is well-referenced and concise, and as of this revision I did not find any disambiguation links. I think this well deserves to be a featured article. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 18:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article requires significant work to become featured. I would suggest putting it through peer review first.

  • The article is lacking information in some places, and over-detailed in others. Drogba may have been a late developer, but the sections on his earlier career are lacking. For instance, his season at Marseille resulted in a £3 million player becoming a £24 million player in the space of a year. This period just two sentences. Irrelevancies such as his shirt number at Chelsea get more than this.
  • Several parts of the article contain informal language lacking in neutrality, for example "He scored his seventh Wembley goal in fantastic style against London rivals Tottenham on 15 April, hammering the ball past former teammate Carlo Cudicini"
  • His international career lacks context. Drogba is part of a group of players viewed as the most talented the Ivory Coast has ever had, but that have generally been viewed as underachievers (e.g. no African Nations win, failing to make it past the groups in the World Cup). The article conveys no sense of this.
  • There is no description of what type of player Drogba is, his strengths and weaknesses. Football biographies aiming for FA typically have a Playing style section. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldelpaso: Noted. I've listed it for peer review and improved the article on a few of the areas you pointed out. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 16:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I agree this article is under-prepared for FAC and would be better off at PR initially, so will archive it shortly. Aside from issues noted above, several paragraphs are lacking citations, and that would need to be rectified before re-nominating at FAC. BTW, an article shouldn't be at FAC and PR simultaneously, so we'd need to close this in any case if you've listed at the latter. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2014 (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 not promoted by Graham Colm (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2014 (diff).

1987 Giro d'Italia edit

Nominator(s): Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 20:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I've put in some considerable labor into the article to bring it from what it was ([8]). I recently got the 1988 Giro d'Italia promoted to FA status and have made the changes and additions requested to that article to this one (expanded the route and stages sections, added an aftermath section, and a little more on pre race favorites). I also did a copy edit of the race overview, which I believe got most of the prose errors out of the way. I will respond back to any comments very quickly. Thanks!

Also, I have perused the internet databases in search of information on doping controls and cases at the 1987 giro and have not found anything; so that is why there is nothing about doping in the article. I haven't found a source that claims there weren't doping cases either...

Image review

  • File:Sanremo Casino.jpg - all OK
  • File:Terminillo.JPG - all OK
  • File:Moreno Argentin.jpg - Flickr, reviewed - looks OK
  • File:San Marino 010.jpg - all OK
  • File:Robert MILLAR (cropped).jpg - all OK
  • File:Passo Pordoi 2007.jpg - all OK
  • File:1987 Stephen Roche Giro TT.jpg - Flickr, reviewed - looks OK

Images sound. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor

Lead
  • The Giro started in San Remo, on 21 May, with a 4 km (2.5 mi) prologue - Major nitpick, I know. But you use "concluded" later in the sentence, and I feel that's more formal than "started". Can you use "commenced" or something a bit more formal than "started"?
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 05:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second and third places were taken by British rider Robert Millar and Dutchman Erik Breukink, respectively. - Feel this could be more concise. "Second and third place were taken by ..."
Fixed, I believe. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 05:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the fifteenth leg, Roche successfully defended the overall lead from attacks from Visentini and the other general classification contenders to the event's end in Saint-Vincent - I think until would be better than to here.
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 05:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-race favorites
  • In addition, the El Mundo Deportivo writer believed Jean-François Bernard to be a dark-horse candidate - Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think candidate is necessary after dark horse.
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 05:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole paragraph is choppy. Lots of subject + verb structures.
What exactly do you mean by this? Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 05:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • win a stage is repeated several times. This sounds like pure jargon. To someone like me, who has no concept of cycling, this means very little, though I'd assume in context it means being in the top three. Can you explain?
A stage is a part of a multi-day bike race, since you don't ride all 3000+km consecutively. So they break it up into sections that are ridden each day. This race was broken up into 22 stages. It also had one prologue, an individual time trial under 8km, which doesn't get listed as a stage, but is a day of racing itself. Some stages back then were also broken up into half stages where half the stage was raced in (stage 1a and 1b this edition). Does that help? Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 05:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ormezzano believed that Guido Bontempi, Urs Freuler, Argentin, and Paolo Rosola had a great chance - Cluster of nouns do not match with object. This can be remedied if you insert "all" before "had a great chance".
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 05:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mario Fossati, of La Repubblica, - No need for the commas around "of ...".
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 05:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "climbing"?
Added mountains after it to make it clear, would mountain passes be better? Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 05:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Route and stages
  • What are "categorized climbs"?
Fixed, explained at the first instance. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 05:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "along with Maggiorino Ferrero of the Federiciclo regionale" - What does this mean?
Fixed.
  • Carlo Champvillair, a climbing champion of Aosta Valley, believed the race route to be very well done and technical.[10] - Last couple of words are awkward.
Would "... believed it to be a technical race route that was very well constructed (or made?)." be better?
  • What is a "complete" rider?
A rider that can time trial, climb, and can be an okay sprinter too (aka an all-rounder).

I think there's a lot of jargon here. Reads very well, but I have a decent amount of comments that can be improved upon. ceranthor 04:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 05:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to post more soon, as I'm busy today.
No worries. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 17:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some replies to your responses which still need fixing, otherwise I'm satisfied
  • The paragraph has a lot of "Jon did this ...", "He did this...", "She won this..." sentences. More complex sentence structures would help with the variety and flow of the section.
  • I think complete would be more recognizable as "well-rounded" or something like that.
  • Yes, "believed it to be a technical race route that was very well-constructed" would be an improvement, though I might come up with a better alternative in my next review. ceranthor 16:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to fix the first one, but I definitely go the second two bullets. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 17:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to read over it tomorrow and let you know what I think. ceranthor 18:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-race favorites
  • Choppiness has improved, but I will run through and copyedit just a tad bit more so I'm satisfied.
That's straight. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 13:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable Italian cyclist Francesco Moser did not participate in the race due to head trauma and bruises sustained in the weeks prior to the race.[1][2][9] - This sentence seems out of place as-is. Suggest moving it to the end of the paragraph or integrating it more seamlessly into the paragraph.
Moved. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 13:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Route and stages
  • Carlo Champvillair, a climbing champion of Aosta Valley, believed it to be a technical race route that was very well-constructed.[10] - a well-constructed, technical race route. Also, having read this sentence again, I cannot determine what you mean by technical. Do you mean technically-challenging?
Yes, fixed. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions)
Race overview
  • The returning winner of the Giro, Roberto Visentini, won the opening prologue - Isn't opening redundant? There isn't more than one prologue, I don't think, and prologue is by definition the beginning.
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 13:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • over the time trial specialist Lech Piasecki.[7] - What is a time trial specialist? Sounds like jargon.
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 13:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • around 30 km (18.6 mi) to go in the second stage, - Suggest about instead of around.
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 13:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roche successfully defended the race lead, until the stage thirteen 46 km (28.6 mi) - Think -long should be included after the distance. Not sure how to do this with the convert template.
I don't how how to do that either, I just put it behind the template. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 13:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the descent of the Pordoi Pass, van der Velde escaped - Escaped what? Not sure this is the best word choice here.
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 13:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile behind van der Velde, Visentini tried several times to attack Roche on the slopes of the Passo Fedaia; - Is "attack" cycling jargon? If not, I think another word should be substituted; it sounds violent.
It is cycling jargon. Should I still replace it? Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 13:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • however, Roche marked all of his moves and the two raced into the finish a part of the same group.[7][33] - What does this sentence mean?
So Visentini was attacking several times over the course of the stage, but every time Visentini would make an acceleration to get away from Roche and the other riders in the group, Roche would counter it (following Visentini's wheel) and preventing Visentini from establishing a gap between he and Roche. If you need me to clarify more that's cool, I'm poor at explaining. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 13:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Riders began to attack and form breakaway groups with around 30 km (18.6 mi) to go - Again, around not appropriate.
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 13:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • He attacked again over six kilometers - Where's the convert here?
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 13:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • with over 300 meters to go. - Convert?
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 13:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gewiss-Bianchi wasn't - No contractions
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 13:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Classification leadership
  • The Cima Coppi, the race's highest point of elevation, awarded more points than the other first category climbs.[57] - What does this sentence mean? I can't comprehend it.
The mountains classification awards points through climbs that the race organizers rank from 1-4, with the 1 category awarding the most and the 4th the fewest. The cima coppi is the race's highest mountain pass and it awards more points to the mountains classification (how much is uncertain cause I can't find a source saying the amount of points for the 1987 year).
Aftermath
  • Roche won the Tour by a margin of 40 seconds over the second place finisher and became the fifth rider to win the Giro and Tour in the same year.[59][60][61][62] - Is there a need for four citations here?
Removed one.
  • In September, Roche won the men's road race at the 1987 UCI Road World Championships and became the second rider to win the Triple Crown of Cycling, which consists of winning two of the Grand Tour races and the men's road race at the UCI Road World Championships in a calendar year.[32][61][63][64][65] - FIVE citations?
I'm very concerned about link rot lol.... I removed two.
References, in general
  • Most of the references are newspaper articles written in foreign languages, but perusing through them seems to indicate some reliability. Both books cited are authoritative and reliable. I cannot comment on any of the foreign language resources with certainty, not speaking fluent Italian or Spanish.
Yeah there are no English sources that give detailed accounts, most just list the stage winner and who is in the lead and that's it.

Once these are resolved, I think I'll be happy with this article! :) ceranthor 04:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Satisfied with the prose. Since most of the references are in Italian / Spanish, I cannot definitely say they are reliable, but I think they are. ceranthor 14:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note - Sadly, after six weeks there is no clear consensus to promote this article. You can renominate in fourteen days when I hope more it will attract more reviews. Graham Colm (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2014 (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 not promoted by Graham Colm (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2014 (diff).

