Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/August 2019

< 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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2019 [1].

Donald Trump edit

Nominator(s): Wyatt2049 | (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about...Donald Trump Wyatt2049 | (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC) I am nominating this article for a few reasons. Reason 1 is because the article is detailed, but not too much detail. Anothr reason is because there is great grammer, and it is high quality. There is also professional grade writing and citations for this article. For these reasons, and because it does meet criteria, I nominate this article for Featured article status. Thanks. --Wyatt2049 | (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Lee Vilenski
  • I thought articles that were page protected were not viable for GA or FA due to not being stable? This page has extended confirmed page protection. Is that wrong?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. With two edits to the article (one in 2016, one today) this falls outside the limitations of someone who has worked in the article, or who has asked the main writer(s). - SchroCat (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski:Protected articles can be raised at FAC; stability is about whether the content changes so quickly so that you cannot really review it.
I know that people will vociferously disagree with me on this point but I don't think we can call this article "unstable" without majorly stretching the scope of that criterium as while a lot of edits happen very few of them amount to big changes; all edits in August, all edits in July edits in June - only a very small part of the text changed during each month - and since all big changes are extensively discussed it is arguably more stable than the average article. As precedent, major quickly updating topics like India or Barack Obama are both FA, the latter for the whole duration of the presidency. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That said, if memory serves someone did already propose nominating this for FAC on the talk page and most replies were sceptical at least. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I should give this more thought, but I'm going to go ahead and oppose. No article about our current stable genius is going to be stable enough for FAC to work as advertised. Sooner or later, it's going to blow up on us. - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I had to check the calendar: April 1st already? But it needs serious work to approach FA standard. Its refs need shedloads of work, MOS issues (e.g. overlinking) and per SC, the nominator has not previously invested in the article: I assume this is connected to [2] and [3]... ——SerialNumber54129 17:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since the nominator is not a substantial contributor to the article (as already pointed out by SchroCat). Aoba47 (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry, but compared to even George W. Bush, this article needs substantial work even reaching GA, let alone FA. Issues with sourcing, prose, stability and imaging are abundant. If you're genuinely interested in having this article promoted, I'd suggest WP:GA would be the more appropriate venue. May also be a good idea to study precedent—by which I mean Ronald Reagan's article, which is infinitely better than Trump's. Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 00:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not even close to ready... @WP:FAC coordinators: could someone please close this? NoahTalk 02:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- tks for the ping, Noah; I managed to miss this among the flurry of other noms the past couple of days, and being placed at the end of the new nom queue didn't help. Procedural close if nothing else and, per some advice above, definitely one for GA/PR before FAC in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 August 2019 [4].

Go Vacation edit

Nominator(s): TheAwesomeHwyh 22:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second FAC I have nominated this article for. The previous FAC was withdrawn due to several issues, namely the quality of writing, and the length of the development section, both of which I feel have since been adequately adressed. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Go_Vacation_NA_box_art.jpg: source link is dead
  1.  Comment: Added archive. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Go_Vacation_Screenshot.jpg needs a more expansive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1.  Comment: I am not sure what "FUR" stands for. Do you think you could explain? TheAwesomeHwyh 18:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1.  Comment: Oh, I think it stands for "fair use rationale". I will start work on expanding that now. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1.  Comment: I have now expanded it. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it refers to the fair-use rationale - specifically in this case I'd like to see a more detailed "purpose of use" section to elaborate on why the image cannot reasonably be replaced with text. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1.  Comment:​ Alright, I have now expanded that even further to explain why the article doesn't just use text. Do you think it is sufficent now? TheAwesomeHwyh 00:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately no. The issue is, most people who have played video games before are familiar with the concept of splitscreen and minigames, and will be able to picture the basic design of what that looks like - your task is to explain why seeing this image is better than just doing that, what specific value a reader gets from having the images that they don't get from just understanding these concepts. You might ask over at the Video Games WikiProject if anyone has some good examples of this. (Also, could you please not use a comment template in your replies? It's not necessary and if there are a lot of templates it can cause problems for the transclusions at WP:FAC). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I have done some expansion to the FUR, after taking a look at how File:Super Mario Odyssey, Seaside Kingdom.png implements its FUR, I have expanded it to hopefuly better explain why text alone isn't used. Also, sorry about the templates. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes edit

This has dropped into the "Older" section without any substantial prose review. It will be archived soon if it does not begin to receive some attention. --Laser brain (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JDC808 edit

Will begin reviewing later today, but from a brief reading, I can already see that this needs some copy-editing. --JDC808 ♫ 05:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know you haven't done your review yet, but I just want to note that I have done some work to vary the sentence structure. It got pretty repetitive, expecialy in the "reception" section. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JDC808: Forgot to ping, sorry. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lead

*The lead says it's a 2011 game, but gives no indication of when in 2011 it was released.

*The lead says it was developed by Namco Bandai Games, but the infobox says it was developed by Bandai Namco Studios. Which is it?

    • Namco Bandai Games since thats what it was called when it first released. Fixed. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Last two sentences of first paragraph begin very similarly.

    • Fixed. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although this was fixed, a new, similar issue popped up when adding in when it was released. I copy-edited it. --JDC808 ♫ 05:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*The second paragraph says the surveys were "handed out". When reading that, I automatically envision the developers literally handing out paper surveys on the street and at events, etc. I'm sure this was not the case as it was probably done all electronically.

*Grammar issue in the second half of last sentence of second paragraph.

