Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/January 2012

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Archived nominations

January 2012 edit

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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 20:56, 28 January 2012 [1].

Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song) edit

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC), Novice7, Adabow[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, I think it compares favorably to its peers that are current FAs of songs within 10 years of the original version of this ("Hey Jude", "The Long and Winding Road", "What'd I Say", "Like a Rolling Stone", "Layla").TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I can't believe how it failed the nomination. The only issue was actually the non-free file usage, but you should know that Sinatra's and Charles' versions are completely different. I understand that it violated when you had three covers (the Norah Jones and Ray Charles duet version cover), and I agree it was redundant, as it was more a remake than a cover version. But now I believe it meets the criteria, especially as you added content to the last section. Very well done.♫GoP♫TCN 12:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Actually, the prior nom started with 3 cover arts and 5 musical samples. Yes, we have slimmed this down. Thanks for your support.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • "and the vocals span from the low note of G3 to the high note of C5" Standards for low and high notes vary, so I would suggest these removed. --Efe (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not a musician, so I won't debate that issue. I will await my co-authors and see how they feel about the suggestion. If no action in 24 hours or so, I will remove.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does "spotchecks not done" mean?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It means I haven't actually looked at the sources to ensure that the article is an accurate representation (WP:V) without too-close wording (WP:Close paraphrasing/WP:COPYVIO). This isn't to imply that you've done anything wrong, but is simply a flag for delegates and later reviewers to indicate the scope of my review. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now on criteria 1a. The article just doesn't flow at the moment and I find myself confused on some issues.

  • In the lead:
    • Did Don Lanier and Red Steagall record the song first or did they write it for Charles? Therefore is the Charles version a cover or not? - needs clarification.
      • They wrote it and there was actually another cover before Charles that was insignificant.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If there were versions before Charles' version then the release date of the first version should be noted and who recorded it. This will put Charles' version in context. If Charles' version isn't the original then why is it labelled as the original? Also there isn't a reference at present proving Don Lanier and Red Steagall wrote the song. This information isn't in the main body either.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 18:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe it was previously covered on the Billy Ray Vaugh album mentioned at the start of the "Other versions" section, but never released as a single. I believe Charles had the original single release. What is wrong with ref 10 as proof of authorship?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Whoops, sorry. I missed that. I think the original needs to be written about first in the main body and then go onto Charles' version. This makes more sense chronoligically. Also Don Lanier and Red Steagall need to be linked, because it's their first appearance in the main body.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 18:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • The original is not a WP:N song. I don't think there exist any WP:RS with substantive critical commentary or encyclopedic discourse on the song. No one would look on WP for it. There are two versions that people would search WP for. I am not going to find books about that version or even that album. It is an afterthought/footnote belonging in a relegated position, IMO. It seems to me that Steagall and Lanier are linked. What are you talking about?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seems to be a lot of chopping and changing between which version of the song is being talked about here. I think it would make sense if the first paragraph was about the Ray Charles version. Then go onto the two other notable versions in a second paragraph, with more info about the Nancy Sinatra version, as a whole section is dedicated to her in the main body. The third paragraph is clear as it is now, with the other versions of the song.
      • Why shouldn't the most critically successful version be mentioned in the first paragraph. I almost think Grammy Award for Record of the Year should be in the first paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem with the current version of the lead is that each version of the song is talked about in more than one paragraph, which means "Ray Charles' version of the song", "Ray Charles and Norah Jones' version of the song" and "Nancy Sinatra's version of the song" are repeated to show which one is being referred to. This confused me when I first read it and doesn't read well either. That's why I'd have a section on each version so the reader knows which version is which.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 19:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Like I said swap in the revised version I presented herein if you think it is better. If I trust you to do a copyedit, I trust you to make that call.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I were to rework the first two paragraphs as suggested, it would be something likt this:
"Here We Go Again" is a country music standard written by Don Lanier and Red Steagall that first became notable as a rhythm and blues single by Ray Charles from his 1967 album Ray Charles Invites You to Listen. This version was produced by Joe Adams for ABC Records/Tangerine Records. Currently, this version remains the biggest commercial success. It spent twelve consecutive weeks on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart, peaking at number 15.
Its most notable cover version is the rhythm and blues duet by Charles and Norah Jones, appearing on the 2004 Genius Loves Company album. This duet was the biggest critical success. When Genius Loves Company was released, the duet cover on that album earned the Grammy Award for Record of the Year and Best Pop Collaboration at the 47th Grammy Awards posthumously for Charles who died in 2004. The Nancy Sinatra version charted for five weeks in 1969. The song has been covered in a wide variety of musical genres. In total, three different versions have had success on music charts, however none on country music charts.