Of Human Feelings edit

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman. I attempted to address the previous FAC's concern about close paraphrasing by soliciting another reviewer ([9], [10]). I've also cleaned up the references for a consistent citation format/style and copy-edited/rewrote some parts ([11]). Dan56 (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DISEman edit

Overall I find this a well written, comprehensive, well-researched, referenced and structured article worthy of a Featured Article but there are a few (minor) points that may improve it further:

  • The statement under Recording that "According to him, Of Human Feelings was the first digitally recorded jazz album in the United States" may be true but there may be more details- a quick check of Litweiler, p. 152 states "It was the first time an American label [i.e. CBS] had recorded a digital album in New York, and it made front-page news in Billboard. here is the Billboard front page. Also Litweiler, pg. 153 supports the statement under Release and promotion that "A few weeks after the album was recorded, Mwanga went to Japan to complete arrangements for it to be issued as a Phrase Text release by Trio Records, who had previously released a compilation of Coleman's 1966 to 1971 live performances in Paris".
Done. Dan56 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical reception is excellent using the contemporary reviews - I added one from Rolling Stone but the ref may need some editing to fit the article. Any reason for avoiding the rating template?
I've revised and moved the Rolling Stone quote so that it stays in-topic with the rest. That template is optional and didn't seem to suit this article IMO--only Christgau (The Village Voice), Yanow (AllMusic) in a retrospective review, and now Morrison (Rolling Stone) rated the album, and their ratings have been easily worked into the prose, so the template would only be reiterating a few ratings. Dan56 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All in all you have my Support DISEman (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Article is well-balanced both in structure and content, sources cited seem reliable and plentiful. Friginator (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Semitransgenic edit

  • Comment for a featured article, citing anonymous record reviews directly is not ideal, would prefer to see such content replaced with secondary source citations that make the observations the editor is drawing our attention to. Also, saying how something charted and then citing the chart as a source could be viewed as OR. Otherwise, aside from those minor points, looks OK to me. Semitransgenic talk. 10:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the line "...had no success on the American pop charts", Semitransgenic? Because that's attributed to a source that says this. Also, all the reviews cited in #Critical reception include the names of critics/authors of the reviews. Do you mean you'd prefer that there was a book that summarized the reviews itself? Citing reviews directly, however, is the most common practice in WP:ALBUMS articles, and there is a project page dedicated to such sources being cited (WP:ALBUM/SOURCE). Dan56 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Froglich edit

Oppose This article, while by no means bad, fails at present to (IMO) maintain good criteria. Quibbles: 1) While the article is indeed comprehensive (it's obvious that fans have poured in a lot of effort) it is arguably excessively so given the minimal notability of its subject (a poor-selling album by a musician with five dozen other works, many of which are demonstrably far more noteworthy (e.g., The Shape of Jazz to Come being inducted into the Library of Congress, etc) yet possessing small article size relative to this one. Featured status is generally granted to well-written articles in topics of widespread interest; 2) no references in the lead; 3) grammar and sentence construction less than optimal (e.g., absence of parenthesizing where appropriate, poor deployment of commas and semi-colons, etc); -- My advice is to tighten up the article to hang onto good status -- and be glad you have that in the first place.--Froglich (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Froglich, 1) What "fans"? I'm the only editor who has contributed to this article, which was this before I started working on it. It is based entirely on what reliable secondary sources have written about it--significant coverage establishes notability (WP:SIGCOV), not popular interest. And the majority of the coverage cited here is from high-quality book and journal sources, who've decided it warranted this much coverage, otherwise they wouldn't have written so "excessively" about it. And although I get where you're coming from, "widespread interest" has nothing to do with the FA criteria (WP:FACR), so personal opinions on its notability in relation to other articles shouldn't be a factor in your assessment, only the points listed at WP:FACR. There are top-importance articles that garner the attention of certain editors, and there are articles like this, which I chose simply because the album interested me at the time, as it often the case with FAs--their importance varies and isn't exclusive to top or high-importance articles. 2) If what's written in the lead is written and cited in the body, citations are redundant in the lead (WP:LEADCITE) 3) semicolons before conjunctions like and is an unnecessary, outdated practice ([12]) I don't see the reasoning behind this addition/revision with parenthesizing, which deemphasized the line about critical praise, used "featuring"--a present participle--in the first paragraph, and linked "harmolodic" (which is already linked in the first paragraph). Dan56 (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you've been told that the rules of English grammar regarding sentence composition and punctuation are in some state of flux at present, you are have been led astray. (Grammar-monster at the vanguard of slovenliness does not impress those of us who know what we're doing.)--Froglich (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to sound uppity about this, or refrain from backing up your argument with anything saying otherwise. My point was your change was unnecessary, as Geraldine Woods brings up in Wiley AP English Language and Composition. Preferential grammar changes aren't necessary. Dan56 (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
<shrug> Believe what you want. Reality will intrude soon enough to spank all those bad commas.--Froglich (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I understand this article is your labor-of-love, that has no bearing on whether or not it is ultimately worthy of Featured status -- being informative and well-written are not the sole requirements. Only 0.1% of Wikipedia articles acquire Featured status. For example, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is a Featured article, yet neither the preceding nor succeeding Beatles album articles are accorded even Good status despite being written in the same format with the same arrangement and depth of information. I would guess Pepper is Featured because it contains A Day in the Life, which tops some industry lists as the greatest pop/rock song of all time. In other words, it is immensely notable as one of it not the most famous song by one of if not the most famous bands in history. -- If any article concerning Ornette Coleman becomes Featured, it will likely be the one concerning his album or single with the most significant historical resonance.--Froglich (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have the wrong impression of the GA and FA processes Froglich, and I don't see the relevance of other stuff existing when several other low-importance album articles have been promoted to FA status, including Confusion (album) (one of mine) and Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded. If this irks you, then you can choose to abstain from reviewing, but what you're arguing isn't an "actionable objection" and isn't benefiting the review process in any way, to better the article for FA purposes. Please read WP:FACR--the level of importance of the article's topic is not part of the criteria. I'm beginning to feel there's an issue of understanding WP guidelines (WP:CIR) when you've overlooked the criteria page and basic MOS guidelines in your edit to the lead. Ian Rose, am I missing something? Dan56 (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have time for a long reply now but it's quite correct that the perceived 'importance' of a subject has nothing to do with its potential to become a Featured Article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Potential" is arbitrary wishing-for-ponies; I referenced an actual Featured article. Dan brings up two more (which shoot down his own notability-is-unnecessary argument: Confusion (on at least one Best 100 Album lists) and Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded (which had two Grammy nominations) are considerably more successful and influential than Of Human Feelings. To reiterated a previously made point to Dan56, he should concentrate on improving the article concerning Coleman's best known and critically acclaimed work, or that of Coleman himself.--Froglich (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GrahamColm, this reviewer's obstinacy and lack of competency are becoming an issue, as are his smug responses to every point I make in response to his arguments, which unlike mine, cite nothing to back up his claims. Disregard his review, because there are no actionable objections. Dan56 (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And yet it was your bright idea to bring me in here, wasn't it? (Competence: having the brains necessary to realize that I wouldn't immediately club you with that upon the first hint of fallacious argumentum ad hominem.)--Froglich (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're using your personal definitions of Wikipedia guidelines and criteria. I attempted to randomly solicit reviews, rather than dubiously canvass editors I'm familiar with, whom I'd expect to be competent and have a grasp of those guidelines and criteria. You've been told by an FAC delegate that "importance" has nothing to do with the criteria, yet you continue to impose your personal criteria. How do you respond? By canvassing a retired editor you know opposed this article's previous FAC ([13]) Your review is losing more and more weight. Dan56 (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to wager on whether or not he still dislikes it?--Froglich (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ridiculousness of at least two of this reviewer's concerns for opposing was established at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Undermining_reviewer. Dan56 (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Hamiltonstone edit

  • Generally excellent
  • In the 'critical reception' section, there are some words and phrases that sound like they could be quotes and if not, are perhaps not quite neutral / encyclopedic: eg "compositions that are clearly expressed and occasionally timeless"; "displays expressive immediacy rather than superficial technical flair"; "encompassing of a century of creative development in African-American music". It would be good if those offline sources were checked.
The first one is a paraphrase of this. The second is a paraphrase of "the emphasis is never on virtuoso pyrotechnics for their own sake, or in empty stylistic phrase mongering. In every composition there is a synergy of thought and feeling that communicates instantly." The last one is a paraphrase of "The music literally pours out of this ensemble in strains of melody and rhythm that sums up the last 100 years of creative development in Afro-American music." I don't think neutrality matters when the words/paraphrase are attributed to a source in the prose, eg. "Natambu of the Detroit Metro Times said" what would otherwise not be neutral if in Wikipedia's words. Dan56 (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked one of the three; the others look OK. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The present tense here strongly suggests it is a quote: "his more knowledgeable friends have found Of Human Feelings to be the best of the three albums..."
Present tense? Isnt "have found" past? Dan56 (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be "his more knowledgeable friends found..." but i realise i haven't used the right term - i'm nota grammar expert - but this phrase has him talking about the present - it sounds like a quote from a reporter of the period. Anyway, if it isn't a quote, then it isn't a quote... hamiltonstone (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to these checks, i'm a support on prose, structure, comprehensiveness and referencing. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from BananaLanguage edit

