Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2009

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Archived nominations

December 2009 edit

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 19:19, 29 December 2009 [1].

The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay edit

Nominator(s): GamerPro64 (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Before I begin, I will now do a year in review of the article. It recieved a huge overhule by Vantine84 (which I asked for) and failed its first GAN. Then, it got a VG Peer Review while passing its second GAN. Now that its second Peer Review, I think it passes the FA requirements. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments

  • No dab links or dead external links—good.
  • Alt text looks good. Not sure about the "multi-racial (Italian, African-American, et al)" part, but I'll leave that to others.
  • Dates appear to be consistent Month Day, Year in prose. The refs mix ISO style access dates and MM-DD-YYYY publish dates—I don't like MM-DD-YYYY, but at least it's consistently used.
  • I like the second pull quote. :)

--an odd name 00:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I appreciate your comments, AnOddName. I knew the ALT text would cause a problem, so if someone else wants it to be changed, I'll do it. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take responsibility for that strange line in the ALT text. It was hard to describe him, since "caucasian" really didn't fit; I decided to just go with what he's said about his heritage. If anyone knows a way to improve it, feel free. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I still think the sources I found at the 2nd peer review would go a long way to improving aspects of the article, and I share some of Ealdgyth's concerns with sources, especially about.com. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, when Vantine84 and I were still working together,this was the original link. But since there was no article on the website about who won, I found about.com. Second, I can't find your e-mail also. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I specified in the PR, you need to send me an email first (there's no way to send attachments through the MediaWiki interface.) As for About.com, this RSN thread summarizes the general points: we need evidence that these people are experts in their fields, and even then there needs to be discretion about whether these sources, even if they meet WP:SPS, almost meet the "high quality" threshold. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I finally got one of your references you gave me on the article and will probably add more. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should add that when I first entered the info about the award, I did not mention who won because the article did not mention it. I had considered removing it after that because it was an MTV award anyways - like the Spike video game awards, there doesn't seem to be much respect in the video game community for "mass media" honors like these. If there were, we would have lots of articles from reliable sources about them and probably wouldn't be having this discussion. I recommend removing all mention of the MTV award. — Vantine84 (t – c) 13:28, 22 December 2009 (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 Karanacs 19:19, 29 December 2009 [2].

Spiritual Machines edit

Nominator(s): Publichall (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because It has become a Good Article and I have improved upon it since then. As a subject, this album plays a pivotal role in this band's evolution and is considered one of their best. I believe it is up to par with all the FA standards but please check the prose carefully as the introduction may need tweaking. More than enough sources are cited including professional reviews and industry journals. Also refer to the archived discussion of its GA nomination if you need. Thank you. Publichall (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments addressing prose. I am not a OLP fan, my tastes stretch to certain other Canadian bands but not this one ...

Lede:
  • "frequently used for the recording of the album." I don't think you mean frequently. The album was recorded once, albeit over a long period. Suggest rephrase.
Done. Changed to "Utilized throughout the recording" Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph: muddled timeline. It obviously wasn't recorded while they were on tour, perhaps "touring" would be a substitute for "on tour". You also use "completed" or "completion" in different ways in consecutive sentences, one referring to post-production and the other just to finishing the album.
Done. re-worded Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourth paragraph: Should this be in the lede at all? The lede is supposed to be, more or less, a summary of what's in the article. The article does not expand on this.
Done. removed by another user. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Album history
  • "band-members", "back-log" Odd hyphenations, I'd probably say "band members" and "backlog", especially since Maida uses the word backlog without a hyphen later on. This is a long paragraph too, I'd split it.
Done. Can't remember about first paragraph, whether it's been split or not already. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final paragraph. The Molly thing makes no sense to the casual reader. That a fictional character would evolve in the way its author predicted would strike most people as commonplace (the opposite would be much more interesting). Also, 2099 should not be linked. Perhaps say she is a character from the book, used by Kurzweil to demonstrate his evolutionary theory?
Done. moved to music & lyrics section by another user. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recording
  • "Unlike previous efforts". Assumes too much, suggest "Unlike the band's previous albums,"
Done Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not refer to the same person by both first and last names. I find it is bad practice to refer to someone older than, say, 18, by a first name only unless there is confusion with identical last names.
Done Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "says" "states". I would use past tense. Also, I tend to avoid "says" or "said" as a little too informal.
Done Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Also unlike on their previous albums," rephrase
  • "Our Lady peace" Ahem.
  • "were in demo form and ready to be recorded by August 2000 while on the road" I imagine this means that the demos were recorded on the road? As it is, it is hard to tell.
Done. Removed the "Ready to be recorded" part. Wasn't necessary fact. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rest were completed with Arnold Lanni" You should say what role Lanni played, especially since shortly after you mention The Smashing Pumpkins' frontman.
Done. He produced them in Toronto. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not quite sure that the article tracks the lede as far as the written and recorded in 2 months parts goes. It isn't obvious to me.
Done. Added two months part Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll complete this tomorrow. But from what I've seen, I am suspecting that someone is going to ask you to work over the prose. There are a number of things that should have been caught before FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-source commentsOppose on sources Right, I've done a bit of work on it and this is the stuff that needs work before I do a complete source review. Use Silent Alarm as a template.

  • The reviews need to be placed in the Reception section and not in the infobox as per the new guideline.
  • In Charts, include a box for the singles and their placings too.
Done This was deemed unnecessary due to the lack of chart placings. The mentions in the singles section will do.Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If possible, source the CD codes in Release history. However, don't use places like Discogs or MusicBrainz.
Done. Sourced different versions from personal collectionPublichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is too long for an article this size. Trim and condense it a little bit, probably around three chunky paragraphs. Remember it is meant to be a general summation and not include a lot of specific detail. That means removing all the citations, too.
Done. Ratafabul or something took care of that. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That might have been me. ;) RB88 (T) 01:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have a look at the reflist and ensure that all print publishers are in italics and web ones not. Ensure that all refs of the same type follow the same notation order, e.g. author, title, etc.
Done Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. See below.

RB88 (T) 17:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes these reliable?

  • The references' style need a complete revamp. There's a mixture of template or different order of citation within the same template. Just pick a simple {{cite web}} and ((cite news)) and stick to it. (I don't understand why you add "–" before each publisher.)
  • Dates have also been mixed up. There's different types and month are even abbreviated. Also stop using dates like 01 Dec or 09 Oct (remove the 0).
  • Refs 1,2,3,8,18,19,20,24,26,32,33,48,52,55 used Chartattack in italics. Now that is the website for Chart magazine and does not merit italics, unless you choose to cite Chart.
  • Remove the location on ref 10 for uniformity.
  • No italics on the publishers of refs 11,12,44,50 (Sputnikmusic is also one word).
  • I'm frankly puzzled by ref 13.
  • Ref 14's publisher is What? Magazine with a question mark.
  • Some online refs like ref 16 do not have a link. Check all the refs for such a problem.
  • Unabbreviate CRIA in ref 22.
  • Ref 25 is dead.
  • Refs 28,42 need italics.
  • Ref 43's publisher is The Daily Collegian (Penn State).

RB88 (T) 02:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued comments

Music and lyrics:
  • "The songs for Spiritual Machines were written and partially recorded during a year of nonstop touring across Canada." Not what the source says, it says they were also touring the US and Europe. And even though the source says "nonstop touring", bands do not continuously tour, you know. I suggest "... during a year in which the band was doing extensive touring of Canada, the United States, and Europe." Also, it is usual to note, when full text is not available unless you pay for it (fee for article) right before the </ref>.
Done per your suggestion Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • End of first paragraph: needs a ref.
Done Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph may not mean much to the reader unless he's familiar with Kurzweil's theories. A couple of sentences of summary might be helpful there. I have my guesses, from the Molly references above, but I don't know and I'm studiously refusing to look at the Kurzweil article so that I'm reading it like an uninformed reader.
  • This whole section seems rather random. Just whatever you could find out about the songs, without very much structure to it. I'd even ask you to consider merging it with the preceding section.
Done. Mostly fixed up and bulked up a bit. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote about the brother should probably be cut down a lot. If you don't feel you can, suggest breaking it into a blockquote.
Done. Paraphrased the beginning part. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Packaging
  • Do we really need to know that the artist lived a few blocks from the recording studio? Suggest that it isn't needed for summary style reasons.
Done cut. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of which he was director for both" Bad grammar.
Done. Changed to "both of which he directed" Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image is too small. Suggest you set a larger image size. You might also want to get advice from someone better versed in non free image content as to whether it is appropriate to have an image of the liner notes, which also contain copyrighted lyrics.
Done Image just removed, replaced with alternate cover. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I'd merge this subsection elsewhere as it is so short. One idea might be to merge music and lyrics with packaging.
Done Another user did it. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Photo-shoot. I've sometimes seen this as one word "photoshoot" or, I think more commonly "photo shoot". Suggest you ascertain most common usage.
Done. Used the two word one. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Release and reception
  • "listening party". I've never heard of the term being applied to anything other than a physical gathering of fans, but maybe that is just me. Perhaps add the word "virtual" before the term? I don't feel strongly about this, just a suggestion.
Done. It's a virtual listening party. Re-worded the sentence a bit. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence about the CD being released several months later in the US as was common practice is sourced to an article which seems to be discussing a broken wrist and a summer 2001 tour for OLP. Suggest that a more thorough reference check might be in order.
Done Connected to Allmusic reference with U.S. date. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • March 13, 2001. This is a Canadian band and you've already used UK/Canada usages such as "favourite". Shouldn't this be in day month year format?
Done Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are going to need a cite for the statement that SM was one of OLP's least successful commercially.
Done Removed the statement (that I didn't write). Compared its success to earlier albums. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has also been suggested" Grammar problems. Also, by whom?
Done Proclaimed? Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's usual to put the name of periodicals in italics. Since sometimes the city name is italicized and sometimes it isn't, advise that you check the article on the periodical here and see how they do it.
Done Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Singles
  • "while reaching #1" I think that you're going to find that some reviewers believe that "while" should not be use except to designate contemporaneous events. Suggest "though".
Done Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"their fan club". Suggest "the band's fan club"
Done Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll finish this up later tonight. I'm not convinced it is quite ready for prime time, but it is possible it could be fixed up with a good copyeditor during the time you have at the FAC page. Suggest you at least wait for other opinions.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Singles
  • "ultimately fell of the charts shortly after its November 15, 2000 release" "ultimately" is a word which implies to me the passage of a long time. It doesn't seem justified here.
Done "quickly fell off.." Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tour
  • Summer, Fall. Usually not capitalized. We also try to avoid using seasons since they differ based on which hemisphere, north or south, you're in.
Done Change to months Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Around May of 2001" I would not use the word "Around" as too informal. Does the release of a non-album track have anything to do with an album anyway?
Done "during may" and I think so. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Raine". First name again, too informal.
  • "a full length album with Rock." If they did, I would name it.
Done and Done Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: I don't know enough about album FAs to say how close you are overall, but the prose definitely needs polish. I would suggest having someone go over it closely. I am uncertain if it can be fixed during the limited time you have at FAC, but I don't see any immeiate need to withdraw it before hearing from a few other folks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Finished. Unless I'm missing something, I think all bases have now been covered. Publichall (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hi, we usually proceed by answering each query or point with a comment underneath it, much like I've done here. That way the reviewer knows if and how their point of contention has been tackled. So, my comments above still stand until you respond to each point with what you've done about it. I know it may be a bit of a drag, but it streamlines the process. I'm sure Wehwalt would appreciate it too. If an editor doesn't respond within a reasonable amount of time, then you can message them to revisit. I look forward to your responses. RB88 (T) 00:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks, it wasn't so hard. Except that I somehow forgot to save my changes the first time and had to do it over. I hope these clarify everything. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Three images:

  • File:Spiritualmachines.jpg: Album cover (fair use), used as main infobox image. No problem with inclusion. Rationale is decent, but the rationale provided for the following image, identifying it as a main infobox image, would actually be more suitable here.
  • File:Spiritual Machines alt.jpg: Alternative album cover (fair use), used as secondary infobox image. Acceptable, if moved and with improved rationale and main text description. The content of the image is very different from that of the lead image, and both sources cited in the main text passage providing critical commentary on the limited edition for which it was used do actually regard this alternative cover as worthy of coverage. However, this cover art does not belong in the main infobox, which illustrates and summarizes the central elements of the album's release. Its significance is tied to the limited release version, and it should be placed so as to accompany the critical commentary on that item. In addition, both of the sources cited there need to be cited in the rationale as well, in order to firmly establish the significance of the image. Finally, the description in the main text is incorrect—this cover is obviously not "completely black".
  • File:Liner.jpg: Liner notes with art (fair use), used in main text Packaging section. (I missed this at first, because default sizing makes it too small, given its narrowness.) This strikes me as unacceptable usage, though feel free to solicit other opinions. The art is by the same painter who created the cover, so the quote concerning his artistic style does not require a second image for illustration. Furthermore, none of the cited sources discuss the visual content of these liner notes.—DCGeist (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "completely black" refers to the fact that the jewel case was solid black plastic with only that logo on the front. Publichall (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "That logo" makes it not "completely black". Is that not clear?—DCGeist (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, is everything finished? I'm not sure. Let me know soon. 71.112.4.84 (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost. The rationales still need to be addressed. We need the main infobox rationale for the main infobox image, and we need sources cited in the rationale for the alternative cover image.—DCGeist (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, I think. That previous poster was me, I accidentally signed out. Publichall (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rationale for the limited edition release cover still employed main infobox boilerplate in the purpose of use field. I rewrote it to address its actual use and purpose. All good with images now.—DCGeist (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT and the documentation for {{Infobox album}}. Eubulides (talk) 08:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Everything is pretty much finished. Final checks anyone? Publichall (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for doing the alt text; looks good. Eubulides (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs copy-editing—You use the word "album" too many times. If you use Firefox, Ctrl+F for "album", and hit the 'highlight all' button; you'll see what I mean. I suggest replacing the word with "record" and "Spiritual Machines" every now and then. Check for repetitive wording: "Unlike the band's previous albums . . . unlike on their previous albums". "#1, #30" should be "number one, number 30" per our manual of style. The short charts section is redundant to the prose in the release section; you can remove it. Tweets are not reliable sources of information.—indopug (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I weeded out all the "album"s I could. I also used the term "project" for several. Publichall (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to look over the article again, but I've been rather busy. I will do so if I can by the weekend, unless it is archived before then.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, stalled until after Karanacs did promotion and archiving for the weekend. Anyway, I can't support. There are still quite a number of goofs (like referring to an adult by his first name, or calling the band "Our Lady peace". It really needs a good going over by an outside copyeditor, and what I would suggest (I see there are no supports, so I would imagine this will be archived in the near future) is take it to Peer Review and get some more input. I think there is a FA somewhere here, it seems comprehensive, uses as good sources as you are going to be able to find. But there are just too many glitches in the writing. I am sympathetic and hope this passes in due course. However, since my main work here at Wikipedia is writing Featured Articles, I'm too jealous of the term to let an article that isn't ready yet go.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2009 (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 Karanacs 19:19, 29 December 2009 [3].

2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver edit

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I waited to nominate this article because I wanted to wait until the charges were resolved for one of them. Now that they have been, I think it is ready for FAC, and it has already long passed as a GA. I believe the article is as well-sourced and comprehensive as it could possibly be, but am ready and willing to make any suggested improvements. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments

    • OK, I've dropped the description beyond the "gray shirt" bit, and changed it from talking to someone to looking off screen. — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*In File:Gartrell johnson adolf.jpg: "Since it is a screenshot from a television news program, the fair-use version is available and no free-use versions can be used."—um, what? No, rly, what does this even mean? I don't mean that as a troll; it just makes no sense because Wikipedia strongly prefers free content over non-free (as it should). I think (policy aside) we really should come down harder on rights-reserving companies and make them release more free images and such. Companies love to whitewash our articles and then complain when we use something of theirs that wouldn't cost them (much) money. Sorry if I come off as rude, but that part seems wrong.

--an odd name 02:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. That wording was there already (or if I did write it, it must have been a while ago because I don't remember it). My own fair use rationale is explained in the summary, so I've cut this confusing bit altogether. If my own rationale still needs work, any feedback is welcome... — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Security had already been tight around Obama due to low-grade fears of possible assassination threats against the first African American major party presidential candidate." This should either say "...due to low-grade fears of possible assassination against..." or "...due to assassination threats against...", but not "fears of possible assassination threats". Kaldari (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I had meant to convey was "low-grade fears of possible assassination attempts". I've fixed that wording, although if you think it needs to be changed to "...fears of possible assassination against..." let me know. — Hunter Kahn (c) 22:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many problems. Nominated for deletion. Has possible libel issues as the men were never convincted of attempted assassination, even though they are 3 stooges that should be jailed. Just a news footnote of an obscure incident. These problems mean that it should not be the featured presentation, or whatever you call it. Otherwise, the featured presentation will become a joke. Even the title needs work. Scare? Who was scared? Even the police say it was a non-credible threat. Maybe 2008 alleged plot but not scare. Best of luck in fixing these many problems. Head of Security for the World (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously, now that the article has been nominated for deletion, the opinions voiced by the above user will be discussed in the AFD. If the decision is delete, then the FAC will obviously become moot. But if the decision is keep, it would still be eligible for FAC, so I would ask would-be FAC reviewers to continue looking over the article for any specific problems or issues that need to be addressed, so that the FAC can continue in a timely manner if it survives the AFD. Thank you! — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Never mind, the AFD closed as a speedy keep. The only thing left is the neutrality tag, which I've addressed on the Talk page. I feel the article is neutral, but I'm waiting for more feedback before I remove the tag... — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please note, I have removed the neutrality tag due to a lack of response to my changes. If there are still neutrality issues here, I'd be happy to address any that come up, but as it stands I strongly feel the article is neutral. I've gone out of my way to include dissenting voices who believe these men posed no threat to anybody. Ironically, it's that very material I've included in the article that this user has cited in his recent AFD arguments... — Hunter Kahn (c) 18:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.finalcall.com/
      • This is the website for The Final Call, a print newspaper published in Chicago. It's the official newspaper of the Nation of Islam and was founded by Louis Farrakhan, so it carries with it a bit of controversy, but it's a legitimate print source. — Hunter Kahn (c) 21:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It might be better to source to something a bit less controversial, unless you are looking for information on the Nation of Islam's reaction. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've not found these particular comments from Boone in any other articles. (I have found, in a Lexis search, however, that the exact same Charlene Muhammad story that ran in the Final Call has also run in publications like The New York Beacon and Capital Outlook.) Nevertheless, I'd like to include the Boone quotation if possible, as it lends a different point of view than others in the section. Perhaps I could just include the fact that it came from The Final Call in the prose of the article itself (not just the inline citation)? That way, readers could consider the source and judge its reliability for themselves? — Hunter Kahn (c) 22:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • This one is moving into more lines of context and stuff. I'll leave it out for other reviewers to consider, so I'm basically done. (This one isn't really an unreliable source all the time, it just needs to be used carefully when it is used, which is a content, not a sourcing issue, and thus is more for other reviewers to decide..) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.nationalledger.com/
      • Well, they describe themselves as a "new media independent news publication". The articles appear to be factually accurate, but I suppose you could make a case this isn't a reliable source. I only use this source to discuss the Sons of Silence bit. I did a Lexis search and found an article in a publication called "The New Review" about the Sons of Silence connection, and I could cite it, but is only says that there was a vague alleged association with the Sons of Silence, which the group denied. I could either 1) keep the National Ledger source, 2) scale down the info and cite this New Review article or 3) drop the Sons of Silence info altogether. — Hunter Kahn (c) 21:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If only The New Review and this are picking up the information, is it really encyclopedic? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I thought it was a worthy addition, but that's a good point. I've cut the Sons of Silence bit (and thus, this questionable source) altogether. — Hunter Kahn (c) 22:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6337
      • This is a blog, but it's the blog of Brad Friedman, who is a well-known journalist and blogger. His blog has been cited and praised by mainstream newspaper (some of that info is available on Friedman's site. In the context of this article, I only use Friedman's site as a source when I'm citing bits of criticism or claims made by Friedman himself. I felt the use of the site would be acceptable in that context... — Hunter Kahn (c) 21:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As long as it's only used for Friedman's opinion and it's directly attributed in the article itself (not just inline citations), it may be acceptable, but then you get into the problem of whether his opinion is notable or not. I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=home
      • This is the official site of the Centre for Research on Globalisation, which is mentioned by name in the "Media coverage" section of this article (which also includes this citation). I just did a Lexis Nexis search and research from this group has been cited by a number of newspapers, from The Guardian in London, to the Moscow Times, the Derby Evening Telegraph, the Post-Standard in Syracuse, etc. etc. (I can copy-and-paste email you some of these articles if you want. A verbatim copy of one of the stories that ran in 2005 in The Guardian can be found here as an example.) And, again, the only citations I use from this source are in the context of describing reactions to the assassination scare from the Centre itself... — Hunter Kahn (c) 21:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.opednews.com/articles/Conspiracies-To-Assassinat-by-Robert-Arend-081027-401.html
      • Well, again, it's a blog, but it's a pretty widely known and read blog. (It was nominated last year for the Bloggers Choice Awards 2007 "best political blog" award, for what that's worth! lol. Once again, I only cite the page once, and only in the context of citing a comment made by that blogger. However, if you feel it has to go, then I'll drop it... — Hunter Kahn (c) 21:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, you're up against what makes the blogger's opinion noteworthy? I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and there is no need to ping my talk page when you've addressed things, I watchlist FACs I comment on, so I'll see it. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, sorry about that! — Hunter Kahn (c) 22:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: prose is of FA quality, or at least, high-end GA quality. Sceptre (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please upload the mugshots of the suspects instead of the non-free images.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe those are available, which is why I had to use the non-free image in it's place. Unless you can direct me to where those shots are available? — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about this --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, ok. I thought you meant it should come from an official Dept. of Corrections site or something like that. I've replaced the photo. On my screen, it still looks like a scrunched version of the original photo, but I'm guessing that will change when the cache is updated? — Hunter Kahn (c) 14:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Isn't it a free image, because it's by the FBI ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, right, my mistake. Fixed the licensing... — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. WP:OVERLINK, prose worries.

  • We are meant to be able to speak English if we're consulting en.WP. Why is "assassinate" linked, and jammed up next to "Barack Obama" too, another breach of WP:LINK? Please pipe "Denver, Colorado" to "Denver, Colorado: this is a chain link; readers will face the link to the state as soon as they hit the one to "Denver". Are "African Americans" so exotic that they need a link? I'd say as normal as whites, actually. And "white supremacist" is linked, which is good—we certainly don't need both; nor do we need "racist" to be linked a couple of seconds later.
    • I've removed several overlinks, including the ones you pointed out and several others I found myself on a comb-through. I've also fixed the location links and made a few other changes, which you can see here. Please let me know if I've missed anything! — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First pic underexposed; pity, but if you don't have control over it, I guess we can't have it brightened. Could be cropped, too. And here's "Denver, Colorado" again, fully linked. I'd not bother the readers 8 seconds after the last blue-link to this.
    • I'm not sure which "Denver, Colorado" link you mean. Are you talking about the one in the first paragraph under "Investigation and arrests"? I was under the impression I should link everything on first reference in the body of the article, even if it's already been mentioned in the lead. If this isn't correct, though, I have no problem removing this wikilink... — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "like in the 1992 Kevin Costner movie, The Bodyguard."—"like in" is not grammatical; it may be occasionally ok in speech, but not in this register. Here's "African American" linked again ... I think we got it the first time, didn't we?
    • The overlink has been dropped. I've fixed "like in", and will look for other mistakes like this in my upcoming grammatical review... — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gartrell was high on methamphetamine when arrested."—"high" is kind of colloquial; I'm trying to think of the more formal word for it. "Crutches"—we're supposed to know what they are.
    • "Gartrell was under methamphetamine influence when arrested"? --an odd name 16:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've changed the wording to reflect that they were under the influence, rather than high. — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the "Federal" Bureau of ...? Might be good to add that word. Some Americans probably don't know that either.
    • I'm sorry, I don't know what you are referring to here. Could you point out which section/sentence? — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see MoS on ellipsis-dot spacing.
    • I think I've fixed this now, but please let me know if I'm misunderstanding... — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a ghastly, ghastly story. (Just saying.)

Look, some of this is OK, and the prose is saveable overall. Let's try to get the overlinking under control and see if it can't be brought up to standard. Tony (talk) 15:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds good! I will be unavailable for any major editing over the next two or three days due to the holidays (can check in from time to time, but not for a long amount of time) so I'll jump on this as soon as I get back. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK—the examples above are just a sample; the whole text needs an independent run-through. Tony (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood. I'll give it a go, probably Sunday night or Monday, and then we'll see if this is something we can work on for this FAC or if it'll have to go beyond it... — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I've fixed the individual items above. I'm going to take another look at the text and see if I can fix any other grammatical or stylistic problems. I understand, of course, that this isn't an independent review, but rather my own. So once I'm finished, all I ask if that you take another look and see if I've addressed your concerns. If not, I'll put this up for a peer review when and if the FAC fails. Thanks for your help! — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've sent a message to Tony1 to see if my changes to the prose are acceptable. — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - Kind of reads like a news story, to be completely frank. I really dislike opposing candidates, especially well written ones, but as Tony1 has demonstrated, I just don't think the prose is there yet. I also agree that it needs a copyeditor to clean up the stylistic issue(s). Best, ceranthor 19:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Optima, I've made some changes to the prose that I think are an improvement, and I believe I've all but addressed the overlinking concerns. I'm waiting to hear from Tony1 whether any further improvements are needed, but if he is satisfied, would you consider supporting, or at least withdrawing your weak oppose? — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter is a nice person so I am reluctant to point out negatives on the article. I'll keep the savage ones to myself and just point out the little ones.

  • The section headings are not the best. Look at them without reading or knowing about the events and you might see that the headings do not summarize the events well and look strange.

1 Investigation and arrests
2 Johnson implicates Adolf (Sorry, but this sounds like a boxing commentator or title of a chapter of a novel
3 Assessment of threat
4 Histories of alleged plotters
5 Comparison to other cases
6 Media coverage
7 Criminal charges

Possibly better headings might be:

0. Lead introduction with brief description of the incident (no section heading needed)
1 Alleged plotters
2 Plot (what already happened then subsection on what more was planned)
3 Foiling of the alleged plan
4 Investigation
5 Post arrest events (including a subsection of Johnson implicates Adolf)
6 Media coverage
7 Criminal proceedings
8 Other cases (is this even necessary?)

Once these headings are made, then the rewrite can be made to satisfy the headings. If there is left over information, then new sections or subsections can be made.

  • The top picture says that they tried to shoot President Barack Obama. At the time, the President was George W. Bush. There cannot be these errors or people will laugh at Wikipedia.
  • Mr. Gartrell's life could be ruined and Wikipedia, being a big website with high search engine results, should not hurt Mr. Gartrell's chances of finding a job and other life events. The introduction calls it an alleged plot but Mr. Gartrell got a short sentence and wasn't convicted on anything close to killing someone. We need to think how to treat the guy carefully.
Maybe we need to say that the scare was initially thought to be an assassination plot but later evolved into a legal question of weapons possession (or crack possession, or whatever the charges were). This should be very clear in the beginning. JB50000 (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2009 (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 Karanacs 19:19, 29 December 2009 [4].

Qwest Field edit

Nominator(s): Cptnono (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is one of the best stadium articles I have seen. Specifically, I like how the balance between construction and different types of events has turned out. I am also happy with the images. With so many edits, I am of course biased and would love any feedback.Cptnono (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be blaming any mistakes on people working on the page before me ;). This is great: Seeing even more things getting fixed is awesome! (13 edits from three different editors in only a couple of hours. Thanks and nice work.) Cptnono (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retart, previous nom, images and dabs cleared. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Sounders video is almost primary. Made sure not to use fluffy words. The interview (which I can't find reprinted as a transcript anywhere else) is by Tony Ventrella (sportscaster in the area [5]) Current work with HLN (TV channel) and KONG (TV)/KING-TV used to be with KIRO-TV and KCPQ. The guy being interviewed is the Public Stadium Authority chairman. Reformatting ref.
I'll leave this one in for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment very close to supporting per my comments on the previous nom. However, while the reference mentioned above is perfectly suitable for uses a and b (non-controversial, relevant and unlikely to be covered by third-party sources), a secondary source should be used for the claim that Qwest Field was the first stadium to use LED signage. WFCforLife (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly, I can't find info on the "crown" anywhere else (too boring?). I removed the LED line since it is trivial and a claim not supported by other sources.Cptnono (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, citations need cleanup, see my sample edits. Incorrect use of WP:ITALICS and incorrect names on publishers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did they move (once) in two different years, and not play there until the year later?
The Seahawks moved to Husky Stadium during the new stadium's construction in 2000 and 2001. Their first game at the new facility was a 28–10 preseason loss to the Indianapolis Colts on August 11, 2002.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 2001 season ended on January 6, 2002. They didn't take the field again until the '02 preseason. I'll add "seasons" to '00 and '01. They moved from the Kingdome so I changed it to "played at".Cptnono (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A great article. Read the article, and liked what I read. Didn't go over the minutiae of it, but if others who do find that here all is well, then I support the promotion of this article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Supported this before the restart, but I'm concerned about Tony's repeated comments that a third-party copy-edit was needed. Has copy-editing been done yet? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not "independent" as he mentioned.Cptnono (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: there were two Tonys by the way. I have grabbed everything Tonythetiger has asked for. This is a different (better) article because of him. That initial FAC wasn't supposed to be a peer review so, despite my initial confusion, the restart is not a terrible idea at all. Tony1 has a great background but I question some of what he pointed out. A few of the things were invaluable, though. Besides those two, SandyGeorgia pointed to a few examples which I worked with, Skotywa just pointed out several quick grabs, a bot did a couple caps in reference templates, and there were a couple tweaks by others.Cptnono (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentSupport - Some things I found as I read the article from start to finish...
  • The design comprises of two distinctive arched roofs spanning the length of the stadium. - awkward sentence
"The roof, at 210,000 sq ft (20,000 m2), covers most of the east and west seating sections. In total, 70% of the seats are covered." ?
  • I'm not saying rewrite it, I'm saying that "comprises of" is awkward. Would "is comprised of" be better perhaps? --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The roof utilizes a damper system that disconnects it from the support pylons so it is able to slide independently of the structure in the event of an earthquake. - awkward sentence
I honestly couldn't fugure out a way to write it. One source says it resembles two clamshells but I thought that soundeded silly. I just redid it this way.. Cptnono (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"To minimize damage in the event of an earthquake, the roof utilizes a friction pendulum damper system. This disconnects the roof from the support pylons so it can move independently of the structure." (there is no Wikipeida for this type of damper system so I added the type for an engineering junkies and a simple explanation for the rest of us)
  • This just felt like a run-on sentence. No need to rewrite it, just break it up, add some commas, or something.
I agree. I can remove the type of damper system but I think it is cool info.
This system has been used at the base of small buildings and in some bridges, but this is world’s first use in a large-scale roof. needs to be paraphrased. It appears word-for-word in the source.
Found a wikilink for the previous line and adjusted to "The technology had never been applied to a large-scale roof until construction of the stadium."
  • Instead of being rounded, the ends of the field were squared to allow be a regulation size. - awkward sentence
  • "The lower bowl was constructed to fit a larger pitch."
  • "to allow be a regulation size" is awkward. Would "to allow it to be a a regulation size" be what you were going for?
Ug...grammerer bad. I did mean it to be (do'h). I kind of like the new wording, though. It makes more sense mentioning the construction of the bowl. "The lower bowl was constructed to fit a larger pitch by squaring the ends." Cptnono (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Seahawks' Josh Brown, who has adjusted to the problem, believes other kickers experience problems due to the moisture in the air. - he no longer plays for the Hawks.
"A former Seahawks' kicker, Josh Brown, had adjusted to the problem. He believed other kickers experienced problems due to the moisture in the air."
That's better. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Seahawks", "Sounders (USL)", and "Sounders FC" sections should have main article links I think.
Can't link them in the section headers per MoS but duplicated the wikilinks in the first mention of the sections for better navigation.
Sorry, when I said "main article links" I meant that {{Main}} or {{Seealso}} should be used just below the section header. If you make that change, then the wikilinks in the prose should be reverted. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 16:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. Chose "see also" template after reading their descriptions.Cptnono (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Qwest Field Events Center was built adjacent to the stadium for $44 million. - this is duplicate infromation from earlier in the article
Removed the second instance.
Good. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commuter rail running between Tacoma and Everett also operates every Sunday Seahawks game with service to nearby King Street Station. - awkward sentence
Broke it up "Seattle's King Street Station is near the stadium. It is serviced by regional commuter rail. Trains operate on Sundays if the Seahawks have a home game."
Better. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got. Overall, the article is complete in it's coverage of the topic. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 08:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Interesting read, now meets all the criteria. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 05:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note A couple editors have gone through recently. Some type-os were grabbed. Images were all right aligned. I'll be without internet until the 22nd and unable to respond to any feedback.Cptnono (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One thing that isn't particularly clear is where the Seahawks played before, and why a new stadium was considered necessary. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Seahawks played in the Kingdome before. The owner said they couldn't be profitable until they left. I included this in the Seahawks section. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strafpeloton2 has done some good work on the tone, grammar, and a few other tweaks over the last few days. Awsome stuff, Strafpeloton2.Cptnono (talk) 09:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been hanging around for a looooooong time. The writing is not good enough. Oppose.
  • Why are some of the highly detailed pics at thumbnail size? Try 240px.
  • Such a change isn't necessarily supported by the MoS. Thumbnails keep the images from overwhelming the prose and fit.
  • Spot-check of the writing:
    • "Allen rejected plans for a retractable roof so that the stadium was open to the elements, provided views, and reduced costs." Ambiguous: was it the rejection that did this, or would failure to have rejected done it? And the stadium "reduced costs"?
    • "Covers the majority of the ...". Then within two seconds we have to read that it was 70%. Let me think ... is that a majority?
    • "Utilized"—I still can't fathom why people use such an ugly word. What is wrong with "used"? Twice within two seconds. And we have ize ize ize in three consecutive sentences as well.
    • Telegram language: "until construction of the stadium". If you can't bear "the", try "until the stadium was constructed".
    • "To reduce costs, the exterior was not completed with brick or ornate steel work." Sorry, I missed it: that was in the plan, or it would be considered standard practice?
    • There's the ugly duckling again: "The product utilizes". Erk. Use, consists of, comprises, includes, is based on ...?
    • Noun plus -ing clunky ungrammatical sentence: "The field was replaced in the spring of 2008 due to safety concerns caused by the sand and rubber becoming compressed and due to the color of the field fading." See my tutorial on fixing this. Tony (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second time you have mentioned some pretty trivial stuff. A couple great points both times, though. I agree with you on the repetition of "utilize" being a problem. I grabbed some of the utilyzes and tweaked the retractable roof and compression bits.Cptnono (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2009 (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 Karanacs 02:31, 28 December 2009 [6].

Anna Maria Luisa de' Medici edit

Nominator(s): Jack1755 (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it mets the criteria set out in WP:FAC. It has as of 9/12/09 attained GA. Jack1755 (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose:Comment: although interesting and well researched, the article needs significant attention before it can be promoted to FA. There are big differences between the GA and FA criteria.
    (Later) In view of the positive responses to my concerns I have struck the oppose. I hope someone will scrutinise the prose more closely than I have been able to do. I will revisit a little later in the candidature with a view to upgrading to support.
    • Lead: The first couple of sentences should what makes Anna Maria Luisa specifically notable. The most notable things about her are probably that she was the last of the Medicis, a patron of the arts, and that she bequeathed the Medici treasures to the state of Tuscany. These facts should be in the first paragraph, rather than information about her brother and her syphilitic husband. The lead should then be expanded to become a summary of the whole article
      Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Fixed as to the first paragraph, but I believe that the lead should be expanded. For instance the long and convoluted efforts by Cosimo to secure his daughter's succession, which form the principal substance of the article's story, deserve more in the lead than the brief statement: "Cosimo spent his final years canvassing the European powers to agree to recognise the succession of his daughter, but none did." It is a requirement od WP:LEAD that material is given weight in the lead that broadly approximates to its weight in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Fixed. "The Medici were on the verge of extinction: Cosimo III altered the Tuscan laws of succession, in order to allow the accession of a female, his daughter, in 1713; however, despite spending his final years canvassing the European powers to agree to recognise the statute, Francis Stephen of Lorraine, appointed heir in 1735 by the European powers as part of a territorial swap, ascended the throne in her stead".
    • Non-encyclopedic tone: my readthrough revealed a somewhat unencyclopedic tone in places, for example in phrasing such as "fraught with tribulation", "aghast by the thought...", "Cosimo and herself were dumbstruck..." An encyclopedia article, while it need not be devoid of all linguistic colour, should endeavour to express itself generally in neutral language, except for specifically quoted expressions which can be cited.
      Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, you've fixed the ones I raised (and possibly others) but I still find some of the language choices odd. Why does Gian Gastone "expire"? Why does Violante "peregrinate"? The use of "dire" meaning "urgent" is confusing, since dire can mean other things. What did Charles mean when he told Florence that the Electress's succession was "unquestioned" (which normally means absolutely secure)? Did he mean "out of the question"? Or am I missing a point here somewhere? It may be a good idea to get an univolved editor to check out the prose generally. Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I know it's a tad confusing. Charles constantly changed his stance on the issue. "Unquestioned" is supposed to be there; for clarity, I have inserted "reversing his initial policy"... I removed dire; however, I don't see what's unencylopaedic about "peregrinate" and "expire". -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps it would be best to insert "who constantly changed his stance on the issue". Peregrinate and expire, in the contexts you use them, are literary rather than encyclopedic terms. Brianboulton (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are numerous uncited statements, often at paragraph ends. For example: "In fact, contemporaries thought her traits to be a concoction of those of her father and paternal grandmother, Vittoria della Rovere"; "Hereafter, a stalemate existed between them"; "In collaboration with the Holy Roman Emperor and Francis of Lorraine, she willed all the personal property of the Medici's to the Tuscan state, provided that nothing was ever removed from Florence." These are, I stress, examples: please check for others.
      Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Still the odd one or two left. Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I think I've fixed them this time. -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have never encountered the word "protocolary". Can't find it in my big dictionary or anywhere else – are you sure it exists?
      Here is a list of dictionaries that have it @ dictionary.com [7]. However, I removed it anyway. Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Elsewhere you have "emponymous" for "eponymous".
      Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • MoS: Bolding should not be used for names except in the opening sentence of the article. Why is the title duchesse de Montpensier given in French and italicised, while other titles, e.g. "Grand Duke of Tuscany", "Holy Roman Emperor" etc are in English? "£562 thousand" should be written as £562,000.
      Fixed the italicised duchess and the bolding.
      Unfortunately I can't change how 562,000 is written; it is a template. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am also a little uncertain about the use of UK CPI statistics to estimate current values of eighteenth century Italian money. Perhaps more thought should be given to this?
      The currency being converted is GBP. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I appreciate that. My point is that the transactions in question were effected in local currency (florins? ducats?). Did the sources give the original currencies, or did they just quote £4,000 and £500,000? The problem is that by using the British CPI we are applying British inflation rates, which may be wholly irrelevant in this case. There's probably no way round this; updating values of 250 years ago in obsolete currencies in foreign countries is a nightmare, as I discovered when I created a couple of Mozart articles a year or so back. Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Acton quotes British crowns and converts it to pounds using the then exchange rate, Strathern simply states the amount in pounds, adding in a footnote that this sum is far larger today; Young, however, gives the original sum in Italian zecchinis, and then says what it was then worth in contemporary pounds. You see, the quotes were from Sir Horace Mann's, British resident in Florence, dispatches back to England. -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a dablink that needs fixing; use link in the toolbox top right of this FAC page to identify and fix
      Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of your alt text is a little overwordy. For example, that for the image of Anna Maria with her husband runs to 80 words and is greatly overdetailed; one of the dogs referred to is completely invisible, to me anyway.
      LOL. Took me a while to notice it too :). Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to review the oppose when these matters have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good prompt responses: please see what you can do with my remaining concerns. Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two quick things: page ranges should have unspaced endashes (–) and you should either have the location for all the publishers or none of them; I suggest removing the locations all together. Mm40 (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done & done, Mm40. Thanks! -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comments: Jack, I am leaning towards supporting this engaging article, but the prose is a little over the top in places. For example, "She is accredited with acquiring for the Palatine court its regard as an international centre of music." And, "The contract brought unto being that day". The prose is less florid—and better—later in the article. I agree with Brian on a somewhat unencyclopedic tone, I can find few faults if any with the grammar, but I find the prose pompous in places. I admit my Italian is very poor but I can't see any mention of syphilis in reference 3. I have taken the liberty of fixing some dashes, which had not been done, and I deleted a redundant, "in order (to)". I shall be interested to see what other reviewers have to say and will watch this candidature. Graham Colm Talk 16:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed reference number 3. It became misplaced when I re-wrote that sentence a week ago. Replaced "brought unto being" with "created"; and other example with "Because Anna Maria Luisa patronised many musicians, the contemporary Palatine court enjoyed regard as an international centre of music". Thanks for highlighting these issues! -- Jack1755 (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, but you have only fixed the two examples I gave you. I advise getting an uninvolved editor to go through the article with fresh eyes. Graham Colm Talk 17:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've recruited one! Thanks again. -- Jack1755 (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the article over, and from what I can see all the florid, overblown prose has been removed. I do suggest replacing the current image in the infobox with a more flattering portrait. I fully support the article for FA status.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only two or three changes were made as far as I can tell. Graham Colm Talk 11:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking over the article, Jeanne! -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments What makes this reliable?

RB88 (T) 04:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I presume that's a rhetorical question, so I have removed it; however, as I cannot find another source proclaiming the Electoral style "Most Serene Highness", I am forced to ascribe to G.F. Young's simple "Serene Highness" because I believe Acton's interpretation, "Electoral Highness" -- from what I have read elsewhere -- dated. -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a rhetorical question. We're always open to being shown that the source is reliable through third-party sources or media companies for example. But, since you've removed it, I'll strike. RB88 (T) 18:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I can't agree that "all the florid, overblown prose has been removed". The first sentence is "Anna Maria Luisa de' Medici (11 August 1667 – 18 February 1743) was the last scion of the House of Medici." - can't she just be a "member" or "heiress"? Later: "His conduct at these was less than regal: he oft vomited repeatedly into his napkin, belched ...." and many more examples - please don't just change those quoted & say it's fixed. This remains the main problem, but apart from that, it would be good to explain the Palatinate early on, and to give specifics on what art etc she bequeathed. More dates in the lead would make things clearer. She spent 25 years in the Palatinate, but there is little on her life there. The Acton book was published, per our article, in 1930 in Italy & 1932 in London, not 1980, a point of some relevance to any currency equivalents taken from it. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) Heiress is misleading. She only inherited allodial possessions, not the Medici Grand Duchy. 2) John, User:Brianboulton and I have gone through the currency issues above. And please enlighten me as to how the incredibly simple word scion is overblown and florid. -- Jack1755 (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And may I ask where in the WP:MOS and Wikipedia:Featured article criteria its says the prose has to be as simple as physically possible? This isn't simple English wikipedia. -- Jack1755 (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am still awaiting your reply. -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think every single person who has commented here has mentioned the prose style. You would do well to consider their comments. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made several -- over 20, to be exact -- changes to the article's prose. -- Jack1755 (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eagerly anticipating anyone's reply this decade!! -- Jack1755 (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: I can sympathise with your frustration over the lack of recent comments, but that's Christmas for you (I've been missing for eight days myself). I appreciate that during the last couple of weeks you have made considerable changes to the article's prose, to address my and others' concerns. I'm reading it again, with fresher eyes, and most of it is looking good. However, the lead still looks weak - my early suggestion that it be expanded remains unaddressed. Also the construction of the second paragraph is currently awkward. I suggest a reorganisation of this paragraph along these lines:-

Anna Maria Luisa was the only daughter of Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, and Marguerite Louise d'Orléans, a niece of Louis XIV of France. On her marriage to Elector Johann Wilhelm II, she became Electress Palatine, and through her patronage of musicians the contemporary Palatine court enjoyed international regard as a centre of music. As Johann Wilhelm had syphilis, the union with Anna Maria Luisa produced no offspring, which meant that the Medici were on the verge of extinction. In 1713 Cosimo III altered the Tuscan laws of succession to allow the accession of his daughter, and spent his final years canvassing the European powers to agree to recognise this statute. However in 1735, as part of a territorial arrangement, the European powers appointed Francis Stephen of Lorraine as heir, and he duly ascended the Tuscan throne in her stead. After the death of Johann Wilhelm, Anna Maria Luisa returned to Florence where she lived until her death in 1743. Her remains were interred in the Medicean necropolis, the Basilica of San Lorenzo, Florence.

Please consider ways of further strengthening the lead. Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 20:03, 24 December 2009 [8].

