Nominator(s): — HunterKahn 22:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a short one, but I believe it is comprehensive and exhausts all sources out there about this independent film. It has passed as a good article and has gone through a peer review. Thanks! — HunterKahn 22:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I noticed that South Park (season 13) is at FAC and you are a co-nominator for that article. Did you get an O.K to make another FAC from a delegate? GamerPro64 (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FAC states an editor "may have two nominations active if they are a conominator on at least one of them", so I was under the impression it was acceptable for me to nominate this one even though that one remains open. — HunterKahn 23:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None, yet. Is the fair use rationale insufficient? — HunterKahn 00:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFCC requires that non-free content is only used if there is no free alternative, and I was wondering what efforts had been made to get a free alternative Fasach Nua (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can't get in touch with the filmmaker via email in the next few days. — HunterKahn 00:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My inquiries to the filmmaker have so far yielded no results. — HunterKahn 07:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I heard back from the director and got permission to use the poster, as well as two other images I've now added to the article. These have been archived and verified through Wikimedia Commons. — HunterKahn 22:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dab/EL check - no dabs, 1 dead external link- the lavender magazine one (ref 16) is timing out, but it's okay since it's part of a cite of the actual print magazine article; you also had 4 links redirecting at varying levels of importance, but I fixed them. --PresN 03:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to deal with this dead link (which is this one). The site can for now be seen in Google cache, but when I tried to use WebCite] to archive to Google cache page, it didn't work. Is there any way of archiving it beside Google cache? Or should I just drop the link from the citation? (Since it's also a print source, I think it would still pass WP:V without the link.) — HunterKahn 07:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like this particular page is in the Archive. Perhaps it would just be best to remove the link altogether? — HunterKahn 01:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may have to come to that.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 15:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped it for now, but I'll keep working to see if I can find another way to archive the Google cache page. — HunterKahn 15:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources Review
Ref 17: What information in the cited sentence is being verified by this source?
I guess the name of the production company, but since another source already provides that information, I dropped ref 17 altogether. — HunterKahn 21:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 24: What makes Blogcritics a high-quality reliable source?
I was under the impression Blogcritics was generally considered an RS, since it has won several awards, is owned by a corporation, received recognition from Forbes, is recognized as an accredited news source by Google and Yahoo, etc. etc. In any event, for this particular article I only use it as a source for analytical information, like Reception and Themes, not for production information where the factual accuracy could be brought into question. But, if you don't think it's reliable, I can drop it. — HunterKahn 21:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Production Notes": these notes, from the film's official website, read like mutual congratulations among the production team. I wonder about the value of this page as a reliable, neutral source.
I believe production notes are usually considered acceptable sources, although I agree with you about the self-congratulatory tone in this case. However, for what I use them for as a source in this article, I feel it is acceptable. For the most part, I use this to verify factual items that are not particularly questionable or contestable: Ann Luster was involved in it from early stages, Larry Percy was editor, Anne Marie Gillen was executive producer, Brian Baumgartner was offered the script between seasons of The Office, etc. etc. And, in the few cases where some of that self-congratulatory tone starts to seep in (Baumgartner saying he liked the script, Gillen saying it was her favorite script since Fried Green Tomatoes), those statements are specifically attributed to the person saying them (i.e., "Baumgartner said" he liked the script, "Gillen said" it was her favorite script since..., etc. etc.). So I really feel the use of these notes are acceptable in this case. — HunterKahn 21:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks: A little random spotchecking has produced one query, Ref 1b: I can't see where the source supports the statement in the text.
I think the relevant part in the source is the sentence, "Forced to choose between following official policy and doing nothing or trying to help the woman, the priest selects the latter..." If you feel that's doesn't uphold the article text, however, I can remove the source, as that statement is cited by an additional source as well. — HunterKahn 21:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources and citations look OK. No dead links Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Questions - I haven't read the page, just done a quick glance and had a couple of questions. What is the reasoning behind the image in the plot section? I know it's free, but I'm curious as to its purpose, because if it's just to display actors then you could probably just as easly place it in another section. Second, why is there a cast list section if you have the cast in the lead, infobox, plot summary, and a "Casting" section? It just seems unnecessary. If it's just to list everyone in the film, then IMDb can usually take care of that. The Film MOS provides for his exception, but the question becomes why is this an exception? Is it actually necessary since it's just a list of names? Lastly, why is the Variety review quote so special its gets its own quote box. I've start to see these more and more and for some reason they always seem like we're just cherry picking reviews. What makes that review better to use than say a Richard Roeper review, or a New York Daily News review, etc? Just curious about these things. I have no doubt the article is concise, well written, well sourced, and comprehensive because I know your work...so I'll review those things later. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for weighing in, Bignole! With the image, I thought it would be helpful to illustrate both Chenoweth's character and the director of the film, but wasn't sure where it really fit other than the plot section. (It could have worked in "Casting", but there is already a photo there.) Do you feel it should be moved somewhere else, or removed altogether? As far as the cast section, in past movie articles I've worked on (like Tender Mercies and The Brute Man) I didn't use a cast section if most of the cast is reflected (in parentheses) in the plot summary. However, in this case, there are a substantial amount of actors who played reasonably important supporting roles who are in neither the plot summary nor the infobox/lead, so I felt it was appropriate to include an entire cast section, as supported by WP:MOSFILM. With regard to the quote box, I usually just try to find a quote that I feel is reflective of the average consensus of the film, plus in this case I think Variety is the most prestigious of all the publications that reviewed the film. I could remove it though if you don't like it. — HunterKahn 06:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume that if the image in the plot is necessary another section could probably hold it. Is the current image in the casting section more important than the one sitting in the plot section? As for the cast list. Per WP:MOSFILM, if there are such important characters that are not mentioned in the plot then some basic description of the characters needs to be placed next to them. Otherwise, they're just a name and no one would be able to tell that they were anything other than a extra that just happened to be a named character. Are "Bartender" and "Exotic Dancer" really important to the film? If they are, and they aren't in the plot summary then it might be good to indicate the role they had in the film. Otherwise, I'd just as soon believe they were merely background characters based on their identifying names. Also, is there a reason Lisa Kennedy of the Denver Post isn't cited in the reception section. The more I look over it the more it kind of just falls in love with the film, but that apparently wasn't the case for Lisa Kennedy. She doesn't flat out dismiss it, but she apparently has more critiques about the story. Might be good to try and include some additional opposing views (if at least one view, given that the film doesn't appear to have a lot of reviews at Rotten Tomatoes to pull from). That's why I wonder about the Variety quote box. The reception section isn't that large to begin with (through no fault of yours, the film just didn't get a lot of reviews that are easily tracked down), and it's largely positive reception. Given it's shortness, do we need a quotebox "summarizing" the general opinion of something that would take the average person about 2 or 3 minutes to read without trouble? BTW, I changed some "movie" words to "film", as we typically use "film" as a more professional form when writing. If it's quoted it doesn't matter, but I guess "movie" comes across as more "slang" or something. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 06:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped the reception quotebox and the cast section, and added the Denver Post review (which I simply must have missed earlier). As for the image, I'd really rather not move the Chenoweth/Coyle one down to "Casting" section because it would entail losing the Brian Baumgartner picture, which I think is helpful to the reader. I also feel like it works rather well where it is in the "Plot" section because it is embedded in the paragraph where that very scene happens, and where Coyle's character was introduced. If you really feel strongly about it I'll swap the images out, but I'd rather not. — HunterKahn 15:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that strongly about it. I'll look over the article more as I get the time. I'm out of town right now. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Apparently, the producers did not re-register the domain name for the official website and all sources being used for "Production Notes" are not dead links that redirect to a page that is apparently considered "Spam", as I attempted to include the link in a previous message (which is now lost) and the edit screen told me that it couldn't publish my comment because the website is blacklisted. Don't know how that will affect the article, though I know there are multiple places using the "Production Notes". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Damn it. lol. Linkrot strikes again. Yeah, this link was available when this FAC started, but now the site has gone down, and Internet Archive doesn't seem to have an archived link. For now, I've removed the URLs but kept the Production Notes citations in. My understanding is that, per WP:LINKROT, an article and citation does not get condemned simply because a link was deleted, so I believe having the citations without the URLs should be OK, but if I'm wrong about that let me know. I can also try to find other avenues that these Production Notes are available, but I'm not sure there is one... — HunterKahn 16:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you had to keep the urls and put a {{deadlink}} tab next to it so that it is clear that the information, at one time, did exist. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right. I've restored the dead link templates. Will look to see if these notes are available anywhere else... — HunterKahn 21:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Coemgenus 15:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After an extensive rewrite and expansion over the past month, I believe ol' Rutherford is ready for FA status. Coemgenus 15:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 2a. The lead section needs work. These are likely to be easy fixes.
The lead claims that the 1876 election was "one of the most dishonest elections in American history", but this is a sweeping, unreferenced claim not made in the body of the article, a lead section faux pas.
The lead cites a quote that says Hayes was "a precursor of the Progressive movement". There's nothing about the Progressive movement in the body of the article; do we really want to mention it in the lead? This one is more of a judgement call, but personally I prefer such assessments to be fleshed out in the article. Also, Google Books tells me that elsewhere the biographer has written, "In retirement, Hayes was a precursor of the progressive movement." The omitted "in retirement" qualifier gives the passage a somewhat different meaning, suggesting that Hayes wasn't a "precursor" as president.
Personally I'd prefer just a bit more on his Civil War service in the lead. The text as it reads now is the kind of thing you'd write for any armchair general, not a hard-charging, oft-wounded combat veteran like Hayes. —KevinMyers 17:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right: the lead is weak. I tried to implement your suggestions. I changed "one of the most dishonest elections in American history" to "one of the most contentious and hotly disputed elections in American history", which I think the article establishes better that "most dishonest." I took out the bit about Progressivism and added more about his military service, which was indeed beyond the ordinary citizen-officer's. I also re-worded some of the stuff about his political career where it didn't read well. Let me know if you think it needs more work, and thanks for the comments. --Coemgenus 18:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That all looks better. I tried a pass at copyediting the lede too. —KevinMyers 20:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there a way to start the lead with more than a one-sentence paragraph? I like how (for example) Samuel Adams and Edwin P. Morrow start with a sentence or two summarizing their overall political impact, and then go into details. I think it helps set the tone for the article. Just a thought. —Designate (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the way those articles begin, too, so I gave it a a shot. Let me know if that captures what you're looking for. --Coemgenus 13:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good. One more thing, the article is inconsistent with capitalizing "presidency". I think it should be lowercase throughout but I'm not sure. —Designate (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:Job titles, it should be lowercase "president" and "presidency" throughout, except when part of the name, i.e. President Hayes. Many US publications do capitalize President, using it as a short form of the proper noun President of the United States, but our style guide frowns on that. —KevinMyers 05:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:Job titles is wrong, but I've already fought and lost that battle in the past. I made the changes to conform to the MOS. Coemgenus 15:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments:
The link in ref 172 wasn't working. Maybe the fault is temporary, but check.
Otherwise, sources and citations seem OK. I was not able to spotcheck refs against sources as none are online. Brianboulton (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
172 was working a few days ago. If it doesn't come back up, I'll find another source for it. Coemgenus 15:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be up and running again. Coemgenus 23:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: There's seems to be surprisingly little in the article about Hayes as an educational reformer, but this was one of his greatest political interests. Someone might want to have a look at the article "Rutherford B Hayes: Educator" by Henry Swint for more on this. Sir Nils (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Education was definitely a concern of his. As president, however, Hayes had no control over education policies in the states. He did more in that field as an ex-president than as a president, so I mentioned it there. Coemgenus 23:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's now a good deal more about education there. Coemgenus 18:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning opposeSupport:
The article needs some (relatively light technical) copyediting; this begins with the extra period at the end of the first paragraph, and ends with "president-elect Grover Cleveland" starting a sentence near the bottom.
There seems to be a connection between the Panic of 1873 and the currency business; this is not very clear here. Was the currency debate a consequence of the panic, the coinage act, or what?
This my big concern: where is legacy or historical commentary? Here's a laundry-list of questions to consider:
how are he and his presidency perceived by historians? where does he tend to rank in historical rankings of presidents?
possibly a contentious topic, but was it perceived at that time that ending reconstruction was a good idea (it's presented as being somewhat inevitable), and how has his decision to promise and implement it been viewed over time?
were there any long-term consequences to his gubernatorial/presidential foreign/domestic/economic policies?
were the educational reforms he advocated post-presidency enacted? successful?
Thanks for the comments. I've tried to address the issues you've raised. There is no direct connection between the silver issue and the Panic that I know of, other than that in bad economic times, people are more concerned about the debts they owe, and that inflation makes debts less onerous to the debtor (and less profitable to the creditor). I added some explanation of that. I also added a bit about flagging support for military Reconstruction in the North, to show that it was growing unpopular nationwide. Hayes's biographers don't mention any lasting effects of his educational policy, other than the continued existence of Ohio State University, which was founded while he was governor. The charities he was involved in granted some scholarships, including one to W. E. B. Du Bois -- do you think that's worth mentioning, or is it too tangential?
This sounds worth mentioning to me. Magic♪piano 20:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very reluctant to add a separate "legacy" section. I added one to James II of England during that FAC, and it quickly became a quagmire of historiographical argument without adding much to the article. I also think those historians' rankings of presidents are pretty useless attempts to quantify what is really a matter of opinion. As in some of the other featured articles about presidents, I'd like to add historical impact to individual topic sections where applicable. Nils added a sentence or two at the end of the civil service section that sums up Hayes's legacy there nicely. In the currency section, his legacy seems to be the temporary truce in silverite agitation, as I've noted there, but it didn't last, so it's not much of a legacy. In civil rights, it's the end of Reconstruction and the failure to promote racial harmony in the South. In foreign policy, there's pretty much no legacy to speak of except that city in Paraguay being named after him. So, all in all, I'm not sure how much more to add.
I'll give it another pass on the copy-editing, but my earlier attempt was pretty fruitless. I've read the article so many times now that it's hard to see typographical errors.--Coemgenus 00:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did at least want to pose the questions about longer-term legacy, since I'm not a big student of the era. In looking into the silver issue, I got the impression (from sources that focus on economic or historic issues, not Hayes) that the 1873 act is seen as a contributing factor to the panic later that year, if not necessarily the 1878 act. By the way, several sources I found (here's one) point out that this act did not in fact "demonetize silver" (language used in the WP article on the act) or "stop the coinage of silver" (what the Hayes article currently says), and that it was wrongly accused of doing so. Silver was still used in fractional coinage; only the silver dollar was discontinued since its silver content was worth more than $1, and was thus in practice being taken out of circulation for its silver content. You might want to look for more nuanced wording, or a source that addresses this subject more directly. (I'd also add language more directly connecting the drop in global silver prices with the passage of the 1873 act; this ties into Hayes' reasoning in rejecting the 1878 act.)
On other unrelated topics:
I think the means by which Hayes and Lucy get together (his mother's exertions, etc) is worthy of more words.
The seemingly-contentious relationship he had with the Democratic Congress could be played up a bit. Some sources I saw implied that he wrote an unusually large number of vetoes, at least partly due to standard partisan legislative tactics also used today, like inserting riders he opposed into "necessary" spending bills. Magic♪piano 20:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a couple sentences about DuBois and the Slater Fund. I also tried to clarify the nature of the Coinage Act of 1873, but I don't want to explain too much about the nineteenth-century monetary debates in the Hayes article. Instead, I think we should just explain enough to understand the actions Hayes took -- this is a biographical article, after all, not an economics article. I elaborated on his early days with Lucy, too, as you suggested. As to the vetoes, I'm not sure you're right. In four years, Hayes vetoed thirteen bills, one of which was overridden. Chester Arthur vetoed twelve bills in three and a half years. Grant vetoed 95 bills in eight years, and Cleveland vetoed 414 in his first term alone! If anything, Hayes was closer to the Whig ideal of the passive president than any of his contemporaries. I did add a paragraph about the appropriation riders, which is a pretty interesting episode. --Coemgenus 23:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't expecting you to add a treatise on monetary policy, just enough to help connect the dots. :) It all looks good to me now. Magic♪piano 19:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the comments! I don't know why I left out the part about the appropriations vetoes -- it was pretty important. The article is much improved now, I think. --Coemgenus 20:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other concerns I should address? --Coemgenus 13:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - not ready to support, as I think the prose needs some serious flow work as well as some concerns with comprehensiveness.
General comments -
Sourcing - I noted this article which states that the first presidential library was Hayes - perhaps this point needs to be brought out as a legacy?
Speaking of legacy, I'm not seeing any sort of viewpoint on his presidency so far. This might have some information of use. Likewise this article might be of use.
I'm not seeing a lot of sources on the era he was president during. I see a couple of books were used on the year 1877, but some more infuriation on Reconstruction and the Gilded Age would help to round out any possible biases in the other sources.
Overlinking - I see a lot of terms that probably don't need to be linked - gallows, mental institution, murder, currency, heart attack - as well as a lot of terms that are linked multiple times in short order. Republican is way overlooked in the article, as well as Democrat, brevet, as well as a number of states. An audit of all the links needs to be undertaken to make sure you're not duplicating links or linking to things that are of low-value for understanding the article.
A concern is that there isn't a lot of context for why things are happening in political matters. His career as a Congressman is not given any context on why he voted the way he did.
I strongly suggest a copyedit by someone not from the United States - not only are there a number of verbose sentence structures, finding someone who isn't familiar with U.S. history will make sure that you haven't left out context that's important for understanding the article.
There are unsightly white gaps in the article, probably caused by the {{-}} templates that appear to be used to keep pictures with sections. However, this causes large blank areas on some screen sizes, and should be considered a bad idea.
Specific comments -
Education - What are "common schools"? needs explanation. Likewise "preparatory school"?
Education - what's meant by "where the curriculum was of a classical bent."?
Cincinnati - "Cincinnati, just across the Ohio River from Kentucky, a slave state, found many such cases in its courts." just sounds off, consider rewording this a bit to make it sounds less Victorian in its phrasing.
What does "running ahead of the ticket" mean?
Civil War - "The army spent the winter of 1862–1863 in winter quarters near Charleston, West Virginia. Hayes saw little action until July, when the division..." There is a disconnect between these two sentences, they don't flow well together.
Governor - I don't like the phrase "endorsed the impeachment and conviction of President Andrew Johnson." which implies that Johnson was both impeached AND convicted. Although he was impeached, he wasn't convicted. Perhaps a better phrasing is possible?
Governor - "Hayes was re-elected with an increased majority, …" just is clumsy - perhaps "Hayes was re-elected with a larger vote total than in 1867"?
private life - "That same year, the Panic of 1873 dashed business prospects across the nation…" dashed? perhaps rephrase to something less Victorian sounding…
Election of 1876 - "Because of fraud by both parties in the three disputed states, the results were uncertain, and the three states returned certificates of election for electors of both parties, with each claiming to be the only legitimate electors." I'm unclear what is meant here, as the phrasing is such that I'm lost in all the election/electors/etc.
Civil rights - okay, we had three states still under military government during the election but only two by the time he became president? How'd that happen?
"In his first year in office, Hayes contended with the largest labor disturbance to that time in American history…" awkward, consider rewording.
Consider culling some of the external links - is there really any need for the link to the Biographical directory of the US Congress or the Finda Grave link or the White House biography? Do any of those add anything additional to the understanding of the subject?
My main concerns are comprehensiveness of the research and the prose. The prose is clunky in places and while I did a copyedit, I am no where near a copyediting genius. Strongly suggest an independent copyedit by a non-expert in U.S. history, and I can't really consider supporting until the prose issues are addressed. The above concerns are just the ones I noticed, and I cannot be sure of catching them all.
I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool, and didn't get anything but Wikipedia mirrors. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eadglyth: Thanks very much for the copyediting you did. I'm embarrassed to have missed some of those things for so long. As to your comments, I'll address the general ones first. I've removed the {{-}} templates and it still looks OK. I've also dealt, I think, with the overlinking. I added a sentence about his library. I don't have JSTOR access just now, but I should be able to get it in the next few days, so I'll evaluate those articles you suggest (hopefully, this should be done before Christmas.) As to sourcing, I thought that the scholarly biographies of Hayes ought to form the backbone of the article, but I'll be glad to look for more general histories of the era to augment the biographical sources where necessary.
As to the specific issues: I think the revisions I made to his early education clarify the ambiguities there. I've tried to tread the line between "Victorian sounding" phrases and the "engaging, even brilliant" prose that the FA criteria call for. Unfortunately, I tend to sound high-fallutin and pompous when I write. I've toned down the sentences you pointed out into something more modern and prosaic. I think I fixed most of the problems you pointed out in that area, but I think "increased majority" is common enough phrasing to remain (I've run across it in lots of political histories and biographies.) I simplified the electors/election/electoral certificate detail in 1876 -- I think I had tried to cram too much minutia in one sentence. How it went from three to two states under reconstruction governments is actually explained in the footnote -- do you think I out to separate the substantive notes from the references like they did in this article? I also re-worded the sentence on the labor issues and further culled the external links (I agree that most external links in these types of articles are useless).
As I said, I'll look into more sources when JSTOR access happens, and I hope to resolve the rest of these issues quickly. Thanks again for your thorough review. --Coemgenus 19:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I separated the notes from the references. Still waiting on JSTOR access. Coemgenus 14:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...JSTOR access is harder to come by than I thought. I did find a copy of the Thelen article and added information and citations from it in the Post-presidency section. The Smith article is available for free here. Coemgenus 01:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I've addressed your concerns. please let me know if there's anything I missed, or anything else you've thought of. Coemgenus 02:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I won't oppose, I don't feel comfortable supporting without someone independent going over the prose and doing some copyediting, it's still clunky at a number of points. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking at prose, am a little less than halfway through. It seems reasonable so far (I'm a science-minded Brit, so am definitely not an expert in American history) - I've made some tweaks and corrected the occasional error, but it was already in fairly good shape I felt. (I'm not an expert in copyediting either, but the acid test would seem to be whether one can easily follow the meaning and I've mostly been okay; some comments are below) I will try and a look through the rest sometime today or tomorrow. Trebor (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While going through, a few things I noticed:
After a few months of training, Hayes and the 23rd Ohio set out for western Virginia in July 1861 - dates don't work if he only joined 23rd Ohio in June and had several months training.
In November, Hayes was promoted to lieutenant colonel and led his troops deeper into western Virginia - was he now the overall leader? What about Stanley Matthews - was he not also lieutenant colonel?
Following the rout, the Union forces destroyed Confederate supplies and engaged the enemy again successfully - "engaged the enemy again successfully" is a bit vague in my opinion - what happened to the enemy the second time?
Early's army surprised them at Kernstown on July 24, where Hayes was slightly wounded and had a horse shot out from under him, and the army was defeated - This is unclear: was Hayes wounded because of the horse?
More comments probably coming when I look through the rest. I'm finding it interesting so far though. Trebor (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that after the previous FA and the fixtures made as a result of that, I think that the page may have a chance of passing this time. As my rationale was last time, I think it's a well written and informative article. As the majority contributor CountdownCrispy was unavaliable at the time of the nom, I have consulted with SandyGeorgia and Nikkimaria and they've consented me to be WP:BOLD and nominate it The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. One external redirect, which I fixed. --PresN 20:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The free images are OTRS'd, so that's fine, but I'm not really convinced about the use of any of the non-free images. The toy looks pretty much like the robot (obviously) and, if it's being kept, it would need to be reduced significantly. I don't see why we need an image of it attacking Mathilda; just because it's an event worth discussing, does not mean that a non-free image is needed. The image of it in series two could be justified, but I'm not convinced that it looks different enough- in any case, if you're in contact with one of the robot's makers, could you not just request a free image of it from that period? J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to ask CountdownCrispy about the photo issue, I'm not sure but I think the problem with the series 2 version photo was that there were no free photo's taken as back then it was just a debut robot who went out in the semi-final of it's heat as well as there are none of it in it's series 2 form on the Razer website. As for the series 2 photo itself I think does look different as it lacks the self righting "wings" as well as the fact it has less holes in the arm and that there's no Razer logo on the side and finally the back claw is a different shape to the later version. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it doesn't look different, I'm saying the differences do not warrant the use of a non-free image. I don't think any of the non-free images in this article are required. J Milburn (talk) 12:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, in my opinion it is best used to show the starting base of Razer and sets the scene for the future developments. But as for the removals, you'd best ask CountdownCrispy about the cutting down of the toy picture as he's the one who took and uploaded the photo and my computer lacks the correct programmes to do that. The rationale I have for keeping the Matilda is that it's showing the first time (and I believe, only time) a competitor robot caused that much damage on a Robot Wars house robot so it's a unique photo that can also show what damage Razer can do as well as how the weapon works. But If you still don't agree, I'll remove the matilda photo. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Mathilda photo should definitely go. You're arguing as to why the event's important- I'm not denying that the event should be talked about, I'm saying a non-free image is not needed. Again with the toy- ok, a toy exists, and the toy (unsurprisingly) looks like the real deal. I don't know why we need a non-free image for that. You say, concerning the first image, "it is best used to show the starting base of Razer and sets the scene for the future developments"- OK, but is that completely necessary? Non-free content should be used as a last resort, when it is absolutely necessary in terms of understanding the article. I'm not convinced that is. J Milburn (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the toy and Matilda images from the article, but am leaving the Series 2 screengrab for now. The reason is simply that no free image exists or can be created to show Razer in this state. Remember that the original iteration of the machine was completed late the night before the recording back in 1997 when digital photography had not taken off. -- CountdownCrispy 19:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) (You took the word's out of my mouth, CountdownCrispy!) I think you can call it nessecary if you bear in mind that that was made in 1998 and back then there were no camera phones or small cameras and I doubt that the BBC and the roboteers back then would be very happy with someone taking photos of the robots so that line of free imagary is closed off. Also the team added the wings before entering the Battlebots competition so you can't get a free image of it in that form from a States based photographer. And finally as I said before, the team have no photos of it in that form on the website, which they admit so I feel that it could be nessecary as it has no free alternative. I do have the feeling that it is nessecary as it gives people the ability to see where the changes were added. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, there's a fairly major misunderstanding here. An image being irreplaceable does not make it necessary- to be necessary it has to add to the article in such a way that without it, the article would be severely lacking. Not necessarily related to the replaceability of the image at all. Please take a look at our non-free content criteria. I am not (now the reasons have been explained to me) arguing that this image is replaceable- I'm merely suggesting it may not be necessary (NFCC1 versus NFCC8). However, I accept that the other two images were more problematic, and I'm glad they've been removed. I still don't think the first should be there, but I'm not going to fight about it. J Milburn (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure I can see your point. You're saying that although the original version of the machine is interesting, it is sufficiently comparable to the (freely licensed) later iterations that it's not strictly necessary to include the image? I'll retain the image for now but can absolutely understand what you're saying. Thanks for explaining it to me. -- CountdownCrispy 21:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, effectively. The question is, what is the image adding to the article, and is that addition so strongly needed that a non-free image is justified? Remember that there's no kind of "entitlement" for non-free content, so thinking "oh well, it's only one" doesn't really get around it, especially when we already have free depictions of the same subject. As I say, I'm not going to fight about it, but it's something to consider. J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Driveby comment: Why are some robots' names (inconsistently) italicised? I can't see why you would italicise robot names at all, let alone why you'd do it so inconsistently. J Milburn (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That I can explain. We discussed it on the talkpage that any new robots mentioned would be italicied and thereafter be done in normal text. It was Ged UK and CC who came up with that, you'd have to ask him. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...Why? There's nothing about that in the MOS. It's just confusing. J Milburn (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From memory, it was a suggestion raised at peer review to improve readability. (That's the reviewer's sentiment, and not necessarily mine!) -- CountdownCrispy 21:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it should go. I really can't see how it's helpful- it's just confusing. There's nothing like that in the MoS. J Milburn (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, I've taken a look into the sourcing, and I'm barely convinced the subject is notable, let alone sourced with the kind of rigour you'd expect from a featured article. The use of italics in inappropriate places in the sourcing (no doubt due to that ridiculous "work" parametre) also really detracts.