The third and fourth FAC reviews for this article were closed after a reviewer noticed what they perceived to be plagiarism. It is not clear to me that the nominator's attempts to address these accusations are sufficient ([14], [15]) because the types of close-paraphrasing that caused concern in the third review are quite different from simple lexical substitution. BananaLanguage (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BananaLanguage:, I asked for an independent review (as requested in the previous FAC) from an experienced editor and significantly revised several parts of the article (many of which were unnecessary, but I did it anyway just in case anyone is still anal about it just because there were a some examples--and no more since--brought up by one or two editors in the past FAC). I did mention these revisions at the top of this FAC, if you didn't notice? In the above comment from hamiltonstone, I showed relevant portions of print sources to prove to the reviewer they were paraphrased properly. If your concern is based in something you can prove, then bring it up. Otherwise, I don't know exactly what you expect. Your comment doesn't seem to suggest anything practical. Dan56 (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One practical option would be to invite GabeMc and Laser brain to randomly, or closely, inspect the article to check for too-close paraphrasing. BananaLanguage (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@BananaLanguage:, both retired not too long ago (User talk:GabeMc, User talk:Laser brain). And the burden would still be on me to dig up the sources I had originally found and write the relevant portions out for whoever is reviewing, which I demonstrated in the third FAC with at least one review in its entirety (the Detroit Metro-Times review), as well as the three that hamiltonstone asked about above. I've offered before to transcribe the relevant portions ([16]). The crux of this is whether these concerns or perception of close paraphrasing are yours, not theirs, and why, and also whether all these revisions since have made any difference in your opinion. Dan56 (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy requires that we assume good faith, however, this is proving difficult because you have a history [17] [18] [19] of close-paraphrasing sources. I think, in this case, it would be helpful if you could provide access to as many of the materials as possible, to help the community ensure this article is free of plagiarism. BananaLanguage (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BananaLanguage, I don't have a history--you're citing what was an on-going dispute between I and GabeMc at Are You Experienced and at this article's past FAC again. As far as what sources I could "provide", I obviously could transcribe them all, but you don't expect me to do that, do you? I revised much of this article since that FAC you're bringing up, so perhaps you could request certain print sources citing the material that appears "untouched" or unrevised since that time. This is the diff between January when the last FAC happened and now. Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would benefit this FAC review if you could provide the surrounding paragraph of text for all the sources marked as subscription required. BananaLanguage (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those four sources marked "subscription required" are news sources behind a paywall. Unfortunately I cannot access those anymore, because I had found them through Google News Archive and its search result previews (rather than actually having a registered account for Newsbank); Google News Archive was shut down in December of last year (Google_News_Archive#History), after I had written the bulk of the article last Fall. Certain book sources cited in this article, however, can still be accessed (to an extent) without a paywall of any sort, either through GoogleBooks' previews or Amazon.com's preview. Dan56 (talk) 09:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I can take a trip to the nearby deposit library and use their resources to do this for you. The time-frame I propose to complete this task is 15 days, due to other real-life commitments . BananaLanguage (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
n.p. go for it. Dan56 (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I am drawn to oppose this article per GAC Immediate Failure 3: "It contains copyright infringements.": see the discussion in Ref 7 and Ref 17 for an explanation of this conclusion. Furthermore, it does not meet FAC 1c) because refs 10, 17, and 22 are not found in the source text.

I planned to review the four sources marked as (subscription required) but the local deposit library does not have a subscription to back-issues of U.S. newspapers. Instead, I picked six books at random from the sources list and reviewed these. I used the guidelines in WP:PARAPHRASE and WP:COPYVIO while preparing this list. The surrounding source text is included to allow more experience FAC reviewers to make judgements about my interpretations of the source / article texts.

A concerted effort by the nominator to show the article contains appropriately sourced and paraphrased text would help this article to be reconsidered for Feature Article status. As it stands, I have no confidence that the remaining sources have been used without copyright or paraphrase violations.

@BananaLanguage:, I fixed/addressed the concerns below, and added my own list of sources checked. Dan56 (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan56:, thanks for taking care of the close-paraphrasing and copyright violations, and for adding a few more checks of your own. It looks like you identified yet another case of copyright violation in Ref 6 Mandel, which leads me to concern that there may be even more violations throughout the remaining reference materials.
I am not in a position to individually verify each source, and even if I was it would take too much time for this to happen in the current review. Recommending a resubmission after you have performed due-dilligence on the sources. 22 days ago you were sure the revisions you had made [20] would have removed any close-paraphrasing issues, and that turned out not to be the case. BananaLanguage (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 4, Nicholson, 1998 edit

a, p.313) Tacuma was recruited by Coleman while still in high school, and after his playing on Of Human Feelings he was widely regarded as one of the most distinctive bassists to arrive in jazz since Jaco Pastorius.

Tacuma, who was still in high school when he was enlisted by Coleman,[4]

No issues here.

b, p.313) With his own band largely made up of musicians from his home town of Philadelphia, he retained the complex vertical structures of Prime Time but framed them within commercially accessible melodies and engaging hooks.

He subsequently formed his own group and recorded albums that used Prime Time's complex vertical compositions, but composed them with more commercial hooks and melodic themes.[4]

Close-paraphrasing issues: "complex vertical structures" versus "complex vertical compositions"; and "commercially accessible melodies and engaging hooks" versus "commercial hooks and melodic themes".
Revised. Dan56 (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 7, Litweiler 1992 edit

p170 a: actually on p.152.) In March, 1979 Ornette brought Prime Time - the name he was consistently applying to his band by then - into RCA's New York recording studios to make a direct-to-disc album for Artists House, but mechanical problems with the recording apparatus made the session a waste of time and energy.

In March 1979, Coleman went to RCA Records' New York studio and attempted to produce an album with Prime Time by direct-to-disc recording. However, they encountered mechanical problems with the studio equipment, and their recording was ultimately rejected.

No issue here.

b: actually on p.152.) Ornette wanted to set up his own record company, Phrase Text, named after his music-publishing company, and Mwanga set up a Phrase Text session at CBS Studios, with ninteen-year-old Calvin Weston replacing Ronald Shannon Jackson as Denardo's drum partner.

For the album, Prime Time's original drummer Ronald Shannon Jackson was replaced by Calvin Weston as Denardo Coleman's drum partner.[8]

Close-paraphrasing issue. Swapping the order of the musicians does not constitute putting it into one's own words.

c, actually on p.153) The drummers continue to accent strong beats and play marching-drum patterns; the two guitars remain background instruments while Ornette's alto solos and Tacuna's busy electric-bass responses are the foreground; if anything, Tacuma is more virtuosic than before, with nonstop lines virtually always in his highest ranges.

Coleman and Tacuma's instrumental responses were played as the foreground to the less prominent guitars.[8]

No issues here.

d, p.152-153) This session went off without any technical difficulties, and only a few weeks later Mwanga was in Japan completing arrangements to issue the album on the Phrase Text label, by Trio Records, whose previous jazz albums included a collection of Ornette Coleman performances in Paris in 1966 and 1971. While in Japan Mwanga also arranged for Ornette to perform Skies of of American with the NHK Symphony Orchestra, Japan's equivalent of the BBC Symphony and French National Radio-Television orchestras. In fact, Mwanga had delivered the record stamper to Trio and production was ready to begin on the album - but "When I came back from Japan, Ornette cancelled the agreements," says Mwanga. With that, Mwanga resigned; he had worked for Ornette for only four months.

A few weeks after the album was recorded, Mwanga went to Japan to complete arrangements for it to be issued as a Phrase Text release by Trio Records, who had previously released a compilation of Coleman's 1966 to 1971 live performances in Paris. He delivered the record stamper to Trio, who were ready to start production. While in Japan, Mwanga also arranged for Coleman to perform his song "Skies of America" with the NHK Symphony Orchestra. However, according to him, Coleman cancelled both deals upon his return from Japan. Mwanga immediately resigned after only less than four months as Coleman's manager.[8]

Copyright violation by lifting a paragraph from the source and barely rewording it.
Revised close-paraphrasing issue and entirety of the paragraph above. Dan56 (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The revised version of the copyright violating paragraph now understates the efforts of Mwanga: the revised version does not mention that Mwanga was responsible for arranging the performance of Skies of America. BananaLanguage (talk) 09:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should it? Dan56 (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seemed to think so when you originally violated copyright [21] to include the content. BananaLanguage (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 10, Litweiler 1992, p. 170 edit

We recorded all the pieces only once, so all the numbers were first takes. And there was no mixing. It is almost exactly as we played it.

Not in the source text.
Yes, it is. (Wilson|1999|p=207) Dan56 (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But it is not found in Litweiler 1992, p.170, which is what the references claim. BananaLanguage (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, @BananaLanguage:, the bundled citation ([10]) refers both to Litweiler 1992, p. 170 for the first half and Wilson 1999, p. 207 for the quote. Dan56 (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 13, Harrison et. al 2000, p573 edit
This quote is directly attributed to New York Times, 24 June 1981.
Ref 17, McRae & Middleton edit

a, b, c: p.67-68) It was as if Coleman was translating the concept of the famous double quartet of Free Jazz to the needs of Funk jazz. Coleman remained in control of the melody line, while Tacuma vacillated between supporting two strata beneath. One comprised a 'melody' support team of guitar and drums, while the other became a totally committed rhythm team, also of guitar and drums. The interaction was constant and, just as Coleman could take directional hints, there were times when it was he who changed tonalities, with the others modulating as required.

According to jazz critic Barry McRae, "it was as if Coleman was translating the concept of the famous double quartet" from his 1961 album Free Jazz to "the needs of funk jazz".[17] ... Coleman played the melody lines and employed two guitarists for contrast, as one part of the band comprised a melody contingent of guitar and drums, and the other guitarist and drummer were committed to a song's rhythm.[17] ... Coleman and Prime Time exchanged directional hints throughout the songs, as one player changed tonality and the others modulated accordingly.[17]

Close-paraphrasing issue, bordering on a direct copyright violation. It looks like this paragraph has been lifted and then reworded to make it look like one's own words.

d, p.67) In 1979, he recorded the album, Of Human Feelings, for the Antilles wing of Island Records and it was destined to be his last for some time.