Railpage Australia edit

Nominator(s): Merriwarail (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it describes a pioneering rail enthusiast website Merriwarail (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Several problems with this article, including prose, formatting of citations and lack of sourcing. Major contributors have not been informed of this nomination and your first three edits to Wikipedia were the setting up of this nomination. In the future, please ensure that you have read the FA criteria and have no doubts that the article meets these requirements. The links on your talkpage should be of use to you. Thanks, Pyrrhus16 20:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal per Pyrrhus16. I see lots of proseline, which needs organization and trimming to terse paragraphs that are "engaging, even brilliant". There are also some dead external links—swap in archived versions or other sources. No dab links, though, which is good. --an odd name 20:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawl Nope. Thank you for contributing to our here site, but this article is not nearly ready yet. With a little work though it can go for WP:GAN, however. Comments incoming:

  • Lead is too short. The lead should summarize all the contents of the page.
  • The spelling of railway varies throughout the article, between railway, rail-way, and rail way. Pick one.
  • Railpage is the largest railway-oriented web-site in Australia and was among the first 100 web sites to be hosted in Australia. When was it founded, exactly?
  • Ref 3, that's not a reference it's a note, and if you want to cite it you have to bring it into its own reference.
  • Paras 2 and 3 need references.
  • Section is too short to serve its purpose, needs expansion.
  • The name lives on. Way too informal.
  • [citation needed] needs fixing.
  • could be further developed. The two began to develop the site further, who later transferring it to a dedicated server. Develop the site is repetitive. Last part of the second sentance is a grammatical anomoly.
  • The section is written in fragments of varying lengths. You can't do that you have to organize them into paragraphs.
  • Almost no citations...
  • Late in 2003, after several months of development and with the help of several developers and testers; RP2 was launched on Saturday 10 April 2004 at approximately 5pm. Why ";"? Should be ","
  • The domain www.railpage.com.au alone serves in excess of 30 gigabytes of data per month. Wait, isn't that the sites only domain name? If there are others they should be mentioned as well.
  • As of April 2008, the site had reached 16,000 registered users and 1,000,000 posts. This seems more a milestone (1,000,000 posts) then a statistic, so should be introduced using "On".
  • Section title: Uses in society isn't very appropriate, try "Impact" or something similar. In general titles are supposed to be nouns or noun fragments, see WP:TITLE.
  • As of July 2007, Railpage has 5 citations on Google Scholar. And why is this important? if it was 21,000 citations I would care, but this is irrelavent. Should be removed.
  • "trainspotting" is mentioned in the article, should be linker or explained.
  • Ah! The splintering ><!
  • The migration of the main Railpage website from Fang to the new server was completed on the 3rd July 2007, and launched on the 5th July 2007 From fang?
  • Refs 4, 5, they do not produce reliable information. A mere ~130 responses is NOT a representation of the entire group, as it is used in the article.
  • Citations are too short.
  • The link to the website in the external links section is doubled.

Don't take this too hardly, the quality of work needed at WP:FA is a lot more demanding then appearences would convey. I have to doubt weather this article even has enough material available for an FAC. ResMar 21:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close I think this is a sock nom. This page had been involved in some sock dramas before YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now that I look at it I see that the nominator never made any edits to the article...hmmm. ResMar 02:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Fundamental research flaws, "As of July 2007, Railpage has 5 citations on Google Scholar.[15]" as an example: Scholar is not an indexation service (going to notability impact, etc) but a search service. SELF all over the place. Rethink research direction before bringing back! :) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm a moderator at Railpage, and a member with the same name as the nominator has recently been banned from our forums. I don't have any proof that the two are related, but if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, etc. etc. I think this nomination is mischievous at best. I just hope this isn't the beginning of another AfD war, like the one that occured in 2007. Johnmc (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 02:50, 23 December 2009 [9].

Economic history of China (pre-1911) edit

Nominator(s): Teeninvestor (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I've been working on this article for a year and has expanded it from being a stub to a rather large article. It successfully passed GA during the summer and although it was rejected in it's first FAC in september, many improvements have been made then which addressed the issues of no alt text, dodgy sources, and the problems of the beginning section. With these improvements, I feel justified to nominate this article for FA again, as a christmas gift to wikipedia. Please feel free to comment.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments by an odd name

  • As you said, the article now has alt text. The alt for the Warring States period map should describe what the map is trying to show, not simply the appearance of the map (see WP:ALT#Maps).
  • Many ambiguous links, which include one that points back to the article. Don't let readers trip over them—replace them with more specific ones.
  • Ref 3's external link is dead. Also, add titles (at least) to the "[n]"-style external links (e.g., ref 125), and replace Wikisource and other sister-project URLs with, e.g., [[wikisource:zh:揚州十日記|揚州十日記]] (which produces 揚州十日記).

Good luck. --an odd name 23:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all the dead links and bad redirects.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I clothed a bare Wikisource URL; check for any others. The map alt is improved (with your slight edit); it still feels like it focuses on the map instead of its content, but I'll leave that for others to decide on. Still has that credit (I hope Yeu Ninje/Yu Ninjie is still around and can remove it and its border). These are, of course, minor things given the large article. :) --an odd name 18:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out to me what you mean by the "credit"? By the way I have checked an dI don't think there are more URL's. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image says "Drawn by Yu Ninjie." in its lower right. It isn't intrusive (you were wondering what I meant, after all!), but as the tags on the file's page explain, such credit insertion is discouraged by Wikimedia Commons policy in favor of EXIF information. (I guess Commons users wouldn't like arcade games.) --an odd name 00:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to recheck (again), but I see little difference for the unstruck issues. I think the Warring States alt text could still be better, something like "The Zhou Civilization consisted of state 1, state 2, ... in the north China plain, and scattered areas to the west and south." instead of concentrating on the map appearance; again, see WP:ALT#Maps. I also still see the image credit. --an odd name 16:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, user:AnOddName, I notified you but then forgot to do the changes. They have been changed now, I promise. The alt text has been changed to:

A terrain map of China highlighting regions mostly in the north China plain near rivers. The map labels "ZHOU CIVILIZATION" and contains about a dozen labels indicating the various states of China, such as YUE on the southern coast, QIN in the western inland regions, YAN on the northern coast, QI on the central oast, WEI, HAN, AND ZHAO in the central plains, LU and SONG in the Eastern plains, and CHU in the Southern inland regions

and the credit removed. Can you give your support now?Teeninvestor (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely (fully or partially) support large articles, and any I do fully support are ones that I'm really familiar with (certain video games, etc.) and after several read-throughs (deep source checks, last bits of copyediting, etc.); so consider my comments guidance for reviewers (and yourself). Thank you for addressing them, though; good linking and alt text helps make an article verifiable and readable. --an odd name 23:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article talks about "China's three Golden Ages" but then lists four: Han Dynasty, Tang Dynasty, Ming Dynasty, and Kang-Qian. There is no mention of the Kang-Qian golden age in Google Scholar, so I expect that one's the interloper. (That hyphen should be an endash, by the way; see WP:ENDASH.) Also, please don't capitalize "golden age" in phrases like "Tang golden age". Eubulides (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kang-Qian "golden age" is used by some scholars, but is regarded as a period of economic stagnaton by others (due to the rule of the Manchus). The other three were recognized as golden ages though. Also, endash fixed.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Eubulides, weren't you here around the last time? Can you give this article your support this time?Teeninvestor (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the problem; I struck it. I like everything I see in the article now and I have checked the alt text, but I'm afraid I haven't had the time to read the whole article reaally carefully, which is what I need to do before supporting. Eubulides (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links and map also fixed.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose: WP:LEAD is meant to summarize contents, so why are here so many randomly picked, one-sided quotes put so prominently into place? The assertions that China were the "largest economy", "the highest income per capita", "unrivalled material culture", etc. are each very strong and very debatable assertions. In fact, there is a myriad of differing opinions on the comparative wealth of pre-modern societies. Just one counterexample by a renowned economist (Raymond Goldsmith (1984): An Estimate of the Size and Structure of the National Product of the Early Roman Empire“, Review of Income and Wealth, vol. 30, no. 3, September, pp. 263-288 (280)):

As the standard of living in Diocletian's time is likely to have been below that of the early Empire expenditures per adult should have been above 200 IU which compares with 370 IU per occupied person in Italy in 1893, 163 IU in Brazil in 1928, 138 IU in China in 1933 and 132 IU in India in 1867/68.

This means that the ancient Roman Empire (200 IU) actually had a significantly higher living standard as China at the brink of its entry into the industrial age (138 IU). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, how is the article not summarized, eh? What is this, mr. Ma?

By roughly 10,000 BCE, in the Neolithic era, agriculture was practiced in China. Stratified bronze-age cultures, such as Erlitou, emerged by the third millennium BCE. Under the Shang (ca. 1600–1045 BCE) and Zhou (1045–771 BCE), a dependent labor force worked in large-scale foundries and workshops to produce bronzes and silk for the elite. The agricultural surpluses produced by the manorial economy of these dynasties supported these early handicraft industries, as well as urban centers and considerable armies. However, this system began to break up after the collapse of the Western Zhou Dynasty in 771 BCE, which lead to the Spring and Autumn and Warring states eras.

By 500 BCE, Chinese society, economy, and government were rapidly changing. As the feudal system collapsed, much legislative power was transferred to local kings. A merchant class emerged during the Warring States Period, resulting in increased trade. The emperors established an elaborate bureaucracy, using it to wage imperial wars, build large temples, and perform public works projects. This new system rewarded talent over birthright; important positions were no longer occupied solely by nobility. An agricultural revolution, caused by the adoption of new iron tools, led to a large population increase during this period. By 221 BCE, the state of Qin, which embraced reform more than other states, unified China, built the Great Wall, and set consistent standards of government.[5] Although its draconian laws led to its overthrow in 206 BCE, the Qin institutions survived. During the Qin, China became a strong, unified, and centralized empire of self-sufficient farmers and artisans, though limited local autonomy remained.

The Song Dynasty (960–1279 CE) brought additional economic reforms. Paper money, the printing press, the compass, and other technological advances led to communication on a large scale and the widespread circulation of books. The state began to exercise less power, allowing private merchants to prosper. These new technologies and knowledge, coupled with less bureaucratic control of merchants, allowed a large increase in investment and profit. Despite disruptions during the Mongol conquest of 1279, the Ming Dynasty continued the Song's development of the economy. However, when the isolationist Qing Dynasty came into power, China's economic development began to slow. The discovery of America and the wealth of India aided Europe in rapidly developing during the Industrial Revolution as China's economy slowed—an event known as the great divergence. In 1820, China accounted for 33% of the world's GDP, but barely a hundred years later China accounted for only 9%.[6]

.

As for the quotes, if you don't like them, find your own sources. Just cause magazines like the economist and scholars like ebrey don't agree with your POV, doesn't mean they're wrong. Not to mention you forgot all about the massive improvement in agriculture during the Han and later the Song, that made Chinese agricultural technology much more productive than the west until the 18th century. The fact that Roman grain couldn't even be transported from Italy to Rome on land says a lot. But, in any case, what does this have to do with article quality? The introduction is structured as four paragraphs, one to quote some statements about the ancient Chinese economy and three later ones to summarize it's roughly 4,000 year duration. Teeninvestor (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any of the hyperbolic assertions in the lead, that China was "largest economy", "the highest income per capita", "unrivalled material culture" etc. is not discussed in and thus not supported by the article. Hence, they have no place in the lead. And if it were discussed in the continuous text, you would quickly find out that none of these claims can be maintained in that totality. I am not saying they are outright wrong, but that there is a mountain of scholarly literature to the contrary effect. I gave you one reference to the contrary, I could give many more. Even more importantly, all experts are painful to stress how utmost difficult it is to estimate the economic performance of pre-1800 states, even in the grossest order. But you present a carefully selected bouquet of convenient quotes simply as fundamental facts. Pure POV. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the "controversial statements" have been stated as "according to so-and-so", which shows who made the statements and does not present them as fact. In addition, the quotes were not inserted by me; they were there when the article was still a stub. Teeninvestor (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, they have been removed per request of Gun Powder Ma.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Gun Powder Ma? You still there?Teeninvestor (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Teeinvestor, yes I am. :-) And I am still taking issue with the remaining quote. For example, data compiled by the macro-economist Angus Maddison shows the GP per capita in Western Europe to be larger than China's at all points in time, save 1000 AD. And for the supposed flow of inventions westward, do you have examples from post-1350? You might want to carefully check Jesuit China missions#Scientific exchange in that context, too. PS: Ancient China never did printing by the printing press, an invention made by Johannes Gutenberg. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gun Powder Ma, the invention claimed in question is Movable type, so that will be corrected. Also, per your advice, I will restructure the first paragraph so it would not include any quotes. Anything else?
But, seriously, the claim that western Europe had a higher GDP per capita than China at all times is beyond stupidity. No one can seriously doubt that Chinese agricultural techniques were vastly superior to that of Europe until the 18th century (See the work of Needham for that). Also, Angus Maddison has only two estimates (1 CE and 1000 CE)for periods before 1500, so saying that his measurements indicate China's GDP per capita was lower than Europe's "except for 1000" says very little(Maddison also believed India had a population of 150 million in 1000; care to take that up?). In addition, what about this passage from the article on Maddison's book ("Among other things, it confirms Adam Smith's view that China and India were at a higher or comparable level with Europe from the 1st century til late 18th century, but also static whereas Europe was fast progressing. It also shows them recovering lost ground from the 1950s, and documents the much faster rise of Japan and East Asia and the economic shrinkage of Russia in the 1990s.")However, I do not see how this relates to the article's FAC.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So why were the comparative quotes included in the lead for so long? And there are still a lot of uncalled and inaccurate comparisons:
  • Another one here: "The economy boomed during the Han, whose population of 58 million exceeded the Roman Empire". This only attributes to the low count of the Imperium; the high count of the Roman Empire is around 100 mio (see Walter Scheidel's work on ancient population).
  • Also the sharp decline during the Yuan dynasty is not solely due to the Mongolian onslaught, but to an equal degree to the plague which also ravaged Europe at about the same time (cf. William McNeill: Plagues and Peoples).
  • "In the sixth century BCE, among other innovations, the iron plow, row cultivation, and intensive hoeing were introduced. These techniques spread rapidly, but were limited to China until the Agricultural Revolution in Europe" Why is then a Roman iron plow displayed in the British Museum at London? (cf. Propyläen Technikgeschichte, Vol. 1, p. 209, fig. 59)
  • "These innovations in China's agriculture increased efficiency at least ten times, and possibly thirty times in comparison to its western counterparts" Only 30 times? So one Chinese peasant was as productive as 30 European ones? Did he have a tractor? Totally implausible number in a comparison between pre-industrial societies.
  • Please note that a FAC is not a peer review which should precede the former. Users participating in this FAC are not required to give a point by point analysis, but to give an overall judgement. Mine is that too many facts are just inaccurate and that the article often pursues a silent agenda of trying to favourably contrast China with the West - for whatever reason. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No offense, as you've done an amazing job, but this is an encyclopedia, not a novel. At about 100,000 bytes of prose, this really needs to be significantly trimmed or split. I'm usually one to advocate a merge, but this is 44 pages of text. I would love to review this, but hardly anyone can handle that much. Reywas92Talk 19:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still long, but it is a much more acceptable length now. Thanks! Reywas92Talk 00:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I too would love to cut it down, but usually FA's are this size because of the requirements need to be fulfilled(have to cover all of the topic) and the scope of the topic (the economic history of the oldest continous civilization on Earth!). See for example Ming Dynasty and Han Dynasty, which are FA's about the same size as this one but covering just the affairs of one dynasty, while this one covers the affairs of an entire country.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your problem is that you are trying to cover the full scope of your subject in a single article. This could easily be three articles, covering repectively the pre-imperial, early imperial and late imperial periods. These articles would be of reasonable length and much more reviewable. I have a brief comment on sources, below Brianboulton (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ming Dynasty did not pass FAC at its current size; it has grown considerably post-FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As of now the article is only about 80% of the size of the Ming Dynasty article, and about 70% of the Tang Dynasty article, both FA's. In fact, the current article is about the same size as the Ming Dynasty article when it passed it's FAC.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources query: The formatting of online sources is inadequate. Refs 124, 203 and 234 give no indication of title, publisher or access date. As a matter of interest I followed up on 124, dealing with the 27% of world GDP claim. The source is an article in the Journal of the Singapore Armed Forces, quoting comments made by the Mayor of Shanghai in a speech to some policy forum in 1997. I can't help feeling that more scholarly sources should be used to back up statements made in the article. The mayor in question may or may not have expertise in this field, and I don't think it should be assumed that he has. Brianboulton (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the source about the Mayor in question and added adequate publisher information on the third source, on potatos. As to your belief that the article should be split, my belief is that the coverage of Economic history of China would be way too troublesome- We would have three "premodern articles" and one modern article, not to mention the mess that is [[Economic history of the People's Republic of China". The titles would have to titled something like "Economic history of premodern China (pre-221 BCE)", Economic history of premodern China (221 BCE-960 CE), etc.., and you can easily see how confusing it could be for the reader, especially one who has no knowledge of Chinese history and would have to navigate through five articles! A similar mistake was made in "Late 2000's recession" in which the article was split into several branches, and now it is extremely difficult to navigate. In addition, may I state that although this article is 135kb, it is actually similar in size to the featured articles Han Dynasty and Ming Dynasty, both of which just cover a single dynasty.Teeninvestor (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well good luck to you, but Featured Topics exist precisely for when a subject needs a clutch of articles to do it justice. The dynasty articles would be harder to split as they deal with single dynasties, but this article deals with the concept of an "economy" which does not have to be considered as a unity. Anyway, the fact that other very long articles exist is not in itself a justification. I believe you have a better chance of getting featured status via a topic...but the decision is yours. Brianboulton (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've considered that previously (see archives of talk page), but I've come to the conclusion that splitting it would result in too much confusion for the reader- there would be several "premodern" articles, and one modern article. The article is long, I acknowledge that; however, it has a "reasonable" length, similar to many FA's already listed.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on reducing the size of the article- the article's length has already been reduced by about 10 percent. The prose size currently is definitely below 100KB (the upper limit), and possibly 80 KB.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support It is extremely difficult to present thousands of years of history in one single article, and user Teeninvestor's courage and determination is to be congratulated. This article deserves to become a featured article. Arilang talk 00:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a support declaration? (For that matter, do you mean "deserves"? The candidacy is still active!) --an odd name 00:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 213 (Information ..) lacks a last access date and the publisher and authorship information is run into the link title.
  • Is current ref 208 (Wang Shochu) a book? Also, is it in Chinese? If it's in a non-English language, needs to be noted in the ref. If it's a book needs page numbers and the title italicised.
  • The Fairbank title China a New History lacks publisher information
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wang Shicou is a first-hand primary account of the massacre, and it being written in Chinese has been noted. Ref 213 have been fixed(last access date added). Where is the "China a new history" source? I can't find it.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fairbank is in the bibliography/list of sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Issue resolved(Fairbank title added). Anything else?Teeninvestor (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose and Speedy close. Ill-sourced tendentious embarassment. I pass over the lead, which has been duly criticized by others. The very first actual section contains: With the collapse of the Western Zhou Dynasty, however, this system began to collapse and was replaced by a more vibrant and free economy of self-sufficient farmers and artisans by the Warring States Era. This transformation was completed when the State of Qin unified China in 221 BCE, ushering in the imperial era of Chinese history. This is one conjecture about the collapse of the Zhou for which we have very few documents, all of them chiefly interested in the politics of a manorial elite. No source is given, of any kind, for this eminently challengeable assertion - a WP:V violation; it should not be claimed at all, in Wikipedia's voice, unless it were consensus of the sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is one of the most widely backed up citations in the article. If you would read more of the article, there are at least several dozen citations talking about the collapse of the feudal system at the end of the Eastern Zhou(the copyeditor got it wrong), from multiple sources, from either encyclopedia of China history to Cambridge history of China to others. The only reason I didn't cite it earlier was because there were already many many citations in the rest of the article documenting this fact. For your preference, I could literally add ten citations to support that sentence. I have added two to show already the consensus.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "collapse of the Eastern Zhou" is at least widely acknowledged to refer to something that actually occurred. But that's not what the article text said, is it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a more correct term would be the "end" of the Eastern Zhou, since the Zhou Dynasty had virtually ceased to exist by 771 BCE, though the dynasty itself lasted de jure until the 3rd century BCE. What the article says, and all the sources agree on, is that the feudal system began to break down by the end of the Spring & Autumn Era and by the time of the Qin Dynasty, it had largely ended. This is something that all my sources agree on. The part under consideration is reproduced here, as follows:

By the end of the Spring and Autumns period, however, this system began to collapse and was replaced by a more vibrant and free economy of self-sufficient farmers and artisans by the Warring States Era. This transformation was completed when the State of Qin unified China in 221 BCE, ushering in the imperial era of Chinese history

.

Teeninvestor (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This revised version is at least not talking ahistoric nonsense. "Vibrant and free", however, is WP:PEACOCK, and "self-sufficient" is largely meaningless. What were they before, depending on the handouts of feudal lords? (and if the vassals weren't self-sufficient, where were the feudal lords getting the handouts? Direct from Heaven?)
Use of feudal for any state outside Europe (and its direct dependencies) is an ill-defined and semi-literate abuse of language.

8*The Zhou dynasty defeated the Shang around 1045 BCE and took control of the Wei and Yellow River valleys that the Shang had dominated. This is exactly like providing dates for Romulus or the Trojan war; it can be done, and has been done far too often; but it is reifying mythology. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of what you think, it's a matter of what the sources say. A section from the "Cambridge history of China" is reproduced below:

In the opinion of this writer, parallels with European

feudalism are sufficiently close to justify use of the term during the first four or five centuries of the Chou period. Thereafter, however, it must be applied in an increasingly restricted sense to describe only the vestiges of feudal conditions persisting in varying degrees within the major principalities. These, by the beginning of the Warring States period, had become

completely independent nation-states.

.
That's an opinion; as would be evident to a more careful reader, this is a minority opinion which this author is willing to defend - not consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An opinion that is shared by all scholarly sources on Chinese history. I can reproduce ten more quotations on this if necessary in Chinese, English, and perhaps other languages. You would be hard pressed to find a single author that didn't, call the Zhou system feudalism.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a downright falsehood. Any article written by someone who believes it will be a public embarrassment, as this one is. Please let's keep it off the front page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Downright falsehood? Do you want me to reproduce tons of quotations now? Even read the Zhou Dynasty article???? Even that says what it is, feudalism. If you don't know anything about your topic, don't talk..Teeninvestor (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you. On any such question, especially after decades of immersion in ideology, there will be tons of quotations on both sides, even if the tonnages are unequal. Actually reading books on feudalism, from Marc Bloch onward, might improve your cocksureness; looking for disconfirmation would be the responsible thing to do. I will be pleasantly surprised by either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to self-sufficient, the term is used to refer to the farmers producing only for their own subsistence, rather than for the market, which was the case during the later Song Dynasty and Ming Dynasty. When you referred to "vibrant and free", did you notice there was a "more" in front of it(in comparison to the feudal period).

That's not what self-sufficient means. Strongly oppose articles written in neologisms. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second oppose debolded; also, please sort and correctly thread the commentary above so it is apparent who wrote/signed what. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is what "self-sufficient" means:

Self-sufficiency refers to the state of not requiring any outside aid, support, or interaction, for survival; it is therefore a type of personal or collective autonomy. On a large scale, a totally self-sufficient economy that does not trade with the outside world is called an autarky.

Peasant farmers during this period produced for their own consumption(e.g., they make shoes instead of buying it and eat what they produce), rather than sell to the market. That would be the definition of "self-sufficiency". Later farmers, on the other hand, who produced cash crops like cotton were not "self-sufficient"(you can't eat it).Teeninvestor (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the OED 's first definition: Sufficient in or for oneself (itself) without aid or support from outside; able to supply one's needs oneself. As they go on to say, it is [n]ot now used of persons.
The current meaning is Of persons, groups, or nations: able to provide enough of a commodity (as food, oil) to supply one's own needs, without obtaining goods from elsewhere; self-reliant, self-supporting, independent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning of "self-sufficiency" used in the article is standard throughout Economic history. If you read 19th cenutry treatises on economics, they are already talking about the difference between the "Natural or self-sufficient" and "market economy". Generally, the peasantry produced for its own needs and what little exchange did occur was through bartar. The land was divided into thousands of small farms which produced for its own consumption. This is in total contrast to the later economy of the Song, Ming and Qing, in which farmers worked as tenants on large estates to produce cash crops such as tea and cotton for sale on the market.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have, in fact, read several of the standard eighteenth and nineteenth century works on economics; but I would not use their vocabulary in writing an encyclopedia article in the twenty-first - unless it was on Smith or Mill or Ricardo and I had defined their use of the term first. Neither is true here. This article is not ready for prime time, and Teeninvestor's unwillingness to listen to his fellow editors ensures it will remain as it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Me not listening to my fellow editors? Look at yourself, pmanderson. You've made an entire page of comments for a date of 1045 BCE that had "by traditional dating" in front of it and tryng to change the meaning of "self-sufficiency"? Who's not listening here? In the two FAC's you haven't provided a single piece of actionable advice, instead moaning over the meaning of words like feudal and self-sufficiency. You don't even understand the topic; if you're not going to provide any constructive advice, why are you here?Teeninvestor (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My actionable advice is to take out all non-consensus statements, which will be nearly everything before the Burning of the Books (if that happened). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not defined by you, Pmanderson, but by the sources. I'm sorry if the scholars and academics who spent their life researching their subject don't agree with you, that's just too bad. And no, that's not actionable advice. That's rambling.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The date of 1045 BCE is the traditional date for the fall of the Shang Dynasty. Perhaps traditional date should be added.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should be removed, as should the implication that the "traditional history" of China is factual. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, pmanderson, if the traditional history of China is not factual, then no history written before 1800 is. If the traditional history of China was regarded as unfactual, can you please explain to me where and when the Great wall and Great canal came from? In fact, historians have precise dates for every event in Chinese history up to 841 BCE. The doubt that the event occured in 1045 BCE is why the word "around" was put near it.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if the traditional history of China is not factual, then no history written before 1800 is. Tacitus? Guiccardini? Sarpi? Gibbon? The Han Annals? Most of Sima Qian? If you don't know or recognize the difference between these and the Western Zhou, study historiography at length before any more helpful contributions, please. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pmanderson, you just said the "traditional history" of China is not factual. That includes the Han Shu(not the Han annals as you described them). Also, as for the date of 1045 BCE, that was a date that was computed using the Shiji Sima Qian. Yes, I do recognize the difference between Western Zhou and Han records, but these dates were actually records from the Han period and plus, the word "around" is just before it, if you didn't notice.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did notice around. It seems inadequate for "within a century either way, if this event ever happened at all". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, you think the Shang Dynasty was never overthrown? Also, notice three words at the beginning By traditional dating . As to the reliability of the Zhou records, note that written records have already been present for hundreds of years by the beginning of the Zhou Dynasty. This would make the date more accurate, then say, the founding of the Shang.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heavens give me patience; anyone who would cite oracle bones, surviving without history or context, as "written records" is attempting to fool himself, not his fellow editors.
What never existed (or cannot be reliably stated to exist), like the Shang as a universal dynasty, cannot have been overthrown. I also disbelieve in the Xia and the Yellow Emperor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Shang surely did exist, though their domain was smaller than the Zhou. If you think the Shang did not exist, then you are going against between several decades of archaeological evidence. As to the Xia and the Yellow Emperor, it is debatable whether they existed (Though there are archaeological evidence pointing to the Xia's existence, see Erlitou culture), but that is apparently not the topic under discussion. Look, pmanderson, if the date on the founding of the Zhou Dynasty has to be removed, then all dates for any state founded before 500 BCE would have to be also.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Shang of legend are surely reflections of the archaeological culture. Whether that culture had a single dynasty, and whether that dynasty claimed universal rule, are unknowable without a time machine. Whether (if they existed) they were defeated close enough to 1045 BC to justify the precision of the number might be hard to determine with a time machine. If Teeninventor has one, he is wasting his time here. If he does not, he is wasting ours. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think you neglected the fact the oracle bones had this little thing called writing on them, and this sort of helps archaeologists and historians determine the specific facts of that period such as if the Shang dynasty fell around 1045 BCE. Besides, what has this to do with the article, whose main focus is on Economic history, and only mentioned this fact in passing? What does this have to do with whether the article should be an FA?Teeninvestor (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Teeninvestor hasn't done anything so untoward as reading this writing, clearly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If he had, he would have observed that these are oracles, not a narrative history. If he were a competent editor, he would not insist on mentioning traditionalist fantasies "in passing". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even going to respond to this snide personal attack.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How am I mentioning "traditionalist fantasies" in passing? Please stop yur personal attacks on me. The records of oracle bones Prove the existence of the Shang Dynasty; they mention a king, a government, a rough idea of what terroritory they controlled, etc... If you doubt this, please consult Cambridge history of ancient China.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose with about 70 sub-subsections, many of which being only one paragraph long, and with zero graphs/table to show some historic variation for a quick glimpse of somebody not well aware of the subject, I feel that this article is very poorly structured. Nergaal (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article's broad topic and FA requirements to cover the entire scope of the topic, it is very difficult to shorten what's left of the article (which is about 50% of its former size). The non presence of graphs/tables is because such graphs and tables to measure ancient economic activity is simply not available. You can't find any graphs or tables on Economy of the Han Dynasty and Economy of the Byzantine Empire, either.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even try to look? FA criteria says among other things that the text is engaging. Right now, with 70 subsubsections I have no idea what is where and is definitely not engaging. Nergaal (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Maddison's research is very controversial and not exactly universally accepted. Secondly, I doubt the spreadsheet can be put into the article. Thirdly, to cover the entire topic of the article requires quite a few subsections; the number of subsections currently is about one-half of the former total, after three or four copyedits!Teeninvestor (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And a spreadsheet can be used to create a graph! As for the latter, just look at this example:
  • subsubsection title: Strict property laws
  • subsection text:Qin property laws were strict, in order to maintain respect for private property. The law sentenced persons who had damaged others' property, even as little as taking leaves from a fruit tree, to 30 days' hard labor.
You are willing to say that this is a proper subsection? The easiest is to remove the 80% or so of the sub-subsections and merge them into proper subsections. Nergaal (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help me identify some possible candidates? Thanks. I will try to cut down the number of subsections by half.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks a lot more acceptable now. Although there are some subsections that look they could me merged further, it is probably not one of the biggest worries for a future FAC. Nergaal (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 02:50, 23 December 2009 [10].

Dancing the Dream edit

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 14:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it is a comprehensive article that meets the FA criteria. I welcome all comments and suggestions. Pyrrhus16 14:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sasata (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Prose clunky (eg. "The poems range from coping with discovering an oil-covered seagull feather, to seals who ponder whether or not they will be clubbed by hunters, and elephants who refuse to lie down and die in order to give up their tusks for the trinkets of man.")
  • I've split and reworded this sentence.
  • a section with 2 sentences?
  • There is no other appropriate section for it in the article.
  • the sparseness of the references section suggests that not a lot of other people think this is a notable work, or that not enough research has been done
  • An article with less references has reached FA status (Hurricane Irene (2005)). Dancing the Dream meets WP:NB in that it is a bestseller and that it has been written by someone who is "so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable". Jackson is arguably the most famous man of the last century. The article neglects no major facts relating to the book.
  • I was trying to delicately hint that the research did not meet the 1b or 1c requirements. How many books have been written about MJ? Surely it must be more than the three used as sources for this article. Do you seriously claim that this article "is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic"? Sasata (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do seriously believe that the article is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. As noted by Realist2 in the answer to question 5 of this Signpost interview:

"The majority of English speaking media focus on Jackson's personal life over the finer details of his music and artistry. This, coupled with the fact that Jackson rarely allows interviews, makes it difficult to write substansive articles on his music. It can literally take weeks of researching. GA reviewers often find this difficult to appreciate, that such a mainstream artists music is only discussed in general terms."

That is in regard to his music; what he became famous for in the first place. Analysis and indepth discussion of his books is even less. Pyrrhus16 20:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I wasn't aware that difficulty of research could be used as a justification to forgo the 1b and 1c criteria for FAC. Sorry, my oppose still stands, but it's only my opinion. I'll let others weigh in on the issue. Sasata (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to justify any alleged failure to meet a criterion. I was explaining why the article does meet the criteria of section 1 and why it lacks overwhelming coverage compared to other aspects of Jackson's life. You're welcome to your opinion, however. Pyrrhus16 22:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest withdrawing and try promoting to GA first
  • I'd like to hear other opinions first. I wouldn't have brought the article here if I wasn't confident that it met the FA criteria. The article is short and I believe any possible further issues can be dealt with speedily because of that. Pyrrhus16 19:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • No dab links or dead external links—good.
  • Image looks correctly cited and rationaled; I see no policy issues there.
  • Good alt text for the first image.
  • Dates are consistent Month Day, Year throughout.
  • For Sasata's second point, try merging the short section to "Reception" to make a "Publication and reception" compound for now. You can divide the two with a hidden comment if you're worried about where to add any new facts later. (The video game article The Guardian Legend has a similar combined "History" section.)

--an odd name 00:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sections are now combined. Thanks for your comments. :) Pyrrhus16 10:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 2c is okay. Citations are consistent. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments Everything fine. RB88 (T) 15:57, 12 December 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 02:50, 23 December 2009 [11].

Post Oak Mall edit

Nominator(s): -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets all of the featured article criteria. It is well written, as comprehensive as possible from available, high-quality reliable sources, very well researched, neutral, and stable. It follows all applicable style guides, and uses a proper, consistent citation style. Currently a good article, it has been through a second peer review since its GAN passed and all issues from it have been addressed and it is appropriately illustrated with free and public domain works. All of the images have the appropriate ALT text (though it should be noted that the shopping infobox in use does not support it, so while it is in the article, it is not working). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No dab links or dead external links, and dates are Month Day, Year throughout. (postoakmall.com is listed green twice in the link checker, but works for me.) Also put in a edit request for the box. --an odd name 02:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SEC Info is a database of the SEC's EDGAR database that has been operated by Finnegan O'Malley & Company since 1997. Its a recognized repository for public access to that database of all SEC filings that are generally only available through a very limited subscriber system.[12] I removed the CinemaTour one. It was only added because a local editor was insistent that there was never a movie theater at the mall, despite the much more reliable source saying there was and those with better memories remembering it as well :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't you use EDGAR itself as the source? These filings are there and SEC filings are publicly accessible. Эlcobbola talk 16:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh...never realized that. *blush* Updated the article to use the original SEC filing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It appears as though the peer reviews have done their job. I could not find any pressing issues with the wording that would require immediate changes, and the article is thorough, stable, and well-sourced. I have to admit that reading an article on a mall is not my cup of tea, but there seem to be no issues that keep it from meeting FA criteria. Mrathel (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to clarify, having become more familiar with the FAC process, that my support is based on wording and sources. While I feel that the article is incredibly comprehensive for an article on a mall, I am not confident enough in my knowledge of what such articles should include in order to be able to speak on the "completeness" of the entry. Mrathel (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding File:Post Oak Mall - Aerial View.jpg: The Texas Public Information Act addresses the ability of the public to access information compiled, assembled, etc. by the government in the course of official business. It does appear to address the issue of copyright; indeed, that word (copyright) is mentioned only once (Sec.A552.228(b)(3)) and is used in a way that implies its retention. Making a work accessible does not, in and of itself, release its rights (think of a book in a public library; anyone can access it, but that doesn't mean the copyright is released). What is the basis for claiming this to be PD? The source site's Conditions and Use Policy says " Information and/or images which may not be copied without permission include ... third party applications". The image summary credits the author as "Land Info Worldwide Mapping"; wouldn't that be a third party? The page also carries the general disclaimer "© 2009 City of College Station. All Rights Reserved." This would not be expected to appear on a Texas government site if the Public Information Act actually released government copyright, no? Эlcobbola talk 19:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...I can only guess when I added it that I thought its being released under the PIA and its being freely accessible information would make it public domain. Plus, the site contradicts itself on its disclaimer[13] "Unless a copyright is indicated, information on the City of College Station website is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used with the City of College Station's permission. We request only that the City of College Station be cited as the source of the information and that any photo credits, graphics or byline be similarly credited to the photographer, author or City of College Station, as appropriate. " while having a copyright notice at the bottom of every page. *head smack* If this is incorrect, I can remove it or add the appropriate FUR if it would fall under fair use? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as a building still in existence, it would not pass NFCC#1, as a free equivalent could be created (e.g. a federal satellite could image it, a Wikipedian with a plane could photograph it, etc.) - so fair use is out. The contradiction is indeed bizarre, but the image should not be used without clear license information. To retain the image (possibly), my suggestion would be to contact the city to inquire about the status and then, if it is indeed PD, file the city's response with OTRS. Absent an OTRS tag, however, it should be removed. Эlcobbola talk 20:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There be many things I do for Wikipedia, but leaning out a plane is not one of them ;-) For now, I've removed and I'll contact the city to find out for sure. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually currently an article at FAC using an image taken by a Wikipedian with a plane. What is it they say, though; I prefer terra firma, the firma the better? If the city responds positively, let me know and I can process the OTRS permission. Otherwise, the removal resolves the concern. Эlcobbola talk 20:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got a response. Thye said they allow the imagery for use by non-profits and individual users, including Wikipedia, but not sure how the non-profit clause would affect its usability? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It won't work. To be "free", a work must be reusable by anyone, including for-profit (i.e. commercial) entities. Эlcobbola talk 19:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I figured. I'll go ahead and have the image deleted. Thanks for spotting that :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This article is hardly comprehensive. The history section does not make mention of anything between 1985 and 2004, there is virtually no information on the financial and economic performance of the mall over the years, impact on the community is largely ignored after information on the initial opening of the mall, there is no information on any executives that operated the mall over the years, no information on how mall initiatives made good econmic times better or attempted to cope with more difficult economic times. I really do not see how an article on a shopping mall could ever be made comprehensive without actually researching the corporate records of the institution itself and digging deep into the paper/microfilm archives of the surrounding communities as opposed to just using what articles and resources are available on the Internet. This is an esoteric subject, so this kind of deep research is necessary to overcome a lack of information in the secondary literature. Indrian (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, I spent WEEKS at our local libraries going through the microfiche files for our local paper and digging through every local historical book that mentioned the mall. There IS no other actual relevant information to state. The bulk of the news stories between 85 and 2004 were event announcements, sales, etc. There were no other reports found discussing anything major, not even most of the store closings/openings were considered news worthy and this is the only mall of that size in this county. Every scrap of reliably sourcable financial and economic information that was available has been incorporated. Only 16 of its references are online ones, and of those, several are just online copies of the offline resources used. What executives, the manager? If you can find such records, please do so. Claiming it is not comprehensive without providing actual proof that something is lacking is rather insulting. This is not a huge mall that has a ton of information about "initiatives" (not that they have done many), "executives" etc. What difficult economic times? You mean right now? The problems affecting many parts of the country have really not hit this area that much, which has yet to see any real estate depression, major economical downturn, etc. Corporate records that are not publicly available are also not usable as sources and if you can produce some, go ahead. This is not an esoteric subject nor is Wikipedia the platform for publishing personal research. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, that was an overly indignant respose, and all it did was prove my salient points. If not enough sources exist to create a comprehensive article on a subject, then maybe it is not yet deserving of being featured. I am under no burden to provide sources; that is your job. If You cannot fill in the major gaps in the history and financial performance of the mall over the past several decades that is not on me. The comprehensiveness requirement is not waived just because there are not enough sources. I do appreciate the work you appear to have put into this, but there is no call to get huffy when I call you out on only using online sources when they represent all but four of the references listed in the article. I believe you that you did a lot of digging in local archives as well, but I could only comment based on what was in the article itself. Indrian (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least 10 non-online sources, so I don't get where your count is. A major gap in history indicates that there was something noteworthy that actually happened. You are presuming there was, which would indicate you have knowledge there is so it is to you to actually demonstrate this knowledge, not claim the article is not worthy of being featured because of a mythical belief that there "must" be something more. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Count for yourself how many of the sources have hyperlinks to web sources. I am sure you came across the newspaper articles in the original print as well, which is why you consider the count different, but an observer of the article who has no idea what your research methodologies were is naturally going to assume you did nearly all your research online. As for the historical gap, your claim that lack of newspaper coverage is prima facie evidence that nothing important happened is not particularly compelling. All this proves is that interest in what occurred at the mall was low in the community, and that implies this shopping mall may not even deserve an article in the first place. Now, I am not going that far in my own arguments, but no one who comes to this article expecting it to be among wikipedia's best if it were promoted to FA is going to believe that nothing important happened in those fifteen years, and you will not be there to tell each and every one of them that you went through the entire local newspaper archive and found no information. That is a disconnect in comprehensiveness I feel we cannot allow. Things happened at that mall in fifteen years, maybe even things of great import for the future direction of the facility, but just because this information is apparently locked in unavailable corporate records does not waive the FA requirement. As for my other point, a mall's entire purpose is to promote commerce, so if we are missing information on the financial impact of the mall on the community (you have some good material here, just not comprehensive) and/or the financial information on the mall itself, then we are missing vital information for understanding the insitution. Indrian (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying I should remove the links to the Eagle just because it, like almost any other worthy newspaper, actually puts its articles online? That is ridiculous. If someone wants to make such a presumption, that's not my problem, nor do I care. There are, in fact, FAs that do have all online sources, but it is neither here nor there. You are welcome to come to the BCS area and look at the three decades worth of newspaper articles yourself to see if anything important happened. Our library has every last issue archived and offers free printing (a godsend!). I've already done so and nothing did. Claiming it should not be featured because there is no information is also not in line with FAC. The FAC does not say "must cover every detail even if it doesn't exist". You can't just make up stuff to fluff out an article. If it didn't happen, it didn't happen. Yes, lots happened at the mall, but nothing of importance enough to actually note anywhere. It was robbed a few times, but that's not relevant content. What information is missing on its economical impact per you? How should it be more comprehensive? You are only offering vague, unsupported complaints that would be impossible for anyone to every meet and that are far above and beyond any of the criteria for being featured. The mall's financial impact IS detailed, it is there, per Wikipedia guidelines. There are no corporate records to refer to. You can't presume that there "must" and claim therefore the article is not comprehensive. WP:V works both ways. If you are going to claim that more information is available, prove it. Otherwise, this seems like a rather unhelpful and pointy oppose based on your idea of what featured articles should be versus the actual criteria. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you insist on taking my statements out of the context of our entire conversation I am going to make one honest attempt to set the record straight. If you don't understand after this, I wash my hands of it. When I first opposed the article, I indicated that deep archive research was necessary and appeared not to have been done. This assumption was based on the fact that only four sources did not have hyperlinks, indicating a reliance on the Internet. You got rather irritated by this assumption and got rather snarky about the fact that you did not lots and lots of archival research. I indicated that I appreciated the work and explained my initial confusion. You got slightly huffy again through indicating my count of Internet sources was wrong. I expalined where an observer would draw the same conclusion I did. Never did I question the inclusion of hyperlinks nor the quality of the sources presented and I long before acknowledged that my original assumption about an overreliance on the Internet was wrong. I am quite shocked we are still discussing that particular point.
Now to the actual point at hand, namely a lack of comprehensiveness. I cannot tell you what happened at the mall between 1985 and 2004 because I am not an expert in this topic nor have I researched it. I wish I could tell you exactly what facts were missing from that period to help you fix this flaw, but I can only point out the deficiency. I can tell you that only by researching the corporate archives of the mall or the developer and/or interviewing people involved with the mall can this deficiency be cured. If an examination of those records showed that nothing of interest happened in fifteen years (unheard of in ANY subject I have ever researched myself), then I would agree nothing more could be done. If you are unable to acquire this material or if you believe it would constitute original research on wikipedia that really does not matter for the FA requirement that a topic be covered comprehensively. You are assuming nothing happened without consulting relevant sources, which is not a good research technique. I do think you have done a remarkable job finding information on this topic and have obviously put in a lot of hard work and I do not consider this lack of information a slight on you personally at all. Some subjects just don't have enough available material to be worthy of FA status. Indrian (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indrian, I don't know whether or not your concerns about the comprehensiveness or sourcing of this article are valid or not, but I do want to point out that the argument "Some subjects just don't have enough available material to be worthy of FA status" is not accepted here. There have been extensive discussions at FAC talk (if you want, I can find the links later), about whether or not every article should have a chance to become featured. In the end, the community at FAC decided that every article should have that opportunity. A "comprehensive" article is therefore one that covers the published material (however inadequate that published material may be). Awadewit (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware that such a decision had been reached. I still have a great many personal reservations about this article and feel that the project is only lowered if short and relatively incomplete articles like this are counted among our best works (again, not a slight on AnmaFinotera, but a lament on the lack of additional sources), but it appears that there are no policy objections to stand on. I therefore withdraw my objection, though I will not support. I thank you for providing a reasoned rebuttal to my points as opposed to some of the overly indignant commentary above. Indrian (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now by Karanacs. I did a double-take when I saw this name on the list - thank you, AnmaFinotera, for bringing me back in time a bit. (Disclosure notice: I worked at a store in this mall for a semester many years ago. I also shopped/ate there whenever I had funds, but haven't been there in a decade.) You've crafted a solid article, but I don't think that it meets the FA criteria yet. I'm especially concerned with the prose and the comprehensiveness.

  • You might want to check this number: might otherwise travel the 2½ miles southeast to Houston for mall shopping
  • should it be mentioned that the mall is used as parking for games? (this is actually in a reliable source [14])
  • This source may be useful[15]
  • Post Oak Mall was used as a study site for this article - not sure if it will be helpful [16]
  • I found reference to a court case- Faizullah v. Post Oak Mall by CBL & Associates Texas Tenth District Court of Appeals Dated: April 27, 2005 but no details - this may be work further investigation
  • There's no mention of effects of Hurricane Ike, which appeared to cause Dillards to close [17]
  • Might want to consider mentioning this annual event [18]
  • Should we mention the guy who lived in the mall for a while in 2003? [19]
  • I think the article needs to begin with background on Bryan/College Station? That there is a university and a large community college in the area. Perhaps a bit about the geography - the cities are located in this part of Texas, X miles from Houston/Austin/Dallas, and that the two towns are adjacent to each other but not close to much of anything else? Perhaps mention that a state highway runs across the top of the cities?
  • Can we mention in the text (not just the wikilink) that Earl Rudder Freeway is Hwy 6? That threw me at first, and I know the area fairly well - no one called it "Earl Rudder Freeway" when I lived there; it was always just "Highway 6"
  • Was there any mention in the book (or any newspaper articles) why the site in Bryan was the first choice? What was it about that land that made it appealing for a mall. Why was the current site selected?
  • Why was the city trying to buy the land? Why not a developer? Who actually owns the mall? The article alternatively says that CBL people was the manager and the owner. This needs to be made much more clear.
  • Watch for wikilinking. Don't need a linkg to "fire", hair salon, video game, optical, etc
  • Post Oak Mall was the first of four CBL-owned malls to receive this network, with four other CBL malls to follow -- this is unclear. Are there 8 malls with this technology or 4?
  • The prose needs a lot of work. Examples:
    • Plans began for the opening of a large regional mall in the area... This is passive voice. Who began making these plans? Specific developers? City council? shopkeepers?
    • three screen Plitt movie theater, - need a hyphen between three and screen since this is acting as an adjective (this is correct later in the article). What is a Plitt movie theater? Is Plitt a company? ... I see this is specified later in the article, but I was still confused at the first mention
    • There is repetitive phrasing. Example: The mall also contained....The mall walkways contained..."
    • There is akward phrasing "locally started", "as well as water damage after water from the sprinklers flowed out of the store and into the middle of the mall walkway." and others
    • Sentences don't always flow - KB Toys was another of the mall's first occupants, and it was one of only four toy stores in the Brazos County after the other two toy stores closed after the mall was opened. This sentence could be rewritten to be more clear and less wordy
    • There are in places basic grammar issues. I fixed one spelling mistake, but I see other missing words "The stalls arranged around..." or wrong words/tenses. The article needs a good read-through and an independent copyedit
  • KB Toys gets a lot of mention in the store section, while some locally notable business aren't mentioned. A lot of other stores have closed/left the mall too
  • Bealls, became the fifth anchor when it opened a second location in Post Oak a few weeks after the mall's opening -- this is a misleading section. A second location ever (I know that isn't true), a second location in College Station, a second location in the mall, a second location in Brazos County...?
  • As of 2004, both Dillard's locations, Foley's, J.C. Penney, and Sears were all independently owned, separate from mall ownership, and considered "stand-alone" buildings for tax purposes - Not sure why this is included. Foley's no longer exists now, so this is a bit weird
  • How could Steve & Barry's be the 7th anchor? I only count 5 in the article (if you are counting Wilson's twice, that needs to bespecified)
  • I saw a few articles on how the Chick-fil-A in the mall won an award in 2007 (sorry, didn't keep the link). This is probably at least as notable asthe McDonalds leaving.
  • The economic impact is full of a lot of "hopes" and assumptions from when the mall opened. Not all of these are addressed at the end of the section. I think that some of the initial assumptions may need to be moved into history, with the economic impact section reserved for results.