Other than this kind of thing, the sources all seem to be by the makers the robot, or sourced to Robot Wars episodes. There are a few reasonable sources (local papers and stuff) and one (primary) book, but none of these are explicitly about the subject anyways. J Milburn (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well allow me to try and explain the explainations of the sources. Robot's Rule is there as only to show rthe list of the RW title winners which shows Razer's as it is a fellow roboteers website what reason would they have to make it up? Flickr is only for the photos within not source content. the memberstoast thing is a copy of the Robot Wars offical rules for series 3 and is simply a direct copy of the thing all roboteers had at the time. Killerhurtz and Mutant Robots are also fellow roboteers and show Razer took part in Battlebots it would be reliable as again, what reason would they have to lie about Razer participating in Battlebots? That youtube video is showing the Razer toy and what it came with. under WP:ELNEVER it is not violating Mentorn or BBC etc. copyright by being a direct copy from any broadcast as it's from an individual who willingly made and posted that for free use. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A source is not considered reliable if we merely can't see "why they'd make it up". Being a "fellow roboteer" does not suddenly make what they say on their personal website reliable. Flickr is cited- are you citing the photo? The YouTube video is not reliable- what's to stop me posting a YouTube video and saying the opposite? (If Battlebots is the website for the competition you are talking about, then that's not so bad, but, again, it shows the almost complete reliance on primary sources, which is not a good thing.) J Milburn (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, The Battlebots thing I can sort out as i've been able to find the archive of the Battlebots website which mentions Razer as the Rumble winner and so therefore proves its competing in the programme right here. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Criterion 1c. According to the linked FA criteria, featured articles should have "high-quality reliable sources" to verify content. I can't say this article does that at the moment. It's fine to use a few primary sources for non-controversial content, but to base a large portion of content on them is a problem. Flickr isn't considered a reliable source, and YouTube generally isn't either (maybe it is if the video is from an official provider, but it's not something you want to make a habit of sourcing). Personal websites are also rarely reliable. I agree with J Milburn that better sourcing is needed for this to be a viable candidate. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Without wishing to pile on, sourcing is a big issue with this, and I think you'll find it hard to source a lot of the article reliably without stripping back the article. Primary sourcing of information is bad not only due to reliability issues, but also because it suggests the information is not really notable. Trebor (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed- I think there's too much to work on here for it to be solved quickly- might I tentatively suggest that this is withdrawn? J Milburn (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because...I believe that it satisfies all FAC requirements! (edit) I have spent the last 18 months giving this article a complete re-write, spinning off the content into 27 sub-articles while expanding the main article content from 26k to 113k. The entire article is sourced with 200+ references. In places where the only third party sources are unavailable and I had to source to official college sources, I have only used hard facts, not spin. This article has been the subject of a pre-GAN peer review, a very thorough GA nomination, a pre-FAC peer review. GrapedApe (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "Small Town" link in the infobox needs to be checked. 75.60.38.110 (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. Thanks.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNI standards provide for the use of the college's official seal at the top of the infobox, plus the college's in-use/marketing logo at the bottom. See Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Article_structure under "Infobox": "..preferably with a lead image of the institution's official seal or coat of arms and an image at the bottom of the institution's wordmark.." Literally, every single university FA article has this format: Wikipedia:UNI#Featured_articles--GrapedApe (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not plausible Fasach Nua (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does that even mean? What is not plausible?--GrapedApe (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unread: A fully involved editor of even a GA-worthy article would have expended a little more effort when nominating the article that resulted from all that effort, even if ignorant of FAC procedure. There is no rationale given here. I suspect I have already expended more effort in explaining why I don't need to read the article than the nominator spent presenting it here. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is appropriate that you oppose an article because the nominator hasn't spoken about why he thinks it deserves promotion in the FAC. wackywace 10:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The guidance states a nomination can be removed if "a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.", and a reviewer is entitled to oppose on an unprepared basis. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Silverfish--Your comment is incredibly dickish and I take extreme exception to them. I've spent 18 months totally re-writing this article. Read this HUGE and extremely thorough GA nomination page. It has been peer reviewed twice: the first before the GA and the second before this FAC. I've also created dozens of W&J-related pages, with 4 being WP:FEATURED LISTS, 4 WP:GOOD ARTICLES, 13 WP:DYKS. So, to answer your question, NO, I will not withdraw this nom simply because I didn't write a lot in my nomination statement.--GrapedApe (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the nominator here. Lack of a detailed nomination statement is not legitimate grounds for opposing at FAC. It is generally a good idea, however, for nominators to write something a bit interesting in the nom statement, if only as a means of attracting reviewers. It's not too late to remedy that, by the way. I have not had the opportunity to read the article yet, but without expressing an opinion on its quality, to me it certainly doesn't look unprepared and may well be one of the better college articles. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we followed this logic then there would be no need for nomination statements at all - a simple list of articles to consider would be adequate. This page isn't simply somewhere to go to get a badge to slap on your article - it represents a process of scrutiny to ensure that articles that are featured are of sufficiently high quality. The nomination statement is a key part of that process - it highlights why an editor feels an article is FA worthy and at the same time indicates the nominator understands the FAC requirements. It also represents a starting point for the debate - if you state it meets A, B and C we can then respond "I disagree with you on B" or "What about X, Y and Z?" Your nomination does not do any of this.
Rather than rectify this problem you have chosen to respond with personal abuse and highlighting the trophies that "you" have already collected - that itself suggests a lack of familiarity with FA status which attaches to the article rather than an editor. There is still nothing in your nomination to consider so my oppose stands. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 03:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments – Just a drive-by look at the sports-related section. Found only a couple of things worth pointing out...
A couple of abbreviations could do with having their full names/titles given: the NCAA and, to a lesser extent, MVP.
A couple list-like sentences would be better with the addition of an "and", namely before volleyball in the list of intercollegiate sports, and before Texas hold 'em in the intramural sports.
Just a general point, but it seems like the article heavily relies on primary sources. More secondary sources would be a good thing, if possible. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I struggled with this issue during the writing. At every step, I tried to gather as many secondary sources as possible, but unfortunately, there aren't that many out there. If there are any concerns about this, I'd be glad to delve further issue.--GrapedApe (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose on prose, referencing and MoS issues at the moment, although the below concerns should be easily addressable
Some repetition in the text, for example "undertake risky financial moves...then undertook another series of risky financial moves that crippled its finances"
Needs some copy-editing for clarity and flow
Per WP:LEAD, an article this size needs a lead of at least 3 paragraphs
I'm not sure the section heading "Washington & Jefferson College" is the most helpful - would you consider changing it and/or merging that section with the one on unification?
On my screen, the image of Blaine pushes the references to the right - could you add a clear template to the Alumni section to prevent this? This is not a requirement, but I do feel it would look better in terms of page layout
Yes, that looks better.--GrapedApe (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Identical references should consistently be combined - for example, current refs 22 and 84
All web references should have retrieval dates - ref 22, for example, does not
Either consistently have retrieval dates for web versions of print-based sources, or consistently do not - for example, compare refs 27 and 28
Be consistent in what elements of references are wikilinked and when
Provide page numbers for references to multi-page PDF files
Ref 82: page(s)?
Some other minor inconsistencies in referencing format
Refs 197-200: page(s)? Also, check date formatting on ref 198. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obligatory pro forma oppose since it is not an article about a highway, hurricane, video game, or battleship. However, I'm inclined to Support since it is an exhaustively cited article with deep descriptions of history and institution and devoid of the glossy marketing booster-cruft that too often passes muster as encyclopedic prose. I see this article as approximating a template for which all other university articles should aspire. As a Wikipedia editor, I also want to take this opportunity to note my strong disapproval of User:Quantumsilverfish's extremely disdainful and poor faith oppose which is in the highest traditions of soul-crushing bureaucratic proceduralism. That the user took the time to debate the dickishness of his/her "efforts" and call into the question the motivations of another editor but has not bothered to return to the debate to comment on the merits of the article reflects rather well on the editor, doesn't it? Madcoverboy (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Overlinking in first paragraph of Curriculum, Admissions & Ranking, Student Body
Why no 2-column format for citations/references?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel the article meets the FA criteria. It is stable, neutral, and comprehensive. It follows the format of many other video game FAs and uses fair use images minimally and, I think, appropriately. I'll let you decide if it's well-written and well-referenced. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The development section is extremely small, and it doesn't give the impression of comprehensiveness. Surely, there's more to include than that?JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted in the first FAC, I've tried my very best to find more sources for the development section but for lesser known games like this one, there simply isn't enough interest in developer interviews, etc. to be published. Dev info is a dime a dozen for blockbuster releases like Halo and Final Fantasy but extremely scarce for games like this. Perhaps there is more info somewhere untranslated but that's not within my capability to discover. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think a lead image more representative of the whole series would be better; as an added bonus, it looks like the logo for the series as a wholemay be free. The current rationale on the lead image is a little weak; a "standard" rationale is used for a non-standard usage. J Milburn (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean when you say non-standard usage? Also, I think a cover art image is valuable since it also provides images of characters in addition to the game cover itself (see [6] for what the other covers look like, perhaps Vol 2 or 4 might be more appropriate since they are in color and focus on some main characters). I'm not familiar enough with copyright law to determine whether the .hack logo achieves threshold of originality, but if it does, then perhaps a dedicated character image could be added? Axem Titanium (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean by "non-standard usage" is that this is not just a video game cover in the infobox in the article about that video game, which is what the rationale suggests. The logo would not meet the threshold of originality I don't think, and I'm normally pretty conservative in that regard. I disagree with the use of a dedicated character image; one would perhaps belong in list of .hack characters, but there's not really enough discussion of the characters in this article (and no mention of their appearance) to justify one. Note that the main characters discussed in the article are already shown in the gameplay screenshot. J Milburn (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that this case is functionally identical to the case of Pokemon where there are multiple versions but the infobox opts to display only one of the cover arts. This article is more specific than the overarching series as a whole and should show the box art of at least one game to help identify it. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no kind of automatic entitlement to use box art in articles about video game series. This is not the same as Pokémon games, which are effectively a single game released twice, but the same as, say, Age of Empires, which is already featured and opts for the much more sensible logo (which, equally, serves to identify- I would argue more strongly than box art. The logo stays the same, the box art does not.). J Milburn (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's fair. I'll see to adding the logo to commons. Do you have any comments on the prose? Axem Titanium (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am yet to read the article, I was making a drive-by review of the images. J Milburn (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is significant discussion regarding the characters in the plot section, and without the cover art, you would only have the screenshot in which to identify them. Which only shows three characters engaged in combat. The free .hack symbol would work well as a lead image, but I think you would have to put some sort of character artwork in the plot section for people to visualise who's who. - hahnchen 00:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the characters are discussed does not mean that we need to use non-free images of them. A group shot on the character list page would be appropriate, but the screenshot is more than enough for this article. J Milburn (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does, because visual representations of characters are important in itself. You wouldn't put an image of the main South Park characters in the South Park article? Or shots of the cast in film articles? - hahnchen 18:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the "visual representations of characters are important in itself", why is the issue not discussed in the article? Discussing something does not give you the "right" to have a non-free image of it. An author will be discussed in an article about their novel; we don't need a non-free image to show what they look like... J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You do not have to discuss the visual appearance of characters, because it is best done with images, hence the "important in itself". Video games are a visual medium, like film. It may not be important for the guy behind the camera to be pictured, but it is to show the characters on screen. This is an RPG, it's not an gun game, character progression, both in terms of the mechanics of the game, and in the storyline is central. Featured articles such as Carnivàle and various Stark Trek films show visual representations of the characters because they are important in itself.- hahnchen 00:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is not explained how .hack//Fragment is part of this series. The .hack series according to the lead is a series of single player games, fragment looks like a standlone spinoff. If it is, then it should go into its own article. - hahnchen 01:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to expand the lead, development, and its own section to try to explain this. Fragment is identical in gameplay and story to the main series with the only addition being party members are controlled by other players online, rather than the computer. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what's the Fragment story mode - "where the player's character acts out the plot of the .hack games is available"? How is the plot interlinked? - hahnchen 18:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made a minor change to clarify this. The plot is identical to the main series, except the player's character replaces Kite. It's not a new story at all. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I could read the Japanese sources, I could probably figure it out. But how big is fragment? Does it encompass the plot of all 4 single player games? - hahnchen 00:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, it contains the plot of all 4 games, but some cutscenes are rendered in text dialogue boxes to save space, but I don't think this detail is notable enough to mention in the article itself. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can we please have the lead image issue sorted? I know they aren't well loved in these parts, but the NFCC are policy just like anything else, and the use of images that do not meet them is a serious problem in a FA candidate. J Milburn (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the main image. I'd rather not get hung up on image concerns if there are prose/reference issues to address. Do you have any comments on those fronts? Axem Titanium (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm yet to read it. I have never understood that mentality- "image concerns" are as much (if not more) legitimate concerns as prose/reference concerns... J Milburn (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying they're less legitimate, they're just easier to fix than prose concerns. It doesn't take time or thought to replace/remove/add an image but it does to address each specific prose concern. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: for the image concerns, i would also oppose to using the logo, the logo is used for more than just the game series. it's for the entire franchise. So using the logo wont be best for this particular one. Plus the cover does more good. Other than that, the lead needs some rewriting and I don't think we should link to previous works of the staff, such as Yoshiyuki Sadamoto from Neon Genesis Evangelion or Kazunori Ito from Ghost in the Shell, in fact after loking at the ref, i would say that little bit appears to be original research. Related Media i think needs some work, like instead of merely mentioning that these pieces of media exist, it would be better to mention that they were released too. for example "The first official "sequel" to the games is .hack//Legend of the Twilight" can be written such "On XX-X 20XX, a manga called ".hack//Legend of the Twilight" served as a sequel to the .hack games.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it's original research. The reference clearly states "IGN: Are there games, or even movies or books that also might have served as inspiration for .Hack? / Matsuyama: Because we have creators like Mr. [Kazunori] Ito who worked on Ghost in the Shell and Avalon, and Mr. Yoshiyuki Sadamoto, who was a character designer for [Neon Genesis] Evangelion, so there's a lot of influence from them." If we included the release dates for every single piece of related media, it would bog down the prose and would presumably be redundant to info found in List of .hack media or your User:Bread Ninja/List of .hack chapters. Can you mention any specific recommendations for the lead? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the second page. sorry about that. despite that, the media section wouldn't be redundant than you think it would be. We would only mention when it was initially released, it wont be nothing like the media section, and my page of .hack chapters, is still in development and see no real reason to mention it here, even if it's just a comparison. It's better than what we have now in it's awkward prose such as the example i gave. Plus more direct media such as the soundtracks and .hack//fragment has release dates. I don't see the problem here. For lead section, i think data transfer for one game to the next can be explained much simpler, and needs some references. I still think .hack//Fragment has a chance of gaining it's own article despite having same story and similar gameplay, but hats up for another time. For now, lead needs more ref and explain things simpler such as data transfer and liminalityBread Ninja (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we can agree to disagree on this point. Whereas music and fragment have their own sections, having a release date in every sentence of the Related media and legacy intro paragraph would be disruptive in my opinion, especially given that they can find this release date information in the dedicated media list(s). I'm not sure what you mean when you say that data transfer and Liminality should be explained more simply. Each only gets a single summary-style sentence which is explained in more detail in the relevant sections (Gameplay, Development). As for references in the lead, there are different schools of thought about redundancy of citations in the lead (see WP:LEADCITE) with the gist being that only controversial claims NEED to be cited. I went the route of avoiding redundancy because the claims are not controversial and they are already cited in their respective sections. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not as disruptive as you may think, there's only so little media in the media section not involving Music or fragment. G.U. is a series and be difficult to give an initial a date, so i think that one is allowed to not have a release, but .hack//legend of the twilight has a vague sentence and i would say it needs one just for prose sake. each piece of media holds up to 2 sentences, and mentioning the release can be done casually and be said differently like "On XX-XX-20XX, a manga called .hack//legend of the twilight was released, and served sequel to the .hack games." or "A manga called .hack//Legend of the Twilight was released on XX-XX, 20XX and served as the sequel to the .hack games." I'm still trying to find sources for .hack//Mobile, but it's pretty hard since its a japanese phone game. So if anyone knows a Japanese source or something, maybe you guys can help me out on it.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, all of the media mentioned are series since they contain multiple volumes/books/episodes that were released on different dates. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Multimedia, probably, such as games, that had released at different times, and obtained large ammount of tie-ins. But something like .hack;;legend of the twilight, it only had adaptations so far. Its not exactly by that logic. You're comment was very "pointy". So i suggest you stick to what we're discussing for this. I only say .hack//legend of the twilight due to it's akward short sentence, so please stick to that.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Responding logically is POINTy now? I added a date for Legend of the Twilight as a compromise. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
logically how? you have to meet the exact circumstances first. It's good to mention release dates. i would say the only reason why they don't have release dates is because they link to their own article (which by the way, most of them don't meet the GNG standards).Bread Ninja (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, if anyone cna find anything on .hack//MOBILE. it would be great. if not, then i guess we would have no choice but to remove it, despite it still running>Bread Ninja (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't either. If it's alright with you, I'm going to remove it until we can find sources to verify it. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's no way of justifying it, and since we want GA, there is no point in preserving it now. So i wont mind.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on sourcing/research:
Overreliance on articles from one publisher (IGN) and primary sources; some sources neglected. A basic library search reveals indexed results from journals such as Official US PlayStation Magazine and Electronic Gaming Monthly. Need to take a trip to the library and dig through these to beef up the Development and other sections.
I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that diversity of citations was a featured article criterion. If you're referring to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Online print archive, the sources there are just reviews, not development info, and I have in fact sifted through practically every result on .hack using VG RS search in search of those elusive development sources. If you know of any other places I can look, please refer me. The reason IGN was used so much was because it was the only site with a developer interview and info on Fragment. In fact, of 39 non-primary sources, only 12 were from IGN. The primary sources are only used to cite detailed plot information which cannot be derived from secondary sources. I also believe that every single ref lists a publisher. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 1c most certainly requires a diversity of sources if it exists. In this case, it does. I'm pointing out that you've neglected sources. Re: "If you know of any other places I can look, please refer me." I thought I did, above? --Andy Walsh(talk) 15:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know of any other library search functions that I can use? I already looked at the VG online print archive. What "indexed results" are you referring to? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was searching across several databases but I think EGM and PlayStation magazines are indexed in EBSCOHost MAS Ultra and possibly others. You might need to get a librarian to help you if you're not familiar with searching library databases. Also check out the dispatch on finding reliable sources online. --Andy Walsh(talk) 19:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as a time-saver, I'll look through these results and see if there's anything new. There's no point in your going to a library just to re-do the same search I did. If there's anything, I'll let you know. In the mean time, can we get publishers in the other refs? --Andy Walsh(talk) 20:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Laser asked me to look at this, so I searched EBSCO Academic Search Complete, LexisNexis and Proquest. The only worthwhile content I dug up were a pair of reviews from The Independent which I can send along if someone sends me an email. I'll need a little more time to dig through everything with a finer comb and on more databases (this topic sends up way too many false positives.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping me out here. I sent an email to David for what he could find. Which refs need publishers, btw? I took a look and they all seem to have the "publisher" parameter filled by one thing or another. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'd noticed this issue earlier, but wanted to let the article develop a while, but it's pretty much what Andy says above. I don't believe this article is comprehensive due to the dearth of sourcing. I do not believe this can be comprehensive without significant work with Japanese sources. Your Famitsu response comes from an intermediary, and only shows the score. These games are made primarily for the Japanese market, and for this to be comprehensive, there would have to be more depth from the Japanese side. For a series which has sold in the millions, there is bound to be more prerelease and development info. How was fragment received? - hahnchen 00:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hahnchen, are you suggesting the nominator obtain Japanese-language sources? That's not really actionable, unless we get a volunteer to obtain and translate them. --Andy Walsh(talk) 00:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am. If you're writing an article about a primarily Japanese topic, then you require coverage in its native language. I've made comments at FAC before, such as at Ninja Gaiden and Final Fantasy Tactics. Featured Articles should be comprehensive. - hahnchen 12:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though harsh, I'm afraid that I must agree with this sentiment. If you write about a foreign topic, you should be expected to cite coverage from its original language. Otherwise, the article is simply not comprehensive enough to be featured. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have plumbed the depths of the Internet to practically double the development section. I hope it is to your liking. I found the Famitsu scores for fragment as well. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I struck my comment about the Development section. While it's still small, it gives a lot more information than it used to. And I can understand that it would be nearly impossible to find more. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A comment in re: to my above comments; I'm unfortunately going to lose my access to our databases soon as I'm going to be traveling and their remote proxies are inoperable at this time, but I wasn't able to find any other meaningful coverage in alt. sources (although I haven't finished all the looking and I was not checking Japanese sources since I wouldn't know what to do with them anyhow.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help in the meantime. Do you have any comments on the article as a whole? Axem Titanium (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's still left after the last FAC; I'll check in later today. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Striking my opposition above; I'm satisfied that due diligence has been done with respect to research. --Andy Walsh(talk) 17:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've tried contacting hahnchen about the above opposition but haven't heard back yet... Axem Titanium (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Images Flags use should follow MOS and be annotated with with the state's name Fasach Nua (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the MoS says that "However, some editors feel that some tables such as those containing sports statistics are easier to read if {{flag}} is used throughout", so I would agree with that for the qualifying and race results tables. I have added annotations to the flags in the infobox in the same way as done in 2009 Giro d'Italia, another FA.--Midgrid(talk) 00:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I commented at the first PR, and gave the article a thorough copyedit a few weeks ago. The article has come a long way since the last FAC, and the prose in particular has improved to the extent that I believe the article deserves to be promoted to FA status. Apterygial 07:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments: Is there a difference between "Formula One Administration" and "Formula One Management"? Otherwise thw sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are separate subsidiaries of Formula One Group. Interestingly, the Wikipedia article says that FOM runs the formula1.com website (which is true), but the website itself is copyrighted to FOA, so I'll change the one reference that listed FOM.--Midgrid(talk) 20:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. --PresN 22:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments – Noticed that Brianboulton already reviewed the sources, but he didn't say whether he did spot-checks. I did so, and only noticed one issue, along with a couple of formatting matters.
In reference 28, I don't see the Kimi Raikkonen quote from the article. There's a lot of interview comments here, so it's possible I'm missing something that's under my nose.
You're right! I used the wrong link.--Midgrid(talk) 17:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 13 should have a PDF designation like the following reference has.
These two references should actually have been identical; I have merged them.--Midgrid(talk) 17:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The full article in reference 33 is apparently behind a paywall, so the citation should include a note along the lines of "subscription required". The format= parameter of the cite templates works well for this.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've now taken a look at the writing of the article, and for the most part I liked what I saw. There were only a few things I wanted to comment on, and they are below.
Practice and qualifying: The first paragraph of this section is a single sentence, which normally comes off as stubby. This is especially true when the paragraphs around it are much larger, like in this article. Would it be possible to merge this effectively with the next paragraph?
Pat Symonds was linked in an earlier section, so there's really no need for another link here. On that subject, he's listed as an Engineering Director here and a Technical Director earlier. Which of these is his actual job title? Or is it both? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His actual job title was "Executive Director of Engineering", so I've changed it to that. Due to the often complex and byzantine hierarchies of job descriptions in modern F1 teams, he would often just be referred to as the Technical Director, but that titled role was actually taken by Bob Bell.--Midgrid(talk) 16:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
"was upset that "Halo" 's writing was intended for Knowles" - reword so that you do not have a quote mark before an apostrophe
Tedder's quote error should be corrected, rather than using 'sic'. MOS:QUOTE: "f there is a significant error in the original statement, use [sic]...Trivial spelling or typographical errors should be silently corrected"
In the first section you imply Knowles' surname, but not in other quotes. Either way, be consistent
In the first section there is the quote "We should write a Ray LaMontagne 'Shelter' kind of song for Jay-Z and Beyoncé [Knowles]". Then later there are the quotes "Beyoncé's album came out when my album was already being printed. No-one's gonna be sittin' at home, thinking 'Man, Ryan Tedder gave Beyoncé and Kelly" and "On 'Halo', Beyoncé sings in a lower register" et al. You need to either imply her surname in all of them or none of them ie "Beyoncé [Knowles]' album came out when my album was already being printed. No-one's gonna be sittin' at home, thinking 'Man, Ryan Tedder gave Beyoncé [Knowles] and Kelly" or "We should write a Ray LaMontagne 'Shelter' kind of song for Jay-Z and Beyoncé" Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The single was nominated, at the 52nd Grammy Awards" - remove comma after 'nominated'
"Also, "Halo" won the "Best Foreign Song" at the 2010 Porin Awards, from Croatia." → "Halo" also won the "Best Foreign Song" at the 2010 Croatian Porin Awards.
"is currently nominated" → 'has been nominated' or 'is currently a nominee'
"at the 53rd Grammy Awards for the Grammy Award for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance" - remove 'for the Grammy Award'
The current wording is somewhat ambiguous, as it could mean they were sung in a melody or even just used in the same episode. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A picture of Michael Ealy would go nicely in the music video section, but there is none free... ah well. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Images/samples are looking good, but I would like to see the old versions of the album cover deleted before this is promoted. J Milburn (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query the rationale for the non-free image stated ...to help the user quickly ... know they have found what they are looking for, is this a serious risk? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The FUR uses {{Album cover fur}}, which is used on most, if not all single and album covers. If you have an issue with its wording I suggest you take it up at the template talk page. Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am only interested in the editorial decision to use this text in a FU rationale for this FA Candidate being reviewed, and I was interested in what the concerns were regarding people mistaking this article for the one about the Armored Shrew, and why the concern is so great that it requires non-free content Fasach Nua (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have ignored the rest of the rationale: "The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work". Are you suggesting that we demote every FA song or album article that uses this FUR template? Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am only interested in the FA candidates in process at the moment, and am trying to understand the editorial decision to add this rationale, and an answer would be appreciated Fasach Nua (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeinsufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been metFasach Nua (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Well I pretty much fully dissected the article and tried really making it perfect. Let me know when you've fixed these issues and you'll have gained my support :)
"Halo" was written in three hours in Tedder's studio -> During an interval of three hours, "Halo" was recorded in Tedder's studio
Semi-done, you are changing active voice to passive voice, anyway reworded.
the track was inspired on "Shelter" by Ray LaMontagne -> I don't understand what your trying to say
fixed
The single, originally written for Knowles, was rumored to be intended for Leona Lewis -> It was written for B, then considered for Leona, then again for B?
Read article.
It has been modified twice -> You should specify that it was modified in live versions, not studio or recorded versions
Done
Chris Martin from Coldplay on the piano -> something else would be better
Done?
The track topped the charts of -> The singles charts
Done
on iTunes Store -> On the
Done
it describes -> Its a video, it portrays not describes. That would be the lyrics
Done
An alternative music video was leaked on May 2010. On it, Ealy is shown escaping from the police through a forest -> Would be better as one sentence, with some better writing
Done?
As for the "Musicnotes.com" site, it wpuld be best if you provide the exact url, as there are various different pages for that song
According to many articles, which don't link it, it must not be linked (redundancy), maybe it is an unreliable source, I don't know.
Knowles' vocal -> vocals
Done
aTnd Beyoncé Knowles -> Knowles is fine
he first (not quoted) time she is mentioned. See comments above (with Adabow)
and produced by the last two -> better wording would be nice
Done?
of the instruments -> Instrumentals
Done
vocal recording -> s -> were in the hands
Done
Better wording for the latter as well
Done
Tedder, with assistance from Christian Baker, was in charge of the instruments, arrangement and recording of the single; vocal recording was in the hands of Jim Caruana; and Mark "Spike" Stent, helped by Matt Green, mixed "Halo" -> This sentence in general needs allot of clean-up, and stops
Done
in France through digital downloads on March 20, 2009 -> So it wasn't released for radio airplay in France?
Same with Germany
It wasn't released to radio or digital download in Canada?
The three points above have any sense?
created the song for the British singer -> remove the
Done
However, Tedder commented that Cowell, who represented Lewis' camp, was upset that single's writing was intended for Knowles, and she eventually claimed the song -> Not clear what your trying to say
Done
of the website Digital Spy -> Better wording would help; "David Balls, editor of the British media website Digital Spy, interviewed
Done
Should be named "Critical reception and accolades"
Done
A writter of Billboard -> typo, writer and from sounds better
Shame, done
You calling them a writer, so you should address their opinions as wrote. A writer from Billboard wrote, not said
Done
Digital Spy said -> WHo from DS? Balls?
Done (x2)
If no specific author, it would be better "In their review for I Am Sasha Fierce, Digital Spy wrote regarding the song "
The Boston Globe said that the song -> Again, who from The Boston Globe?
Done
in the category for -> category of
Done
winning the second -> Using words such as "latter and former" would be more appropriate
Not done, does not sound proper, it is grammatically correct?
The track debuted on the Billboard Hot 100 on the issue dated February 7, 2009, at number ninety-three -> The song debuted at number ninety-three on the Billboard Hot 100 issue dated February 7, 2009
Done
It peaked at number five on May 23, 2009 -> Could use a better introduction
Done
With this -> With this feat
Done
among female artists -> among any other is more clear
Done, it is redundant, though
it was last seen on August 29, 2009 -> it last charted
Done
2× Platinum -> spell it out, double-platinum
Done
In New Zealand, "Halo" debuted at number forty on the New Zealand Singles Chart on February 2, 2009.[32] Later, the track peaked at number two on February 23, 2009.[33] -> "Halo" debuted at number forty on the New Zealand Singles Chart on February 2, 2009, peaking at number two three weeks later
Done
the ARIA Singles Chart.[34] and peaked at number three on March 29, 2009 -> remove sentence
Done
It was last seen on the chart on August 11, 2009 -> Its final week on the chart
Done
The song -> Don't begin two consecutive sentences the same
Done
but fell out of the chart -> falling out
Done
on iTunes Store -> on the
Done
The video begins with Knowles up against a wall with a window behind her with light shining -> re-write
Done
and only their faces are shot for the scene -> with only their faces visible
Done
Throughout the video various scenes -> Throughout the video,
Done
original video are shown -> original version are shown
Done
The song later was added -> The song was later added
Done
encore of the concert -> concert's encore
Done
On June 25, 2009, Michael Jackson died while Knowles was touring.[55] She paid a tribute to Jackson at some of the venues of the tour -> On June 25, 2009, Michael Jackson died while Knowles was touring, prompting her to pay tribute to him
Done
and she included "Michael I can see your Halo. I pray your music won't fade away" -> and substituted the lyrics for
Done, altough the lyrics were mentioned on a previous section.
Also the song was blended -> Additionally, the song
Done
Australian Singles Chart and was certified gold -> , being certified gold or where it was certified gold
Done
In 2010, the song was performed by Westlife on their Where We Are Tour -> The Haiti version, or the original?
Done
"Halo Live Version" which is this? You already list the "Hope for Haiti" one
I really don't know which live version reached that chart.
I better answer this. Chris, this is because Knowles uses both her firstname and surname as her official used names, unlike Madonna or Prince, who have removed the surname in favour of mono-names. Lol, Prince even made his name a sign. — Legolas(talk2me) 05:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In terms of 1s, a bit of huff-n-puff needs to be done.
lead and infobox
Columbia Records released the song, the fourth single of the album -> Why the unnecessary stopping? You can directly say " Columbia Records released the song as the fourth single of the album, to mainstream radio of United States on January 20, 2009"
"Halo" was written in during an interval of three hours, in Tedder's studio --> There's no mention of any preceding or succeeding job that BK was doing, hence the usage of the word interval is wrong. Say directly " Halo was written in an interval of three hours at Tedder's studio".
inspired by the song, not on.
Better would be "According to Bogart, the track was inspired by Ray LaMontagne's song "Shelter". A pop-R&B song written in the key of A major, "Halo" includes a moderate tempo of eighty-four beats per minute." You need to always prune the snake lines
The single, originally written for Knowles --> Wrong usage, since "Halo" was decided as a single written. Any single is written as a song first.
claimed that he used the same musical arrangement as that of "Halo" on her song "Already Gone", released in 2009 --> claimed that he used the same musical arrangement of "Halo" in her song "Already Gone", released in 2009
The next part somehow loses my interest because it is not chronologiucally correct as per the article. You are goling from the critical reception to the promotion, then back again to the commercial reception, then to the music video. In the body of the article you have it in a different sequence. Try to rearrange, it looks better.
It has been modified twice in live versions --> modified?
which featured the vocalist of British band Coldplay, Chris Martin, on the piano -> Person name before. "which featured Chris Martin, lead vocalist of British band Coldplay, on the piano"
"and was mashed-up with "Walking on Sunshine", by Katrina and the Waves, on the television show Glee." Make a different sentence.
is currently nominated --> rephrase such WP:RECENTISM like prose
the fictional relationship --> The fictional here implies that there is a fictional relationship betweek BK and Ealy, which is untrue. Change to a.
This link of "(New York, New York)" in the infobox is a classic example of wp:overlink. Why not just New York City?