, and Of Human Feelings was released in 1982 on Island's subsidiary jazz label Antilles Records.[17]

Not supported by the source at this location.
Revised paragraph lines attributed to [17] and added Davis source; [17] was cited to verify "jazz label" characterization. Dan56 (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 18, Giddins, 1985 edit

Giddins, 1985 p.241) With Of Human Feelings (1979, released 1982), Coleman drew on his rhythm and blues days and, without compromising his own quartertone pitch, his affection for gusty lamentations, and those jarring keys, revived classic structures ("Jump Street" is a blues with a bridge) and countable time.

Coleman also drew on the rhythm and blues he had played early his career and incorporated traditional structures and rhythms. [18]

Close-paraphrasing issue: the first half of the sentence is lifted almost verbatim from the source.
Revised, rearranged. Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 21, Davis 1986 edit

a, p.143; b, p.143) Nonetheless, a modest commerical breakthrough seemend immiment in 1981, when he signed with Island Recrods and named Stan and Sid Berstein as his managers (the latter a promoter who brough the Beatles to Shea Stadium in 1965).

In 1981, Coleman hired Stan and Sid Bernstein as his managers,[21] who sold the album's recording tapes to Island Records.[22] He signed with the record label that year,[21] and Of Human Feelings was released in 1982 on Island's subsidiary jazz label Antilles Records.[17]

No issues.

c, p.143; d, p.143) "Nothing is simple for Ornette when it comes to money," says Stan Bernstein. "He made demans that are unrealistic in this business unless you're Michael Jackson". According to Coleman, "my managers sold Of Human Feelings, which was the first digital jazz album recorded in the U.S., for less money than it had cost me to make it, and I never saw a penny of the royalties. Coleman was paid $25,000 for the rights to Of Human Feelings, "not a terrific sum but not a modest sum, either, for a jazz artist," according to Ron Goldstein, who was at that time in charge of Antilles, Island's jazz custom label.

According to Coleman, his managers sold Of Human Feelings for less money than it had cost him to record, and he "never saw a penny of the royalties".[21] Stan Bernstein claimed that Coleman made financial demands that were "unrealistic in this business unless you're Michael Jackson".[21] Coleman was paid $25,000 for the publishing rights to the album, which Antilles label executive Ron Goldstein said was neither a "terrific" nor "modest sum" for a jazz artist.[43]

Possible close-paraphrasing issues over the course of a large block of text
Revised and rearranged. Dan56 (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 22, Davis 1986, p. 142-143 edit

According to jazz writer Francis Davis, "a modest commercial breakthrough seemed imminent" for Coleman, whose celebrity appeared to be "on the rise again".[23]

Not found in the source at this location.
Yes, it is (Davis|1986|p=143). Dan56 (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I had forgotten that Davis was the author of the book. BananaLanguage (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 26, McRae & Middleton edit

p.68 a) Yet, for all its potential commerciality, Prime Time's music made no impact on the American hit parade.

Despite its commercial potential, Of Human Feelings had no success on the American pop charts.[26]

No issues here.

b) Steve Lake suggested (The Wire, September 1985) that 'the 1984 disco-fied version of Dancing In Your Head that appeared on Jamaaladeen Tacuma's Renaissance Man offered a tantalising glimpse into how Ornette might sound if he opted more directly for the funk market'. Of Human Feelings offered only a funk/jazz compromise and, as such, satisfied nobody.

According to Steve Lake of The Wire, the album offered only a "funk/jazz compromise" to consumers and consequently appealed to neither market.[26]

Possible close-paraphasing issue in the second clause of the sentence. Also, it does not look like that can be attributed to Steve Lake, rather to McRae & Middleton.

c) Although the Antilles date was to be his last commercial release for six years, Prime Time was working regularly on both sides of the Atlantic.

Coleman did not record another album for six years and instead performed internationally with Prime Time.[26]

No issues here.
Revised "possible close-paraphrasing issue in the second clause". Dan56 (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 1, Cohen p. 97 edit
  • "In the mid-1970s, Ornette Coleman decided to stop recording free jazz with acoustic ensembles and sought to recruit electric instrumentalists for his music, based on a creative theory he developed called harmolodics.[1]" vs.
  • "By the time he wrote Skies of America, Coleman had abandoned his free jazz style for a mix of progressive jazz and funk based on an eccentric theory of creativity he called harmolodics. Also, by the mid-1970s, he no longer performed with acoustic trios and quartets but had recruited electric instrumentalists for an unusual line-up consisting of dual trios of drums, bass and guitar." ([22])
Ref 46, Cooper & Smay p. 238 edit
  • "Of Human Feelings later went out of print." vs.
  • "Of Human Feelings, Ornette Coleman (Mango): Harmolodics goes electric. Out of print despite Ornette's stature and Mango's island connection." ([23])
Ref 14, Kennedy & Bourne p. 152 edit
  • "According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music (2004), Of Human Feelings features jazz-funk, a type of music that originated in 1970 and was characterized by intricate rhythmic patterns, a recurrent bass line, and Latin rhythmic elements.[14]" vs.
  • "...Of Human Feelings which explored 'funk-jazz', a development dating from about 1970 features of which incl. a repetitive bass line, a hint of Latin rhythms, and complex rhythmic relationships." ([24])
Ref 6, Mandel p. 161 edit
  • "Tacuma had been fired by jazz organist Charles Earland for what he felt was the excessive amount of attention his playing received from audiences, but Coleman encouraged him to remain what he called a "naturally harmolodic" player.[6]" vs.
  • "Later, Tacuma was fired by jazz organist Charles Earland because he was getting too much attention from the audience. But Ornette encouraged him as a 'naturally harmolodic' player." ([25])
Revised. Dan56 (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 7, Mandel p. 162 edit
  • "The band made no attempt to harmonize their radically different parts" vs.
  • "...play well simultaneously without trying to harmonize (blend) or play 'together'; they play their own parts that co-exist, and can be heard as belonging to very different orders of music..."

Comments from WikiRedactor edit

I recall GrahamColm saying in a previous FAC of mine that alt text isn't an FA requirement ([26]) Dan56 (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though the section isn't long, maybe you could split "Personnel" into two columns for musicians and additional personnel?
What do you mean? It already is lol (Of_Human_Feelings#Personnel) Dan56 (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that splitting the "Bibliography" section into 30em columns would make it a touch more organized.
K, done WikiRedactor. Dan56 (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, I have nothing else to add; it is clear you've put in a lot of effort into this article because it is in great shape. I trust that you will handle the alternate text, and my other two suggestions are pretty much a matter of personal preference, so I am happy to give you my support. Great job! WikiRedactor (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS edit

Overall, looking very nice :). Just several things:

  • When in 1982 was the album released?
None of the sources available or used specified, SNUGGUMS. Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to jazz writer Francis Davis, 'a modest commercial breakthrough seemed imminent' for Coleman, whose celebrity appeared to be 'on the rise again'"..... meaning "celebrity status"? Also, you might wanna tweak the beginning to something like "Jazz writer Francis Davis sensed Coleman was about to have a 'modest commercial breakthrough'".
"Celebrity" is used as a noun here → "Fame, renown; the state of being famous or talked-about." I used "According to" so that it would read better as the leading sentence in that paragraph; the next sentence uses the structure you're suggesting: "[Writer so-and-so] said that..." Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've noticed there are no singles listed..... is this why the album has no chartings either?
I don't think jazz albums ever produce singles, but this album did not chart on any major charts. Only the Top Jazz Albums chart, but a "Charts" table/section is only necessary if there are multiple chartings (MOS:ALBUM#Charts) Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, just thought I'd ask SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "M" in AllMusic should be capitalized.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Piped link, done. Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Piped link, done. Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discogs is not a reliable source, so you'll have to take that out of the "External links"
It's not being cited as a source, just an external link, which have a different criteria for inclusion--"Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." (WP:ELMAYBE → "Links to be considered") Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see..... has Discogs been approved of as EL (like IMDb)? SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd assume so, since there was a template created just for it, which this article uses (Template:Discogs master), but the criteria for any EL is usually a site having relevant information that otherwise can't be worked into/cited into the article. Dan56 (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. I now officially support. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 05:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect, Discogs most certainly is a reliable source, given releases are verified among a number of users to ensure release details are verified. So I don't know where that idea comes from whatsoever. As for EL's, Discogs has been used across WP for YEARS now – where have you been, lol!? This is additionally the very reason there are also four clear EL templates for linking to Discogs pages accordingly, see here: Template:Discogs Jimthing (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's my 2¢. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 03:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Adabow edit

A comprehensive media review was last done in the article's second FAC, so I'll do another to see how things stand:

Support on criterion 3, although I'll reiterate that it'd be nice to have definite source of the album cover. Adabow (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done ([27]) Dan56 (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WonderBoy1998 edit

I'm running late at the moment but I have read through the article, and it's crisp and incorporates technical terms well. One thing-

  • The lead's first two paragraphs both start with Of Human Feelings. I'd suggest altering the second one to "it" or "The album"
I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that grammatically if the paragraphs start that way, although I find it more clearer to readers than "it", and "the album" may not be clear with the reference to "1975 album Dancing in Your Head" in the second paragraph's first sentence. Dan56 (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bleh

Other than that I will support this article, assuming that it will successfully pass a source check. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Flow Ridian edit

Comments from blocked editor User:Flow Ridian, sock of User:Jazzerino
Dan56 asked me to comment here, so I'll make a few observations.