  • The infobox says the Wii version of the game was released in October and November of 2011, but the third paragraph says that the game had sold 1.82 million copies by June 2011. How did the game sale that many copies if it had not yet been released? I guess it's possible that the game had 1.82 million pre-orders then, but that is probably not the case here.
    • That was supposed to say May. Fixed. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wait, that still doesn't make sense, something must be wrong here. Hold on. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Stranger yet, the document cited was published in June... TheAwesomeHwyh 23:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • ​Yikes. I think the Nintendo Life source got the release date wrong- problem is, thats the only source I know of that gives all the release dates. What to do? TheAwesomeHwyh 23:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • ​Looks like the store page for the Wii version over at Nintendo of Japan is long gone so I can't rely on that. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • ​Something fishy is going on with the translation. At the bottom of that page it says the 2011 release date is only planned. Is it possible that this is just a sales projection and it hadn't actually come out yet? TheAwesomeHwyh 23:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • ​And that the price is undecided. I think this might just be a sales projection but I want your input before I remove it. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well, it makes no sense to say it sold 1.82 million copies months before the game even released. I tried putting the text into Google Translate to see what it said, but that didn't help. It's possible it could be a sales projection, but without proper translation of the text, it's hard to say. You're going to have to do some more digging for more sources or find an accurate translation of that source (and/or other source(s) for the release dates).
                  • Also, forgot to mention previously, but you do not need references in the lead as this information gets sourced in the body of the article. There are exceptions, but what you have here doesn't need them. --JDC808 ♫ 05:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I got rid of the second ref in the lead, but I didn't get rid of the one which says it's the third game in it's series, as that's not actualy mentioned in the body. Am currently looking for a spot to put that information into. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gameplay

This section is mostly okay, but there are a few issues, such as grammatical and structural issues that a copy-edit would surely fix.

  • There are still issues here.
    • First paragraph, you tell us that there are four resorts. Then in the third sentence, you say that the player gains access to more resorts. Without reading further, this sounds as if there are initially four resorts, but more can be unlocked. When we get to the end of the second paragraph, however, it says the Mountain Resort is the final resort. So, are there four resorts with more that can be unlocked? Or are there just four resorts where in you start in the Marine Resort and you must complete "a set amount of minigames" to unlock the next?
    • You tell us that the player can earn "challenge stars" by completing actions. Why is this important? What do these challenge stars do?
      • I've got no clue, actually. I've just removed it as I don't think they actualy do anything. Weird. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Third paragraph: "The latter includes eight different categories. For instance, the "Grandmother" or "Grandfather" categories contain avatars of "Grandmothers" or "Grandfathers" respectively." This can be simplified so that it is not redundant -> "The latter includes eight different categories, such as "Grandmother" or "Grandfather".
    • Last paragraph, you tell us that the player gains access to a villa. That's fine, but you don't tell us what a villa is. It can somewhat be inferred what it is in the second sentence there, but it still doesn't actually tell us what a villa is.
      • I've added a link to the villa article and clarified the first appearence of it to "villa house". TheAwesomeHwyh 17:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last sentence: "containing outfits for the player's avatars." Can a player have more than one avatar? --JDC808 ♫ 05:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope- difrent avatars are considered seperate players to the game. I think that was just a typo- fixed. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Development

Essentially the same comment as Gameplay, though a couple of particular notes.

  • "Due in part to its large size, at one point in development the game had over 10,000 known bugs" - This is good information, but I don't think it belongs where it is currently placed. I think it should come a little later in the paragraph/section. Actually reading that whole paragraph, I think it should be rearranged some so that the order of the information makes more sense. For example, the first sentence is fine, but the next sentence should be "Development began shortly after We Ski & Snowboard had released..."
    • I've moved around the sentences there. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've done some copy-editing to fix some structural issues, but the ordering of the information is still an issue. For example, in the second paragraph, it's talking about the minigames, then out of nowhere, we're told that this game was revealed at E3 2011. That should come much earlier. And I would actually move the sentence about the bugs to the end of the second paragraph. Also, last sentence of third paragraph, was the game released on iTunes, or the game's album? --JDC808 ♫ 05:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I fixed the two sentences you mentioned there- though I'm not quite happy yet with where I put the sentence on the reveal- I'll probably move that a bit more. The iTunes thing was a typo, fixed. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the lead, it's mentioned that the surveys were done in North America, Europe, and Japan, but in the Development section, you say America, Europe, and Japan. Was it just America (as in the United States), or all of North America? --JDC808 ♫ 05:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's unclear, in the actual interview with the developers I cite there, it says "America, Europe and Japan". I have removed the North from North America in the lead. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reception

This is also mostly fine albeit some grammatical and structural issues. One thing I notice right off is that you have mixed the reception of the Wii version and the Switch version. This can be done better. For example, the second paragraph is a little confusing with this. The first couple of sentences are about the Wii version, then the next is about the Switch version. That is okay, but then the next sentence does not give any indication of which version its talking about (checking the date of the sources shows that its about the Wii version, but no one is going to know that unless they look at the source). And then the final sentence is about the Wii version again. One thing that would improve this is to move that sentence about the Switch version to the end of this paragraph. You do this a couple of other times, however, it's not clear which version its talking about. Without checking the sources, it would be assumed that all are talking bout the Wii version (with that one exception of when you stated it was the Switch version). There needs to be clarification. Speaking of sources, I noticed you have some of the exact same references in the reference list twice. There should only be one with a ref tag used for when you use a reference in multiple places.