You can remove the tag from File:Beyonce - Halo.png, since the size problem no longer exists.
This is just from the lead, if the nominator wishes, I can continue further. Also there are some things I noticed. Check the italicization and the non-italicization of the printed and online sources, respectively. A personnel section is needed. Another quick note, File:Flickr - gillyberlin - Beyonce I am... Tour 2009 Live in Berlin (14).jpg, is basically a far away image of the stage, where it is impossible to make out what is exactly happening. It is only looking at the backdrop of the performance that one can make out Bey. I suggest that the image be checked for WP:FOP. — Legolas(talk2me) 15:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will come up with the review of the article body. As for the FOP, it is still better that you consult an image related editor. Maybe Stifle or Jappalang? — Legolas(talk2me) 04:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In an interview with HitQuarters, Evan "Kidd" Bogart said one of the original inspirations for the song was the singer Ray LaMontagne. At the writing session he had said to Ryan Tedder, the lead vocalist of OneRepublic, "We should write a Ray LaMontagne 'Shelter' kind of song for Jay-Z and Beyoncé". The song was composed in Tedder's studio and completed within three hours — Replacing this whole chunk, In an interview with HitQuarters, Evan "Kidd" Bogart said that one of the original inspirations for the song was singer Ray LaMontagne. During the writing sessions, he said to Ryan Tedder, the lead vocalist of OneRepublic, "We should write a Ray LaMontagne 'Shelter' kind of song for Jay-Z and Beyoncé". After the lyrics were done, the song was composed in Tedder's studio and completed within three hours. Let's emphasize what is obvious from the source.
"Halo" was written by Bogart, Tedder and Beyoncé Knowles, and produced by Tedder and Knowles -> Make it the first line of the section, doesnot flow well when you aren't even mentioning the name of the song in the first para.
Billboard commented: "'Halo has a mainstream pop sound --> quotes around Halo
and in Germany by CD single only --> as CD single only
I generally do not endorse section names as controversy as it feels like you are already establishing that there was a controversy, rather than reporting what happened in the neutral way. Hence I have always avoided the term and rephrased it. I will leave that upto you to decide for "Halo".
Again, the beginning of the para fails to mention the word "Halo" instead referring to it as "the song". The converse is always true.
However, Tedder commented that Cowell, who represented Lewis' camp, was upset that single's writing was intended for Knowles, and she eventually claimed the song --> However, Tedder commented that Cowell was upset that single was written for Knowles, who she eventually claimed the song. You have already established that Cowell is Lewis' agent, that of course means he is from her camp.
Clarkson accused Tedder of using the same arrangement on both "Already Gone" --> Clarkson did not accuse at the time of recording, it was only after "Halo" was released. Hence rephrase it as "Clarkson later"
With this feat, Knowles has the most top tens --> Since you are saying feat, the verb should be likewise, so say "With this feat, Knowles achieved the most top tens..."
The song was certified double-platinum in the United States on May 1, 2010. --> By who, how much shipment etc.
No peak for Australia is mentioned. And no commentary on Canada too.
Halo" debuted at number forty-five on January 25, 2009, but falling out of the chart the following week --> fell out
Later, she performed the song at The Late Show with David Letterman after an interview on April 22, 2009 --> Thats not exactly later is it? She performed it after two months.
The song was later added to the setlist of her I Am... Tour in 2009–2010.[52] On it, the track is performed during concert's encorea --> Whats encorea? And make 2009-2010 to 2009–10 per mos date range. There must be some description of the performance. Her tour was widely reported.
Reference 53, 54 needs rearrangement, dont use references on two consecutive words like that.
During the tribute, an image of Jackson appeared on the main screen—replacing "Michael" instead of "Baby", and adding "your music" between "you" and "won't"— --> Wrong usage of em-dash. Its two separate sentences, not a continuation. Try "During the tribute, an image of Jackson appeared on the main screen. She changed the lyrics, replacing the word "Baby" with "Michael", and adding "your music" between "you" and "won't"—
Because of this, many artists participated in a charity telethon, Hope for Haiti Now: A Global Benefit for Earthquake Relief, on January 22, 2010, including Knowles --> This doesnot sound right. Why not make it simple like "A charity telethon called HFH was organized, where many artists participated, including Knowles."
The single was included on her CD/DVD live albums I Am... Yours: An Intimate Performance at Wynn Las Vegas on 2009,[67] and I Am... World Tour, on 2010 --> Move it to where you talk about Knowles' tour. Here it appears as if the Westlife tour is called I Am.. Yours.
{{confused}} How I can differentiate them? Should I use "-" or "–"?
Endash is of course "–" compared to "-". A quick way to replace is to copy the whole article code in MS Word, then press Ctrl+H and give replacing " - " with " – ". You have to give the spaces before and after. — Legolas(talk2me) 05:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Billboard was not published by the whole of Nielsen, so Nielsen Company doesnot make sense. It was part of the Media Business division of Nielsen Board, hence the publisher is Nielsen Business Media.
Let me know if you have any questions. — Legolas(talk2me) 08:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allmusic doesnot have the "allmusic ((( I Am... Sasha Fierce > Overview )))" kinda titles. Its just plain now, "I Am... SaSha Fierce > Overview". — Legolas(talk2me) 05:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments:-
Can you say why the following should be considered high quality, reliable sources? I'm not saying they're not, merely requesting information:-
21 BuzzSugar
36 Zobbel
39, 60 Chart Stats
44 Philip Andelman
46 Toyaz-World
50 Mahalo
Many of the sources are not in English. You should be comsistent about stating what languages are used in foreign sources, e.g. 85, 90, 94 and others
Italicisation: Rap-up (43 and others) is I think a print journal so the title should be in italics. BBC News (58) is not printed, so should not be in italics.
Otherwise, sources and citations look OK Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tbhotch. There is an easy fix to the ChartStats thing. So I needed a ton of refs for AIWFCIY, because it charted like 10 separate times in the UK. So I went to the ChartStats page and looked at the date of the peak I wanted. Then I went here and put in the year and date and voilaaa :) I'll make it extra easy for ya, here is the "Halo" peak in the UK on the official charts.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NP, yes I just thought of that as well. Well as I think of it, what makes a website not reliable? When its been proven wrong of faulty. If something has always been right on the dot, and no one has ever found a mistake, then why isn't it a reliable source? It might not be an official source, but its definitely reliable. That site has never been wrong.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is an article about a song and there is absolutely no analysis of either the music or the lyrics. Listing the meteronomic marking, the tempo, the time signature, and the key is not musical analysis. Is the song written in an ABA form? Or AABA? Or ABACA? Or what? What about phrasing, dynamics, etc. Does the song begin pianissimo and crescendo to a fortissimo in the 4th bar? We're not told. Meter and rhyme scheme in the lyrics? At the FA level, an article about a song needs a thorough analysis. Also, lotsa little bugs such as "double-platinum" and "double Platinum", things like "setlist" should be linked or explained, Knowles' should be Knowles's, and India – A love Story --> Love. God, there's lots more but I'm not going to take the time to list everything. "Controversies"? LOL. More like Tempests in a Teapot. Most of the "quotations" in this section are insignificant and should be paraphrased. No need for a quote box either. This article needs an extensive and ruthless ce, and an analysis of the music and lyrics. If an analysis cannot be found in a reliable source then the article should be withdrawn. As far as I'm concerned, a musical analysis is absolutely necessary at FA level. As it stands, this article is far from FA and I cannot support it. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree comments - I'm sorry, but I find your comments a bit absurd. Your asking for info that I doubt you would find in any Wikipedia article. We aren't musical engineers, and I doubt neither are the readers of the article. Next, your looking for things to critique on, first Knowles' is correct, you do not put Knowles's, this is ungrammatical FYI. And yes, they are controversies, aside from plagiarism, what kind of controversy do you expect on a song article? alien activity? Area 51? Give me a break.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will echo the same sentiments from Nathan, but for different reasons. Yes, I admit that those instances of musical criticality that you concerned on, would be beneficial to the article, however, if that information is not found, then it cannot be added can it be? Its quite easy to point out errors, but there is a method and a way in expressing it. Comments like "Controversies"? LOL. More like Tempests in a Teapot" really do not place my faith in you as a good content editor either. As the above user pointed out, we are not music engineers and neither are you. Overusage of technical jargon, will make the article a big BORE. — Legolas(talk2me) 05:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The musically literate would find this interesting. If you're not musically literate, skip it. But this is an article about a piece of music and there's absolutely no musical analysis. Lots about chart rankings, "Controversies", and other nonmusical stuff but virtually nothing about the music! What is the song about anyway? We're not even told that! Check "Hey Jude" (an FA article) for an example of a musical analysis or even Symphony No. 41 (Mozart), though this article is neither a GA or an FA. I've tightened the "controversies" section to eliminate some of the unencyclopedic celebrity gossip aspects of the original:
While Knowles was making a decision upon "Halo", Tedder offered it to Leona Lewis with the understanding that it would be hers if Knowles declined it. Knowles however claimed the song.[1][2][3] Soon after, Tedder and Kelly Clarkson composed "Already Gone" for her fourth studio album. Clarkson expressed concerns that Tedder used the same musical arrangement for both "Halo" and "Already Gone", and feared she might be perceived as a plagiarist.[4] Tedder however made it clear he would never practice any sort of duplicity upon the two artists and the songs were entirely different "conceptually, melodically, and lyrically".[5] Clarkson was not convinced and tried to discourage RCA from releasing "Halo", but was unsuccessful.[4]
I hope this criticism is helpful but I cannot support promotion to FA at this time because of the article's many and significant deficiencies. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, your oppose is groundless and baseless for so many reasons. You are vehemently proposing that we add our own original researches into articles, when information about recording is not found. Do I sense something similar? Yes, I do know of a certain user who was going on adding the same comments. Info pieces about chart ranking, crtical reception and any controversial reception are equally important as is the technicalities, if they are available. I strongly suggest you take these issues with WP:SONGS and not cloud the nomination. And please don't start the same things about calling others musically literate. WP articles are not only for them, but for the whole world to see. If you want, why don't you go and read the sheet music of the article? I'm sure you will find it more interesting, no? — Legolas(talk2me) 04:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I think i meets the Featured article criteria Taro-Gabunia (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. From a very quick skim of the article, what is there looks okay, but there's no way this can be complete with a section on his playing style. Discuss his balance, ball control, finishing, weaker right-foot, etc.; and this can include quotes from teammates and managers about his ability and importance to the barca team. Trebor (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have checked all images and, at first sight, seem to have correct licences. However, I'm not sure whenever they are all legitimate photos or if there are cases of "own work" deception (uploading as own work a file that isn't owned by the uploader) or flickr-washing (same process in Flickr, and then moved to Commons). Consider for example File:Lionel Messi goal 19abr2007.jpg: the photo was taken from the field (it couldn't be taken with zoom from the spectators chairs, the angle does not allow so) and has no metadata. MBelgrano (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article is solid, but not yet a featured article material. After a quick skim through article,I think it suffers from recentism issues. Utinsh (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nominator is not a significant contributor to the article and has made no attempt to contact those who are. wackywace 21:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the primary editor(s) are notified and approve of the FAC continuing, this should be withdrawn. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because believe it to now meet all FA criteria. I want to give a special thanks to all those who participated last time, and of course to my friend Legolas, who copy-edited the article. CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Wow. Beautifully written. Support from me. Novice7 Talk 06:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)|content=[reply]
Comments
"The song was written by Carey and Walter Afanasieff, who also served as co-arranger and producer." - wouldn't arranging be part of writing?
Now it says "The song was written by Carey and Walter Afanasieff, who also served as co-writer and producer." - so Afanasieff wrote and co-wrote the song? Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It incorporates the sound from bell chimes, drum notes, as well as heavy beats and grooves." - why are there two lists of two items? Why not merge?
'common time' is sufficient, rather than "common (4/4) time"
Parisien's quote is given in a way that makes it grammatically incorrect. What about 'According to Roch Parisien from Allmusic, the song contains "The Beach Boys-style harmonies...'?
"Editor of The Boston Globe, Steve Morse, gave the album a positive review, particularly complimenting the song. Morse felt Carey sang with soul and blended her original song in balance with other traditional hymns." - the album is irrelevant here - focus on the song
Bill Lamb was dead long before the song was written
I am pretty sure that not every critic was ecstatic about the song - are there any negative reviews?
"one of the essential musical hallmarks of the holiday season and continues to set records each year" needs attribution
"Since its release, the song has topped the Billboard Hot 100 Re-currents chart every year in December from 2005-08, and has become the best-selling holiday ringtone; the first to be certified double-platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)." - whoa! Major rewrite needed
What is the "Billboard Hot 100 Re-currents chart"?
"In 2009, "All I Want for Christmas Is You" topped the singles chart in Belgium Wallonia and Flanders, during its sixth and seventh week on the 2009 chart, respectively." - they're not called "Belgium Wallonia" and "Flanders", Wallonia and Flanders are territories of Belgium. This sentence needs rewording
"In Denmark, it peaked at number four, staying in the charts" - why plural?
Where are you getting your Japanese translations from? '才' (sai) means 'years' in Japanese, not days. Can you source a translation?
Remove picture from 'Sales and impact' as it is almost exactly the same as the one lower down
Does the "Extra Festive" remix sample need to be there?
"Anderson concluded its review with "the fact that she is responsible for such a charming, catchy and listenable Christmas song should secure her place in the pop star hall of fame." - what does his comment have to do with the remix?
Do you need the "We dare you." part of the Idolator quote?
" Rap-Up described the newer version as "with a new orchestral introduction" - awkward
Where are the music video directors?
The second video is still missing its director Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'The X Factor' needs italics
"A Japanese band named Suemitsu & the Suemith" → Japanese band Suemitsu & the Suemith
"covered the song for their EP titled, Holiday Bundle" -remove comma after 'titled'
'Sales and certifications' section should be renamed 'Certifications'
Has not been done yet. What is "MT", and why not merge the two RIAJ and RIAA cells? Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Only two concerns. The first sentence in the critical reception needs to be reworded to not include "contemporary." As a song released in 1994, I doubt all the reviews for it would be from contemporary critics. Also I was under the impression that only the highest peaks of the song was listed, not every time it re-appeared on this chart. Is there something that says otherwise? Candyo32 03:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Candy, thanks for your comments. So I removed it like you mentioned. As for the chart positions, I added all the positions I could readily source. Usually we try to list the highest peak from each year it charted, which think I did. However, if it only appeared on the chart in France lets say for one week at #99, I added it because it is a peak. I pretty much added all I could find.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 04:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wiki rules, a direct quote needs attribution and sources whenever mentioned, even the lead :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in Australia, Japan, The Netherlands, -> It is the Netherlands, isn't it?
"Its lyrics describe a woman's declaration that she does not care about Christmas presents or lights; all she desires for Christmas is to spend time with her lover." -> Never mentioned in the article.
Background and writing
Christmas -> Wikilink it, relevant for the article.
"she agreed to record Christmas tunes. The single's cover is a still from the music video, showing" -> Confused. If there is a period it must still talking about the same topic. In this case, you pass from talking about Carey's interest of release a Christmas album to the cover of the single release. And later, you return to talk about the background of the song. This need a better tweak.
Composition
up-tempo -> Link it.
Afanasieff -> who?, never mentioned beyond the lead
Critical response
Roch Parisien from Allmusic -> already mentioned. Maybe: Parisien called the song
link Merry Christmas II You and unlink it from other sections.
Sales and impact
"All Want for Christmas Is You" has become one of the essential... copyrighted text... according to Legacy Recordings". -> Lead states that according to Legacy Recordings AND PR Newswire.
"In the United States, due to the Billboard rules at the time" -> And those rules were...
Additionally, it is the first to be certified -> the first single ever? or the first Holiday single?
single prior to the 2000s decade; the highest charting female and holiday entry on the list -> Need a better c/e suggest -> single prior to the 2000s decade; and Carey became the highest charting female and holiday entry on the list (whivh list BTW)
It says it in the first part of the sentence, the best-selling digital singles released prior to the 2000s decade.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jermaine Dupri and Bow Wow -> Who and who?
Music videos
video was created for the So So Def remix as well -> synonyms needed for "as well", this is the fourth time I read it.
Jermaine Dupri, and Lil' Bow Wow, -> unlink them, they must go before.
It was part of the set-list during the Japanese shows of Carey's Daydream World Tour (1996), Butterfly World Tour (1998), Rainbow World Tour (2000), Charmbracelet World Tour (2002–03) -> they have wikilinks
from his 6th album and his 1st Christmas album, A Wonderful Christmas. -> from his sixth album and his first Christmas album, A Wonderful Christmas.
I didn't add that, some IP added it with crappy English and no source.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References
Ref 9 -> Stylus Magazine. - Stylus Magazine.
Ref 10 -> Is The New York Times Company published by About.com?
Ref 2 and 16 -> is Nielsen Business Media published by Yahoo! Music?
Ref 39 -> is The Walt Disney Company published by Disney.com?
Ref 40 -> Carey website publish Rolling Stone?
Got it! All done, thanks for your comments Tbhotch :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources issue: This relates to an issue not fully resolved in the last FAC. Ref. 78 is a Norwegian search site, used to support the album's platinum certification in the UK. How does it do this? If I am using the search correctly, I get a table (in Norwegian) that includes a X in the "P" column for an album called "Merry Christmas". No mention of the UK that I can see. Can you clarify? Brianboulton (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes good catch, I've added the correct source for the UK certifications (BPI). Thanks--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I will do a full sources review later. Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further sources comments: Sourcing issues were mainly resolved at the last FAC. A few further points:-
Ref 22: The words "Royal Charter" are superfluous here
Ref 46: Where does "Junk Gnomes" come from? The sources is in Norwegian - needs to be noted.
Ref 59: What makes Bigtimeruchtv.com a high quality reliable source?
Fixed the top two, as for the third. Its their official website. All its doing is referenceing the fact that they covered the song, nothing important. I think their website should be enough right?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The chord progression in the composition section doesn't appear to make sense. "A♭-F ♭-1" is how it is written, which is invalid. I tried to look for the sheet music that is referenced, but there are multiple versions at Musicnotes.com, so the specific one needs to be linked to in the reference. Back to the chord progression: there are much more than 2 or 3 chords in this song, so this appears to be incomplete. Furthermore, "♭-1" is not a note... "F♭1" is. According to all the copies of the sheet music I've looked at on Musicnotes, the chord progression should start on G. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the chord progression was changed, but it's still not correct. What's listed in the article is the chord-progression for the opening notes on piano, before the vocals enter. What should be listed is the chord progression for the entire song - it should begin with G–G/B–C–Cm/E♭... and there is still an entire second half of the verse that is not listed in the free preview of the music sheet. You should have someone who is more knowledgeable with reading music (and who may have the entire file) provide the full chord progression. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 07:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what are "various drum notes"? I hardly doubt this song is notable for having a rhythm section, but the way it is written, that's what I interpret the sentence to mean. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your fixes, I appreciate it. Now I don't understand the issue you have there. I'm not saying drum notes make the song notable, all I'm doing is describing the various instruments and musical arrangements featured in the song.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you are stating the song has "various drum notes", though. Presumably, most songs in pop music have drums or a rhythm section. Are you saying that the song is polyrhythmic? Are you saying it has multiple tracks of drums? Why exactly are you noting the song's drums in the article lead? At the moment it just sounds like you are mentioning it in passing and it reads awkwardly. One other change I would suggest is making the last paragraph of the lead shorter, either by splitting it or by trimming more specific information off of it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The chord progression is still not correct. This must be fixed if this article is to become a Featured Article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not correct? 3 people have already looked at it. If you see something we don't, then can you fix it?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how many people reviewed the chord progression, but I can tell it's wrong, because as it currently stands, that chord progression is for the first 8 seconds or so of the song, and not inclusive of the verses/choruses. The chord progression should begin with G–G/B–C–Cm/E♭, as you should be able to see from all the following variation of the song's sheet music: [12][13][14][15] Unfortunately, I only can see the free preview of the sheet music, so what I am seeing is incomplete. So to say that the proper chord progression should be this or that is irrelevant if we can't provide the entire thing. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, as long as there is a section called "Trivia", this article has little-to-no chance of being promoted to FA. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - The article reads a bit better than its previous two incarnations at FAC, but I'm not convinced the interim copyediting efforts have been sufficient. Here's my analysis of just the lead. Note: I'm not opposing (three in a row seems cruel), and I have this page watchlisted, so there's no need to leave messages on my talk page. I just leave the info here to help the FAC delegate make a more informed decision about promotion. Sasata (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
link single
"it incorporates pop music and traditional beats." How does it "incorporate" pop music? Isn't that a genre of music? what's a tradition beat (article doesn't explain it later)?
what does up-tempo mean? It links to tempo, but that article doesn't explain it either. Our article Glossary of musical terminology uses the term without a hyphen
"It presents movie snippets of Carey decorating a Christmas tree" what is a "movie snippet"? The main article just says "snippets".
link So So Def; remix
"The song is one of the few in recent years to be considered a holiday classic" While the main article does confirm it's generally considered a holiday classic, I can't see where it says it's "one of the few"
"Additionally, Scotland's largest circulated newspaper, The Herald" The main article does not mention "largest circulated newspaper"
""… the nations top festive song."" The quote has been transcribed incorrectly, making it seem like there was an error in the original (rather than introduced here).
"has been covered by various artists" link "covered"
"reaching the top two position in Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom; it also reached the top ten in various other countries" top two and top ten of what charts?
link Billboard; ringtone
"Additionally, the song is the nineteenth best-selling digital single prior to the 2000s decade, the highest charting entry by a female or holiday song on the list." missing "and"
Support: I supported last time, and the second time around the prose are better, there is more info. The article in general is much better. I'm happy to once again support.--AlastorMoody (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article has multiple deficiencies, the above "supports" concern me, and I hope it will get some serious review. Samples only:
Lead: It presents scenes of Carey decorating a Christmas tree, spending time in the snow, and performing other festive activities. Carey performed the song live during the Japanese leg of her Daydream World Tour (1996), Butterfly World Tour (1998) and Charmbracelet World Tour (2002–2003), as well as the Walt Disney World Christmas Day Parade in 2004, which aired on ABC. A So So Def remix version was released in 2000, ...
Performing ... performed, repetitive prose. What is a "So So Def" remix?
Lead: Due to its extended popularity and relevancy, ... ???
Lead: top ten in various other countries .... various other is redundant.
Weasel: Reportedly, the song's inspiration and theme came from Carey's sentiments toward then husband, Tommy Mottola. ... reported by whom? How serious is this source? If serious, why do we need to say reportedly?
Multiple grammar issues: the song spans from the note of G3 to the high note of G5.[7] The song contains choral lyrics written by Carey, who produced the song's melody and chorus. Aside from assisting with its chord progression, Walter Afanasieff co-arranged and produced the track as well.
I stopped there-- enough to concern me that a serious prose review is needed, and I haven't checked sourcing or copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy, thanks for your comments. So I don't mean to be rude, but these 6 errors are very small, nothing major, and you did manage to get about a third of the way through the article. So it really isn't so bad. Please if there are any other concerns, please mention them. Thanks.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, what Sandy did is the logical thing done by most experienced reviewers at FAC. They take out a chunk portion of the article and review it. If it is littered with grammatical and prose errors, it is deduced that the hwole body will have those problems. He checked the lead only and then he "stopped", stating the problems. And yes, some of those supports will appear as a concern to him since by a single block he found those errors. Nathan, you can ask User:Tony1 against prose parts which you feel are problematic. Tony1 is a great content editor. — Legolas(talk2me) 09:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One suggestion (i see most of her articles have this problem) - Would be best not to force the number of columns used to display refs, should use {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} and or {{Reflist|30em}} that will create columns with a minimum width of 30em, allowing the browser to automatically choose the number of columns based on the width of the web browser and/or screen size. Moxy (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Prose quality does not meet the criterion. The problem of the unexplicated "So So Def remix" reference in the lede that Sandy identified remains. Other issues very early in the article:
[Lede:] "In 2010, Carey re-recorded the song for her thirteenth studio and second holiday album, Merry Christmas II You, titled 'All I Want for Christmas Is You (Extra Festive)'."
Incorrect. The title of the song remains the same. This is a title of a particular version, a fact that the sentence fails to grammatically convey.
I'm sorry you don't agree, but this is the song's title and it fits in well.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[Lede:] "It has become 'one of the essential musical hallmarks of the holiday season and continues to set records each year,' according to Legacy Recordings."
It is very dubious to quote record company publicity material in the lede of an encyclopedia article. It is absolutely ridiculous to quote such material for pure puffery like "one of the essential musical hallmarks of the holiday season".
It happens to be true, but i removed it from the lead.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[Lede:] "'All I Want for Christmas Is You' has been covered by various artists in both live and studio versions."
"Various"? What does that possibly mean in this context? Did you mean to say "many"? "Several"? Does "both live and studio versions" really need to be spelled out?
[Lede:] "...reaching the top two position on the single charts..."
The "top two position"? Not English. The "top two" suffices (though "number one or two" strikes me as more idiomatic).
[Lede:] "it also reached the top ten in various countries."
"Various"—ungainly again, and repetitious, with "various" in previous sentence.
[Lede:] "The song has been a 'perennial radio and record chart-topper' during every holiday season since its release."
What's the source of this impressive quote? Ah. Record company publicity material. Oy.
This one I won't remove. This is not even opinion like the other, its fact. Every year the song re-enters most singles charts around the wrold and performs well. Additionally, it is played heavily on radios every year as well.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[Background and writing:] "After the success of her previous studio album Music Box, Carey decided to record a holiday album to be released the following year."
"Previous" is excess verbiage. If you're going to refer to the "following year", the base year--1993--should register in the flow of the sentence, rather than be relegated to a parenthetical. Thus: "After the success of her 1993 studio album Music Box, Carey decided to record a holiday album to be released the following year."
[Background and writing:] "Due to pressure from her label, and her love for the holidays and festive music, she agreed to record Christmas tunes."
Incoherent. The previous sentence informed us that she decided to record a holiday album. Do you think anyone assumed that she was considering recording Chanukah tunes? Kwanzaa tunes? Labor Day tunes? And what exactly is the story? Did she decide to record a holiday album, somehow inspired by the success of Music Box? Or did she agree to do so, under pressure from her label? The story-telling here seriously fails.
[Background and writing:] "While recording various religious and famed holiday covers, Carey felt the need to write original material as well."
If we are to take this sentence literally, Carey did not feel the need to write original holiday material until she was already involved in recording the album. That's not unbelievable, but it would be unusual. We would expect that the original material on the album, such as this song, would have been conceived and composed before recording began. So: If the unusual meaning conveyed by the present sentence is actually correct, it needs to be articulated more definitively, so no one is left wondering. If, however, it is incorrect, it obviously needs to be corrected. Also, the use of "famed" is awkward here.
[Background and writing:] "Its 'fun and mellow' vibe contrasted with the album's strong religious anthem, giving Merry Christmas an equal balance of genres."
This is poor writing. "Anthem" is clearly wrong. Did you mean "theme"? "Equal balance of genres"? What?? What "genres"? A "vibe" is not a genre. "Equal balance"? There are eleven songs on the album. How does one song give it an "equal balance" of anything?
[Background and writing:] "The song's inspiration and theme..."
Excess verbiage. Think about it. Are readers deprived of any significant information if they read simply of the "song's inspiration" or the "song's theme"?
I was unimpressed by the response to Sandy's cogent observations. It is in the nature of prose issues that each individual problem will often seem "nothing major", even "very small". That's not the point. The point is the prevalence of problems, and they are very prevalent in this article. The prose is mediocre, not good, and most certainly not "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard".—DCGeist (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, your constructive criticism is accepted and welcomed, but I will not tolerate rude or mean comments. I worked hard on the article, so calling it mediocre, not good and less than professional is uncalled for, mean and spiteful. Here you are to give contructive criticism, not comments laced with mean and hurtful comments. Pointing out your concerns is enough, but insulting my work or the article is not needed and quite frankly, disgusting. By the way, "So So Def Remix" doesn't need any explanation. That is the name of the remix, end of story. Shouldn't you also ask why the song is called "All I Want for Christmas Is You"? no! Its the same thing. I corrected your concerns and more. Thanks.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Mainly prose issues, but also I think there is an issue with precision and technical language. I would expect more musical terminology to be used in such an article, but some sections seem vague to me. I have not looked at sourcing. So far, I have only read the first half of the article and sampled the rest. More detailed comments:
Second paragraph of lead seems a little random: why are we saying the occasions on which she sung it live?
That doesn't make it OK. It more or less works in the lead of 4 Minutes but comes across as a list here with no reason to be in the lead. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"A So So Def remix version was released in 2000": Despite what has already been said here, I have no idea what this means and an explanation would be good.
I've said it above, that is its name, there is no specific reason that I'm aware of.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Music critics have universally lauded..." I find this a little difficult to believe. As written, it says that every music critic says it is good. I'm sure there are some dissenters, so why not change to "Many music critics have lauded..."
I see this has been changed, but now does not quite make sense: "Many music critics have universally lauded". No need for universally at all. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The song is the nineteenth best-selling digital single of the 20th century, and the highest charting entry by a female or holiday song on the list.": This seems a little trivial and no great achievement, but not a huge issue for me.
I left this but removed the next one, is that ok?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you really feel it should be there, keep it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Since its release, the song has been a "perennial radio and record chart-topper" during every holiday season since its release.": where is the quote from? It should be attributed in the text.
"It is the best-selling holiday ringtone in the US, with sales of more than two million.": For me, this is trivia.
In the background section, could some details be given about her career to this point? Personally, I know little about her and it would be good to know a little about what she had done to this point. As it is, this section feels light.
I tried a bit, but if you look at the last FAC, I got screwed because I had exactly what your asking for. Supposedly I need only info related directly to the song. I hope this is ok.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the last FAC but could not see where this was mentioned. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Author Chris Nickson described the song as "fun and mellow," and felt its energy level contrasted with the album's strong religious theme, assisting Merry Christmas cross demographic barriers." Not sure what this means. What is energy level? Does it mean tempo? Dynamics? Which demographic barriers? How? Why?
I've struck the comment but I feel this section lacks coherence and does not strike me as thorough. For example, there are few comments about the different sections of the song, or influences. While I suspect many song articles, like 4 Minutes, follow this structure, does that mean nothing better is possible. For example, What'd I Say seems to be much more thorough in this section. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...which blends pop music and traditional beats." What are traditional beats in this context? Blends how?