Lead

  • "It was well received by critics". I think well-received need a hyphen.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the album made no commercial impact". I see this a lot on Wikipedia, and while many editors would not even mention it, this is a poor use of however, which should be used sparingly and should always follow a semi-colon.
Debatable → Linguistics professor Pam Peters insists that "there is no basis for suggesting that contrastive however should not appear at the beginning of a sentence" (The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, 2004). In fact, says The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage (2005), "placing however at the start of a sentence can emphasize the starkness of a contrast." Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coleman enlisted his son Denardo as manager after a dispute with his former managers over the album's royalties, which inspired him to perform publicly again during the 1980s." Two things, 1) it's odd to use enlisted here, which sounds faintly militaristic. Maybe hired is better. 2) You need to clarify what which refers to, as you mention to distinct things, a) the dispute over royalties, and b) Coleman's hiring of Denardo. It would also be nice to avoid using "manager/managers" twice in such a short span. Maybe, "After a dispute with his former managers over the album's royalties, Coleman replaced them with his son Denardo."
a) The source cited (in the body, supporting what's in the lead) doesn't specify "hired", i.e. earning a wage for it. b) Would "...royalties, a change that inspired..." be better? Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's seems better to me. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "He wanted to teach his young sidemen a new improvisational and ensemble approach, based on their individual tendencies, and also prevent them from being influenced by conventional styles.[2]" This is a faulty parallelism, because wanted and prevent are in different tenses. Maybe "He taught his ... and prevented them from"?
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He had been fired by jazz organist Charles Earland" The preceding proper noun is Coleman, but I think you mean Tacuma.
Revised. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coleman encouraged him to remain what he called a 'naturally harmolodic' player.[6]" I don't know what this means, and I wonder if most casual readers will either. Is there a way to translate this so it's not jargon?
Well, the jargon is explained in depth in the first paragraph, so readers should ideally read that first lol. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still wondering if this makes enough sense to casual readers. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recording and composition

  • "However, they encountered mechanical problems". Again, in high-quality writing we would not want to see the use of however unless it follows a semi-colon. It looks like you use this construction four times in the article; I suggest that you avoid this here and elsewhere.
  • "Jazz writer Stuart Nicholson viewed it as a culmination of Coleman's musical principles". I think you want to use the definite article here, not an indefinite one.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a type of music that originated in 1970 and is characterized by intricate rhythmic patterns". This contains another faulty parallelism: originated is past tense, and "is characterized" is present tense.
Changed "is" to "was". Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nix strummed variants on the melodies, while Ellerbee provided accented linear counterpoint.[20]" Omit the comma; it's unnecessary.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "middle frequency" needs a hyphen.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "collective improsivation" Spelling error.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and posits Coleman's extended solo against a dense". I think this is an odd use of posits. Instead of "and posits", maybe "juxtaposing".
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Release and promotion

  • "on which it spent 26 weeks" should be "where it spent".
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Steve Lake of The Wire, Coleman offered only a "funk/jazz compromise" to consumers with the album and consequently appealed to neither market." This is awkward; maybe, "According to Steve Lake of The Wire, On Human Feelings offered a "funk/jazz compromise" to consumers and consequently appealed to neither market.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and did not conform to what he felt was the corny, romantic image of jazz that many of the genre's fans prefer". Either corny is the exact word from the source and should be in quotes, or it's a poor choice for encyclopedic writing.
The original word from the writer was "cornpone" which refers to characteristic of rural people, so would "simple" be better? Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the original word is "cornpone", I would avoid using "corny", as it has an entirely different meaning. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "simple". Dan56 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

  • "Kofi Natambu of the Detroit Metro Times believed that Coleman's synergetic approach displays expressive immediacy rather than superficial technical flair". Faulty parallelism: "believed" and "displays" are different tenses.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have found" should be "find" or "consider".
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the stylistically ambiguous music is potentially controversial and 'unratable, but worth checking out.'[35]" Check the article for compliance with LQ.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its discordant keys radically transmute conventional polyphony". This sounds like a close-paraphrase of jargon.
It's paraphrased from "The clashing keys require the biggest leap in faith, as they give strange dimensions to old-fashioned polyphony." This is a music article, some theory terms are expected. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some terms are acceptable, but ideally these terms would then be linked. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Polyphony" is linked, "key" is linked in #Background. Those two should be the only ones that can come off as jargon-y. Dan56 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the other hand, Rolling Stone magazine's Buzz Morrison wrote" Swap "on the other hand" with "conversely" for a more encyclopedic tone.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Of Human Feelings was voted as the thirteenth best album of 1982 in the Pazz & Jop, an annual critics poll run by The Village Voice.[40] Christgau, the poll's creator and supervisor, ranked it number one in an accompanying list.[41] In a 1990 list for the newspaper, he named it the second best album of the 1980s.[42] At that point, Of Human Feelings was one of only 18 albums to have received Christgau's 'A+' grade, which the Press-Telegram called 'the ultimate accolade'.[43]" This strikes me as a bit off-topic, as it's too much about the poll and Christgau, and the "ultimate accolade" seems to be there to glorify Christgau, not the album. Is an A+ grade from Xgau really the "ultimate accolade", as in the best the entire world has to offer? This at least needs to be put in context that it's rare to get an A+ grade from Xgau. Then again, this is a somewhat obscure jazz album, which is just the sort of thing that Xgau loves. You need to trim this to stay on topic of the album.
I disagree; the "ultimate accolade" contextualizes the praise of the album. This is the most significant poll of American music critics, and the source cited--Press-Telegram--believes the "A+" from Xgau is the "ultimate accolade", and it is written as such, not as fact. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Why is this article a good place to explain details about Christgau's rating system? I think this is wildly off-topic, and if it belongs in the article at all it's in an endnote, not in-line text. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not explaining anything about Christgau's rating system, just that the album being one of the few to receive an "A+" is notable (it'd seem less notable to readers without that characterization, which is attributed to the source as an opinion). Three sentences in the paragraph related to Christgau (two of which are accolades) don't seem off-topic or excessive. Furthermore, the last paragraph in this section deals with accolades, so "the ultimate accolade" would sort of be related to this. Dan56 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does the cited source explicitly state that OHF is "one of only 18 albums to have received Christgau's "A+" grade"? Anyway, this is way too much detail about the poll and Xgau, and it's inherently misleading because Xgau is massively biased in favor of this type of music, but the way this is written it sounds as if OHF competes equally with the other albums Xgau has reviewed. This needs to be removed or significantly revised. Flow Ridian (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course it says OHF is "one of only...". Why else would I have cited it to support that sentence? Also, according to whom is Xgau massively biased in favor of this type of music? He acknowledged disliking "fusion jazz", yet this album and Jack Johnson were given "A+", suggesting he can reconcile that "prejudice" with a record he believes is good, regardless of its type. Dan56 (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really arguing that Xgau is not a rabid jazz enthusiast who loves Ornette Coleman? The way this is written, it implies that the "ultimate accolade" in jazz music is to get an A+ grade from Xgau, which is beyond absurd and POV! I am strongly contending this language as written. Flow Ridian (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no mention of "jazz" in this paragraph. It doesnt imply that at all. I don't see how this is a POV issue when the source mentioning both the album and Christgau is a third-party who found it notable enough to point out what they pointed out. This complaint doesn't seem to be grounded in anything other than the bias you suspect Christgau has, which isn't even relevant since a) he's a critic, that's kinda part of their job, and b) he's admitted to disliking jazz styles like fusion and '30s jazz. As an aside, if he really did love Coleman, he would have written at least a word on The Shape of Jazz to Come at some point in his journalistic career ([28], [29]) Dan56 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source is writing about Christgau, not Coleman and not OHF. You are bending over backwards to include the source not because of what it adds to the reader's understanding of OHF or Coleman, which it adds absolutely nothing to, but because it unduly glorifies Christgau. That's why I object to this language. The cited sources is a book-plug for Christgau, it's not even about Coleman. Flow Ridian (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I think that you are misinterpreting and misrepresenting what the cited source actually says, which is "The 18 records given the ultimate accolade - an A-plus - include", but they are saying that an A+ is the "ultimate accolade" that Xgau gives, not that it's the "ultimate accolade" in the whole world!!! Flow Ridian (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misinterpreting the source's words; "Ultimate accolade" is not synonymous with "highest grade", which is made abundantly clear in the preceding paragraph: "Each album is given a grade on a scale ranging from A-plus to E-minus." And what "bending over backwards"? I found the Press-Telegram source simply by putting the album title in Google News Archive. You seem to be the one making such an effort to contest this "language" and scrutinizing sources that make statements/claim I'm guessing you happen to disagree with, right? Dan56 (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath and legacy