  • Currently going through the "reception" section to fix the ordering issue. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I fixed it, though I'm not sure if it was a entirely neccisary change. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is necessary because it's two different versions of the game. They may be largely the same game, but there are differences, such as improvements over the original and the Switch version adding more minigames. That's one direct issue of the third paragraph here, because you start off by saying that "Anagund praised the amount of minigames available", but he's talking about the Switch version, which had more, and you don't tell us that. This paragraph is also oddly flipped. You have all the reception of the Switch version first, then the Wii version; should be the other way (and which version needs clarified). These same points are also an issue in the short paragraph about the villas.
      • Grammatical issues in this sentence: "Others also criticized for an apparent lack of quality, Nintendo Life's Ryan Craddock felt that they are "an undercooked version of things we've seen countless times before.""
      • I am still seeing the double reference issues I mentioned before. Take a look at the ref list. Refs 43 and 44, refs 40 and 46, and refs 9 and 45 are the exact same references, respectively (I believe those are the only doubles). --JDC808 ♫ 05:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • ​The Switch version doesn't actually have more minigames (it actualy removes two!) is there a part of the article that implies that? I don't think the animal photo thing actualy counts because its set up completly difrently from the rest of the minigames. But yeah, there are difrences- it's going to take a while to fix that so that it tells the reader what version they're talking about but I'll start now. Going to fix the double ref thing now. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • In response to your question about somewhere in the article implying there were minigames added, yes. The lead states, "It was ported over to the Nintendo Switch in 2018, with Namco Bandai adding new minigames..." --JDC808 ♫ 20:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Whoops, I changed that to "new features". TheAwesomeHwyh 20:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • ​I just realized I never fixed it so that the Wii version was the first mention in each paragraph. I did that and made it more clear what version the article is talking about. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am provisionally opposing this nomination as I'm seeing a lot of issues. This is a good GA and I commend you on attempting to copy-edit the article yourself, but I advise to submit this at WP:GOCE to get a completely new set of eyes on the text. By the way, don't let anyone tell you that this cannot be an FA because of its length, because it can. --JDC808 ♫ 22:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​I'm going to go through these soon but I just wanted to note that this article has gone through a copyedit before. I can request another if you think it wasn't enough. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, I've done some copy-editing myself, but there are still issues present. Because of those issues, my oppose still stands, especially with the whole sourcing issue of the sales/release dates. Everything else can easily be fixed, but that has to be resolved before I can support this. --JDC808 ♫ 05:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm going to nominate it for a second copyedit. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm 99% certain now that the issue was that the press release was a sales projection and not sales figures. I'm just going to remove that as the Nintendo Life source seems to be the correct one. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but you still have it in the lead. --JDC808 ♫ 20:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell- I can't nominate this for a copyedit while the FAC review is ongoing. Is that correct? TheAwesomeHwyh 17:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can, but it may not be done in time. --JDC808 ♫ 20:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Lee Vilenski edit

Unless this can be significantly fixed, a cursory glance doesn't have this at the FA boundary for me. Here's a little bit of what I saw:

  • WP:INFOBOXCITE. Why are there so many references in the infobox? Should be cited in prose.
    • It looks like most of them are cited in prose, so I have removed the refs in the infobox for the things already cited in prose, and kept the refs for the things without. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes should be actual sentences.
  • second note isn't cited.
  • Lede isn't fantastically worded, and isn't WP:BROAD enough for me.
  • No cites in lede.
    • Not sure what you mean. Are you pointing out that there are not enough refs in lead, or are you saying that there shouldn't be any? TheAwesomeHwyh 18:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, no cites in lede. Everything in a lead should be mentioned elsewhere (there are a few reasons why you might want a cite in the lede, but not here). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • There was one here that TheAwesomeHwyh pointed out where it mentions this being the third game in the series, and that was the only one that was okay in my opinion for the lead as it wasn't mentioned elsewhere in the article. --JDC808 ♫ 20:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Surely something as important as being in a series should be in the prose, no? Even the same line in the development section, or just a mention about the series at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have added it to the "development" section. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Up to four players can compete against each other in over 50 different minigames, which take place in four fictional island resorts. Different types of vehicles, such as trolleys or bikes, can be piloted to access resorts. Players can also customize their avatar, as well as their virtual villa. - this is the first mention of what the game is. I don't think it particularly gets across well what the game is about, or summarizes the game very well.
  • It hosts games such as table hockey, pie-throwing, skating, and mini golf - are these games? Is it not spelt "minigolf"?)
    • They're games, and it is spelt like that- it was a typo. Fixed. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and Marine bike races.[13][16][17][18] - bordering on refbomb territory.
  • The gameplay section talks more about locales and the setting for the second paragraph. I feel like this could have been expanded into it's own section, or not slapped in the middle of this.
    • It actually used to be, but it was merged into the gameplay section as per Namcokid47's comments in the first GA review. I can move it back if you want, though. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter includes eight different categories, such as "Grandmother" or "Grandfather". - why is this important?
      • Chiming in as I had commented on this specific sentence and suggested this rewording in my review. I personally think this is important as it gives an example of what the pre-set avatars can be. --JDC808 ♫ 20:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is there no way of giving some variation? There's over 200 preset models, but the only examples given are grandparents. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Could he say grandparents and a couple of other examples? Just to give the reader an idea of the options. --JDC808 ♫ 21:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is missing a release section.
  • The killer immediately is this sentence ". The Wii version of the game holds a 64/100 on review aggregator Metacritic, while the Nintendo Switch version has a 62/100" - For one, we don't mention scores that are in the table of reviews, and secondly this doesn't actually say what this score means.
    • I've just changed it to say it received "mixed or average" reviews. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The controls were praised by some, but criticized by others. - this says nothing.
    • Good point. I've reworded it to highlight the differences in the reception of the Wii version's controls in contrast to the Switch version. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewing the Switch version, Alessandra Borgonovo praised the game's roller skates, saying that they were fun to use. - who is she?
    • They're with IGN Italia, though I'm not sure why the article didn't mention that. Fixed. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critics were mixed on the game's minigames. Sterling agreed - Jim Sterling is a critic. I don't see how he can agree when it's possible he reviewed it first. You also can't agree with mixed really.
      • This goes with something I brought up in my own review, as reception of the Wii version and Switch version were mixed together and with a couple of exceptions, it was not specified which version was being talked about. TheAwesomeHwyh has done better at deciphering which version is being cited, but it can still be improved (still think all Wii reception should be first, then Switch). --JDC808 ♫ 20:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was just leftover from when I moved things around as per JDC808's suggestions. I've fixed that, though I'm not quite sure how I missed it in the first place. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is with the sales section? It's just a single sentence. The lead mentions sales figures for recently, and there is zero info on Switch sales. Feels super incomplete Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoops, the bit in the lead should've been removed a while back. The sales section was a bit longer too, but the problem was that it turned out Google Translate was actually changing the meaning of the sentence. It actually didn't sell 1.82 million units, that was just a sales projection. I've removed that from the lead. The information that is left is the only actual sales information available, do you think I should just merge it fully into the reception section? TheAwesomeHwyh 18:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably. It just doesn't feel very broad. Is there no other info whatsoever? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not that I know of. Keep in mind that this game is fairly obscure. I've moved it. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - With two open opposes after this much time, it's clear this article needs work to bring it up to FA standards and this work is best done outside of the FAC process. Please work to address the points raised and renominate after a minimum two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 25 August 2019 [5].