"It incorporates the sound from bell chimes, drum notes, heavy beats and grooves." Is "it" the instrumentation? How can it incorporate the sound from drum notes when drum notes are a sound themselves, and actually link to bass drum. Again, could you be more precise about what "heavy beats" are, and "grooves" seems unencyclopedic unless it is a precise technical expression which I have never heard (in which case it should be linked).
"As part of "layering the song,"": unencyclopedic. Could we use a more precise musical term?
"Carey wrote the song's lyrics, and produced the melody and chorus." Is this produced meaning she was the producer or produced meaning created? If the former, who produced the rest?
"Walter Afanasieff co-arranged and produced the track, creating many of its instrumentals in the studio." Co-arranged with who? How did he create the instrumentals, did he perform them?
The lead states that Carey and Afanasieff wrote the song, but this does not come across in the main body. The two points above do not make it clear what each person did. It should be clear what the role of each person was in writing/producing the song.
"Live performances and cover versions": This is a very repetitive list which does not make easy reading. News reports section is very trivial.
I tried making it less repetative, I hope it isn't a big issue, but with a highly covered song, its hard to write it out. As for the news report thing, do you forsure require it removal for your support? If so I'll gladly remove it.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The whole article seems a little POV, with nothing critical to say. Possibly a little starry-eyed? Maybe there is nothing critical to say, but I doubt it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know it might seem that way, but I honestly have been unable to find any. I'm not sure if you got to the bottom half, but I wrote criticism directed at the 2010 version, because that's all I was able to find. I did my best.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I find it difficult to believe that everyone loved the original version. I would like more evidence of that in the article, as the sentence that it was univerally well received is not sourced: only some sample reviews are given and there is no way of knowing if these are representative. I counted six reviews, the majority of them online. How many of them are full reviews and how many of them come from the song's original release. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More comments: Some clean up done here, but to me, it is a little worrying that an article came to FAC with such obvious problems. Please get someone else to have a look. There remain big problems (examples only):
Punctuation: There are several commas which should not be there: "It incorporates various instrumentals including, bell ...", "composed in a contemporary, pop style".
Clarity: Some parts do not make sense: "and felt its up-tempo beat contrasted with the album's strong religious theme, assisting Merry Christmas appeal to teenage audiences." (What is Merry Christmas appeal? How can a beat contrast with a theme? How can a beat assist an appeal? Why does a beat appeal to teenagers in particular?) "After the album's release, many promotional singles were released, some serving as Christian airplay radio stations" (The singles were radio stations? That is how it reads. Were the singles released simply to promote the album?) "In the United States, due to the Billboard rules at the time not allowing songs without a commercial release to chart, the song did not debut on the Billboard Hot 100 during its original release." (So it's original release was not a commercial release? Err... What?)
Comprehensiveness: See above for concerns about composition, but also I wonder if there could be more about the writing of the song, or draft versions of it.
Prose: Needs a thorough copy-edit. The sentences do not flow and seem to jump from topic to topic. For example, the first sentences in Composition refer to the song, its lyrics, its instrumentation, background vocals, key, lyrics, instruments. In background: "For Carey to be perceived as an entertainer by the public, and not just a pop singer, she was pressured to record a Christmas album by her label, Columbia Records. Having grown up in a religious Catholic family, she agreed to record the album." Who wanted her to be perceived as an entertainer? Her label, the public or Carey? Not clear from the prose. Also, would she not have agreed to this pressure had her family not been religious and Catholic? (And devout Catholic is the better way to phrase this, as I'm not sure what an unreligious Catholic family would be like).
Sourcing: For this to be comprehensive, I would imagine more print sources are needed. For example, music publications would review the song in more detail and discuss it critically, or even newspaper reviews from the time. I could be mistaken, but I do not see anything like this in the references. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: A message asserting that "the issues were fixed" was left on my Talk page. A quick glance reveals that while some of the specific issues I raised have been addressed, others have most definitely not. In addition, that quick glance reveals that new problems have arisen:
[Lede:] "Many music critics have universally lauded 'All I Want for Christmas Is You'."
[Lede:] "...during every holiday season since its release.[3]."
A further quick glance show that prose problems arise repeatedly beyond the lede and the Background and writing section I specifically addressed. I believe this FA nomination was premature.—DCGeist (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article lacks a sufficient analysis of music and lyrics. At FA level, one expects an almost phrase by phrase analysis of the music and some detail about the lyrics such as meter and rhyme scheme. At FA level, works of art are expected to include detailed analyses of themes, content, context, etc. but these song articles expect to skate through on nothing more than lists of chart ratings, sales figures, and celebrity tittle-tattle. Gimme a break. If there are no detailed analyses in reliable secondary sources about music and lyrics then song articles such as this should not be up for FA promotion. What bothers me most is that many of these articles appear to be written by the musically illiterate.56tyvfg88yju (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, do not isult the nominators, because I'm sure you haven't got the slightest clue of music or the industry. SO think about that before calling me illiterate. Secondly, your making up broad issues that do not exist simply to oppose. You haven;t made one specific comment because you don't have them, you simply look for mass wording to oppose. S0 far, 10 editors both young and old have read through, and the main complaint has been prose, not one about your nonsense "musical engineering".--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
56yvf, I have to ask you to be civil while posting your comments. Another instance of calling others as illeterate, you are breaking WP:NPA on a bigger ground, and WP:ANI will be your place to comment on. And as I have said before also, do not oppose on grounds which are simply illogical and baseless. And please, do not sock. I have notified admins of this. Delegates, please note of this user and the comments. — Legolas(talk2me) 04:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.
While I am fairly bad at checking prose, I have problems with some of the sources cited.
"Music critics have universally praised the song." I highly doubt that EVERY critic in the world praised the song. This sounds very POV to me.
I am not convinced that amazon.com is a RS; however, it is possible to find another source that serves the same function. (Refs 45, 47, 48, 49, 52, 55, 56)
I have the same problems with jb hifi source (Ref 59)
Cite the real Rolling Stone review and not the press release from Carey's website. (ref 43)
In general an artist own website isn't a secondary source. (41, 43, 44, 45)
File:Mariah-carey-all-i-want-for-christmas-is-you-1994.jpg Has the wrong licence on it. ( {{Non-free video cover}} ).
I have fixed some off the issues you pointed out. As for her website. I'm sorry, but her official website is sufficient to source her tour setlists. Her website isn't referencing sales, critical stuff, just her setlist and live performances, which is what an official website is for. Please consider that. Secondly, as for Amazon, it is only soucing that these artists covers exist and are for sale. Please see here at the articles first FAC, where two experienced editors brought up the issue and agreed its acceptable. It is used in various FA's for these kind of things, so please check it out.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 04:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I weighed in with comments above, but I want to make my stance more official. I oppose the promotion based on the continued prose issues. For all the changes that Petergriffin9901 is making to resolve previous prose problems, new ones are continually being introduced. It looks like from all of this activity, a more stable version of the article will need to emerge and then a more comprehensive peer review and copyedit will be needed before the article is ready. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 05:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This is another one of my contributions on viruses. I hope reviewers find it more accessible than my other FAs on this subject. I have made an effort to keep the technical terms to a minimum although some inevitably remain. This is a vast subject, my shelves are bending under the weight of the books I have used as sources and I have copies of peer-reviewed papers all over my home. I have tried to distil all that I have learnt about the history of these fascinating little things. To cover every aspect of their short but complex history would a difficult task. But I hope that I have written an encyclopaedic synopsis that will engage readers and stimulate them to find out more about viruses. I know I have written this in a short time and that it was only a Did you know...? a few days ago. But real life pressures have offered me a short break during which time I hope to quickly address all criticisms as to why History of viruses fails to meet the FA criteria. Graham Colm (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great material, well referenced but without unneeded clutter. I'm no expert in this area but a casual read through suggests no truly significant problems with the material presented. The problem with this article I see is that "History of viruses" is a very nebulous concept to begin with. The scope of the article may be construed along at least three distinct avenues - considering the viruses themselves and their development over time - "Evolution of viruses" if you will, an overview of historical events where viruses play a central role - "Viruses in history", and the history of scientific research and understanding - "History of viral research". This article is a awkward juxtaposition of these three distinct areas. Like I say, I like this material and see plenty of intrinsic value but I can't help but feel it really needs forking into a number of separate articles that covers each area in its own right. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these comments and I value the feedback. This is how the subject is usually introduced in many textbooks. It is longer than most that I have read but I don't think this is a problem. Perhaps it is not the history of viruses that is "nebulous" but the viruses themselves, and to address this was one of my motives for writing the article. Viruses are everywhere, have been and always will be. This is a time-line in the form of an essay. You are right in that each of the themes I have introduced could easily make an article in their own right. But my intention was deliberately the opposite to this. I have tried to draw these threads together to form a semi-continuous narrative. I think you wrote in the edit summary the the scope was "awkward". I don't think it is awkward but it might be difficult. It will be interesting to read what other reviewers think. Thanks once more for the comments. Graham Colm (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources issues:-
Ref 17: "page not available"
Ref 42: Information missing: what book is this a chapter of? author? publisher? date?
Ref 53 looks over-complicated - 6 citations to different learned articles. Is this much verification really necssary?
Ref 67 is lacking information. It is a memoir of Thomas Milton Rivers, by Horsfall. It is dated 1965. The National Academy of Sciences location, Washington DC, should also be given
Ref 68: Can a publication date be given?
Ref 79: Needs author (F. d'Herelle), date (1917) and publisher (I'm not sure - is Virology a journal?). Also, the retrieval date information needs to be detached from the article title
Ref 98: Broken link
Ref 102: A fee is payable for this article - needs to be noted.
Ref 127: Why the caps?
Ref 163: Publisher details and date information required
Ref 174: "page not available"
Ref 190: "page not available"
General point: you should be consistent about showing retrieval dates for online articles. You're not obliged to show these, but it's all or none. At present 67, 79 & 145 give retrieval dates, 125 says "Accessed", the others don't give anything.
Second general point: The list would look less formidable if you had used short citations for multiple references from the same book. I don't suggest you do it now, but perhaps a pointer for the future.
Otherwise, all sources look fine, predictably impressive in fact. Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking all the references. I haven't given retrieval dates for any of the PubMed abstracts because the dates are not really relevant they are just a courtesy to the readers, to save them having to search for the abstracts in the database. The three or four other on-line sources do have dates. With regard to Refs: 17,174 and 190, the links do work but the DOIs are "on embargo" until 2011. The PubMed links for these references do work of course. I think I have fixed the others refs listed. I know ref 53 looks a little over the top, but this is still a controversial issue that I have been challenged over in the past. I would like to cut it down to one source and will endeavour to do so, subject to finding a solidly reliable source. Thanks again for checking these, I know it can be a thankless task, but it is much appreciated. Graham Colm (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "origins" section seems largely redundant to that of the main virus article which appears more detailed. It would be fantastic if there was an article about all the evolutionary aspects of virii as well as a decent classification and disambiguation of retrovirus, endogenous retrovirus, provirus but this does not seem to be the scope of this article? Richiez (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it probably is somewhat redundant, but an FA should be reasonably self-sufficient and the section is needed. With regard to your interesting comments on the retroviruses and virus evolution in general, I agree, but I think this is beyond the scope of this article.Graham Colm (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Becoming distracted from this page I did a little editing on the retrovirus, endogenous retrovirus and provirus articles - however am rather unsatisfied with my attempt to formulate something like a basic definition/disambiguation and untangle the provirus article. Richiez (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments Great article, but a few quibblesJimfbleak - talk to me? 09:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...Measles first appeared in humans when dogs were first — why is "measles" capped?
The Middle Ages were times of plagues and pestilences. — Middle Ages is singular, despite its appearance, see the linked article
References to influenza infections date from the late 15th and early 16th centuries,[46] but influenza infections — avoid repetition of "influenza infections"
The first X-ray diffraction pictures of the crystallised virus were obtained by Bernal and Fankuchen in 1941. On the basis of her pictures, — "pictures" is misleading since it implies a representation of an object. Diffraction patterns are not representations, and "images" or "patterns" might be better
"Aphthovirus" — either italics if intended as genus name or lower case if not
H. B. Maitland and M. C. Maitland — H. B. and M. C. Maitland?
Sylvatic cycle — why Sylvatic capped? see the linked article
You have given initials without full stops or spaces in the refs, which I like, but with both in the text. I'm not sure whether this counts as inconsistency or not, but I at least wanted to check that it was a conscious decision
Re picture/image. I'd say "picture" was fine and in fact "image" actually "implies a representation of an object". My daughter makes pictures all the time. What they are of is sometimes hard to tell... Colin°Talk 13:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these helpful quibbles and I have made the changes suggested. I too prefer "pictures", they are pictures made by X-ray diffraction, but I'm also happy with "X-ray diffraction patterns". What do you think? Thanks again. Graham Colm (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The pictures thing seems to be my personal foible, so no big deal, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your helpful review, encouragement and support. Graham Colm (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I found it interesting, easy to read and very informative. A well done article in a difficult topic. Nice images too.--Garrondo (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. Graham Colm (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. Several url redirects, but as journal cites tend to wander around with a static central redirect hub, I'll leave it up to you to fix them if you want- I don't want to "fix" links only for them to break a few months later. --PresN 00:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these comments. I have removed the photograph of the foot-and-mouth disease sign. I originally wanted one of a sheep with bluetongue, but I can't find a free one. I have added the {{PLos}} template to the phylogenetic tree file, but I would be very grateful if you could check that I have done this correctly because I don't edit Commons files very often. My thanks again to you. Graham Colm (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is an interesting and accessible article, as one would expect from Graham. The references and illustrations are first class. All of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are present and correct. But I'm afraid I have to agree with Quantumsilverfish: I'm not convinced the combination of subjects works or fits with the "History of viruses" title. I think this article should continue with the approach taken by the first six sections and follow this through to the present day. The article would stay virus-centred (rather than virologist-centred or discovery-centred) but would naturally discuss the impact of viruses on human/animal/plant history and also our impact on viruses (immunisation, anti-virals, vector-control, etc). I recommend a History of virology article be created and I very much look forward to reading that because I think Graham could make it great. Some particular problems include:
Pioneers. This section is focused on the pioneers, with one paragraph each in chronological form. I think this leads to a disjointed way of telling the story of the origins of virology. There's no introduction and no mechanism to lead the reader through the facts. For example
The invention of the Chamberland filter and its use to investigate the tobacco mosaic virus are separate paragraphs.
The Pasteur story reads like we've joined it in the middle and we didn't know he was trying to find the causative agent for rabies.
The Thomas Milton Rivers paragraph jumps about chronologically and the middle section probably isn't helping.
The "what are viruses made of" question is addressed with "In 1935, Wendell Stanley examined the tobacco mosaic virus and found it was mostly made of protein.[71] In 1939, Stanley and Max Lauffer (1914) separated the virus into protein and RNA parts." It would be better to tell a story instead. Explain that we didn't know what they were made of. Describe how/who found out. Explain why their findings are important/interesting.
The word "virus". The lead tells us "Martinus Beijerinck called the filtered, infectious substance a "virus"". But in Pioneers we are told he "re-introduced the word virus". Then that "In Pasteur's day, and for many years after his death the word "virus" was used to describe any cause of infectious disease". And later in a section on Louis Pasteur and rabies, we are told "Celsus in the first century AD" used the word "virus". It would be helpful if the chronology of that term was presented as one, in order.
The "Influenza" section is mostly about the "history of virology" aspect rather than the "history of viruses" aspect, which I'd expect to concentrate more on its impact on humanity in modern times.
Same goes for "Polio". I'd expect a "history of viruses" article to cover when polio first began causing epidemics, the vaccine and subsequent decline, the eradication program and that we are on the verge of eradicating it.
There's no mention of Rinderpest, which appears to have been eradicated in 2001.
There's no mention of Cervical cancer and HPV. The link is relatively recent history and important for emphasising the role viruses play as a cause of human cancers.
The "Louis Pasteur and rabies" section is possibly too long.
HIV's impact on humanity could be larger than the single sentence given to the stats (the rest is virology). The "25 million" is since 1981, and there are about 2 million deaths a year. It has significantly reduced average life expectancy in many Sub-Saharan African states. It has had a large cultural impact in the West with its associations with homosexual and drug-abusing communities.
(correction) The text about the origins of HIV is mostly "history of viruses". I'd class the discovery sentences as "history of virology". Colin°Talk 08:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phage therapy probably deserves more coverage in a history of virology.
The use of viruses in gene therapy isn't covered. Again, this is a history of virology topic.
The Friendly viruses section is interesting but very little is relevant to a "history of viruses" article.
The "viruses that were discovered in the 20th century" list is a strange mix with some notable entries missing. Perhaps a Timeline of virus discovery could be a future featured list?
Thanks Colin, for this thorough review. There was no need to apologise (in your edit summary) since your analysis is very helpful. Yes, this is my quandary; should the article be about the history of viruses or the history of virology? My problem might be that after having spent most of my life studying these little things, and the problems they cause, that I can no longer differentiate between "virology" and "viruses". I have to admit that the two concepts are totally intertwined in my mind. So, how to proceed, can this contribution be fixed in a reasonable time for the FAC to remain open, should it be renamed and refocussed? I am open to suggestions. But, I have to stress that to write one article on the history of virology would be a massive challenge. It would have to include the many methods developed to enable us to study them, the greats leaps in our understanding of their epidemiology and so on and so on. My theme, when I conceived this contribution, and one I tried to keep running throughout the article, was the impact these "invisible" things have had on human history and before. Viruses can be considered dull, my hope was to write a general introduction, from a historical perspective, that would encourage readers to learn more about them. This is how viruses are introduced in most textbooks. I wanted Wikipedia to have it's own, and a damn good one. Perhaps, I am wrong, but I don't see this as a stand alone contribution, I see it as complementing Virus and Introduction to viruses. Your thoughts on this, as always, will be most welcome. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked the delegates to archive this FAC to allow us time to work out how this subject (or subjects) can be best presented. I thank all the reviewers who have taken the time to read the article and comment here. I hope you don't feel that your valuable time has been wasted. Graham Colm (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is part of the WikiProject South Park FT drive and is basically the culmination of a great amount of work that was ongoing while the season aired and afterward. It has passed a GAN review and a peer review, and is the anchor article for a GT. I believe it's ready for FA status. — HunterKahn 01:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was discussion among the WikiProject and elsewhere about this back when we were debating whether to nominate it for GA or FL. We ultimately went with the former because although it includes a list of episodes, I feel this article is presented much more like an article than a list, not only because (as you say) it is mostly prose, but because of the general structure of the article. I felt the same way when I nominated Parks and Recreation (season 1), which is similar in structure and was ultimately approved as an FA. — HunterKahn 20:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you for clarifying this. I have struck through my comment. wackywace 21:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 1, 2 and 3: Why are you using three different "episode guide" sites to confirm dates? Also, ref 2 cannot be accessed by readers from UK and Ireland, according to the site.
I eliminated all but one (dropped the one that cannot be accessed by UK and Ireland readers). — HunterKahn 22:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 4 et al: The "TV by the numbers site carries this message from its publishers: "Gorman and Seidman acknowledge that they’re still total newbies (even after being at it for two years now), but with your help, they hope to learn." Is this a site in which we should place confidence?
I strongly believe so. This has been discussed before, and the site is commonly used for Nielsen rating information. I know that acknowledgment on the site (which I think Gorman and Seidman only put up so people won't give them shit, personally) makes a lot of people question it. However, this site is used as a trusted resource by multiple sources and publications, including The New York Times (other examples here and here), NPR, The New York Post, CNN, Salon, E!, New York Daily News and others. And, for all the modesty of the site creators, there's really nobody else who looks at the Nielsen numbers as in-depth as they do. — HunterKahn 22:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won't press this, unless other editors pursue the point. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 21: Comedy Central is not a printed sources and should not be presented in italics
Ref 41: Why is "Clique Clack" a reliable encyclopedic source?
You're right. Dropped it in favor of a link to the official SP site. (Although this may present the same problem as below.) — HunterKahn 23:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this denies access to UK and Ireland readers. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can look for alternative sources, but I know for a fact that for some of this stuff, there is no other reliable source. But is this really necessary? I understand of course that it's not ideal to have a source that can't be viewed by a large amount of people. But off-line sources can be accepted in good faith, and those are more difficult to verify than these links... — HunterKahn 01:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, could you check something for me? In an attempt to avoid future linkrot-problems like the iF Magazine thing, I've started archiving all the websites that I use and including those links in the citation. Could you tell me if those links work? Or if they continue to show you access denied? — HunterKahn 04:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 42: access denied per ref 2
I've updated the link (it had changed, apparently), so I think this addresses the problem. 23:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Access still denied, I'm afraid. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 43: The italics issue again. Please check through; if the source or publisher is a printed journal, magazine etc then italicise, otherwise don't. There are many cases I've not listed, inc. Fox News, MTV News, BBC News etc.
I've combed through the article and I think I've gotten them all. — HunterKahn 23:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you double check the site again? When I click on it, it leads to Mike Johnson's article, which DOES have that title. And as far as the site, it's not my cup of tea personally, but I believe it's reliable based on the experience of their writing staff, plus the fact that the site has been referenced repeatedly on major sources ([18], [19], [20], [21], [22], etc.) — HunterKahn 23:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 64 and 65: in what physical form do these refs exist?
They don't, but for some reason the website URLs were missing. I readded them. — HunterKahn 23:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and unfortunately added to the "access denied" problem. The South Park Studios site is not available to UK and Ireland readers. The denial notice reads in full: "Due to copyright and other legal restrictions, South Park content from this site cannot be viewed in your country." I've no idea what that means - I thought the web was "worldwide". Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was this solved? Nergaal (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 76-78 and others: I'm a bit confused by "iF Magazine". Is this the Sci Fi mag? If not, can we have publisher details?
This was an online magazine. Unfortunately, "link rot" has struck, as the website is now defunct and the links are all dead. I may be mistaken here, but my understanding was that dead links don't equal failed verification, and that the citation without the link is still sufficient for verification, assuming WP:AGF can be extended that the text of the article is reflective of the source. (And since those citations were reviewed in the GAN and GT process, I think that indicates it is.) But, like I said, I could be wrong here, this has never happened to me. If I have to remove the iF Magazine stuff altogether I will, but I don't think that's the ideal solution. — HunterKahn 23:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not sure what is the best solution here. My general feeling is that if a source no longer exists and can't be verified, it oughtn't to be used. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I've removed all the iF Magazine stuff. It really didn't affect much since I could find multiple sources for most of it; the biggest difference is that I had to cut a bit from the Reception section. — HunterKahn 01:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 87: link does not go to a page with the indicated title.
This, too, seems to be link rot. There are other sources that include the information this ref referred to, so if I have to eliminate it altogether I will. In the meantime, though, I've removed the link. — HunterKahn 23:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 106: Add note that the reference is in Spanish.
Ref 107: Why the "official" tag? Was 42 unofficial?
I don't know why I put it there, but it's gone. — HunterKahn 23:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 113: What is "DVD Times"? If it is a website it needs to be linked for access/verification purposes.
It is a website, and unless I'm mistaken, it's presently linked. — HunterKahn 23:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't relate this link to anything called "DVD Times". Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the publisher/website. Nergaal (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subject to resolution of the above issues, sourcing and citation are OK. Brianboulton (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Later sources comment: I've carried out another check, and the outstanding issues per the above appear to have been resolved satisfactorily. Some changes in ref numbers are slightly confusing for me, but I am pretty sure that all in now well on this front. Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The oppose stands, the 13th season of South Park existed before the DVD release, and this image adds little to the franchise or this article. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, Fasach Nua, I know you've blanketly opposed fair use images of these kind in past FA reviews, but I don't feel it's fair to do so in this case. Cover art and promotional material are considered acceptable under WP:FAIRUSE if a reasonable non-fair use rationale is provided. In this case, I've provided a rationale that has been agreed upon in a consensus discussion in previous FAC discussion for the exact same usage as is being used here. You've provided no direct feedback or policy-based rejection of the rationale I've added in response to your objection. In my opinion, it just seems like you don't like the use of these kind of images. If you're not going to provide any further specific feedback, I'm afraid I'll just have to take my chances with your opposition vote in place. — HunterKahn 21:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All that being said, I'd be happy to hear from others about whether they agree or disagree with the image's fair use rationale. — HunterKahn 21:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only actually image of the show used in the article; a reader that is not well aware of the show would at least get a sense of who are the five characters in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the intro, and would also get a sense of what type of animation is used in the show. Nergaal (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the caption for the image. Nergaal (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the comments by both Fasach and David below, I've removed the image. — HunterKahn 01:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The article looks good. It's good to see a season page actually get real information to support "article" classification as opposed to a simple list. I even support the image. I'm tired of seeing image opposes for TV articles in the infobox when you don't see the same thing used against film articles for their posters - which hold about as much additional understanding as a DVD cover art. I think Hunter adds enough to the fair use rationale for the infobox image, though I'm a firm believe that the image in the infobox is not the same as an image in the body of the article. Which is why all film article's have poster or DVD images in the infobox. As for link rot, per WP:LINKROT, an article should not be condemned simply because a link was deleted. If verified the information once before, and unless it is truly contentious material, it should be kept (per WP:LINKROT#Keeping dead links). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everything looks really good! Well done.--AlastorMoody (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I did a quick run through, looks good. --Matthewdavies (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Further Comment Kayne makes a brief reference to fishsticks in the song "gorgeous" from his New Album might be worthing mentioning. --Matthewdavies (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is currently mentioned at the page for the individual "Fishsticks" episode. I think it's more appropriate for that page than it is for the season page, especially since commentors on this page suggested a lot of the celebrity comments should be scaled back. Thanks for bringing it to our attention though! — HunterKahn 18:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dab/EL check - No dabs, no link problems, though I'm concerned about whether using a google cache as a archiving method is a good idea (ref #96). --PresN 23:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed that one. Switched it to WebCite like the others. — HunterKahn 21:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I have to agree with Fasach Nua in this case; I'm hardly a non-free media hater, but I don't think the DVD image passes muster. The Supernatural FAC discussed earlier is a bad example, IMO, and it doesn't transfer to South Park, as the illustration of the characters is not the subject of significant critical commentary, the poster is not representative of an arc that is the subject of commentary. Film posters are I think a different matter entirely, as they are readily identifiable and tangible marketing that exists throughout a film's theatrical release and later play roles in the home video releases. A DVD cover, as compilation of episodes after their run, doesn't have the same weight. Considering the home release has barely a paragraph, you'd be hard-pressed to discuss it as a significant portion of the article necessary for illustration.