Overall, it seems obvious that this article was written based on sources that you found, which leaves us with an article that is over-specific in some places (much text on KB Toys) and ignores other areas. If the article should be a series of anecdotes (which I really don't have a problem with), there are more sources/stories available per the quick Google search I did. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately did not includes its local events because they didn't seem significant (being a parking lot, random fund raisers, etc). None of the other admittedly few decent mall articles I found nor the rather sparse guideline indicating that such information would be relevant to the article, nor is it considered relevant for general corporation articles (which I took more guidance from). I tried to limit information from the sources found to what seemed significant, as the mall is mentioned in the paper at least once a week for various trivial things. Mall articles on Wikipedia in general seem much neglected, so had to go by instinct and other generally similar concepts to get any idea on what would be relevant. I would see no reason to include the city history/geography in this article, that's why the city article's exist. The reliable sources found didn't feel the need to mention it either, in direct context to the mall. Dillard's closing most of its stores in the area for Hurricane Ike is neither relevant nor worth noting about this specific mall. No, neither of the books nor the paper mentioned why Bryan was the first choice. I can only presume because it was a large open piece of land, and fairly centrally located. Nor was there much detail on the business end of why it was the city, and not the developer, trying to buy it. From more recent sources, however, I'd almost wonder if the city has some kind of partial ownership in the mall, as it is the one that seems to be spearheading the current renovation efforts and planning to foot the bill. Finding reliable sources on that, though, have also turned up nothing. I'll have to see if I can get a copy of the Transportation document to see what else it has. Will work on addressing the prose issues. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can find on the court case, the person filed suit, then never followed through and it was dismissed[20] Will dig further -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The mall itself counts both Dillard's as separate anchors, but have reworded the whole paragraph. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From a brief look at your sources, it looks like the information either comes from books on the larger region (meaning that background information is included, just not necessarily with the mall information) or are more local newspaper articles, where it's generally assumed that the reader is already familiar with the region. For an encyclopedia article, I think it is crucial to provide enough background information. Some of what I asked for is in the article, just not near the front, which means the reader is left with gaps in their knowledge. A short paragraph (3-4 sentences) providing background on the region is necessary to fill those gaps.
As for the Dillards closing - we mention other store closings so it seems odd not to mention something like that. Perhaps there was more widespread closure at the mall for Ike? That would also be worth mentioning. Karanacs (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't close permanently, it closed for a few days and they closed all of their stores in multiple counties, not just Post Oak. So it wasn't specific nor really relevant to the mall. I've made some updates to the article to try to address some of your concerns.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:09, 10 December 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 02:50, 23 December 2009 [21].

Winter War edit

Nominator(s): Peltimikko (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the FA criteria. 30 November 2009 will be the 70th anniversary of the start of the war. Currently GA, and A-Class on WikiProject Military history. Peltimikko (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, old nom. Images, alt text and dabs cleared. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
  • Semi-reliable. Other book source (Jowett; Snodgrass) gives pretty similar figures. Peltimikko (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't regard either www.axishistory.com or www.feldgrau.com as being reliable sources as they both rely on material submitted by amateurs, and would strongly suggest that you replace these references with refs to the books you mention. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Peltimikko (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to point out that the FA criteria now require "high-quality reliable sources" so things that the nominator themselves admits are "semi-reliable" aren't good enough. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Karjalan liitto and Helsingin Sanomat have basicly a same message. The issue is well known, and there is the article Karelian question in Finnish politics. Still, maybe remove of Karjalan liitto as a source? Furthermore, axishistory.com, feldgrau.com and db2.com are removed. Peltimikko (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (I'm not sure if I need to vote again in this relisted FA) Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—Overall a fine article on an obscure (for most of the world) conflict. My main issue is that the lead section does not properly cover the actual war. I would at least expect to see mention of the motti tactics, the Mannerheim line, and the main Russian assaults. The word "revanche" is used in the article but not explained or wikilinked. But otherwise I think the article is of FA quality. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but I would like to see one or two lines in the section Winter_War#Aftermath about the current politics about the return of Karelia. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Offered some suggestions at the first FAC and will do so here as well.

  • Soviet–Finnish prewar negotiations: Commas before and after first use of Boris Yartsev?
  • War preparations: "Furthermore, the Finns would lease the Hanko Peninsula for the thirty years". I'm a bit confused by "the thirty years" since I don't see a mention of such a time period before this. Not sure what this is supposed to be referring to.
  • The shelling of Mainila: Remove space before three-reference block.
  • "claimed that the Finnish response was hostile and the non-aggression pact." Sentence cuts off abruptly, and an important part is not present.
  • Soviet policy and military offensive: Delink the date here. Linked days have been discouraged in most cases for a while now.
  • Finnish order of battle: "The frontier with the Soviet Union was more than ." Get that excess period out of there, while you're handling these other tasks.

I'm a bit concerned about a few of the simple typographical errors, but most of what I read was okay. Best of luck. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
    • Nowhere in the article does it actually state why it's called the "Winter War". Yes, it was fought during the northern winter of 1939-40, but assuming that people can infer this without having the information supplied to them assumes a particular POV of the reader. Perhaps the lead sentence in the article could have something like "during the northern winter of 1939-40" added to it?
    • The puppet regime was unsuccessful and was quietly disbanded during the winter of 1940.
      1. Is a more precise date available from primary references to comply with WP:SEASON?
      2. If a more precise date cannot be sourced from primary references, this still needs amendment because it is ambiguous. Which "winter of 1940" is intended here, 1939-40 or 1940-41?
    • The Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania had consented to Soviet demands in autumn 1939: Does not comply with WP:SEASON. I suggest rewording this to something like "in late 1939" or "by mid-October, 1939" to comply with WP:SEASON.
    • The plural of "aircraft" in English is "aircraft", not "aircrafts". -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 03:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

This is a great article and I enjoyed reading it. I do have a few comments; once these have been resolved, I'll be ready to support.

Explanation of some of the edits I made:

  • Deleted "However because of failures" - felt this was unnecessary, as the note should only be about who commanded when. If you wish to reinstate it, I have no problem with that, but it should be rephrased, because this wording is vague.
  • Deleted "While the Government of Sweden was aware..." - I think the information that they were aware is unnecessary; unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, it's fairly reasonable to assume that governments know whom their militaries are cooperating with.

Comments:

  • Shouldn't references be placed within the notes in the infobox? That makes for less clutter.
    • Multiple sources used here. Besides, every detailed number is continuously under doubt, so in many cases numbers presented need good source + commentary. Peltimikko (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand. My question is: would it be good to place the other refs inside the narrative footnotes that explain the numbers, so that fewer refs appear directly in the infobox? Ucucha 12:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you get to the total of 235 aircraft? 114 + 7 + <100 = <221
  • "Sovereignty was fully achieved in May, 1918 after a short civil war and the expulsion of Bolshevik troops." - you obviously don't want to go into too much detail here, but I am afraid this is unclear. In what way was sovereignty not fully achieved before? What were those Bolsheviks doing there when they had already recognized the country's independence?
    • Bolsheviks recognized the country's independence, but they also wanted a revolution. This was one of reasons for Finnish Civil War. Peltimikko (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • On second reading, it looks good enough. Ucucha 12:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two parishes" - I would consider the USSR to be among the most unlikely countries in the world to be divided into parishes.
  • Why do you address the historiography of the casus belli twice in separate paragraphs?
  • "Fewer than half of the officers remained in total." - lead says that "up to" (i.e., less than) 50% were purged.
    • Added "over 30,000", which is also mentioned in book Talvisodan pikkujättiläinen. Peltimikko (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more than 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) long" - any chance on getting the precise figure?
  • "Soviet movements were frozen solid" - beautiful wording
  • "Although the Karelian Isthmus front was less active in December than in January," - can't understand this. It's not the other way around, is it?
  • German invasion plan - of Finland? Or Sweden? Or is this the invasion of Denmark and Norway they actually carried out?
    • Scandinavian Countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark - not Finland). Peltimikko (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit weird to start talking about aerial and naval warfare after the part about the peace negotiations. Perhaps you should move the entire negotiations part to the "Peace of Moscow" section. Or is this established MILHIST structure?

Ucucha 04:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. Sadly, because this is a great article that is really very close, but we can't have an FA that contradicts itself (on how many Soviet officers were purged, see comment above). Ucucha 02:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is factually deficient. This piece of writing is unsophisticated in both content and style. The presentations of the Soviet military concerns and of the negotiations are superficial and minimal. There is a totally misleading insinuation—cleverly just an insinuation—that the USSR actually wanted to reacquire all of Finland. No use is made of the book, Anthony F. Upton, 1974, Finland, 1939-1940. Presenting the progress of the hostilities to the level of minutiae is unencyclopedic. Even leaving objections to the content aside, the lead does not represent the content well; this is a very poor lead. Yes, the article can boast photos and a long list of references most of them not in English, and often this is what earns an FA. But the way things are is not necessarily the way they ought to be. Some trivial flaws: (1) the word "operation" in the lead is inappropriate; (2) the language labeling in the bibliography is not in the latest Wikipedia style because it does not use the "language icon" template. I will apply them myself. Hurmata (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 19:38, 19 December 2009 [22].

Monarchy of Canada edit

Nominator(s): CJ Miller. (That's my name.Don't wear it out.) 19:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because, in my opinion, it has improved greatly from its last FAC in 2007. CJ Miller. (That's my name.Don't wear it out.) 19:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest a new peer review—the article itself actually looks neat from a glance, but the technical aspects disturb me. 

<ref>See:
*Cite one.
*Cite two.
...
*Last cite.</ref>

This article was last peer reviewed in 2006; so much (at least rule-wise) has changed since. Another look-through can't hurt. --an odd name 01:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. Needs an updated peer review. Dincher (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
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 SandyGeorgia 19:38, 19 December 2009 [23].

Xenogears Original Soundtrack edit

Nominator(s): Kariteh (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets all the criteria. It covers all aspects of the soundtrack's creation and also touches on broad subjects ranging from the original game to Bulgarian choirs and comparisons with Celine Dion. Kariteh (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning Oppose on 1c by an odd name—various points.

  • Images need alt text.
    • The Mitsuda alt could probably be expanded further (see WP:ALT#Portraits), but good alt text otherwise. --an odd name 00:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The music4games link is dead (gives a short error message); otherwise, no dab links or dead external links.
  • Ref dates are all ISO style (full) or Month Year (partial).
    • I didn't say you had to change all the dates to Month Day, Year, but that works as well. (It also blends nicely with the article's Month Day, Year style.) Dates throughout look good. --an odd name 00:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1c issues (verifiability etc.):
    • What makes Square Enix Music Online a high-quality reliable source? The site's "About Us" page doesn't convince me much—the "We're Hiring!" page actually un-convinces me ("Experience isn't required, but passion is essential!")—and it's being used for interviews with living people like Yasunori Mitsuda.
      • Per PresN at the wikiproject discussion, the submissions guidelines cover reliability for SEMO for me. I'm not sure if SEMO is high-quality for this article—I wish I saw some book or magazine references either way—but I'll let others decide that level. --an odd name 03:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same question with ref 1 and its source site "Noisycroak". They both need to be HQ reliable. Never heard of either one until now, and (except for a list of editors on the former) I see nothing to go by. I am *clears throat* glad to see Bayonetta on their front page, but that doesn't excuse 1c for me, no no. (added on 23:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC))
  • From the second image's page: "This image is used on various websites, so its use on Wikipedia does not make it significantly more accessible than it already is."—I loathe seeing text like this on non-free use rationales, because it is irrelevant to whether the image can be used on the English WP. Usage by many places doesn't excuse copyright violation, but it does make the lawyers look for more targets. I've removed it there. (I'm not saying the image itself is a copyvio.)
  • "the first ending song to ever appear in a game developed by Square"—as in the first ending theme in a Square game with sung lyrics? (There's been numerous ending themes in Square games before then, so I'm guessing that.)
  • For the next time you submit an article (this or any other), consider peer review or an A-class assessment from the WikiProject to make sure you're close to the criteria before nomination, even if you think so. Good Article doesn't mean much here—its criteria are lower and the reviewers fewer (and stretched thin), so both fundamental and FA-level problems slip past. (added on 00:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name 23:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added a bit from Chris Kohler's Power-Up: How Japanese Video Games Gave the World an Extra Life to the article to have a book reference. As for Original Sound Version, it's a direct translation of the Noisycroak interview but I guess the link could be replaced with the original source. Noisycroak is a sound design company headed by Hideki Sakamoto, a video game composer who worked on critically-acclaimed titles. The clients of the company are well-known video game companies.[24][25] Kariteh (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, fair enough for me. I've struck the oppose-lean; as with SEMO, I'll let others decide if Noisy and OSV are "high-quality" enough. --an odd name 00:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on sources What makes these reliable?

Normally, if it was used for only a singular citation, I'd lean slightly reliable, but this forms about half the ref list. Has this website been used by reliable and notable third-party sources?

RB88 (T) 19:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Three images:

Ive added a better fair use to that image now. Salavat (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Xenogears OST limited.jpg: Alternative album cover (fair use), used as secondary infobox image. Appears to fail standard (see also comment by Fuchs above). Take a look at a music recording article recently promoted to FA that includes two fair use infobox images: Remain in Light (where the secondary image is of the album's back cover). In that case, it is immediately evident that the content of the secondary image is significantly different from the content of the main image. In that case, as well, the content of the secondary image is discussed in the article—it is worthy of critical commentary largely because it was originally intended for the front cover. In the case of this alternative album cover, its content does not appear to be significantly different from that of the primary album cover and it is not the subject of critical commentary. (As above, the rationale is also lacking, but this seems a moot point.)
  • File:Yasunori Mitsuda.jpg: Verified Commons image. No problem.—DCGeist (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 19:38, 19 December 2009 [26].

Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province edit

Nominator(s): BT (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel the article is fairly complete. The article is well referenced, suited with several images, sections, etc. Well covered. BT (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No dab links (after a quick edit) or dead external links, and (after another quick edit) ref dates are consistent ISO style (full) or Month Year (partial). Cool. --an odd name 08:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Review here. Great article, nice going :) ResMar 15:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Nice to see you back at FAC after a really long break (since Mt Garibaldi). I'll review this article later; I'm putting it on my watchlist. ceranthor 20:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent article. Seems to meet FA criteria. Himalayan 21:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: significant 2c errors leading to non-verifiability. Works not cited (cite web used incorrectly, conference titles and journal titles not indicated, volumes, issues not indicated, chapters not cited as chapters books not indicated; consistent misattribution of publishers to university departments). Titles misspelt. Fundamental consistency errors: Mixture of bracket and footnote citation eg from body text: [Ben Edwards and James Russell (2000; Geological Society of America Bulletin)] Minor 2c errors: Author ordering unusual and inconsistent (C.R., Bacon? Initialism last name?); ISSNs missing; Cambridge, UK given as Cambridge, England; missing locations. I fixed the first few but then started to run into more and more mis-use of templates.

These kind of error indicates that a broad Full Text on Net search has been conducted, but that some scholarly resources that should have been used may not have been located. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of these images are based on existing volcano maps and the usage of coordinates, most of which are in the article's references. BT (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Black Tusk, Elcobbola knows his image copyrights. I suggest you just deal with his concerns. I'm willing to help if you need more images. — Ceranthor — continues after insertion below
I've struck the centre bullet, as the (copyvio) images have been deleted. Please add the necessary data source information ("existing volcano maps and the usage of coordinates, most of which are in the article's references") to the image summaries. Эlcobbola talk 22:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright good enough. BT (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I added sources to all three images. BT (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source issue for File:Northwest-relief.jpg still needs to be sorted out, as File:Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province map.jpg and File:NCVP seismic volcanoes.png are derivatives thereof. Эlcobbola talk 00:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I let User:Qyd know about this issue because he is the one that uploaded the image. I'll look around to see if I can find the image in any online USGS data. BT (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not an issue: Map created with PD GIS data from the USGS, file is PD, please stop inventing problems. --Qyd (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If something is public domain it's public domain and therefore it is fine to use it for whatever reason. If it's not public domain it's not public domain, and that is when problems start booming (e.g. like File:Tuya Butte.jpg). The source description on File:Northwest-relief.jpg says "USGS data" because, like Qyd said, it is a work of the United States Geological Survey. All data that originates from the United States Geological Survey is public domain. There is no problem with USGS images or information and the image is licenced with the proper {{PD-USGov-USGS}} template. BT (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read critically. This isn't an issue of whether USGS works are public domain. This is an issue of providing a verifiable source. How exactly does this add anything? How can a third party confirm this is indeed the work of the USGS? People misidentify authorship all of the time (e.g. "like like File:Tuya Butte.jpg). Prove that USGS is the author. The current sourcing is equivalent to sourcing a fact to "The New York Times"; what does that mean? What date? What issue? In this case, from what website did it come? From what GIS program was it extracted? Please feel free to ping me when the issue will be addressed maturely ("please stop inventing problems"); I've unwatched the page. Эlcobbola talk 13:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying i used a false license? do you have any proof or reason for this serious accusation? i invested some of my precious time to create this image (and many other maps), and shared it with the community. now I have to spend more time to prove my work for anyone who's asking? man, you do make wikipedia suck!--Qyd (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Qyd, this is totally inappropriate. Elcobbola is also donating time and effort to this project, to ensure our images meet copyright requirements. I suggest you apologize and work together. Awadewit (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologize. I also suggest that he/she assumes good faith and not presume the license is inappropriate. --Qyd (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Enough. This isn't the place for arguing over the licence/source of the image. I removed all images in the article that are derivatives of Northwest-relief.jpg and replaced them with images I created with given sources. The problem is over. BT (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about if I just remove the two images from the article? Then the problem would likely be over. BT (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. I created a highlight map for the NCVP to replace the (problematic) USGS-related NCVP map in the geobox and deleted the seismic activity map as well. BT (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review on the way, from reading the lead,
  • At least three large distinctive volcanoes are associated with the province, including Hoodoo Mountain in the Boundary Ranges, the Mount Edziza volcanic complex on the Tahltan Highland, and the Level Mountain Range on the Nahlin Plateau. - any active? ceranthor 22:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is mentioned further in the article..... BT (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes (USGS isn't going to be known by most folks even in the US)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. BT (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator: Per FAC instructions, please do not strike reviewer comments. It is up to the reviewer to decide whether his/her concerns have been satisfied. Please also do not move reviewer commentary to the FAC talk page. Although off-topic discussion can be removed by any editor, it is best if the reviewer comments are not removed by anyone except a delegate or the reviewer. Accordingly, I have undone the move. Karanacs (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not happy with the prose.

  • It's a nuisance, isn't it, the "province" refers to two quite different things in this part of the world. Oh well ...
  • "It extends from northwestern British Columbia and the Alaska Panhandle through Yukon to the Southeast Fairbanks Census Area of far eastern Alaska, a distance of well over 1,000 km (620 mi)." OK, but consider "extends roughly north-northwest in a corridor hundreds of kilometres wide, from ...". Unsure—you know better than I do. It might also help the sight-impaired to visualise it at the start, before getting to the alt text.
  • Fairly long sentences, given the amount of info they hold. For example: "Although taking its name from the Western Cordillera, this term is a geologic grouping rather than a geographic one, and the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province encompasses more than one geographic region, including mountain ranges and plateaus." And is "this term" the WC or the WCVP? I guess you can work it out, but it was a bump in the reading for me.
  • Logic problem: this is presented as though a parallelism, but it's not: "In the south the volcanic province includes a large number of volcanoes. Further north it is less clearly described, creating a large arch that sways westward through central Yukon." Number of volcanoes, then direction.
  • "At least three large distinctive volcanoes are associated with the province"—sounds as though they're not in the Province, but are somehow influenced by what goes on there. Remember, I'm an outsider to this topic.
  • "one of the best studied"? Quality of the research? Impact factors of the journals? Or "most studied"?
  • "... the largest and oldest of which is" would be better.
  • "Exist"—always rings alarm bells in me. ", there are several ...". By "scatter", you mean they scatter stuff when they blow? Or they are scattered" in terms of their location?
  • Here's an example of a long snake we could cut up: "Most of these small cones have been sites of only one volcanic eruption in contrast to the larger volcanoes throughout the province, which have had more than one volcanic eruption throughout their history." Try "Most of these small cones have been sites of only one volcanic eruption; this is in contrast to the larger volcanoes throughout the province, which have had more than one volcanic eruption throughout their history.

I'm disappointed in the writing. This deserves to be a classy read—it's such an interesting and dramatic topic. Tony (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS Image issues: several are unnecessarily small, yet the drama and interest is in the details of the composition, the texture. This is larger-than-life stuff. Especially the basaltic lave field, the satellite image, Hoodoo (try 240 or 250 px, and check whether they clutter: all right side can sometimes be better in this respect. The "flanks of Hoodoo"—at that size, I can't tell whether I could walk right over it in boots, or am looking from an aircraft. Perhaps it's in the alt text. The lava fountain is big enough. The Level MR green thing is too dark! Can you brighten it yourself? It's too small, too, and boosting it will be kinder to the longish caption. The LMR scene from the aircraft (?) is hopelessly tiny. Spectral R glaciation: what exactly am I looking for here? It's small and looks like a scene from the ski lift I use. Same throughout. BTW, the colours in the map up top jar, to me, with the lead pic above it. Unusually, this green-orange monster could be smaller (quite a bit). By contrast, the "Minor and major" map is far too small—can you read that text? It COULD be interesting. Twice the size, please, or whatever allows me to see it properly. The caption doesn't explain what the reddish dots are.

Together with the prose, the image issues make me oppose this one; sorry. Tony (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of these problems can easily be fixed. BT (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with the green Level Mountain Range images? Yes the images are dark, but that is because the region is forested. And the darkness actually helps to expose the volcano; it's the lighter unforested area in the middle of the image. If the surrounding darkness was lighter, the volcano would be harder to recognize. And if I make the green-orange image smaller, it will make it look sloppy with the geobox because the image will not be centered with the geobox. BT (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully I got all of your points solved apart from the problems I mentioned in my comment above. BT (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think it is quite well written and extremely comprehensive. Wonderful job! It's clear that all the work I've seen has paid off.
  • Section: Origins and chemistry: But these faults were in a matter of dispute in 1997 by geologists, stating these faults were last active between 20 and five million years ago.[1] - the were involved or were part of
  • Same section: In 1999, a sequence of north-trending faults were mapped that seem to represent young rifting events parallel with the southwestern boundary of the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province.[1] - parallel to?
  • Hot springs: They are formed if water percolates deeply through the crust and heats up from the primal magmatic heat under the surface. - Doesn't seem to flow well.
  • Lava plains: Extensive areas of nearly flat-lying lava flows throughout the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province can cover areas of at least 100 km2 (39 sq mi) and are generally composed of highly-fluid basaltic lava. - fluidic? highly-fluid doesn't work
How does "highly-fluid" not work? Not all lava is very fuild; dacite and rhyolite lava is thick. And a reader with no knowledge of the subjuect would not know basaltic lava is very fluid. BT (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section: The extent of large lava plains is most readily grasped from the air or in satellite photos where their nearly-black colour contrasts with the rest of the landscape - hmm? Why is that relevant, and if it is, does the source actually say that?
  • Looks really great - outstanding work! ceranthor 22:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by mav
Criteria 4
  • At over 8500 words, I have some criteria 4 (Length) concerns. Many paragraphs are very long, such as, for example, the first one in ===Origins and chemistry== and the subjection-long paragraph in ===Lithosphere thickness===. Snakes and wordy prose as Tony mentions. Daughter articles per WP:SS will help a great deal. Is it really necessary to have whole subsections just about hot springs, lava tubes, xenoliths, megacrysts, and intrusions? Why not a single subjection on geologic features that summarizes those aspects? Mentioning how thick the lithosphere is can easily be done in a single paragraph in a subsection. Overall, I would expect a section on geology to be more clearly/cleanly organized by geologic forces (such as rifting/stretching/thinning or accretion) and then by descriptions of large scale and then small scale features. Since the ==Volcanic history== is the longest, creating a page size message of 54 KB, I suggest the creation of a Volcanic history of Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province article and a summary left at Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province#Volcanic history. A more thematic but still temporal organization of subsections in ==Volcanic history== vs the current purely temporal organization, may also help. But I'm not sure if themes can be gleamed from the material. If so, ignore this suggestion.
Lede
  • Overuse of "However" in third paragraph.
Origins and chemistry
  • Awkward sentence: "The Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province began to form 20 million years ago and it has been a zone of active volcanism since its very formation." I would flip those two phrases. Something like "The Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province has been a zone of active volcanism since it began to form 20 million years ago."
Nitpicks
  • Not necessary to always say "Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province"; "the province" and pronouns will suffice most times once context is established (some sentences repeat the full name twice: "This indication is further provided if the geothermal gradient inside the lithosphere under the northern portion of the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province is greater than that in the southern portion of the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province." Emphasis mine).

If it were not for the length and organization issues, I could easily support this article. But in its current form, I must sadly oppose this nomination until these issues are adequately addressed. --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 13:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a major reorganization. BT (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have already archived this nom; the bot will go through later (see WP:FAC/ar). The image oppose will need to be resolved before this is brought back to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I will create the Volcanic history of Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province article later. BT (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2009 (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 Karanacs 19:38, 16 December 2009 [27].

Merry Xmas Everybody edit

Nominator(s): Majorly talk 18:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel it meets the criteria. I am aware it is shorter than most FAs, but I have literally squeezed every source I could find on the topic to get more information about it as I could. I don't believe it omits any important information, in this respect, and covers the topic fully. Otherwise, I think it's fine. Thanks, Majorly talk 18:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • No dab links or dead external links.
  • All images have alt text. "He is wearing something on his head that is unclear in this image." could probably be rewritten to remove the ref to an image (which alt users can't see), but it all looks good otherwise.
  • Audit for grammar errors: I already removed an extra comma and "are".
  • Can you explain the ref "Black Vinyl, White Powder, Simon Napier-Bell 2001" further? It's apparently a 390-page book; page number and publisher, if so? (added on 19:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC))
  • I don't have a copy of that, unfortunately. It was added in by an IP in 2007. Majorly talk 19:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dates throughout are all Day Month Year. (added on 19:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name 19:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did say this in the opening statement. Is the prose ok? Majorly talk 14:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support 2c, 1c. No 1c problems, additionally believe that 1c sources have been exhausted. 00:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC) 2c: Fifelfoo (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please supply the title of the work containing this item, or change the title format to italics to indicate that the Discography is the primary work? ""The Mission Discography". The Mission. Retrieved 15 November 2009."
I don't understand your concern here. It's the title of the page used as the reference... Majorly talk 23:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Works in collections are cited as such "Work in collection" in Collection. Sole works are cited as such Sole work.
I still have no idea what you're talking about. I've referenced as I have done for dozens of other articles. There is no problem here. Majorly talk 01:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a book, LP, video disc citation Book. Notice the italics? This is a citation for a work contained in another work, like a newspaper article, journal, track. "Track" Albumn "Newspaper article" Newspaper "Chapter" Book. There is a problem here. You're citing works as if they're contained in another work, but without indicating the work they're contained in. Please fix by supplying the work they're contained in, or by naming the work as a stand alone work. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. This is a web citation, that lists the songs on the track. Citing it as a web citation (title, publisher) is perfectly acceptable. Once again, there is no problem. Majorly talk 01:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified publisher to make clear. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon.com is not a publisher. Please supply correct bibliographic details. They're listed on the Amazon pages (Anagram Records and Polydor Ltd.)
Amazon published the page used as the reference. I'm not citing the album itself... Majorly talk 23:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's a 1c issue to do with quality of sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sourcing information on Amazon, I am merely using it as proof the album exists. Amazon is a reputable music dealer who don't list items that don't exist. There is nothing wrong with doing this. Majorly talk 01:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon repeatedly lists items that don't exist. Their status as a reliable bibliographer is nil. Source bibliographic proof of existence from an appropriate sound archive or national copyright collections library: ie a High Quality RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have such access to archives, so such a request is clearly impossible. I assume you want me to take your word for it on the quality of Amazon. It's rather difficult to cite a rather obscure album released in 1990, when you don't have the resources. It's mentioned all over the web, just not anywhere useful. Majorly talk 01:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, all Amazon references are gone. Majorly talk 01:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Very enjoyable; brings back some old memories. A couple of questions:

  • I can't find an exact release date for Wizzard's I Wish It Could Be Christmas Every Day, so I can't be sure whether that single predates this one, but since they were the same year I'm not sure it's a great idea to say it was the first Christmas rock single. You also mention a Lennon single that predates it; was that not rock?
  • I would disagree that Happy Xmas (War Is Over) is rock, but I'm no expert. However, it's not really about Christmas per se. As for the Wizzard song, according to Guinness British Hit Singles, it entered the charts on 8 December. This is apparently a week earlier than this song. I'll change it to indicate that it's one of the first. Majorly talk 12:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that many began to associate Slade only with Christmas and that this contributed to their decline in popularity. The first point is more than plausible to anyone who was around at the time, and though a citation wouldn't hurt I don't think it's necessary. However, to say that this is the cause of their subsequent decline really does need a citation, and it appears not to have one -- the nearest following cite in the body just covers the song reaching the charts in 2006.
  • Added one (it was there, just not right next to it). Majorly talk 12:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cover versions of popular songs can be quite numerous, and I don't think all need to be listed. Can you say what makes these particular covers notable and worthy of mention in the article -- the fame of the band, the unusualness of the cover version, the success of that version's release?
  • I've removed three. It was not an exhaustive list by any means, but I think the notability of the six left is self-explanatory. Majorly talk 15:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 15 December it became the third song by Slade to enter the charts at number one (the sixth during their career)": the parenthesis seems to say they had six songs enter the charts at number one; I had a go at rewriting this but couldn't easily find an improvement. I think this should be rephrased.
  • I know this is going to be difficult to find, but is there any chance of getting contemporary opinions of the song? There isn't really a reception section at the moment; the release paragraph talks about the sales, and the legacy section gives the perspective from today, but there isn't much that says whether it was well-regarded critically at the time. I'm sure there are Melody Maker and NME reviews, though I don't know if they'd be usable. Back then rock and pop wasn't really reviewed in the mainstream media so there might not be enough to use, but it would be good to have.
    • I took a look in the NYT archives; there's a 21 Dec 1973 article on Christmas songs that mentions Slade but makes no assessment. Interestingly, it mentions three other Christmas songs of that year, which it describes as satirical: Elton John's "Who'll Be A Turkey For Christmas", Cheech and Chong's "Santa Claus and His Old Lady", and Martin Mull's "Santafly". Not sure there's anything you can use there -- the article argues that new Christmas songs were decling at the time, and that Christmas music was mostly recycled from previous years. Mike Christie (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another possible source: [28]. The writer comments on how Slade changed the popular perception of Christmas. Mike Christie (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That last one is potentially useful, for the legacy section. However, when I was looking for sources as I was writing the article, I don't believe I saw anything to do with reception on its release - though I am guessing it was popular judging by the sales. Of course, I don't have access to unfree news sources, so there may be more I couldn't access via Google News... Majorly talk 15:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's nothing about the record in The Times archive, or at Newsbank. Parrot of Doom 20:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          I don't think I would oppose on this point, since I can't be sure any usable sources exist, but I think anything else that could be found on the reception would help the article. I would suggest using that piece from the Guardian about the influence of the single. Mike Christie (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've added it as an additional reference, but I think the influence has been described adequately. Majorly talk 13:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the timeline as presented is slightly misleading. The History and Background section starts "By 1973 Slade were one of the most popular bands in Britain, having achieved two number one singles—"Cum On Feel The Noize" and "Skweeze Me Pleeze Me"—in three months. The band and their record company, Polydor, decided to produce a Christmas hit." However, it's apparent from the timeline given later that the decision to produce a Christmas hit must have predated the success of 'Skweeze Me Pleeze Me"; it was a hit in July, according to the article about it, but Powell was injured ten weeks before the recording session in August -- no later than early June. The source article does appear to get this right, saying "Early in 1973".
The recording session occurred in September according to the Q article. It is correct as written. In fact, the article describes how the idea came after the two number ones. Majorly talk 13:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll strike that -- if it was recorded in September then yes, it could have been ten weeks after "Skweeze Me Pleeze Me" became a hit. I could swear I saw a reference to August, but I can't find it now. By the way, the Holder bio only lets you view some pages on Amazon, and the story of how the song was written is chopped off at the start, but it appears he might give additional details about how he wrote the song, perhaps including a specific date. Mike Christie (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you looked at the Noddy Holder bio, Who's Crazee Now?? Seems like it might be a useful source. There are pages viewable on Amazon and it seems to have some material about the song.
I can't view it without an account. Majorly talk 13:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to head off to work in a moment, but I will see if I can pull some quotes for you tonight. However, I don't think I can see all pages of the book so it would be good to check a physical copy if possible. Mike Christie (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also just found Peter Buckley's Rough Guide to Rock on Google describing the song as "arguably the best single ever"; this might be worth quoting in the legacy section, though I'm not sure as I know nothing about Buckley and whether he's any kind of authority. It seems to be a substantial encyclopedia that's been through multiple editions and I think it could be used.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a link I could use? Majorly talk 13:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The quote is "During their glam phase Slade also produced arguably the best Christmas single ever, "Merry Christmas Everybody" (1973), which has recharted most Christmases since." Page 948 of the 2003 edition; visible in Google Books. I don't see the ISBN at the moment. Mike Christie (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added the quote. Majorly talk 13:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, struck. I am curious about the title case used; shouldn't it be "Rough Guide to Rock", not "rough guide to rock"? I thought title case was the general rule for citations of works. Mike Christie (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be so I changed it. Majorly talk 14:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Looking at some of the other FAs on individual songs reinforces my feeling that there needs to be something about contemporary critical reception, beyond what can be deduced from the success of the song. I will find it hard to support without this being addressed. The Holder bio might give you something in this direction. I understand it's not easy to research this sort of thing; I am planning a visit to a central NY research library to research some other articles over the next two or three weeks, and if there's anything I might be able to find there, let me know and I'll see if I can locate it for you. Mike Christie (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked someone who might have access to a copy of the Holder bio. I'm not sure if there is anything in the library. Majorly talk 13:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Good stuff although I think there really should be a credits/personnel section listing those involved, instruments played etc. Cavie78 (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added who played what instrument, is that sufficient? Producer is already described elsewhere. Majorly talk 17:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean support - I'm not seeing any real problems. The blockquote in "History and background" needs a citation. The end of "Composition" needs a citation. The language is rewritten enough to distance itself from the original from what I can tell. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updating, since the block quote is now directly cited. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—Looking good, writing down comments as I copy-edit:

  • "beating Wizzard's "I Wish It Could Be Christmas Everyday" into fourth place" - why is the fourth place single rather the second place one being mentioned here? I fail too see the signficance.
  • Because it's a Christmas-themed song. I've clarified. Majorly talk 14:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which Slade's producer Chas Chandler decided "Merry Christmas Everybody" needed." - oddly enough, "Merry Christmas Everybody" comes in a bit abruptly here, as you haven't yet stated that the song the duo were working on was "Merry Christmas Everybody". Also why "Christmas" and not "Xmas" in the song title here?
  • Where are the cites for the last four sentences of Composition?
  • It's rather difficult to cite - I actually used a midi file and literally described the music. The source is the song. Majorly talk 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my view, it is no different from FAs for TV series citing episodes of the series in question. Likewise in science articles, it is permissible to make uncontroversial conclusions without it being disqualified as original research (e.g. converting the mass and volume of a planet to its average density). Isn't this simply the musical equivalent? Bluap (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Indopug's quite right. Stating that, say, a certain meeting between two people occurred in a certain TV program is something any observer can do. Musical analysis is not the same thing at all. It requires a suitable reliable source, i.e. one qualified to provide a musical analysis. This is illustrated by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(music)#Citing_sources, which advises, "Only basic information pertaining to a piece, such as track length or stereo placement, may be left to an editor or editors' ears". PL290 (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In your opinion it's not the same, but that's just your opinion. Stating what chords are used and what instruments are played is hardly contentious, and any listener can describe this (MOS is not policy). Majorly talk 22:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if the personnel is required at all (apart from the name of the guy who plays lead guitar, the section is redundant to the rest of the article).
  • I tend to agree; someone mentioned they wanted it, above though. I am happy for it to be removed. Majorly talk 14:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see a Tracklisting section though, namely to see individual song length of both sides of the single, as well as the catalogue no of the original release.
    I'm not sure where I could find this information. Majorly talk 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added something. Not sure if the format is ok. Majorly talk 16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you be more descriptive in your description of the sound sample? It is necessary to justify fair-use.
  • Please clarify what you mean by "more descriptive". Majorly talk 14:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've clarified the description. While its quite obvious that this clip showcases the most recognisable part of the song, I'll leave it to others to decide if that needs mention (and citing). Parrot of Doom 23:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would a chart section be useful? (Generally needed when a song charted in many territories; see WP:CHARTS)
  • Not too sure. I couldn't find any sources for making a section, so it could be difficult to make one. Majorly talk 15:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can probably insert the Netherlands and Norway as prose, using this as a source. I've used that website before and its passed WP:FAC with no issues. Parrot of Doom 23:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added in those two, if any others could be found I can add them in. It's not worth a section on its own yet though. Majorly talk 16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you can incorporate more of the info found here. Namely, this: "while they were still named the N'Betweens. The melody was Holder's first ever solo composition", and "his first draft was the final one".
  • ""Merry Xmas Everybody" was the first song of its kind" - divorced from the explanatory context that comes in much later in the sentence, this opening bit seems rather bloated and pretentious. I wonder if you could make that entire sentence tighter, actually.—indopug (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the sentence altogether, it doesn't really add anything as it happens. Majorly talk 14:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose on 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d

  • "It is Slade's last number-one single, as fans began to associate the group only with Christmas, and their popularity subsequently deteriorated." - I'm really not sure about that! Apart from the questionable assertion that "fans began to associate the group only with Christmas", their popularity did not deteriorate in a timeframe that supports that statement: following this December 1973 #1, their next three singles, entering the charts in April, July and October 1974, reached #3, #3 and #2 respectively. PL290 (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really familiar with the band - you might call me one of those people who only associates it with Christmas. I'm only following what the source wrote. I have clarified to say "many people" instead of "fans", which I hope is better. But the truth is, it was their last number one (out of 6 in total), and they got some top ten hits. This was their peak, and after being at a peak, you can only go down, which they did. Majorly talk 14:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*I dispute the assertion that the Christmas single had any adverse effect on the band's popularity whatsoever, and would be surprised if you could show a reliable source to back it up. This was indeed their last #1 but it is pure speculation to explain that in these terms—and in any case (as noted just above), the follow-ups over the next year were #3, #3, #2—very similar to #1, since of course it depends entirely on the competition at that precise moment. Now that I've looked at your source, I can understand where this strange idea came from! An article about a "Christmas curse"? Perhaps Guardian readers were titillated by this festive feature, amused to think that once John Lennon recorded Happy Xmas (War is Over), "inexplicably and ominously ... the curse began its work" with the result that Lennon later "indulged in self-destructive drink and drug binges", "temporarily split from Yoko Ono" and "was gunned down by Mark Chapman", while the workings of this same mysterious "curse" took their toll on Wizzard after I Wish It Could Be Christmas Every Day: "Alas, immediately following this Christmas cracker, Wood was struck by ulcers and managerial difficulties." This is a source? "Merry Xmas Everybody" was Slade's last number one, yes. The rest of that sentence, "as many people began to associate the group only with Christmas, and their popularity subsequently deteriorated", is quite misleading on two counts and I suggest it should be removed. PL290 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian is generally considered to be a reliable source, FWIW. I'll remove it regardless, and change it to something less contentious. Majorly talk 17:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We read that when Slade were recording the song, "In an adjoining studio, John Lennon was working on his album Mind Games. The ex-Beatle had recorded his own Christmas single "Happy Xmas (War Is Over)" in 1971, and had contributed to seven Beatles Christmas records. He was about to use a harmonium, which Slade's producer Chas Chandler decided "Merry Christmas Everybody" needed.[1] It took five days to finish, but the band disliked the first completed version." - This seems to jump all over the place chronologically, and mentions various different Lennon/Beatles recordings for no apparent reason and without their respective timings being clear, and we're forced to make a leap ourselves at the end to work out what took five days to finish from the fact that the band's dislike was relevant. PL290 (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed the unnecessary detail. Majorly talk 14:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is now clearer. But what is the significance of the fact that John Lennon "was about to use" a harmonium? What happened next? Did he actually use it, or did Slade usurp it? The mind boggles on this point! Can it be rephrased to avoid or illuminate this aspect. Also, the section too seems superficial: surely there's more than four sentences (one of which is about John Lennon) that can be said about this five-day-long, unsatisfying recording session? PL290 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish there was. I did spend a great deal of time hunting out suitable sources. It appears at least one of them isn't suitable. There probably is more, but it's either not been recorded, or is inaccessible. Majorly talk 17:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expect Slade borrowed the harmonium, and then gave it back. I'm not sure what is so "boggling" about this. It's not really a big deal either, but considering how little information there is, and how many sources discussed it, I have included it. Majorly talk 17:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've edited the sentence to improve the flow. I'm not certain of the significance of the Harmonium so I've left that. Parrot of Doom 18:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Composition section also seems superficial—for an example of an FA song article where this is done more justice, see Hey Jude—and the information it does provide is incomplete and largely unsourced. It is also (to my ears, from memory) incorrect on several counts. For instance, I don't think the "short solo" is in Bb (although it certainly contains Bb chords), and the Bb chord appears far more often in the song than you say: it occurs twice in every chorus, for a start. This section needs expanding and sourcing. PL290 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dealing with this (as somebody who doesn't read music that well, this is very difficult), though I wish to point out that Hey Jude is nearly twice as long, so will inevitably have more to say about it. And as mentioned above, the song itself is the source, much like for TV/film articles. I have been unable to locate any sources that describe the song itself, other than the Pedler book, which I've used. Majorly talk 17:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Indopug has rightly pointed out, your approach constitutes original research (and this research has, as I pointed out just above, in my view produced significantly incorrect findings). You say you don't read music but that shouldn't come into it: the musical analysis should be based on reliable sources. You say "Hey Jude" being longer makes it "inevitably have more to say about it"; that again is speculation and original research (and FWIW, I would say, not the case: they are of similar (low) complexity, with perhaps half a dozen chords each, and the Slade one may even slightly win on complexity. Going on for longer by repeating the same thing over and over again does not imply there is much more to say about the composition and musical structure. There may even be more that can be said about the Slade one.). PL290 (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You claim I am speculating and producing original research, yet you then go on to do the same thing yourself! Where is your RS that the Slade song "win[s] on complexity"? Where is your RS that says my interpretation is wrong? What makes you right? You saying it doesn't make it so.
  • As I just said, I've searched high and low for any source for the song: I've come up with nothing. It's not an actionable oppose if you just state "[T]here may even be more that can be said about [it]", because I've found nothing. Majorly talk 22:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another point regarding reading music: the Pedler book uses complex musical descriptions (e.g. "harmonising a D major chord that acts as a big V chord for G itself..."). To a layperson, that is completely incomprehensible. It's all very well saying "use reliable sources" but it's only possible to do so when you understand what on earth the source is on about. Majorly talk 17:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't oppose when all your comments are fixable. I've had a busy week, and will probably get round to fixing these very soon. Thanks, Majorly talk 22:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixable? Within the FAC process it would be pointless for me to make objections that weren't fixable! Currently these issues prevent the article from meeting 1a, 1b, 1c or 1d and I do oppose—and don't consider it worth reviewing other aspects of the article—until these are fixed. PL290 (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that various aspects are being worked on and I retain the hope that this might develop to the extent that I could strike my remaining opposition. It gives me no pleasure to oppose and I am sorry to think that my tone or my inclusion of illustrative statements have obstructed my intention of providing helpful pointers that could indirectly facilitate resolution of the issues identified. I will be continuing to watch developments and I look forward to striking my opposition once these remaining issues have been resolved. PL290 (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which issues remain? Majorly talk 18:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the responses above, my remaining concerns (unstruck items) include the lack of depth; for example in both the Recording and Composition sections. This article is very short—as was indeed pointed out at the start of the nomination—but this appears in part to be due to over-summarization of detail that would actually be relevant to the article, in some cases with loss of meaning. To give just one example, "Its popularity, however, has occasionally produced a negative response, causing some venues to remove it from their Christmas playlist." When this sentence is examined more closely in conjunction with the sources, it transpires that it was not popularity that produced the negative response, but loss of popularity: the London Holiday Inn hotel deleted it because 'a large proportion' of customers told employees the song was irritating", and when Manchester Airport "canvassed opinion among 1,200 people about how to improve its Christmas service", they found that "Nearly 500 people said they did not want to hear it as it was 'unpopular' and 'outdated'". Turning to the Composition section, I take it from what's been said that the Pedler book does indeed contain the necessary detail to describe the song's musical structure; I understand that crafting a meaningful narrative would be challenging to someone unfamiliar with the terminology, and I would try to help improve that aspect if I had access to a source, but the Pedler book makes no mention of the song in the parts shown in the Google Books limited preview.PL290 (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again: "it is very short" is not actionable if you cannot say where to get more information to expand it with. Of course, I can add more information from the sources I have already, but in reality, there is very little extra to add that is not already here.
The Pedler book, at least on the preview, does not contain enough detail about the song. It briefly discusses a few chords, but it does not describe the whole song in any way. It's most certainly viewable on Google books. Majorly talk 15:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any more passages you aren't happy with? Majorly talk 15:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Going to sort out the above issues tomorrow afternoon. Majorly talk 22:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source comments Everything fine. RB88 (T) 12:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This claim in the lead is wildly overstated: "It was one of the first Christmas rock songs." The primary text support for that claim is this passage: "Before 1973 Christmas songs tended to be covers of traditional songs, or derived from themed albums. Slade were one of the first to produce a Christmas-themed rock song." (First off, this passage is not coherent: Themed Christmas albums had never contained Christmas-themed rock songs? Simply not true. Do you mean had never contained nontraditional Christmas-themed rock songs? Still, simply not true.) A solitary source is cited for that passage, a personal reflection published in the Guardian, expressed in a very colloquial tone. Here are the lines from the source that are clearly the ones seen as supporting the major claim made in our article's lead: "Christmas up until that point had been many things. Sentimental. Tearful. Confusing. Miserable. One thing it had emphatically not been was rock'n'roll. Slade changed that forever." On the face of it, this is not considered professional critical opinion, but hyperbole. However you take it, it does not support the assertions currently expressed in our article.