  • "After Coleman went over budget" should be "After Coleman had gone over budget".
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'never saw a penny of the royalties.'[21]" Check for LQ.
Source cited was a quote → "... and I never saw a penny of the royalties." Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean was, "never saw a penny of the royalties" is not a complete sentence, so the full-stop should not be included inside the quote marks. There appears to be several issues in the article pertaining to LQ. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Also fixed the others ([30]). Dan56 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After showcasing his style of avant-garde jazz on the album, Tacuma became widely viewed as one of the most distinctive bassists since Jaco Pastorius." This is a wild claim, IMO, and at the very least this contentious text should be immediately followed by the source.
"If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient." (WP:OVERCITE) Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, this claim needs further verification from independent sources. I had never before heard Tacuma mentioned in the same sentence as Pastorius, and quite frankly it's a ridiculous claim, IMO. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from your opinion on the matter, is this claim contradicted by "the prevailing view within the relevant community", or is Stuart Nicholson a questionable source here (self-published, conflict of interest, etc.)? I'm not going to research this in-depth, but a quick search with the two names offered these: [31], [32], [33]. I don't see why this is an exceptional claim @Flow Ridian:. This article cites three books written or co-written by Nicholson, and I don't know of a contrary view regarding this. Dan56 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see these cites as supporting the claim that Tacuma is in the same league as Pastorius, which is what you are implying. By "mentioned in the same sentence" I meant to compare their relative abilities and influence. Stuart Nicholson is one source, and per WP:EXCEPTIONAL: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Flow Ridian (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any saying otherwise. Why do you consider this an exceptional claim? Dan56 (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The way it's written, you would think that Tacuma ranks significantly high on lists of electric bassists in jazz music, but TMK he does not. He is usually not even mentioned. Flow Ridian (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An NPR blog which qualifies itself with "We obviously can't cover all the 'basses' with five artists and songs, so be sure to tell us your favorite electric jazz bass players and performances in the comments", which lead to two that do. Nicholson is a "high-quality source", and the timeframe of the viewpoint he's summarizing is the 1980s. Dan56 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see him near the top of any lists, do you? If you do, then why not add a source or two so this isn't an issue? Flow Ridian (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What "lists"? What does that have to do with the "one of the most distinctive bassists" claim? Dan56 (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It presents Tacuma as on a similar level as Pastorius, which is ridiculous. Flow Ridian (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nicholson is a high-quality source; I don't see you questioning any other material attributed to him throughout this article, so the fact that you're citing your personal opinion here undermines the complaint. Also, "distinctive" doesn't suggest greatness but uniqueness. Dan56 (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much all I can find. Flow Ridian (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed most of the concerns, did my best to respond to the rest, @Flow Ridian:. Let me know if I overlooked or misunderstood anything. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made some follow-up comments above, but I hope you come to your senses regarding the Christgau excess. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per FACR 1d: "neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias", at least until this business about over-emphasizing Christgau and misrepresenting the cited source is resolved. The Press-Telegram source is saying that an A+ from Christgau is the "ultimate accolade" that he gives in Record Guide: The 80's, not that it's an "ultimate accolade" in the music world. Flow Ridian (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Ultimate accolade" is not synonymous with "highest grade", which is made abundantly clear by the source in the sentence right before the reference to "the ultimate accolade": "Each album is given a grade on a scale ranging from A-plus to E-minus." There's no reason for the source reiterate the fact that A+ is Christgau's highest grade. This is a gripe based on some point-of-view issue you seem to have with jazz and this particular critic, rather than WP:FACR. Dan56 (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you asked me to review the article, so I did. You should be thanking me, not debating my oppose. Now please show some class, and stop arguing with everyone who disagrees with you. Flow Ridian (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected every legitimate concern and appreciate that you pointed them out. But these two aren't such concerns, and you were welcome to disregard the message/invitation like I said. I've defended them and responded to your belief that it's misrepresenting and overemphasizing that critic, which is your basis for opposing smh. Don't accuse me of classlessness when you've interjected these concerns with an appeal to personal opinions ("ridiculous", "absurd", etc.) Dan56 (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you insist on personalizing this, but I must say that you've acted aggressive and immature. I don't dislike jazz music or Christgau, in fact I have a deep respect for both. That's not the issue here, which is that the Press-Telegram source is using the "ultimate accolade" in terms of Christgau's rating system, not as in the entire world of music. E.g., a grammy award for best jazz album would certainly top an A+ grade from Christgau, right? Maybe you should ask a delegate to take a look at the source and decide which one of us is reading it incorrectly. GrahamColm, are you interested in weighing-in here? Flow Ridian (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Grammy Award for best jazz album? A music industry conceit as voted by a seemingly anonymous panel industry people not from the journalistic community? I strongly disagree, but once again we are venturing into opinions. I responded to your concern about it being "in terms of Christgau's rating system": what neither of us can disagree on is the fact that the Press-Telegram outlines the grade range in the sentence directly before it; I should also point out how silly it'd be for them to have to characterize an "A+" in the context you're suggesting since almost everyone in America is familiar with the letter grade system, so why would they have to reiterate that it's the "ultimate" grade in the letter grade system? Btw, I did ping you at Talk:Of Human Feelings#Last sentence in Critical reception, so maybe GrahamColm should be directed there if he has an opinion on the matter? Dan56 (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd been listening to anything I've said, you'd see I mentioned it numerous times that it is being attributed as the opinion of the newspaper; it'd be an exceptional claim if it was written as fact. And it's not an advertisement; the original source is part of a larger music column in the Press-Telegram, but the source now available (since Google News Archive became defunct last Fall) shows it as a reprinted blurb. Dan56 (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are really stretching to justify this point, which again has nothing to do with OHF and everything to do with Christgau. According to this source, the NEA Jazz Masters is the Nation's Highest Honor in Jazz, not an A+ grade from Xgau. Do any actual jazz musician's cite an A+ from Christgau as the "ultimate accolade"? Flow Ridian (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Stretching"? You're the one making this about "the highest honor in jazz" (?) and finding websites to support your effort to get this opinion from the Press-Telegram removed, while continuing to put words in both my mouth and the source's; there's no mention of jazz honors in the Press-Telegram. Refer to Talk:Of Human Feelings#Last sentence in Critical reception, where I pointed out the Press-Telegram begins their blurb by contextualizing its relevance to music criticism, which the #Critical reception section is entirely about. You can disagree with the Press-Telegram's position, but their opinion is verifiable and ties to the inclusion of Christgau's "A+" grade in this paragraph and the paragraph's dealing with accolades, and IMO you should have more than your own difference of opinion to make an argument for its removal. Dan56 (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To use this article as a platform to declare that an A+ grade from Christgau is the "ultimate accolade" in all of music is to make an exceptional claim, and per WP:EXCEPTIONAL: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." So, do any other sources support this statement, or is this solely the opinion of an anonymous writer who is basically writing an advertisement that plugs one of Christgau's books? Flow Ridian (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if this is the major complaint remaining in the review, any further responses regarding this by me will be at the talk page, where it's being discussed. Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to Simon Burchell ([34]) and Maunus ([35]) in that discussion you linked, there's no problem with my having done so. I don't expect even 1/20 of those solicited to respond. I'm wondering why you've chosen to bring this up now though. Dan56 (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm bringing this up now, because you appear to be manipulating the Wikipedia consensus process by canvassing people to discussions in which you have a conflict of interest. Since you're pinging people, maybe Froglich and BananaLanguage would like to add to this discussion. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this is what I called it in my edit summary, I'm not bothering contesting it anymore. I've revised it, Flow Ridian. Dan56 (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, but it does not address the fact that Xgau is mentioned (i.e., name dropped) 5 times in the section. Why is it notable that OHF was ranked the "thirteenth best album of 1982" in the Pazz and Jop poll, and why do we need to know who created the poll? Flow Ridian (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
His name is written three times in #Critical reception. Are you familiar with the Pazz & Jop? How is it not notable when its a poll of the leading music critics nationwide? Mentioning Christgau's role offers a transition from one sentence to the next. Otherwise, there's less flow from the sentence about it being voted 13th to what would appear to readers as an unrelated or confusing turn with the following sentence ("what does Christgau have to do with the Pazz & Jop?", "why did he have an accompanying list?", etc.) In music journalism, the poll is important, as is Christgau; both are written about in numerous books and high-quality sources related to the subject, so please don't require me to justify their notability when your question about what makes this notable seems open-ended and can just as well be applied to the Phoenix and Billboard accolades, or several other things mentioned in this article. Dan56 (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of the other critics are mentioned more than once, so why is Xgau mentioned by name three times and by pronoun twice? I don't dispute Christgau's notability, but his importance to music journalism has waned considerably since the mid-1990s. He can't even get hired by anyone anymore, so how is he still of utmost relevance if nobody wants to publish his reviews? Also, your new construction: "At that point, Of Human Feelings was one of only 18 albums to have received Christgau's "A+" grade, which the Press-Telegram called his "ultimate accolade".[43]" is redundant/repetitive, since everyone who understands what an A+ is knows that it's the highest grade in that system. Like I said in my oppose statement, this section reads as an attempt to assert Christgau's importance when it should be focused on the importance of OHF. The Christgau stuff is WP:UNDUE, and it could be summarized in two or three sentences. Instead of:

Of Human Feelings was voted as the thirteenth best album of 1982 in the Pazz & Jop, an annual critics poll run by The Village Voice.[40] Christgau, the poll's creator and supervisor, ranked it number one in an accompanying list.[41] In a 1990 list for the newspaper, he named it the second best album of the 1980s.[42] At that point, Of Human Feelings was one of only 18 albums to have received Christgau's "A+" grade, which the Press-Telegram called his "ultimate accolade".[43]

We should have:

Of Human Feelings was voted as the thirteenth best album of 1982 in The Village Voice's annual Pazz & Jop poll.[40] Christgau ranked it number one in an accompanying list, and in 1990 he named it the second best album of the 1980s.[42] At the time, it was one of only 18 albums to have received his "A+" grade.