On the prose side of things, it seems puzzling to me that critical commentary on the episode is outweighed by tabloid journalism on what celebrity X said about episode Y. There's not enough variety in the sources used for this, and I'm concerned about what appears to be statements that go beyond what sources say, for example "The incident received considerable press coverage and drew further attention to "Fishsticks", which Comedy Central re-broadcast for two straight hours on September 15, 2009" just isn't supported by what the IGN review says[23]. I'm also not comfortable with plot summaries unsourced outside of explicit plot sections, for example "Fatbeard" featured a song "Somalian Pirates, We", in which Cartman and his crew of pirates sang about Somalian piracy in the style of a sea shanty from the classic era of piracy", et al. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't entirely agree, your point about the lack significant critical commentary with relation to the image is well-taken, so I have removed the image from the infobox. As far as your other comments, I removed the phrase "and drew further attention to" with regard to the "Fishsticks" item, and replaced it with wording that better jives with the source. With regard to the "Fatbeard" song, I added an additional source and reworded it to remove the phrase "sea shanty", the specific phrasing of which wasn't included in the source, and replaced it with more general wording that the song was in the style of the stereotypical golden era of piracy, which I believe is reflected in the two sources. With regard to your comment about the celebrity responses and the lack of variety in sources, I'm afraid I'll need a bit more direction on what needs to be done here. Are you asking me to shorten the celebrity response section? Something else? I do not believe I'm neglecting any sources with regard to season 13, so I don't feel I could add any that are missing. Please let me know and I'll get to work on it. — HunterKahn 01:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The elements about celebrity responses just seems far too detailed. It could easily be summarized in much smaller sections for each person; while I'd have to say that since reliable sources covered it, it's worth mentioning, I don't think "What Celebrity X said" should outweigh awards or critical reception. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've scaled back a great deal of the celebrity section, removed a lot of detail. Right now the section is about the same as the critical commentary, but let me know if you feel it needs more trimming. I tried to keep the Mexico and USS Bainbridge stuff mostly intact because I felt that was more significant than "Celebrity X said this", but if you feel it needs further scaling back I can do that too. — HunterKahn 21:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's better. Since what I've brought up as serious issues have ben resolved, I'm striking my oppose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the GAN review and previous PR checked these things to at least some degree, but I agree, it should be done here as well. In any event, I'm quite confident this article has no problems in these departments. — HunterKahn 16:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I spot-checked statements supported by current ref #s 18, 24, 27, 32, and 35. I didn't really see any issues with excessively adapting sentence structure or evidence of plagiarism, however: " Nevertheless, only Parker received official writing credit. " is not being supported by ref 27; "... who are initially angered at the competition from Katie and Katherine, but end up falling in love with the women and marrying them." is not supported entirely by ref 32; and "and in "Pee", when he drowned in a tsunami of urine." is not supported by ref 35. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David! As far as the unsourced bits, the part about Kenny's death and the T&P marriage were remnants of info that was previously sourced by iF Magazine, which has since linkrotted away and were removed earlier in this FAC review. I've just cut those bits. As for the part about only Parker getting credit, I had assumed that didn't need to be cited because the end credits of the episodes themselves are sufficient as a primary source. His name is absent from the credits, but I don't think there are any sources that would specifically point out that absence. In any event, I've removed that bit too. — HunterKahn 20:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Sadly. Removal of infobox image makes no sense and now fails FA Criteria 3, the article now contains not a single image of the show itself, the characters or anything from the actual show, just an image of the creators and a person who was spoofed in a single episode, and not even an image relating to the circumstances, just a random image from a concert where he's grabbing is balls. This is clear hate on images perfectly satisfying NFCC. Take a look at any number of featured season articles, they include one, one didn't have an infobox, and two or three have an image of the cast, next to that literally every featured season article has an image of the DVD box or cover thereof. Xeworlebi(talk) 19:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Support – Image issue aside I support this FAR, consensus weighs pretty clearly towards including this image, will most likely be added back, don't want to uphold this nomination based on this rather trivial disagreement.Xeworlebi(talk) 15:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright...I'm confused. lol. We have oppose votes now due to the inclusion of the infobox image, and oppose votes due to the exclusion of it, both of which citing the same policy. (Personally, I am in favor of keeping the image, as I feel it satisfies the fair use rationale. However, I'm not sure that FA Criteria 3 allows for an opposition vote due to its absence.) Obviously, some more direction is needed here for a concrete consensus. Perhaps the FA delegates can weigh in? Frankly, since I believe all other actionable objections have been addressed so far in this review, I don't think it will be fair if this issue alone sinks the FAC. — HunterKahn 20:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has been specifically rejected at WP:WIAFA that articles require images. The absence of images has never been a very strong reason to oppose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Seeing that David Fuchs has scrapped his comments on opposing the image (still opposes due to other stuff), the only person opposing this image is Fasach Nua who has shown to have a blanket objection against these images. The DVD cover has the characters on it and significantly contributes to the article that way. Despite the fact that FA articles don't have to have images, the lack of even the simplest image with the characters makes this article lack any visual aids which can be present under NFCC and are on every other featured seasonal article. Xeworlebi(talk) 20:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't scrap my oppose on the image, I struck the comments because they are not applicable at this point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for striking some of your comments, David, but I still need further direction on the unstruck comments. I had responded to some and asked for further clarification on others, but as far as I can tell you haven't responded any further yet. — HunterKahn 22:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and take another good look tomorrow (my ArbCom candidacy kind of sidetracked me, I'm sorry you're getting shafted as a result.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I didn't realize about the candidacy. Take your time and best of luck! — HunterKahn 23:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's weirdly done, my mistake then for misinterpreting someone striking there comments. So currently two people (Fasach Nua and David Fuchs) believe the image does not satisfy NFCC, one of those who has a blanket opposition against these images, while four (Hunter Kahn (nominator), Nergaal (nominator), Bignole and me) believe it does. Taking into account the four (Parks and Recreation (season 1), Smallville (season 1), Supernatural (season 1) and Supernatural (season 2)) FA which all have a DVD cover/box image and had them during the FAR passed. Not to mention the 60+ featured season lists that passed with a DVD cover/box image. I believe that this shows that concensus clearly weighs towards inclusion of these images and shows that they satisfy NFCC. Xeworlebi(talk) 00:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be useful if you could explain to us what the basic concepts of South Park (Season 13) you are struggling to understand. Fasach Nua (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "struggling" with anything. But I believe, and have shown, that consensus is pretty clearly against your clearcut hate towards these representative images. Xeworlebi(talk) 21:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the omission of the non-free DVD cover has not been detrimental to your understanding? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the lack of visual aids hurts the quality of the article, making it not up to par with the rest of wikipedia, let alone FA. Xeworlebi(talk) 22:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the absence of the image would be detrimental to the understanding of a reader who has never seen the show (or was not particularly familiar with it) and does not know what the animation looks like. That poster art included images of the characters (set against a backdrop presenting the show's thirteenth season) so it would provide an illustration of the show's animation style that cannot be as adequately described in words. But that's just my opinion. — HunterKahn 22:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This would be better as a featured list. MalleusFatuorum 01:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been addressed above, and in past consensus discussions. There is more than enough content here, all of which backed by verifiable reliable sources, for this to be considered an article rather than simply a list. The amount of prose and the structure of the article also make it more appropriate for FA than FL. Furthermore, it's not at all uncommon (as stated above) for season articles of this type to go to FA rather than FL, so I don't think an oppose vote based solely on your opinion that it would be better as a featured list can be taken very seriously. Is there anything else to your oppose vote other than this? — HunterKahn 02:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The task at hand is to decide if the submitted article meets WP:FA Criteria or not, whether or not it would be "better as a featured list" is neither here nor there Fasach Nua (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite, and in my judgement this article fails criterion 2, in that it does not follow the MoS guidelines on embedded lists, which in this case takes up about half of the article. MalleusFatuorum 13:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite following you. This article follows WP:EMBED, unless you can cite which part of the policy it is in violation of? (It also follows WP:TVMOS, which says episodes may be presented "tabular format that sections off each individual episode with its own brief plot section (approximately 100–200 words for each, with upwards of 350 words for complex storylines)".) And as you can see above, season articles with lists like these are not unheard of for FA. Further, your original statement was that this would be better as an FL, and now you are saying it's an MOS problem. These two statements seem to contradict each other; if it's really an MOS problem, how could it have been appropriate for featured list status? (Also, while it feels like a minor point to defend, the list does not take up "half" the article. By my count, the episode prose is about 2,195 words, while the rest of the article is 4,175, meaning the prose outnumbers the episodes list by a 2:1 ratio.) — HunterKahn 13:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The table takes less than 30% of the table, even after excluding the intro. Nergaal (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It definitely meets the standards of other season articles that have been promoted to FA in the past. I personally feel that the DVD cover should be included in the infobox because, as stated above, it is fairly significant in conveying the animation style of the show. But, considering the differing opinions above, I do not believe that including it or not including it is a fair reason for me to oppose. SilverserenC 15:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query: until now how many users are in favor of the DVD image, how many are neutral, and how many are opposed? Nergaal (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In favor I suppose we should just list ourselves? SilverserenC 16:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I thought going through the review and see what everybody said is ok, but self-listing is probably more clear. Nergaal (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, there are five users who have voiced support for use of the image (Hunter Kahn, Nergaal, Bignole, Xeworlebi, Silversren) and two against it (Fasach Nua and David Fuchs). However, I'm torn on what to do about all this. On the one hand, I feel there is a fair use rationale for this image (as I've stated above) and I think its inclusion does increase readership of the article, plus I feel there is a WP:CONSENSUS developing for its inclusion. However, I don't think this should simply be a tally, and I also don't think it's at all fair or respectful to Fasach or David to ignore their comments simply because they are outnumbered. I also feel that this image issue alone shouldn't sink the FAC since (in my opinion) no other actionable items have been brought up in opposition to it. So, in trying to come up with a WP:COMPROMISE, I thought of two possible suggestions: 1) we could ask Fasach and David whether they feel the discussion here amounts to a majority WP:CONSENSUS and whether they would give their blessing for the image to be included, even if they personally harbor some disagreements. Or 2) let the article pass or fail (*) since we are nearly the end of the review cycle, and then take the image issue to Wikipedia:Non-free content review for further discussion about whether this image meets fair use rationale muster, and abide by the WP:CONSENSUS developed there. Thoughts? (I have asked Fasach and David ([24] and [25]) to read this suggestion and weigh in.) — HunterKahn 17:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(*) - Note, personally, I feel if we go with option 2, and there remain no actionable oppose items beyond this image, that the article can still be passed even though there is an WP:NFR discussion ongoing. Since this would be the only issue, and since there would be a general agreement that we would abide by the decision there, I don't think there will be any instability problems with South Park (season 13). It would just be a matter of readding the image, or not, after that discussion is done. — HunterKahn 17:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for taking so long to get back here. I'm personally not really comfortable with acquiescing on this image because, as the supporters of it have brought up, FAC is a patchy case-by-case basis and if this is going to continue to be an issue than it's spiraled out of what should be done on this page. I'd say that the second option is a better idea; let me know when the NFCR goes up so I can swing by and hopefully we can get a broad swath of content editors to hash this out and prevent further wordiness on pages like these in the future. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree – Since there's no consensus on the image, and it's a single, underwhelming issue, I think we should all agree that the presence or absence of the image shouldn't affect this nomination. We can do the NFRC aside from this nomination, with the understanding that the FA will follow it. —Noisalt (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully in agreement, particularly with the condition that everybody here in the FAC agree to the final result at the NFRC (which I'll start once the FAC is archived). Thanks all; it's nice to see compromise in motion! :D — HunterKahn 22:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - This is blatant case of Wikipedia:Forum_shopping, it is disrespectful to the FAC process, and the reviewers who have put time in to this candidacy. This article now fails WP:FA Criteria 1(e) and I wish my time had not been wasted here. Fasach Nua (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article hasn't been edited for six days, how is it not stable? SilverserenC 00:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's suggesting that the article is not stable now because it remains an open question whether the image will be readded or not. However, since there is an agreement here that the participants of the FA will abide by the decision from the forum discussion, I don't think stability is a problem. The image will either be added, or it won't, and then that's that. And Fasach, regarding your comments, I'm sorry you feel that way. But I hope you understand that this was in no way meant to be disrespectful to you or the FAC, but rather an attempt to reconcile the conflicting opinions about the image and come to a reasonable WP:COMPROMISE. Which is why I suggested the forum idea that I did and brought it to the attention of both you and David (who obviously does not object to it himself) on your talk pages. If I wanted to be disrespectful, I could have just cited this FAC as a WP:CONSENSUS and gone ahead and added the image back... — HunterKahn 00:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want add the image back into the article, that is fine, there are both assessments made for it being included and for it being not included above and the delegate can weigh those assessments as to whether the article meets the FA Criteria. What I object to is getting the article passed in FAC and then immediately altering the content dramatically through a forum shopping back door, and thinking FA status can be retained. When you speak of consensus, you are simply referring to a consensus that exists in one place and at one point in time. The Consensus of the Wikipedia community is established over long periods of time is reflected in the organisation's policies. The most relevant one here being WP:NFCC, no-one here is arguing that the inclusion of this image meets policy, even the principal detractor of the images removal is stating the usage fails WP:NFCC 8. In the sense of a traditional encyclopedia it can be argued that the removal of the images reduces quality, however this is not a traditional encyclopedia, it is an encyclopedia with a m:mission and the removal of this image clearly furthers our mission and enhances the quality of this free encyclopedia. Fasach Nua (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see this withdrawal as a sign that you see consensus is against you and try as much as you can to sabotage it. Please don't incorrectly twist my comments so that they suit your point. Just because I don't struggle with the South Park concept, characters and animation type (because I watch the show) does absolutely not mean that the image fails WP:NFCC#8, by that logic no image can pass that criteria as someone already knows what the subject is (image of a car? someone known how it looks. Image of a person? someone knows how that person looks). This image is detrimental to understanding the characters, the animation etc. Just because I'm familiar with the subject of the article does not mean the image does not achieve this for other readers. Xeworlebi(talk) 19:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"If you want add the image back into the article, that is fine, there are both assessments made for it being included and for it being not included above and the delegate can weigh those assessments as to whether the article meets the FA Criteria. What I object to is getting the article passed in FAC and then immediately altering the content dramatically through a forum shopping back door, and thinking FA status can be retained." Look, all I've been trying to do is come to a compromise to reconcile the conflicting opinions about the photo license. I meant for this NFCR route would be more fruitful than simply restoring the photo, and David agreed. Perhaps the FA delegate can specify when they close this nomination whether they consider the NFCR route acceptable or not, and if not, whether the discussion here represents a reasonable WP:CONSENSUS that the fair use rationale is acceptable. (For the record, that proposed rationale can be read here.) In any event, I hope that the FA delegate acts soon, as I don't think this discussion is going to move any more forward, and only risks becoming uncivil if it continues much longer... — HunterKahn 01:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note this is why FLC and FAC processes are going down: there are a few cynical users that make it their personal project to shoot down nominations just because they have nothing better to do than bicker at every comma that is missing. In the end, fewer successful FACs and FLCs (partially because of these cynical reviewers) drive editors away from wikipedia altogether, and the only ones remaining will be the cynical old hags debating over how to "improve" the MOS (even though there will be almost no articles reaching those thresholds). Nergaal (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with you. I too have faced these issues, regarding BS like not having sufficient "rational" to have a cover for a single article. Its absurd. I'm taking a look now and I'll vote soon enough. Good luck!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only person I see making things difficult and lengthening the process is Fasach Nua with his/her baseless comments about NFCC and forum shopping. I strongly oppose his comments, not only through this FAC, but through all the FACs where the user has placed such comments in general. Fasach Nua, in the politest way possible, if you do not understand these basic requirements of NFCC, then please dont be a burden. As for the image, I strongly recommend the re-addition of it, as it significantly increases the reader's understanding of the subject. — Legolas(talk2me) 14:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the article thoroughly and I sincerely believfe that this can be an independent article and not a list. So the FAC nomination seems logical and the delegates should decide the outcome accordingly. — Legolas(talk2me) 15:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - If the delegates could hold out for a few more hours, I have a quick question I'm asking my co-nominator. — HunterKahn 15:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a comment from NFCC, there is a consensus-based standard that a single non-free identifying image for a copyrighted work (properly licensed and meeting all other NFCC requirements) is appropriate for an article, even if the image is not discussed or adds nothing directly to the understanding of the work. Yes, this doesn't jive with one interpretation of NFCC#8 which requires closer examination of the image with the article text, but at the same time, the more common interpretation of NFCC#8 is that the image is being supported by the existence of the text of the body of the article. We've tried to make this stronger at NFCC but simply can't do it - consensus just doesn't want to move past that - and so FAC should follow this de facto policy. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I finished looking through the article. No major issues at all. I do not think this is a list, as most of the article is discussing other basic and background info than an "episode list". I think that aside from some c/e errors here and there, this article reads well and is very informative on the subject. I agree with Legolas, I don't agree with the removal of the image. I think it added quite a bit for readers.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note about the image. I've gone ahead and restored the image, with the fair use rationale previously discussed. I had tried the above proposal (which is now struck) as a good faith compromise, but a suggestion was made (also in good faith) that this was not the right path to take, that it could be construed as forum shopping, and that it would be best to restore the image and let the FA delegate weigh the arguments accordingly. Since that time, there has been even further support for the image voiced, including claims that the exclusion of the image would indeed be detrimental to the understanding of the article. Weighing all this, I truly believe there is a consensus that the fair use rationale for this image is appropriate, so I am restoring the image as suggested, and will accept whatever judgment the FA delegate decides. (Please note, I have also reached out to Fasach and David, the two objectors to the image, to let them know of this action. I fully expect both will reinstate their oppose votes as a result, and I respect that, and will leave it to the FA delegate to decide.) Thanks, and sorry this has been such a mess. — HunterKahn 18:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The use of the non-free image File:South_Park_season_13.jpg fails WP:NFCC and the article thus fail WP:FA Criteria 3. The image came into existance significantly after the subject of the article, and therefore the use of this image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, nor would its omission be detrimental to that understanding. The image shows the name of the show, which we already know from the text. The only arguably realistic information is the appearance of the characters, however I feel it is unlikely that a reader would come to this article without either watching the programme, or having come from the main South Park article, in which case we can reasonably assume that the reader is aware of basic characters and animation style used in the serial. I find it unfortunate that this article will not be promoted, given that the all obstacles regarding other criteria seem to have been overcome, the hard work put in by User:Hunter_Kahn and that in the past this image had been removed and that the article had met FA Criteria 3. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I respect Fasach's opinion here and accept it. However, I would like to respond to "I feel it is unlikely that a reader would come to this article without either watching the programme, or having come from the main South Park article, in which case we can reasonably assume that the reader is aware of basic characters and animation style used in the serial." I personally don't agree with this. One could say of any article that most readers coming into it are already at least somewhat familiar with the subject. Does that mean images are never appropriate in those cases? I feel the same about nobody ending up in this article unless they followed the main South Park article. There are any number of alternate ways they could end up here, and I don't think we can make that assumption, and even if we did I don't think its a legitimate argument against the fair use rationale. Further, there are plenty of people, I feel, who would be reading this article who much not be familiar with the show. People from other countries who don't get it; people years from now after the show is canceled; people who are fans of Kanye West, Jonas Brothers, etc. any of the given subjects discussed in this article that are not part of the main South Park page. And, last but not least, I'd like to point out Masem's argument above, which I don't believe anybody has countered yet. — HunterKahn 15:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing specific to season 13 in the image, the characters are the same as any other season, the animation style is the same as any other season, it really doesnt bring anything to the article. As for countering Masem's argument, it's nonsense and unworthy of response, and if he is serious about what he says, then he should seek a change in Wikipedia policy, and not expect FAC to follow the ideas swimming around in the back of their head. Fasach Nua (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the fact remains that without an image displaying the animation, there is nothing to illustrate the show, the character or the show's distinctive visual style, which would be detrimental to the understanding for the reader of this article. Since this cover was chosen by the series producers to be representative of the thirteenth season, I feel it's the best candidate to provide that illustration in the context of the season. — HunterKahn 18:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a serious concern perhaps you could merge all the serial articles into the main south park article, and achieve minimal use that way Fasach Nua (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure if this is a serious suggestion or a sarcastic one, but I feel that would obviously raise a whole ton of other problems and would be inappropriate for a large amount of reasons. But in any event, I've said my peace (piece?) on the image fair use rationale. — HunterKahn 19:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear FAC directors until now I can only see only two oppose votes based only on the image, while there is a clear majority of users supporting the use of the image. I would appreciate if some director would step in and prevent users from becoming disruptivenot constructive. This nomination should be about consensous, and I can count 7 users who are fine with the current use of the image, not including two nominators. Nergaal (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I don't believe anybody has been disruptive. I do, however, hope an FA delegate makes a ruling very soon, as I feel we've talked this one out as far as it can go. — HunterKahn 21:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.Support. Some of the text seems repetitive. For example,
The episode "Fishsticks" gained a particularly large amount of media attention,[64] with some critics declaring it one of the best episodes of the season.[64][67] In the episode, Jimmy wrote a joke that becomes a national sensation, while Cartman tried to steal the credit. Rapper Kanye West failed to understand the joke, but could not admit that he didn't get it because he believes himself to be a genius, a reference to West's perceived ego problem. Within one day of the episode's broadcast, West responded on his blog, claiming he enjoyed the episode but that it also hurt his feelings. The reaction generated significant media attention.[68][69]
Within a couple of sentences you have the phrases "gained a particularly large amount of media attention" and "generated significant media attention", about the same episode. In addition, in the next paragraph you write:
The day after "Fishsticks" aired, West wrote on his blog, "South Park murdered me last night and it's pretty damn funny. It hurts my feelings but what can you expect from South Park!"
However, in the previous paragraph (above) you've already mentioned West responding on his blog that he's feelings were hurt. Was there a reason for this? Jayjg (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In your first example, the second reference to media attention referred to West's reaction, not the episode. However, your point is well taken, and since that part is addressed in the "Celebrities" section anyway, I've removed it. I believe that resolves your second point as well. — HunterKahn 02:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that takes care of it. I like the article as a whole; I really think even things like the episode summaries should be sourced to reliable secondary sources, but there is apparently as yet no consensus that plot summaries need conform with WP:V, so I now support this nomination. Jayjg (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note from FAC delegate: I recognize that this nomination received a good amount of substantive support. However, I don't feel there was consensus to promote due to unresolved opposition over fair use media and list status. --Andy Walsh(talk) 16:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I’ve been editing and working my back off on this article for seven months starting out as a lowly geobox in my sandbox. The Missouri is one of the most important rivers in the United States, whether for agricultural supply, power generation or transportation, and is known for its huge role in the settlement of the western states, second only to the mighty Mississippi of which it is a tributary of. I’ve built this page into a very extensive and detailed biography of the river, while looking at examples such as Columbia River and Jordan River (Utah), but hope it flows well and can be understood by anyone, ... Looking for a great new addition to WP:RIVERS’ honor... Shannontalkcontribs 05:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Initial Comments Looks good, but I think there's some room for improvement. Here are thoughts pending further consideration. Sir Nils (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nitpicky stuff from the lede:
"Approximately 10 million people live in the river's basin, mostly concentrated in urban centers in the south such as St. Louis, Kansas City, Omaha, and Denver." I think the meaning of "the south" here is not immediately clear. It apparently means the southern part of the basin, but might just as easily be taken to mean the American south.
"French, Spanish and American explorers wandered the region in the 18th and 19th centuries, during the time that the Missouri basin became part of France's Louisiana Territory" You think here to Louisiana Territory, which is about the American territory, but I think you want the article Louisiana (New France). Also, French Louisiana was established in 1682, which predates the era you're discussing.
Other river FAs, such as Columbia River handle tributaries somewhat differently.
Sources:
A number of the citations are incomplete, for example number 67: "Pinckney’s Treaty or Treaty of San Lorenzo". Encyclopaedia Britannica."
images - File:Missouririvermap.jpg could do with an additional image showing the subnational region this map is of, N.American geography is a mystery to many. Fasach Nua (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article gives a list of rivers in the USA, theses are Colorado, Columbia, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, and the Rio Grande but you have excluded Salmon_Falls_Creek, why is this? Fasach Nua (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is said list? It might be the list of rivers that have more discharge than the Missouri, but Salmon Falls Creek is significantly smaller than the Missouri? Shannontalkcontribs 21:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the geography section, and I would expect something tighter than "It might be" when a definition of rivers is used Fasach Nua (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I think you mean the template United States topics? If you see a problem with that you'd have to edit the template, not the article. But that template encompasses a rather broad topic. I mean, this is the United States (not just Nevada, which doesn't even have anything to do with the Missouri). Shannontalkcontribs 02:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and if I have an issue with an featured article candidate containing a definition of rivers that falls short of WP:VERIFY where should that be raised? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I even searched for the words "it might be" on the page with the browser's find function. Am I not functioning properly or what? I don't see where this is -- there isn't even a section titled Geography in the article. Shannontalkcontribs 03:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The might be is six lines up, and the geography section is at the bottom of the article Fasach Nua (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 74: Publisher's name rather than website name should be givn where possible. In this case the publisher is The Lewis and Clark Fort Mandan Foundation. (there may be other instances)
Ref 75:...for example, the publisher is A&E Television Networks
Ref 77: Morris undefined, not listed in works cited
Ref 89: Holmes, Walter and Dailey undefined, not in works cited
Ref 129 et al: Publisher is The Nature Conservancy
Christensen in works cited, no citations
Apart from the above issues, which are mostly minor, the sources look pretty impressive. I have not at this stage carried out any spotchecking; will try to do so later. Brianboulton (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering this site you'd notice it includes a bibliography. The Nebraskastudies site is a purely educational website. And I didn't realize how I could have so many orphaned references... Shannontalkcontribs 02:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, "Dyer" refers to the website cited just before, except it was a different page within that article... didn't want to link the same article twice but to different pages... Shannontalkcontribs 03:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems though nps.gov is timing out; as it's a .gov I'm inclined to believe that it's temporary. --PresN 22:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria. The topic has undergone several copy edits, draws from a number of reliable online and print sources, and features a mixture of free and non-free images. Please let me know otherwise and I will do my best to correct the problem. (Guyinblack25talk 18:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Could clarify what you mean in regard to the wire frame modeling? Do you suggest that a free image be used or that no image is needed?
I would like to keep the image if at all possible, but will remove if it absolutely necessary.
To expand on the intended use, wireframe modeling is not the only concept meant to be conveyed through the image. The image is meant to display the use of wireframes and texturing (concepts that I believe are difficult to visualize and understand via text alone), which are both described in the article. The image also depicts how the character first looked without a ponytail, which has become a fan-favorite aspect.
WP:NFCC states "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used"
There are free images which explain the concept of wire frame very well, and are used in Dutch and German WP
I would imagine you could reference the main image and augment the text with "without a pony tail" Fasach Nua (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have read WP:NFCC and would like some clarification as to what you deem an acceptable resolution. I considered the 250×600 to be fine but was apparently wrong. 200×480 is below a megapixel. Do you deem that acceptable?
To reiterate, I'm not solely concerned with conveying what a wire frame model is, but with the combination of wire frames, texturing, and the first appearance of the character. If you still deem the image unacceptable, then I will remove it from the article. (Guyinblack25talk 19:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The acceptable resolution is the lowest possible that will still allow you to convey the desired information
It is my belief that the use of this image will violate WP:NFCC and thus WP:FA Criteria 3 and thus cause the article to fail FAC Fasach Nua (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which specific criteria of WP:NFCC do you think the image violates? I have to say I disagree with you - the image significantly increases understanding of the topic and I can't see any reason why it should be removed. Cavie78 (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I will remove the comparison image and reduce the main image to 200×480 as I believe that a lower resolution will impact its ability to convey information. Thanks. (Guyinblack25talk 20:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - There's very little in the article about Lara's relationships with other characters. I'm not that familiar with the games, so I don't know how important or lasting these relationships are, and how they define her, but all that's touched on in the article is her relationships with her parents. (There's also nothing on Lara's hatred of animals, but that can slide)
In regards to the images, I think the use of an Anniversary image is a weird choice. You haven't chosen Lara's most recent portrayal, or her classic portrayal, but a facsimile of her previous look through the eyes of Crystal Dynamics. I would opt for the most recent version in the infobox, and then use an image of Lara from the original Tomb Raider in the development section, to show the character as envisaged by Toby Gard.
Lara is always cited as the first fictional character to appear on the front of The Face. But was there nothing of substance in the article? It's not cited. - hahnchen 20:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Outside her parents and Von Croy, I did not come across much in the way of relationships during my research. As such, unless mentions of other characters were prominent in the content I read, it was not included in the article. I also purposely tried to limit the amount of fictional plot information in the article because much of that is already in the separate game articles.
I did not put the image there, but I agree with it's placement as it shows her most recognizable outfit using a fairly current rendering to show details. I'm not married to the image though and if you'd like something more current I will upload whatever I can find from Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light. Please let me know.
I'm not sure how Guardian of Light fits in with Lara canon/timeline, so I'd probably stick an Underworld image in (but you know better than I do). It's just that the article discusses the evolution of the character, such as the removal of the plait, yet the main image shows the plait in the modern style. I think you'd be better served with a modern Lara in the infobox, and the original design in the development section. I think its important that readers can see where the evolution starts and ends. - hahnchen 21:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The timeline is quite fragmented, and I'm not entirely sure how Guardian of Light fits in. There is a good render at the fan site Tomb Raider Chronicles, as well as ones from the other games. Do you mind if other editors weigh in on the matter before I do anything with the image? (Guyinblack25talk 22:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Again, this is a case of what I found in my research. Outside simply appearing on the cover, all I found was "Computer and Video Games commented that Lara Croft's appearance on the cover of The Face signalled a change in the perception of video games from 'geeky' to mainstream." I searched through almost everything I could get my hands on, but if you know of other sources I'd certainly welcome the extra content. (Guyinblack25talk 21:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comments on images and such: I generally agree with Fasach in that the wireframe view isn't really important enough to merit inclusion. What the image was really offering was the original look of the character. With File:Lara Croft.png, you've got an updated look; I think with some extra copy that explains in general how they revamped the character in the infobox, followed by the more detailed content later on, satisfies addressing the original and later incarnations fairly well. Using the appearance from Guardian of Light is useful as an illustration of the character's latest incarnation, but A) the current image is of the character's more iconic look, which I think is more important to illustrate, and B) since Guardian of Light is more a spinoff than a direct sequel I don't think it's apropos to illustrate the character with it. In shorter form: keep Lara Croft.png. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as the article itself says the game didn't do well and the look wasn't persistent, so it's not a good lead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Makes good use of free images, and is broad in its coverage, and fairly well-written. Good job! :)--AlastorMoody (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DAB/EL Check - no dabs, one external link problem- the videogames.yahoo.com link (ref 102) is dead- seems the whole site got pulled for the immediate future. --PresN 22:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the site will be relaunched, but I'm not sure if the previous content will be there. I commented out that sentence and the reference for now. (Guyinblack25talk 16:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Further comments — c.1c, et al.
I did not detect any obvious phrases that suggested plagiarism or close paraphrasing, unwitting or otherwise. I did a semi-random sample of refs and their attributed sources, in this version, of statements attributed to refs 1, 7, 39, 40, 89, 119, and 161. Mostly they looked good, just one niggling issue I saw: "McAndrew portrayed Lara Croft from 1998 until 1999, when Eidos fired her for posing in Playboy, which used the character and Tomb Raider franchise to promote the McAndrew's issue without Eidos's approval."→The source sez "The real controversy came when McAndrew posed for Playboy in 1999. Though she wasn't technically playing Lara in these photos, the magazine used her status as a selling point [...] The publisher forced Playboy to remove any mention of Tomb Raider from the issue, and they promptly fired McAndrew". It's not exactly clear to what extent Tomb Raider was used in the magazine, and McAndrew definitely was not posing as Croft, so I would specify it was more the connection.
In terms of sources, they primarily seem to be high-quality, often print publications. (The less reliable opinions seem to be reported by more-reliable sources, so I guess there's no issues there.)
On a prose standpoint, there are times when comments in the latter sections of the article where the tense shifts: to keep uniform with everything else, this should prolly all be past tense ("Jeremy Smith credits Lara Croft with exposing the Tomb Raider games and video games in general to a wider audience.") I think some of the pundits quoted could use a one or two-line intro if they aren't specifically tied to a publication. Also, I started getting bogged down towards the end. There's so much good content, it's hard to decide what to trim or what to aggregate, but I think the paragraph about internet sites could be condensed greatly, and that the reception section should be reorganized: discuss the initial (game) reception first, then the history, then the overall impact. Lumping together similar views in the "sex symbol" section would also help, because I think it's teetering towards "X says Y, Z says A, B says D while E says C" repetition and with that much content there's no easy way to make it easier to digest. Also, what does "who openly greeted him upon learning of the trip." really mean?
I'm not aware of to what extent, but the words "Tomb Raider" and "Lara Croft" were printed in the issue, specifically on the cover.[28][29] Ref 90 gives a few more details.[30] I can add more citations to that sentence if you like, but I originally felt the bulk of the sources for that part sufficiently covered everything.
I addressed the "Reception" section, but not the "Sex symbol" one. I'll give it look today or tomorrow.
"..who openly greeted him upon learning of the trip" means that the guy started the trip as his own thing. But coverage of his trip reached the developers, who waited for him to arrive. They personally greeted him and gave him souvenirs.
David- I'm sorry, but I guess I've been starring at the text too long. Do you have more feedback for the "Sex symbol" section? I get stuck every time I look for ways to condense that section. Any particular paragraph you think is the worst offender? (Guyinblack25talk 19:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I think the male gamers section could be chopped down to just describe the fact that they searched for these mods or made patches, and the paragraph after is carrying the least weight for its bulk. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed those two paragraphs. Let me know if there's anything else? (Guyinblack25talk 16:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comment. More of the cultural impact and which precedents the character set in video gaming should be covered in the lead section. In fact, I think this should be discussed in the very first paragraph, giving early justification of why the character has become so notable. I think the Appearances section should be moved towards the end of the article; it makes more sense discussing her development immediately after introducing her in the lead and the Description sections. Regarding the video games section, would it be possible to get a free image to portray her in one of the early games? Regarding the character's redesign, I recall controversies among both fans and feminists; for the latter this should probably also be covered in the Sex symbol section. Nageh (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your comments
I expanded on the cultural impact in the lead, but kept it in the same paragraph it was in.