Charles H. Stonestreet edit

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 00:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a prominent American Jesuit who led the Jesuits' Maryland Province and was the President of Georgetown University, among other positions. Between these two posts, he had a hand in the recovery of the College of the Holy Cross after it was almost destroyed by fire, and the creation of the Georgetown University Astronomical Observatory and St. Aloysius Church. Interestingly, he was also caught up in Mary Surratt's trial for conspiring to assassinate Abraham Lincoln. Ergo Sum 00:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN13: the project is not an author
    • That citation is automatically generated by {{Inflation/fn}}. Ergo Sum 15:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately that doesn't make it correct ;-)
  • FN54: what is the original source of this material?
    • I'm not able to find an original source. It was a cross-examination in court. My impression is that the website cited is a citeable website. Ergo Sum 17:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • On what basis? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't appear to violate any Wiki policy. Do you have reason to believe that it does? Ergo Sum 01:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Either way, I've replaced the citation in question with a reference to the book that I had previously included in the external links section. Ergo Sum 01:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't need retrieval dates for GBooks links
    • True, I generally think it's a good practice, though. Ergo Sum 15:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Croce: the library is the publisher, not the work. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment Unfortunately this has been open for almost a month and seems to be a non-starter, with no prose reviews. It will therefore be archived shortly. It may be renominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2019 (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 via FACBot (talk) 24 August 2019 [6].

Thailand edit

Nominator(s): G.B.T. (Boonparit Thuanthai) (cn:Dr.Man) (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is interesting and completed for featured article, sir--G.B.T. (Boonparit Thuanthai) (cn:Dr.Man) (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Unfortunately, this enormous and important article is seriously underprepared for FAC. It's full of "citation needed" tags, there's no previous review history. The nominator does not appear to be a contributing editor. Suggest withdrawal followed by a proper and thorough review process. Brianboulton (talk) 10:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Tagged for unsourced statements from April 2013, December 2014, and June and December 2017. Tagged as needing clarification from June 2015 and for vague or ambiguous time from May 2016. Note dead external links from April 2018, January 2015 and August 2019; and incomplete citations and failed verification from August 2019. DrKay (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16 August 2019 [7].

The Bridge on the Drina edit

Nominator(s): 23 editor (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a novel by Ivo Andrić that was published in 1945. The writer later went on to win a Nobel Prize in Literature and this novel remains his most famous work. I look forward to any and all constructive criticism so that the article meets FA criteria. 23 editor (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Sokullupasa.jpg needs more information on provenance and original date, as well as a US PD tag
  • File:Mehmed_Pasa_Sokolovic_Bridge_Visegrad_1900.JPG needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All links to sources working, per the checker tool
  • All formats consistent
  • Quality and reliability: the article is comprehensively sourced in accordance with the FA criteria for quality and reliability.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes edit

I've added this to the Urgents list but it will need to be archived soon if it does not begin to receive some significant prose review, unfortunately. --Laser brain (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13 August 2019 [8].

Open Here edit

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn 20:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2018 album but the English rock band Field Music. It recently reached GA status and I believe it meets all of the FA criteria as well. — Hunter Kahn 20:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

I have to say that I'm leaning toward oppose at the moment, given the issues on prose and a few other things.

General points
IB & lead
  • Genre field includes "indie rock" and "art rock": no supporting citation in the body
    • I've added citations for each of the genres listed in the infobox. The first citation (Pitchfork) covers the first three genres; I didn't use the citation three times but rather put it at the end of the third one, but I can list it after each of the three individual genres if you prefer... — Hunter Kahn 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "occasionally heavy topics": So they are heavy only sometimes? And is a heavy topic one on lead or iron?
    • I replaced the word "heavy" with "serious or cynical"; I kept in "occasionally" because I believe that is still accurate, but let me know if you think that's a problem... — Hunter Kahn 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • Photo caption: "A photo of Peter Brewis": we really don't need "A photo of"
  • "and a follow-up to their 2016 album Commontime.[1][3][4][5]" Do we need four citations for those nine words?
    • It's just one citation now... — Hunter Kahn 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a press release, David Brewis": as this is the background, I would have expected the names of the two bandmembers to have been provided first.
    • Modified this so the two band member names are provided first... — Hunter Kahn 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same press release: "[3][6][7][8]" one press release needs one citation, not four
    • This is just one citation now. There are other instances in the article where I use several citations where I could have used just one. Generally speaking, I didn't see the harm in this, because I feel using multiple citations simply reinforces the accuracy of the cited facts. But if there are other examples where you think I should reduce the citation numbers, I am more than willing to remove them as needed... — Hunter Kahn 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "prepackaged" should be "pre-packaged"

I'll be back tomorrow to have a proper look – these are just the bits that caught my eye on a quick flick over the top part of the article. – SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks very much for your thoughts so far. I'm ready and willing to respond to anything more you have... — Hunter Kahn 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Done. I found describing the album cover a bit challenging, so if that alt text needs further work, let me know. — Hunter Kahn 17:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FURs for all three non-free clips need to be completed. Additionally, given the length of the original Count_It_Up_by_Field_Music.ogg exceeds the 10% max of WP:SAMPLE, as does Open_Here_by_Field_Music.ogg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have uploaded shortened versions of Count It Up and Open Here. (Had to hit refresh on my screen before the new versions replaced the old ones on the article.) I believe they now adhere to the length requirements in WP:SAMPLE. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 17:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all appear to be working, per the external links checker tool
  • Formats:
  • Be consistent in the italicisation of online magazine sources – e.g. The Quietus (ref 19), Stereogum (42 & 43) and maybe others are italicised, while musicOMH (14, 30) is not.
  • Be consistent about stating language for foreign sources (see 16, 17, 48 etc)
  • Quality and reliability: The chosen sources appear to meet the required quality/reliability criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for your sources review! — Hunter Kahn 15:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes edit

I've added this to the Urgents list, but after being open for several weeks without any support for promotion, it may have to be archived soon. --Laser brain (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to give this some feedback within the next day. Toa Nidhiki05 14:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for well over a month without any declaration of support for promotion, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present even with a possible pending review. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2019 (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 via FACBot (talk) 7 August 2019 [9].