Feel free to substitute this for the current first two paragraphs if you prefer it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Why is the word "music" used after every genre? Just "jazz" or "country" would read much better.
      • I am not sure what is common in WP:SONG articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the What'd I Say article there is only one instance where a music genre is linked with "music" left after it, which is warranted in the sentence: "After his run of R&B hits, this song finally broke Charles into mainstream pop music and itself sparked a new sub-genre of R&B titled soul". Music is not included in the soul link because it doesn't fit in with the sentence. I think this rule should be applied to "Here We Go Again".  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 18:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I removed a couple musics in the LEAD. It seems to me that the word country and music go together. Feel free to change a few more.
    • I'll assess the flow of the prose in the lead again when these main issues have been reworked.
  • Original version section
    • "In November 1959, Charles signed with ABC Records after twelve years as a professional musician and following the expiration of his Atlantic Records contract." => "In November 1959, after twelve years as a professional musician, Charles signed with ABC Records following the expiration of his Atlantic Records contract." Reads better.

Sorry I'm finding issues with every sentence at this point. Is it ok if I go through the article, giving it a thorough copy edit?  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 16:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would greatly appreciate a copyedit. Feel free and then leave a note with any remaining concerns. Should I address any of the concerns above or will they be part of a copyedit?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you address the issues in the lead first and then I'll give the article a copyedit?  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 18:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've copyedited the article. Feel free to revert or change if you disagree. There are still some issues that I need to bring up later and I might give it another look through to see if I can find anything I've missed.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 21:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you swapped in the LEAD we have been discussing. I do not see any other copyeditting. Did you forget to save other issues that you might have resolved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been following your copyedit and have few qualms. The only thing that I really am ccuirous about is why you are linking things in the main body after they have already been linked in the LEAD?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:OVERLINK states that "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, and at the first occurrence after the lead.". Maybe Ray Charles should be delinked afer the lead, as he is one of the main subjects of the article. What do you think? What are your other qualms? And of course if I've messed something up in the ce please revert back; my edits are by no means the only way to rectify the problems in the prose.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 12:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts. Generally, people think I have too many links in my articles, so I would lean toward fewer repeats of links in the main body including Charles, Lanier, Steagall, and Invites You to Listen. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. now that you have gotten more familiar with the content and have been able to modify it, do you still oppose?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TBH when I first read the article I'd forgotten who Lanier and Steagall were when I saw them after the lead, as well as the Invites You to Listen album, so I'd prefer for the reader's sake they were left in. However I don't have a strong opinion on this matter, so I won't mind if you remove the links. I only got through half the article in my last ce, so I'll see if anything needs rejigging in the other half. Then I'll continue my review here with any points that I need to discuss.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 12:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think for a WP:FA links should be repeated from the WP:LEAD to the 1st section. I have delinked all 7 that I saw. Please don't take offense.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • After my ce I've got a few points:
    • Sid Feller is mentioned twice in the article as to having conducted and recorded Charles' original version of the song. Is there a reason for this? Therefore the credits section of the Ray Charles version seems redundant, with the duplicated Sid Feller info in it as well.
    • What do the catalog numbers bring to the reader's understanding of the article. Non of the FAC song articles you've listed at the top of this page have them in.
      • I do not understand the encyclopedic value of the catalog numbers. I will leave the decision on that to my co-authors. It does not strike me that removing them would improve the article for the reader, but I am not qualified to say.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I got your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TonyTheTiger&diff=472664363&oldid=472593400 message on my talk page that you would support if I resolved the catalog issue. I see the following content in the article:
          ...listed as the sixth of ten tracks on Ray Charles Invites You to Listen (catalog number ABCS-595).
          This is one of two songs on the album ("Yesterday" being the other) that in addition to being listed as ABC-Par ABC595 is credited as Dunhill DZS036 [CD].[39] The individual song had a label number ABC/TRC 10938.
          • It seems to me that if two songs on an album are cataloged with the same number we should point it out to the reader. Thus, I left the second item. Not sure what you are getting at with this point.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Am I correct that you want both of these examples of content entirely removed. I am not a musician, but it seems to me like one of them should remain.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The amount of track timings in the article seems a bit unnecessary. Maybe instead of listing how long the track took on each recording released, state the original time and that it varies on subsequent releases, or include the average time. It seems enough for me just to include the time of the tracks in the infoboxes with a reference to support it, like in the article "Layla".
      • The number of track timings is influence by their availability and the trend on WP for newer songs to include them. The 2nd important version of this song is in the date range of songs for which WP readers expect extensive track timing information. There is no reason to toss that content, since we have it, IMO. If you insist, I will reconsider, but I just don't see a reason not to WP:PRESERVE that type of information.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not going to contest this issue, as you give an adequate reason for keeping them. I suggest that you consider rewriting these sections if other reviewers have an issue with them though.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 22:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, if you're delinking repeated links. The aptly named Jim Horn is also linked twice. Sid Feller is linked twice as well.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 22:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might find some more, but I've got other things to do at the moment.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 15:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 20:56, 28 January 2012 [2].