Elvis's "Santa Claus Is Back In Town" (1957), written by Lieber and Stoller, isn't rock'n'roll? A Christmas Gift for You from Phil Spector (1963) isn't rock'n'roll? The Beach Boys' Christmas Album (1964), with five originals, isn't rock'n' roll? Elvis's amazing cover of "Merry Christmas Baby" (1971), an R&B (and thus nontraditional) standard, isn't rock'n'roll? As I said, the claim in the lead is wildly overstated; one could even say, simply false. I can certainly provide more authoritative sources providing evidence to contradict the claim, if necessary.

I'd say this whole claim should go. It is possible that another source might be found that would support a much more modest claim relative to Christmas music from British sources. DocKino (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very valid concern and I'll be honest, that when I was writing it I noted the conflicting statements, but assumed the writer had made errors. As somebody who knows little about the topic, I could only follow what the source said, which is perhaps not a good idea. The Guardian, as I mentioned above, is a generally reliable source, but having read this piece, it probably isn't in this case - or as you say, it might be for the UK only, but I've found no sources saying that. I've removed the statements. Majorly talk 11:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose Support - Seems concise and well-written.
  • Lead seems a little awkward.
  • I asked Majorly if the background section was comprehensive, he assured me it was. I have some hesitation though, so my support is on prose only.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceranthor (talk • contribs) 14:41, December 12, 2009


  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{FAC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Karanacs (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2009 (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 Karanacs 19:38, 16 December 2009 [29].

Battle of Bardia edit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... although it is very recent, I think that it is of high quality. The battle is a significant one which has received little attention until recently. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Excellent, although could you mention how hot and how cold it got in the Libyan Desert? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 09:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • All my sources are agreed on "bitterly cold". The 16th Infantry Brigade diarist provided a daily weather report but clearly had no access to a thermometer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical check No dablinks, no bad external links, images have alt text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • For maps, make sure that either the alt or the text describes what each map is trying to show (not merely their colors and appearance), and the movements that are taking place on them. See WP:ALT#Maps.
    • Done. I've never written an article where the map was so useful... added some more text to the alt. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Six Australian officers pose for a formal pictures." Should it be "formal picture"?
    • Done.
      • Changed check templates to "Done" to avoid template and image problems on the fac page; see "Supporting and opposing" above. --an odd name (help honey) 06:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--an odd name 10:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: 1c fine. 2c fine. Moved commentary to talk Fifelfoo (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think that this well written, well structured and well illustrated article easily meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
"assisted by air and naval gunfire" -> "assisted by air support..."
  • Done.
"This was compounded by qualitative problems with ammunition." Clumsy phrasing. That paragraph could do with a rebuild.
"But new factories were required to produce the latest equipment like 3 inch mortars, 25 pounders and motor vehicles, and War Cabinet approval was slow in coming." Please don't start start sentences with But... and take a look at that paragraph as well. For example, "The result was that when war came, the Army's equipment was largely of World War I vintage and obsolescent and its factories were capable only of producing small arms." is clumsy.
  • Done.
"As it moved into position around Bardia, the 6th Division was still experiencing shortages." I would like to see "As it moved into position around Bardia on [date],..."
  • Done
"This, the other teams heard and followed suit.[54]" should be "This, the other teams heard, and followed suit.[54]" The idiom may be hard for non-Commonwealth readers to follow, but I love that sentence.
  • Done.
Please fix typo in "The Italians defenders were cleared with grenades."
  • Done
Ditto " He sent a platoon around the flank to silent cut the wire on the western side,..."
  • Done
Ditto "Capturing the two posts cost one Australian was killed and seven wounded."
  • Done
And "The others had been hit by shells, imobilised by mines, or had simply broken down.[80]"
  • Done.
"...and the intended two company attack had to [be] carried out by just one"
  • Done
"Within the 6th Division, there was were recriminations over what was seen as favouritism by Berryman towards Robertson,". What is the relevance of ", and the 19th Infantry Brigade," in that sentence? Difficult to fathom, please rewrite.
  • Done
"In many ways the 6th Division was fortunate to have drawn the a "set piece" type of battle that most suited its Great War based doctrine and training" This paragraph appears internally inconsistent. They were lucky, or they weren't.
  • Done
Best concluding sentence of a battle article I have read on WP.
Overall:
Great maps. It may make even better use of that resource to cut out sections of "Bardia map.jpg" to highlight aspects of the description close to the relevant text.
Meets 1a, 1d, 3 and 4. Good job. Dhatfield (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found it rather odd that the lead does not mention what year this event took place. Also, it doesn't mention that Bardia is in Libya (not common knowledge I suspect). Further, only by using deductive reasoning would I be able to figure out that the battle only lasted three days. Now it is true that all of this information is in the infobox, and I'm not familiar with the format of MilHist articles, but shouldn't basic stuff like this be in the first few sentences of the lead? Sasata (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The lead should stand by itself, without recourse to the Infobox, the article or the links. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:Image issues resolved

  • As I understand the tagging, for File:Bardia map.jpg to be in the public domain, Hugh Groser would have to have died before 1955. Do we have any indication that that is the case?
    • No, it is in the public domain because it was a work commissioned by the Australian government before 1955. I've switched the copyright notice to {{PD-AustraliaGov}}. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, it wasn't hitherto clear that it was a government work. Very good.
  • File:Matilda Compass.jpg and File:CompassPrisoners.jpg are indicated as being both under crown copyright and in the public domain; these characterizations are mutually exclusive.
    • I've moved the copyright notice into the permissions, as per the Australian pictures. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Australian War Memorial images are all tagged as having been taken in Australia, when they obviously were not. They all still appear to be subject to Australian copyright law, and therefore in the public domain in Australia (and in the US, by virtue of having been in the public domain in Australia by the date of restoration), but they really shouldn't be tagged as having been taken in Australia, because it looks silly. Steve Smith (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct. It probably should say "...or by an Australian" But it is the template. A discussion and consensus is required to change it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Huh. Somebody less lazy than I am should initiate that discussion (though a preferable wording would be "first published in Australia or, for unpublished works, created by an Australian). In any event, I'm not going to hold up an FAC here on the basis of a poor choice of words on a Commons template. Steve Smith (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I read this article twice and both times I became a bit confused about what was precisely occuring and slightly bogged down. I think there are three reasons for this:

  • 1) At times, the article becomes overly detailed, obscuring the general plan of the battle. For example, in the "Planning and preparation" section, it was hard to understand why so much detail was given on the types of guns which were used in the battle. Either the details need to be better placed in context or some of them need to be deleted.
    • The former is required. The point is that the usual rule of thumb for winning a battle is to show up with a bigger army. Bergonzoli did that and lost. So an explanation is required. Without the technical details, that could become "Australians are better fighters than Italians." Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said, you either need to place the details in a context that explains why they are relevant or you need to delete them. It sounds like you are leaning towards the first solution. Awadewit (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2) Because the article is so concentrated on the details, I started to lose the thread of the battle and sometimes even forgot which side was which. I think the article needs to take a wider view of the battle more often to remind readers of what is going on. Here are two places where I was lost:
  • The 2/3rd Infantry Battalion were now assailed by half a dozen M13/40 tanks who freed a group of 500 prisoners. - I was confused at this point - which prisoners were these?
    • It's not clear where they were captured; the men guarding them may not have known. Prisoners tended to be passed from unit to unit. They just appear in the reports as "500 Italian prisoners". Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, Italian - that's what I was confused about. As I said above, the sides became somewhat confused as the labels disappeared. Awadewit (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major H. Wrigley's 2/5th Infantry Battalion of Brigadier Stanley Savige's 17th Infantry Brigade, reinforced by two companies of Lieutenant Colonel T. G. Walker's 2/7th Infantry Battalion, now took over the advance. - I was no longer sure which Battalions were on which side and was guessing by name ("that sounds British").
    • Clicking on the link would have brought up a nice article on Savige. He is a really interesting guy, quite revered in the Assyrian community. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure the article is lovely, but basic information such as which side combatants are on should not become unclear in a battle article. Awadewit (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3) I didn't really get a good sense of the overarching idea of the battle - it just seemed like a lot of little post battles. Reminding the reader of the goals of the battle, starting with an overview and returning to it, would help.
  • Prose issues:
  • This portion of the Libyan Desert is stony rather than sandy, and arid, supporting little vegetation - What is "this portion"? As this sentence is at the beginning of a section, it should be made clear what "this" is referring back to.
  • The dearth of population meant that bombs and shells could be used with minimal risk of civilian casualties. - Awkward phrasing - "the dearth of population"
  • However, the trenches had no fire steps and the weapons pits lacked overhead cover - Should "weapons" have an apostrophe? Seems like it to me.
    • No, it is correct. Weapons is an adjective here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 6th Division's training in Palestine, while "vigorous and realistic", was therefore hampered by shortages of equipment until they could be made good from British sources - "made good" doesn't sound quite right
  • The defences here were weaker than in the Mereiga sector; the ground was favourable for employment of the Matilda tanks; good observation for the artillery was possible; an attack here could split the fortress in two; and it was hoped that attacking at the junction of two sectors would confuse the defence. - Sentence is a bit long
  • By 0920 all companies were on their objectives - How about "had succeeded in achieving their objectives"?
    • I think the former is more succinct. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • The final "paragraph" of the lead isn't actually a paragraph; by definition you need at least three sentences. Doesn't appear to be an issue anywhere else in the article.
      • I've added another couple of sentences. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I share some of Awadewit's concerns on details. Compared to most MilHist articles I've read, this one is quite comprehendible even if you aren't a war buff, it just suffers from occasional excessive details. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on refs
  • All OK except minor quibbles, as follows:
  • Could use named refs for: Long 1952, p. 155; Playfair 1954, p. 283; Playfair 1954, p. 287.
    • Done. Do you have a script that checks these? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • AWB catches them occasionally but not always; it's a very good idea to run AWB over a nom before nomming it. No, after using AWB, I just copy/paste the whole mess to a text file (to rmv formatting) and from there to MSWord, then I put them into a table and sort the table. A bit time-consuming, but usually works. • Ling.Nut 02:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In refs but not notes: Sadkovich
• Ling.Nut 09:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • "Perhaps most satisfying of all" Satifying to whom? Wikipedia? Please rmv.
  • "staffs"? Is "staff" countable in BritEng?
  • "conference at 1030, but with ten minutes to go". At or for 1030 (different meanings)? Ten minutes to go means it was 1020?
    • Re-worded: " Wrigley called a final coordinating conference for 10:30, but at 10:20 he was wounded by a bullet" Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is a Q war." Huh? What does that mean?

• Ling.Nut 08:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per 1a and 1b. The over-long section on this battle in the Operation Compass article seems to bring the info together in a more pellucid (love that word) manner. I just skimmed over it a bit; it even seems to have facts that the main article doesn't (e.g., "The Italians put in a last-ditch heavy regimental-sized counterattack in the southern sector"). The two accounts need to be carefully reconciled. The clarity of the Operation Compass section should be duplicated herein (love that word too). No major facts should be omitted in this article. Moreover, the subsection of Operation Compass should probably be greatly reduced, IMO. • Ling.Nut 11:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that section of the Operation Compass article contains a number of errors. Originally I was trying to fix it by footnoting it but then decided in view of its overly-large size to create a separate article on the Battle of Bardia and then to reduce the section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have reduced the Bardia section of that article, but I am not going to overhaul it. This is the article under review, not Operation Compass. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that the other article is under review; it's that that one is easier to understand. Moreover, it contained info not in this one. If that other info is simply wrong, then (and I hope this doesn't sound like I'm speaking in a sharp tone or ordering you around; I'm making a philosophical observation) you certainly should remove it at some time or other – to help prevent Wikipedia from disseminating false info... back to the discussion at hand, however: I think the problem with this article is that it has a number of unstated conclusions or assumptions. As Awadewit said, there are many facts, and few passages to guide the reader into an understanding of the larger picture. For example, ""Germans cannot possibly keep out of Africa now." Is that supposed to be good or bad, from the Allies POV? Did the Allies want German forces in Africa, perhaps to force the latter to open up multiple fronts and expend their resources? And: "In turn this would lead to German intervention in the fighting in North Africa, changing the nature of the war in that theatre." "Changing the nature of the war" seems to be an overly vague understatement. And: "Hardy Wild-Eyed Aussies Called World's Finest Troops" You yourself made the point that the Aussies were outnumbered but still prevailed... but... I must have missed the part where this point was made clear in the article... and what else contributed to the Italian defeat: how much was due to their crappy equipment, or their untrained troops, or low morale and poor health, or tactical errors (if any)? What were the deciding factors? Aside from simply fighting well, did the Aussies make any particularly effective tactical moves, or particularly wise decisions? All or at least most of this should be in the article and should be summarized in the WP:LEDE. I sorta think you should take command of all this info (pun intended) and marshal it into a shape/system that guides the reader into understanding the big issues. • Ling.Nut 05:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: very well done in my opinion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{FAC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. 19:41, 16 December 2009 (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 Karanacs 20:11, 15 December 2009 [30].

Bigipedia edit

Nominator(s): ISD (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that this article is of a high enough quality, despite the length. Also, I want this article to be the featured article for April Fool's Day. Over the past few years all of the featured article on April Fool's have been American subject, so I think something from Britain would make a good change. Also, as it is a Wikipedia related subject, I think it will be of interest. It is currently a GA and it has already undergone a PR. ISD (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No dab links or dead external links - I.M.S. (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article strikes me as a bit short (although there are shorter FAs around). Therefore, would it meet criterion 1b : It is comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context? Anyhow, the alt text on the Bigipedia logo might need a little expansion - mention the ears and the eyes that differentiate it from the actual Wikipedia logo. Also, the "episodes" section needs a little bit of cleanup, perhaps some refs. "Product" section consists of one sentence - perhaps you should combine that with the main body of the article. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Comment: I've sorted out the "Product" section and image alt text. Concerning the episodes is there anything that needs cleaning in particular? What sort of references do you need? ISD (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - very sorry. Yes, there are shorter FAs but they are comprehensive. It seems to me that there is much missing from this short article. Based on only eight sources, the article tells the reader little about the writers, producer, actors and there characters. Linking alone is not enough for a featured article. The production section, which is really about development needs expanding. Having read this, I am left with all sorts of questions such as what else has Pozzitive Productions done, do we know how much the BBC paid them, are the actors famous for anything else, what was the date of Doody's first meeting, who is Doody? Links can be helpful, but I suspect many readers will click but not return. I do not like opposing FA candidates, but standards have to be keep up and this article is not ready to be featured yet. Graham Colm Talk 16:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In no way does this post imply a "support" or "oppose" - I'm afraid I second some of the opinions GrahamColm expressed above. Try expanding it as much as you can, take it through a peer review, then come back here and re-nominate it if you feel it's ready, posting all the changes made. It's a nice article, but definitely needs some expansion to meet criterion 1b. Very sorry - I.M.S. (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Comment: I've already put it through a peer review - did you not read what I wrote at the beginning? ISD (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - what I was suggesting is taking it through another after you've expanded it. If you feel that will take too long, and you are a competent copyeditor, then take it back here in a few weeks (if this nomination is unsuccesful). It's not over yet, however - you've still got a while to work on it. - I.M.S. (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see. Anyway, to return the current nomination, what sort of references would suit the "episodes" section and what bits need to be cleaned up? ISD (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some of my questions and responses to your questions:
  • At the very least you could use the episode itself as a reference for the "Episodes" sections. Although plot summaries do not always require references (see some Movie FAs), it would be good to at least back up the claims made.
  • I think phrases like "There is love in the air" should be avoided, as a summary exists, well, to summarize and not to sell a product.
  • The line "online dating service Bigiromance (which does not exist)" - does this refer to it being non-existent within the Bigipedia universe, or within real life?
-- I.M.S. (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've carried out some improves to the section. Sorry for using the British Comedy Guide as a source again, but I cannot find another similarly accurate source. ISD (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reading through the comments above, I find myself in agreement with User:GrahamColm. I wish that I had made my yearning for more detail more explicit in my rather thin peer review of this article. I hinted at this yearning in my general comments about audience reactions, listener statistics, and possible inclusion of a sound file. Reading the revised version, I still find myself wondering whether this series is the end of Bigipedia or whether the BBC is planning a second series. My suggestion is to withdraw the article from FAC, to flesh it out with anything relevant you can find, and to return to FAC when you've taken the article as far as you can. Nothing would be lost by doing this, and you have plenty of time before April Fool's Day. I'd be glad to do another peer review of a more complete article later. Finetooth (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comment: Considering that the BBC Comedy links to the British Comedy Guide, I would consider that proof that it is reliable. Also, it is closely monitored by a select group of editiors. I am not sure about Audible, so I've swapped to the BCG as a source. I've corrected ref 4. I cannot seem to find audience reactions or listener statistics. Concerning sound files, the production company Pozzitive has posted a collection of clips on YouTube, but whether Wikipedia can use them I am not sure, and even then I don't really know how to make sound files. Concerning whether or not there is a second series in the making, I could always ask the producer/director David Tyler on his Twitter account, but I don't know if Twitter is a reliable source. I could however always give the BCG the source and then they could use it. ISD (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. The best method is a mix of all of the above. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Merely showing that some other site links to them, doesn't show reliablity. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked David Tyler about a second series. He wrote on Twitter that: "Ahahah, don't know yet; will find out in early January, or MonthOne according to new BigiCalendar". ISD (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenative support: It short, very short...but I like it (ooch, horrible reason ain't it?), and it's properly referenced; if Eaglyth's comments are resolved, I'm ready to support. (btw, if you can talk to him through Twitter, why not use it to see if you can't get more info/reliability statements from him)? ResMar 00:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: One image: File:Bigipedia.jpg: TV program logo (fair use/logo), used as main infobox image. Good usage, good rationale.—DCGeist (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2009 (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 Karanacs 20:11, 15 December 2009 [31].

Cleomenean War edit

Nominator(s): Kyriakos (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the Featured article criteria. I created the article in 2007 and since then it has passed a GAC become an A-Class article on WikiProject Military History. Kyriakos (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. 1b/c: Inappropriate use of PRIMARY sources to demonstrate points, this amounts to OR in a historical field. Inappropriate use of Tertiary sources (no specialist authors indicated). Inappropriate use of sources out of date (Classics has moved on since 1873/1875). Lack of expected specialist secondary works, including media formats where expected articles would exist (book chapters, journal articles) which puts a massive independent doubt in my mind that 1c has been met. Some 2c fiddle about correctly citing chapters contained in other works, missing locations, volume number of a work in the title. Niebuhr's lectures miscited, and they're 1875. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Unfortunately, as is the case with the more obscure conflicts of the Hellenistic era, secondary sources are hard to find leading to a reliance on primary sources as is the case with this article, with has a reliance on Plutarch. The lack of specialist comtempary sources had caused me problems throughout the creation of this article and I have tried to use as many secondary sources as possible (such as Peter Green, who is a prominent historian on the era). I will try and find more secondary sources but as I have stated above, there are very few on this topic and thus I don't think I will find many. Kyriakos (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are modern sources.
  • N. Hammond, A history of Macedonia/volume 3 (Oxford 1988) p.349-362 (contains footnotes to other sources)
  • Hölbl, Günther. 2001. A History of the Ptolemaic Empire. Translated by Tina Saavedra. London: Routledge Ltd.
  • [German] G. Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches (Darmstadt 1994) p. 50-53 (contains footnotes to other sources in English, German and Dutch, look above, the book has been translated) Wandalstouring (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. ONce again Wandals thank you very much. You always seem to find great sourcres. Kyriakos (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will be more than happy to review again if you can appropriately incorporate these sources to demonstrate a majority of points. (Occasional stuff verified out of primary in a difficult, small, area of study is tolerable, but working these through an Oxford history in volumes, and an explicit history published by Routledge would be best). Fifelfoo (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. I've fixed all the dabs. Kyriakos (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

I read through the article and overall it looks good; specific issues I had are noted below. I'm not sure about the article's accessibility and background and will come back later to have another look at that.

  • Images are all missing alt text.
    • Alt text is present for most (though not all) now, but I'm afraid it's not yet sufficient. As you can see at WP:ALT, alt text"summarizes the image's appearance, not its meaning, and typically has little in common with the image's caption." How would you describe the image itself when you would describe it to someone over the phone? In particular, the alt text should generally not repeat the caption. Ucucha 12:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've redone most of the alt texts. Kyriakos (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks pretty good, but someone more experienced with alt text may be should confirm that it's sufficient. Ucucha 00:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map in the infobox contains unreadable text. I think you should change it to a map that clearly indicates the parties of the war.
Lead
  • Please tell us who Aratus is before mentioning what he was doing.
  • "failed revolt" - what failed revolt? Against Ptolemy, the new rulers of Sparta?
Prelude
  • "the translator of Plutarch on Sparta, Richard Talbert and historian N. G. L. Hammond, says Cleomenes took them at their own request." - somewhat vague. Did they both translate Plutarch or is only Talbert a translator?
  • Somewhat odd that you refer to the Achaean League as "she". Is this usual?
No it is no usual. It must have been a typo but I could not find this reference in the article. Kyriakos (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Early years and success
  • Whose success?
It was the Spartan success and I have changed the title iof the section. Kyriakos (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, map has unreadable text.
  • "Initially, Cleomenes made only minor requests of the Achaean delegates; the Achaeans continued to send ambassadors, however, and Cleomenes eventually demanded that leadership of the League be surrendered to him; in exchange, he would return to the Achaeans the prisoners and strongholds he had seized." - this goes on a little too long, please split the sentence. Also, the part about the ambassadors makes little sense to me.
    • It's better now. However, it still seems to be saying (or, at the very least, implying) that Cleomenes made more demands because the Achaeans send more ambassadors, which makes little sense to me.
Domination of the Peloponnese
  • "When he heard what had happened at Corinth, Aratus expected the city to fall to Sparta." - do you mean "When he heard what had happened at Argos, Aratus expected Corinth to (also) fall to Sparta."?
Macedonian intervention
  • Now that is a good map. The other maps should be like this in legibility.
  • League of Leagues - why did the Thessalians acquiesce to this when they had opposed Antigonus a short time before?
    It was the Aetolian Leahue that had occupied some parts of Thessaly that opposed Antigonus.
    Fair enough then. Ucucha 12:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 02:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. By unreadable text do you mean the writing is too small? Kyriakos (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do. Another point: only the reviewer is supposed to strike comments. Ucucha 12:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SOrry about that. I have removed the strikes. I'll try find some more maps, I but I'm not sure if I'll be able to. Kyriakos (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I kept the strikes I was satisfied with. I may be able to help with the maps, but can't guarantee. If not, there are other possibilies: User:MapMaster may be kind enough to help, if he's around, and there is some other place where you can request maps. Ucucha 23:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone over all the points now except for the maps. Kyriakos (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few more left. As for the map, I would prefer the first one to show clearly the parties in the war and the essential places where battles occurred during the war. The first map has a lot of information that is not necessary to this article and the scale is such that it's impossible to see where Sparta actually is, which is one of the essential pieces of information it should give. Ucucha 00:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted MapMaster as you suggested and I am going to have a simpler map generated of the combantants, battle locations and cities. Kyriakos (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good. I'm confident he'll do a good job, so I'm striking my map comments. Could you have a look at the two (very small) remaining issues I raised? Ucucha 23:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is mostly present (thanks), but it's missing for File:Lechaeum.png. The alt text for File:Macedonia and the Aegean World c.200.png conveys mostly useless info (such as colors): it should give the gist of the image, such as the way that Macedonia covers the northern half of Greece; see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance. The phrases "The diagram depicts", "shows", and "A drawing" should be reworded and/or removed, as per WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid. Please check the punctuation; there's a missing period after "drapery" and an extra comma after "shows". Eubulides (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some work on the alts. Hopefully they are better now. Kyriakos (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2009 (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 Karanacs 20:11, 15 December 2009 [32].

China at the Olympics edit

Nominator(s): Sophie2895 (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the criteria. I am aware it is shorter than most FAs, but I have literally squeezed every source I could find on the topic to get more information about it as I could. I don't believe it omits any important information, in this respect, and covers the topic fully. Otherwise, I think it's fine. Thanks Sophie2895 (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Fails to cover the topic adequately and looks more like a list. Probably need to have a summary of each olympics or each decade. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 20:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – In its present format, this is much more of a list than an article. A better place for this to be nominated is at featured list candidates, which deals with pages like this. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This has the potential to be developed into a featured list, but its content needs to be referenced and expanded first. The article's sole focus on China's successes at the Olympics is also troublesome from a NPOV perspective. Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I also don't think this is FA quality, but this should not be made into a list. If it is, it should probably be renamed. A better idea is to expand and reformat the article so that it covers various aspects of China's Olympic exploits (history, summary of the country's participation in each sport, etc.). An example of this would be Australia at the Winter Olympics. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdrawal and peer review per above—does not look comprehensive.

Put it through peer review and nominate for Good Article first, and exhaust all sources on the subject. China is rich in history, and I'm not sure their Olympic involvement differs. --an odd name 12:29, 12 December 2009 (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 Karanacs 20:11, 15 December 2009 [35].

Death Has a Shadow edit

Nominator(s): Pedro J. the rookie 15:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because...I think this artical is ready for FA as it is sourced and well written Pedro J. the rookie 15:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Just glancing at it...

  • Most of background/production is more relevant to the series than this episode (and is already present on the main article), so should be trimmed down or removed.
  • Reception section is rather short, and the reviews are rather vague.
  • Article needs thorough copy-edit. Ωphois 00:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Per above. Article needs a complete copyedit, plus it needs to be refocused to target more so on the episode then the series by clipping down some of background. I'd suggest withdrawing this nom, getting the article copyedited, peer reviewed, then renominate it. Cheers, The Flash {talk} 00:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry Pedro, I don't like to pile it on but the prose is poor. Here are some examples to show why another thorough copyedit is needed.

  • Here the meaning is not clear, " In the episode, Peter loses his job after drinking too much at a stag party and falls asleep at work." The sentence does not have a logical flow something like "In the epidode, Peter gets drunk at a stag party and he is fired from his job when he falls asleep at work (? the following day)."
  • There is a similar problem here, "He then signs on to welfare to keep his wife Lois from finding out, but gets much more than he expected." I think it means "He signs on for welfare to prevent his wife Lois from knowing, but he gets much more money than he expected".
  • Here " Eventually, Lois finds out however, and Peter decides to dump the money from a blimp, at the Super Bowl" what purpose does "however" serve? And again the logic is poor. Why should Lois's discovery of the truth make Peter want to dump the money?
  • Here "He is then arrested, and must await his family's rescue." Why was he arrested and why must he wait to be rescued?
  • Should "featured" be "featuring" here: "During this time, he created his thesis film entitled The Life of Larry, featured a middle-aged slob named Larry Cummings, his cynical talking dog, Steve, supportive wife Lois, and pudgy teenage son Milt." Or you could say "which featured" but don't forget the preceding comma.
  • There is a word missing here, "This caught the attention of Fox, and gave MacFarlane $50,000 to make a pilot."

These concerns are all from the Lead alone, there are many problems throughout the article. I think the nomination should be withdrawn, it's far from ready to be featured. Graham Colm Talk 17:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since this is the first episode of Family Guy, I think some background is important. I worked on Cartman Gets an Anal Probe, which is the first episode of South Park and included quite a bit of background information. The point is to show how the background material is relevant to the episode itself. Just some helpful advice. :) Awadewit (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 00:06, 14 December 2009 [36].

Dan Povenmire edit

Nominator(s): The Flash {talk} 00:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


After a copyedit and a GA review, I believe this article successfully complies with FAC criteria. It is well written, contains references to reliable sources, and follows all style/image guidelines. Now, something bound to come up is the sources. Here's what I've got to defend them:

Thanks in advance, The Flash {talk} 00:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, previous nom. Citations are not consistent or correct (inconsistent date formats and incorrect use of italics), and it's not clear to me that sourcing concerns have been addressed. Images and alt text reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline: 1c/2c. I've walked through all the bloody citations. They are now what they claim to be. Two of them don't meet WP:RS/N, which I've noted. I'm 1c on that basis. Also a dead link needs removing. Resolved at Talk. Some other sources aren't HQRS, even if they're RS... but I don't know if HQRS have been exhausted for this. To other editors, the citations now accurately represent the sources used, good luck determining if they meet 1b/c. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC) citation style is consistent. 23:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The archive for Bond, Paul. (2009-06-07). "Q&A: Dan Povenmire". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2009-07-31. is down. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archive fixed. Also, please just mention supposed unreliable sources here at the FAC in stead of just tagging it as unreliable in the page, like you did with the Toon Zone ref. It's totally reliable and has been cited in several books. Same thing with the Hop Studios thing, just put it here so we can discuss it in stead of tagging, it makes it much easier and doesn't make the page look bad as it does now. The Flash {talk} 05:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scratch the first bit (wrong archive). It's not messed up, the website just requires log-in to read it. The Flash {talk} 05:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Auntieruth55 comments and SUPPORT (see below) Auntieruth55 (talk) 17
24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • There are several good things about this article. This is comprehensive, and reasonably well written, not brilliant, but sturdy (1a, 1b). It is neutral (1d), and seemingly stable (1e) (given the number of people telling him to change this and that, it's stable). The structure is good, lead is sufficiently "summary" style, and individual sections cover what they purport to cover (2a, 2b). The info on "personal life could probably be integrated into the rest of the material, since it is so short, but based on WP:BLPNAME, which is the Biography projects' policy on including names/info of minors and spouses, this is reasonable. Images seem to be okay now, but that is not my bailiwick, and I'm not assessing those; it is sufficient for me to see a few images, and they are distributed to break up the text, and offer me an image to illustrate some point or other. Although I would prefer an image of Phineas, for example, I suspect that falls outside "fair use." The length is good, focused on the subject, no discursiveness (crit. 4).
  • The remaining problems seem to be with reliability of the sources and citation styles (1c and 2c), which is a contention. It seems to me that the sources are reliable within the realm of current popular culture, and it is perhaps unreasonable to expect a great deal of scholarly discussion of Sponge Bob Square Pants and Phineas and Ferb. One hundred years from now, possibly. But in 2009? Not so much. I've looked at the sources Flash has used. As a scholar and historian I'm not happy with them, but as a reasonable and practical person I must admit they are not only what is available, they seem to be the best of what is available. Is it reasonable to continue demanding specific kinds of sources that are not available for this topic? Flash isn't writing about Milton or Rembrandt, for whom millions of trees have been destroyed, and gallons of ink expended. So in fairness to Flash, I have to say he's met reliability requirements. He did not cite gossip columns, and in most cases, he has two or three citations for the same assertion. Although I find this particular cite style extremely difficult to follow (a b c d etc.) this is not an actionable objection, just a personal preference; others find my cites equally objectionable. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks you; I too believe all the sources I'm using fall as RS through some standard. Thanks for the support! :) The Flash {talk} 18:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Specific examples that have raised issues: The website Al.com. This website appears to contain news articles from the Mobile Press Register. It is their online presence, instead of using the newspaper name itself, which is where one goes to advertise, apply for a job, or subscribe. So this is a choice that the newspaper made on how to present its material. It is also an interactive website (hence the word "blog" I suppose). The latest trend! That is some 12-13 citations from an article on the subject. I've read the article from the paper and it is accurately presented in the wiki article. Animation World magazine, while not a scholarly journal, nor a juried one, is still a central source for information about animation. Again, see my comments above re the amount of literature available on this subject. Four different articles are cited from that. Okay, so these are not deep, intellectual stuff. But again, the material is well represented in the wiki article. The newspaper articles look fine. I've never been overly impressed with the Bergen Record, but they are reliable if not particularly inspired, and it was an interesting article. I have not got a clue what Badmouth is about, but the information in the wikiarticle does describe what is on the badmouth site (and cite). The last one is the Daily Trojan "Where are they now" list. I read what was on there, and it looks like a class notes type of thing, ex officio. The material Flash has cited is predominantly the personal information stuff--his house has a view of Mt Wilson (or ?), he married Vanessa,and his last DVD was released online. Most of this is "flavor" for the article, gives a sense of the character of the LP, but of little substance, just rounds him out. There is also a cartoon character on the site that is in the style Povenmire draws, so its quite possible that he sent the info in himself. AND wrote "over the hill" on his character's drum. Someone has a twisted sense of humor, and i like it.:) Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, Auntieruth. I believe that is what Sandy was looking for. :) The Flash {talk} 01:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - I supported last time, I don't have the time right now but was asked to comment. As I'm writing an essay at the moment, I'll have to get back to this some other time. ceranthor 02:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • What makes the following reliable:

** http://blog.al.com/entertainment-press-register/2008/05/disney_animator_sees_summers_i.html the fact that it's a news site for alabama related news is not enough to show reliablitiy

    • Once again, same as last time, look here [37] where news sources cite it for information. The Flash {talk} 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Was this article run in the Mobile The Mobile Press-Register? Perhaps you might check there. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      According to this they're owned by the same people and are sister sites. The Press Register site has an awkward navigational system, I couldn't search for it, but as the website is near the same as Press-Register, I think it makes it a reliable source (related to/heavily affiliated with and owned alongside a published work?) The Flash {talk} 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      This can then be left for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm okay with al.com and mobile press-register sites for an article like this and for the kind of material Flash cites from it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know Flash, but I just struck it. It uses the same material that goes on the Mobile Press Reg website, just reformatted for "only" Alabama news. So it seems to me that it is a legitimate source, as good as the newspaper. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.classmates.com/directory/public/memberprofile/list.htm?regId=8691491442 You need to show that Classmates.com does fact checking on the entries.
      It's Classmates.com, look at this source for all the news sources that cite it for information. I don't see how you expect me — or anyone — to know how anything does it research. Does anybody but The New York Times know how they get info? They did researched, they sourced, etc., but there's no source for almost anything to explain how anything finds it's info. The Flash {talk} 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      the first result there is talking about Classmates.com, same with the second. Third, fifth, sixth also. Seventh has a news results that says "In addition to his criminal record in Utica, Facebook and Classmates.com pages indicate that...." not exactly a uniequivical endorsement. Eighth, ninth and tenth results again are about classmates.com, not citing it. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      A lot of the sources refer to its high profit margin, among several other websites. This stands for something itself right? The Flash {talk} 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      No, not really. Sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      No problem. Removed the source; it was only used to support a very brief, non-important thing, didn't really defend it that strongly. The Flash {talk} 00:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.hopstudios.com/dtlink/listP.html Again, you need to show that it's not just affiliated with, but that it actually fact checks.
      It is created by a former Daily Trojan editor and alumni of USC himself, who is also a web designer and teacher. see here. I'm apretty sure he gathered this info through personal interviews/e-mails. I hope that covers it because, this is the only source for several bits of key personal info in his life that would probably make people oppose this article for lack of info on key topics like his personal life. :) The Flash {talk} 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      So essentially it's self-published? Look, I'm not trying to be mean to you, but it's a requirement here that sources for BLPs satisfy WP:RS, and this one is definitely iffy. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I know you're not trying to be mean, lol. I'm pretty positive it is self-published, yes. The Flash {talk} 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Upon further research, I can safely say this constitutes as an RS. It is written, maintained, and edited by a longtime editor and writer for both Variety magazine's website and the Los Angeles Times. Ealdgyth, if you can get back to me on this, it'd be appreciated. The Flash {talk} 18:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      He also actually teaches online courses at USC itself. You can read it all on the website. The Flash {talk} 18:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.

Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personal life section is two lines. Could it be expanded, or merged elsewhere? It seems a bit short on its own. Majorly talk 18:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other info that was there can be seen here, but it was removed after a suggestion from the copyeditor showed how they really didn't meet WP:NOTABLE. I could add them back if you like. The only other thing I can do is merge it with early life, renaming the section "Personal life." Which one works for you? The Flash {talk} 21:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge it in with early life and rename is the best idea. It's just two short to stand on its own. Majorly talk 13:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No more issues from me. Majorly talk 23:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please do not add them back. They do not meet notability requirements in and of themselves, and the bio project's policy on this is very clear. See WP:BLPNAME. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Last time i edited this artical i said something and iam saying it again Supporrt --Pedro J. the rookie 18:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, involved reviewers should indicate so in their declarations; Pedro J. passed the GA on this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a note for the reviewer to go back and add it into their support or just for future reference? The Flash {talk} 20:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Supporters need to specifically and explicitly discuss the text cited to the questioned sources above, and explain why they think the sources are reliable for that text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I can see, supporters who mention the sources and source it give their reasons specifically why they think it works. See Auntieruth's comments/supports above. The Flash {talk} 16:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No more issues from me. Majorly talk 23:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This a BLP and reliability of sources and how they are used to support statements in the text is paramount. I think this candidature was premature, and were it not for the efforts of Ealdgyth and Fifelfoo, it would have been quickly archived. That the nominator needed to defend the sources used in the nomination from the outset, immediately raised my doubts. One of Ealdgyth's concerns remains, and I agree with her on this. I have spent an hour looking at the sources and I am left with impression that the FA standards have not been met. Graham Colm Talk 18:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Flash, while I don't think the Hop studio cite is problematic -- the data appears to be entered by alumni about themselves -- generally, these sources are problematic. I suggest you take out the bits from Hop. They are about the man's personal life, which is not related to his notability, and I've always been uncomfortable including data on his private life. You can still include the info on his daughter sharing her name to a Phineas and Ferb character without having to cite Hop, because it's from somewhere else. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked Sandy to archive this nom, as several comments have been brought up and lead me to believe that this truly was premature. Thanks for the comments everyone. The Flash {talk} 23:00, 13 December 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 17:09, 13 December 2009 [38].

Family Guy edit

Nominator(s): Pedro J. the rookie 18:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because...i think it is ready for an FA status it has been through two Peer Reviews after it got to GA and i have expandedit and copyeitit so i think it's up for it. Pedro J. the rookie 18:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"Music" and "Road to" sections need sourcing that they are "hallmarks". Ωphois 18:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted that earlier, hallmark AFAIK it means some aspect that reapets itself in a way along the show i think the musical numbers and the road to episodes count .--Pedro J. the rookie 22:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's only five episodes. Needs sourcing. Ωphois 23:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explain that way i may agree--Pedro J. the rookie 23:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's only five episodes out of the entire series. Not really notable, unless noted by a third-party source. Ωphois 23:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a refrence that calls it a Road to episodes of the IGN.--Pedro J. the rookie 23:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would probably work. Can you list it here? Ωphois 23:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a review of one of the episdodes he called it one of the road to series.[ http://tv.ign.com/articles/996/996824p1.html]
done--Pedro J. the rookie 01:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Cultural influences" section doesn't appear to have any cultural influences. It just talks about how Family Guy influenced spin-off series of MacFarlane (which exist for any series' spin-off). Same with "Music and idioms". It's basically a list of parodies. Ωphois 19:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It dose, it influenced on American Dad, the cleveland show, the winner, and it has influenced music and idoms.--Pedro J. the rookie 22:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which are all related to Family Guy. No influences outside of MacFarlane's shows are listed. Fans looking up the meaning of an invented word does not infuence popular culture. The music is just songs parodied by the show, not the other way around. Ωphois 23:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may agree with the songs but the word is an influecen and even if it is MacFarlanes job he used them to influence them.--Pedro J. the rookie 23:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what cultural influence did the word have? Ωphois 23:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well i took it from an example of the simpsons.--Pedro J. the rookie 23:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a vast difference between that word and D'oh!. Ωphois 00:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah alright i fish freaking sweet would become the douh of Fg--Pedro J. the rookie 00:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Characters and Voice Cast sections should probably be combined. Ωphois 19:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That those not seem right i see many other FAs and have there characters section.--Pedro J. the rookie 22:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reception section is heavily biased in favor of the show. It only gives one negative critical review of the series, while an entire section is dedicated to praising it. Ωphois 19:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Going to have to disagree, as we had hard time finding good reception, there is plenty of negetive recepction.--Pedro J. the rookie 22:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is plenty of negative reception, then why didn't you add it? Right now it only lists one negative critical review. The rest is from other TV shows and cartoonists. Ωphois 23:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has criticisam, bad reviews what more can it have--Pedro J. the rookie 23:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it has one negative critical review. Ωphois 23:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
will see what i can find ohpios--Pedro J. the rookie 23:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done--Pedro J. the rookie 01:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Television critics have commented that the first season episodes where some of the best of the series, includeing "Brian: Portrait of a Dog" and "I Never Met the Dead Man"." - Spelling/grammar needs to be fixed. Also, it cites "television critics", but those two episodes are only listed by one critic.
"The IGN, a multimedia news and reviews website that focuses heavily on video games has called the show a hilarious experience brand of humor." - Needs copy-editing.
The page has also wrote lists of the show naming there best moments on different categories. - Not really relevant, IMO. It's a list of the show's best moments, not moments in comedy, so there is no comparison. Ωphois 19:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The Sydney Morning Herald named Family Guy the "Show of the Week" on April 21, 2009, calling it a "pop culture-heavy masterpiece"." - That is related to a specific episode, not the series in general. Ωphois 19:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things do not need to be source to be a hallmark it reapets itself maany times so it counts as a hallmark, and that is influceing--Pedro J. the rookie 19:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. That is an observation by you, not a RS. Ωphois 19:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

show me examples that do have sources of that--Pedro J. the rookie 19:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are making the claim that it's a hallmark. It's up to you to find sources. Ωphois 19:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Characters and voice cast are completely difrent things should not be toghether--Pedro J. the rookie 19:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TV articles generally have them combined. Ωphois 19:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

whats a hallmar for lets say the simpsons: the halloween episodes and humor, for FG the music, the cutaways and the Road to episodes, plus you work alot on Supernatural right thats difrent from anaimated sitcoms as we have difrent stlyes --Pedro J. the rookie 19:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a hallmark, then it will be noted as such in third-party sources. Ωphois 19:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you do not need to source things that are obious--Pedro J. the rookie 19:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not something "obvious". It's original research.
Another note... have all the reviewers from the previous review been notified that it is back up for nomination? Ωphois 19:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

working on that elimanated recep from IGN--Pedro J. the rookie 20:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, oppose. In addition to my previous comments, the prose needs work. I would suggest a copy-edit. Ωphois 01:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm afraid the article is not ready yet. Take the following sentence for example: "The show has also had showrunners as Mark Hentemann and Steve Callaghan," First of all, there should be a period at the end, not a comma. Secondly, I think there's a missing "such" in the sentence. Also, the dates in the article's references are formatted incorrectly. Some use "yyyy-mm-dd", while others use "Month day, year". Theleftorium 20:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comeing from you that means its bad--Pedro J. the rookie 20:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not bad. Just needs some more work, that's all. :) Theleftorium 20:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ya think it needs to be dis-nominated--Pedro J. the rookie 20:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If i mau ask what do you think about ohpios requests takeing in mind your an animated editor--Pedro J. the rookie 20:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the requests are you referring to? Theleftorium 20:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of them--Pedro J. the rookie 20:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They make sense to me. Theleftorium 20:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
realy all of them--Pedro J. the rookie 21:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
soon someone will copyeit the artical left--Pedro J. the rookie 23:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you want to continue with the nomination, you need to alert the reviewers of the previous nomination. Ωphois 10:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Took care of that--Pedro J. the rookie 12:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't. From what I can see, you just notified people associated with the Family Guy project and left out people who had previously opposed. Ωphois 14:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the previous FAC i notified most of them and looks like you did the ones that where left--Pedro J. the rookie 15:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Could you please check spelling as you type your replies here. Not that we're reviewing the nominator, but seeing so many typos here I can not trust the article.
Will do.--Pedro J. the rookie 12:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please click on the "external links" and "disambig links" in the toolbox on the top right of this page and fix the problems you'll find there, such as dead links and unclear redirects. Materialscientist (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
External(removed the dead links, disambig(done)--Pedro J. the rookie 12:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, reference 117 is dead. So I think you should replace it for find an archive of it. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Pedro J. the rookie 02:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro, if a link is dead, you don't have to automatically delete it. Check first if an archived version is available at the Wayback Machine. Ωphois 03:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • Unusually large number of spelling errors in the article (for a FAC). I fixed all that I saw, but this doesn't bode well... • Ling.Nut 06:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Depth and extent of 2c errors make the citations unverifiable in particular not naming the sources correctly and timing data, plus the citation of copyvios. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of timing data when citing videos. For example, "His main inspiration for Chris' voice came from envisioning how "Buffalo Bill" would sound if he were speaking through a public address system at a McDonald's.[39]" => "^ Green, Seth. (September 27, 2005). Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story: Audio Commentary. [DVD].". We could really do with timing data for that.
Copyvios have been cited
Cite correctly: "Plenty of Changes at Fox, UPN, Fox Tinkers With its Prime-Time Lineup on 6 Nights, UPN on 3". newsbank. Retrieved October 3, 2009. is from Akron Beacon Journal (OH) - May 17, 2002 - B7
Cite correctly: " "ARTS & TV in Brief; `Family Guy,' `SportsNight' may move to new networks". pqasb. Retrieved October 3, 2009." is Boston Herald - Boston, Mass. Date: Apr 25, 2000 Start Page: 052
Cite correctly: ""News Corp. Wins Suit Dismissal Over ‘Family Guy’ Song (Update1)". bloomberg." is by "By David Glovin and Erik Larson" and bloomberg takes a Capital B.
And I take it you read those three articles when conducting the research?
IGN is sometimes Italic sometimes Roman.
Inappropriate bold in: "The Cleveland–Loretta Quagmire". Family Guy. Fox. June 12, 2005. No. 3, season 20.
Additionally MOS on caps "TIME", titles incorrect "allmovie" for "AllMovie"
I'm not going to outline more of the errors, basic work like seeing if a weblink is infact a newspaper article has not been conducted, obvious errors in formatting abound: the citations do not allow for verification of the research, thus the research is unverified. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 18:59, 12 December 2009 [39].