The "Appearance" section was written to give better context to the proceeding sections. It was further down, but I found myself giving details in the development section that would already be mentioned in the appearances. Moving it under the "Description" section consolidated all the descriptive information and set up the rest of the article.
Since the games and character are copyrighted, all images that would depict them are unfortunately non-free.
There is ample fan criticism regarding the redesign, but little from reliable sources. Fan controversies mainly occurred on forums. All the reliable feminist content found is already in the article. If you know of other sources, however, I'd gladly look into them.
Let me know if there's anything else. (Guyinblack25talk 17:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
/\lready a Good /\rticle, I think it has the potential to become a Featured /\rticle with minimal tweaking. I'll stop messing about with punctuation marks now ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are no dab links in the article but there is a dead link. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I noticed that the Metacritic is both a reference and and an external link. I think that you should remove the reference from the external links section. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments: (I have not checked the foreign language sources)
Ref 4: Can you indicate where the statement in the text is confirmed in this source?
The content which was originally referencing that sentence appears to have disappeared, so I removed it
Ref 6: What makes HitQuarters a reliable encyclopedic source?
Content sourced to HitQuarters removed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 7: Non-print sources should not be italicised, The same applies in refs 10, 18, 52 and probably others - please check through.
All caught I think, let me know if I missed any......
I think PopMatters is an online, not a print source. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 37: Why is "D.J.Skee" indicated as the publisher?
It is from his official YouTube channel
This is now 36. The site consists entirely of blog comments as far as I can see. Where is the support for the cited sentence? Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you watch the video, the bit about "liking how the album title looks on iTunes" is supported by the comments M.I.A. makes between approx 2:00 and 2:15. Is there a way to make this clearer in the citation...........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 53: Publisher missing
Fixed
Ref 55: Publisher missing
Fixed
Ref 59: "Suspended" link
Removed the section, probably went off topic anyway
Ref 60: "Does not exist" Re this and 59, for how long are tweets accessible? Can they be considered a verifiable source, long-term?
As above
Ref 70: Exclaim should be italicised
Fixed
Ref 75: Publisher missing
Fixed
As noted above, the Metacritic link should be removed from External links
Done
Otherwise, sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments, have addressed some, will get to the rest later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there any source for the "/\/\/\Y/\" stylisation? All I see to support that in the article is the album cover art. That strikes me as particularly tenuous since it is inferring something simply from a typeface used in an artwork. I do see thif referenced by that title in a reference for the New York Daily News but a direct reference to something authoritative would be preferable, especially when there are sources to the opposite. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the Austrian charts are published by Hitradio Ö3, so I've wikilinked it to that. The Danish chart does indeed seem to be published by IFPI Denmark according to this, so I've wikilinked to IFPI Denmark and created the briefest of stubs on that body -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All Billboard refs are missing publishers (btw Billboard has been owned by Prometheus Global Media since late last year), as are some NME and Entertainment Weekly refs. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The triviality of these issues probably tells you that I'm happy to support now Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – I couldnot help but lol at the F/\C nom-nom opening line you did. — Legolas(talk2me) 06:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that "XXXO" and "It Takes a Muscle" were both released as singles. However, there is no commentary regarding the fate of the singles, critically or commercially. It should be included, albeit as one line atleast, else the section remains incomplete.
Actually the article already says "The single "XXXO" reached the top 40 in Belgium, Spain and the U.K.", so that is covered. I've removed the claim that "It Takes A Muscle" was released as a single. Although it apparently received limited radio play, I can find no evidence that it was actually released as a single per se..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the infbox, change "It Takes A Muscle" to "It Takes a Muscle".
At the end of April the track "Born Free" was released as a download — Was it a promotional single?
What is a "promotional single"......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes labels release a song to iTunes, before the album release, just to notify everyone and promote that this particular album is going to be released. Hence those acts as promotional single. "Born Free" seems like one, hence just clarify it. — Legolas(talk2me) 07:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tracklisting section looks messy. Why not use {{tracklist}} to have a professional look?
The template used here matches the one in the articles on her other albums, and personally I think it looks fine. If it's a deal-breaker, though, I'll change it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The refernces need a clean-up as many of them have overlinks in them. Also, the NME references need their volume, issue and issn if you are referencing the physical magazine. I know their website suddenly shows 404 for all the old urls. It sucks.
I have the relevant issues of NME in front of me here and they do not have volume or issue numbers, only a date. ISSN added. What are the issues with overlinking? I've always been told that works/publishers should be linked every time they're used in references, because what is currently the first appearance of a work within the refs section might not always be the first....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fine as you put it. Its just that in my experience with FA articles, overlinking of any nature is a little frowned upon. But no issue. — Legolas(talk2me) 07:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The EL doesnot necessary pertain information related to the album, hence will be counted as a spamming link.
Re-check references for the italization and non-italization of printed and online sources.
All seem right to me, please point out any I've missed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are the points I found at first glance. More will come later. Feel free to ping me if any querries. — Legolas(talk2me) 06:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well since my points have been addressed, I am happy to support this article now. — Legolas(talk2me) 07:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: The article is well-written, but the content at times needs reorganising, and some sections tend to be a little long.
Reception: Seventeen reviews are quoted here; I don't think you need that many to summarise the different opinions about the record.
Promotion: this might sound harsh, but that big third paragraph is very boring. It's basically one sentence after another of "and then MIA played this festival." Can you just cite a source that summarises her promotional shows and point out highlights? Same goes for the song-by-song release of the album onto the Internet (first paragraph). But here you can probably expand on the "Born Free" video controversy, which generated a lot of hype (basically, it would be interesting to read about that).
The Lynn Hirschberg incident: in the article body, this is just one short paragraph. However, almost all of it finds its way to the lead. Further, the info here is almost entirely pro-MIA and anti-Hirschberg. What about the valid criticisms in the Times profile? And why is there no mention of MIA tweeting Ms. Hirschberg's home telephone number in retaliation?
Despite the fact there are no valid criticisms that can be gleaned from a WP:QS like the profile, and the piece itself is condemned by the sources included and others describing it, I don't see why the many sources speculating whether the hit piece's exposure via M.I.A.'s release of the secret recording affected reviews shoudn't be included, since there are valid sources covering this aspect. On the flip side, seeing as this might give the whole incident WP:UNDUE weight, and the 'controversy' is already mentioned in a line in the lead, perhaps the present version suffices. Lifebonzza (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Artwork: this section needs to be reorganised. Why begin with the limited-edition artwork, when you should be describing the main cover? i.e., start with "Maya's album cover features MIA's face almost completely hidden by YouTube player bars", and then move on to how to it was created, when it was previewed (IMO not necessary to mention at all). What is "lyrics to each piece"?—indopug (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Artwork section re-arranged. Removed the bit about lyrics to each piece, as it seems to be a misinterpretation of what the source actually says -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I think the article reads really well, however a couple of points:
Promotion: While it included that she was the most blogged about artist on the following Born Free's release, perhaps some of the videos themes and reaction could be expanded here, and her response to the 'controversy'.
I have added a snippet about her reaction, but I think the level of detail about the video is adequate as it stands, considering that this article is about the album, not the song or its video..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Music:More theme coverage would be beneficial to read here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifebonzza (talk • contribs)
Some more added, think all the major themes of the album as a whole and key individual songs are now covered..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have asked Brianboulton and indopug if they would be able to pop back and review my responses to their comments, all of which I believe I addressed about 10 days ago...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with the responses to the sources issues, and I apologise for my tardiness in revisiting. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query - is it deemed acceptable to ask Indopug for a second time if he/she would mind returning here to see if he/she is satisfied with my responses to the points he/she raised? Or is that seen as harrassment.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
These battlecruisers were laid down before the start of World War I, but the war and the subsequent internal unrest disrupted their construction and they were never completed. The Soviets contemplated several different uses for the incomplete hulls, but eventually scrapped all of them before World War II. This article passed a MilHist ACR at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Borodino class battlecruiser and meets the criteria for FA, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested a copyedit from the GOCE.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no dab links or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments 2c is good. I want to go over to Template talk:Citation/Core and log yet another bug, this time with their handling of the volume parameter for books and works in collection... Fifelfoo (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that this comprehensive, well written and well sourced article meets the FA criteria. The only thing I'd note for improvement is the very minor point that the state Annapolis is located in is missing from the publishing details of Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships: 1906–1922. but included for the other two Naval Institute Press books. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments in the Design and development section it is mentioned that the armament increased to nine 14-inch however there's no mention of how the original design was intended to be armed.
Added.
It is also said that there was a a (false) rumor that the Germans were increasing the caliber of their guns, does that refer to German battleships or battlecruisers?
Not specified.
In this same paragraph it might be useful to mention the location of the Admiralty Works when they are first mentioned.
Done.
Two paragraphs later the article mentions trials of the Gangut-class battleships' armor scheme and subsequent changes to the Borodino class armor scheme, does that imply that both armor schemes were identical? If so, that should be mentioned.
They were different, but shared some characteristics which had to be modified.
Then that fact should be mentioned. --Victor12 (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're asking for, but that's already specified in the paragraph.
In the Propulsion section the Franco Russian Works are mentioned, where were those located?
Done.
The Fire control section is quite short, maybe it should be merged with the Armament section.
I disagree.
In the Construction section, is there a particular reason for the difference between the laid down date and the beginning of actual work?
Laying down the keel was a ceremonious occasion in the Russian Navy, not necessarily connected with the beginning of construction.
What I meant is why was construction postponed? Lack of resources? --Victor12 (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"No actual work" did not necessarily mean "nothing at all". Before building the hull, they had to have steel rolled, cut and delivered. Before ordering steel, they had to have at least some working drawings - Design and development explains that it wasn't a textbook smooth process. Anyway, delay of only four months (Dec 1912 - Mar 1913) was lightning fast by Russian standards. East of Borschov 05:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence The condition of the ships was assessed on 28 April 1917, but in some respects the situation was worse than shown is not clear, what was shown?
It's shown in the table.
The table in the next section, three paragraphs below? The reader should be pointed in that direction. --Victor12 (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
There's no mention of the Russian Revolution in this section so terms like "provisional government", "Congress of Shipyard Workers" and "Soviet Supreme Naval College" lack the necessary context to understand them. Some rewriting it needed here. --Victor12 (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A mention of the February Revolution suffices, I think. Thanks for your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the text is not clear enough in this section. Three different organizations are mentioned in this paragraph as deciding the future of the ships. There should be some explanation as to why were they involved in this process. --Victor12 (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have no further information on the exact duties of any of these organizations, other than the government, which is self-evident.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congress of Shipyard Workers - was just a trade union conference that pressed the govt to "give us jobs, give us food". It shouldn't be capitalized (not an organization's name), or should it?
The Soviet Supreme Naval College (Верховная морская коллегия) was a temporary commission of the newborn Soviet military. It's full name initially was Supreme Naval Commission on reforming the former Ministry of the Navy. The Communists took over the former Ministry, but could not actually control its bureaucracy, so they brought Pavel Dybenko and his cutthroats to make it work (well, it didn't but it's a whole different story). The Commission was created Oct. 26, 1917; on Feb. 22, 1918 it became the College of the Comissariat of the Navy. East of Borschov 08:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
32,500 ton BC -> 22,000 CV is a big drop. Where would the savings have come from, aside from the lack of turrets (and possibly barbettes)?Ed[talk][majestic titan] 06:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like mostly armor - forex, the belt would have gone from over 9 inches down to 3. That alone is a considerable savings in weight. Parsecboy (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, that's what I get for just skimming the article. A further thought: watch your conversions. You have "long tons (mt conversion)" followed by "metric tons (lt conversion)" towards the end. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 21:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The whole issue is confusing. The Tsarist Navy was beginning to convert to metric measurements when WWI began, hence the long tons and mm of armor and the Soviets went completely to metric. I've just used the measurements as they're provided in my sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image reviewconcerns for use of non-free File:IzmailLaunching.png and File:IzmailConstruction.jpg: Why do we need two non-free photographs of an unfinished hull (that does not help much to visualise the intended design)? Would a schematic of the ship, such as this one from [33] (have to find out which Russian book), not serve instead? Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't really looked outside Wiki for images, but I'd be happy to swap out both of the existing ones for that one once you find out what book it was in. I'll delete one of them now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
www.steelnavy.com/N&H12.htm is a copy-violation site (scans without context, hence not directly linking here): the scans are of a French publication Navires & Histoire. Of particular note is www.steelnavy.com/images/N&H12/NEP5224Izmail.JPG by Frederic Stahl in his "The Navy of the NEP". Would this be a better image? Jappalang (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the image with the one from steelnavy.com with appropriate NFUR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No issue with the above as the sole image in the article; it serves its purpose and fulfills the WP:NFCC. Jappalang (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Any change additional images could be used to illustrate the Class-design? I noticed there are 7 images on Commons[34]
All of those images on Commons are not sourced and of dubious copyright status. That said, I'm looking to replace the one I have with another one that shows the overall layout.
Are there available citations available online? Either as web citations or url links to book or other source references ? Google Books for example?
Most of my recent sources have only snippets available and it's not been worth my time to search out the ones that aren't.
Some page citations could be added repeated at the end of sentences to be more clear, rather than at the end of several sentences.
My policy to is to consolidate most citations to the same source at the end of a paragraph to avoid the sight of little blue numbers spattered throughout the text. In your example below, the cite given only covers two pages, not too difficult to find.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
for example, "No further proposals were made to complete Izmail as a battlecruiser, but she was almost converted into an aircraft carrier." [citation needed]
I still can't support this yet. I'm primarily concerned with the lack of images and the lack of Online/PD references & verifiability without McLaughlin.
It's fine to refer to McLaughlin throughout the whole article, but there are some online references available; and I'd like to see them used, or at least listed as Further reading.
For example, see: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_14-52_mk6.htm for details on the 14" gun; I don't see any harm in using more references; and in this case; it's at least one that someone can click on and find out more information. Aeonx (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had to pull all references to Navweaps.com as it has not been deemed "highly reliable" yet. It would have been quite useful for the details that I ordinarily include on the ships' armament. One of these days I'll write an article on the Model 1913 gun so that I can use Navweaps.com to my heart's content. Until then, however... And what "highly reliable" online sources are there on these ships? I haven't been able to find any as the qualifications for highly reliable are so strict as to eliminate most all online sources for warships. As for photos, every one that I've been able to find has been non-free use and I can't use more than one of them except under extraordinary circumstances.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Looking good, however:
In the hatnote, the Borodino class...
Good catch.
I don't know if this is standard or not, but in the infobox: "Preceeded by: N/A; first battlecruiser authorized. or similar, instead of a concise but curt None. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 20:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see a need for this.
I won't oppose on these grounds, but four books seems slightly on the low side.
They were never finished and not much has been written on them in English.
Nope, no individual ship articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Enjoyed it, particularly the links in with the wider political context. A couple of bits that stand out to me as a distinctly non-naval person (!) though. Would Support with those answered:
"vitals" : not linked, and not obvious what they are (I'm guessing engine rooms and the magazine and so on?).
Never really thought that it needed a link. Vitals=important stuff, including everything you mentioned.
Treat as a personal comment rather than a condition for my support, but if you expanded the wording slightly and said "the vital parts of the ship" or something like that, it might read easier for a non-expert. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
" The trials employed the old pre-dreadnought battleship Chesma, modified with armor protection identical to that used by the Gangut-class battleships then under construction." My assumption when I first read this was that the trials had involved sailing and nautical handling; later on I began to suspect that they had been firing at the Chesma and testing the armour that way? It might be worth clarifying what these trials were.
"and were designed to be forced to a total" : is there a non-technical way of saying this? ("in a crisis could be called upon to produce"? "could be made to produce"?)
I've changed forced to pushed. Does that work for you?
"including modifying the turrets to load at a fixed angle of 4° " - it sounds relevant, but I don't know why: could the sentence explain why its significant? (similar to the bit on the funnels, which explains the changes)
Fixed loading reduces the time required to load, but adds time needed to re-lay the guns on the target. I'm not sure that I can work it into the sentence.
I agree, it would strain the sentence. Could it go in a footnote? Hchc2009 (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit more complicated that I thought and the main advantage seems to be reduced weight and complexity of the loading gear, which I've added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"although it would have taken at least two years to build all of Izmail's turrets, if enough guns had been available." "even if" might read better?
Agreed.
"a double turret of which actually weighed slightly less than a triple 14-inch turret. " the "actually" implies that this was unusual - wasn't obvious to me why (admittedly because I know nothing about turrets!)
Not that unusual, deleted the actually.
"Four proposals were made with various changes to the armor scheme," to the armour scheme of the turrets, rather than the ship itself?
Yes, fixed.
"too large and unwieldy" - I'm not doubting the source, but why would a cargo ship or an oil barge need to be "wieldy" (or nimble etc.)? Is unwieldy really the right word here? (or is it that they'd be too big for harbours etc.?)
Paraphrasing from my source. I don't know why they thought that, but most oil tankers of the period were far smaller, often between 5-10,000 tons in size. Thanks for looking over the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query: has an independent (non-ship) person spotchecked for jargon, WP:V, and WP:COPYVIO? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-ships people have supported it and I'd expect that they would have pointed out any jargon issues. Any one can check for WP:V and copyvio, but I don't know if anyone has.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a "ship person," but I don't see why that would discredit me from checking for the latter two issues. We're not a cabal, and I resent any implication that we give preference to each other at the expense of an article's quality. WP:V looks to be satisfied, though I wonder if there is any relevant material in Rohwer, and random checking of sentences against snippet view on Google Books produced nothing. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 20:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of mentions of the plan to convert Izmail to a carrier in '25, but nothing of real significance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be appreciated if you do that check, but I believe the past concern was wholesale use of PD sources in ship articles, which ship people seem to support, while others don't, which is why I requested other eyes. Alternately, the nominator could disclose if there is any of that here, since I haven't glanced at the article yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you would have checked, there are four books cited, none of which are in the public domain. The PD controversy came from the copying of DANFS, which only covers American ships. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 21:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, I don't typically go read every article when I'm first scanning FACs to see where they stand; I do that once everything is in place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that, but if you're going to make a comment on public domain text, it literally takes ten seconds to look at the sources and determine it for yourself. Also, saying "WP:V" is really general – more specific directions would be appreciated in the future. I don't mean this in a negative way, just as general thoughts on what you are doing, because I do realize FAC takes a lot of time to go through on any given day. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 22:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd echo Sturmvogel's point about non-ships people above; as a non-ships person I've had a look over it for jargon (see above comments for a list of points raised and dealt with). Hchc2009 (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the jargon check, appreciated! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments
"The four Borodino class battlecruisers (also referred to as the Izmail class) of the Imperial Russian Navy were all laid down in December 1912[Note 1] at Saint Petersburg for service with the Baltic Fleet." - this is an odd way to start an article; one should first explain what they were, then explain when they were laid down etc. For example, "The Borodino class were a group of four battlecruisers commissioned by the Imperial Russian Navy before World War I but never completed. Also referred to as Izmail class, they were laid down in December 1912[Note 1] at Saint Petersburg for service with the Baltic Fleet."
I like most of your formulation, but the last phrase in the first sentence is redundant as the rest of the lede talks about that they were never completed.
"Initially the Naval General Staff wanted a ship with high speed (28 knots, 52 km/h; 32 mph), 12-inch (305 mm) guns, and limited protection (a waterline belt of 190 mm or 7.5 in); the Tsar approved construction of four such ships on 5 May 1911, but the Duma session ended before they could be voted on." - I like semicolons, but this sentence is pretty long, and could probably be split in two at the semi-colon.
I think splitting it would be a bad idea. I could swap the semi-colon for an "and" if you think that it would help.
replacing the semi-colon with "and" would be even worse. Why do you think splitting this long sentence at the semi-colon is a bad idea? Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "initially" at the beginning of the sentence implies that there's a "but" later on. Splitting the sentence loses that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still think splitting in two would be easier on the reader, who will understand what the "but" is referring to, but it's not a big issue. Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The Naval Ministry solicited bids from 23 shipbuilders, " - this should be the start of a new paragraph.
Agreed
"the deadline was extended by an extra month." - I think you mean "the deadline was extended by a month" - otherwise, you're implying it was extended by two months.
Fixed
"triple turrets" "three turrets" - I assume these are the same; perhaps a little explanation as to what this means, as there's no handy wikilink.
Linked gun turret.
Thanks, but what is a "triple turret"? This seems like a bit of naval jargon. Is it three turrets side-by-side? In some other arrangement? Something else? Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Triple gun turret was the original wording; I've hyphenated it to show that it means three guns per turret.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a bit obscure, that will have to do, I guess. Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"45.5 million rubles for each ship" - it would be nice to know what these and other figures were worth in today's currencies (dollars or euros).
It would, but the inflation calculator doesn't deal with anything but dollars or pounds.
Well, it would be nice if you could find a source that estimates the cost today, but... Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The first pair was to be ready... and the other two... " - the phrases should be parallel - "first pair"-"second pair" or "first two"-"second two".
Done.
"plus the delays imposed by the large number of ship orders already in hand" - not sure what this means. Can you explain?
Umm, ran out of capacity?
Is that how the source explains it? Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, yes. There's a comment that the Russian shipyards simply had too much on their plate with orders for smaller ships that could be finished mroe quickly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., a footnote explaining exactly would be extremely helpful - I think that's all that's left for me. Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"A pair of casemates were situated on each side" - this implies two casemates on each side; is that what you mean?
On each side of the three rear turrets, yes, plus the six casemates on each side near the forward turret.
In general, well-written, but sentences tend to be long, and could benefit from a few commas. Also, I'm a bit concerned that it relies so heavily on one source, McLaughlin. Were there no others available? Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
McLaughlin is the only substantial source in English on these ships and I don't read Russian where there's a little more material. Thanks for looking it over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of Russian ships is does not receive a lot of scholarly attention. The formation of the Soviet Union and the Cold War limited most works to basic facts and conjectures (G&D in Axis and Neutral Battleships of World War II, published 1985, said something like "information on Russian ships is quite limited" due to that), and only now are some of the records being opened for study. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 21:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that will have to do, then. Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not too happy with the writing on this one so far. Could have used a peer review, perhaps. I see the GA review was done by a ships person with no substantive feedback on the writing; this can make it a challenge to weed out jargon and so on. Not checked for copyvio, as none of the sources are accessible to me. Examples of writing problems:
Obviously you failed to note that it gotten a thorough review at ACR and needed very little work on jargon, as non-specialist reviewers such as Hchc2009 noted very few issues with such here.
"The start of World War I slowed their construction still further" What is still doing?
Fixed, by clarifying that the delays began when they had to revised the armor scheme after the ships had begun construction.
Many perplexing article and preposition choices, even in the lead (ex. why "useful for the war effort" and not useful to? The "for" construction normally precedes a gerund, such as "useful for drinking")
The first sentence of Design and Development is a bear... many ideas expressed there, not all clearly related. As written, it's unclear if you are building a causal relationship between Admiral Tōgō's action and the ship request, or just stating it incidentally.
Seems pretty clear to me that there was a causal relation between the design and what Togo did to the Russian fleet at Tsushima.
"Preliminary bids for these ships were solicited from private builders" The narrative grows confusing here. How were the bids solicited when there was never a vote to approve them?
Probably because the bids bound neither side to anything.
"The Russian Navy believed that widely separating the main gun magazines improved survivability and that the open sighting hoods on their turrets prevented superfiring turrets from firing their guns over the lower turret." Here I am completely lost as a general reader. I could discover what "magazines" are in this context, but you've said nothing thus far about their being widely separated. What does that mean? Far apart from each other? This sentence should follow a sentence where you describe that meaning, how far apart they were, etc. "Survivability" is jargon—I have no clues as to what that could mean here. The rest, I'm afraid is impossible to follow.
You may have something here about the distribution of the turrets not being properly set up. Lemme think about it. Nobody else thought survivability is jargon. It's a form of survivable, something most every reader can understand.
I understand the definition of the word. What I'm saying is that I don't understand how it is applied here. Survivability of what? The magazines, the guns, or the whole ship? --Andy Walsh(talk) 03:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I hadn't noticed your responses in the barrage of other responses over the last week. OK, now I understand what you had an issue with. Clarified by referring to the survivability of the ship.
Next, you're writing about the bids again, after the lone sentence about it in the preceding paragraph. They were rejected for not meeting which criteria? The original or revised?
Whole new set of bids to the new specification. I've clarified it; see how it works for you.
You mention a four-turret design, but previously you wrote the specs called for nine turrets.
Not at all, read it again. I said three triple gun turrets.
I quote: "armament increased to nine 14-inch (356 mm) guns in non-superfiring triple-gun turrets". It's clearly confusing, since I read it as "nine" when you really meant to say "three groups of three". What you said just above (three triple gun turrets) is actually much better. --Andy Walsh(talk) 03:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, clarified it with three non-superfiring triple-gun turrets.
In the third para, you mention that the changed specs resulted in higher costs—I thought they were trying to lower costs per the first para.
Read the second paragraph again, it quite clearly says that the specifications were revised by adding a fourth turret in the middle of the bid process and that the Duma approved the ships before the fourth turret was added to the design.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that addresses the issue of cost, I'm sorry. --Andy Walsh(talk) 03:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Duma approved the design in May before the design was finalized in September with an extra turret added. All that extra steel costs more and the Russians had to scrounge money from other projects to pay for the Borodinos. All of which is spelled out in the third para.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped reading here, but suffice it to say that I found it very confusing. I am very sorry to say so, because you have put a lot of work into it. I think it desperately needs a thorough copy-edit from a non-specialist. Not just a light dusting, either—someone needs to dig in a look at sentence structure, organization, and so on. --Andy Walsh(talk) 05:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Weak Support I really like this article, but I seriously think it isn't really ready yet. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 20:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea whose oppose this is: will the nominator please attach a sig up here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Curious, since you made no such comments earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does "(false) rumour that the Germans..." really need to be parenthesized?
No.
First World War → World War I, is standard.
I've been informed that it's a Britishism.
I use "First World War" in my articles as well, doesn't seem like this is a big deal. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 06:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the more experienced, objection withdrawn.
List the reason why Germany wouldn't make the bearings first, not a sentence later for the turbines.
The first mention is the Soviets searching for new sources, not about them being seized like the turbines were.
Why wouldn't the Germans make them?
Huh? The Germans made the bearings before the war and wouldn't make them after the war began. Seems fairly logical.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Use "draught", the infobox doesn't use "draft"
Good catch
"The double bottom was 1.275 meters (4 ft 2.2 in) deep..." Wait, what does that mean? Does that mean the bottoms were 4ft apart?
Yes.
Say it. It's like some jargon to the unexperienced.
"The ships were fitted with three Frahm anti-rolling tanks on each side to reduce their rolling motion." I'm seeing some unnecessary repetition.
Agreed.
Is there an article for the Model 1913 guns?
No.
"Four 38-calibre 64-millimeter (2.5 in) anti-aircraft guns were intended to be fitted somewhere on the upper deck with 220 rounds per gun." Somewhere? Do you have any specific info?
No.
Sources aren't always explicit and like to say that they would be "on the upper deck" etc. without specifying. For the same reason Sturm, you should be able to get away without using "somewhere." Ed[talk][majestic titan] 06:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aft of the funnel, abaft, anything except "somewhere." It doesn't sound right.
Oh really. That's why I'm opposing. You can't even find this?
I never checked, to be honest. I don't think that it needs a link and it isn't worth my time to see if such a link exists. If your opposition is predicated on such picayune details as a link for a term that I don't think needs linking then we're done here. You've made some helpful comments, but this sort of shit is a waste of my time. At least AndyWalsh, for all that I disagree with his comments, has more substantial issues to base his oppose upon than trivial stuff like links. All of which you could have dealt with yourself if you thought that they were so important. WP:Be Bold ring a bell?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. If you would like, I could have given you some even better comments, concerning breadth of sources. My GA has more references than this. Can't you find anything else, another book maybe? If there is all this little trivial stuff still in here, too, you obviously didn't spend a lot of time on it. I'm sorry if I'm getting into a disagreement, but if you didn't even spend enough time to clean those out, how can we know you took care of the other things? Small grammatical details are also part of the citeria for FA, FYI and good links should be too, IMHO.
Again, an oppose based on this is not actionable. The subject of the article, a ship in the waning days of the Russia flowing into the Soviet Union, does not lend itself to scholarly sources (ie not conjecture and hypotheses) because sources were kept secret until recently. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 05:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I've got stubs with more sources. So what? You're a ships guy, if you can find further detailed references in English, dated after the end of the Cold War, please do so and I'll happily evaluate what they've got to say. And you can beat me over the head with something that I missed. My maritime library is linked on my userpage so you don't waste time looking for books I've already got.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you seriously do, your elves must be getting lazy, not even submitting those for B-class. And I'll be beating the brush of my library system and Google Books. And if I find one, I will beat you over the head if you want me to.
The Cup pretty well burnt me out and my output has dropped tremendously. I've built a number of stubs that have an infobox, one line of text and a full list of refs so I can expand them somepoint in the future.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"No further proposals were made to complete Izmail as a battlecruiser, but she was almost converted into an aircraft carrier." → "No further proposals were made to complete Izmail as a battlecruiser, but proposals were made to convert her into an aircraft carrier."
I dislike the repetition of "proposals" in your formulation.
I dunno, I just don't like the "almost." It sounds a little informal.
→"Although no further proposals were made to complete Izmail as a battlecruiser, some were made to convert her into an aircraft carrier."
Doesn't thrill me either. I could change almost to nearly if that helps any.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The turbines were powered by 25 triangular Yarrow water-tube boilers with a working pressure of 17 kg/cm2 (1,667 kPa; 242 psi)." What is a triangular boiler?WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 00:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but link to the Yarrow section of the article instead of the article proper.
The curious are perfectly capable on hitting the link on the TOC for the section on Yarrow. They don't need to be spoonfed everything.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't sufficient. Some are still WikiBabes, unknown to the capabilities of the TOC Force . Neither do you need to be lazy and not spoonfeed them when neccessary.
Pretty much everybody on the net can recognize a link when they see it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've hit the limit on my image manipulation skills.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Get somebody else to do it for you. It shouldn't be hard with a good-sized parcel of determination.
Sorry, determination for inappropriate requests is lacking.
Um, but what does inappropriate mean in this context? I definitely can't because I have a ban on installing programs onto my computer, that includes photo-editing software. Maybe Mono? He created the OMT banner, as I recall.