German battleship Bismarck edit

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Germany's most famous battleship, sunk on her maiden voyage after destroying HMS Hood. I completely rewrote this article in June, it passed GA in July, and just passed a MILHIST ACR (see here). I believe this article is at or very close to FA standards, and I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure that it exemplifies our best work. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I feel silly, but could you double check to see if any sources give any indication that dazzle camouflage can be used against aircraft? Also check the source to confirm that's what it says? I'm afraid I don't at the moment have time to complete a review, but come back to me if this FAC languishes. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, Bercuson and Herwig don't actually connect it with aircraft - I'm not sure why I thought they did. Thanks for making me check that. Parsecboy (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs)
    • Christened by Dorothee (Dorothea) von Loewenfeld, daughter of Wilhelm von Bismarck, granddaughter of Otto von Bismarck, maybe worth mentioning her name? Hitler himself held the speech at the christening. All the other big shots like Göring were also present, there is a nice youTube video of the christening youTube
    • Maybe also worth mentioning, while moored in Hamburg, she was embedded and engaged in the anti-aircraft defenses of Hamburg. She fired a couple of times without claiming any aircraft shot down.
      • This is from HRS, right? Do you have a page numbers for Hitler's speech and the Hamburg info? I don't know that von Loewenfeld's name is all that important, unless she's notable for some other reason apart from being Bismarck's granddaughter. Parsecboy (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The crew structure and senior commanding officers are named and listed in Grützner page 149
      • Is there anything different from what's in the article already (i.e, division structure, Lütjens, Lindemann, and Schneider)?
    • The different sea trials, test and traings are listed on page 153, they included (M.E.S), (S.V.K), (N.E.K.) and (E.K.K). I assume you are familiar with the German terminology for these tests?
      • Nope. What are the details?
    • Bismarck had a ship newspaper called Die Schiffsglocke (ship bell) Grützner page 166
    • Bismarck's heavy guns were first test-fired in the second half of November, and Bismarck was shown to be a very stable gun platform. von Müllenheim-Rechberg pp. 44–45.
    • Maybe explain and mention something about Bismarck's badge (not sure if this is the right term) which can be seen on this image File:Bb bismarck.png.

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Check alphabetization of references
  • Von Müllenheim or von Mullenheim?
  • FN 44, 59, 95, 124: formatting
  • Why give state for New York but not province for Toronto?
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Vanguard displaced more at standard and at full load displacement.
  • What was the purpose of the radar sets? Gunnery, search, what?
  • Probably should inclose turret names in single quotes, just like we do for British turret names.
  • Explain/link L/52, etc.
  • Link sister ship, battlecruiser, destroyer, cruiser.
  • No cite for range.
  • Oil or coal-fired? More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should all be addressed - thanks especially for pointing out Vanguard, I don't know how G&D missed that. Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Made a couple of small corrections. Bit about largest European battleship is still present in the Construction section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks good. I had added a footnote in the Construction section to support the change, and then forgot to fix the wording. Thanks for catching that. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so sure that the fire from the 8-inch shell hit on Hood's boat deck was ever actually extinguished as she was sunk a few minutes later. See the cites to the Hood article for more info.