The Kinks edit

Nominator(s): I.M.S., MadHatter


I am nominating this for featured article because I have substantially expanded the article over the past few weeks, slowly adding references and text. I have looked over the FA criteria, and it looks to me that this article meets them. I hope that whatever problems reviewers find here are small and fixable ones; please state your concern and I will attempt to address them as soon as possible. Many thanks for your time. - I.M.S. (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Primary contributor knows about nom, no dab links or dead external links, images all have good alt text, and date formats appear consistent. Moved my comments and related replies to this nom's talk page to save space—all are resolved. --an odd name 05:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support (1, 2 and 4 - cites and images not checked). Great work—a comprehensive article and an engaging read. A couple of minor points picked up on the last read through:
    • "The album contained only seven full seconds, the remainder being instrumentals" - not sure what this means; is there a missing word?
    • "In early 1986, the group signed with MCA Records in the United States and London Records in the UK.[2][3] Their first album for the new label, Think Visual," - that was two new labels by my reckoning. PL290 (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! That mistake with "seven seconds" was something I wasn't aware of - it must have been a mistake the copyeditor made. I'll fix these errors in a second... - I.M.S. (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Added an "s" to "label", and changed the sentence in the Percy section to:

    • The majority of the album consisted of instrumentals, and did not receive ...

--- I.M.S. (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC) I'm part-way through my first pass of the article, and my first impression is that it looks good. I've made a couple of minor edits, and I'm starting some comments here. [reply]

    • "Before signing to the label, drummer Willet left the band" - needs recasting or possibly combining with an earlier sentence since it was the band, not Willet, that signed to the label.
    • "They also performed and toured relentlessly, headlining package tours with the likes of The Yardbirds and Mickey Finn, which caused tension within the band." - please clarify whether the tension was caused by the relentless touring or the company of those latter acts.
    • "Some legendary on-stage fights erupted during this time as well. The most notorious incident was at The Capitol Theatre" - suggest "legendary" is not really encyclopedic here, and "most notorious" needs a cite or needs to go.
    • "Solo work" section - I don't think this really belongs in the band article. It's only a few paragraphs anyway; suggest removal.
    • General - per wp:Mos#Em_dashes, em dashes should not be spaced.
That's all for now... time permitting, I will continue to add comments as I read more. PL290 (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've addressed all the issues... thank you for taking the time to review it! - I.M.S. (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead needs further work. See WP:LEAD for guidance. Consider its structure, and the role of each paragraph. Currently the last paragraph simply takes up the history again and drifts to something of an anticlimax. An effective and commonly used approach is to keep the history summary to the middle paragraph and devote the final paragraph to the material about awards and recognition. Also the lead seems unable to make its mind up whether the band is a thing of the present or the past. The infobox assures us they remain active, but although "The Kinks are an English rock group", we're told that "Their music spanned a wide range of genres" and "Ray and Dave Davies remained the two permanent members of The Kinks throughout it's run" (also watch the possessive there).
Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is definitely taking shape. It still needs a bit more work! PL290 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an example, the two statements, "The Kinks continued throughout the 1970s and found little success" and "Due to a lack of success ... the group split in 1996" both need to acknowledge the wider context, i.e., the band was indeed successful in the 1960s. To make the point, "but found little further success" would make all the difference for the first one. PL290 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about:
The Kinks continued recording throughout the 1970s, creating theatrical concept albums, but found little further success. The band eventually experienced a revival...
And:
Due to the commercial failures of the band's past few albums as well as creative tension between the Davies brothers, The Kinks split in 1996.
What do you think? - I.M.S. (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think those would be much better. "Due to" can probably be bettered, to make it more of a description of events than an explanation. PL290 (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does it look alright now? - I.M.S. (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In May 1967, The Kinks returned with "Waterloo Sunset", an emotional single with the melancholic observer spying two lovers meeting ..." - I could be wrong but it strikes me a single can't really be "emotional", or have a melancholic observer, per se; to become encyclopedic it may need spelling out more (perhaps "an emotional song written from the point of view of a melancholic observer ...")
Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too hasty perhaps: "an emotional song with about an observer spying" doesn't quite make sense! PL290 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does this sound (I'll add it to the article if you like):
  • The tune describes two lovers passing over a bridge, with a melancholic observer reflecting on the couple, the Thames, and Waterloo Station.

preceding unsigned comment is hereby signed by PL290 'bot': I.M.S. (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A vast improvement! Except for tune. (The band would find it hard to convey such detailed information in a tune alone!) Song. PL290 (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. Thanks for the suggestions! I appreciate it. I'll get to work on the choppy paragraphs in a bit. - I.M.S. (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The song went on to become one of their most popular and best-known, with pop music

journalist Robert Christgau calling it ... " - rephrase to avoid Noun plus -ing

Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mix of UK, U.K., US and U.S. throughout - per WP:ABBR please use UK and US.
Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Golden age" section contains several two-line paragraphs which don't really make for engaging prose. Such "stubby" paragraphs often draw complaints from reviewers. Try to focus the essential material into decent-sized paragraphs crafted to hold the reader's attention.
Done. Combined - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still some remain (in that section and also elsewhere in the article). These short, choppy paragraphs interrupt the flow and should be rethought and combined. PL290 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on it. - I.M.S. (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've rewritten/replaced/removed all of the inessential ones - I.M.S. (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a: The article is still, in places, characterized by short paragraphs. It's not proseline, but please see that article anyway for the extreme case of what I'm talking about. Have a look too at a range of the current nominations at WP:FAC and see what effect you think paragraph size has on section readability. From a 1a point of view I feel things can still be improved if time is devoted to carefully combining paragraphs, crafting longer ones that capture and hold the reader's interest. The lower number of paragraphs per section that results also helps the reader to maintain a sense of progress and place within a section. PL290 (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does it look alright now? - I.M.S. (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having said which, the Village Green paragraph is too long and rambling. As this album was something of a breakthrough, dwelling on it to some extent is justified, but it needs to be shorter, more focussed and make the point of the breakthrough more immediately.
Done. Removed some clutter. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PL290 (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. My favorite British Invasion band. Needs a serious copyedit--does not meet 1a standard at this point. Queries on lead:

:*It is customary to name the most important members of the group in the lead. In the case of The Kinks, I would say that's the four founding members plus Dalton, though other positions are defensible.

  • "In the remainder of the decade Ray Davies' writing skills slowly evolved". Did they suddenly stop evolving at the turn of the decade (i.e., before Lola and Muswell Hillbillies?) Are we sure that it's appropriate to characterize the evolution as "slow"?
  • "Face to Face, Something Else, The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society, Arthur, Lola versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One, Muswell Hillbillies". If we're giving Lola's full title, than all the titles need to be separated by semicolons, else Part One is plausibly read as a stand-alone title.
  • "During the New Wave era, groups such as The Jam, The Knack, and The Pretenders covered Kinks songs and Britpop acts such as Blur, Oasis and Supergrass have cited them as a major influences". In the same sentence, we have one list with the serial comma and one list without. Please choose one style or the other and apply consistently throughout the article.
  • "The Kinks' influence has carried on until today". Not idiomatic.
  • "The Kinks are mentioned as one of the early bands that can be traced with a heavy metal sound". Improperly phrased and unclear. Do you mean to say that they have been identified as one of the earliest bands to play with a heavy metal sound (i.e., one of the first heavy metal bands), or that they are one of the seminal bands to which the later heavy metal sound can be traced (i.e., one of the most influential proto-metal bands).
  • "The Kinks were inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame". The group has had many members; I'm sure not all were inducted. Please make clear who was.
  • "As self-professed Kinks fan Pete Townshend said for The History of Rock 'n' Roll: 'The Kinks were much more quintessentially English'". Awkward use of quote. Much more quintessentially English than whom? Than The Who? But the lead of an article on The Kinks is not the place to bring in The Who (or whomever). Suggest eliding "much more": "The Kinks were ... quintessentially English".
  • That's just the lead, which tends to be the most carefully composed element of most articles. The services of a copyeditor need to be retained for a thorough working-over of the whole piece. I would be happy to volunteer, but I'm devoting what time I have to Tender Mercies, further along in FAC. I'll return in a week to see what progress has been made. DocKino (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it... will post back here when completed. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed these issues. Please tell me if I've missed any. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please strike these issues - I believe I've addressed them. Again, please tell me if I've missed any. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved "Comment to AnOddName" to my section above to keep shit together. :) --an odd name 02:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Good start, but needs work to become the standard of FAs like The Beatles or Joy Division:

  • List out the studio albums in the discography section (see the two example articles for correct format).
Mad Hatter went ahead and did this. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove members' birth info, that can be found on their individual articles.
Will do. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of info is potentially more suitable for Ray Davies article. In particular, I'm thinking that big blockquote about his depression.
Will do. I've already removed the blockquote. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somebody should be doing a more thorough sources/references review soon, but I find many problems from just a cursory glance:
  • Sure Allmusic is a good, reliable site, but using its one page biography as a source >30 times is inappropriate. I'm sure there are many books on the group, they should be used more frequently to cite stuff.
Will find other RSs. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've replaced a few of the Allmusic refs and added another book I have as a source. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't link to potentially copy-vio article reprints on fan-sites. (Kindakinks)
Will remove. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Removed and replaced. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Kindakinks a reliable source? I highly doubt that it is actually, I suggest using Billboard or Allmusic for the chart info instead.
Will replace. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Refs replaced. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please copy-edit throughout for WP:MOS errors. Also, plenty of incomplete references.—indopug (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just now gone through the article and done my best to copyedit it. If you notice some specific problems, please tell me and I'll try my best to address them. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone? - I.M.S. (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, these issues have been addressed. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indopug, will you please strike these comments, as I have addressed them. - I.M.S. (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interim report: Serial comma crisis! In the lead section alone:

  • "Their music was influenced by a wide range of genres, including R&B, British Music hall, folk and country." No serial comma.
  • "The group's original lineup consisted of Ray Davies (lead vocals, rhythm guitar), Dave Davies (vocals, lead guitar), Pete Quaife (bass guitar), and Mick Avory (drums and percussion)." Serial comma.
  • "They were accompanied by a frequently changing roster of bassists, keyboardists and backup singers." No serial comma.
  • "Albums such as Face to Face, Something Else, The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society, Arthur, Lola versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Muswell Hillbillies and their accompanying singles". No serial comma.
  • "groups such as The Jam, The Knack, and The Pretenders covered Kinks songs". Serial comma.

Again, please choose one style or the other and apply throughout the article. DocKino (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead says the band was formed in 1964. The infobox says they became active in 1963. May we have these items agree, please? DocKino (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These issues have been addressed. I've recently been expanding and rearranging the lead section - at the moment, it is a work in progress (please see the discussion above with PL290). The rest of the article should uniformly feature serial commas. If you see any instances of this not being true, please tell me and I will address them. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something needs to be done about the lists of "Members"/"Former members" in the infobox. There are various ways of handling this that are appropriate; not among them is the current presentation, in which the listed "Members" are the group as it existed between 1979 and 1984. Kwite Kinky! We can debate the best way to handle this, or simply follow the standard arrangement for defunct bands, which is to list everyone as "Former members", in the order by which they first became members of the group. DocKino (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping with the lead, DocKino! The "Members"/"Former members" box is something left over from when the article stated that the group was "active 2008 - present". I'll go ahead and combine it under "former members", like you suggested. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Combined. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Head's up: While the nominator's efforts to copyedit the article are appreciated, it appears I did not make my initial point clearly enough. This article requires the dedicated attention of an experienced, independent copyeditor. There are 1a problems throughout, far too many to list. I provided an extensive list of problems in the lead as an example, and while a sincere and productive attempt was made to address them, I still had to follow up with relatively heavy copyediting just to bring that brief element up to standard.

I would dearly love to see a Featured Article on The Kinks, but I believe this article was brought here well before it was ready. The odds of it rising to FA standard during this initial candidacy strike me as slim, but if it is to have any chance at all, the services of a skillful copyeditor ready to devote considerable time to it should be retained now. DocKino (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find one? By the time someone got around to a request at the Guild of Copyeditors it would be too late. I must admit, as thorough as I try to be, I am not the best when it comes to searching for one version of an character throughout a page several hundred times. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See here: Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers--copyeditors at the bottom. The article never went through a peer review, did it? I think it would really benefit from that process, as well. DocKino (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. I'll ask one to informally go through the article and copyedit it. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am taking care of this request. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All set. I spent five and a half hours copy editing this article. Didn't really intend to take that long, but hey, what's important is that it came out well. If there are any additional concerns please let me know. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! I think we can safely say this article meets all FA criteria now. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone support or oppose this? - I.M.S. (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the lead was edited to include Andy Pyle. I happen to think that's not a great idea, but as that appears to be the consensus between nominator and lead copyeditor, that's fine. However, this has consequences. If we're going to mention Pyle, who played with the band for two years, then we have to mention drummer Bob Henrit, who played with the band for twelve. It also requires reworking the keyboardists' bit. It's hardly possible to argue that Pyle is more significant to the history of The Kinks than, say, John Gosling, who played with the band four times as long and whose tenure included a couple of their most significant albums. DocKino (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While illustration is vital to Wikipedia articles, it's simply not good style in an article on a band that existed for 32 years to include two photos from a single concert, especially when they each show only one full-time member of the band--the same member. One or the other of the Toronto 1977 images should be cut. DocKino (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some new photos and re-arranged the old ones. In a bit I'll get around to the info on Pyle - I think I might just go ahead and delete him from the lead. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How would this look:
-- I.M.S. (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) It's not clear how are you imagining the entire passage would read. Please show what you have in mind, so we can judge it.
(2) The primary text says nothing about "try[ing] out several new bassists". Beside Pyle, who else was tried out? Please add some detail on this to the primary text.
Actually, several bassist were tried out before Pyle - I'll have to check my books to remeber their names. I think I'll go ahead and remove Pyle altogether (see post below) - I.M.S. (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(3) "An interim period followed" is entirely unnecessary. DocKino (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with you about not including Pyle in the lead - but what should we do instead? Should I just put that he was replaced by Jim Rodford? - I.M.S. (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's my view. I had edited a version that did that a while back. Here's a somewhat terser version that elides Dalton's going-returning-going episode in 1977–78:
John Dalton played bass with the band for part of 1966 after Quaife was involved in an automobile accident and replaced him when Quaife departed for good in 1969. Dalton was a member of the group through the late 1970s; Jim Rodford was eventually chosen as his permanent replacement.
I'm wondering again about the keyboardists' bit. Just to toss something out, what's your reaction to the following?
They were accompanied by a frequently changing roster of keyboardists, most notably Nicky Hopkins (for studio sessions only), from 1964 to 1969, and John Gosling, from 1970 to 1978.
I'm not adamant about this by any means, I just have a sense that since Rodford is worthy of mention, so is Gosling (he does appear in three of the article's images, yes?)...and then it's hard to mention Gosling without mentioning the more famous Hopkins, who did appear on most of the band's best-known albums. Oh, but how many of them...?
Just noticed this: In the "Line-up" section, you have Hopkins doing sessions from 1964 through 1969, which would encompass everything from Kinda Kinks (if not before) through Arthur. In the "Commercial breakthrough" section, however, it says he "first played with the band during the...recording sessions for The Kink Kontroversy" (thus excluding Kinda Kinks) and "would continue to play on the band's next two studio albums [after Face to Face]" (thus excluding Arthur). Please check your sources and make sure this is absolutely tight. If the implied album credits are correct, the current dates in "Line-up" are still not necessarily wrong--it is possible he played with the band in 1964 and/or 1969 on non-album single tracks, BBC recordings, or unreleased sessions. This may take some work and possibly a footnote or two to clarify any apparent discrepancies. DocKino (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think those suggestions would work great. As to the info on Hopkins; I was not aware of these discrepancies as they were not put in by me. I will try to address them as soon as I can. I am, however very busy at the moment. - I.M.S. (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. - I think I have solid evidence now that Hopkins came in first for the Kontroversy sessions (Hinman p. 68). He might have even played with them at earlier sessions as well, because Hinman states that Ray Davies made his acquaintance a few years earlier in Soho. I'll attempt to sort things out - I.M.S. (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've got a soft spot for The Kinks, or at least for their early stuff, so I'd like to be able to support this, but there are still a few too many rough edges in the prose. For instance:
  • "Many of the songs featured on the record had already appeared on solo versions on Ray Davies' companion album".
Done - I.M.S. (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the band's output remained uneven and their already failing popularity eroded further". I'm not certain that popularity can "fail".
Done. Failing --> Falling. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was an immense success both critically and commercially, charting in the Top 40 in America". Gettinto the Top 40 is "immense"? Seems a bit overblown to me.
It was an immense success considering the complete failure of some of their past work... I will, however, remove it if you aren't comfortable with it - I.M.S. (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the band received heavy publicity". They might have been heavily publicised, or heavily promoted ...
I'll clarify this - I.M.S. (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you've already fixed this. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tour fell apart as the group struggled to find a hold in the American concert scene". What does "find a hold" mean?
Find gigs, promoters, money, even people coming to see them. Again, I'll clarify this - I.M.S. (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry about the delay - I've been extremely busy outside of Wikipedia lately. I beleive I've clarified the above question you raised - correct me if wrong. I'm working on the others. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... entry into the album charts at number one hundred twenty-two". It's one hundred and twenty-two. There are several other similar errors as well. In general this way of presenting chart positions (instead of just writing 122) seems rather laborious.
There are multiple, acceptable ways of spelling this, and it seems the copyeditor chose one of them. I'll work on it if you don't think it is proper, however. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No British English speaker would say "one hundred twenty-two". --Malleus Fatuorum 17:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I've got the number issues sorted out. Numbers under 10 are represented with words; numbers above use numerals. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm also not happy about using the Encyclopædia Britannica as a source.
Really? Is it not considered a RS? I'll remove it. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One general encyclopedia can't really use another as a source, reliable or not. We should in general be relying on secondary sources, not tertiary ones like EB. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I.M.S. (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically I think someone needs to go through the whole thing once more before it's ready, tidying it up. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since this FAC has been semi-successful, but it's time has nearly run out, I'll try my best to improve it as best as I can. If it fails, however, I'll keep improving and take it back here in a week or so. Update: I just checked and it seems you're vigorously ironing out some of the mistakes within the article. I appreciate it! - I.M.S. (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've been busy behind the scenes. ;-) If you can deal with the issues I raised above then I'll probably be able to deal with the rest and then hopefully be able to support. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Malleus's work today has led to major improvements in the article. I.M.S., I know there haven't been many books written on The Kinks, but I see there is one that has not been referenced: The Kinks by Neville Marten and Jeff Hudson. Have you encountered it? It's not searchable on Google, but it is searchable on Amazon. If there's anywhere in the article where the sourcing, or the information itself, could use some beefing up, this could be a good resource. DocKino (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've just noticed that almost none of the citations of online sources include the dates of online publication. If the page shows a date, our reference needs to give it. (I know Allmusic pages don't have dates, but most others do.) While you go through the sources checking for that, please make sure you haven't missed the names of any article authors. DocKino (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I look more closely, I'm finding lots of issues with the online citations. In "Potential reunion", a Ray Davies interview with the Independent is sourced to a summary Rolling Stone piece, when the far more informative Independent feature is readily available online. In "Split and solo work", the band's induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is sourced to an article that (a) does not support the assertion that the induction happened in the "autumn" (improperly phrased, as well; we use months instead of seasons wherever possible) and (b) does not support the assertion that all four original members attended. (That online article is also dated; this is one of the many citations that fails to provide the date.) Hall of Fame inductions are very well covered events, and it should be possible to find much higher quality sources for the pertinent coverage. I'm beginning to sense that a thorough review of all the online citations is in order. DocKino (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to work on these issues, DocKino - as I said, I am very busy at the moment. Many of these problems with refs seem to be ones that were left over from before I began work on the article. I thought I'd caught all of them, but it seems that some were swallowed up in the massive table of refs. I'll try to look over all of the refs as soon as I can, as well as add publication dates where I can. As to the book: no, I have not encountered it, but I appreciate you telling me about it. As I don't own the physical copy I will definitely take a look at it through Amazon book search. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an note that I am in the process of updating all of the references. It is very tedious, and it might take a while before they are completed. I'll post back here upon completion. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In the interest of full disclosure, I've probably done far more work on this article over the last day or so than is proper for an independent reviewer.[40] Nevertheless, I believe that it now meets the FA criteria, although it's quite possible that I'm swayed too much by my fond memories of the first time I heard "You really got me", about the only song of theirs I thought was worth more than spit. Thinking back though, I'm reminded of a fashion in jackets introduced by The Kinks, a sort of high-collared red hunting jacket (which I very nearly bought until a good friend talked me out of it). In their early stage performances every member of the band wore them, as you can barely see in this rather poor image. It might be an idea to include something on that if a reliable source can be found. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While, thanks to Malleus and I.M.S., a lot of progress has been made in the past 2 weeks, I'm not sure it's quite there yet. In addition to the sourcing/referencing concerns I raised above, there are still some important gaps in the article's coverage. Here's a major one:
  • The "History" section entirely fails to mention The Kinks' debut album. DocKino (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on adding it. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid the online sourcing problems appear to be endemic. I just went to the cited source in order to clear up this confusing passage: "One single, 'Only a Dream', narrowly failed to reach the UK chart, climbing to number 79." The cited source (Allmusic, "The Kinks: Charts & Awards") gives absolutely no UK chart information. I observe numerous other passages in the article describing UK chart positions that are baselessly cited to this same source. I don't believe we can feel confident about passing this article for FA until we know that nominator has vetted every single online citation--counting multiples, I estimate there are 155 such citations. I understand the process is laborious, but it's truly fundamental to the FA standard, and to our verifiability policy in general. This may require downtime and a second nomination. DocKino (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the original chart info was covered by one ref, but I was advised to replace it with an Allmusic one - it now only covers UK charts. I just discovered this as well - do you know of a reliable source with chart info? My books do not offer complete coverage for chart positions. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be considered an RS? - I.M.S. (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's another example of why this article would benefit from some downtime and a pass through peer review or GA vetting or both: In the second paragraph of "Commercial breakthrough", we learn about "the on-stage fight between drummer Mick Avory and Dave Davies...on 19 May 1965". In the third paragraph, we learn about "their first tour of Australia and New Zealand in January 1965". That's poor, confusing chronology. The article needs some careful, thoughtful restructuring that goes beyond the copyedit level, yes? DocKino (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments What makes these reliable?

I used that lyric link to source the lyrics of the song. Is there ever a reliable source for lyrics? Are all of those other lyric websites considered RSs, such as metrolyrics.com? - I.M.S. (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The youtube link was determined to be reliable earlier in the FAC, as it was published and uploaded by the Dave Davies sanctioned/owned Detune.tv - I.M.S. (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ref list needs a complete overhaul. I suggest you start with the following advice and I'll have another look in due time:

  • Make sure every ref has a publisher.
  • Print media needs to be in italics and non-print media needs the italics removed, as appropriate.
  • Ensure all references of the same kind are uniform, i.e. books, web etc, and follow the same order of contents, e.g. name, title, publisher etc.

RB88 (T) 19:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the suggestions! - I.M.S. (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The prose needs a clean-up.

  • I wonder why this FAC page is so long. It suggests the nomination was premature. I've piped in the first sentence to avoid a repetition of Davies. In fact, there are so many of the two around, why not "The Davies brothers were ..." instead of "Ray and Dave Davies were the only members", on Line ~7?
  • I relocated the "hidden" year in music link to "See also", where it's much more likely to be clicked on.
  • "stayed in the ... existence" nicer as "were in the ... history"?
    • Remove "in the band" and "with the band" and "with the group"—it's quite clear what you're referring to.
  • "different" is redundant.
  • "during their career"—refers to the band, not individuals. Does a band have a "career"? There, "its history", or some other word? Can't think of one right now, but you probably can.

I gave up and did it myself at the top. Rather a lot of copy-editing required throughout to bring this up to the required professional standard, given the FAC reviewing resources that have been sucked in already.

  • I don't see that the efforts that have been put into this article have been "wasted" of "sucked in". If it has improved the article and made it a more informational, educational, and enjoyable read for everyone, why, then, has this FAC been put to waste? I see no reason why this article has to have a star in the top of the page, although I would certainly like it to be. I think this article in its current state is a vast improvement on what it was a month ago. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that there are four sound files on the page. Apparently "Come Dancing" was added yesterday, and I am not sure if I support that decision entirely. I do see reason to illusrate that particular point in the bands career. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is crass to characterize the efforts attracted by the article as the "sucking in" of "resources", unless (a) we wish to ignore the significant improvement that has occurred and (b) Tony has somehow read our minds and knows that we would have been spending the same moments we spent reviewing this article instead reviewing some other article. I feel violated, Tony. Please inform me the next time you are reading my mind. Thank you. (N.B. If copyeditors spent less time mind-reading, perhaps their copyedits would be less likely to introduce a grammatical error and two typographical errors in the space of one paragraph.) If the nomination was precipitate, it was also clearly sincere and the nominator has facilitated an enjoyable, productive working environment.
The use of four, or five, or perhaps even six audio clips to inform the reader about a band that released original material over a 32-year span is necessary, proper, and well within the bounds of NFCC 3a. I would oppose any elimination of song samples based on the specious argument that the criterion is violated because some ad hoc numerical limit, unfounded in policy, has been traduced. That said, the rationales for the clips could use some improvement--see, for some good examples, the rationales for the samples in the article on The Beatles. DocKino (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - image concerns and prose. I am not convinced of given provenance of the two 1970 photographs. It seem to me that they were taken at the same time as the one used on the Lola album cover here. Also two of the source statements say "Picassa Creative Commons" but I cannot find the license but I am not convinced that "Picasaweb Creative Commons user Geof" is entitled to release them, i.e. he apparently found them somewhere.[41]. Same goes for the photograph of Dalton, Gosling and Avory. My prose concerns are essentially the same as Tony's above (we had an two edit conflicts). Graham Colm Talk 14:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've gathered about the "Geoff" fellow (I believe his last name is Lewis, from the URL of his photo album), he has been a friend and photographer of the group for quite a while. If he took the photos for the "Lola" session, I see no reason why he isn't entitled to release an unused one under a free license. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If he is the original photographer, and this can be proved, then there isn't a problem. But the current provenances are not acceptable for images in a featured article. Graham Colm Talk 18:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to contact him and see if he is the actual creator of the image? Can the OTRS system handle that? - I.M.S. (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, sorry. Is the photographer credited on the original Lola album cover? Graham Colm Talk 18:54, 12 December 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 18:59, 12 December 2009 [42].

Ashley Tisdale edit

Nominator(s): Decodet (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I felt it has the quality of a Featured Article, after eight months of hard working. It's well-written and well-sourced, as well comprehensive. The article has also a good image and also an informative infobox. To conclude, it has been improved a lot since the last FA nomination, back in July 2009. Decodet (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No dab links or dead external links, images all have good alt text, and date formats appear consistent. Moved my comments and related replies to this nom's talk page to save space—all are resolved. --an odd name (help honey) 02:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Could you please expand the alt text for the lead image File:Emmazcamera187-2 crop.jpg, somewhat? "A brunette female in a black dress" doesn't do the image justice. Please see WP:ALT#Portraits for examples. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was the one who called it "good alt text", so I'll try. It shows her head, shoulders, and chest area, but I don'wanna sound weird talking about her chest. :) I'll get back to you. --an odd name 07:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this alt more like it? --an odd name 07:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, thanks, that's good, though I'd add "low cut" before "dress". Eubulides (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ran a script to correct faulty WP:ENDASHes and WP:FN footnote placement; a MOS review is needed. Citations are incomplete (some publishers missing), and WP:ITALICS are not correct in all citations (journals, periodicals, newspapers are italicized, websites are not). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. I think all references are good now. Any other issues? Decodet (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - No issues. NW (Talk) 16:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a quick read of the WP:LEAD, I found the claim "first female artist to debut two songs simultaneously on the Billboard Hot 100" to be literally incredible at first. I had to reread it three times to understand it well enough to believe it. I think it would be instantly believable if you added the specific week that they debuted to the sentence (probably the end of the sentence), but recall the lead should include no more detail than the main body.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. I added the specific week with a reference in the lead but shouldn't it be in the main body instead of the lead? Decodet (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments. Everything fine, but go over the references and put in italics all the print media (and remove the italics from non-print media). RB88 (T) 12:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I guess I'm done with few I noted. I went over the references list twice an did not find anything incorrect. Decodet (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I peer reviewed the article and later made a few more comments at Decodet's talk page as a follow up. Since my concerns were all addressed there and no one else has come up with a reason to oppose, I don't see a reason not to support. One comment, though; standardize the wikilinking of publishers in the citations- For example, in current citation 19, the Washington Post is wikilinked but, in citation 20, Time is not. I like wikilinking these myself, but I'm not aware of a policy on this so do as you like. Liqudluck✽talk 04:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I forgot to wikilink Time. The other references with no wikilink is because it was already wikilinked previously in the text. Thanks for the support! Decodet (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This article still needs some work, and still reads like a loose collection of facts without any real narrative flow. "She did this ... she did that ... she did the other ...". A few specific examples of problems:
    • I'll read the entire article and correct it. It should be finished in few hours. Decodet (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did the best I could. I rewrote few sentences and switched few terms. Since English is not my first language, it was not easy for me. I hope it's OK after my edits. Decodet (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She also performed several song as Evans in film's 2006 soundtrack." I've got no idea what that means.
  • "In 2006, she signed a record deal with Warner Bros. Records[8] and covered Wham!'s "Last Christmas", which was her first single in her Warner Bros. deal." Do we really need to mention Warner Bros. twice in one sentence?
  • "A 2006 three-song EP, He Said She Said EP was released to promote Headstrong." So what's Headstrong?
    • Switched Headstrong for debut album. Decodet (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Entertainment Weekly labeled her one of film's breakout stars, they said her portrayal of the narcissistic Sharpay Evans makes "narcissism a goofy, bedazzled pleasure". Punctuation between "stars" and "they".
  • "At the age of three, Tisdale was discovered by her current manager Bill Perlman at a New Jersey mall." How do you "discover" a three-year-old girl without getting arrested for child molesting?
  • "Tisdale went on to appear in more than 100 commercials as a kid ...". As opposed to as a pensioner? How could she appear as anything else? Is it not possible to be more specific?
    • Sorry, I did not geot what you meant with that. Decodet (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Be Good to Me' was released as album's the first single in the fall 2006 ...". Eh?
  • "... she landed a JC Penney spot". So what's a "JC Penney spot"?
    • Switched for "commercial" and wikilinked "JC Penney". Decodet (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The writing lacks variety. Of the six sentences in the final paragraph of the 2007–present: Career development section (should be 2007–present: career development btw) half begin "Tisdale ...".
  • "... and also executive produced the film". What does "executive produced" mean?
    • Switched for "...and was also one of the film's executive producers". Decodet (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Malleus Fatuorum 15:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was just a selection of examples. Fundamentally, the article is written as a series of loosely connected facts, without any real narrative flow. For instance: "Her elder sister, Jennifer Tisdale, is also an actress and her maternal grandfather, Arnold Morris, developed the Ginsu Knives." In what way are these facts related sufficiently to justify inclusion in the same sentence? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this specific sentence, it's cited some of Tisdale's famous relatives, that's the relation between the inclusion of these facts in the same sentence. I can try to rewrite it if you really think it's necessary. Decodet (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mine is just one opinion Decodet, and I could well be wrong. Nevertheless my opinion stands; I do not believe that this article meets the FA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you know any FA about a celebrity (with a similar career to Tisdale's would be good) I can use as an example? I don't have any idea about how to make a good narrative here. Decodet (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I'm afraid that I don't, but it's about making a story; not she did this and then she did that. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's ok. I've found some references. I've rewritten the lead so far and tomorrow I'll finish with the entire article. Decodet (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I went through the entire article and rewrote several sentences and paragraphs. Now I think they have a good narrative flow, as required by User:Malleus Fatuorum. It was a hard work that took me few hours but I think it's done. I have to say I tried my best and I'm not sure if I can't do something better. I really hope everything is ok right now. Decodet (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—not a professional standard of writing, per Malleus above. Too late to do a major fix; I suggest you bring it back in a month's time, shining new.

  • Comma glitch before "Guilty".
  • Instead of covering half a sentence in blue—"West Deal, Monmouth County, New Jersey"—why not just West Deal, Monmouth County, New Jersey"? If the reader hits "West Deal", won't they get immediate access to links to the more general geographical entities?
  • Unlink "Jewish", especially as there's a specific link a few seconds later to the Jewish Community Center.
  • So Bill Clinton was president in the White House? They didn't force him into a tent on the lawn outside the Capital Building?
    • With "At the age of twelve, Tisdale sang for Bill Clinton, who was then the president of the United States, in the White House", I meant that Tisdale sang in the White House, not that Clinton was the president in the White House. Is that confusing? I can try to rewrite this sentence. Decodet (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First pic in "Career": may not be high-res enough, but if it is, please boost the size a little.
  • More punctuation mess,[4].
  • Redundancies such as "also" and "ever" in the 1996–2006 section. I see idle "alsos" all over the place. See

these exercises.

    • I removed all the "ever" and some "also" I thought were redundant. Decodet (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parts of it, such as "2007–present" are heavily blued out. Much of the linking is good, so why dilute with items such as Germany? Who's gonna divert to that article? Tony (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not able to do a better writing here in the article. I'm not fluent in English yet. If the writing is the main problem, I guess I'll not be able to promote the article to FA, unless I have help. Decodet (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Malleus and Tony. I've made some slight changes to 3rd para of "Early life" section, but needs more. For instance, check the spelling of Cossete; how long was she in Les Mis; what part did she play in Annie, and did she stay for the entire tour? Just some examples of information that help to make the article seem a bit less choppy. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that we don't know too much about Tisdale's early life. I've been looking for more information about Les Miserables and Annie for months, but all I find is already available in the article. Decodet (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found this source, claiming that Annie tour lasted a year and a half but can it be can considered a reliable source? Decodet (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 00:34, 12 December 2009 [43].

The Political Cesspool edit

Nominator(s): Stonemason89 (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it now meets all the criteria and is a worthy addition to FA.

This article was given GA status in early October. I have greatly improved, expanded, and streamlined it since then, however, and I now think it has improved enough to "move up" to FA. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by an odd name (help honey)

Done. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 21's link appears dead.
Fixed. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No dead external links. --an odd name (help honey) 20:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dates are in Month Day, Year format throughout—good.
  • See if you can expand the lead's paragraphs a bit further. (added on 19:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name (help honey) 19:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded. Is there anything particular you would like me to add to the lead? Stonemason89 (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, looks good to me now. I rearranged it to emphasize the guests and make it two big paragraphs. --an odd name (help honey) 21:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Jared Taylor image being used in the article needs permission sent through OTRS and be tagged as such.--Rockfang (talk) 09:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the questionable image and replaced it with a non-deletable picture of Pat Buchanan, who has also been featured on the show and whose writings were a formative influence on the show's primary host, James Edwards. Hope that clears everything up. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never say never (though if it ever reaches that point we'll probably just plunder the pictures, yarr). --an odd name 00:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately they have had a huge number of guests on their show, so I doubt there'll be a shortage of usable images any time soon. If the Buchanan image gets axed, we can always go to Chuck Baldwin, and if that image gets deleted, there's always Ted Nugent, and if his picture gets taken down, there's always Larry Pratt (and so on ad nauseum, or ad Nazium in the case of Lynx and Lamb Gaede, who have also appeared on the show...) Stonemason89 (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 12 (Why the Buchanan...) lacks a publisher.
  • Current ref 16 (The Crew..) lacks a publisher
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both fixed. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  • The prose is quite bloated, uses the passive voice excessively, fears pronouns, etc. I've copyedited the lead and first section, which should give you some idea of what I'm talking about. I haven't gone farther than that because, as indicated below, many of the other sections require substantive edits, so copyediting before those edits were made would be premature.
When you copyedited the lead section, you added the phrase "...believe that is promotes...". I changed that to "...believe that it promotes...". Stonemason89 (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and my apologies for introducing the typo in the first place! This is why copyeditors need copyeditors. Steve Smith (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've improved the prose in the City Park section (also removing a redundancy in the process). Stonemason89 (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an article on Wikipedia (perhaps in the community portal) that gives advice on how to copyedit? That would be useful, thanks. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony1 (talk · contribs)'s Wikipedia's acknowledged copyediting guru, and he's written a series of pages on the subject, beginning here.
  • There are quite a few single paragraph sections; have you considered merging some to improve flow? For example, I'm not sure "Controversy and criticism" is long enough to merit subsections, and "Association with Stormfront" seems to me to be a good fit for "Foundation and history" (apart from section length, I find it odd that the association with Stormfront isn't dealt with until so late in the article; it seems like a fairly important point).
The Stormfront section has been merged; most of it was about James Edwards personally, so I merged most of it into the part about Edwards. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "Controversy and Criticism" has been consolidated into one section, with the exception of the city park incident, which gets its own subsection. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:EL, external links should not generally be included in the body of the article.
I removed the micro1650am external link, which as far as I am aware was the only external link in the body of the article. That link was not added by me, but by a one-time user who claimed to be the owner of the radio station. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the show called Political Cesspool or The Political Cesspool? The article is currently inconsistent on this point.
The show's staff have been vague on this point. They have also referred to it as "The Political Cesspool Radio Program" at times, too, so I don't think there's one standard name for it. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe adopt one for internal consistency? The article has generally been attached, so maybe go with that. As well, italicization is currently inconsistent.
Edited for consistency; I'm pretty sure I got all of them. The Political Cesspool it is; all mentions of Political Cesspool or Cesspool have been replaced by either the full title or simply a reference to "the show". Stonemason89 (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parts of the article are presently somewhat under-referenced: there are no citations in the first two paragraphs of "Foundation and history", for example.
Will do. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think information about the birth and earlier careers of the show's staff is generally useful for an article about the radio show. What would be useful is information on the views they express on the radio show, and what role they play on it. This is another section where merging subsections would probably be advisable, incidentally.
I already mention the roles they play (for example, Art Frith is the production engineer, and Goeff Melton designed the show's website). As far as views, there already are some references to that (for example, Bill Rolen has neo-Confederate views, while Winston Smith is a Calvinist, etc.) I merged the subsections on Bill Rolen, Austin Farley, Art Frith, and Goeff Melton elsewhere into the article. Thanks for the advice. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's still too much focus on the outside lives of the staff, epitomized by (but not limited to) "[Smith's] interests include classical guitar, woodworking, literature, and writing."
I took out that part about Smith, but left in the mention of his beliefs (Calvinism and Kinism), since these are relevant to his (and the show's) ideology. I also removed some of the extraneous detail about Miller's career in the Army (I think it is relevant to at least mention that he was in the Army, though, since it explains where he got his nickname from). Also removed excess information about James Edwards (his childhood, etc.); most of this information is already covered in his own article, James Edwards (radio host). Stonemason89 (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason that the "City Park" section is not part of "Criticism and controversy"?
Well, it's not really a "criticism" of the show. I suppose one could argue that it is a "controversy", though. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merged. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to revisit my oppose (and do some more copyediting, time permitting) if the above issues are addressed, but I fear that they may be too fundamental to be fixed during an FAC. Steve Smith (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I note that during the peer review, Brianboulton (talk · contribs) suggested that you bring it back for a second peer review after you'd addressed his points. Listening to Brian is almost always a good idea, and that piece of advice is no exception; I think you'd have done well to follow it. Steve Smith (talk) 08:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get a second (formal) peer review from him, but I did ask him for his opinion a second time. Instead of giving the show a second formal peer review, he left some of his thoughts on the article's talk page. I acted on some of his suggestions, but others (such as ratings) I was unable to do, since there is no information on what the show's ratings are. None of the stations it airs on are audited by Arbitron. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I had a look at his comments, and I don't find it encouraging that he mentioned some of the same stuff as I did (regarding the short sections, the excessive detail about the hosts' personal lives, etc.). Your edits have certainly improved the prose, but there's still some copyediting to be done. Even besides that, the organization of the article is somewhat disjointed. For example, the "Guests" and "Criticism and controversy" sections appear to be lists of anecdotes with no particular indication of why those particular ones were chosen and no apparent attempt to construct a coherent narrative from them. Finally, I have some concerns about the sourcing: what steps have you taken to attempt to find offline sources as Brian recommended? Besides that, quite a bit of the article is sourced to primary sources and advocacy groups; it would be better to see more material cited to sources removed from the show and surrounding controversies (media stories if need be; books and journal articles would be still better). I'm afraid that at this point, my oppose stands; my advice would be to open another peer review, seeking particular input on some of the points I have raised. Steve Smith (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I have not cited any offline (print) sources is for two reasons:
  • They may not exist (seeing as how the subject is fairly new, founded in 2004)
  • Even if they do, I'm not sure how to find print sources; is there a Google-like search engine especially for print sources or books? Stonemason89 (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, since when have online sources been unacceptable? The current FAs Tropical Storm Marco (2008), 300 (film), and Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song) all rely entirely (or almost entirely) on online sources, so I'm pretty sure having offline sources is not a prerequisite for being an FA. There are also an extremely large number of video-game-oriented FA's (such as Grim Fandango), which rely mostly on primary sources and videogame reviewers and have very few sources originating outside of hardcore video game fandom. I agree that, ideally, it would be good to have some more sources that were farther removed from the subject, offline, or both. However, this is not possible at the moment due to the limited amount of coverage the subject has received in the media. I don't believe this should preclude this article from getting FA status, though, since quite a few other articles with the same issues have managed to pass FAC.Stonemason89 (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...the "Guests" and "Criticism and controversy" sections appear to be lists of anecdotes with no particular indication of why those particular ones were chosen...." The reason why those particular ones (guests and controversies) were chosen is because they have been mentioned in outside sources, making them notable to an extent that the other guests and controversies are not. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 00:34, 12 December 2009 [44].

Gateway Protection Programme edit

Nominator(s): Cordless Larry (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this as a featured article because I believe that it provides a comprehensive treatment of the topic. The topic receives little attention in the media and promoting the article to featured article status would increase the visibility of this interesting and important scheme. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by an odd name (help honey)

--an odd name (help honey) 23:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the URLs for references 5 and 11 and expanded the lead section somewhat. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text added, although it's the first time that I've done this so perhaps someone could check it for me? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alts look good. --an odd name 03:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is still too much about this program and the public's reaction to it that isn't known, per the discussion during the GA review at Talk:Gateway Protection Programme/GA1. While in the end I didn't think these matters were severe enough to keep the article from attaining GA status, the bar is higher for FA. Not only is there is too little known about this program, but the program is very recent and its long term wisdom and efficacy is still an open question. So I think granting FA status is unwarranted. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wasted Time, on which featured article criterion are you basing your oppose? This isn't a loaded question by the way; I'm just unsure whether you're saying information is still forthcoming (unstable; 1e) or it doesn't reflect "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic" (non-comprehensive; 1b). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm basing on 1b, not 1e, but in this case the 1b problem is exacerbated by 'the future not having happened yet' for this very recent program. I also am of the school that says a good job on 1c (well-researched) doesn't mitigate 1b; just because someone has found everything that's online about a subject doesn't mean that the subject has been comprehensively treated. In fact the nom seems a backwards admission of this: hoping that making the article FA will cause the media to write more about the program, thus causing more sources to become available. A nice if unrealistic notion (the journalism world doesn't give a hoot about WP FAs), but not a justification for FA in my view. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just want to respond to the point about the visibility of the topic. The point I was trying to make in the nomination wasn't that I was trying to attract media attention to the topic, but rather that I think that the topic should be more prominent on Wikipedia. I'm suggesting that the topic receives very little mainstream media coverage despite its importance, and that Wikipedia can fill this gap in public knowledge (which I think should be a guiding principle of Wikipedia - to inform its audience), not that it should attempt to shape the media agenda (which is unlikely anyway, as you suggest). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support on 2c, it looks very good. You might want to check some of the government series for volumes and issues. You may want to consider Template:Cite report for unpublished reports rather than cite web. The essence of the media is that they're reports, the media they're transmitted in just happens to be web based. (Also, for article longevity, you may want to get an internet archive to back these up for you for courtesy links, governments and organisations are somewhat notorious for removing access to reports). Fifelfoo (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. I noted UNHCR.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 2 December 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 00:34, 12 December 2009 [45].