Deep Space Homer edit

Nominator(s): AmericanAir88(talk) 14:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Space Homer is a notable episode of the Simpsons. The episode has guest stars of Buzz Aldrin and James Taylor. The episode is well known in the Simpsons community, even having a copy for the International Space Station to watch. In the episode, NASA is concerned by the decline in public interest in space exploration, and therefore decides to send an ordinary person into space. After competition with his friend Barney during training, Homer is selected and chaos ensues when the navigation system on his space shuttle is destroyed.

This is a third run at FA for this article. Their were supports and an oppose leading to a no-consensus to promote. I have acknowledged all issues that were brought up and expanded the article using more reliable sources. I have asked for insight and did personal research. I also requested via the WP:GOCE for copy-editing and it was successful. I believe this article is ready for round three.

Note: Notifying @Aoba47:, @FunkMonk:, and @Popcornduff: as they were involved in the second FA run. AmericanAir88(talk) 14:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by FunkMonk edit

  • Support - I supported last time for the content, and the edits since appear to have been an improvement on the word-smithing. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Popcornduff edit

  • I generally stay out of FAC reviews these days, but since I've been asked to comment directly... I will say that the plot summary is far too long. This is for a 25-minute episode and it's almost 500 words long - Wikipedia's max plot length for feature films is 700 words, and according to WP:TVPLOT episode summaries should be 400 words max (though imo this episode requires far less). You have information about film parodies in the plot summary - film parodies are nothing to do with plot - a plot is just a sequence of story events.
Now that I'm thinking about this... I have a foggy memory of rewriting this plot section at some point to get it to a more sensible length - did someone else oppose it? I don't remember. Popcornduff (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Popcornduff: I shortened the plot to 398 words. The trivial information and parody sentences are removed. @Kees08: also opposed. Kees, I have satisfied the CE requests. AmericanAir88(talk) 15:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Kees08 edit

At a glance it looks a lot better; I will give it a look maybe this weekend. Quick suggestion; I just uploaded two Aldrin photos from 1996, which is relatively close to the 1994 taping date. Maybe use one of those, in addition to or to replace the image of him from 1969? Your call. Kees08 (Talk) 17:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: I am not sure. Doesn't seem right to have other people in the background when the picture is focused on Buzz. Also, this episode is about Buzz's astronaut career and the current photo shows that. Any opinions? AmericanAir88(talk) 20:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that, figured it might be weird since he is talking to people. I think it looks okay though, I tried cropping one of them: File:Aldrin at STELLAR Program (ARC-1969-AC96-0232-52) (cropped).jpg. Is that better? Kees08 (Talk) 21:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kees08: That would be better. Make sure there is alt text. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need to cite production code in the infobox (unless there is a policy I am unaware of)

That's all I have. Prose reads great now. It looked like you wanted me to do the Aldrin photo switch, so I went ahead and made the change. If you preferred the other photo for any reason, feel free to use it instead, I meant it as a suggestion only. Let me know about the one comment above. Kees08 (Talk) 18:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: Photo looks great. As for the code cite, I have honestly never really seen it cited. The code is mentioned in all of the external links as well. AmericanAir88(talk) 12:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I double checked others that have passed and you are right. Supporting. Kees08 (Talk) 16:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I agree with you that the NASA ants portion of the article you deleted should be deleted, in case anyone argues with your removal of content. Kees08 (Talk) 22:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kees08: Thank you. Yeah, it just seemed trivial and had nothing to do with the episode. Also, what is the status on this FAC? There hasn't been a comment in a while. AmericanAir88(talk) 15:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47 edit

  • I continue my support from the previous FAC. My comments have been addressed during the last two FACs, and thank you again to AmericanAir88 for putting up with all of my suggestions. My only nitpick is the placement of the The Simpsons: Tapped Out sentence in the "Reception" section since it is not really a critical review. Maybe putting it at the end of the last paragraph of the "Broadcast and release" section would be better? It is a rather small thing though so it does not stand in the way of my support. Good luck with the nomination this time around. I am glad that you are still trying with this one. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this nomination has attracted four supports, I would recommend that @AmericanAir88: put in a request for an image and a source review here. Aoba47 (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: Out of curiosity, What is the benefit of putting a request there? It seems to take a while and other reviewers have checked the sources and images. If you recall the first run of this, the images were checked. If you recall the second run, sources were checked. AmericanAir88(talk) 17:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that an image and a source review still need to be done for this FAC as it is a new FAC. To the best of my knowledge, the above link allows anyone interested in doing image/source reviews to locate nominations that are already further along in the process as it can be difficult to tell that from the long list of current FACs. It is just a suggestion though so I am not saying that you have to do it. I hope that clears things up. Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now...

Carlos Baeza directed "Deep Space Homer", and it is the only episode of The Simpsons written by executive producer and showrunner David Mirkin. - the subject shifts oddly in this sentence. Can be remedied by "Directed by Carlos Baeza, "Deep Space Homer" is the only episode of The Simpsons written by executive producer and showrunner David Mirkin."

Other than that, nothing is jumping out at me prose-wise.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Done. AmericanAir88(talk) 14:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review/Oppose by JJE edit

ALT text is so-so; the one in the infobox should probably mention the meme. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I have added more info to the alt text. Thank you AmericanAir88(talk) 15:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems better now. Normally, ALT text is there to substitute for an image's purpose, not to describe what it shows. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you again. What is the future status of this FAC? It has been a while since anyone has brought up any comments. AmericanAir88(talk) 15:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, based on my reading of the article I'd be inclined to oppose mainly because of odd verbiage such as "The theme of alcoholism in The Simpsons is present ", "When Barney is invited on a space launch" and "By 1994, NASA could no longer present space exploration as part of the Space Race—the tension between the Soviet Union and the United States had by then dissipated." where it's not clear whether it refers to real life or to the in-story setting. I normally don't review other people's prose but this one needs more work than can be done at FAC I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laser brain edit

Recusing from coord duties to take a look here. One of the first things I normally do when an article is relatively short is do a cursory library search to see if any notable sources have been overlooked. In this case, it looks like several academic sources could be used to expand the Production section and even develop a Themes section, since there are several journal articles that (on skimming) look to discuss how this episode plays into the US's culture around the space program. A few are listed below, but you should consult major library databases for a comprehensive list:

  • CHOEYOUNGJEEN. "American Myth and the Spectatorship of SF Films: Reviewing Star Wars and "Deep Space Homer" of the Simpsons." The Journal of English Language and Literature, vol. 54, no. 4, 2008, pp. 461-482.
  • Sharzer, Greg. "Frank Grimes’ Enemy: Precarious Labour and Realism in the Simpsons." Animation, vol. 12, no. 2, 2017, pp. 138-155.
  • HERSCH, MATTHEW H. "Return of the Lost Spaceman: America's Astronauts in Popular Culture, 1959–2006." The Journal of Popular Culture, vol. 44, no. 1, 2011, pp. 73-92.