Don't forget this second round of comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Crashing" waves?
  • Either use HMS for each British ship or don't use it at all. Forex: light cruisers HMS Manchester, Birmingham, and Arethusa. My preference is not to use it as context makes it clear that these are British ships.
  • Link turbo-generator
  • It would probably be worth noting that Ensign Smith was on an exchange tour with the RN as the US wasn't yet at war with Germany.
  • From what I've read the stern torpedo hit by Ark Royal's Swordfish exploited a design flaw in the Bismarck and semi-collapsed the stern onto the rudders, jamming them into place. I can look through my sources, probably Means and White from the Hood article, if this isn't mentioned in any of yours.
  • Capitalize Schiffskanone in your note.
  • Don't remember about multiple destroyer torpedo attacks during the night. Should confirm this from another source as Garzke & Dulin's strength is in the technical description, not the operational account.
  • Might add that one shell, probably from Rodney, completely penetrated one turret (Bruno?) from front to rear and blew off the rear armor plate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - "Hit the decks a'runnin', boys, and spin those guns around! 'Cause when we find the Bismarck we gotta cut her down!" - I grew up listening to that song, so to read the actual history of it is quite fun.

  • On my screen there is some text sandwiched between the 3-D image and the infobox at the beginning of the Construction section. Could we move the image down to prevent this?
    • Moved down a paragraph - does that work now?
  • Construction, "titled Die Schiffsglocke (ship bell)." Should "ship bell" be capitalized, since it's a proper noun? And should be be "Ship's Bell?" The singular "ship" doesn't sound quite right to me.
  • Service history, "out-fitting process." Outfitting or fitting out?
  • Service history, "Scharnhorst-class" or "Scharnhorst class"?
  • Service history, "July–August." Change to "July or August"? July to August doesn't flow right.
  • Operation Rheinubung, "Raeder finally informed Hitler of the operation, who reluctantly gave his consent to continue the raid." Awkwardly worded, although I'm having a hard time thinking of a replacement right now.
  • File:Rheinuebung Karte.png should have an English description on the image page.
  • Subsequent expeditions, "A third, Anglo-American expedition in July 2001" I think there's a missing closing comma here.
  • I find it a bit odd that there is not even a mention of Sink the Bismarck! and Sink the Bismark (song) - both of which deal with the chase and sinking of the Bismark. I realize they're a bit pop-culture-ish, but I can't really think of very many ship battles that prompt songs that are still played on the radio over 50 years later...