7th Infantry Division (United States) edit

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 18:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


A-class Military History Article. Was not promoted on its last FA review because of a lack of feedback from any users. —Ed!(talk) 18:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Some minor stuff.

--an odd name 20:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The dead link has been removed. —Ed!(talk) 23:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (2c will follow later) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1a:
Unless "inactivated" is an essential US Armed forces jargon term, its far too en_US specific for a general encyclopedia; try made inactive, deactivated, listed as inactive status? ("In 1993 the division was slated be inactivated as part of the post-Cold War drawdown of the US Army.) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced "inactivation" with "deactivation" in all the places I found it. —Ed!(talk) 23:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2c fiddle to fix at Talk: 01:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I think File:7InfDivRightDUI.gif should in SVG format. Try requesting at WP:GL. Connormah (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request has been made. —Ed!(talk) 17:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image is now in SVG format. —Ed!(talk) 02:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 36 (Allen, Thomas B....) needs a page number, its 351 pages.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Support

  • I've made a few copyedit tweaks, nothing major.
  • World War I section, "the Allies signed an Armistice ending hostilities." Should Armistice be lower case?
  • World War I section, "the 7th Division was inactivated.", per the discussion above.
  • World War II section, "Most of the soldiers in the division were selective service soldiers,". "Soldiers" twice in the same clause, could this be reworded?
  • World War II section, "the division formally redesignated as the 7th Motorized Division." Should this be "was formally redesignated"?
  • Eastern Mandates section, "4th Marine Division forces stuck the outlying islands". Should this be "struck"?
  • Occupation of Japan section, "Seven thousand, five hundred members of the unit returned to the United States,". How many did this leave there? Or was this all of the soldiers? I guess I'm not really sure why the exact number of soldiers returning is spelled out...
  • Cold War section, "The 14th Infantry Brigade reactivated". Again, should this be "was reactivated"?
  • Cold War section, "and inactivated at Fort Lewis, Washington." A "was" should be included, and "inactivated" per above discussion.
  • Cold War section, "On October 1, 1985 the division redesignated". Should be "was redesignated". For all of these, the division (as a concept) cannot redesignate or reactivate itself, and so it must be redesignated by people, hence "was".
  • Cold War section, "By 1994, the garrison closed the division subsequently relocated". What?
  • A division in name only section, "organization of Active duty,". Should "Active" be lower case?

Looks like a nice article, I look forward to supporting in time. Dana boomer (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of my comments have been addressed, so I've changed my comments to a support. Dana boomer (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check the ISBN for 'McKenney, Janice (1997). Reflagging the Army. Center for Military History. ISBN ASIN B0006QRJPC.' - doesn't seem to be working. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The book is out of print, but I found its ASIN from Amazon.com here...it's the only ISBN code that I have. Is there some other number for the book that I should use? —Ed!(talk) 00:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps instead of ASINs (which I believe are just Amazon's internal code for the books) for the books that don't have ISBNs you could use OCLC numbers? These are available through Worldcat and have their own field under the cite book template (oclc=). Just a suggestion. Dana boomer (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • All right. I have replaced the ASIN number on the book with an OCLC number. —Ed!(talk) 20:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On October 11, 1918 the 7th Division first came under shelling attacks." needs a cite. I see that it's ref'd by the next sentence's ref, but since there's a period I would throw the extra reference in.
  • "A division in name only" seems like a misleading title for the final section, as it did come back as an actual division. Perhaps "Reactivation and deactivation"?
  • Unless they're covered by a general reference I"m not seeing (in which case it should get listed as a general ref) a lot of the people in the "Legacy" section need referencing.
  • I've added sources to the people in that section. —Ed!(talk) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the quick responses! Last thing, Fred Bass still needs a cite here.
  • I've been looking for a cite for him, I can't find one. Since it isn't that important to the article, I just removed his name. I suppose it can be added later, when his article is improved with better sources. —Ed!(talk) 19:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Staxringold talkcontribs 17:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment refs look OK. • Ling.Nut 07:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until the prose is signficantly improved. An independent copy-edit is required. Here are samples at the top.

  • Opening para very stubby. Could you tell us when it was established at the end of the para, having referred to "its history"?
  • "Activated for service in World War I, the division saw brief service in the conflict, but never fought as an entire division." "Service" appears twice.
  • "It is best known for its exploits during World War II, fighting in the Pacific Theater against Japanese forces in the Aleutian Islands, Leyte, and Okinawa, suffering heavy casualties." My US dictionary says "best-known". "Exploits" could be replaced by a more dignified word. Too much "ing" (three instances). Did they suffer heavy casualties in all locations? If so, this might be better: "It is best-known for its participation in the Pacific Theater during World War II, in which it suffered heavy casualties—against Japanese forces in the Aleutian Islands, Leyte, and Okinawa." Did I get it right? (Unsure)
  • Is "deploy" transitive? I'd have thought "to be deployed".
  • "The 7th would later go on to fight in such engagements as ...". "Later" is redundant, and the conditional future is a little awkward here, perhaps. "The 7th went on to fight in such engagements as ..."?
  • "After Korea, the division was returned to the United States and later saw action in Operation Just Cause, Operation Golden Pheasant, and Operation Green Sweep,..." What, these were battles within the US? No.
  • "... as well as" onwards in the lead is good.

See User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Academy/Copy-editing_essentials. Tony (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • What is gained by closing this? Ed was clearly responding to the comments people made. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Once again, the FAC has been closed before I even had the chance to respond to criticisms, because the latest user waited until the last possible minute to express his concerns. —Ed!(talk) 06:36, 13 December 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 00:34, 12 December 2009 [46].

The Battle of Alexander at Issus edit

Nominator(s): —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the criteria. It's rather short for an art article, but a week of library-searching leaves me confident it neglects no major information. User:Johnbod commented that the use of sources with extended discussion (as opposed to the current structure, which incorporates information from five or six primary sources interspersed with tid-bits from all over the place) would be desirable, but – as John himself noted – this is not readily available in English. I don't see it as a huge problem; tapping into a large array of sources has given me the impression that what's here is quite thorough. I look forward to criticism and will respond as quickly as I'm able. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text clearance moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that image, as the article subject, will need a long descriptive alt though—see WP:ALT#Placeholders. I'm more worried about the four gallery images, which illustrate a few additional details and similarities to other works. (Yes, there's an appa guideline for that.) --an odd name 08:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the links, and have added alt texts to the gallery. I agree with AnOddName about the infobox alt text; a whole Description section is provided for the same purpose. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline 1c: High Quality Reliable Source, use of Britannica 10:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC), 10:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Resolved 2c at talk Fifelfoo (talk) 10:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1c:
An unsigned tertiary source by a non expert is not a high quality reliable source. We can do better than this:
"^ a b c d e "Alexander the Great (king of Macedon)". Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Retrieved 2009-09-23."
"^ "Albrecht Altdorfer". Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Retrieved 2009-10-05."
"The Kingfisher History Encyclopedia, Part 20. Oxford University Press. 2004. ISBN 0753457849."
Replaced Kingfisher. Working on Britannica. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about this, and I'm not sure I agree about the need to remove Britannica. I don't think their respectability or reliability can be questioned; they're one of the leading encyclopedias in the world. Could you elaborate on why you think the refs to Britannica are a problem? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Although non-specialist tertiary sources are not ideal, I would have thought that the content here was fairly uncontroversial, and Britannia does use expert contributors. I'm no expert on history, but unless the facts as presented are open to challenge, I wouldn't object to the ref given simply because it's a tertiary source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest reason is that dog doesn't eat dog. The second biggest reason is that without a signature, there is no quality to the source. I'm afraid that this is not a shifting issue regarding Highest Quality RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the commentary of others, I'm going to leave Britannica be. The sourced material is not contentious, and Britannica is respected. I'm also unsure of what you mean by "dog doesn't eat dog." —Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica being the world's other credible English language encyclopedia, we should produce research independent of theirs. The fact that its an unsigned Britannica article amplifies the issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the main, Wikipedia is not credible. Therefore, it's perfectly fitting we should source to a credible encyclopedia. Since Britannica is credible, that the article is not signed should not be a problem. Plenty of credible sources do not sign their material – half the news sources on the Internet, for example. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • microcomment I'm almost ashamed of this nitpick. Gulf of İskenderun reads as an anachronism to me. Iskender is Turkish for Alexander, and the town now called Iskenderun was formerly known in the west by the Greek version of its name, Alexandretta. I assume that the area would not be known by these names prior to the Macedonian conquest, so would the link be better as Gulf of Issus? Please ignore if you think I've got too much time on my hands, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If sources in other languages discuss the painting in more depth, then it seems to me that the article can't be optimal unless some of those sources are used. Everyking (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not necessarily that those sources present new information, it's that they give a more extended discussion. I'm quite sure what's here is comprehensive, but it would be preferable to source what's already there to more consistent sourcing. That's what's not possible in English. Since I don't think the German sources will provide me with significant new information, it doesn't seem worth it to secure such a source (somehow; I think I'd have to import it) and then translate it, just so that the bibliography can seem more linear. Why am I confident that what's here is comprehensive, even though I've not seen the German sources? Because I've read so many English sources and incorporated what's relevant from each. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Addendum: There are certain drawbacks to using other-language sources anyway, especially if they are to be used to source large swathes of the content. In particular, most readers on the English Wikipedia would be unable to fully utilise the bibliography. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm only saying you should make the effort to incorporate foreign language sources if they will allow the article to be significantly improved and expanded. You can't justify excluding superior sources just because they're in another language. Articles are supposed to be comprehensive, not just comprehensive in terms of everything that's been published in English. If your argument is "there's nothing much more we can add to justify the effort", then that's probably reasonable, but if your argument is simply "English language sources are more convenient", then I must object. Everyking (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think his argument is basically that incorporating foreign sources would lend no additional value or comprehensiveness to the article, and personally I think that barring a reason to believe otherwise, we should trust the nominator's judgment. Can you point out any specific weaknesses in the article's coverage of the topic? –Juliancolton | Talk 06:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (I had written quite a bit of the article at GA stage). There does indeed seem to be a surprising shortage of material on the painting in English, to judge from Google/books/scholar and Wood's bibliography as at 1993. But I'm sure there is more tucked away somewhere. Albrecht Altdorfer: four centuries of criticism, Issue 9 of Studies in the fine arts, Reinhild Janzen, Publisher UMI Research Press, 1980, ISBN 083571120X, 9780835711203 must be relevant, and the Paris exhibition catalogue Altdorfer and Fantastic Realism (ISBN: 0847854108 / 0-8478-5410-8) Maurice Guillaud, Jacqueline Guillaud, Rizzoli, 1985, especially if the painting was in the exhibition. But I don't believe there is nothing more to be said - for one thing, what the Hagens have about the painting being cut down in size is not I think in yet. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added about the cut down, good find. Albrecht Altdorfer: four centuries of criticism definitely sounds relevant. I'll see what I can do to find a copy. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Given that the subject of this article is an artistic work, citing facts about Alexander the Great to Britannica isn't really a big deal. None of the facts cited to the Britannica are contentious.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Historical Setting"
  • "The Battle of the Granicus, fought in May,[8] was Persia's first major effort to confront the invaders, but nonetheless resulted in an easy victory for Alexander." Why nonetheless? Seems clumsy.
  • "A core vanguard of traitorous Greek mercenaries" By definition, mercenaries fight whomever they were told to fight. Is there a good reason for this POV? Again, "renegade Greek mercenaries". In my opinion, "Greek mercenaries" will do. Their ethnic origin is relevant primarily in informing the reader that they would have been hoplites, nearly the equivalent of Alexanders heavy infantry, although the Macedonian hoplites were notably superior to their mercenary counterparts.
    • Consider how it would read without "traitorous". The layreader (who, perhaps, knows more about art than war), might be confused: "why were the Greeks fighting the Greeks?" Strictly speaking, the adjective is not needed, but it makes the text clearer. That the mercenaries were traitorous is not really disputable, but if you can think of a better term I'm happy to apply it. —Anonymous DissidentTalk
  • "a counter to Nabarsanes' mounted conglomerate" A cavalry force is not normally known as a 'conglomerate'.
  • Other than the above, I really like the concise description of the battle. I'm not well enough informed to comment on the rest of the article, but the "Historical Setting" is FA-worthy. Relevant image, excellent map (arrows would be nice), tight prose just a little theatrical at times, as noted above. Dhatfield (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review:
  • The issue above is all that's remaining on the image front. Steve Smith (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done all but one (uploaded by someone else). I can easily upload a new (and better) version myself. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, I still don't see a source for the electronic versions. Steve Smith (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume you mean that you cropped them? We still need the source of the original image. Steve Smith (talk) 08:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm satisfied that it's in the public domain as a US government work, but the "permission" field of the description template is currently confusing (not least because it refers to "purposes stated below" without providing them). I'd suggest just replacing that with a note that permission is not required, as the work is in the public domain. File:Battle issus initial.gif Steve Smith (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautifully written, lovely content in the text. But I find much wanting WRT the images.

  • Hands up who can read the small text on the map? AD, do you have control over the text size alone (larger would be great), or can you enlarge the whole image? (The icons are just big enough as is, so bigger text would do it.)
  • The Alexander image is superb, so why so small?
  • I've upsized the two in Background and relocated the Triumphal one. Is it OK? The St George one is a slight problem in that it's hard to make out even at my larger size, yet if you click on it, the image is humungously large and of poor res. Is the original that dark?
    • I found the new layout overbearing. I don't think the St George one is going to be clear without clicking on it – it's just the way the painting is. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The women on the battlefield: can't make it out, and can you use the sizing that is best for very vertical pics? Eubulides knows how ("upright"?
    • I've applied "upright". I can't see too much difference though. Have I done something wrong? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be too many pics squashed in and made small to fit. Have you thought of a gallery at the bottom for some, to which you could refer in the main text? Nile River and sign suspended look cluttered and untidy, for example. Put them down the bottom and enlarge Darius? Fictitious mountain and island down and larger, then we could have the women beneath the soldiers, both on the right and larger, and the text isn't squeezed in the same way. Tony (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, I quite like the current format. For the most part, the text isn't squished too much, and it's not atypical for art articles to have a large number of images (example, example). —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll concede, though, that the sign and Nile images were cluttered. I've removed the sign image altogether, since it was too small for the gallery. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on refs
  • Is it Bunson or Bunston? Pinakotek or Pinakothek?
  • In notes but not refs: Jean
  • In refs but not notes: Ansell; The Kingfisher History Encyclopedia. • Ling.Nut 09:48, 11 December 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 00:34, 12 December 2009 [48].

Nicholas Mayall edit

Nominator(s): WilliamKF (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it is in great shape, stable and complete. WilliamKF (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support on 2c. Comment, noting there are no problems with 1c but, I'm not qualified to support science biography on 1c terms. 04:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Citing the other Encyclopedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2c: Please see Talk: 2c there are a few fiddle issues left, but its mostly resolved. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1c all problems resolved with 1c 04:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC):
Surely we can do better than to cite facts to " a b Encyclopædia Britannica 2009". Tertiaries by non-specialists aren't highest quality sources.Fifelfoo (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple alternative cites for the two Britannica cites, so I don't think this is an issue. Plus, earlier reviewers requested more cites be added, hence that was one which was added. WilliamKF (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am really quite unhappy about this. Dog doesn't eat dog, and your reviewers may have been correct in their time about the density of citations, but citing the Other Encyclopedia is bad form in a Featured Article. Also, its not authored by a specialist so its not HQRS. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, have removed the Britannica cites. WilliamKF (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments

--an odd name 05:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per criterion three:
    • File:Nicholas U. Mayall.jpg - No source (NFCC#6/NFCC#10A/WP:IUP), not low resolution (NFCC#3B) and no rationale (NFCC#10C)
      Non-commercial educational use only is not okay? WilliamKF (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Have lowered resolution and posted rationale to image page. WilliamKF (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Purpose of "It is a historically significant photo of a famous individual" is not a purpose, but a description. A rationale should explain why the image is necessary (its purpose) and be specific and detailed (NFCC#10C and WP:FURG). Эlcobbola talk 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Purpose now reads Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the article is about the subject of the photo and has no other pictures of this individual included. If this is not sufficient, I would appreciate more direction, or better yet, another to edit the purpose further. The fair-use seems self evident to me. WilliamKF (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      It's still not there. What you're trying to accomplish is to articulate to the reader what understanding the image is intended to convey. You say "Its inclusion in the article adds significantly", but not why that is the case ("because the article is about the subject of the photo and has no other pictures of this individual included" is a non-sequitur; it discusses the article, not the image). The "Purpose writing" section of this dispatch may be helpful. Typically images depicting deceased individuals in this manner (infobox) have purposes generally summarized as "to facilitate identification of a notable individual". (i.e. Why is the image being included? So the reader can visually identify the subject.) Эlcobbola talk 13:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I've updated it again to now read: "This image depicts the appearance of Nicholas Mayall. His appearance is used in this article to facilitate identification of Mayall by the reader. Mayall is a notable deceased individual with few known photographs, none of which are known to be free sources." Please assist directly if this is not sufficient as you seem to have a clear idea of what is needed here. Thanks. WilliamKF (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      That's sufficient. I was not in a position to write the purpose as I didn't upload or insert the image and, therefore, had no knowledge of its intended purpose. I commented on the typical purpose I see for such images and what was presumably the case here, but you may well have been going for something completely different. The Iwo Jima flag example in that dispatch, for instance, demonstrates how one image can have any number of purposes. Эlcobbola talk 23:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:NicholasMayallAtTelescope.jpg - Same issues as previous image and, in addition, appears purely decorative (NFCC#8) Эlcobbola talk 13:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagree that it is purely decorative. It adds a photo of Mayall later in life and shows him at the telescope named in his honor, seems appropriate to me. WilliamKF (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Have lowered resolution and posted rationale to image page. WilliamKF (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      How is his appearance later in life relevant to the reader's understanding of the man? If seeing the telescope is important, as a device still in existence, a free alternative could be created (NFCC#1). The telescope may well have been meaningful to Mayall, but the threshold is a significant contribution to a reader's understanding (NFCC#8). What understanding of either Mayall or the telescope is conveyed? (Purpose of "It is a historically significant photo of a famous individual" is identical to the above image. NFCC#3A requires minimal use; why would two images be needed to depict Mayall?) Эlcobbola talk 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Removed. WilliamKF (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Tololo b.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. Transferred from en.wiki isn't sufficient. Is David walker indeed the author (presumably the case), or merely the uploader, as is currently stated? Эlcobbola talk 15:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The page states: Description: Taken by David Walker while flying... Isn't that sufficient? WilliamKF (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      My comment wasn't phrased well. The author field should be updated to avoid confusion. When articles are compiled (for example, hitting the "Download as PDF"), the information from this line is fetched for the credit appendix. As is, Walker will be credited only as the uploader, as the summary line does not carry over. Эlcobbola talk 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. WilliamKF (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Please ping Elcobbola for feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Gregory ref in your sources lacks a last access date.
  • Lindsley ref in your sources lacks a publisher.
    Done. WilliamKF (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. For future reference, at FAC, practice is to let the person bringing up the concern strike it when they feel it is resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have already seen the article when it was going through the peer review. I think it is a comprehensive and well sourced. After a copy-edit that I recommended the quality of prose also improved considerably. The only suggestion that I have now is to expand the lead. At 1.5 paragraphs it seems to be rather short. Ruslik_Zero 18:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I don't think the prose is adequate to meet the FA standard. A few examples:
  • "Mayall hoped to join the Mount Wilson team upon getting his doctoral, ...". Should be "doctorate", and "getting" is too informal.
  • "... the only time in his adult life that he resided other than in California and Arizona". California or Arizona.
  • "Mayall and other young faculty at Lick thought that older Moore and Wright were too complacent with the small telescopes and should have tried harder to attain a larger reflector." Very strangely written. Complacent with? Should that be "obtain" instead of "attain"?
  • "Unbeknownst to Mayall ...". What kind of a ten dollar word is "unbeknownst"?
  • If there isn't a rule against using templates like {{convert}} in section titles then there damn well ought to be.
  • This prohibited him from observing small color changes ...". It didn't prohibit him, it prevented him.
  • "... found the Milky Way had about one half the mass as previously thought." Why "as previously thought"?
  • "... argued to Sproul". I've never seen argue used in that way before; usually one argues with, or about, not to.
  • "Doing most of their work by letter, Mayall began by convincing the others ...". So Mayall was doing most of the committee's work?
  • "Surviving Mayall were his widow, Kathleen Boxall, his wife for 58 years." The plural "were" implies that he left behind an unnamed widow plus a wife of 58 years.

--Malleus Fatuorum 14:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed all the above identified prose issues. If more remain, please let me know. Thanks. WilliamKF (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the whole article needs looking at, as there are innumerable other examples. From the lead, for instance: "Mayall also spent 11 years as director of the Kitt Peak National Observatory, where he shepherded it and the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory into top research observatories". I'm really not sure what this is trying to say, but whatever it is it's being said rather awkwardly. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It now says 'guided' instead of 'shepherded', hopefully that is clearer. How can we identify the remaining issues? WilliamKF (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know this isn't what you want to hear, but you need to try and find someone to do this kind of thing to the whole article; it's not just changing the odd word that's needed. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to find someone. Thanks for your helpful edits. WilliamKF (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony1's offered some good general advice, which is to look at similar FAs and try to persuade their editors to help out. You've written a good, informative account of Mayall's life and work, but you can't be expected to do everything. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 8 December 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 00:34, 12 December 2009 [49].

Battle of Villers-Bocage edit

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I believe the article meets all criteria, previous review did not flag up any major issues; the minor issues it did flag up have since been sorted out.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eubulides' alt text clearance and Awadewit image clearance moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I largely approve of the nicely written article. However I want to recommend an expansion or counter balance of some of the elements in the article. Especially since the article states that the German propaganda exploited the battle. I therefore have checked what the Wehrmachtbericht reports about the battle at Villers Bocage. Interestingly I find it very moderate in comparison to what is stated in the article. It reads on 14 June 1944

In der Normandie stieß eine gepanzerte Kampfgruppe in den feindlichen Brückenkopf östlich der Orne vor und brachte dem Gegner hohe Verluste an Menschen und Material bei.

My translation An armoured battle group attacked the enemy bridgehead east of the Orne in the Normandy and caused the enemy high numbers of casualties in men and material.

Taylor claims that it was Signal magazine in which doctored photographs appeared giving a larger sense of the destruction. On top of which Wittmann's account of the battle is also translated and presented in Taylor's work. Wittmann does give a bit of an over the top description and then clearly states that two battalions had been practically wiped out. The above from Wehrmachtbericht only appears to further support the article; however are you sure it is about the Villers-Bocage battle? V-B is west of the Orne and the Germans were reacting to the British move in this battle. 21st Panzer was operating east of the river and had launched numerous attacks on the 51st Infantry causing heavy casualties iirc thats why they could take no further role in Operation Perch.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too be honest I am not sure, but this was the only reference I found about a battle in the vicinity of Villers Bocage at the timeframe in question. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just add that part of the point of that section is not so much that German propaganda exploited the battle - both the Axis and Allies did plenty of that, though the doctored photographs are an interesting nugget - but that the propaganda was given so much credence by the British both at the time and by professional historians for years afterwards. I think that's what makes it notable enough to be worth examining in such detail. EyeSerenetalk 21:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly I also miss references from the German point of view such as

  • Agte, Patrick (2000). Michael Wittmann erfolgreichster Panzerkommandant im Zweiten Weltkrieg und die Tiger der Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler. Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft Preußisch Oldendorf. ISBN 3-920-72218-3. (in German)

Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started reading Agte and the general story matches the article. I could add a lot more information on the prelude to the battle from the German side as well as how the chain of events evolved in detail from the German side, especially on 1st Company SS Heavy Panzer Battalion 101. Let me know if this is wanted. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have left some comments on the article's discussion page in regards to the information jsut added by yourself - would be very much appreiacted if you could respond there.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As i have no access to this book nor do i read German, could you suggest what particular passages you are referring to that you feel should be added? The article may come off slightly Anglo-centric however we have tried to give an equal ammount of space to both points of view; it is largely determined by non-bais secondary sources, i.e. Taylor's work is mostly based off the reels of photographs taken by the Germans following the battle (quite a few we have used within the aritcle).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't get the impression that I want to rewrite history or that I want to contradict what is stated in the article. I have Atge's book and I will reread his position on the encounter. If I find something worth presenting I let you know and you can add at your own discretion. I only feel that looking at both sides of the coin makes an article more interesting and I somehow expect this from an FAC article (I know this isn't a requirement but makes for a good reading). MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • You have Miles Dempsey as a General but he was not promoted to that rank until 1946.
      • Excellent catch, i have corrected this mistake.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we need to have two descriptions of the battle in the introduction? It's kind of confusing.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is written per MOS:BEGIN; the first paragraph gives a potted summary and defines the scope of the article, and the following paragraphs expand on the first. However, I've trimmed some extraneous information and tried to make things clearer. EyeSerenetalk 10:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Oppose (1a–b) for now.
    • This is a serious problem with all MilHist articles, but considering they are coming to FAC I feel justified in screeching about it here. The opening sentences on are utterly impenetrable for those who aren't war buffs. To be fair, the opening sentence actually describes what war it's from, which is better than most, but casual readers won't really know about "Operation Perch and the wider Battle of Normandy". Some description of what the whole point of the battle/operation was would be useful. It's strange that some of this important backstory isn't explained until the second paragraph of the lead.
    • Basically, I think that most of the article should be bare minimum understandable without having to navigate away from the page; most readers don't have the insanely useful popups, so you're essentially killing the article's flow by forcing them to divert their attention; it's certainly not compelling or brilliant. Examples of a bit that should be explained in the lead: "It was hoped this flanking manoeuvre would force the German Panzerlehrdivision to fall back" (by the way, who hoped this?). After the background and lead, there's less of an issue.
    • The lead and the background section of the body do not explain what D-Day was
    • The article has many curly quotes (’) which should be replaced with straightquotes (WP:MOS)
    • Considering the article is written in BrEng, shouldn't the measurements be in metric, converted to miles? Not sure if this is covered by WP:ENGVAR or any part of the MoS, just a bit that stuck out when reading.
    • What does "knocked out" mean in relation to these tank images? Disabled? You can't really "knock out" an unthinking piece of machinery. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for reviewing the article. We'll get to work, and ping you when we think your comments have been addressed (if you don't mind). All the best, EyeSerenetalk 20:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to say thanks for the review and that last point really made me laugh; it has never been something i have thought of. To me it makes complete sense because i have been reading about this stuff for years but to an outsider; a very valid point.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, in response to the review:
  • I've been through the the lede and background sections; hopefully they are less impenetrable to non-specialists now.
  • I can't find any curly quotes. Might this be a browser rendering issue?
  • In the UK variety of BrEng we normally use miles. We're officially metric, but in practice often in name only :)
  • Thinking further on "knocked out", you're right that it seems incongruous (and perhaps even colloquial), but it is a standard phrase for the disablement/destruction of an armoured vehicle. It covers everything from slight damage that immobilises the vehicle (eg knocking a track off) to complete catastrophic destruction. Unfortunately, because the references use the term too, if we were to replace it we'd need specific information - I'm not sure from where - on exactly what damage the tanks suffered. The article does over-use the term, but I can't think of anything synonymous. Perhaps you have a suggestion or two? EyeSerenetalk 15:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made some additional changes to make a few things clearer to me, you should check them.
  • They were there :)... I believe got them all
  • You confusing bastards!
  • It's ironic because I popped open a war atlas randomly while browsing at my library and the second page I turned to used the term as well :) Perhaps we can have a little annotation on its first use, in text or in the footnotes, that explains what it means/range of damage it encompasses?

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's really helpful, thank you. I've hope you don't mind my minor alterations to your text; "armoured Panzerlehrdivision" sounds a little odd, so I changed it to Panzer Lehr armoured division (purists may object, but I think we can get away with it!) I also added a little explanatory text to the first mention of PzLehr in the Background section to note that it was an unusually powerful formation.
  • You're right - I found them when I looked at the previous version with the page zoomed in. For some reason that's what the apostrophe key on my keyboard always produces. Not sure why :(
  • Heh, very true. We buy beer in pints and petrol in gallons or litres, but soft drinks in litres only; quote stones and pounds for bodyweight but kilos for most other weights; use miles for long distances, metres or yards for medium distances, and mainly cm/mm for short ones apart from when we use inches...
  • Good idea. I've written a definition into wiktionary and linked to that on the first use in the main text. Is that sufficient?
EyeSerenetalk 21:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer readers did not have to navigate away, but I suppose that's good enough. I'll take another look at the article later today or tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take your point. I've tried a footnote instead - better? EyeSerenetalk 10:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards support

  • Should it be "on" or "at" Point 213? I started changing them to "at" and then wondered if it was a BE thing.

  • Please add publication locations to the references.
  • What makes this a reliable source?
  • The only thing holding up my support is the point raised by MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs) - has he been able to identify any missing information from the German sources? After this issue has been resolved, I will be happy to fully support.

Oh, and can the map points please be changed to little Risk armies? :) Awadewit (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • My view is "on", probably. It could well be a BE thing; generally we'd say "I'm at the beach" meaning we'd arrived but were still in the car, but "on the beach" if we were actually getting sand in our socks (though they can be used interchangeably in some contexts). Point 213 is basically a hill, so "on" would seem to fit. It's not important though :)
  • Will do
  • The site is run by Niklas Zetterling, an established German military historian.
  • Not sure about MisterBee; will drop him a note
  • Which map would this be for?
EyeSerenetalk 21:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The map thing was a little joke. All of the jokes I told yesterday failed. Every single one. :( Awadewit (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had actually started thinking about how to draw the figures and looking for appropriate tank models... :P EyeSerenetalk 17:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having some difficulty with the Location thing for the refs; Amazon, Worldcat, Barnes & Noble etc don't seem to have the information either. Is this an FA-blocker? Also, the ISBN for "Gill, Ronald; Groves, John (2006) [1946]. Club Route in Europe: The History of 30 Corps from D-Day to May 1945. MLRS Books. ISBN 978-1-90569-624-6." doesn't return any result... typo maybe? EyeSerenetalk 15:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think publication locations are very important. To give just one example why, my library requires them for interlibrary loan requests. I can look up some of these books later and see what I can find. Awadewit (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My version of WorldCat has publication locations. I'm adding them now. Awadewit (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added what I could. Some of the citations are not totally clear. For example, the ISBN number does not correspond to the edition of the book listed for some of them, so I could not add the location. In others, the date of publication is unclear. Anyway, someone else will have to add the rest. Awadewit (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just edit conflicted with you when typing this rely... what are the chances? Anyway, thank you so much :) Surely we should have the same version of Worldcat though? I only found one - I can't remember for which book - and that said "Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York"... which seemed nonsensical. I guess I just don't have the touch :P EyeSerenetalk 19:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get the WorldCat thing at all. "Oxford, New York" means it was published in both cities. Most times we just use the first city in the citation. Awadewit (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well that makes more sense now anyway :) EyeSerenetalk 19:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I missed this convo; the info added for the above mentioned books comes from the publisher's website, if that is any help.
A Short History of 30 Corps in the European Campaign
The ISBN matches, i have only edited the layout; maybe this is the mistake? Their version: 978-1-905696-24-6 to mine: 978-1-90569-624-6; i moved the dash.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Good read and nicely laid out article, but I’ve got a couple of queries (and a few opinions!), some of which are bigger than others :-)
    • Infobox and casualties section: As per the discussion we’ve had on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (which seems to have died without consensus unfortunately) I’d prefer to see the details of casualties in the main text rather than a footnote. Given that the article makes mention of details such as the Battle honours and awards, I’d have thought the dead and wounded warranted inclusion.
      • Sources contridct one another on the state of casualties; with current sources it is impossible to break it down.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guessed that from the notes, but I still think that 4 notes containing a lot of info could be rewritten to create a "Casualties and losses" section in the main text, even if some sources do contradict each other. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I will reconsult my sources and see what i can do tonight; although i dont have access to the Rifle Brigade book no more so i cant double check if he provided more detailed info rather than a total.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Continuity: This image in the “Afternoon battle” section is taken after the bombing raids I believe. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the caption or the image moved below to avoid confusion?
    • PanzerLehr: Perhaps because of the comments above, PanzerLehr seems to be referred to in two different ways in the lede and background now. Personally for consistency I’d keep the name standardised, but that’s just my opinion.
      • What differences are you talking about? The use of the full correct name: Panzerlehrdivision, followed by the removal of division in other instances? It seems across various author's work i have read there is no real consistency on what to call the division when removing division from the name: Panzer Lehr, Panzerlehr or Panzer-Lehr seem to be the most common ones.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I appreciate the names are all acceptable, but I realise its been done in the lede to clarify the type of division without repeating division to many times. I was just thinking of consistency, but it isn't important. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you suggesting to use just Panzerlehrdiivsion throughout the article?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • For consistency, yes. But as I said it isn't important and I can see why it's been done in the lede. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Analysis: The very last paragraph of this section, dealing with commander’s dismissal, might be more appropriate in the aftermath section.
      • Addressed; meant to note this the other day but forgot :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wittmann: Every account I’ve read about Villers Bocage has Wittmann returning to the village in the afternoon attack, and this is the occasion on which his tank is knocked out (Beevor, Max Hastings, Panzers in Normandy: Then and Now, (and d’Este at first glance). Panzers in Normady even identifies the Tiger in the image in “Afternoon battle” as Wittmann’s from memory). I see from the talk page archive that there has been some (lengthy) discussion about whether he did or not. If he didn’t, as the article states, perhaps it is worthy of a substantial note explaining why this article seemingly contradicts these books, rather than just a sentence and ref saying he took no further part in the battle.
Hope it helps, sorry to increase the workload! Ranger Steve (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article contradicts these books because they are wrong :p I can't even start to describe just how wrong Beevor and D'Este are :D
      • At any rate i will write up a note; i do not have Hasting (I can only get snippet views from Google books - Wittman from the 501st hehe) or Panzers in Normandy (no preview available); could you provide what they state?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note added.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly the sort of thing I was thinking! My books are in a state of flux at the moment while I move home, but gimme a couple of days. Panzers in Normandy is a library book, but I recall it devotes a lot of pages to VB. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I should be able to access a library copy of this book sometime next week if you are unable to get back in touch prior to that.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've added the Hastings position and ce'd the note slightly. Only one point: the quote uses "wisked", which is normally spelt "whisked". Is this a direct quote (therefore needing a [sic]) or a typo? EyeSerenetalk 17:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ah, beat me to it. Panzers in Normandy, on my lap at the moment, dedicates 12 pages to VB and does as I thought identify the tiger as Wittmann's. It too claims that after entering VB the first time, he drove on to A sqn near point 213 and obliterated them. Then in the arvo, after refueling and rearming he returned to VB, where his tank was knocked out by an AT gun. To be honest though, this book is more about identifying the locations of period photos and less about the exact events... The description of battle is very similar to Hastings. I'm not sure its worth including it in the note because it isn't used in the rest of this article. The texts that are used in the rest of the article that do contradict the sequence of events (as described here) are now explained which is more than satisfactory. As for the typo, personally, I'd offer Taylor the favour and correct him! Ranger Steve (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Corrected the typo, though it still needs double-checking :) EyeSerenetalk 18:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Clarification needed: EngimaMcmxc and MisterBee, how long do you think you need to go through the alternate source and satisfy the comprehensiveness concerns? If it is more than a few days, I suggest that the nomination be closed for now and reopened when you are satisfied. If it will be a very short process, I'll leave the nomination open for now. Karanacs (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned the article is ready now – it is mostly comprised of sources that utilise both British and German records, plus the two main sources are as far as I am aware the most modern sources on the battle – the only modern source that has not been used that much is the 2004 French book that I only have snippets of. Anything else is a bonus.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to hear from MisterBee in particular, as s/he was the one to raise the issue in the first place. Awadewit (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to report that I am still reading Agte. I tried limiting myself to the respective chapters dealing with Villers-Bocage and ended up starting in the beginning. Note: Agte is the only book I own pertaining to this battle and the SS Heavy Panzer Battalion 101. So I am not an authority on the subject. One more thing that doesn't align right now are two pictures on Wikimedia File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-299-1804-07, Nordfrankreich, Panzer VI (Tiger I).jpg and File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-299-1804-11, Nordfrankreich, Panzer VI (Tiger I).jpg which Agte dates between June 6th and the battle at Villers-Bocage. According to Agte they are en route to the engagement while Wikimedia dates them on 21 March 1944. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. A spot-check in the "Background" section reveals opaque, unclear writing. The authors appear to know the topic so well that they're unable to empathise with readers who are new to it. We have to work too hard to determine the action, whereas it should be a good, enjoyable read, crystal clear and vivid. This is a great opportunity missed. Needs an independent copy-edit (quite a job, I think).

  • "Spearheading the thrust intended to sweep around the eastern side of Caen, the 51st (Highland) Infantry Division soon ran into difficulty." Bit odd. Does it need "that was" before "intended"?
  • "Stiff and continued resistance from the 21st Panzer Division prevented the Highlanders from making anything more more than minor gains, and the next day their attack was called off." Gonna fix the double word? "Stiff and continued" is odd ... continued from what? Whose attack: that of the 21st or the Highlanders?
  • "the envelopment's western arm"—the envelopment? Not idiomatic; bizarre, actually.
  • "Newly-arrived"—see User:Tony1/Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style#Hyphens.2A
  • "However, on XXX Corps's right flank, a potentially favourable situation was developing." Could be smoother without one comma: "However, a potentially favourable situation was developing on XXX Corps's right flank." And remove comma before "and having received"? "few replacements for its losses" (neater?).
  • "It withdrew south" ... the whole article needs an audit for fuzzy back-references: what does "it" refer to? Also, I'm having trouble visualising what is going on: "It withdrew south, and the destruction of five German battle groups, including LXXXXIV Corps's reserves,[31] opened up a 7.5-mile (12.1 km) gap in the German lines between the United States V Corps and XXX Corps." Does the destruction happen because of the withdrawal south? Using "and" as a connector doesn't explain the logic or causality.
  • "Conscious of the opportunity presented"—What opportunity? It's opaque; the readers have to work too hard to fathom what is happening. Tony (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS Some of those excellent images are completely wasted by being so tiny. Why bother inserting them at all. Image sizes need a thorough audit. Please see this for how to upsize them:

Imagine sizes are within wiki guidelines, however noting the default size will soon be increase to 220px i have increased the sizes to this. I have also increased the size of a few imagines above this default to 250 as beyond that they seem to big and impose on the text imo.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed your image sizing changes had been reverted, so I've redone them. EyeSerenetalk 19:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tony1/Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style#Size. Tony (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC) PPS The WikiProject Copy-editing essentials: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Academy/Copy-editing_essentials#The_straight_line. Tony (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't edit the article, I'm afraid I have to disagree with a little of what you've said. I agree that perhaps the fourth sentence of the second paragraph in "background" is complex and could perhaps be broken down a little to make it clearer. So too could the last sentence which rather suddenly mentions 5 battlegroups. However, I'd have said what 'it' is, is pretty clear from the previous sentence, as is the opportunity mentioned in the next paragraph. I agree that sometimes articles can be far too complex for their own good, relying on some understanding of the subject matter in advance. But I think this article presents the background (and indeed the event) in a fairly clear fashion, which is especially enhanced by the map. Yes, perhaps there is some complexity, but one can't really have detail of the sort contained here without it. I suspect if it was toned down much more it would require removing detail, and then attract criticism for not explaining things enough! Perhaps another quick c/e to remove some complex strategy, but I think this is a minor quibble that can be easily corrected. Just my own opinion and not an attempt to slight yours in any way Tony. Regards Ranger Steve (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tony and Ranger Steve for your comments. I believe the explanation is sufficiently clear, but I do see Tony's points and he's certainly right that I'm close to the article and familiar with the subject. Enigma has asked around for an independent copyedit; I think Maralia is already on the job, and thanks too for your offer Steve; please feel free :) EyeSerenetalk 19:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • In notes but not refs: Marie, Trew, Williams.... eh, while you're at it you may wanna cross-check your notes that are drawn from the "Sharpshooter" against the titles in (and number of) Sharpshooter refs. They don't seem to be the same to me... errm, "Villers-Bocage Revisited" is attributed to Taylor in the notes but not the refs; is it the same Taylor as the "lens"? I would just double-check all of your cites and refs to periodicals...
I will double check the Sharpshooter refs today but am not sure what your entirely on about with the first part of your comment; what do you mean by "In notes but not refs: Marie, Trew, Williams.... eh"? If this in reference to how the footnotes are displayed, these re in line with Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to present citations. Regards--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are three citations—Marie, Trew, and Williams—that appear in the footnotes, but there is no corresponding book listed in the References or Bibliography section.
I have just double checked the Sharpshooter and After the Battle Refs, they are correct; they are articles and magzines with the various mentioned people who have wrote sections of them. This was initially brought up here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Villers-Bocage/archive1 and these particular footnotes were changed by the same user who brought them up iirc.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look again tomorrow.
Hi, I have added the missing Trew and William books and i have also adjusted the Henri Marie one - it was the wrong way round.
As for the After the Battle; Daniel Taylor is not the author. He wrote an article that appeared in the After the Battle Magazine published by After the Battle. Is this the correct way of displaying this, as it is now?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing a sprinkling punctuation probs, and beginning to worry about the prose.. Moreover, the "Casualties" is a confusing jumble of conflicting figures. IMO a table would make things oh-so-much more clear, but other may think a table would uglify the article.
  • I don't like the end of the analysis section. The "Despite these probs" bit seems like a stab at NPOV that comes off pale and weak (and even given that, perhaps a bit too much). It is immediately contered by more bad news in the same paragraph. I think we need to get a better grasp of the degree of success and failure (so to speak) of the action for both sides. I don't want more NPOV; if anything, I want a little less. Are those "good aspects" discussed in the "Despite this" bit really important and meaningful, or are they just minor aspects of the whole? Etc. Thoughts? Essentially what I'm saying here is that after reading the section, I don't really know how good the good was, how bad the bad was, and who had more bad than good... • Ling.Nut 13:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to address you last with some rearrangement and other tweaks. The most important outcome - that due to the British failure the front line would now be fixed in front of Caen for the foreseeable future - now concludes that section. EyeSerenetalk 18:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm just checking in; will say more in 1 or 2 hours. I was gonna log in and type "Leaning Oppose per 1a and WP:LEDE" because I really don't think the article (or the lede) does a good job of saying whether the battle had any strategic or tactical importance, and who won (if anyone), and by what degree, etc. Popular articles that I read seemed to think it was a decisive German victory. I dunno if that's true, but I do know this article left me wondering. And i saw something buried deep in the article that said the town was important (I did a small ce edit in that sentence), but I don't remember seeing that in the lede etc. But perhaps only a few additional sentences can rectify these problems, and so perhaps we have time to clear this all up satisfactorily without the need for an Oppose. • Ling.Nut 00:30, 12 December 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 16:43, 5 December 2009 [50].

Arrow (missile) edit

Nominator(s): Flayer (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it is the last step of promoting this article and I hope it meets the criteria. Flayer (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

--an odd name (help honey) 02:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Prose needs some work: in the lead: "funded and produced by Israel and the United States, development of the system began in 1986 and has continued since, drawing some contested criticism.", later "Once again a missile malfunction resulted in the abortion of the experiment." - these are just examples. "hermetic defense" if a standard term needs explaining. Virtually all the sourcing seems to be from Israeli sources or US government ones. It seems unlikely the system has not been discussed elsewhere. Has the programme been discussed in Congress? Frankly mostly pretty boring to read, but seems comprehensive on the technical side. Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 2 December 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 16:43, 5 December 2009 [51].

School Rumble edit

Nominator(s): 陣内Jinnai 22:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. The article has undergone several external assessments and a major copyedit.陣内Jinnai 22:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

  • Apparently Jinnai's computer died (see here) and he can only access the internet via his PSP right now. As it takes too long to type anything substantial, his participation may be very low until he can get his computer fixed. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: Found out what is the problem and ordered the parts. However, it may be another week before i can do much.陣内Jinnai 19:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments

  • No dab links, but refs 68 and 72 and the first external link are all dead.
    • External link corrected; 68 removed (and all infobox info on non-English publishers which have had English publications removed per template talk's consensus); 72 replaced with 3 refs.陣内Jinnai 01:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • All external links work now. --an odd name 02:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2004=2005"—should this be 2004–2005 (with an en dash) or was this intentional (like the Lucky Star star)?
    • First assumption was right.
  • Ref dates are all Month Day, Year, except for a few Day Month Year dates in "Other related media" and maybe other places.
    • Checked there and elsewhere and found them all to be MDY.
      • 125, 127, and 128 used {{cite book}} with separate month, day and year parameters. The documentation recommends simply using date if all three are present. They're fixed now. --an odd name 00:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All images have alt text. The cover's alt should be obvious from viewing the image alone, though—I suggest you replace Tenma and Harima's names with descriptions of the characters, and maybe describe the text on (and appearance of) the cover as well, to meet that. Otherwise, they have no obvious errors. (added on 22:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC))
    • Added descriptions of the characters. Check them out and see if there missing anything.陣内Jinnai 20:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alts look good now. --an odd name 21:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

  • I wonder if Kobayashi intended "School Ramble" (with an a) instead of "Rumble". It would make vastly more sense, and one source in the article is spelled "Ramble". Do any sources discuss the spelling?
    • The only other spelling I've seen (and i can note this if you want) is the shorthand Japanese pronunciation Schoolrum.
      • Nah, that one doesn't seem too important. --an odd name 21:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see sales data for the manga. Is there such data for the anime? (Inspired mainly by your review at Talk:New Cutie Honey/GA1—here I turn the tables a bit *wink*)

--an odd name 22:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deal with the others when i have some more time.陣内Jinnai 23:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addressed most of the issues. For sales data, i might have a chance later to look around, but not atm.陣内Jinnai 20:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for now. I will probably add more later since I'm skimming really fast. —Arsonal (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any particular reason why the infobox image isn't using a cover image of the first Japanese manga volume?
    • See Talk:School Rumble#Reasoning for volume 13 Infoxbox image. --an odd name 20:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In addition, one of the main reasons for manga, to show the artstyle, fails for volume 1 as the main image is a chibi version of Tenma and an very extreme closeup of her face which does not allow to clearly see the general artstyle. 陣内Jinnai 20:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good enough reason for me. I disagree with the systemic bias assessment, but I'll leave that discussion out of here. I was just curious. Arsonal (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First TV anime infobox section: extraneous closing bracket after "Revelation films", whose "f" should be capitalized.
  • Media/Manga: Is it necessary to provide the Japanese name for Weekly Shōnen Magazine if it already has an article?
    • Removed it. I think it was originally added for consistency with the other publications.
  • Media/Anime: In the image, "Initial D" should be italicized. "Azumanga Diaoh" is a misspelling.
  • Media/Other related media: Add a comma after "July 21, 2005". Remove comma after "It was later reissued". "Famitsu" should be italicized and linked as Famitsū.
  • Reception and sales/Anime: Italicize foreign words like shōnen and shōjo.
    • Those imo are common enough words that they do not need to be italicized, especially shōnen/shonen.陣内Jinnai 20:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may be common in the manga and anime industry, but someone who has no knowledge about it would not immediately know. These words are not inherently English words. Project FAs Tokyo Mew Mew and the more recent Shojo Beat italicize these terms. Arsonal (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I could see the argument for Shojo, but given the popularity of Naruto and Dragonball Z beyond the typical anime/manga community shonen I believe has become more mainstream.陣内Jinnai 17:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Extremepro (talk · contribs)

  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: favorite (A) (British: favourite), mustache (A) (British: moustache), recognise (B) (American: recognize), criticize (A) (British: criticise), fulfilment (B) (American: fulfillment), sceptic (B) (American: skeptic).