I must oppose on 1b and 1c until such time that all major sources are consulted and used. --Laser brain (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88: Thanks for beginning the process. I agree with Serial Number 54129 below that we need to fully explore the scholarship here and determine to what extent the themes of this episode have been discussed. I doubt a fully developed Themes section is avoidable, or that we can hope for comprehensiveness without fully exploring the sources evident in a library search. --Laser brain (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AmericanAir88: At this time the Themes section feels hastily assembled and I'm not confident the sources were fully explored. I'm looking at them this weekend. --Laser brain (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129 edit

  • Copy that. I don't suppose I need to oppose (which is dispiriting enough I know), p Per LB's comment, but other important—and as yet unused—works are Katovich and Vaughan's chapter in Musolf's 2016 collection, Cantor's Gilligan Unbound, and the philosophy thing of William Irwin, Mark T. Conard, Aeon J. Skoble. You'd be unlucky not to get something from Steven Keslowitz too. ——SerialNumber54129 11:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: @Serial Number 54129: Do you want me to add the sources? Some don't seem to benefit the article and some are not even accessible. Also, I would object to a "themes" section. The cultural references adequately talks about various references and themes. AmericanAir88(talk) 14:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review of proposed sources and their suggested treatments.
  1. Have you read the Frank Grimes article? Rather than just seen the episode? The article posits an interesting contrast with the usuality of Simpson's existence.
  2. Young Jeen Choe's 'American Myth' is a 22-page article in a blind-peer reviewed academic journal and I have no idea how it could be merely dismissed as a review, let alone a "book".
  3. Again, I must protest tat the 'Return of the...' article is clearly available and spends multiple paragraphs contextualising the episode.
  4. Gilligan's abound subjects the topic to a short, but nuanced discussion, contextualising the episode with the then-contemporary space-race. Any reason you're "hesitant" to add an academic text from a reputable scholarly publisher?
  5. Musolf: Firstly, it's not Musolf, the article is by Katovich and Vaughan, Musolf being the volume's editor. So the reference you have added needs to be adjusted to account. But in any case, one sentence is completely underusing a source which mentions the topic in-depth multiple times and discusses it over several pages at length.
  6. I agree the 'Philosophy' piece is a short discussion, but it makes a useful point as to how Simpson's voyage reflects his familial relationships.
Ask at WP:RX for any sources you have difficulty accessing; whether it's available to you is, unfortunately, irrelevant: you have to thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature, not just that which you can find.
Incidentally, something else I forgot to mention that's verging on the essential is Paul Halpern's What's Science Ever Done For Us? ([10]), which discusses—notwithstanding a lightness of approach—the physics behind the story.
You say you don't want a 'Themes' section? But the scholarship is based on drawing out the themes discoverable within the episode, so can hardly be avoided. For example, where you added the factoid regarding Simpson's alcoholism, you added it to the 'Prodction' section: it clearly has nothing to do with production.
Remember that 1b—cited by Laser brain above—is about context, and something as sociologically and culturally impactful as The Simpsons is, whether one cares for it or not, a phenonomon for which discusion has broadened far beyond its fan base. ——SerialNumber54129 11:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Serial Number 54129: I have added some of the books so far which create a "Themes" section. I have an objection the the oppose Laser brought up below. How does it look so far? AmericanAir88(talk) 22:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to Laser's oppose: Currently working on the issue. Adding sources edit

@Serial Number 54129: and @Laser brain:, Not every source needs to be in an article. See WP:OVERKILL. Also, see articles like Lisa the Skeptic and You Only Move Twice. Both are Simpsons episodes brought to FA status. I will try to work with you as best as I can to expand the article, but I do not see the benefit in all these sources. Deep Space Homer is well crafted will a great amount of information for readers. If I try to expand the article with miscellaneous information from sources, it may be longer but lacks quality. I am currently working on incorporated these books. AmericanAir88(talk) 15:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review of Laserbrain's suggestion edit

@Laser brain:

  • "Frank Grimes, Enemy: Precarious Labour and Realism in the Simpsons" This is about the episode "Homer's Enemy". Homer literally just tells Grimes that he went to space. That is all. It will not benefit the article.
  • "American Myth..." Not reliable as it is just a review. The book is also not available anywhere.
  • "Return of..." Not available and only gives it a passing mention
  • "Gilligans Unbound":  Done
  • "Musolf" :  Done
  • "Simpsons and Philosophy"  Done

AmericanAir88(talk) 14:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: and @Laser brain: This is my review of the sources provided. I added one of them so far. AmericanAir88(talk) 14:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: and @Laser brain: I have added three of the books so far. How does it look? AmericanAir88(talk) 15:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Serial Number 54129: and @Laser brain: Please address Homeostatis's support comment. The user agrees as well with my opinion on the sources. The first three are only passing mentions and will do nothing, but add miscellaneous content. AmericanAir88(talk) 13:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Homeostasis07 edit

After reading the entire article, I couldn't find a single aspect of the prose I'd suggest changing. I made a couple of changes to the article none-the-less, expanding the references, but aside from that I see no issues with sourcing or source quality. And after reading this FAC, I'm happy with the changes AmericanAir88 has made. The 3 worthwhile academic sources listed above have been incorporated well into the prose, and I concur that the 3 remaining sources have limited scope for inclusion: they do come across as fairly trivial, with references to this particular episode found within them fairly off-the-cuff, to say the least—not much depth to extract. Also couldn't find any additional academic sources worth mining for this article. With all this in mind, I'm happy to support this article for promotion on FAC 1a, b and c. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Section break edit

I have added the sources from the "Oppose" votes above while leaving out some that I feel will add nothing but miscellaneous content. The users have not responded to my further three pings. Homeostatis07 also strengthens by claim. I am going on vacation soon and while I will still be at my laptop sometimes, I may be at limited availability. AmericanAir88(talk) 13:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support edit

A greatly entertaining read, well crafted.