Overall the article looks really good. These were all the issues I could find on a thorough reading, although I did not do spotchecks or look closely at all of the images. Dana boomer (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Everything should be addressed, apart from the "Raeder finally informed..." line - it makes sense to me (but then I wrote it :). If Dank reviews the article, he might have a suggestion. Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "By midnight, the force was in the open sea and headed toward the Arctic Ocean. At this time, Raeder finally informed Hitler of the operation, who reluctantly gave his consent to continue the raid.": How about this? "At midnight, when the force was in the open sea and headed toward the Arctic Ocean, Raeder finally disclosed the operation to Hitler, who reluctantly gave his consent to continue the raid." - Dank (push to talk) 05:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dank, sorry for taking a couple of days to get back to this. Your version sounds better - it was the distance between "Hitler" and "who" that was causing my angst, and your solution is spot on. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice article. Read it for RW technical issues and general communication of the material. I found the battles sections hard to read/follow despite usually be good at such things. This is inherently challenging for complex battles, but it could use a bit more empathy for the reader in those areas, providing context for that large amount of detailed material presented there. IMHO the Operation Rheinübung and Battle of the Denmark Strait sections are each missing an intro sentence that says overall what those these things are...they just start in the with details as if everybody already knows. In the text the names of captains of large amout of secondary ships are mentioned but not (after the one initial intro) which side they are on. In other cases they refer to a ship without saying the ships name, just in essence, giving the captains name and saying "his ship" instead of the the name. (I know/assume that all of these were identified once) Those sections could possibly use a few higher level summary or explanatory statements to help the reader follow. Also suggest briefly explaining "citadel" when you use the word because the internal link really doesn't. These are just my opinions, feel free to use or ignore. Nice article. North8000 (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article essentially as one long, continuous narrative; the planning of Rheinübung is explain in the section before, and the last paragraph of the Rheinübung section sets up the Denmark Strait section. Perhaps a map of the Denmark Strait action would help, but I don't think we have one. What you're seeing with regards to the ship captains is the guideline (can't think of the link at the moment) that states individuals should be introduced once, and then referred to by their last name only afterward (no ranks, allegiance, etc.). In addition, it becomes extremely repetitive to say "Lütjens ordered Bismarck and Prinz Eugen..." every single time (and I sort of feel like by that far in the article, readers should be able to figure out the guy with umlauts in his name is German). As for higher level summaries in the sections, I really don't like the idea of breaking up the narrative, and one or two line summaries of the article are provided in the lead. Parsecboy (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Regarding naming, I was speaking about things like a paragraph that starts with a sentence with "Tovey's two battleships" as the subject, but but nowhere does it say which two are his. Reading back farther I can see that he was aboard the King George, and reading elsewhere I found that that was a battleship. And reading elsewhere I read that the Rodney is a battleship, and in a recent paragraph it talked about the King George and the Rodney acting near each other. So the I eventually figured out that sentence was was probably referring to those two. That type of thing, On Rheinübung, I just meant that there is no sentence in there that says what operation Rheinübung is referring to. I looked in the Rheinübung article and now I know. You could just add something like: "The operation to have the Bismark interdict allied shipping was named Rheinübung " to resolve that. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Why is "rendering" capitalized in the image caption? Also, the operation is italicized in a later caption - be consistent
    • Fixed.
  • File:War_Ensign_of_Germany_1938-1945.svg: source?
    • Does it really need a source? It's demonstrably PD. Asked the creator regardless.
  • File:Bismarck_reconnaissance.jpg: why the doubled tag?
    • No idea - removed.
  • File:Rheinuebung_Karte.png: on what source(s) was this image based?
    • Asked the creator.
      • Nothing yet...
  • File:Bismarck_victorious_attack.jpg: honestly, I'm not sure this image is helpful, as you can't really see anything in it
    • I went back and forth on including the image in the first place - I think you're probably right.
  • File:HMS_Ark_Royal_h85716.jpg: can we use the actual navy/military tag instead?
    • Is there one for the US NHC? I can't find one here or here.
  • File:HMS_Ark_Royal_swordfish.jpg: source link as currently configured will not work properly - if you're using that template, you need to just use the number
    • Fixed.
  • File:Bundeswehr_Kreuz_Black.svg is tagged as lacking source and author info. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Asked the creator.
      • Should be fine now.

Oppose, 1a. It's a great piece of work for sure—please do not mistake my opposition for dislike of the material or research. It needs further editing and fit & finish before it reaches the necessary prose standards. I found lots of issues reading just through Service history. The issues obscure meaning in many instances—but more important, they make it difficult and thick.

  • Clarity: "Bismarck conducted only one offensive operation, codenamed Rheinübung, in May 1941." One operation in 1941?
    • See how it reads now.
  • "was to break out into the Atlantic Ocean" Break out of what?
    • Does removing "out" address the issue? I could explain that they were breaking out of the confined continental waters, but I feel like that makes the sentence too long and less focused.
  • "detected ... off Scandinavia" Is this normal language? Does "off Scandinavia" mean "near Scandinavia"? Or in Scandinavian waters?
  • "The destruction of Hood spurred a relentless pursuit by the Royal Navy with dozens of warships involved." Kludgy... "involving dozens of warships" would be more elegant.
    • Yes it would.
  • "The Blohm & Voss shipyard in Hamburg was awarded the contract, where the keel was laid on 1 July 1936." The keel was laid on the contract?
    • Reworded
  • "Fitting-out out work followed her launch" Extra word?
    • Fixed.
  • "yielded a maximum speed of 30.01 kn (55.58 km/h; 34.53 mph) on speed trials" In speed trials?
    • No, the ship is 'on' trials when her speed was measured. During also works, but 'in' is inappropriate in this context. Bismarck is not a drug in trials.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first six divisions were assigned to the ship's armament, with divisions one through four for the main and secondary batteries and five and six manning the anti-aircraft guns." A frequent construction found in this article—but the "with" following the comma is extraneous.
    • Removed.
  • "When Bismarck left port for the sortie into the Atlantic"
    • Fixed.
  • "Bismarck hosted a visit by Captain Anders Forshell" Hosted the visit or hosted Forshell?
    • Fixed.
  • " He returned to Sweden with a detailed description of the ship, which was subsequently leaked to Britain by pro-British elements in the Swedish Navy; this gave the Royal Navy its first full picture of the vessel, although it lacked specificity on important information, including top speed, radius of action, and displacement." Needs to be broken up and rewritten. By time we get to the vague "this" following the semi-colon, it's hard to follow. This what? Then, we have "although it lacked". What does "it" refer to? The picture? The description?
    • See how it reads now.
--Laser brain (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, the article did not benefit from Dank's keen eyes during the MILHIST ACR (I think a result of him taking on more work at FAC and less at ACR), though I hope he'll have a look shortly. Parsecboy (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 20:56, 28 January 2012 [3].