Note: This comment is from User:AndyZ's peer review script. Extremepro 22:59, 20 Nov 2009 (UTC)

  • Image comments
    • File:School Rumble - bike-chase.png is missing source info (is it from a website? Was it a self-made screencap?) and I don't think it really meets WP:NFCC. The rationale states it is used to show "how the series uses gags" and an example of a cultural reference. The latter reason isn't defensible, and the first one doesn't make any sense—I don't see a gag, I don't see where the text explains the gag, so obviously it's not doing a good job. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The gag is that it is a mockup of Initial D's Trueno. Intial D isn't in any way related to School Rumble, but the gag is that they still ride past him on their bikes. The riding past them is hard to show I admit with a screencap, but generally a screencap is easier to be defensable than a clip. Furthermore the cheesy 3-D graphics also show the way the anime goes along with the gag as the Initial D series is known for such graphics. This is an example of the type of gag used; one that used absurdist humor combined often with references to other anime/manga or pop-culture references.陣内Jinnai 07:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • But none of that is explicitly elaborated on in the prose, as far as I see. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done. I still am wanting to do a short clip as I think it would illustrate the point better as its hard to see how the biks ride past the car with a screenshot, but need to find a good video splitting program.陣内Jinnai 07:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1c, 2c, comments: Also, what makes Mania.com, ICv2, Eomi Press, cdJapan, THEMAnime.org, Kodansha, Jonu Media, Digital=Sat high quality reliable sources? Some citations are inconsistently formatted, and/or missing, ex. curent ref #186. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mania.com, ICv2, THEM Anime have been tested for reliability by WikiProject Anime and manga and have passed in previous FACs. Kodansha is the official publisher's website. Jonu Media is the publisher of Jonu Magazine based in Barcelona, Spain. CDJapan is one of the largest online retailer for Japanese products based in Tokyo. "Eomi Press" should be "ComiPress", though Jinnai will have to answer your question on its reliability. The same goes with "Digital=Sat" which should be "Digital-Sat". Arsonal (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the |other_networks= as it is going to be deprecated. Source the networks in the body before removing. Extremepro (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 16:43, 5 December 2009 [52].

Davenport, Iowa edit

Nominator(s): CTJF83 chat 01:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I have worked really hard over the last 2 years to improve it. The article was not promoted at the last FAC, 366 days ago, and I have done extensive work since then to improve the article. I believe the article meets the FA criteria. CTJF83 chat 01:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments by an odd name (help honey)

  • No dab links, but the external link for ref 40 (a davenportone.com PDF) is dead (goes to main page).
  • Most images have alt text, but...
    • The infobox images are missing alts. The four big ones need it; the two small flags do not.
      • Are you saying the map of Iowa and the map of Scott County need alt text? CTJF83 chat 08:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think so, because they are not merely decorative—they show where the place is in relation to others. I gave it a shot; check it out. --an odd name 11:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A large f-story red brick building with many windows"—is "f-story" a technical term, or did you mean "four-story"?
  • Speaking of four, spell out small (0–9) numbers.
    • Is it possible to spell out the numbers in the {{convert}} template? It didn't work for me CTJF83 chat 08:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't worry about those cases: "Measurements, stock prices, and other quasi-continuous quantities are normally stated in figures, even when the value is a small positive integer", says the guideline. I mainly meant the alt text, which still has a few (like "A row of 3 older buildings"). --an odd name 10:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--an odd name 01:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Alright, I have fixed all of these concerns. CTJF83 chat 20:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed remaining numerals in alt text. No dead external links. --an odd name (help honey) 22:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support on 1b and 4—the article isn't too long, and deals with all the stuff I'd expect a city article to in good detail, and separates large parts to other articles. You mention food a bit in "Events and festivals"; comparing this and New York City, I suppose more could be added about cuisine, if they have some distinctive food of their own. (See also discussion on my talk page.) --an odd name (help honey) 00:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps your a little confused. The only mention of NYC is that a park was named after Central Park. There is no unique cuisine, I just meant like fair food at the Bix Festival. CTJF83 chat 00:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just chose NYC as another featured article to gauge this article's comprehensiveness. I didn't intend to compare the two cities in any other way. --an odd name (help honey) 00:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OH! LOL, sorry, misunderstanding on my part. CTJF83 chat 00:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentFifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2c
Refdates are consistent YYYY-MM-DD
Corporate Authored Works should list their corporate author in shortcites, shortcites which shorten titles should only do so at the subtitle indicator (a colon, or semi-colon.) In relation to: Historic Preservation in Davenport, Iowa; which should read, "Plan and Zoning Commission, Historic preservation in Davenport, Iowa for inclusion in the Davenport Comprehensive Plan"
Manual short citations should end with a full-stop (en_US:period) to match fullcites in the footnotes
Please check all your newspaper articles for by-lines, and indicate the author if a by-line exists.
In general, please check your web references for authors. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by your points that start with Corporate, and Manual, please explain more. I fixed the other two. CTJF83 chat 08:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. When a work is authored by a corporate entity, like a government, government department, company, etc, for example by the "Plan and Zoning Commission," it is usual to treat the corporate entity as the author of the work. So |author=Plan and Zoning Commission
Where you provide a short citation, for example, "Svendsen, p. 82" the citation does not end with a period. When you provide a long citation, for example, "Doxsie, Don (1994-07-31). "Q-C race has grown from a humble beginning into one of the nation's most spectacular events". Quad-City Times. Retrieved 2009-09-22." the citation ends with a period. Its a matter of stylistic choice if you go for "no periods" "periods only for long cites" "periods for all". (A short citation is a citation where the work is referenced in full in the bibliography, and you provide minimal identifying material, a longcite is when you provide the citation in full in the footnotes).
Does that help? Fifelfoo (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think so....so I need to choose if all citations get a period, just long, or just short? For example are you saying, citation 32 should be changed to "Plan and Zoning Commission, p. 19." with changing the "author" and adding the period after 19? CTJF83 chat 10:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'd suggest. The full stop at the end is a style issue only, as long as you're consistent with whatever choice you make. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you also check that your webcitations aren't really other works, say, newspaper articles, with a signed author? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Just a general picky thing, but you're a bit confused about what a publisher is. It's not "Quad City Memory" but "Davenport Public Library" that publishes the work that's entitled "Quad City Memory". Same for "weather.com" which is the work, and the publisher is "Weather Channel", similarly throughout. It's not worth an oppose, but it makes it much harder to check sources for reliablity when the two things are confused.
    • For ref 67, do you want TV By the Numbers as the publisher, or Nielsen company? CTJF83 chat 20:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which company is behind the site? If Neilsen is the company that owns the website, Neilsen, if TV by the Numbers, then TV by the Numbers. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, it's TV by the numbers website, they just got the info from Neilsen, I'll use TV..as the publisher CTJF83 chat 21:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOAA or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration? Need to be consistent in how you refer to entities throughout.
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
  • : Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All concerns fixed. CTJF83 chat 21:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is mostly good (thanks), but there's one problem with File:Scott County Iowa Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Davenport Highlighted.svg. Its alt text focuses on the visual appearance of the map (e.g., whether it uses red to highlight); instead, it should convey to the visually impaired reader the gist of the map (e.g., something like "Located on the center south border of a county that is on southern side of the hump on the eastern border of Iowa."). Please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance on alt text for maps. Eubulides (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops. Didn't read that section and simply described the appearance. --an odd name 18:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, that should do it. (Sorry about the length of WP:ALT; wish I could make it shorter....) Eubulides (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else see further issues? --an odd name 23:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In my opinion, there are significant 1a, 1b, and 1c issues with this article.

  • The lead is not a good summary of the article per WP:LEAD - major sections of the article, such as the "Geography" and "Demographics" are skipped over.
  • The "History" section is sourced primarily to a timeline and a pictorial history. This has created a "factoid" effect. Each paragraph is about a small incident in the town's history, but the section does not convey the overarching history of the town or the town's place in Iowa history. For example, an entire paragraph is devoted to a steamboat crash and another to an orphanage, but neither explain why these are crucial to the development of the town. Later in the article, there is a passing reference to the German immigrants that settled the town, but no mention is made of this in the "History" section. There is a lot of information published on German immigration to Iowa. For example, see this book, which even has an essay specifically about Davenport in it.
  • I'm very concerned that some of the information in African Americans in Davenport, Iowa has not been summarized in this article, particularly some of the history of race relations in the town.
    • I don't think the black community, or the white community are notable enough for a section on the Davenport page. CTJF83 chat 07:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not asking for a section, necessarily. I'm pointing out that Davenport's racial history is not discussed in the article at all, when clearly it could be, as there is material available. Awadewit (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the political history of the town? I think more needs to be added on that either in the "History" or the "Government" section.
  • The first chiropractic school in the world, Palmer College of Chiropractic, was founded in 1897 - I expected to hear more about this school in the "Education" section but did not. Also, this detail seems more appropriate for the "Education" section than the "Geography" section.
  • The prose also needs some work. There are two primary problems with it: 1) repetition; 2) stiltedness. Let me give two examples to highlight what I am talking about. A good copyeditor will need to go through the article and work on it to fix these problems.
  • Ex: There are six public intermediate schools and twenty-two public elementary schools. Phebe Sudlow was the first female public school superintendent in the United States.[81] She was superintendent for Davenport schools from 1874–1878. There are also six private kindergarten-through-eighth-grade schools. - The fact about the first female school superintendent is jarring and the reader does not understand why it is being introduced during the description of Davenport's schools. Note how the paragraph returns to describing the number of schools in the town after this random fact. You need to find a way to gracefully introduce this interesting fact.
She is mentioned at the end of the public schools section on it, being she was a principal and superintendent of the public schools. It then goes on to the private schools, which is a different "section" then the public schools. CTJF83 chat 22:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ex: Davenport has a variety of neighborhoods dating back to the 1840s.[27] The city can be divided into five areas for neighborhoods: Downtown, central, east end, near north and northwest, and west end. The neighborhoods contain many architectural designs, including Victorian, Queen Anne, Tudor Revival, and others.[28] Many of the original neighborhoods were inhabited by German settlers.[27] The original city plot was around current day Ripley and 5th Streets, where Antoine LeClaire had built his house. Housing is among the most affordable in the nation. - The whole paragraph sounds repetitious since the word "neighborhood" appears at the beginning of almost every sentence. Also, the paragraph doesn't flow very well - each sentence is a contained unit rather than leading the reader into the next one. For example, we begin with history and then return to it later. The last two sentences have nothing to do with one another. This kind of problem contributes to the stilted nature of the writing - the reader is jerked back and forth between topics.
  • Davenport is believed to be protected from tornadoes by a blessing from a "mass mound", similar to an altar. - This is sourced to an opinion piece. We need to find a better source, as opinion pieces are not as reliable as history books. Find a description of local history and use it to explain the mound story.
  • This is a tourism website. I do not think this is a high-quality source, particularly to describe the geography of the area.
    • Is this a huge deal? This is just confirming what looking at a map will show, that the river does flow east/west, instead of north/south. CTJF83 chat 08:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source does not support the following statement in the article: "Davenport is the headquarters for department store Von Maur, which has twenty-two stores in nine states."
  • This source does not support the following statement in the article: "Together the facilities have 665 beds.[87] The hospitals employ more than 600 physicians and 5,000 staff members" - Notice that the website says "Our affiliates bring together more than 665 licensed beds, 600 physicians, 5,000 staff members and hundreds of volunteers to serve our community." - The "affiliates" constitute more than the hospitals, I think.
    • Put in a note that the number consists of 2 other facilitates (best I could find) CTJF83 chat 08:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a high-quality source for the birthplace of Cody.
  • The "References" need places of publication.

Because more research needs to be done and the "History" section needs to be entirely rewritten (not just copyedited), I would suggest withdrawing this article from FAC and working on these issues without the pressure of the candidacy. Awadewit (talk) 15:13, 4 December 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 16:43, 5 December 2009 [53].

Cavalera Conspiracy edit

Nominator(s): Cannibaloki 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... After follow the rituals presented at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, I decided to nominate this article. To reach here, this article passed for a GA review (conducted by user:Maclean25), and then a peer review, where it received a copy-edit, done by user:Finetooth. I am willing to fix [any?] possible problems that the reviewers find.--Cannibaloki 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments

  • No dab links or dead external links.
  • All images have alt text. Make sure that the text would be obvious from seeing the image alone—I think "four members of a musical ensemble", for example, should be changed (they could be from different groups or even all solo, unless we read the article!). How about "Photomontage of four male musicians. Each man appears in a separate column." for the first alt?
  • Ref dates are consistent Day Month Year.

--an odd name 17:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the text, take a look please. Is in this way?--Cannibaloki 19:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. --an odd name 20:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeWeak support - 'weak' mainly because of my unfamiliarity with the sources and content in this area. If this article did not represent a comprehensive survey of the relevant literature, I wouldn't know :-) Suggest the second para of the lead be shortened to stick to major facts. Otherwise now looking OK i think. hamiltonstone (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:I haven't generally commented on articles about bands / singers etc, so this is not input from a topic expert at all. I thought this article appeared unbalanced. Entire article text is under the heading 'History'. That looks wrong, and not everything is historical material. The article needs a separate section on musical style etc. Also a section on critical reception, of which there appears to be nothing at all. The article's entire content on impact, style, lyrics, etc appears to be as follows: "...peaking at number 72 on the Billboard 200, selling more than 9,000 copies during its first week in stores.[7] The album blends elements of punk rock and hardcore punk, Sepultura's thrash metal of Arise (1991) and the groove metal of Chaos A.D. (1993),[1][6][8] with its lyrical concept taken from movies Apocalypse Now, City of God, A Clockwork Orange, and La Haine." Surely more would be needed than this for an FA on a band?

The content that has been written is generally well prepared and referenced, but I would not have seen this as close to FA at present. Happy to have a discussion here, though. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doing... Please, next time give examples (ie. like article X or Y).--Cannibaloki 15:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Agreeing with your comment above, I expanded the article into a new section entitled Style, lyrics and reception.--Cannibaloki 06:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pleased to see the style etc section introduced. That's better. More comments:
  • Is the guy's name Igor or Iggor? Both spellings are used on different occasions.
  • Since 2006 is Iggor. Anyway, I chose Igor for consistency.--Cannibaloki 19:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead needs to be more balanced - too much space taken up on formation of the band; no space devoted to critical reception.
  • The space was created, now we have a place for devotion. :-) --Cannibaloki 19:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think material on sales and chart performance should be udner "reception" rather than "Infiktd" subsection of the history? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me on the Inflikted section.--Cannibaloki 19:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, thanks. I need to come back another time and read through the whole thing, to see if my more general objection should be struck. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - Images check out. Awadewit (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually, I think there's a problem with the images. The montage includes images sourced from File:Cavalera Conspiracy 004.jpg, File:Cavalera Conspiracy 005.jpg and File:Cavalera Conspiracy 013.jpg. According to the tags on Commons, the files were taken from a Flickr account operated by Flickr user Eurockéennes de Belfort. All three images - here, here and here are clearly marked as copyrighted (as are all of the Flickr user's submissions). This looks like a Commons error, and I'll be tagging those as copyvios, but the upshot is that File:Cavalera Conspiracy.jpg is also non-free and will be tagged as well. The image is therefore, even if transferred to Wikipedia, non-free and speedy deletable as a copyvio as well as failing WP:NFCC#1 as the images of living people are replaceable. Black Kite 18:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps the Flickr user has changed the license.--Cannibaloki 19:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If Flickr has a "View licensing history" feature that illustrates past license changes, this would be less of a problem. (Of course, the Flickr user should be asked to clarify or relicense.) --an odd name 19:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Possibly, but given that the images in the Flickr collection - which is run by the Eurorockennes festival - were not taken by one person, but a collection of photographers (some professional), I would be very surprised if any of them were ever anything but copyrighted. This isn't the first time - by a long way - that Flickr images that have been marked as "checked" on Commons have turned out to be copyrighted, though. I note that the images were never checked by a human, but by a bot, which has caused issues in the past. Black Kite 19:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I just assumed that the licenses had changed since the check - I was unaware that there had been problems with Flickr checking on Commons. I had been relying on that for image checks. Could you please leave a detailed explanation on my talk page of the problems with Flickr checking? And thank you for bringing this up. Awadewit (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I will remove the images, and replace by those available on Commons.--Cannibaloki 20:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments Everything just about fine. If you're going to include work and publisher, do it for all or none. As it stands, some are non-uniform with others. RB88 (T) 23:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Now, using only the field "work".--Cannibaloki 02:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article may have received a copyedit, but it is badly in need of another one. There is an improper comma in the very first sentence. (Can you find it?) There is a major failure of explication in the very first paragraph. (What contract with Max Cavalera's wife? Was she the band's agent? Manager? Lawyer? Promoter?) There is a substantial failure of focus in that very same sentence: This is an article about Cavalera Conspiracy, not Sepultura. Why do we need to know in the lead of an article on Cavalera Conspiracy that Sepultura broke up "after a sold-out show at London's Brixton Academy"? ("After a London concert" or even nothing at all would be sufficient.) Please, go to the Guild, get a serious copyeditor to do a serious copyedit on this article, and I'll be happy to revisit. DocKino (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 16:43, 5 December 2009 [54].

The Chinese Restaurant edit

Nominator(s): --Music26/11 20:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I think this meets the FA criteria. This is the third Seinfeld season two episode I'm nominating for FAC, both previous episode articles have not been promoted (yet). Mostly because nobody seems interested enough to review them. Hopefully, as this is considered a "classic episode", reviewers will come in greater numbers. Thank you.--Music26/11 20:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments

--an odd name 20:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - The sole image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Why does the plot section begin with "In this landmark episode[...]" ? How is it neutral? (More comments likely to come) The Flash {talk} 03:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No idea how that got there. I've removed it.--Music26/11 13:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments:
  • I'd like to see an image for this article's infobox; something like this. With that image, you can have a rationale for "Hong's performance became one of his most famous roles in the United States" or "The plot was believed by NBC to be nonexistent and uninteresting to viewers, which the crew vehemently denied" or even "The very simple and generally nonexistent storyline for the episode was praised by critics, who believed it help define the series' "show about nothing" concept."
  • The fact that you prefer an image in an article like this (a TV episode article that is) is understandable, but I believe other users will critize an image such as the one you propose. The thing is (based on experience with other FACs) most reviewers only think an image is neccesary when whatever the picture depicts can't be explained in words; for instance the image you used on your first FA, you can see in the image what is explained in the caption, in other words, you can see the design of the Electro character. The thing is, the image you propose, as well as any other image, would be considered redundant as it doesn't add anything; we don't have any info regarding the set of the episode or the clothes the characters wore or something like that. That's why I believe an image will be critized by other reviewers. Sorry for the length ;).--Music26/11 18:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't particularly agree with you here, but do understand where you're coming from and have struck the comment. The Flash {talk} 19:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree with what I point out either. I just hate it if reviewers make a "big thing" about it.--Music26/11 20:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Richard's quote, please decapitalize "restaurant" as it implies he's referring to the episode's title, not the plot.
  • As this article's references show "Inside looks" on the episode are available on the DVD, I'd suggest removing the instance that is wasn't from Seinfeld (season 2).
  • I'm terribly sorry, but I don't have a clue what you are talking about.--Music26/11 18:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout the article, a citation used is the DVD feature "Inside Looks - The Chinese Restaurant." On the season 2 page, it is said that the feature is not available for the episode. It doesn't truly pertain to the article itself, but when viewing it one is bound to read the season page, which gives false info on one of the article's sources. Is that a bit clearer? The Flash {talk} 19:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ohhh... I get it, sorry that's my fault. Removed.--Music26/11 20:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Michael Mitz portrayed the man who is on the phone when George tries to call Tatiana, Mitz would return[...]" -> "[...]to call Tatiana; Mitz would return[...]"
  • "[...]he is sitting by the door of the restaurant at the beginning of the episode, he is still sitting at the same spot when Jerry, George and Elaine leave." -> "[...]the beginning of the episode and is later still[...]"

Support: My issues have been taken care of; I believe the article now meets FA criteria. The Flash {talk} 21:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sources fine. Great little article. Nicely researched and written. RB88 (T) 23:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support its very nicely done, also remember to review my FLC Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Family Guy cast members/archive1--Pedro J. the rookie 16:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note; involved reviewers should indicate so i their declarations; Pedro J. passed this artilce at GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but the prose doesn't meet 1a standards. Please solicit a copyeditor for assistance. Here are some example problems from the lead and the Plot section. Sasata (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Unable to get a table they hang around and talk" Is idiomatic English considered good prose for an encyclopedia?
Loiter? Sasata (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have a suggestion how I could change it?--Music26/11 15:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...George tries to use the phone that is constantly occupied..." is a phone occupied? (changed)
  • "It was not until David treatened to quit" typo (fixed)
  • "Television critics reacted positively to the episode, which went on to become one of the show's first classic episodes; in 1998, a South Florida Sun-Sentinel critic wrote that the episode, along with the season four episode..." Did anyone notice this sentence has the word "episode" four times? (cut down to two)
  • "Jerry, George and Elaine decide to get dinner without reservations..." Needs rephrasing, as the phrase "without reservation" has a meaning that is not the one intended here. (done)
  • Chinese restaurant is a dab (I delinked it - so generic as to be of little use I think)
  • "George is nervous about his girlfriend Tatiana, whom he left during sexual intercourse because he needed to use the washroom due to an upset stomach and worried that the size of her apartment did not allow for him to have enough privacy to avoid making it obvious as to what he was doing in the washroom." This run-on monster sentence needs help. (reverted back to old plot)
  • "...but a man (Michael Mitz) occupies the phone" again the phone becomes "occupied" (fixed)
  • "Jerry notices a woman (Judy Kain) whom he recognizes," whom should be who, but why not just leave the word out? (good idea. done)
  • "Elaine approaches a table and tells them her friends would give her $50 to eat one of their egg rolls and she was willing to give them $25 of it." The first "them" in this sentence has not been clarified; "she was willing" verb tense is not consistent with the rest of the section. (done tense) (explained 'them')
  • "When he is finally able to call Tatiana, he gets her answering machine" how does he "get" it (i.e. it's idiomatic) (better now?)
  • "Jerry remembers she's his uncle's receptionist." contractions are to be avoided (done)
  • "Realizing his cover is blown" idiomatic (to has been caught out)
    • Do you have a suggestion how I could change it?--Music26/11 15:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Realizing his lie will be exposed" ? Sasata (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In his explanation, Jerry makes a reference to the Bermuda Triangle stating: "Unfortunately nobody ever disappears!". Haven't given enough context for readers to appreciate why this quote is humorous. (reverted back to old plot)
  • "Jerry, George and Elaine both agree to leave." Both implies two. (done)

(ec) Ok, I'm striking my oppose as these two sections read much better now, and the remaining two aren't as problematic. The overall prose still doesn't qualify as brilliant or professional (imho of course), hence my reluctance to support. Sasata (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to do whatever you want, and I respect your opinion ;). The two remaining issues have been fixed, thanks for striking the oppose.--Music26/11 12:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments good timing Sasata, I'd just done some copyediting and considered some of the same issues. Strike out if I do some :)
As well as the prose, I wonder about comprehensiveness - the show about nothing theme, did David cite any influences? Also interesting comparing this sort of story with various curb your enthusiasm episodes...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find any sources, be my guest.--Music26/11 15:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have looked and didn't find anything else, I am satisfied, as I wouldn't know where to start. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find anything to expand the production section, there were a few reviews (mostly just pass-on mentions as an example of the show's format), but I did not add them as I felt the section is fine as it is now. I'll see if I can find some comparisons between the ep and CYE, though I wouldn't know where to put it.--Music26/11 19:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It'd sorta be a legacy-type thing, so maybe at the end (?). Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall...wavering on supporting - it's okay, I massaged the prose a fair bit and nothing stands out as a drop-dead deal-breaker. Some extra context might be helpful but not a deal-breaker if none exists. Interesting read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could not find any sources comparing this episode to CYE on NewsBank, the reception section could be changed to "Reception and legacy" if you happen to find any. Thanks for your conditional support.--Music26/11 18:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs copy-editing Just a brief scan-through of the article revealed something almost immediately to me—the word "episode" is used an astonishingly large number of times. 42 to be exact—7 in the lead, 22 in Production, and 13 in Reception (this excluding the infobox and references). Please audit throughout the article for oft-repeated words and redundancy.—indopug (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decreased. The word is still used in the article, if you have any ideas to replace the words, be my guest. Also, finding a copy-editor is quite hard (in my opinion), I frequently contact participants at he GOCE, but rarely get a reply and I find listing the article usually takes too much time for FAc.--Music26/11 17:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs on prose and comprehensiveness grounds.

  • Tatiana calls back, but the maitre d' calls "Cartwright" instead of "Costanza". - these two halves of the sentence don't appear to go together....I think we are missing a tidbit somewhere
  • The plot section really ought to repeat the wikilinking and full names of the main characters and include the names of the actors (not everyone reads the lead)
  • Linked, excluded last names of characters as I feel they are not necessary.--Music26/11 17:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose needs work.
    • Be more specific please.--Music26/11 17:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are significant grammer issues - missing words, misspelled words/wrong tense, punctuation problems. I fixed a few of these in the lead but see them throughout the article.
      • I have no problem with you saying this, but if you fixed the issues you saw, why didn't you fix the one that are left? I mean, if you say there are more, where are they?--Music26/11 17:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a lot of repetition. Examples: directed by Tom Cherones, who directed all of season two's episodes. and As the episode took place in only one location, it took less time than other episodes to be filmed.[5] Cast members have remarked that the filming was shorter than on any other episode, as it took roughly half of the time it usually took.
      • Changed the Cast thing, not sure how to change the Cherones thing, or what the exact problem is.--Music26/11 17:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the original draft the three friends also discussed how to prevent the events in the future - what events?
  • David's voice can be heard - this is right after a sentence about David Tress, so I'm confused as whether this means him or Larry David.
  • Have you exhausted scholarly sources rather than just newspapers? The following may be useful [55] [56] [57]
    • These sources aren't very helpful.--Music26/11 17:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The episode is also discussed in this book [58] and this book [59] discusses the theme of Seinfeld characters being confined someplace

Karanacs (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not have access to the first source (as I am editing from the netherlands), and the second book doesn't contain enough info to start a "theme" section.--Music26/11 17:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose issues I've listed are only examples of problems I see throughout the article. I had intended to fix them until I saw that is was pervasive. I strongly encourage you to find an independent copyeditor. Also, please specify why the sources aren't useful? Have you been able to access them in full? Karanacs (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have to go now, but just informing you that I've sent two copy-editors a message.--Music26/11 16:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, two copy-editors have done their on the article. Second, I'm not sure of the first source because I think there's some kind of accesslink I'm missing, but the other two sources simply do not contain enough information.--Music26/11 05:30, 5 December 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 18:49, 3 December 2009 [60].

Union Avenue Historic Commercial District edit

Nominator(s): Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it represents a good portion of Southern Colorado history including national events and figures. It is well written and follows the guidelines for sourcing, pictures and has no ongoing edit wars. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose and suggest withdrawal. Article has a cleanup template, bare URLs as refs, sources of questionable reliability/quality (e.g. http://www.bstreetbash.com/), awkward writing (e.g. "originally part of South Pueblo, a small city until incorporated into Pueblo which combined South Pueblo, Central Pueblo, Pueblo and Bessemer into one municipality"), grammar issues (e.g. missing comma in "Bat Masterson, best known for his association with Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday was brought"), image with questionable provenence (File:Union Depot, Pueblo, CO.jpg) and appears to be the result of purely online research (a notable, century-old business district has no print sources? Was Noel, Thomas Jacob (1997). Buildings of Colorado Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195090764, for example, consulted? It appears to discuss Union Depot and may contain background on the district. If the depot is "a prominent building in the district", why does it receive no discussion? Surely architecture is relevant; is there a comprehensiveness issue?) Эlcobbola talk 16:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't expect to be able to improve the article much more myself, I'm curious — what can I do to improve the image? I don't see how the image is affected by matters covered at provenance, but perhaps I'm missing something. Nyttend (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The description says the photo is "by Einar Einarsson Kvaran". The image was uploaded by Carptash. Are they the same person? Carptash's user page doesn't give a name. The description also links to http://www.pueblouniondepot.com/, which could suggest it was taken from that site (which has a photo gallery; this image isn't currently there but, as a file uploaded in 2004, the page my have changed). Where is the image truly from and does the uploader (Carptash) have permission from Kvaran (if they're not the same person) to license it as GFDL/CC? I don't know the answer, as the information provided is unclear, thus the provenance issue. Эlcobbola talk 17:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carptrash has uploaded lots of images, and they all credit Einar as the author, so I'm sure that's Carptrash's real name. Perhaps we could discuss this with him? Nyttend (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the only issue is the lack of clarity. If Carptrash confirms he's indeed Kvaran, the summary can be tweaked to be more explicit and the issue will be thusly resolved. Эlcobbola talk 18:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See this edit. Nyttend (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to your opinion, some of the clarifying sources have been removed in the wordsmithing. No complaints as I feel a good job was done there, however if you notice most of these buidlings are notable within their own right so their is a article Dedicated to it. Pueblo Union Depot, Vail Hotel. I am however having a bit of difficultied in adding some of the more interesting folklore. I have mentioned this to Nytennd and do not know how to proceed. Within the district we have several markers that explain individual buildings and their notability. The Union Depot district was the Main part of the old incorporated South Pueblo. Four towns were in a close vicinity and asouth pueblo because of the Union Depot was an economic hub. How would I go about using the Plaques for Information? Would it be nec. to photograph all the plaques? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's of course desirable that the buildings have their own articles in keeping with summary style, but certainly a summary of the notable architecture is relevant and necessary to comprehensively discuss a historic district. That's merely an example of a comprehensiveness concern; there may well be other aspects that also need discussion. Sources provide support for facts and data; altering wording (certainly a good thing, as to avoid plagiarism) should not result in their removal. Whether sourcing to plaques is acceptable sourcing, I don't know, but uploading such images to Wikipedia would likely be a copyright violation as they would be derivative works and the United States does not have freedom of panorama. Эlcobbola talk 17:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I plan on photgraphing the buildings within a week or two if this image is an Issue I can replace it by pictures by me. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't know much about FAs, but this is far from being comprehensive among many other things. I wrote much of the current edition of the text, and I don't think my writing is FA-quality. Nyttend (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 14:34, 3 December 2009 [61].

Hurricane Fifi edit

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton | Talk, User:Cyclonebiskit


I am nominating this for featured article because after collaborating with User:Cyclonebiskit on what's likely among the top-5 most important Atlantic tropical cyclones, I think it's ready to be put to the test. The credit for most of the research goes to CB, and I did a bunch of copyediting to ensure the prose is good. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments No dead externals or alt bugs here, but two dabs. Month Day, Year throughout. --an odd name 00:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the disambig links Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Grief! I find it hard to believe a person could write about an historical subject without the year of the event in the first sentence. In fact, it is nowhere in the introduction at all (except in conversion rate). Date and location are absolutely basic information. Amandajm (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - Image copyright is fine. I would suggest straightening this image. It is crooked. Awadewit (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody out there? :) –Juliancolton | Talk 01:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just me, apparently :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now by Karanacs. I just realized that today is the official end of hurricane season :) That puts me in just the right frame of mind to review an article on the dratted things.

  • Orlene storm traveled in an arced path - is that the appropriate way to refer to the storm is that a mistake?
  • Is there any information on why so many in Honduras did not evacuate? Had there been a history of storms hitting and not causing a lot of damage? Was it too short notice? Did people not get the message?
  • I'm not sure why the article includes information about the first report of damage. In most cases, the initial reports are quite wrong...was this one significant in any way?
  • Are there any details on the specific impact to the economy of Honduras since the banana crop failed?
  • An estimated 150,000 people were left homeless due to Fifi.[14][20] However, the Honduran government estimated that between 350,000 and 500,000 were left homeless.[21] - we need to know who estimated the 150,000 people homeless to judge its accuracy vs the official govt estimate
  • Hundreds of people in the town of Wiwili clung to treetops and roofs along the Coco River. - any idea what happened to them?
  • Instead of "Mexico and Arizona" should this be "Mexico and the United States"? This is the only place where a state is put on the same level as a nation.
  • Why do we care that in 1980 "Frances" was used instead of Fifi? I'd remove this sentence.
  • By the end of 1975, a local world fund set up at a church in New York had raised roughly $46,000 for victims of the hurricane -- this seems like excessive detail; we shouldn't highlight one group when I'm sure many other small groups were also raising money
  • Need conversion for meters -> yds/feet in the Rebuilding section
  • More seriously, I have comprehensiveness concerns. A lot of this is cited to newspapers, which I think is probably inadequate for a storm with this much impact. I've seen several books on disasters and risk management that mention this storm. Have those been consulted? I've listed below a few journal articles I found in a quick search of Google scholar. These all appear to have useful information, although I don't have access to more than the abstract and summaries.
    • Did the storm and the response to it have any impact on political stability in the country? The aftermath section does not mention any more long-term effects of the storm. This journal article [62] implies that there were.
    • The article contains nothing on the environmental impact of the storm apart from the human impact. This journal article [63] discusses the impact of the storm on bird migration....I can't access more than the abstract but suspect it may contain information that could be useful. Several journal articles also appeared to discuss erosion along the shores of Carrie Bow as a result of Fifi.
    • This [64] discusses land use policies and changes after Hurricane Fifi. Also [65]
    • Comparison of Carmen and Fifi conditions [66]
    • (Here's an article about housing 2 years after Fifi [67] and another about post-disaster housing [68] and possibly this one [69]

Karanacs (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 14:34, 3 December 2009 [70].

Smile (Lily Allen song) edit

Nominator(s): 12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that, after working on it for three months (give or take), it is ready for this recognition, I hope. 12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was fast! Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a dead link; check the toolbox at the top right of the FAC page. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The site says it will return in a few days, hopefully before the end of this nomination. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a replacement which is also a reliable source.
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please audit throughout for sentence and paragraph length. For example, the sentences "While John Murphy of musicOHM...", "Rob Sheffield from Rolling Stone Magazine..." (and why mention him in the lead?) are huge. The first paragraph of 'Music video' too. —indopug (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned him in the lead because he is a reliable and famous reviewer; if you want, I can remove him. I reworded some sentences that seemed too long. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The words "released 2006" or "written in 200?" should be included in the first sentence. Amandajm (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on criterion 3

For help in writing purposes of use, see the end of this dispatch. Awadewit (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Is it better now? --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks! Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on sources What makes these reliable?

This probably does not have permission to repost the video so needs to be replaced:

Refs 46-51 are Discogs which is open source and thus not FA reliable. RB88 (T) 01:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually asking me, or is it a rhetorical question? Anyway, Chartstats is reliable (had his conversation at a previous FLC, hope it won't start again) and it and aCharts are put under WP:GOODCHARTS.
Being listed on project talk pages does not make sources automatically reliable. This takes precedence: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. I can't see any info here and here that warrants their inclusion. Ideally, we would like reliable and notable third-party sources using their info as was the case with EveryHit for example. RB88 (T) 00:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Songfacts is a database of song information compiled by music enthusiasts, radio professionals and songwriters, who are often interviewed to determine the stories behind their songs, so I'm guessing it is notable (it has its own Wikipedia entry). For the rest of them I will try to find a replacement. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 08:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've removed last.fm, dailymotion, discogs and ciao.co.uk. Chrismoyles.net is apparantly his website, it is linked from BBC.co.uk, which is reliable.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
chrismoyles.net is a fansite run by fans and by its own wording "unofficial". It's not FA reliable. http://chrismoyles.net/mw/contact.shtml
Songfacts is open source has thus not FA reliable. Having its own wiki article does not automatically qualify it for inclusion. http://www.songfacts.com/about.php
Again see: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches
Fine, I won't argue anymore. After many searches on Google, I managed to remove ChartStats, chrismoyles and Songfacts. I am still looking for a replacement for aCharts, but, just so you know, I have seen some FAs citing that website; their authors should replace them, too. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure they do, but this is the only article open to dissection here at the moment. Quick question: with what sources did you replace the ones you removed? Or did you remove the material sourced to them too? RB88 (T) 17:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I replaced ChartStats with Billboard, ChrisMoyles.net with The Sun and Songfacts with Entertainment Wise and NME. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I did find a replacement for acharts at Billboard.biz. The only problem is that it's only available for subscribers, so not everybody can see it. I am not a subscriber, so this is as far as I can go. Could it still be used as a source? --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Check the toolbox for dead and rotting web links. Current ref 4 is a deadlink; it just redirects to the main page of the magazine's website. You might also want to fix the URLs that are changing paths; they too might die in the future. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, replaced dead link. All external links are now good.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article appears to meet 1b,d,e, 2a,b and 4. Majorly talk 14:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't think so. Initially, I linked to John Ellis, which was a disambiguisation page, so I chose him because he seemed the obvious choice. I don't know if it is him or another John Ellis, but I removed him just to be safe. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Best action as he is definitely a different John Ellis, from his photo. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:44, 2 December 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 14:34, 3 December 2009 [71].

Denton, Texas edit

Nominator(s): MahangaTalk 05:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started working on this article over a month ago. With the help of other editors, the prose and flow has improved significantly. I think it has reached FA quality. MahangaTalk 05:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have been given the go-ahead by SandyGeorgia to renominate this article.[72]

  • Image review completed at last FAC. Have any new images or media been added? Awadewit (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. One now-deleted image has been removed. MahangaTalk 03:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Current ref 40 is a deadlink. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a maintenance tag ([page needed]) in the Demographics section. The libraries section is unsourced. Other than that, on comprehensiveness it looks good so I can support on that basis. Majorly talk 18:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added specific webpage for demographics section. Added references to library section. MahangaTalk 20:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Lots of good, well-structured info covering all major aspects of the city's history and infrastructure. Prose looks professional, no reason to oppose as far as I'm concerned. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criterion three:
    • File:Denton County Flag.jpg - has no license tag (NFCC#6, NFCC#10B and WP:IUP). Additional research should be done, as this would likely be PD due to pre-1.1.1923 publication or publication without copyright notice.
    • File:Dentontexasseal.png - rationale is identical to File:Denton County Flag.jpg. Why are both needed needed to accomplish that goal? NFCC#3A requires minimal use and does not consider the need to "decorate" an infobox. May also be PD, as per above.
      • I'll start off by saying I'm not very familiar with copyright issues, so any assistance in this area would be greatly appreciated. I removed the Denton County flag, since the article is for the city, not county. I can't find any information on the seal, so I have no way of knowing if it is in the public domain or not. I followed other city FAs in assuming it's copyrighted and using a fair use rationale.
    • File:Denton, Texas sightseeing low quality.ogv - should not be using a license with a self modifier; Mahanga created a derivative and has no rights to the original or resulting work. The OTRS ticket for the original releases this under CC-by only; the current CC-by-SA/GFDL license is incorrect.
      • My mistake. Changed it to CC-BY, like the original.
    • Per MOS:CAPTIONS, complete sentences should end in a period (full stop). Эlcobbola talk 15:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added a period to one of the complete sentence captions. All the other ones are nominal groups and don't need periods per WP:CAPTIONS. Please let me know if I've missed one.
    • These should be easy to remedy. Эlcobbola talk 15:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the feedback. As I mentioned above, I'm no expert in copyright issues, but I think I've addressed the problems. If I missed anything, let me know. MahangaTalk 19:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks good. Image issues appear resolved. Эlcobbola talk 19:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs. The article is in much better shape than some city articles I've seen nominated for FAC - good work getting it this far! Unfortunately, I think it needs more work. Overall, I have issues with the sourcing and with the prose. The prose is okay, but there is a lot of repetition or general wordiness, and the sentences and paragraphs don't always flow well. I've listed examples of other issues below.

  • Lead
    • The prose does not flow well and there is a lot of reptition. Examples University of North Texas, the largest university in North Texas and Geographically, it is situated...
    • There is excess detail. It is not important in the lead to describe the two universities.
    • A Texas land grant led to the formation of Denton County in 1846 - This doesn't make sense and needs to be reworked
    • The establishment of the two universities helped distinguish the city from neighboring regions. - this sentence doesn't give any useful information. distinguish how?
  • History
    • You need to better specify that Europeans began settling the area while it was part of the Republic of Texas.
    • There is no information on native populations after 1800. Did any of the native tribes move to the area as they were pushed out of the United States? I know many migrated to East Texas, and I would assume that some also lived in North Texas. Also, what about the Comanche? Did the Comancheria include the area that is now Denton?
    • Any idea why Denton was chosen as the county seat? Was there something wrong with the other two cities?
    • Have you consulted History of Denton, Texas, from Its Beginning to 1960 (Clarence Allen Bridges)? There is also the freely available History and remniscences of Denton ([73]), which is quite old but may have more information. There may also be useful information in the Southwest Historical Quarterly [74]
    • This source mentions a slave insurrection that appeared to spark a panic across lots of Texas in 1860 [75] (note that this event is mentioned in multiple SW Historical Quarterly articles)
    • Prose doesn't flow well. One paragraph has two sentences on a particular area of the town and then one sentence on city government.
    • Be more specific that I-35 was constructed during this time of population growth - that is not clear from reading the article.
    • The last paragraph in the history section seems to be undue weight and a little like recentism.
  • Climate
    • Need sources for "snow falls a few days a year, if at all", " tornadoes rarely form" and "Flash floods and severe thunderstorms are frequent occurrences"
  • Demographics
    • the Workforce Diversity Plan is not explained, it is cited to a self-published source, and adds very little information to the article. I would recommend removing this.
  • Primary sourcing
    • I'm concerned that there are a large number of self-published sources used. For example, why is the Barnett Shale portion sourced entirely to SPS? There are lots of newspaper sources that could be used.
    • You cannot use a self-published source to justify phrasing like "a major source of retail trade"
    • I don't think a self-published source should be used for The positive response to the courthouse renovation sparked a downtown revitalization program that generated new jobs and reinvestment capital. - the source may be a wee bit biased.
    • Overall, the culture and recreation section is sourced to far too many self-published sources. Many of the festivals, etc, should be mentioned in newspapers. The article should be summarizing what is in those independent sources rather than collecting the SPS (which can lead to OR).
  • Other
    • There is at least one instance where a newspaper is not italicized in the references
    • Need conversions from degrees F to degrees C and from inches to cm.

Karanacs (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I second Karanacs' concerns - however, these are readily fixable without too much fuss. I have massaged the prose and might do some more. I'll post some queries and comprehensiveness issues below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some sections are a bit disjointed and listy - if possible, some statements giving an overall flavour would be helpful - eg. In the politics section, is the city mainly republican or democrat leaning? (I am guessing the former but might be wrong).
    • Any big parks near the city centre? What about other types of recreational areas? Also, principal churches or places of worship?
    • I don't get an idea of how far Denton is from Dallas and Fort Worth from the article - does anyone commute to either bigger city?
Thanks to those who helped copy-edit the article. English is my second language, so that helps a lot! I'll start working on all the issues brought up as soon as I can. Unfortunately, things have picked up at work after the Thanksgiving break, so it may be a few days. MahangaTalk 19:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is good, but I think it's lacking a bit of depth before it can be considered comprehensive. My concerns mostly lie with the demographics and economy sections. The demographics section should put the figures into perspective. For example, was the ethnic make-up of the city unusual? How did it compare regionally and nationally? The same can be said for the figures in the economy section, eg: how did the figure of 16.2% below the poverty line compare to the area and the rest of the US? Also, are there figures on employment/unemployment rate? A couple of other points:

  • Was the place called Peters Colony or Peter's Colony?
  • The info box says Denton was founded in 1857, but the history section isn't clear, it just says that Denton was voted as the county seat in 1857. Was the settlement created specifically for the purpose of becoming the county seat or did it already exist?
  • Instead of "…and manufacturing destination for mills and cottage industries" it might be better to say "…and a destination for the produce of mills and cottage industries".
  • Are there any population figures from the late 19th century? It might be interesting to illustrate the impact of the railway (with its influx of people) by comparing populations before and 20 or 30 years after the introduction of the railway.
  • I'm surprised there's no mention of the American Civil War an it's impact on the article. As a major point in America's history, even if it had no effect wouldn't it be worth mentioning that Denton emerged unscathed?
  • Davenport, Iowa (also currently at FAC) has crime figures in the demography section; if they're available for Denton they might be worth including.
  • "The median income for a household was $35,422, and the median income for a family was $51,419. Males had a median income of $33,698 versus $26,037 for females. The per capita income was $19,365. About 8.7% of families and 16.2% of the population were below the poverty line, including 14.1% of those under age 18 and 7.0% of those age 65 or over.[22]": shouldn't this be in the economy section (perhaps with the map of median family income)?
  • Since it's mentioned that "For every 100 females there were 96.7 males" it doesn’t really add anything to say that "For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 94.4 males" as there’s not a huge difference. Statistics will bore the reader, so it’s best to keep them to a minimum while still incorporating the important ones.
  • When talking about the city's population in 2008, the past tense should be used as the figure will have changed since. So "Denton has a population of 119,454 according to July 2008 population estimates, making it the 207th largest city in the U.S. and the 23rd largest in Texas" becomes "Denton had a population of 119,454 according to July 2008 population estimates, and was the 207th largest city in the U.S. and the 23rd largest in Texas".
  • "area history and culture" is odd syntax, perhaps "history and culture of the area" would be better?
  • The government section feels a little light. The district Denton is in is currently represented by a Republican in the Texas House of Representatives, but has the district representative always been a Republican? Nev1 (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 22:32, 2 December 2009 [76].