It's undoubtedly fixable, but I don't believe that it's my responsibility to do so in a FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can easily fix it, but... are we allowed to do this with a non-free image? If we are, I'm happy to clean it up. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you could that would be great. You can do anything you like to the image, free or non-free, but you have to give credit to the original artist/source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See if you prefer the version I've just uploaded. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No prob's. Happy to help| Hchc2009 (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Looking good.
"At full load, 80 rounds per gun were carried." In the turret proper, barbette or magazine?
Likely all in the magazine, as far as I know no dreadnought of any nation carried shells or powder anywhere other than in the magazine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes a portion was carried combat-ready in the turret or handling rooms in the barbette. Check, will ya?
In combat is different; other than that storage was likely in the magazines. I've got nothing that says different, remember that the ships were never finished.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Section Protection needs inline citations after the sentences that state that Krupp armor was used and the thicknesses of the armor, not at the end of the paragraph.
Why? They're not extraordinary claims and the same cite applies to the whole para.
Make that clear. It doesn't look like it.
"...Army being strongly opposed to spending additional money on naval projects." You and I probably know why, but the average reader doesn't.WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your point. The reason seems perfectly clear to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read carefully what I said. It might appear perfectly clear to you and me, but probably not to the average electrican or layman. Explain why, maybe, or add a link to an article that explains. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 03:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's pretty plain that the Army didn't want money spent on the Navy lest said money come out of the Army's pocket.
"In the meantime, however, full-scale armor trials had revealed serious weaknesses in the protection scheme." What weaknesses? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 03:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the weakness are described by the list of what changes had to be made, but you may have a valid point if I can think of a good way to rephrase that bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I can figure out is that they figured a shell could punch through the armor they've already got and blast the ship to pieces. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 00:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't nearly that simple. The armor wasn't strongly enough supported and plates were displaced during the Chesma trials by hits. So they reinforced the supporting structure and locked the plates together to better distribute the shock of impact.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you state that? Some experts might want to know what happened.
I'm guessing from your non-free image use rationale for the infobox image that you don't have any other images, do you?WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 03:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This says (all) the ships were laid down in 1913, not 1912.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a naval reference, probably picked up the date from Breyer or somesuch.
Agreed, plus general encyclopedias (especially ones edited by Tucker) are not suitable as references for specific information like this, see WP:TERTIARY. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 21:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Partially, but 13 inches of belt armor puts it in firmly in the battleship category for that period and that's not what the Russians were interested in. Contemporary accounts, especially one covering developments in a foreign country must always be regarded warily when it comes to stats.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the number of 130-mm guns? 21 is quite a few, even the Iowas had more secondaries. That's the most I ever heard from anybody for any capital ship. But still, could you check it out? Also, is it possible that the ship was longer or had more machinery than usual to attain their 26.5 kn top speed? The North Carolina/South Dakotas had even more belt armor, but were able to go faster. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 21:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the diagram, they had a dozen 130-mm guns on each side. The ships were enormous and would have been the among the largest in the world at full load if they'd been finished. They were longer than HMS Tiger (1913) for example. They were designed from the beginning to reach that speed so they were larger, longer and had more horsepower than any other Russian ships built thus far.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but is it possible that the diagram is incorrect? maybe the disparity is an extra four side guns and one gun on the stem or stern ommitted? Can you explain the disparity? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 04:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to explain it, all of my modern sources say 24 guns. See my comment above about period sources on foreign ships. Don't forget to sign after your oppose above, as SandyGeorgia, one of the FAC delegates, requested.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a 1915 source written in the middle of a war (see fog of war). In most cases, more modern scholarship overrides older works, and I see no reason to make an exception here. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 21:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, at least for now, on the basis of 1a. I agree with Andy Walsh's comments above; someone needs to go through and copyedit the whole article. A few examples:
"The Borodino class were ..... Since when was "class" a plural noun?
Fixed
"... the Tsar approved construction of four such ships on 5 May 1911, but the Duma session ended before they could be voted on." The Duma wasn't going to vote on the ships (they) but on the construction of the ships (it).
Fixed.
"A new specification was issued on 1 July 1911 for a design with a speed of only 26.5 knots (49.1 km/h; 30.5 mph) while the armor was increased to 254 mm (10 in) and the armament increased to nine 14-inch (356 mm) guns in three non-superfiring triple-gun turrets,[2] based on a false rumor that the Germans were increasing the caliber of their guns." That's rather a rambling sentence with a number of problems. It's too long for one thing, and designs don't have speed. "While" isn't right here either, as that implies sopme degree of simultaneity.
Why doesn't "while" work? Both changes were made at the same time. Split the sentence.
No, what's being linked here is the issue of a new specification (with a reduced design speed) and an increase in the armor. Clearly both could not have happened at the same time. MalleusFatuorum 18:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's not necessarily a link between the reduced speed and increased armor. It worked out this way because the Navy wasn't willing to pay for both, but it could certainly have done so if the money had been available.
"... and that the open sighting hoods on their turrets prevented superfiring turrets from firing their guns over the lower turret". I have no idea what any of that means. "Open sighting hoods"? "Superfiring turrets"?
Superfiring is linked. Clarified the rest. How does it read now?
"The gun turrets had the most parts ordered abroad and had the greatest problems". Rather awkwardly written.
Deleted as not really necessary.
"These were divided among four compartments on the platform deck, two each forward and aft of the machinery. These powered the complex electrical system ...".
Clarified.
"Eighteen torpedoes were carried for them." Carried for the torpedoe tubes? Seems like very strange phrasing.
Substituted provided for carried.
"50 mm plates protected the gun ports and 25 mm bulkheads separated each gun." A sentence ought not to start with a number.
Not any rule I'm familiar with, but I've rephrased it.
The MoS very clearly says "Render as words numbers that begin sentences. However, it is often better to recast the sentence so that it does not start with a number." [35]MalleusFatuorum 18:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"... a double turret of which weighed slightly less than a triple 14-inch turret." Why "of which"?
What's next is that you or someone else ought to look through the article for similar problems, as I only gave a few examples. MalleusFatuorum 18:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It had a thorough copyedit at ACR, but you and AndyWalsh parse things much differently. So I'm not at all sure that asking somebody else to re-copyedit it will catch the things that you two find objectionable.
It needs to be done though, at least in my opinion. MalleusFatuorum 20:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, isn't there a "the" missing in "Also referred to as Izmail class"?
Yes.
"The incomplete hulls were later sold for scrap by the Soviet Union". They could hardly have been sold sooner.
Later was meant to reference the Soviet plans to finish the ships, which didn't happen, and they were sold after those plans fell through.
"The outbreak of the Russian Revolution in 1917 put a stop to their construction". It wasn't the outbreak of the revolution that halted their construction, it was the revolution.
True.
"... but this plan was later cancelled as a result of political maneuvering by the Red Army". Couldn't have have been cancelled sooner.
Related to the first usage.
"... the bids proved to be very high, enough so that the requirements were reconsidered". "Enough so that" is very awkward.
Any suggested rephrasing? Because all I'm coming up with is "which forced reconsideration of the requirements as too ambitious", which I'm not that fond of.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "Borodino" not italicised in the infobox image caption?
Fixed.
you are using British-style dates; do you want to use British-style spelling (armour)? --Diannaa(Talk) 19:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should already be in BritEnglish unless I've missed a few words, which is always possible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only one that jumps out at me is armor/armour; I will see if I can spot any others. --Diannaa(Talk) 20:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Maintaining my opposition. While I appreciate the superficial copyedit, it needs more thorough work on structure and narrative as I mentioned previously. For example, the Construction section was barely touched, and it needs a lot of work:
The writing (partly through a propensity for passive voice) obscures or eliminates needed information. For example, read the first two paragraphs of the section. Any number of individuals or organizations are alluded to, but none are actually mentioned. Who completed the progress review? It was clear to whom that Russian industry couldn't complete the ships? Who reclassified? "A number of plans were made for the post-war completion of the ships" By whom? And so on.
The narrative remains confusing to me. Ex. "Three of the four ships were launched in 1915" Well, launched means put in water to go, yes? Later, you say that in 1917 the most complete ship had 65% of a hull. It sounds impossible to me. I understand that there is probably a logical explanation underlying it that a ship person would take for granted, but it's not accessible to the general reader.
The problems that you mention go beyond the scope of copy editing as the information you are looking for is not present in the article as it now stands. --Diannaa(Talk) 20:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I diasgree with you and agree with Andy. It's important to have a clear narrative, not just to make sure that the grammar and spelling are correct. That's what copyediting is about as far as I'm concerned, which is why I have such little regard for the Guild of Copyeditors. My oppose stands as well. MalleusFatuorum 20:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask Dank if he has time to look at the article. --Diannaa(Talk) 20:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Hello everyone; today I bring "Slug" to your attention as a featured article candidate. "Slug" is a little known song crafted by Passengers; a sideproject by U2 and Brian Eno in the mid-1990s which they did as a warm-up for the next U2 album. The article may appear to be on the short side at first glance, but I can assure you that it is as comprehensive as it is possible for it to be, and that it meets the notability criteria set out at WP:NSONG. I have combed through every print and web-based resource I could find, and one or two that others provided to me. I believe that the article meets all of the featured article criteria, and so I bring it to now to your attention. I hope that you enjoy the article, and I look forward to your feedback. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there no song cover for the article? Also, can you place the music sample in the recording section like in many modern articles.--AlastorMoody (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was not released as a single, so no cover art exists for it. The U2 WikiProject has generally found that for song articles, the infobox is the simplest and least obtrusive place to include a sample. Do you feel that changing the position of the sample would be of value, or is it just a personal preference based on aesthetics? Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
City of Blinding Lights (today's featured article) has the music sample in the infobox, so I don't think it is necessary to put the sample in the body of the article for FA status. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DAB/EL Check - no dabs (there was one in a template, but I fixed that), no external link problems. --PresN 19:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1b, 2a, 1d
Its better than last time, but needs some copy editing and I think some of my major concerns from before are still there:
1b, 2a the lead mentions briefly why the album was notable (U2 & Eno; critical reception) but the song doesn't appear to me to have been particularly critically acclaimed (no single,wasn't popular with fans according to the survey and won no awards) but you don't get that impression from reading the lead or the article. Similarly, the lead doesn't accurately summarize the critical reception and popularity; or in my opinion, lack there of.
1d There's problem with describing the song as fan's 'third favourite on the album' based on those fan surveys since it was a distant 3rd and not really statistically distinct from the other unpopular songs on the album. Without some kind of synthesis on how to derive relative popularity from web-based fan surveys of popular music from a secondary source, I think those surveys are an example of the problems described in WP:Primary.
1d/1b - for a song that ended up being unpopular with fans one would think there would be a fair amount of negative press too, and it wasn't exactly a financial success since it only appears on one album, no single. For example, when a song gets 4 starts out of 5, is that good, bad or meh?
That's my opinion; I'm open to changing my mind based on what other reviewers thing is appropriate for FA articles about popular music. Kirk (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the bit about the fan survey on various levels, therefore I went ahead and removed it entirely from the article. The survey didn't necessarily give the notion that it was poorly received by fans, since it was ranked 3rd best song on the album. But the small 4% vote does throw readers off, so it was best to do away with it. I edited the lead a bit to state how it was well received by many critics, including two major music magazines. Looking over the lead again, it seems to summarize the entire article and better state the notability of the song. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel like this isn't researched well enough because I think the article should explain why the song was not popular, not a financial success, and won no awards. Removing the fan survey just addresses my 1d concern and makes 1b worse - the survey, while flawed, did explain the unpopularity of the song. I still feel like the article should address the obvious lack of financial success & fan popularity (no single, no live performances), and not winning awards because if it was a financial success, popular with fans and was nominated for awards that would be in the article. Like I said earlier, other reviewers may disagree. Kirk (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained to you the last time around, that information does not exist. There are a variety of reasons for why that might be, but those are only speculations and can't be included. I am not sure why you are so hung-up on what you perceive as being unpopularity among fans when you previously said that the inclusion of the survey was problematic since there was no synthesis on what the results meant. You are drawing your own conclusions from those results, and there is simply no way to cite that.
I also do not see how it is possible to reference a statement saying that it did not win awards and was not played live. As I invited you the last time, if you know of a way to say and reference that something hasn't happened, please tell me. Otherwise I am at a loss as to how you expect me to address your points. Everything that can be established has been so. What you are asking for are details that simply do not exist. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would help explain the relative unpopularity of the track if we gave a summary view of the Passengers project as a whole near the end: the release was intended to be an experimental one with Eno to fill the void between Zooropa and the band's next studio album, and because it was not marketed as a U2 release, it went relatively unnoticed and was swept under the rug in many cases (see Larry Mullen's retrospective comments indicating regret/disinterest). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting suggestion, but how would we relate that information specifically to "Slug"? If I recall correctly those sources do not mention the song specifically, so adding it might just seem like some unrelated trivia about the album that it was on. Do you have an idea on how to properly integrate it? I'm not adverse to adding it in, I'm just having a hard time seeing how it could be done so in a way that would answer Kirk's concerns. Melicans (talkcontributions,) 23:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for taking so long to respond; I got swamped with the number of term papers I had left to write. Can you provide any specific examples of where copyediting is needed? I've given the article a thorough look but nothing jumped out at me; probably because my eyes are stale when it comes to looking at this article. I think that Dream out loud's edits, in which the fan survey results were removed, to Reception and to the lead addressed pretty much all of the concerns you outlined above. Thanks very much for the feedback. Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've given the article a bit of a run-through/copyedit, and I think it is looking a bit better. I admit I have never been entirely satisfied with lumping everything together under "Writing, recording and theme", and I think this reworking improves it somewhat. Any thoughts? Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like Melicans said earlier, nowhere does it say in the article that this song was "unpopular" nor can that information be cited anyhow. I don't see how a song that was praised as one of the best on its album by a couple major music magazines can be considered "unpopular". If we went into more detail about the unpopularity of the album, that would be going a little off-topic because that information should be in the Original Soundtracks 1 article, and this article is about the song, not the album. It was also said that the song was not a financial success. How can a song make money? It was not released as a single, and was only a song on the album. The album can generate profits, but the individual song cannot. But still it is being said that this article fails 1b and 1d. Criteria 1b states that an article "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context", and I think it has been made clear that extensive amounts of research was done to include every possible known fact about this song and that no details have been left out. And stating the song is "unpopular" is not a detail that needs to be included as we have clearly established that that was not the case. Criteria 1d states that an article "presents views fairly and without bias", and I don't think this article has any issues with WP:NPOV as it appears to be very neutral. Again, not stating the song is "unpopular" does not affect its neutrality because, again, we have clearly established that that was not the case. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the lead: "Following its release, "Slug" was praised as one of the best songs on the album by many critics, including music magazines Rolling Stone and Uncut." which begs the question, if critics liked it so much, why was there no single, it won no awards, it wasn't popular with fans (chart position, concert performances)? I'm also concerned about bias because since it seemed to be a financial flop so there had to be some reviewers who said the song wasn't that good, or the good reviews you cited really were not mediocre in music-reviewer-speak. If you don't want to answer these questions, or can't find a citation from a secondary source, or you think they are stupid questions you just have to get support from other reviewers to gain a consensus - this process doesn't have to be unanimous. Kirk (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I believe has already been explained by Y2kcrazyjoker4, Original Soundtracks 1 itself was not widely promoted and was a commercial disappointment. The planned second single, "Your Blue Room", was cancelled because the album was a failure. We cannot speculate if "Slug" would have been released had the album been a commercial success; but discussing the failure of the album in this article would going too far off-topic, and it's implementation would have little or no connection at all to "Slug". Drawing the conclusion that "Slug" wasn't released as a single because the album was not a success would be pure WP:OR. I still don't see how an individual song can be considered to be a "financial flop" either; as Dream out loud pointed out, an individual song cannot generate profits unless it is released as a single; which we have clearly established multiple times, in this FAC and the last, that "Slug" is not. Your supposition that the song received negative reviews based on this "lack of financial success" is the largest original conclusion that I have ever seen; the two factors are completely unrelated. Something that receives terrible reviews, whether a book, film, or album, can make a lot of money, and the reverse is also true. I've searched every single source and review that I could find, and not once did I see a negative spin on the song. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments: Sources look OK (spotchecks carried out on online sources). A little untidiness in the citations, e.g. some page numbers preceded by "p.", others not; I suspect this is a consequence of templates. Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Source templates have been cleaned up for consistency. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I linked Uncut, but publishers are not necessary unless for major publications (ex: printed newspapers, magazines, popular websites). In fact in a previous FA review, an editor told me to remove the publisher parameter from most of my references for that reason. I mean, they could be easily added in, but there wouldn't be much purpose. Anyone could click on the link of the publication and get the publisher info right there. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I don't really mind, I just thought that it was common practise. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the removing publisher parameters for that reason. First of all, according to WP:CITEHOW, you should use a citation style, and you should be consistent applying that style. In many styles you can omit publishers for well known newspapers/magazines because its usually the newspaper or magazine (i.e. New York Times); for others it adds credibility. I don't think Uncut is in the same league as the NYT; I would second adding a publisher. Kirk (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article has undergone significant expansion, copy-editing and a peer-review since its GA promotion two-and-a-half years ago. It is extensive in its coverage of not only his NHL career, but his Swedish career, early life and personal life. I prepared this article for FAC in lieu of his Canucks jersey retirement taking place on December 11. I would greatly appreciate any comments/reviews. Cheers. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a general rule of thumb that images with faces should look into the text, this is particularly important for infobox images, but otherwise fine Fasach Nua (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but what is the rationale behind this? Could you please direct me to a guideline or previous discussion? –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 04:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the images in this article follow this pattern (except arguably the last one). However, I feel that the infobox should contain the best image to illustrate the subject, which, in my opinion, is the current one. The guideline also notes that there is considerable leeway when adhering to it ("images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines"). –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 08:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely err on the side of common sense, have a look on flickr for images, in the advanced search option you can specify creative commons, you may find an equally good picture facing the other way. However I certainly won't oppose on this issue. Fasach Nua (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All available pictures on flickr are already uploaded. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:Support all concerns resolved. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The city with a population of 30,000..." Awkward sentence. Rather than note the population, I'd mention the fact that it is known for producing several quality hockey players in a little better detail.
"After a season of junior, Näslund joined Modo's professional team in the Elitserien..." Instead of saying professional, it should say something about it being their top-tier team, as that is more notable.
Later on in the sentence though, it mentions that the Elitserien is the country's premiere league. Does that accomplish the same thing you're thinking of or no? Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...Näslund did not participate in post-season play and watched as Washington eliminated Pittsburgh in the first round." Need to clarify what it means by him watching; some reference to him being a healthy scratch (which I presume is the case).
I had originally written that he was a healthy scratch but it was replaced by the current wording by a copy editor because it was deemed too 'jargony'. What I've done before is link healthy scratch to a wiktionary listing or add footnotes. Thoughts? Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In 14 games with Pittsburgh, he scored two goals and four points..." WP:MOSNUM says not to mix written numbers with digits.
"...he was named to his first NHL All-Star Game in 1999." An awkward sentence. Would be better as "first All-Star game, held in January 1999." This is repeated again in regards to the 2001 All-Star game.
Ok, I've changed that. I'm wondering how I should go about linking now. Should I link the year or the word "All-Star Game"? Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"On March 27, he scored his 100th point of the season..." Seems to be the only highlight of his career where the opposition is not named. Why not mention it was the Coyotes (only know that because I was there).
"...but was surpassed by Avalanche forwards Peter Forsberg and Milan Hejduk." Add "respectively" after Hejduk, otherwise it implies they both passed Naslund for goals and point.
This may be personal opinion, but I don't think you need to mention that the Pearson Award was renamed in this article.
..."capturing the inaugural 2008 Victoria Cup." Since its the inaugural Victoria Cup, the year is not needed.
..."Näslund was named an alternate captain to Chris Drury for the Rangers." Don't really need to include Drury here, as alternate captains don't really work for the captains.
Prague doesn't need to be linked as it doesn't help the article at all, but if you want the link to stay I'd expand it to read as Prague, Czech Republic and look less awkward. This is repeated a few more times.
"...1989 Four Nations Tournament in Russia." Russia didn't exist in 1989.
Wrist shot should be linked.
Good article, well written aside from those details. Nice to see another Canucks-related article up at FAC. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I addressed all the above concerns, with the exception of the a few that I commented on. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to him being scratched, I'd say a link to the term would suffice. As for the All-Star Games, I would link the term itself, unless the context requires different. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
General point: there is significant repeat referencing, where a single citation would do. For example, the third paragraph of the Early Life section has three successive cites to [4]. There are other examples of successive citing that should be attended to.
Just to clarify then, I should remove the previous two citations in the third paragraph and have just one at the end of the paragraph? Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strings of four citations are unnecessary to support simple facts.
Are you referring to the first paragraph from the "West Coast Express" section? I cited four sources, as I thought this was a more a matter of opinion and would have needed multiple citations from difference sources to support that this was a widely-accepted notion. The same goes for the third paragraph of the "Playing style" section. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "He matched that points total the following season before helping Modo to the quarterfinals of the Elitserien playoffs" is cited to Ref 13. I don't see any reference to this in the source.
It's mentioned in the fifth paragraph of the article. Did you want a reference for "He matched that points total the following season" as well though? Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources and citations look OK. Spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Vancouver Canucks: "Stojanov, who had been drafted eight spots ahead of Naslund in the 1991 Draft went on to play 45 games." Hate to harp on the punctuation, but there should definitely be a comma after "1991 Draft".
"prompting him to request to a trade once again." Remove the second "to".
What is sourcing the sentences on his season statistics that are ending a couple of the paragraphs here?Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I've fixed the first two issues. In regards to sourcing stats, did you mean you want a source for each season statistic? Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that when something like "He finished the year with 14 goals and 34 points over 76 games" is in an article, it should be cited like everything else. If the stats are all covered by present references, feel free to leave things as is. If not, which appears to be the case in several spots, those stats need to be referenced. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. I've gone ahead and referenced all the season stat totals. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1a, for the moment: This looks to be a thorough and well researched article, but I'm afraid at the moment it seriously needs a copy-edit. There are several problems with prose and it does not read well. I've read as far as the Modo hockey section so far. Normally, I would try to copy-edit myself, but I don't have time at present. I would suggest a non-hockey editor has a look, and I imagine the sections I have not read properly need copyediting as well. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References seemed to check out, up to end of Modo hockey section. However, this one was a little close for comfort (ref 4):
Original: For most of his youth he played organized hockey on outdoor ice in his neighborhood.
Article: In his youth, he played most of his organized hockey on an outdoor rink in his neighbourhood.
Lead
Three successive sentences begin with "he" in the first paragraph. In fact, the prose in the whole lead is not good. Out of 15 sentences, 7 begin "he", 3 begin "Naslund" or "Marcus Naslund" and 3 begin "in".
The lead also uses lists of information too much, for example "Näslund was a three-time First Team All-Star, chosen in 2002, 2003 and 2004, and a Lester B. Pearson Award recipient, winning in 2003" and "in two European Junior Championships, two World Junior Championships, four World Championships, two World Cups and one Winter Olympics". This could be summarised more for the lead.
Could something be added here (I assume it is later in the article) about his ability or reputation, as well as the awards he won?
Started to work on the lead a little bit, but I'd welcome anyone else taking a crack at it. In regards to having a more concise summary, would it help to remove the years? Also, pretty much all his major awards have been mentioned in the lead, including team awards, so I'm not sure how much more I can add in that regard. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
"The city is known for producing numerous NHL players..." I'm sure it is known for more than that, so what about "The city has produced..."
"including childhood friend and former Modo Hockey teammate Peter Forsberg, as well as former Canucks teammates, Henrik and Daniel Sedin.": Not sure about "former teammate": presumably they are former teammates now (is it teammate or team-mate?) but weren't when he was a child, which is when this section is describing. I would prefer "future" team-mate or simply "Modo players"/"Canucks players".
Any details about his organised hockey? For example, how was he selected for the regional team?
Three sentences in a row begin with prepositional phrases ("growing up", "in his youth" and "at age 14") Then later, two sentences in a row begin "they".
Any more details about his upbringing and education?
Details about his early life has been hard to come by, but if I encounter anything about his upbringing or education, I'll be sure to add it. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Modo hockey
"a mark which stood as the highest points total for a 17 year old in the history of the league for 12 years until Robert Nilsson broke the record in 2002–03 with 21." Clumsy sentence, particularly "with 21" at the end. What about "a record points total for a 17 year old in the league until Robert Nilsson scored 21 in 2002–03."
I usually have this problem, so feel free to ignore it, but I think drafting needs explaining to those outside of North America who are not too familiar. Is there a link, or a simple one sentence explanation?
"He compared Näslund to the Los Angeles Kings' Swedish forward Tomas Sandström, though not as aggressive..." Not sure about "though not as agressive". What about "although he did not consider him as aggressive a player".
"a purer goal-scorer": How can a goal-scorer be pure? Maybe "a natural goal-scorer" or "more natural goal-scorer".
Lots more "he"s starting sentences in this section.
I also scanned through the rest of the article and noticed that although there is a playing style section, nothing really seems to mention how good he was, for example opinions of critics, journalists and coaches.
Thanks for your comments.. I've been pretty busy lately, but I hope to begin addressing them soon. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query - I can't tell who the oppose above belongs to. Nominator, can you figure it out and attach a signature? --Andy Walsh(talk) 15:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was me, I had my signature after my comments but I've added one to the oppose now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Severe Tropical Cyclone Monica, one of the most intense storms in Australian history, was about as "perfect" of a cyclone as you can ever get. The storm broke the satellite intensity estimate scale, exceeding an 8.0 on a scale of 1-8, and struck land at this strength. Despite its extreme intensity, there was relatively minimal structural damage; however, catastrophic environmental damage took place. Thousands of square kilometres of trees were destroyed by the storms' 360 km/h (225 mph) wind gusts, some of which were over 200 years old. According to studies of the region, it will take another 100 years for the region to recover from Monica. That said, I believe that this article meets the FAC requirements and is ready for nomination. All comments on the article are welcome and encouraged. Hope you enjoy reading this as much as I did writing it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you mention the bit about Monica possibly being the strongest SHEM storm twice, with very similar wording.
"Using the dvorak technique, the peak intensity of the cyclone was estimated over 320 km/h (200 mph) along with a minimum pressure below 869 mbar (hPa; 25.66 inHg); if accurate, those measurements would have made Monica the most powerful cyclone ever recorded worldwide. At its peak, Monica exceeded a T# of 8.0, the highest ranking on the Dvorak Scale, meaning the storm was more intense than could be recorded.[12]"
"using the dvorak technique, the peak intensity of the cyclone was estimated over 320 km/h (200 mph) along with a minimum pressure below 869 hPa (mbar). At its peak, Monica exceeded a T# of 8.0, the highest ranking on the Dvorak Scale, meaning the storm was more intense than could be recorded. Although unofficial, this would make Monica the strongest known tropical cyclone in history, eclipsing Typhoon Tip of 1979.[12]
The former (in the MH) asserts the uncertainty, although it doesn't include a source about being the "most powerful ever in the world". Likewise, the source is just a stream of data, so it doesn't say anything "the storm was more intense than could be recorded", so that could use explanation. You should eliminate the redundancies, first of all, and you should also explain these sections better, and with more sourcing. You say that the JTWC estimate would have made it the most intense in the SHEM, but you don't say how the JTWC is unofficial. Officially, the strongest in the SHEM is still Zoe. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've started to clear things up, just need a bit more guidance from here. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments:-
Ref 22: Italicise The Age
Ref 24: Italicise Travel Weekly (I assume this is a journal)
Ref 26: Publisher lacking (CBS News)
Ref 36: What physical form does this source take?
Limited spotchecking on available sources didn't identify further problems. Other than the above issues, sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Does not meet several WIAFA criteria, in my opinion: Sasata (talk) 07:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1(a) well-written: here are issues I found from just the lead. There are similar problems throughout the article:
lead sentence: "Severe Tropical Cyclone Monica was the most intense tropical cyclone, in terms of maximum winds," What is meant by maximum winds? Maximum wind speed?
"The storm quickly developed into a Category 1 cyclone" could we non-specialists have a link to explain cyclone categories?
deep convection - link?
Same thing as convection (which is linked) basically, just more of it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Early on 22 April, the Bureau of Meteorology assessed Monica" what Bureau? Australian? (link)
"The JTWC also upgraded Monica" What is the JTWC?
"… barometric pressure of 916 hPa (mbar)" shouldn't units be wlinked on first usage (especially in the lead, which should be especially accessible to all readers)?
"Less than 24-hours after landfall," why the hyphen?
"the storm had weakened to a tropical low." link tropical low
"No injuries were reported throughout the storm's existence" But were any reported afterwards? Might be better to say "… were reported to have occurred during the storm's existence"
"However, severe environmental losses took place." Losses took place? Awkward.
"In the Northern Territory, about 7,000 km2 (4,349 mi2) of trees" The first number looks like an approximation, and contrasts with the converted number that has 4 sig figs. Also, I'd suggest rewording to (something like) "In the Northern Territory, an area of about 7,000 km2 was defoliated by …", as the expression 7,000 km2 of trees doesn't parse well. Maybe "snapped and uprooted" if you don't like "defoliated"
why does this article about an Australian cyclone not use British English?
1(b) comprehensive: There are several articles in the scholarly literature that have not been used as sources that should be used to expand the impacts and aftermath sections:
Title: Resprouting responses of trees in a fire-prone tropical savanna following severe tornado damage
Author(s): Franklin, DC; Gunton, RM; Schatz, J, et al.
1(c) well-researched: I carefully checked the citations to reference #1, the source used most frequently. I'm having trouble verifying the following information in the article:
Article: "Late on 17 April, Monica intensified into a Category 2 Cyclone, with winds reaching 95 km/h (60 mph 10-minute sustained).[1][3]" Cannot find in the cited sources where is Category 2 Cyclone is associated with this date; is the "10-minute sustained" implied in the tracking info of reference #3?
Article: "Once back over water, favorable atmospheric conditions allowed the storm to quickly intensify.[1]" where does the source say that?
Article: "Within six hours of passing this town, the Bureau of Meteorology downgraded Monica to a tropical low, no longer producing gale-force winds." is this derived from the source sentence "…by the time it passed through Jabiru only 9 hours later, it had weakened to a Category 2 cyclone. At this point the cyclone began to track in a more westward direction towards Darwin, but weakened to below cyclone intensity only 3 hours later." ? Does the latter mean the former?
Article: "The remnants eventually dissipated on 28 April over central Australia.[1]" Cannot find this in the cited source.
Shown in the track at the top of the report Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article: "Wind gusts up to 108 km/h (67 mph) were recorded as the storm traversed the peninsula.[1]" Cannot find this in the cited source.