Flow Ridian (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you're getting your information from, but he's still published and has written most recently for Billboard, NPR, Spin, and Rolling Stone ([36]), and even if your claim about his notability waning since the 1990s were true, what bearing would that have on an article about an album from 1982? I've merged the two sentences btw. Dan56 (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who keeps trying to set-up the strawman argument that this is about Christgau's notability/reliability; it's not. I never made a single comment to the contrary that wasn't in direct response to something you said. He is obviously reliable (but biased) and notable (but widely disliked). He was fired from Rolling Stone and Blender, and MSN stopped paying him for reviews. That's all I was referring to, because as I said above, I have a deep respect for him even though I think most of his reviews are lazy rubbish, and his lack of objectivity limits his usefulness. Your recent edit does nothing to remediate the excess. Why retain, "the poll's creator and supervisor"? This is about Xgau, not OHF, and that's why it's off-topic. It's enough to just say that it was one of 18 albums to get an A+, but you refuse to budge on the "ultimate accolade" bit. This is far too tedious, and I think I understand why you spammed 100 editors for reviews, because unless they come in and support you hound them to death so that they will never review another of your FACs. If you decide to trim the excess let me know, but until that time my oppose stands. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But I already answered that: "why retain"--Mentioning Christgau's role offers a transition from one sentence to the next. Otherwise, there's less flow from the sentence about it being voted 13th to what would appear to readers as an unrelated or confusing turn with the following sentence ("what does Christgau have to do with the Pazz & Jop?", "why did he have an accompanying list?", etc.) You're showing an unwillingness to compromise over something this minor, and I think any delegate will see that when they review your oppose. I placed the "ultimate accolade" bit in the context you argued for, but now giving me this ultimatum that if I don't remove it altogether your oppose of an otherwise worthy article stands? Dan56 (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to spoon-feed the reader that an A+ is the top grade in that system; anyone who understands the A+ to E- grading system will already know this, which makes it awkward and redundant, and it shifts the focus from OHF to Christgau and his long ended supervision of the poll. Like I said, this is way too tedious. I wanted to respond to your request and review as a courtesy, but this has turned into a frustrating time-sink. For someone whose prose is less than excellent, you are too controlling over the precise language of this article. Your irrational reluctance to shift the focus from Christgau to OHF is disconcerting, and per WP:UNDUE I am not going to retract my oppose until you do so, because your over-emphasis of Christgau is the primary reason for my oppose in the first place. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But earlier you said that my revision was better. Dan56 (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I said it was better but you are still overemphasizing Christgau. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it. Dan56 (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about, "the poll's creator and supervisor"? Isn't this information available at Pazz & Jop? Flow Ridian (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning Christgau's role offers a transition from one sentence to the next. Otherwise, there's less flow from the sentence about it being voted 13th to what would appear to readers as an unrelated or confusing turn with the following sentence ("what does Christgau have to do with the Pazz & Jop?", "why did he have an accompanying list?", etc.) His association should be noted IMO; readers could also see "American jazz saxophonist and composer" at Ornette Coleman, but why should they bother going there when it could be written here? Christgau's role/association is not common knowledge for most readers. Dan56 (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with this false dilemma, and I contend that my version is far superior to yours:

Of Human Feelings was voted as the thirteenth best album of 1982 in The Village Voice's annual Pazz & Jop poll.[40] Christgau ranked it number one in an accompanying list, and in 1990 he named it the second best album of the 1980s.[42] At the time, it was one of only 18 albums to have received his "A+" grade.

Why does this not flow well, IYO? Flow Ridian (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no transition from the poll to Christgau. I don't see how introducing Christgau's role at the poll at the time over-emphasizes his importance in this paragraph. It's nitpicky IMO. Dan56 (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "astonish the senses with music made tender by abstract rhythmic interplay and artless pieces of melody"
This is not encyclopedic writing, and if it's not a close paraphrase it's probably WP:OR. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source is available for you to see. Is this a legitimate concern, or more Xgau hate? Dan56 (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with the strawmen; I never expressed any hate for Christgau. Now you are being abusive. This one too strikes me as unencyclopedic or OR. "the dilutive digital production and occasionally disjointed, one-dimensional playing". Please see WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It "strikes" you? I did stick to the source. I removed "the ultimate accolade" bit. What more do you want? Dan56 (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's merely a turn-of-phrase, i.e., this seems to me or this catches my eye. Stop being so combative. It seems to me as though you do not have the chops to intelligently paraphrase writing that describes musical attributes, particularly technical stuff, as most of what isn't in quote marks reads, IMO, like someone who does not know what they are talking about. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you check the source in either? Dan56 (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which example of unencyclopedic writing are you referring to? If it's the "music made tender" text then yes, and I don't see how you got tender from that! Flow Ridian (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...warm, listenable harmolodic funk ... The teeming intellectual interplay of the rhythms is no less humane than the childlike bits of melody." Dan56 (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this was a poor choice for paraphrasing, as Xgau's version isn't much better. These terms do not apply well to encyclopedic writing about music, because he is personifying rhythm so that it can show compassion and suggesting that the melody is "childlike". What does this mean to the casual reader, because it's borderline nonsense, IMO? Flow Ridian (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means unpretentious and unaffected by "childlike". What do you mean by "personifying rhythm" btw? Dan56 (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wish he had written that, because it's more clear, IMO. Christgau is personifying rhythm, because he is ascribing human characteristics to music. If the rhythm is humane it expresses compassion or concern, but since rhythm is not an animate being, much less a person, it's personification. Some of Christgau's writing is difficult to translate into encyclopedic prose for this reason. I would suggest directly quoting these types of passages, rather that attempting to paraphrase stuff that is overly poetic. Flow Ridian (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But he's suggesting that both the "interplay" and the "pieces of melody" are "humane", and the characteristic of being tender fits that, especially after introducing his review by saying this album is a breakthrough because Dancing in Your Head was "unrelenting", along with his previous idea about the music offering a release from tension for listeners. Maybe change "made tender" to something like "made accessible"? Dan56 (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that you understood my above point, so I'll reiterate. Much of Christgau's writing, particularly his "capsule reviews", is not formal or academic style – e.g., he regularly uses slang, inaccurate abbreviations, personification, exaggeration, and other informal devices that do not always lend themselves to paraphrasing, at least not if you want encyclopedic prose. For this reason, I strongly suggest that you only paraphrase examples where the writing is straight-forward and directly quote him whenever he is being flowery and poetic. Your translation of "humane" to "accessible" is inaccurate, but to be clear it might well be exactly what he meant; however, to make that leap here based on the available prose is WP:OR, for the simple reason that "humane" and "accessible" have decidedly different meanings and connotations. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Christgau's writing is noticeably lacking in proper musical terminology. I wish he had earned a minor in music theory, because it would have made his body of work more useful - and understandable - in academic settings. Flow Ridian (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So like this? Quote "humane", or more? Dan56 (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good start, but ideally you would either select less esoteric passages, so that you could properly paraphrase without putting one word in quotes, or quote a few words in-line that contain the difficult phrase. E.g., if I was certain that this passage was crucial to the article, I would quote the text-string "The teeming intellectual interplay of the rhythms is no less humane than the childlike bits of melody", since this is almost beyond paraphrasing, IMO. My instinct is that this is a good passage to avoid, because it's a little too idiosyncratic to Xgau, but that's your discretion. Flow Ridian (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about "...with music highlighted by abstract rhythmic interplay and artless pieces of melody"? He's obviously pointing these two elements out as features, and this would be without his characterization of them as "humane" or w.e. Dan56 (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but "teeming intellectual interplay of the rhythms" does not translate to "abstract rhythmic interplay" and "childlike bits of melody" does not translate to "artless pieces of melody". Why do you render "abstract" from "teeming intellectual" and "artless" from "childlike"? Above you said "childlike" meant "unpretentious", so are you assuming that all art is pretentious? Are all things intellectual also abstract? Flow Ridian (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would "intelligent" or "sophisticated" be better synonyms for "intellectual"? And "simple" instead of "artless" for "childlike"? Also, I don't know what you mean by "all art is pretentious". Dan56 (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not bad, maybe, "...with music highlighted by sophisticated rhythms and unpretentious melodies", assuming that by "childlike" Xgau actually means "unpretentious". I asked you that because you seemed to equate "unpretentious" with "artless"; therefore, all art is by definition pretentious. Flow Ridian (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't interpret "artless" as a characterization of "art"; it seemed to be another word for "unpretentious" or not artificial, and wasn't being too strict about the different other meanings. I think "interplay" should still be retained (in one form or another), since it leads to the quote about "the players", while "pieces of melody" leads to the same quote that mentions "ripples of song". How does the way it is now look? Or the change from "interplay" to "exchange"? Dan56 (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I was just trying to help because you asked me to review, but I see now that you will do whatever it is that you want to do no matter what I say. I trust that the delegates will put my oppose in its proper context, and I'm sure it's nothing that will hold-up promotion, but this has exceeded my tolerance for tedium. Goodbye! Flow Ridian (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure they'll see I address and revised almost everything you asked, no matter how demanding. I was asking for your honest opinion in my previous comment; there was no need for this kind of reaction. Dan56 (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Late) Comment from sojs edit

Favor: Hello -- Thanks for inviting me to look over Of Human Feelings. Apologies for the late reply. After reading your article and the many comments, I commend your efforts. You're thorough, patient ... and a good writer.

As a new editor, I learned quite a bit about featured articles. Picked up some new jazz terms and Wikipedia syntax too.

All told, you've made this article more interesting and accessible to new Coleman aficionados - a central goal of Wikipedia, imho.

Kind regards, sojs &#133;talk&#133; 03:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note I am not confident that a consensus has been reached on this candidate's fulfilling the FA criteria and I will archive this discussion in a few minutes. To find contraventions on close-paraphrasing at this late stage (fifth FAC) is a grave concern. I would not want to see this article renominated before there is clear evidence that all issues have been resolved and no more come to light. Graham Colm (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2014 (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 not promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 09:41, 1 August 2014 (diff).

Briarcliff Manor, New York edit

Nominator(s): ɱ (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Briarcliff Manor is a small village in the New York suburbs. It has plenty of interesting history and quite a few notable residents. The village also has a number of parks and historic buildings.