Cato June edit

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because. This is a very complete and detailed biographical account and it is worthy of consideration for FA.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments

  • No dab links, and all images have alt text with no obvious errors.
  • Cite date formats are consistent ISO-style.
  • The external links appear fine, except:
    • Ref 22 comes up as a not-found page and I couldn't find an archive after checking archive.org, WebCite, and several search engines. :(
      • If I remove the ref, it becomes a fact without a citation. Must I remove this fact if I can not find a citation or is it believable enough in context that it can slip by in this extremely well-cited article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would've just left it as is, with a {{dead link}} tag right before or right after the {{cite ___}} or {{citation}} tag. Something good is bound to happen—in New Cutie Honey, lots of links suddenly went "dead" for me, only to be found somewhere else on their site or to have just been "asleep" for a time. --an odd name 00:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I thought a {{dead link}} disqualified a WP:FAC. I know it is not asleep because the university has moved all that content to a new host server. I think only current player bios got moved and old bios got tossed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'll let others resolve the issue then. :) --an odd name 01:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there a way to provide a reference using the google results of the following search term: site:mgoblue.com "Cato June" "triple jump"?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of the newsbank links (and there's a lot) appear green or blue at the link checker (probably because they're subscription or whatever). They seem fine from a random glance, but review them if you want to be sure.

--an odd name 23:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm ready to support based on everything else but experienced this as well. Connection times out on the tool so I started going through by hand and received several "Headline cannot be found" errors. Some of these were sources I remember looking at so I hit reload and it popped up just fine. It looks like an error on their end but I am not sure. Has anyone experienced something like this? I'm under the impression that we don't need to use only online sources but since they appear to work most of the time it is nice to have them.Cptnono (talk) 11:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I have read through the article as the GA reviewer, and have also read through most of the references to make sure that they matched up with the text of the article. There is great detail, needless to say, in the article, and I do think this represents Wikipedia's best work. Wizardman 20:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I took the liberty of doing a few small formatting tweaks. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – Quite a few little prose issues that I picked up on in the early part of the article. The lead looks okay, but the body could use a fresh pair of eyes. If I can ever find some time, maybe I could provide them. Can't promise anything, though.
  • Not sure about the two Super Bowl XLI links in the lead.
  • Dropping to the references for a second, I see a red link in ref 148. I discovered that there is a Key West Citizen article here; just drop "The" from the publisher title or pipe the link, and the red will be gone.
  • Early years: found a long, winding sentence that verges on a run-on: "As a sophomore, on Thanksgiving Day in the District of Columbia Interscholastic Athletic Association championship game, known as the Turkey Bowl... (keeps going for a while after this)."
  • That season he earned a selection to by The Washington Post's...".
  • Comma after "June fumbled on the 1-yard-line in the fourth quarter".
  • "the football team would deal with the adversity of D.C. school crisis". Should it be "a D.C. school crisis"?
  • "During the championship game, June scored the touchdown that gave Anacostia its only lead at 8–6. However, in the championship game". Honestly, I feel the last four words can be dropped. It's already clear this is about the title game, and the language is only repeating itself.
  • "He visited Florida in Mid-January 1998." De-capitalize Mid.
  • "He was part of a recruiting class for the Heisman Trophy-winning Charles Woodson-led undefeated national champion Wolverines that was ranked as the best in the nation." The opening part strikes me as convoluted, especially considering that Woodson had left for the NFL by the time of June's redshirt freshman season.
  • Comma after Drew Henson.
  • College career: "June played college football at the University of Michigan, where switched from cornerback...". Missing word after the comma.
  • De-capitalize Winner later in the same sentence. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just quickly adding one thing I found while editing one of the sections: I couldn't figure out whether June's fourth-most tackles in 2001 referred to all of Division I-A or just his conference. That was somewhat unclear as I read it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That paragraph is pretty detailed. Feel free to edit it. He was only fourth on his team.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • One more thing I found while cleaning the prose a bit: "They were known for having Madden 2003 for Playstation in an apartment known as 'The Stadium'." Having what? Tournaments? Sessions? Without access to the source(s), I can't add the appropriate word in. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • What are you saying is in need of fixing. Madden 2003 was the name of a video game and playstation is a platform. I added ", where competition among football team members often occurred". Not sure if this addresses your concern.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why don't you click on the refs to see the sources?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - All images check out. Awadewit (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "June was born in Riverside, California.....?" What country? Don't expect every reader on the planet to know what country a state is in. Amandajm (talk) 12:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support More comments Everything below has been addressed. This is a thorough and complete treatment of the subject. Nice work. Cptnono (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Muskogee being part of the Great Plains might be disputed. The source says "Oklahoma plains" and definitions of where the Great Plains start differs. Not a big concern but something to keep in mind.
    • Based on my basic understanding of the term we are not far off, although strict interpretation of the map in the link belies the statement. I will leave it and let locals fight about it who might know unless you upgrade this to a big concern.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "barren field" Dirt? bad grass? divots?
    • What is the question?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Anacostia's field was a barren, rugged prairie known by players across the city as the 'dust bowl.'" It can't tell if the source is saying patchy grass, dirt, or whatever. "Poor" might be a good replacement since "barren" raises questions and isn't usually associated with sports fields.
  • "As a high schooler with aspirations of making a mark in the NFL like Deion Sanders, he left his mark by writing "Big Time 1" on things whenever the opportunity arose" Is " like Deion Sanders" needed in the line?
    • I was inferring from the end of sentence ref that he viewed Sanders as his role model. Is this too much of a stretch from the source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The source mentions the poster. This borders on assuming and it doesn't seem necessary for this particular line.
  • Washington "Huskes" to "Huskies"
  • "In his senior season, June was noted for his individual effort to stop a bootleg play against Notre Dame on September 14" Who noted/why noted?
    • The source says "After a great individual effort by Michigan safety Cato June to stop a bootleg by Notre Dame quarterback Carlyle Holiday with just over two minutes to play, the Wolverines got the ball back down 25-23 at their own 30-yard line."
    • Revised as "In his senior season, one of June's notable performances was his individual effort to stop a bootleg play against Notre Dame on September 14, which forced a change of possession to give Michigan the ball with just over two minutes remaining."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink "American Football Conference Championship Game"?
  • "...when the Colts got to..." "Got" is typically seen in simple English. Any alternative?
  • wikilink "Bye (sports)"
  • The images in the Tampa Bay section pinch the text. Consider moving the second image down a paragraph.
    • It could be argued that the "June's first regular season interception..." image should be moved to the right so that the eyes are facing the text but I believe keeping chronological order and staggering them is more important so I would keep it on the left as is.
    • Image moved down.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • wikilink passing down
  • Consider breaking "June made his first interception, which led to a touchdown scoring drive, during his second game as a Buccaneer, which was a 31–14 victory against the New Orleans Saints" into two separate sentences.
  • Consider striking "Cato is a family name;" and relying on "The name is of Nigerian origin and goes back for generations in his family."
  • "In college, June and Hobson were roommates. They were known for having Madden 2003 for Playstation in an apartment known as "The Stadium". Interesting stuff right there. Add a line of detail?
  • "Boxing training workouts" This almost reads like familiar title or phrase but it isn't common. Consider adjusting "Boxing training during/style workouts "workouts that consist of boxing."
    • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could tie this into the paragraph by mentioning his other NFL buddies (seems to be the theme of the paragraph)
      • Not sure what you mean.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This paragraph seems to bee a few rabdom facts thrown in together. It is all interesting stuff but it needs an introductory line or tweaking to explain how individual facts are related. "Off the field..." or something cute like that.
  • Does the "‹See Tfd›" tag need to be visible to the reader?
    • That is a notice that will be visible while the TFD discussion is going on. It may last up to a week although I could easily see a WP:SNOW closing of the debate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When June was a member of the Buccaneers and the Colts had their Super Bowl ring ceremony, June flew to Indianapolis and back without missing any practice." Source might be dead (I'm having connection issues so can not verify). Are you trying to say that he has a good work ethic? This could use a quick line explaining its relevance.
    • I think I have fixed the link. It just seemed like an interesting fact. Not sure what to add. Suggestion?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Bucs defensive coordinator Monte Kiffin said. 'Cato got his ring and then showed up here in time. That's how dedicated he is. He's a Buccaneer. He fits right in, plays with a lot of enthusiasm and loves football. He could have had an attitude, but he was very respectful of our veterans.'" - Maybe move this out of personal and into the Bucs section. He is a dedicated player is probably the most relevent peice of info to use. Cptnono (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on getting the infobox perfect per the template's parameters. I am impressed that you were able to provide such in depth info from his youth. Nice workCptnono (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do a lot of U of Michigan and Chicago area athletes and have trolled through a lot of newspaper archives to do so. For most guys who went to high school in the last ten or twenty years this kind of detail is easy to find with the source I use. I tend to do athletes off the beaten path. I have not taken on athletes that are surefire HOF or anything where reviewing all their newspaper articles would be impossible. Since I do athletes where you can read every newspaper article, starting with the first one I can find is pretty easy. For Evan Turner, I was even able to find a youth league source and for Tate Forcier, I found stuff from his midget days. I am still looking for someone who wants to help me overhaul Rob Pelinka. If you want to do a co-nom, I would love some help overhauling his article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of papers you go through is apparent with all of the facts you have provided. It is a thorough and complete treatment of the subject. I made a second pass through and saw need for some minor clean up. Consider the notes below and make any needed corrections. I expect that I will be popping in later tonight or tomorrow to support this nomination. The other article looks like fun so I will check it out, too.

  • It mentions that he was a sophomore twice in the opening Early life paragraph. Is that needed?
  • Is "$81,490 in current dollar terms" in the second paragraph of Early life up to date?
  • This looks like it could be broken up and is too much info for one sentence: "He was selected as The Washington Post All-Met Defensive Player of the Year and USA Today District of Columbia Player of the Year and Second-team All-USA for not yielding a touchdown all season and collecting five interceptions (two for touchdowns), 84 solo tackles, 39 assists in addition to his offensive statistics, which included 889 yards and 12 touchdowns."
  • 2 concerns in the later paragraph discussing his senior year of high school:
    • "June was also honored by the The Pigskin Club of Washington, D.C" should come before the basketball mention.
    • "He was a starting small forward on the three-time DCIAA championship basketball team." Should be moved to the next paragraph that discusses other sports he played his senior year.
  • "June graduated as salutatorian." Should this be moved up a paragraph along the other scholastic achievements? Alternately, it could stay as it is to close out the section.
  • "At Michigan, defensive back June's head coach, Lloyd Carr, was a former defensive backs coach." This could cause confusion with him being a defensive back and the possessive being coupled. Wikilinks might be helpful for people who don't understand the structure. Maybe "As a defensive back at Michigan, June's head coach was the former coach for the position" or some other light rewording?
  • "Although a total of nine starters were lost, June was a welcome addition to a lineup with eight returning defensive starters" (third paragraph of College section) could be read as contrasting the loss of 9 starters and him being a welcome addition instead of losing nine starters but keeping 8 others. Consider reworking to remove the "Although".
  • "and losing who Marcus Washington" in the second paragraph of Indianapolis Colts. "who" and "Marcus Washington" need to be swapped.
  • "June recorded two more interceptions, one of which changed the momentum of the game because quarterback Marc Bulger was injured trying to chase June, and both of which led to touchdowns as the Colts beat the St. Louis Rams 17–0." Consider separating this into two sentences. "...trying to chase June. Both interceptions led to.."
  • The first Tampa Bay image does not need a period in the caption from my understanding of Wikipedia:Captions. It is an extended nominal group not a sentence.
    • It is a complete sentence. If signs were signing it would be unnecessary. Would you prefer that the caption was changed?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over the course of the 2007 season June and Brooks divided up time at linebacker during nickel defense coverage." 3rd paragraph in the Tampa Bay section. Simply "divided is OK and "up" can be removed.

Cptnono (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why are the two images so tiny? Please see MoS on images for how to upsize them. I'd be looking at 250px for that kind of detail.
    • They were set for defualt sizing for each user's preferences. However, I will switch the action photo to 250 px. I am not so sure that the image of him autographing really needs to be resized. If you would prefer that one resized as well, I will accommodate that wish.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's very heavily linked throughout, especially at the top. I'd audit the links and remove anything not absolutely necessary ... like "free agent", "college football", "Washington D.C." (where's that? and a moment later, "District of Columbia" is linked ... very similar), "California" (who would click on that link?), "class president". And really, I think you could drop the four links here: "high school football, basketball, track and field and baseball". There are plenty of valuable links already. Tony (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – After a prose review/cleanup, I'm confident that this is OK on 1a grounds. Sourcing also appears fine; I scanned through all of them and there are none that I would question. Technical stuff has checked out already and photos are fine, and I can't argue that this isn't comprehensive. All in all, FA criteria all appear to be met. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Much of this —I am sorry to say—is completely unintelligible to me and I suspect other readers who are not fans or know little to nothing about the sport because we live outside the US. OK, I expect to become lost with regard to the esoteric aspects of the game, but can we at least make the Lead a little more accessible? This for example, " A Pro Bowl selection in 2006, June earned a Super Bowl ring with the Colts in Super Bowl XLI, as the team's leading tackler for the season" is gibberish to me. What on earth does this mean? Does it mean, "following a selection", I can understand Russian better than this. I am resigned to become completely lost in the Body of the article, but at least make an effort to make the Lead more understandable. He sounds like a great guy, but I would not be able to tell anyone in the UK why after reading this. Please—because clearly you are passionate—you have to say, at least in the Lead, why the subject warrants a Wikipedia Featured Article. PS don't shoot the Brits . Graham Colm Talk 21:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At first, I couldn't understand Graham's confusion (speaking US football), but upon closer examination, I see the problems. He didn't earn a Super Bowl ring as the team's leading tackler; he earned it because his team won the Super Bowl that year. And he may have gotten the Pro Bowl selection because he was the leading tackler, but we aren't told that. In fact, we aren't even told what year Super Bowl XLI was, so we don't know if these events are related at all. The sentence is more than a jargon issue; it mixes unrelated thoughts. This suggests the entire text needs to be gone through by a non-US football person for clarity. Also, the lead says he is "currently" a free agent, which breaches WP:MOSDATE#Precise language and should have a year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am just landing from a Thanksgiving (United States) trip. I will have to take a closer look at this later tonight. However, the sentence seems to be fairly grammatical although jargony. Here is my take on the complaint. I believe the grammatical construction of "A Pro Bowl selection in 2006, June" is that of an appositive. I.E., the sentence "June was a Pro Bowl selection in 2006." is being reconstructed so that the object modifies the subject of another sentence ("June earned a Super Bowl ring with the Colts in Super Bowl XLI, as the team's leading tackler for the season"). I will look more closely at the rest later tonight.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I restructured the beginning of the sentence to eliminate a preposition, but need to examine the end of the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to distill Cato June's notability down to any two sentences in the article it would be the two you two have derided. I.E., "Cato Nnamdi June (born November 18, 1979 in Riverside, California, United States) is an American football linebacker who is currently a free agent. . .A 2006 Pro Bowl selection, June earned a Super Bowl ring with the Colts in Super Bowl XLI, as the team's leading tackler for the season." essentially tells you everything you need to know about who he is to understand his importance. Any American sports fan immediately knows his exact notability with these two sentences. The first sentence says he is a currently-active athlete who is unaffiliated with any team. The second sentence describes his two most important points of notability, which are that he is a former Pro Bowler and a player who led a Super Bowl Champion in tackles for a season. In terms of establishing his notability it is not relevant whether he did these in the same year, but I will examine rewriting for clarity. Give me a few minutes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence does not violate WP:MOSDATE#Precise language because National Football League player pages are updated very quickly for team affiliation. As soon as he signs with another team, his team affiliation will reflect as much.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to rework "as the team's leading tackler for the season", which is malplaced to modify Super Bowl XLI.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(copied from User talk page) GrahamColm, I have read your comments on Cato June. You have essentially asked me to explain why he is sufficiently WP:N to be a deserving subject of a WP:FA. Although I do not believe any page that is sufficiently WP:N to be on WP, needs further notability to be deserving of a FA, the problem here lies with you not understanding the subject. A person who does not understand the significance of being a Pro Bowler or a Super Bowl champion's leading tackler should seriously consider whether they even voice a deciding opinion on the matter. I would not voice an opinion on a singer if I did not understand the meaning of platinum albums and grammy awards, for example.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see some changes, but there are still problems. (TTT, please do not badger opposers as you did above; the article has to be understandable to everyone. GrahamColm may not know US football, but I do, and I can't get past the first paragraph.)
  • Cato Nnamdi June (born November 18, 1979 in Riverside, California, United States) is an American football linebacker who is currently a free agent. ... A 2006 Pro Bowl selection, June earned a Super Bowl ring the following season with the Colts in Super Bowl XLI. During the Super Bowl championship season, June was the Colts' leading tackler.
This is better, but we still need an as of date on the free agency, and "earned a Super Bowl ring" is unnecessary jargon; you need to tell the audience that means his team won the Super Bowl. This is the first paragraph only; I'm concerned the entire article needs a thorough look. Strangely, although the as of date is missing from the lead, the reader is entertained with every single irrelevant date in his college football career (see WP:PROSELINE, and why is the college career of a Pro Bowler discussed in date-by-date, game-by-game detail?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As of date, not necessary. I can almost guarantee, if a team signs a Pro Bowl linebacker his team affiliation will be changed within 24 hours. Currently, is thus all that is necessary. This is not like the college guys I usually write about that no one else follows. This is the NFL.
Badgering was not intentional. I wrote my response in parts as I thought about issues. I apologize if this is considered badgering.
College career, mentions all notable highlights. In a typical 13 game season this means mentioning about three or four games. It is not game-by-game. It is a highlight account. Same for pro career. It only mentions a few games a year that help define his career. I think I only included games that helped the reader develop an understanding of his career history. I would welcome some detailed copyedit assistance with this however. The article has been to WP:PR, but I am willing to make a return visit there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I've read one section of this article and I'm not very impressed by it. The article is quite tremendous for a BLP on a relatively obscure football player, and overall I have the feeling that it's way too detailed and presents hundreds of random factoids with no organization. For example, in the Personal section, we have three sentences about the subject's tattoos when they don't really deserve even a mention. In the third paragraph: In college, June and Hobson were roommates. They were known for having sessions of Madden NFL 2003 for PlayStation 2 in an apartment known as "The Stadium", where competition among football team members often occurred. - How is this a notable aspect of June's biography? The fourth paragraph seems to be largely non-notable fluff as well. I glanced through the rest of the article, but was intimidated by the screens upon screens of unbroken, thick, jargon-filled prose that I can't read at all. Finally, there are 227 references, of which all are newspaper entries, which further confirms my suspicion that this article lacks sustenance from major secondary sources. Sorry, but I don't feel this is an example of our best yet. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is unfortunate that you based your entire decision on the least important section of the article without any substantive commentary on the main body of the article. Now both opposes are based on opinions that ignore the main body of the article. Yes the personal section has less organization because by its nature it is a catchall section. It is also unfortunate that you find his video game interest as unnotable, while the United States military disagrees according to the article. However, this is how personal sections work. It includes facts that do not follow the natural chronology of a persons vocation. Yes it mentions tattoos, but I have compiled dozens if not hundreds of biographies and have never encountered as many secondary sources that mention tattoos. Thus, since it our responsibility to summarize secondary sources, I have incorporated some of them in the article. Are you asking that I don't summarize secondary sources, if the emphasis seems peculiar?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I ask whether you noticed that the United States military considers his video game proclivity notable and did you notice the number of distinct secondary sources that mention his tattoes?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm basing my decision off the feeling I get from reading one section. If I believe a single section falls short of WP:WIAFA, I'm going to assume the rest of the article needs work as well. To sum up my oppose, I feel the article is filled with trivial, insignificant and encyclopedic details that make for a choppy article. I'm sorry I have to object, but I feel this needs quite a bit of work. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The personal section is largely a section of trivia that has risen to an encyclopedic level by virtue of secondary sourcing. Is it possible you could comment on the main body of the article. I can not improve the article if both objections ignore the main body of the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec)Is sourcing from major newspapers a valid objection? If so almost all of my WP:FAs should be sent to WP:FAR. Please compare the sources here with my other two biographical WP:FAs (Richard Cordray and Tyrone Wheatley)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, but an FA should not be written entirely based on newspaper snippets. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Like I said, I have previously written two bio FAs almost entirely from newpaper snippets. See the examples given.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indeed. Though I'm currently discussing this article. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • O.K., I officially do not understand this point. My last bio FA was written about a year ago. It was almost entirely from newspapers. Are you saying Richard Cordray would fail now because of some new consensus against newspaper sourcing?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • We're discussing this article. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • In the abstract, is there a new consensus against newspaper sourcing?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Please read what I said. There's no rule against citing newspapers, but citing exclusively newspapers is not generally a good idea. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • TTT, sorry, if "free agent" is used in a specialist sense here, a link is appropriate. I should have checked out the target, and have just done so. The other issue is that the reader shouldn't have to check out the link target to have a basic understanding of the meaning of the text here, so why not add within commas (or parentheses) on the spot, "(eligible to sign with another franchise)"? I haven't looked at the sentence, too busy in RL for another 48 hours. Then I'm FREEEEE. Tony (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have seen free agent used like this in at least one hundred WP bios without any explanation beyond the link. Although your suggestion seems unusual, I have incorporated it. This article is probably 48 hours away from failing FA, so I am guessing you will not be able to elaborate on your thoughts in time for me to get your insights to improve its content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:51, 30 November 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 16:40, 2 December 2009 [78].

Rebbie Jackson edit

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 17:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to present this article on one of the lesser known members of the Jackson family: Rebbie. Sadly, the life of Rebbie, a talented singer in her own right, is not as well documented as those of her more famous siblings such as La Toya, Janet and Michael. Nevertheless, I feel that this article is comprehensive and meets all of the FA criteria. Pyrrhus16 17:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The technical aspects look good: no dab links or dead external links, the one image has alt text with no obvious problems, and dates throughout the article and refs are consistent Month Day, Year. --an odd name 21:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Pyrrhus16 22:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Grammar. One does not usually have a "hiatus from..." something. The expression is usually a "hiatus in " something. Following a 10-year hiatus from the music industry... would be better expressed as Following a 10-year hiatus in her musical career... Amandajm (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Pyrrhus16 14:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Sole image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Source fine. Great little article. Nicely researched and written. RB88 (T) 20:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It should be without question that the article is a biography. Therefore having a second level heading saying biography is rather redundant.
  • The third level sections underneath should become second level sections.
  • I'm against changing them to second level headers unless there is something about it in the MOS; I feel it is a more attractive structuring and is inline with other FA music biographies.
  • Dates in the section line are also unneeded. Each section does a good job of explaining the time period.
  • Like above, I'm against removing the dates. I feel that they are needed to allow a reader to pinpoint information from an exact year from looking solely at the TOC.
  • Author notes need some cleaning up. It should be: Taraborrelli (2004), pp. 115–117. and so forth for the other authors. --Brad (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Thanks for your comments. Pyrrhus16 09:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have been used to writing articles on non-human subjects so your sectioning makes much more sense in a biography. --Brad (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - Not quite sure this is ready yet. (1a)
  • It also featured contributions from her children: daughters Yashi and Stacee, and son Austin. - this would be better without the colon
  • Though Jackson had taken clarinet, piano and dance lessons earlier in life, she had no interest in a music career.[4][5] - I think you should put "at that time" in the last clause. Earlier in life should be replaced with childhood.
  • The family's drama-filled home on Jackson Street also served as a motivator for the young woman; she wanted to escape from it. - rewrite this sentence plz
  • Having the last word on the matter, Joseph refused to give his daughter away.[6] - his daughter is not an object...
  • Brown and Jackson would go on to have three children together; daughters Stacee and Yashi, and son Austin.[7] - semicolon inappropriate here
  • Due to ratings success, more episodes were ordered in January 1977. - critical success?
  • I've listed the ones I noticed from a relatively short (10 minutes) readover here. Please resolve them so we can progress with this article's improvement. My main concern is that the prose is not yet there, because it has some issues I've noticed. But since the prose is still pretty good, I've only opposed weakly. Look forward to improvements! ceranthor 02:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done all of the above. Pyrrhus16 09:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Upgraded to oppose because of this. I really think this has potential to be a great article, but there's nothing here really in terms of musical reception. I really hate to oppose but I have to at this time. It's just not comprehensive enough. If you could sift through those sources and add information as you go along, the article will steadily improve and FA status will come. Best, ceranthor 23:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs. I found this an interesting article - I was unfamiliar with Rebbie Jackson. I don't think the article is ready for FA, though. The prose needs a great deal of polishing (a few examples are listed below, but the whole thing needs some work), I am a little concerned with the comprehensiveness, and I think there is too much of an emphasis on details that don't really belong here.

  • Why is her faith highlighted in the second sentence of the lead? The fact that she was raised as a Jehovah's Witness seems much, much less important than the fact that she is a member of the Jackson family.
  • Removed from the lead.
  • It's going to be tricky in this article to make sure that readers understand which "Jackson" we are referring to. In the sentence The album featured songs written by Smokey Robinson, Prince and her younger brother Michael, whose contribution (the title track "Centipede") became Jackson's most successful single release it's not clear whether Jackson is Rebbie or Michael, and if this is referring to Rebbie's most successful single as an artist or Michaels' most successful as a songwriter. There are other potentially confusing instances like this.
  • Clarified by changing "Jackson" to "Rebbie", here and in several other places in the article.
  • Why does the lead mention her children and husband? They aren't notable in their own right and thus probably don't need to be mentioned here.
  • Removed the names of her children, but kept her husband as a large section is about their marriage.
  • I don't think Life and career should be a separate section; I'd move all of those subsections out to be main sections.
  • The structure of the article is inline with most other FA music biographies. I would be against changing the structure if it's just a matter of preference.
  • Early life - it is not necessary to mention which siblings are libing and which are deceased. This may end up out of sync if editors don't know to come here and change it here as well.
  • Altered the sentence.
  • Are the details of the Jehovah's Witness faith necessary here? I don't think we need to mention about not celebrating some occasions.
  • Removed the part about not celebrating certain occasions.
  • Why do we need to know that her husband is also a Jehovah's Witness? Their faith is not really mentioned in any way as having impacted her career or other aspects of her family life.
  • Removed mention of him being a JW.
  • There are punctuation issues in the article. For example, three children together daughters Stacee and Yashi, and son Austin. is missing something - either a comma, colon, or dash
  • Added a colon.
  • The prose needs a bit of work. There is some passive voice that should be fixed to active. For example "family's drama-filled home on Jackson Street also served as a motivator for the young woman, who wanted leave it" (note that this sentence is also missing a word)
  • Changed the sentence.
  • Some of the prose is a bit sensational - "Jackson's family faced a crisis when " she decided to get married. That doesn't seem like much of a crisis. An argument, yes, but not a crisis.
  • Changed the sentence.
  • The section 1968-1973 seems to focus almost entirely on 1968. Were the three children born in the next few years? Did anything else happen?
  • There is no further information on anything else happening during this period, and there are no sourcable dates of birth for the children.
  • Is there any information on what changed Rebbie's mind about pursuing a music career?
  • I couldn't find any published information on what caused her to change her mind.
  • What are " residency performances"? Was Rebbie considered filler too? If so, specify this.
  • Removed "residency" and specified that Rebbie was filler as well.
  • The initial run of the 30-minute program was four weeks -- this sentence doesn't make sense. A "30-minute program" can't run for "four weeks"; A series is more than a single 30-minute episode. Please be more specific.
  • Changed to The initial series run of the 30-minute programs was four weeks. Not sure if this is any better or not.
  • Are there any details about Rebbie's particular contribution to the TV show?
  • There are no sources that explicitly state her activities on the show.
  • If there was critical success of the TV show, can we get some quotes or more information? How was Rebbie in particular received?
  • Changed to "ratings success", which is what the source states. I don't believe there are any comments on how Rebbie was received - very little information has been published about her.
  • "The Jacksons motivated her to become a professional recording artist, and the show's producer encouraged her to sing" - Is this referring to the TV show (in that case need italics) or the band by the same name?
  • Italicised.
  • There is a disconnect between the last paragraph of 1974-1983 ("stalled her music career") and the first paragraph of 1984-1985 ("following years of preparation")
  • Added "for a short time" to the end of "stalled her music carrer".
  • I don't think that the callout quote in 1984-1985 should be formatted in quite that way. Because this is an encyclopedia and not a magazine article, this probably ought to be better tied into the text.
  • Integrated the quote into the text.
  • Her brother produced Reaction - which brother?
  • Noted that it was Tito.
  • Did she do anything noteworthy during her hiatus from music? Do we know why she took a hiatus?
  • Added a note that she performed during the break from releasing music.
  • There should likely not be a separate section for Michael's death in this article. While some of the information may be useful to include, overall to me it reads more like trivia.
  • Removed the section.
  • Many FAs of artists have an "artistry" section which lists the influences, themes/genre, and style of the recordings. This article covers the technical aspects of the albums (who produced it, when was it released), but does not really delve into any of the more interpretive stuff. Are their reviews or other analyses of her albums that could be made into an artistry section?

Karanacs (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is very little published on Rebbie at all, and I have found nothing on her themes or styles of recordings. Quite sad, considering that one can write novels on the artistry of Janet and Michael. Thank you for your comments. Pyrrhus16 22:34, 30 November 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 02:18, 2 December 2009 [79].

The Shining (film) edit

Nominator(s): Tinton5 (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because this article is well written and provides many sources to support its content. It's a good length, not entirely wordy but just the right amount of information without any redundancy. Tinton5 (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

With a quick glance, a few things that jump out:

  • "Alternate cuts" and "Production" sections are unsourced.
  • Spacing issues with citations throughout the article.
  • Prose needs some work (ex. "The film had a slow start at the box office, but gained momentum and steam...")
  • The references need to be consistent and include more parameters (see other recent film FAs). In addition, there are several unreliable sources such as blogs and IMDB.

These points alone need to be addressed first before looking at other issues. It looks like this should have went through peer review first, and it may be best to remove the nomination. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:23, 20 November 2009 (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 Dabomb87 05:14, 1 December 2009 [80].

USS Congress (1799) edit

Nominator(s): Brad (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Self nomination. Article has passed GA and A reviews within the last two months. Information on this ship has been very difficult to find. Apparently the ship was not deemed worthy enough by historians resulting in the small size of the article. Nevertheless, throughout the GA and A reviews I was able to find further information to add which has expanded the article to some extent but there are still gaps. This article is part of my larger plan for a featured topic on the Original six frigates of the United States Navy. Brad (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images, alt-text, dabs and sources clearance moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support on 1c, 2c. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Decline: 2c.Fifelfoo (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because this page is so long, resolved comments moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Kirk on 3, 1(a,b,c)

  • Regarding the image in the lead, I'm not sure the USS Chesapeake is a 'sister ship' since it was built differently (the whole 44 to 36 to 38, plus it had slightly different dimensions) so I think the better choice here is a picture of the USS Constellation.
Just prior to this nomination for FA I removed File:USS Constellation.jpg from this article because it is of questionable origins. The original link it was downloaded from is no longer resolving therefore not allowing a verification. If you compare that file with File:USSChesapeake.jpg there is an eerie similarity between the both of them. The only file in this case that I can verify as being true and valid is the Chesapeake one. The use of "sister ship" is in regard to Congress being one of the original six. None of these ships were exactly the same as any other. --Brad (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm almost positive I've seen a painting of the USS Congress (1799), but its so historically less significant than the other original frigates they probably haven't digitized it yet; have you attempted to call the Historical center to find out? I think with a little leg work you can get the actual photo of the painting.
There are plenty of photos of USS Congress (1841) because of her notoriety as being sunk at Hampton Roads by CSS Virginia. I have thoroughly searched several times for pics of the 1799 Congress and have turned up nothing. Calling the NHHC asking for pics of this ship is more than I'm willing to do. It smells of original research and I am not willing to expend any funds to cover the costs of obtaining a photo. --Brad (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen this one before and neither source specifically states that the photo is of Congress I could certainly use the photo as it's public domain but the best caption I could use for the photo would be something like A representative illustration of an 19th century frigate.--Brad (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its probably worth including; can you add the sail plan? Kirk (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, [American LIght and Medium Frigates 1794 - 1836. Has a picture of the Congress from 1817 on page 35, and some explanation of the rating system in the US Navy - basically, three classes 44, 36, 32 which simply meant the amount of crew on board, the number of guns actually varied in each class. Kirk (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google is not allowing me to see page 35. --Brad (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, maybe check it out from your local library. Kirk (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...which lead me to Canney's Sailing Warships of the US Navy page 45 - 46, with the ship sail plan on page 46. Original armament was 28 18-pdrs and 12 9-pdrs (ugh); by 1812 the armament was 24 18-pdr and 20(!) 32-pdr carronades, as all the surviving frigates were turned into '44's. See page 41, which claims it was a 38, not a 36; I think the rating by crew makes a heck of a lot more sense. Hope this helps! Kirk (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing that I mention the original armament in addition to the 1812 setup? What a ship was rated at is different from what amount of guns it actually carried. The author is not claiming that Congress and Constellation's ratings were changed to 44 gun ships but that they "carried" 44 or more guns. The article here on Congress clearly states in the lead and in the infobox that she was rated at 38; and mention is made that she was originally designated a 36 by the Naval Act but was re-rated to a 38. I don't see what the trouble is with that. --Brad (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok.. I just realized that I have the armament referenced to DANFS and the DANFS article doesn't agree. I've no idea where I got those figures from but I will work on fixing this. This might have caused some misunderstandings here. My apologies. --Brad (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The armament discrepancies have been straightened out using Canney as a reference. --Brad (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, thanks! I have one question regarding the 38 gun rating (footnote #4) - does that source actually have a footnote which explains why it was re-rated? (The sentence "...re-rated as 38s while under construction" on page 128?). Never mind, Chapelle didn't cite his sources...how annoying. Kirk (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Construction section is missing some important details. For example, I want more information about the transition from 36 to 38 guns - we have a sentence and as source, but I think this should be expanded to explain what ship rating meant in the US Navy at the time. I looked in some other sources and they usually discuss why carronades were used and the difference betweeen 18 and 24 pound guns. I'm curious why they didn't use 24 pound guns during the War of 1812 like the other frigates. Also, USS Constitution has a slightly different take on the construction methods you might consider researching, because a historically interesting thing about the Congress was it fell apart quickly. Kirk (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to know more about the change from 36 to 38 guns but have not been able to find anything further. It would be apparent and necessary to explain why the Naval Act called for 36 gun ships and later on they've all been referred to as 38s. Chapelle and Beach are the only sources to mention the rating was even changed but the only reason given is because of their size.
"Rating" may be the wrong term to use in describing the ships. Unlike the rating system of the Royal Navy the US never had one to my knowledge. "Classed" might be more of an appropriate term to use but I am not sure.
I really believe the hows and whys of what armament was used and when belongs in another article. I don't see the value in introducing the explanation to an article on a particular ship when the issue would involve all ships of the Navy during that period.
Since I brought Constitution to FA last year I can most definitely tell you that all of the extra information given in the construction section is only citable to Constitution. As a blanket statement to any sparse descriptions in this article I can answer that there just aren't any. This article was very difficult to find information for. Two years prior to Congress being scrapped, Constitution was in the same condition but funds were approved to make the repairs. Apparently there was no funds or public outcry to save Congress. --Brad (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked in a couple of other sources & all the original frigates were ordered to be built the same way, so you should be able to add that to the article. Toll should have something you can use. Kirk (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comment about another article, maybe there should be a Rating System of the US Navy article, but the problem for this FAC is that this rating system stuff is not common knowledge, so a reader who finds out its rated as a 38 gun frigate in the infobox but was authorized as a 36 gun frigate is going to be confused. I can't actually check the source you cited for 38 guns, but DANFS lists 24 18-pdr., 12 12-pdr long guns (which you can see in the woodcut) & as opposed to Constellation, with 38 24-pdr long guns; Chesapeake, 30 18-pdr with 12 carronades. 12-pdr long guns would have been almost useless in the war of 1812; must have been replaced by carronades which would probably have resulted in the re-rating to 38 guns. I'll see if I can help.
  • There are also some fixable prose problems with paragraphs which are too short, missing en dashes, etc. Kirk (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary
  • Re: 1c, I have requested a copy edit.
  • Bellhalla has copy edited the article. --Brad (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still at least 4 paragraphs which are too short (only two sentences). Also the last section is too short - can you expand those? Kirk (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there are no further comments regarding the infobox pic I'm going to leave it as is. I have changed the caption and believe that while the current pic isn't exactly accurate, it is more visually appealing than any alternative. --Brad (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using the woodcut in the infobox & the sail plan in the construction section would be my preference; both are in the public domain but you'll just have to upload them. Also, the book Constellation has the design diagram for the Congress (which shared it with the Constellation) toward the beginning (i'll send you the page tomorrow), also PD, which really supports my original objection (that one you may need to scan in). I'll also ping one of the MilHist ship admins to look at this issue, kind of 1b&3 but maybe I'm being too picky! Kirk (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're making assumptions that I need to clarify. I am a total dolt when it comes to working with photo programs and I've been that way for years. I do not own a scanner and my computer is an aging 7 year old relic. It cannot even handle photos through MS Paint or gimp. With that said, I believe the article meets the C3 criteria. The pics are not perfect but neither are the alternatives you've suggested. The current pics do not misrepresent the subject or make claims of any similarity to Congress at all. Both photos have solid public domain status with applicable licenses. --Brad (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will help with the technical doltness - Ed agreed the sailplan should be in the article, so I'll see what I can do today. I'll also start scanning some Constellation images since you'll need those eventually. However, I'm not sure I can get that done in the timeframe of a FA review. Clarifying my objection: the article barely meets the MilHist B5 standard for appropriate supporting materials...the closest I could see in the FA was 3, but maybe its 1b & if I was your GA reviwer I wouldn't have promoted it until we had more supporting materials in the article. I'll do what I can to help - I've enjoyed learning about this part of US Naval History. Kirk (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added sailplan as the infobox image & updated alt text, let me know what you think. Kirhess (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added cross section of the Constellation/Congress design to both articles. Kirk (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I checked some congressional documents via Lexis-nexus congressional, and they always refer to the three smaller frigates in text and tables rated at 36-guns. I think what happened here is either the builders (or Chapelle!) equated them to the 38-gun frigates of the Royal Navy, but officially, the US Navy had three ratings of frigates during this time period: 44 (United States), 36 (Constellation), 32 (Essex). I'll add a note and write up this with some of the sources that describes some of this in detail. I think as long as the rating is consistent for Constellation, Congress and Chesapeake in the info boxes/prose and has a footnote to Chapelle that's fine with me. Kirk (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have not read beyond the introduction. I want to congratulate the writers in putting all the significant information- what was it/where was it/what date was it... into the first three sentences. It is amazing how many articles are put up for promotion without this basic content in the first paragraph. Amandajm (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I went through the article and performed some copy edits. Some items I noted:
    • In "Construction" section was there a single event that began attacks on American ships? Or was there just an uptick in attacks that prompted the ship construction? The way it's worded now suggests that no American ships were attacked prior to the 1790s, which may or may not be the case.
I've hopefully clarified this section. The real gritty details in the main article. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lots of compound adjectives that incorrectly have en dashes. It should be "36-gun frigate" rather than "36–gun frigate", for example. (I've attempted to change ones that I've seen, but it wouldn't hurt to check that all have been corrected.)
Found one more and removed. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "Armament" section: In order to reduce the strings of numbers and ×s, I've violated the MOS guidelines regarding numerals/numbers so that each enumeration of guns is listed as twenty-eight 18 pounders (8 kg), for example
Agree. The 28 x 18 starts to look like a circus of numbers when closely used together. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the same section: why the comparison to British ships-of-the-line rather than to comparably sized ships? One wouldn't (or shouldn't, at least) discuss the armament of a destroyer, for example, and say that it has fewer guns than a cruiser.
Removed. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "War of 1812" section: Did the Commodore Rodgers-led squadron consist of the list of ships that follows? Right now it reads as if the squadron as a unit sailed alongside these other ships.
Should be clarified now. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the same section: Diversion of men and materials created a shortage of only materials? Maybe, depending on what the source says, it should read something like By this time of the war, materials and personnel were being diverted to the Great Lakes, which creating a shortage of resources necessary to repair Congress
I added your suggestion. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In section "Second Barbary War": The sentence beginning Peace having already been secured by Decatur with Algiers and several other Barbary States… is confusing. If it means that by the time Congress and her group arrived that the war was already over?
Clarified. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the "Bibliography" section: there's one entry that is formatted with {{citation}}, giving it a slightly different format than the rest, all formatted with {{cite book}}
Fixed. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is a little sparse, but I see the comments above regarding sources on this ship, so that doesn't really bother me that much. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your copy edit; replies above. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have given this a quick copyedit; few changes, as Bellhalla had been through before me. One quibble: the Citation template used inside the one Note is not displaying properly. I'm not fond of two-sentence paragraphs, but recognize that sometimes they're better than smashing unrelated events/information together. Otherwise, looking good. Maralia (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your corrections. You bring up a point I've been trying to figure out myself. The note currently uses a Harvard style reference which is not inline with the rest of the article. I'm not sure how to use a ref within a note to produce the [#] citation and have it match the others. --Brad (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to solve that directly. Given that it's just a single citation, I've rewritten it in plaintext, to display inside the footnote itself. Maralia (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kirk - Striking objections; I tried finding an image of Captain Sever for the Quasi-war section but failed; I'll see if I can find/scan the sheer plan. The placement of the body plan image is in a bad spot; it could be closer to the construction section where I originally put it, but if you don't like the text sandwich, I think that can be accomplished by expanding the lead. Kirk (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Well-written, and well-structured - which makes for a very good flow whilst reading throughout. After reading about the successful operations of the ship, one wishes she were still around to help combat incidents of modern-day piracy today. I noted a few Captains that could possibly be independently notable, but that would be work for another time, not required here as part of this process. Great job on the research and writing. Cirt (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I generally like this article. However I found a few problems.
    1. and the third ship to carry the name. The information that she was the third ship to carry that name is not mentioned in the main text. Some information about ships with the same name is, in my opinion, necessary as well (as a footnote).
      That passage was another bit of cruft left over from a change in the article text and I have removed it. The otherships link would allow those interested in other ships named Congress. --Brad (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    2. She arrived at Gibraltar on 11 August joining the ships of the Mediterranean Squadron, among them her sister ships Constellation, Constitution and President. There is no explanation of what Mediterranean Squadron is. (It is not mentioned before.) I think some context should be provided. Currently this name appears suddenly without any explanation, which is confusing.
      The wikilink to Mediterranean Squadron doesn't help explain the concept? --Brad (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I of course saw the wikilink. I think a sentence or two are still necessary. Ruslik_Zero 09:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I certainly could explain the concept of squadrons on a station but the trouble I'm running into is having citations to back it up with. None of the sources at hand are going to help explain this. Even going to US Navy sources have turned up nothing. The only alternative I can see for the moment is to remove the mention. --Brad (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Ruslik0, I did some checking of FA Ship articles and its not common to provide context for ship formations; look at USS Iowa & Atlantic Fleet and Pacific Fleet, HMS Royal Oak (08) and Atlantic, Home and Mediterranean fleet, Brazilian cruiser Bahia and its various squadrons. I think a wikilink is sufficient. -- Kirk (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Fixed myself (added a sentence). Ruslik_Zero 19:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The passage you added cannot be backed up with a source. This is what I was explaining to you above. Most of us know that squadrons were formed and operated that way but if it cannot be cited it cannot be in the article. It should be removed. --Brad (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    3. proceeded towards the Virginia capes, and arrived back in Boston on 31 December. During their time at sea, the two frigates captured nine prizes. However the previous sentence says that Congress and President remained together during November but they did not find a single ship to capture. Please, clarify.
      Hopefully I have done so. --Brad (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ruslik_Zero 20:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, however, found another problem. The article says Rodgers succeeded Samuel Barron as Commodore in November [of 1804], subsequently taking command of Constitution. However the article about Rogers says His brilliant record fighting the corsairs won him appointment as Commodore of the Mediterranean Squadron in May 1805. This needs a clarification. Ruslik_Zero 19:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into this. --Brad (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting to withdraw I have lost confidence in this article being as complete as it should be. Likely this was caused by writing two other frigate articles at the same time. I need to go over this article from beginning to end without the pressure of an ongoing review. Right now it feels like I'm just throwing patches at it to get it passed. --Brad (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • A couple more patches:
      • naval constructor is not a title, and should not be capitalized; idiom would be to recast: James Hackett, the shipwright,. Hackett should be linked; he may be a redlink now, but if there is a biography of him in some obscure historical society newsletter, the link should be available.
      • The building of Congress and her sisters was a matter of high political controversy in the United States. I'm sure the nom knows this; but the reader should be told too. In this connection, the date of the authorization is important. (This is the second-best choice; silence is better than partisanship; but do second-best choices make FAs?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per nominator request. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ "Old chestnuts roasting: ghosts of Christmas music past". The Independent. Independent News & Media. 11 December 2007. Retrieved 21 November 2009.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Rogan 142 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Disc was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/December_2009&oldid=334770044"