"109 km/h gust at Lockhart River, 3pm EST 19 April" - Under Maximum reported wind gusts Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comprehensive review Sasata, I'll continue to work through these when time allows. So far, I've addressed the issues regarding the lead. If you have the time, could you give further comments on the quality of the rest of the article? It would be best for someone other than myself to look through and find places that need fixing (since I would likely be biased towards less errors). I'll see what I can do with those scholarly articles in the coming days as well. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have a lot of time to commit to another in-depth review in the near future (it took me about an hour to come up with the above last night); I've already committed to 3 GA reviews, have an active GAN, and have a number of articles on the backburner that I'm working on. If this nomination gets archived, I'm be happy to help out with a thorough proofreading without any time pressure from FAC constraints. If it helps, I can email you the PDFs for the three Austral Ecology articles mentioned above. Sasata (talk)
DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no real external link problems, though ema.gov.au is currently timing out (I'm inclined to believe that's temporary) and one of the bom.gov.au sources is slightly redirecting, as is the bloomberg link. --PresN 22:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because it is complete. All available sources were used. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This appears unprepared, especially with regard to the quality of writing. It needs a thorough copyedit at the very least, to bring it up to a professional standard of writing—it contains basic grammatical errors. --Andy Walsh(talk) 01:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Leszek, you will always need a native speaker to give your stuff a good copyedit before sending it to FA. In addition the context of the MS and the meaning of the technical terms used would need a fair amount of expansion for FA. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because it is a completed article about a major figure in the history of cricket. --Jack | talk page 16:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I don't like to be negative about an article that has clearly absorbed a huge amount of effort, but...
16,000+ words of text is far too many. Have you read WP:LENGTH?
A WP biography should summarise and discuss the main events of the subject's life. A section for each of Sutcliffe's 20-odd playing seasons is extreme overdetailing. A comparable article, Wilfred Rhodes (which is featured), deals with the player's career in broad phases, not season by season. The article comes in at 8,000 words - and Rhodes had a much longer career than Sutcliffe's.
The article has never been subjected to a formal review. A PR or GAN would, I am sure, have identified the main problems of length and overdetailing. FAC is not a suitable place for the initial review of an article of this length, which the edit history shows to be overwhelmingly the work of a single editor.
There are image issues, too: oversizing and some licencing questions (e.g. the "unknown" authorship of some of the photographs)
References: Although I would expect Hill's biography to be a major source, in this case it is overwhelming - 110 citations (there are about 40 to all the other books combined). This suggests a lack of balance. I would have expected a broader use of available sources, including the biographies of Sutcliffe's contemporaries, and one or more of the available Yorkshire county histories.
There are some excellent cricket biographies that have made FA: apart from Rhodes we have Sid Barnes, Donald Bradman, Douglas Jardine and others. You could look at these as useful models. My advice is to withdraw this nomination, put it to peer review, contact editors with experience of cricket articles, and work with them before bringing this back here. This is not intended as a put-down; the amount of work you have done is awe-inspiring, but FAC has strict criteria which must be met. I'm sure that with appropriate help you will be able to meet them. Brianboulton (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response
I think your views about article length are outdated: browsers can now cope easily enough with large pages and I fail to see why information should be limited because a few people are still using IE2 or whatever. The length guideline needs to be updated: 500k is a long article, not 100k. This article is one of the site's 1000 longest but I wonder how many more of the 1000 are featured?
Your main objection seems to be the season-by-season approach. You are entitled to your opinion but have you considered the readers who are looking for information about the subject? We are not here to "fashion" articles according to the views of some small internal group like yourselves or the similar one that inhabits the CfD pages, but to provide information for the readers. You think the article should be "in broad phases"? Well, I strongly disagree. A sportsman's career is seasonal and his experiences, his successes and failures differ from season to season, each season being a microcosm of the whole and each needing a review in its own right. It would seem that the "FAC strict criteria" were not formulated with the needs of the readership in mind but rather with the opinions of some committee in mind. I suggest that you and your fellow members contact editors with experience of writing articles for the benefit of the readers and also contact readers for their views before you define your "strict criteria".
Re the images, can you be specific about oversizing and I will attend to that? As for ownership, the photos were all taken more than 70 years ago so how do you expect their ownership to be known? There is no dispute about licencing with photos this old. The photos in the article are widespread across several cricket books and there is no indication in any of these that so-and-so has copyright. The same is true of the photos in the other articles you have quoted above.
As for references, there is only one major biography of Sutcliffe whereas there are two of Rhodes, for example. If you look at the Rhodes article, you will see that those two combined have a similar majority over all other books combined. When you say there are c.150 citations, I presume you have excluded the online citations?
What exactly is the problem with a single editor doing the work? Is there some "rule" formulated by the committee that says articles must be collaborations?
Re other review processes, the GAN process is pointless because the guidelines are unclear and open to interpretation: e.g., does it accept short articles or not? It depends on the individual reviewer and so it has no standard. Although a peer review may be useful, there is no obligation to do that before the FAC process, as you seem to imply. The FAC process should be robust enough to perform first reviews rather than relying on others to do the work for it: typical committee mindset. I would point out that the article has been reviewed, perhaps not "formally", by at least two members of WP:CRIC who may be considered subject experts.
Finally, can you justify the FAC process to convince an experienced editor like me, who has created hundreds of articles for the benefit of the readership, that it is worth my time and effort? I note, incidentally, that very few people seem to have interest in taking part in the process. The overwhelming majority of members seem to have voted with their feet. ----Jack | talk page 22:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Your response leaves me no choice, since you are basically saying that the article has been prepared with your own criteria in mind, rather than what you think are misguided and outdated FAC criteria. Unfortunately for your argument, your article has to be judged within the FAC framework. In particular, I would refer you to criterion 4 and its reference to "summary style". You should also remember that you are writing an article for a general encyclopedia, not for a specialist cricket magazine, and this has to be reflected in your approach. I don't know for sure, but I think if this article was promoted it would be the longest or second-longest FA; when Nikita Khrushchev was promoted last year its 13,700 words made it the 4th longest FA. Khrushchev was a world statesman, and with all respect to Sutcliffe's stature as a cricketer, he is not in the world league. In short, this article is far too long to be within the "summary style" criterion, and could easily be made into a shorter and much more readable article. Lack of summary style is my principal grounds for objection, but the following are also problems:-
Images: The fact that a photo was taken 70+ years ago does not automatically mean that it is free under US copyright law, which is what matters here. I suggest you acquaint yourself with WP image policy in this respect.
Sources: Over-reliance on a single source can affect the NPOV of the article. There may be only one recent biography of Sutcliffe, but he has figured in many books. For example in the biographies of his contemporaries (Hobbs, Rhodes, Holmes etc) and in the three Yorkshire county histories (Woodhouse, Hodgson, Stevenson). I believe that use of these would add some variety and extra dimension to the prose.
Collaboration: there is nothing wrong with articles being mainly the work of one editor, but some form of review process is in my view an essential part of any article's development. Articles that come to FAC without any prior review often fail; an editor may stand to close to his/her creation to be aware of faults that are obvious to others. Preferably this review should be from someone outside the cricket project to ensure objectivity, hence my suggestion of PR.
I do not think that all the necessary work can be completed within the span of a normal FAC and I repeat my advice that the article should be withdrawn from the process for the time being. It is not my job to justify the FAC process to you; you made the decision to bring the article here. Regrettably, the tone of your response was unnecessarily aggressive; you are not under personal attack, and no one is disparaging your work. Rather than making accusations about "some small internal group like yourselves" and "fellow members" (of what?) you should assume good faith. Brianboulton (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The substance of my oppose is that the article fails criterion 4. The chosen format, I believe, contributes to this, but the substantive issue is the length. Brianboulton (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response. The dispute as such is about the FAC criteria which I believe should be challenged. How many people were involved in determining these criteria and have they, as I suggested, consulted the wider editorship and sought the views of those who are essentially readers of the site? The point of the encyclopedia is to provide information and not to write summaries. Does Encyclopedia Britannica present summaries in its macropedia? Certainly a few "featured articles" I have read do not contain enough information and I have seen similar comments made by other people. It means, assuming Mr Boulton speaks for all concerned in this process, that articles are not judged on how well they provide information to the readers but on how well they comply with criteria that has been formulated by a handful of people who are more interested in the details of their process than in the essential purpose of the encyclopedia. ----Jack | talk page 10:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jack, I hope you don't mind if contribute my perception of Wikipedia's aim. I am just a regular Joe and do not consider myself in any way to be part of any special internal group. But just from having been somewhat active in contributing to Wikipedia in the last few years it seems clear to me that what Wikipedia sets out to do is to provide information for the general user, not the specialist. That means the average person on the street who reads, say, an article about a cricket player, or any topic, will want a more general outline. Then, for the few people who are especially interested in the finer details of the subject, there are references pointing the person to further sources of information. If I may be honest, I find the Herbert Sutcliffe article much too long myself and for me, who is not necessarily interested in cricket in particular, but who nonetheless is open to reading a little about any topic, the article's length makes it too daunting to tackle. To tell you the truth, I have put up an article for FA before that some editors considered too long. I think people, myself included, may easily lose sight of the fact that one's area of specialization is not necessarily fascinating to the whole world, and a more digestible dose is what is appropriate for Wikipedia. In my case, what I and my co-nominators decided to do was to put some of the information in a sub-article, after which the article ended up passing FAR. You could consider doing the same thing: having a more outline-oriented main article and then have sub-articles focusing on different time periods of his career, for example. That way no information will be lost, and those with just a passing interest (likely the majority of people) can get the essentials in the main article, and then those who are especially interested in the topic can delve deeper. Just a thought. Regards, Moisejp (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Moisejp. A very worthwhile thought which I'll take forward. Thanks very much. ----Jack | talk page 15:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this excellent comment, Donald Bradman is an excellent model as well, which also has a featured sub-article. Notice that, while Bradman's a famous player, the article still maintains that summary style while remaining compelling to read (I think). At the same time, I doubt any reader would feel cheated upon seeing the length of the article. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems, though do note that all of the "cricinfo.com" links are being redirected to "espncricinfo.com", so it might be worth doing a search/replace on that. --PresN 22:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): aido2002talk·userpage 12:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was nominated and failed twice a few years ago, but since it's coming up, I figured we may as well take another look and decide if it'll make it this year. If yes, then it'll be a fun featured article for Dec 23rd. If no, then at least we gave it a chance. aido2002talk·userpage 12:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query Has anything changed since it failed FAC last time? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and, sorry, I suggest this is withdrawn. There are large unreferenced sections (for instance, the pole and dinner sections), the references are very badly and inconsistently formatted, the bulleted list in the pop culture section looks a little tacky, and the writing is pretty poor in places ("The person may decline if they have something else to do, such as pull a double shift at work.") If it was given a solid cleaning, it could head towards GAC, but this is a long way from FA standards. J Milburn (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral To respond to the above, I can't say for certain if things have changed, but it's been two years; I'd think so. Like I said, I proposed it just because it'd be nice to have it featured on the 23rd, I have no opinion one way or the other on it. I'm not going to withdraw it, though -- if nothing else, this process will create a list of needed fixes for the article. aido2002talk·userpage 13:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, just because it has been two years does not mean the article has improved. Secondly, FAC is not the place for an article to be improve; it is the place where articles are awarded a status because they do not need improving. Thirdly, only articles that are of a high standard will pass FAC, not articles that it might be "nice" to feature on a certain day. wackywace 14:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If the nominator doesn't think it is FA quality, then I see little point in this process Fasach Nua (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clearly not ready, relies too heavily on quoting copyright material Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article again because I have fixed the given issues in the previous FAC. As stated in the previous FAC, not much known about Fee's geology because it has not been studied in detail and its age and timing of volcanic events are not exactally known either because they remain undated. Volcanoguy 14:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, 1a. No significant movement since the last FAC, even though opposition was brought based on the quality of writing. At the least, this should have received a peer review or a thorough independent copyedit. Just from the "Monitoring" section:
"Like other volcanoes in the Garibaldi Belt, Mount Fee is not monitored closely enough by the Geological Survey of Canada to ascertain how active their magma systems are." Ungrammatical—pronoun agreement
"This is partly because the field is located in a remote region" Field?
Plagiarism/copyvio:
Your text: "no major eruptions have occurred in Canada in the past few hundred years"
Source text: "no large eruptions have occurred in Canada in the last few hundred years"
Quite a bit of use of the ambiguous "this"; ex. "This includes clusters of minor earthquakes" This what? The last thing you were talking about is "warning signs". This warning signs?
Sorry, this is a long way off. Recommending withdrawing. --Andy Walsh(talk) 15:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is not a long way off if it's minor issues in one section. And all of your points are easy to fix. Just because it has minor issues means it should be withdrawn? Sheesh, bullshit. Take a look at other FAC and they can be worse than this one. Volcanoguy 15:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I went though your list and fixed the issues. Volcanoguy 16:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you consider my good faith review "bullshit". My comments are meant to be representative of the whole, and not a comprehensive list; FAC is not an article improvement service. I won't be leaving further comments, but perhaps other reviewers will be more willing to tolerate your hostile attitude. --Andy Walsh(talk) 16:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to be "hostile". I just find it a little extreme that a candidate should be withdrawn just because of minor issues. And I never said your good faith review was bullshit. I was refering to your statement about recommending withdrawing. Like excuse me, but minor problems do commonly "leak" through reviews. I am sorry if I attacked you by saying bullshit. Volcanoguy 16:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're not minor issues. As I said, I listed a few samples that are indicative of article-wide problems. It needs an independent copyedit. Additionally, since I found copyvio in the first few sentences I checked, additional auditing against sources will be needed. --Andy Walsh(talk) 18:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I misunderstood you. Feel free to remove Fee from FAC. I will list it for a peer review.Volcanoguy 19:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree this article has potential, but the nomination is pre-mature. I'd advise a 3rd party to review the article, either through a formal process, such as WP:Peer Review, WP:GAC, or just asking someone to review it. This shouldn't be taken personally, few of us (myself included) are able to write a flawless article without help. Dave (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reason I did not fix the problems Laser brain mentioned in the first place was because I thought User:Avenue fixed them during the first FAC. I just re-read the article and it reads quite smoothy. Volcanoguy 18:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because...I think it meets featured article criteria.It is well written and divided into different sections to explain the subject throughout.It has images that follows licensing policies.Overall, it's an excellent article to get part of Wikipedia main page Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 13:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is not ready; I think it is something that would benefit going through GAC first. The licensing/information on the lead image could do with improving, and the same is true of File:Waltdisneyco1.jpg, for which the sourcing is a little... Odd. All three of the non-free images are unwarranted (two lack even an attempt at a rationale- I have removed one and tagged the other for deletion). The sourcing is weak- there are many pargraphs that are completely unreferenced, and many of the references used (wikinvest? Many primary sources? secinfo.com?) are of questionable reliability. Considering the high importance of this subject, and the existences of plenty of books focussing on the subject, we really should expect better. J Milburn (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Themaxviwe, this is your second ill-prepared nom in a week; please read the instructions at WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This nomination is withdrawn for consultation, most likely a peer review, and possible discussion about the permissible level of idiom in sports-related articles. To avoid possible disruption, it probably won't be back until the Jets complete their current season, so with luck that will postpone its return to February. I don't entirely agree with all the comments, but this is a community-based process, and the community has spoken and I respect that. Any delegate, including Andy who reviewed it, should feel free to archive it on the next runthrough.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because...We believe it meets the criteria. The Jets are a franchise with a long, mostly tragic history, but with a moment of glory, that as the sportswriter who chronicled their history points out, has frozen them in a moment that will not change until they reach another such moment. In the meantime, and as they try yet again to match the glory of the Namath era, we can appreciate the depths of despair that they so often have sunk to, that we hope will make the moment of glory, should we live so long, all the sweeter. It has passed GA and been worked over extensively. Enjoy. Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest title change to New York Jests—this coming from someone who brought the Patriots article to FA nearly 5 years ago, before it basically fell downhill. In all seriousness, I'll try to get a look at this during the weekend. If Tony, Andy, etc. get to this before me, then all the better. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 02:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments – Yes, this is FAC's resident fan of the other New York (New Jersey?) NFL franchise. I saw the article and, despite my Giants leanings, quickly took an interest in it. After making some small, mostly dash-related fixes, I've taken a look at the sources for you and came up with the following comments. Most of them are relatively simple, but the last few have me somewhat concerned, the last one in particular.
References 20, 38, 40, 41, 90, 91, 114, 115, 116, 119, 137, 138, 140, 143, 144, 147, and 152 all need publishers to be included.
Ref 150 is in all caps, which the Manual of Style says is a no-no.
Ref 35 gives the page number as pp. 62. For single-page cites, they should be in the form p. 62, like the other similar ones in this article. Fortunately, this is an easy fix; just drop the one letter and you're done.
Ref 164 looks like an archived version of a story from the Colorado Springs Gazette. The newspaper name isn't given in the citation. I'm thinking it should be, as the work.
The references generally look to be reliable. Many come from books, with most of the others from major newspapers. The only question I would have is whether people think the Huffington Post is reliable. It seems like more of a political site, and I'm not familiar with how reliable it's considered in Wiki terms. In any event, it's only citing a game result, which isn't too controversial.
There are 34 references to the team's website. That may not be overwhelming in an article with almost 200 cites, but it is a decent amount of primary sources. Worth noting for the sake of other reviewers.
This is simply too close to the source: "Joe Namath announced his retirement from pro football following a dispute with the NFL over his ownership of the Manhattan bar Bachelors III". From the source: "Namath announced his retirement from pro football in a dispute with the NFL over his ownership of a Manhattan bar, Bachelors III".
Reference 76 doesn't say anything about Namath signing with the Rams. Also, I don't see anything on Richard Todd or Matt Robinson, who are mentioned in the article.
*Reference 90 (on the Mud Bowl) doesn't say anything about Don Shula not placing a tarp on the field, or about the effect of the weather on the Jets. These are the exact facts this citation is supposed to support. Why doesn't it?Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken care of the citation concerns; the publishers will be added. I'm sorry, I goofed on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on it: the problem seems to have been with the "Year in Review" Jets pages. I have now gone through them in detail, and we should be good to go there.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm happy to see that an effort has been made to fix up the source issues. I finally got a chance to read some of the article and came up with a few prose concerns:
I believe the MoS discourages links that are bolded, like the one in the intro.
Tenses conflict here: "posting their first winning record in 1967 before winning its only American Football League championship in 1968." Either "their" or "its" should be exclusively used, not both.
Minor, but the Orange Bowl link goes to the game, not the stadium of the same name. The link you're looking for is at Miami Orange Bowl.
Organization and first season: I'm pretty sure the hyphen in the middle of "highly-successful" doesn't need to be there.
Grammar fix needed here: "as the team sought to fill its the 35-man roster."
Super Bowl III: "Namath alleged that there five AFL quarterbacks better than Colts quarterback Earl Morrall". Missing "were".
Decline, Namath departs: "completing 15 of 28 passes for 49 yards and six touchdowns." That's an average of about three yards per catch, which can't be right. In fact, I recall hearing that Namath threw for 400-something yards in this game (don't know the exact number off the top of my head).
"but for Bills running back O. J. Simpson's attempt to become the first NFL players to rush for 2,000 yards in a season." "players" → "player".
"and former Cardinals coach Charley Winner. Winner...". This is a repeat in the form of a comment below.
Not sure if "behind a decrepid offensive line" sets the proper tone. I can handle "blowing a lead" and such (as a sports fan), but this is a bit much.
I'm going to stop here, but this is a lot of issues for this stage, several of which are simple things that further copy-editing before FAC would have taken care of. I can certainly see where the reviewer below me is coming from. If you don't mind, I think I'll go through the rest myself as time permits. I may not be the best at fully reconstructing sentences, but I can wipe out whatever little issues like these that remain. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be grateful for whatever assistance you could give.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have by the way made the changes you mention. I should add that I am reluctant to change phrases like "blew a lead", I could probably come up with a formal way of saying it, but this is a sports article and some jargon is not going to be a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's one last thing I wanted to add, which I should have picked up on when I was doing some cleanup work on the article: the reference publishers that are not printed publications shouldn't be italicized. This covers the references to the Jets' website, along with the Pro Football Hall of Fame and ESPN, among others. More important issues than this one exist, but it's something to consider for the future. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: I didn't see the withdrawal message until after I wrote the above. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel criterion 1a has been satisfied yet. Here are spot checks from the first few paragraphs; these concerns, nitpicks, and grammatical errors show that we need a series of copy-edits by multiple users unfamiliar to the text.
In January 1965, the Jets were able to sign University of Alabama quarterback Joe Namath to a then-record contract. "were able to" can be omitted, as long as "sign" is replaced with "signed". The impressive feat is best left clarified in the appropriate section, not as a redundant phrase in the lead.
The Jets beat the Colts in the game, establishing the AFL as an equal to the senior football league.—just my opinion, but I think "as an equal to" should be replaced with something like "as a legitimate competitor to", something along those lines".
After the two leagues's merger became effective in 1970—I believe the more common style on Wikipedia is "leagues'". "Became effective" is redundant.
The following year, the Jets hired two-time Super Bowl winning coach Bill Parcells. Parcells...—Repeat words like that are usually frowned upon here.
The team would enjoy enjoyed their most successful decade in franchise history between 2000 and 2009...—"in franchise history" is technically redundant, but in this case I think it helps the flow and power of the sentence.
In 1959, young oilmen Lamar Hunt and Bud Adams sought a National Football League franchise. They found that there was little likelihood of convincing the NFL to expand (which required a unanimous vote of team owners)—the content in the parenthesis seems relevant enough to be included in the sentence proper. Comma, transition, and tense change would do the trick.
and mentioned the names of a number of other wealthy bidders seeking to acquire the Cardinals.—especially redundant in this already lengthy sentence.
...the oilmen realized that if so many wealthy people were seeking an NFL franchise, the time was right to start a rival professional football league."—there are several ways to restructure this sentence; in its current state, I feel that it's not as fluid and logical as it could be.
Shea suggested Harry Wismer, a minority shareholder in both the Washington Redskins and Detroit Lions as a...—missing comma after "Lions".
Same with the word "Marshall" in the next sentence.
I'm also a little iffy about using informal terms such as "well-to-do" and "blowing/blow/blew a lead", but that's mostly just preference.
These examples from the first 5-6 paragraphs demonstrate a need for further copy-editing. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 03:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I'll see to it that is done. Give me a day or so.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a comment, I see no alternative to using some football parlance which may come across as informal, due to the nature of this article, and that includes "blowing" a lead. Perhaps one would not use it in a political biography, but in a historical football article, especially one about the Jets, it very much has its place.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeOpposeOppose - three non-free images, not even a hint as to why they are used! Fasach Nua (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added fair use rationales.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't magically make it ok. What are they adding? There's no kind of automatic entitlement for every article about a club to have the logo, the helmet and the kit. J Milburn (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fair use rationales are on the image pages, if there is objection, I will simply strike the infobox. The article didn't used to have one, so no biggie. I tried taking the images out of the infobox, but that leads to problems with the parameters I can't cure.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe, upon study, that the fair use rationales are insufficient, as the logo in a helmet is not going to help anyone understand the subject matter. Thus, I have stricken the images in question.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any response from Fasach Nua on this issue? --Andy Walsh(talk) 20:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, and I've dropped a note on his talk page. FN often takes a bit of time to revisit issues, I'm just afraid the oppose is turning off possible reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Improvements are definitely being made—not sure if I'm ready to support yet, but maybe I'll get some time to go through myself. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 03:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Hope you will.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose From a glance, I can see that the writing is still unimpressive in a lot of places and I'm worried about the coverage in certain areas.
There's a couple instances of awkward use f the "would be" construction. In some cases its accurate and acceptable, in some cases it should just be "was" and "were".
"A 10–1 start in 1986 was wasted as the injury-plagued Jets lost their last five regular season games, eventually blowing a ten-point fourth quarter lead and losing in double overtime to the Cleveland Browns in the playoffs." This sounds like it was written from a fan's perspective, and "wasted" and "blowing" is not formal, encyclopedic language.
"The team enjoyed their most successful decade in franchise history between 2000 and 2009, appearing five times in the playoffs. In 2009, after an indifferent regular season in which their own coach, Rex Ryan, ruled them out of playoff contention, they won in the final game of the regular season and advanced to the playoffs." I find this awkward too. I think "in the 2000s" is less awkward of a way to delineate a decade than "between 2000 and 2009". That would be like saying that flappers were an integral part of the most raucous decade of the first half the the century; the roaring "between 1920 and 1929" years. I understand you may be apprehensive that someone would think you're referring to the 21st century, but once you put decade into the sentence, I think you're fine. Also what exactly is an "indifferent season" I'm an avid sports fan and I've never heard that term used nor know what it means. Are you saying the players were indifferent, in other words they were not playing hard? Or the fans were indifferent, in that they didn't care about the team? "Uneven" would probably just be better. Also I would think the "five times" would be better after "in the playoffs".
"Wismer, while well-to-do, was not nearly as rich as the other potential team owners." This would be stronger and more formal if you just wrote "Wismer, while wealthy, was not as rich as the other potential team owners." At a quick glance I see a couple of other instances of needless adverbs. "In 1988, the Sack Exchange era effectively ended as Klecko failed his offseason physical and was waived, linebacker Lance Mehl announced his retirement during training camp, and Gastineau retired midseason, citing personal reasons." "The Jets attempted to trade him, but were unsuccessful. As a result on May 12, 1977, they simply cut him from the roster." There's more than just those examples.
"November 24, 1959, the AFL held its first draft, with the newly named "Titans of New York" selecting" This one might be just me but "newly named" bothers me. It sounds like they already had a name and then got a new name. I think the quotes establish that the name is new, if the franchise is new then of course the name will be new as well.
"Racked by injuries, the Jets lost their final five regular season game, but still made the playoffs.[101] In the wild card playoff game against the Chiefs, the Jets started Ryan at quarterback, and won 35–15." Besides the minor problem of the missing s in this passage, you've already mentioned that Ryan is a quarterback in this section, so saying he started "at quarterback" is redundant. If he started a game at nose tackle then mentioning the position he started at would be necessary.
"Steinberg eventually hired Bengals offensive coordinator Bruce Coslet as the team's head coach." "Instead" would be better than "especially" in the context of this paragraph.
"He set Parcells free from the Patriots; the Jets gave the Patriots four draft picks, with the only first round selection given up to be in 1999." The last part of that sentence is awkward.
"Parcells, who was never fully confident of O'Donnell, benched him in favor of personal favorite Ray Lucas after O'Donnell threw an early interception in a low-scoring game." Awkward as well, I would go with "Parcells, who never had full confidence in O'Donnell, benched him in favor of personal favorite Ray Lucas after O'Donnell threw an early interception in a low-scoring game." That's still a little awkward. "personal favorite" is pretty weird as well, and "an early interception in a low-scoring game" might be better with specifics, for instance: "after O'Donnell threw an interception in the first quarter of a tied game versus the Panthers" for example. Mentioning the score might be unnecessary: "after O'Donnell threw an interception in the first quarter of a game versus the Panthers"
I think "rest of the season" or "rest of the year" would be more formal than "rest of the way" which I see used a lot.
I'm gonna stop at this point. I think this article probably needs an independent copy-editing. Maybe if I have time I can help out later but I'm not Cormac McCarthy myself tbh. AaronY (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to make any changes that you think are advisable. I will look for a copyeditor, but if you would like to do it, that is good too. I think your comments are about the tension in this article between football lingo and formal language. Reasonable minds could disagree about where the line should be drawn. Regarding the Ryan, I have switched that to "replaced O'Brien with Ryan". Ryan has been mentioned only once, there is another Ryan in the article (current coach Rex) who has been mentioned in the lede, and I feel the reader needs some reinforcement of who Ryan is.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You also say you are worried about coverage. Are you worried about something other than prose? I would not think comprehensiveness would be a concern in such a lengthy article.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I must concur with my colleagues that it is not up to scratch yet, but definitely workable with a firm hand. Some areas are fine, but some seem to suffer from lack of attention. I often start reviewing from the bottom for this reason, and I found some of the nether sections less than spectacular. Random pot-shots:
Return to Respectability? More than a little subjective.
"For his success in leading the Jets to the playoffs, Mangini received the nickname "Mangenius" and a cameo appearance on The Sopranos." Well, this sentence draws a causal relationship between the playoff appearance and his cameo on The Sopranos. Reading the source, none is stated or implied.
"The victory, with other results, put the Jets's fate in their own hands" Unsure what middle clause is doing. I'm assuming you mean "the victory plus the other stuff they did leading up to it" but that goes without saying, I think, and this is inelegant.
"The Jets played the Bengals again in the playoffs" Here begins a series of sentences that all begin with "The Jets", the first two of which could be combined in my opinion. There isn't much variety to the writing here.
Section titles are a problem here. I am open to suggestions. Some time periods suggest themselves, for example the Namath years, some are necessarily arbitrary. I have changed the specific things that LB mentions and appealed for a copyedit from outside.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have agreed to copyedit this, in the hopes that an improvement in the prose might turn the opposes. It's a long article so this will take a little time and I hope the delegate will stay their hand.. It is a question of "prose only" as I am not at all knowledgeable in American football. Brianboulton (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine. Thank you for your efforts.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After further discussion the request for a ce has been withdrawn, so I won't be doing this after all. As Graham suggests below, it might in any event be better if someone with topic knowledge does the deed. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)*Oppose - sorry. As some of you already know, my knowledge of American Football doesn't exist. But I thought I could bring an outsider's viewpoint to the discussion and that this might be useful. Reading the article was hard work. I think the prose suffers from unnecessary colloquialisms, which prevent its reaching FA standard. Some examples from the Lead include, "the Jets made the playoffs" – I assume this means the Jets reached the playoff stage of the competition. And does "blowing a ten-point fourth quarter lead" mean "despite having achieved.."? Here should "losing" mean "but lost" or better "were defeated": They reached the AFC Championship Game in 1982, losing on a rain-soaked Orange Bowl field to the Miami Dolphins. This is odd, "after an indifferent regular season" - what is meant by "indifferent"? Is there redundancy here "After the merger became effective in 1970," - if not, why is "became effective" used? Last, I see a lot of "winning" in the first paragraph. I think the article would benefit from another, thorough copy-edit by someone who understands this mysterious game. Graham Colm (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Done Shannontalk contribs 21:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
. Neither do you need to be lazy and not spoonfeed them when neccessary.
.jpg){kind=link}
_location_map.svg){kind=link}