After I saw this article a few months back, I realized that it needed quite a bit of work. I created a user sandbox page and wrote a draft, which was peer reviewed by three users. I later published the article on the mainspace and submitted it as a Good Article candidate, which it passed. I'd hope you can help make the article even better - I believe there's always room for improvement. --ɱ (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • What is BMFD?
  • Why are you limiting many images to such a small size?
  • File:BriarcliffTrophy.tif, File:WalterWLaw1910.jpg: when/where were these first published?
  • File:BriarcliffManorPolice.jpg, File:HillsideBriarcliff.jpg: is there a more specific licensing tag?
  • File:SaturdayNightLiveBriarcliff.png needs a stronger FUR
  • File:BriarcliffSealOld.png: page? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, you raise all good points. I talk about the BMFD earlier, so I didn't think it needed to be linked or explained. Many of the images are small to not mis-align section headings, although some could be bigger. The Briarcliff Trophy and Walter Law images date to 1908 and 1910. The trophy picture was in a Briarcliff Outlook publication; I'll try to find the exact one. The Law photo was dated to 1910 and I know it's in a 1939 publication, and probably is in earlier ones. I'll look for it. The SNL image I think qualifies well for identification and critical commentary, how would you change its rationale? The seal was vectorized from a scan of an introductory page (not numbered) of Briarcliff's 1977 history. I'll detail that. Again, thanks.--ɱ (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I linked the BMFD and made one image bigger. Most images are at the default size, all others are either a bit smaller to (as mentioned above) not hit into the next section, or because they're portrait instead of landscape. The Law photo in addition to the Police and Hillside images I scanned directly from the originals, located at the Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society (BMSHS). The BMSHS only found a permanent home three years ago, and therefore any images people have donated to them are without records as to date taken/photographer/any usage in publications. So I cannot have a more specific license or information.--ɱ (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You should adjust the size of portrait images using the "upright" parameter, as described at WP:IMGSIZE. For the SNL image, the current listed "purpose of use" is "The image shows a scene of Saturday Night Live filmed in Briarcliff Manor" - this is a description of what the image actually is, not an explanation of why it is needed in the article or how it aids understanding. It is also missing an explicit identification of the copyright holder. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I substituted the 'upright' bit for all the portrait images, except for the ones in the 'notable people' section because it looks too prominent and people might think it gives undue weight to them. I also changed the FUR for the SNL image. Is that up to par?--ɱ (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I updated the File:BriarcliffTrophy.tif, and I changed the license on File:WalterWLaw1910.jpg. Does this all suffice?--ɱ (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco, care to weigh in? I'm still not sure the image is needed to "to illustrate that Briarcliff Manor was the setting for this comedy skit".
By the way, image issues aside, I would encourage you to check your reference formatting before someone comes through to do a source review - I spotted several inconsistencies on only a quick glance. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll check it over again now. Could've sworn I got everything, but with this many refs it's hard to be sure... Also, the fact that this small village was in the very first episode of SNL is something that many people doubted until I showed them a clip of the episode; that's why I thought it was important to have the image: verification and illustration of that.--ɱ (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I fixed some references; please tell me if there's anything else that stands out. Also, you should perhaps fix the link to Crisco1492's page, you forgot to add the "User:" bit. Thanks for your comments so far.--ɱ (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, you're right, thanks. I don't intend to do a full source review right at this moment, but a few quick points: book refs almost always need page numbers, unless you're actually citing the whole book, and some of them are missing; ditto periodicals without weblinks. More broadly, similar types of sources should generally look the same: for example, we see that the newspaper in FN19 includes a publisher while the newspaper in FN61 doesn't, so pick one option and apply it consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Okay. Book numbers are often problematic with history and place articles because sources may have information on introductory pages that aren't numbered, and ebook page numbers often don't match up with print ones. As well, a few books I used are so short that they don't have page numbers. Some books, like The Changing Landscape I cite so many times that it would be best for one to just use the book's TOC or index, rather than making this long article longer with a 'notes' section for individual pages, which would be mostly for this one book anyway. And some paragraphs, like that on 'higher education', I wrote entirely using that book as a source, although I may have used four or five different pages. It's neater and easier to just cite the book for that paragraph than have each portion cited, even though it's all from the same source. For those reasons, I think it's really best to just leave it as the status quo.

With regard to periodicals without weblinks - many are print articles that haven't yet been digitized. The village historical society has archives of news articles that aren't on the Web but still easily count as verifiable. With regard to consistency, I tried to be consistent with formatting and dates, but when it comes to the amount of information, it just varies too much. Some sources have no date, some have no URL, some have no publisher, some have no author, etc.--ɱ (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I added page numbers for the largest source of this article, the above-mentioned Changing Landscape. My copies of the 1939 and 1952 histories have no page numbers, although the BMSHS ones might; I'll look into that, as well as finding if the 1977 history has them.--ɱ (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another update - I found that the 1939 history has no pagination. The 1952 and 1977 ones do, and I added the page numbers of the 1977 book, and I'll do the same for the 1952 book shortly.--ɱ (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it. I'm a bit uneasy about this source - is it possible to replace it? Also, since Lulu is a self-publishing company, what makes that book a reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria: Well, reliable sources also depend on what is being cited. If it's something controversial, you want the top authority on the matter; while if it's a basic fact, you can use a wider variety of sources. I use the lawyer site to reference that the village is "just northwest of central Westchester County". That likely doesn't need a source, but since I wrote this article with everything being attributed to sources, I felt a need to find one. The lawyer site is the only one that specifically mentions Briarcliff's geographic location withing the county, so there it is. If you'd rather we remove it and call it basic knowledge not needing a citation, that's okay.
The book published by Lulu was written by Patricia Baldwin Andrews and her grandson Robert P. Oehrig. Andrews is the granddaughter of William Woodward Baldwin, the subject of the publication. And the two authors wrote the book as a compilation of Baldwin's diaries, writings and photos. In fact, the two things that I cite with that reference were taken from Baldwin's writings himself (dating to the first decade of the 20th century), not those of Andrews of Oehrig, just reprinted in their publication. I'd say all of that justifies the information I cite to it- information about Baldwin himself, and about the first car, which Baldwin wrote about, and wrote about driving in it.--ɱ (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that I finished adding page numbers for Our Village: Briarcliff Manor, N.Y. 1902 to 1952, The Changing Landscape: A History of Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough, and A Village Between Two Rivers: Briarcliff Manor. All other sources are internet ones, ones that I already listed page numbers for within the reference, or publications sans pagination.--ɱ (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but with only an image review after remaining open well over a month this review doesn't seem to be going anywhere, so I'll be archiving it shortly. I don't know if you've sought a Peer Review for it in the past but I'd suggest that might be the next place to take it, prior to any renomination at FAC. Good luck! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2014 (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 not promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2014 (diff).

Amphetamine edit

Nominator(s): Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) & Boghog (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... amphetamine; you probably know what that is. In the first and second FAC reviews, a single reviewer complained about the sentence-by-sentence standard used in the article in each review. Following the closure of the second FAC, I sought feedback from WP:MED on this and obtained project-wide consensus to retain the current citation standard. Please keep that in mind before linking the user essay WP:CITATION OVERKILL during this review.

Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added: this link contains all the WP:PAYWALLED papers cited in the amphetamine article. The file names reflect the ref name from the source (i.e., these papers were named according to <ref name="File name">).Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • @FAC coordinators: Hi coordinators - since a month has passed without any new reviews, I had a question about the potential outcome of this FAC in order to determine whether or not I should spend time trying to convince other editors to take on a review; with that in mind, if no one else starts a review before this nomination closes next month, will this FAC be archived?
Following the closure of the last FAC, Shudde continued his review at Talk:Amphetamine/Archive_4#Shudde and eventually decided that he didn't want to continue reviewing after I sought feedback on WT:MED regarding some of his alleged problems with the article. Summarizing the first two FACs: three reviewers (Anypodetos, The Sceptical Chymist, and John) supported after their concerns were addressed; two reviewers (Aa77zz and Shudde) opposed but will not provide further feedback after I attempted to address the concerns they raised; one editor (Hamiltonstone) completed his review and remained neutral, deferring to your judgment on the level of technicality/accessibility of the article content; and lastly, two editors (Axl and Curly Turkey) didn't make a position statement or finish their reviews. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 05:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Seppi, normally we'd archive a review that's had no interest for a few weeks but I'm always loathe to do that when it's been round the block a couple of times and the nominator has made a genuine attempt to address concerns. It's also pragmatic: if we remove a nom because it's had no comments then standard practice would be to allow you to renominate without waiting the usual two weeks and that doesn't really change the situation. What I did do last night was list it among the FACs requiring urgent attention at the top of WT:FAC. What you can do is invite via neutrally worded posts all the main players in the previous FAC noms (supporters, opposers and neutrals) to revisit it here, and we'll see what develops in the next week or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AmericanLemming edit

It's hard to find people to review long articles at FAC, especially ones on very technical topics such as this. Anyway, with this being your third nomination and all, I would like to apologize that you've had to wait five weeks to get your first comment. And you're going to have to wait a little bit longer, seeing as I don't get back from studying abroad in Spain until the 31st. I'll post my first comments sometime between August 1 and August 5. Since I don't know anything about pharmacology, my review will focus on prose, comprehensiveness, and intelligibility to the general reader.

My FAC reviews are very thorough (see Carolina Panthers and Paul Tibbets), so once my concerns are addressed that may very well be enough to get this article promoted. I log in at least once a day, so if you don't see anything by August 5 make sure to drop me a note at my talk page. I look forward to working with you on this important article. AmericanLemming (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN4: Because the cite template automatically produces the "ed." for edition statements, you shouldn't include it manually
  • FN8 and others: USFDA is a publisher not a publication. More broadly, check italicization throughout, as there are a number of things italicized that shouldn't be
  • Fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of colwidth. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Not third time lucky I'm afraid. Despite being open a month and a half, being listed among FAC urgents for a few weeks, and advice to ping previous reviewers, this still can't attract comments. I realise AmericanLemming has offered to look it over in a few days but one reviewer, no matter how thorough, does not a successful FAC make. I hope that AmericanLemming does indeed go through the article but, given the time this has been active, it will need to be outside the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/August_2014&oldid=623024548"