  • I alphabetized the bib.
  • I fixed the Cantor ref.
  • Cites 13 and 14 refer to bib entries that don't exist.
  • Hersch, Irwin and Musolf are never used in the refs. Reading above, it seems they were added late in the game and/or by Homeostasis07? Is anything in these works actually used?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: Thank you for the help. HI and M are used as Ref 14. Cites 13 and 14 seem to be an issue with the Harv. I fixed the harv refs. AmericanAir88(talk) 04:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so the only one left to consider is Hersch, which I don't see any use of? I looked in a few places where it might be used, but the only unique things in that are the Corvair mention and such, which aren't used. I also clipped down the URLs where the base URL goes directly to the right spot (wish there was a bot that did this). Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Eric Corbett edit

This article is really not very well written, and thus fails criteria 1a. A few examples:

  • "A scene where Kent Brockman is convinced that ants are going to take over the world." "Where" applies to places; should be "in which".
  • "At the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant, Homer Simpson believes he will win the Worker of the Week award since it is a union requirement." What exactly does that mean? That it is a union requirement that Homer believes he will win the Worker of the Week award? It's a union requirement that Homer wins the Worker of the Week award? Something else?
  • "Homer smuggled potato chips aboard the shuttle." Why the sudden and out of place switch to the past tense?
  • "Mirkin based the story on NASA's cancelled Teacher in Space Project where ordinary civilians were to be sent into space ..." Another misuse of "where".
  • "The scene where Homer floats in zero gravity ..." ... and again.
  • "The episode shows the relationship of the Simpson family ..." That doesn't really make sense. Presumably what's meant is that the episode shows the relationships between the members of the Simpson family.
  • "The tension between the Soviet Union and the United States, created competition within nations." Again, that doesn't make sense. What's that comma doing there anyway?

I want to stress again that these are just a few of the many problems that need to be addressed before this article can be considered worthy of promotion in my view. Eric Corbett 20:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed [most of] these on AmericanAir88's behalf, but would like to point out that it's perfectly acceptable to use "where" in several of the instances above—as in, "Where", i.e., the place or situation in which; "wherein", etc. I don't believe this is enough to violate 1a, and would be curious to know of any additional instances of alleged poor grammar... because I can't see any. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let me remind you of what 1a actually says: "its prose must be engaging and of a professional standard"; my contention is that the prose of this article is neither. Allow me to give you just one more example: "... might be capable enough to rule over humanity". Awkward, laboured and clumsy would better describe such phrasing. Eric Corbett 10:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Eric Corbett: Thank you for the concern and comments. @Homeostasis07: Thank you for the help as well. Eric, I took this article through the GOCE and did several sweeps of the article myself. As the nominator, I cannot tell you if this is enough to violate 1a, but I thank you very much for the concerns. Feel free to address anything else in the article. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The GOCE are what they are, but they're not much use at this level of, what ought to be, a professional standard of writing. Eric Corbett 10:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hassling good faith reviewers is just disruptive. Knock it off. SchroCat (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of "Awkward, laboured and clumsy"... what? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not expecting you or anyone else to agree with me, I'm simply stating my opinion, which I thought was the purpose of a review. It's for the delegates to decide whether or nor to promote, not me, and they may well decide that my objections carry no weight. C'est la vie. Eric Corbett 14:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rhetorical: what "purpose" does this serve? And one can easily oppose a nomination without insulting the good folks at GOCE. This is what counts as a "review" these days? C'est la FAC, more like. FFS. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It serves the purpose for which it's intended. And your rather transparent attempt to lure me into providing the odious Sandstein with yet another flimsy excuse to block me by asking does you no credit whatsoever. As for the GOCE, surely any fool can see its limitations? What purpose does your futile attempt to bully me into submission serve? An appearance at FAC invites criticism; if you can't tolerate criticism, don't ask for it. Sadly FAC is becoming a bit of a laughing stock because it is very likely that an inferior product like this nomination - which in the past would have stood no chance whatsoever of being promoted - likely will this time because too many are too afraid to oppose. For shame on you. Eric Corbett 23:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind leaving personal attacks and insults outside of the FAC? Thanks. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Are you going to go first? Eric Corbett 13:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to spell it out for you then. Address any future observations you may have to the review or to the article, not to me. Eric Corbett 16:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

Oppose I have to agree with Eric that the text isn't as free-flowing and smooth as it could be; I'm not sure it demonstrates Wikipedia's very best work. Two months into an FAC and I'm still seeing some basic problems that should have been picked up some time ago (although I guess they could have been created during the FAC process). Anyway, so of the more egregious points are below, but this isn't an exhaustive list

Lead & IB
  • There is no reference in the article to support this being the 15th episode, as far as I can see
Done with regret. Many external links and references clearly state it, but I added a ref to satisfy your comment.
Why "with regret"? It wasn't mentioned at all in the body, which means it wasn't referenced anywhere in the body. Everything outside 'the sky is blue' has to be referenced. - SchroCat (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The episode was well-received, and many critics and fans praised it as one of the episodes of the series": so fans thought an episode in a series was an episode in a series?
Plot
  • Three "However"s at the beginning of sentences is at least two too many, possibly three
Production
  • Another "However" that isn't needed
Parodies
  • " 2001: A Space Odyssey": repeated twice in two sentences. "the film" would suffice for the second
  • "that shows Itchy tortures Scratchy" "torturing"
Reception
  • I've shrunk the image of Aldrin as it was breaking into the refs section and leaving a large amount of white space. Per the MoS this image should be on the left to avoid him facing away from the text, but a different image would probably be better (or a cropped version of this one)
Image on left. AmericanAir88(talk) 16:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a cropped version (I cropped it before adding it to the article earlier in I believe this review). Would you recommend cropping it at the halfway mark of his torso, just above the book? If you have the time I do not mind if you crop it yourself either. Kees08 (Talk) 17:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British film magazine": does the nationality matter in the age of online publications? No other publication has its nationality up front
Sources and Bibliography
  • FN24 should be PP. not p.
  • Hersch isn't used as a reference and can be taken out. I cannot access the pages in question, but if there is something in there that isn't covered in the article, then think about including it.
Finding a use for it AmericanAir88(talk) 16:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are other bits that make the text less than easy on the eye (and GOCE isn't the best place to get a good copyedit: most couldn't copyedit their way out of a wet paper bag). – SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Thank you for your comments. I will address them as best as I can. Also, please do not criticize the GOCE. They are a group of dedicated editors who strive to create better flowing Wikipedia articles. Unless you have had a personal bad experience with them, I feel it is not right to criticize them. I wouldn't think the coordinators would like to hear that wet bag comment. They do a ton of good work for the encyclopedia. Everyone has the right to their own opinion though. AmericanAir88(talk) 16:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone's entitled to their opinion so long as that opinion is that the GOCE does a good job? I suppose there's a kind of logic there, just one I'm unfamiliar with. Eric Corbett 17:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AmericanAir88, you appear not to be aware that GOCE/LOCE is held by many in extremely low regard, with good reason, and many of those here will have had exclusively negative experiences with them. It's a couple of years old now, but I imagine most people's opinions of them haven't shifted substantially since this 2017 thread. The GOCE approach just about works for cleaning up very poor new articles, but on anything with any degree of complexity they almost invariably cause more damage than they fix. Coming to FAC with an attitude of "the GOCE know more than the FAC reviewers"—given that almost all the FAC reviewers are among Wikipedia's most experienced editors and most also have substantial off-wiki academic and writing experience whereas GOCE are generally enthusiastic amateurs who often aren't even familiar with the topic on which they're copyediting—is a fairly rapid way to antagonise a lot of people very quickly. ‑ Iridescent 18:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
↑↑↑↑↑ What they both said about GOCE. I am not criticising the individuals' approach or dedication, but they are not suited to copy editing FA-level material. OK for GA, but just not FA. AmericanAir88, it's a small thing, but please don't strike out my comments: I decide when you've dealt with them or not. When you've covered something, you should indent your comments underneath the point(s) and say you've done them, as you can see at this FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary Bell (aviator)/archive1. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mr rnddude edit

I noticed the discussion on WT:FAC, so decided to take a brief look at the article. I have a few prose and content comments:

... to fix a decrease in ... - Couldn't you just say "improve" here?
... leaves via a jetpack - Might be ENGVAR but "via jetpack" would work just fine.
Homer fails ... Homer accidentally ... - Repetitive sentence opener.
He based the episode on its NASA's cancellation of the Teacher in Space Project - I suspect "its" is a remnant and should be removed.
Aldrin however preferred the original line, which remained in the script - I think "remained" should be "was retained".
His recording session appears an extra ... - "appears an extra" should be "appears as an extra"
... on the DVD of the fifth season - Would it not be "DVD release"?
Barney regresses from being an athletic person to his usual drunken self by ingesting a non-alcoholic drink, while Homer is unable to complete the training exercises as a result of his withdrawal from alcohol - I was expecting a greater depth to this, but it's just a plot factoid. What's the significance of this statement?
... the relationships between the Simpson family ... - between "members of" the Simpson family.
... specifically how it evolves ... - Relationships is plural, so "it evolves" should be "they evolve".
This is evident when Homer and Bart are ... It's illustrated through that scene, but two people changing channels isn't evidence of anything beyond their personal non-interest.
... the viewing nature of society ... - I don't know what this is meant to mean.
"Deep Space Homer" is a part of the DVD and Blu-ray of the show's fifth season ... - Do episodes of a season usually get left out of seasonal releases? Also, "releases" again.
... commentary by Simpsons' ... + ... in the Simpsons: Risky Business ... - Definite articles (the) are used before Simpsons in some places but not in others, and there's not a pattern that I can identify to this.
... listing it as the third-best Simpsons movie parody - Given there is a Simpsons movie, this phrasing could cause confusion.
... IGN and Phoenix.com ... - Why is IGN italicized, but Phoenix.com not?
Hersch, Matthew (October 8, 2012). Inventing the American Astronaut. ISBN 978-1-137-02529-6. Retrieved February 8, 2018. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFHersch2012. - Unused reference.

That's all that I've noticed through a brief skim. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Cassianto edit

Per the very good arguments presented by Eric. This article is not up to the standard that FAs should be. Was this even peer reviewed? CassiantoTalk

@Cassianto: I tried nominating it for peer review, but after months of no comments, I gave up. I decided to talk to users who opposed previously and see how I could fix the article. Thank you for the comments. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really do worry when I see people supporting articles like this at a FAC when they are a GA, at best. If I were you, I would close this nomination, jot down some of the names who opposed (including me), open a peer review and invite those names along to participate. Those worth their salt will turn up; no one here is opposing for the fun of it. CassiantoTalk 21:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I would be happy to help at a peer review as well. Eric Corbett 21:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cassianto: I have a feeling this will be closed soon due to other editors fighting. I won't withdraw it yet as I want to see what coordinators think of the whole situation.
Why prolong the agony? Knowing the coordinators as well as I do, I would be very surprised if they passed this particular nomination. CassiantoTalk 23:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions edit

about this sentence:

Homer's space journey increased ratings for NASA, illustrating how easily trends in ratings can be effected by societal change.

1) What in the cited page in the cited source supports this?
2) Why is the word effected used here? Did you mean affected?
Kablammo (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

I've been largely out of action the past 48 hours owing to a family illness and obviously a lot has happened in that time. Although I regret to see heated comments, I'm archiving the nom owing to legitimate/actionable opposition being raised in what is already a drawn-out review. I fully endorse Cass' suggestion to note the opposing voices and ping them for their input at a future PR. BTW, we can do without headers about opposing an oppose -- everyone is free to disagree with other's comments but we don't need to make a song and dance of it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2019 (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_2019&oldid=913284543"