Jaws (film) edit

Nominator(s): igordebraga ≠ 20:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was promoted to FA status back in 2006, when it even appeared on the Main Page. 4 years later, it got demoted for not standing up to the criteria, specially for an article in such a successful and influential production (it got promoted to GA shortly thereafter). Then I decided to return the bronze star to such a classic, reorganizing what was already there, replacing questionable refs, and expanding in all topics I could. So, like Brody atop the sinking Orca, I'll take a shot at something that can take a bite off me. igordebraga ≠ 20:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time, unfortunately; great work has been done on this article since it was delisted, but there are still a number of problems. Struck resolved comments per nominator request. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lots of Manual of Style issues. On a quick look I see ellipses in parentheses and hyphen/dash misuse, among other problems
    • Me and User:Gary King fixed the dashes and ellipses, what else remains?
      • Abbreviation inconsistencies (for example, you give "Sun Valley, CA" but later in the same section "Santa Catalina Island, California"), bracketed ellipses, use of brackets when there should be parentheses ("in major cities]]"), use of seasons as dates (see WP:MOSNUM)...Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed the California abreviations, that "]]" I left as a mistake, the sole (...) in a ref and the seasons. Anything?
          • Inconsistency in footnote placement (particularly with dashes), inconsistency in the use of scuba vs SCUBA, some overlinking...Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Scuba diving points out, all-lowercase it's correct. Where it's overlinked?
  • File:JAWS_Movie_poster.jpg has an incorrect source link
    • Fixed.
  • File:Mechashark.JPG needs an expanded FUR and info on the copyright of the work,
    • Done.
  • File:JawsJohnWilliams.ogg: sample is too long given the length of the original work - should be 30 seconds or 10%, 10% here since that's shorter
    • Put a 21s (10%) sample.
      • No, that's not 10% - a minute is 60 seconds, not 100. 10% of 2minutes, 12seconds is just over 13 seconds. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistencies in reference formatting, for example FN 10, 69 vs 83, 104 vs 105, etc
    • Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 04:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not done. Those specific examples have been fixed, but more remain. Further examples (and these are examples only) include FN 1 vs 3, page missing for FN 63, wikilinking EW in 153 but not 152, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What refs still need to be fixed?
      • Many: 37, 38, 39, 45, 47, 72...etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed the last 3, any more? And 37-9 are all the same now (I only fixed a "pp" for just one page), what's wrong with them?
          • Link to bibliography isn't working for those three refs, and two of them use hyphens where they should use dashes. Other inconsistencies include whether or not you include locations for books, how editors of larger works (ie. "In...") are notated, whether page ranges are abbreviated or not, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of sources of questionable reliability, for example imdb, Rotten Tomatoes, and blu-ray.com. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rotten Tomatoes is unreliable... to give the Tomatometer score? IMDB is because the ACE itself points their Eddie page for past winners. The third, I removed (there's still not a reliable source for that date). igordebraga ≠ 15:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, but you also include the commentary from RT. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Any more refs? igordebraga ≠ 18:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Er, not done, RT is still there and still citing commentary. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I cut the comment, it's that what you asked for? igordebraga ≠ 14:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi igordebraga. On the use of Rotten Tomatoes, I feel it may be best to exclude mention of it altogether for this film. At Wikiproject Films, we've run into numerous examples where Rotten Tomatoes scores for films made before the site became active do not reflect the critical consensus the films received at their time of release. The website is most useful for gauging reaction for films released in the 2000s and beyond, as most of these are easily locatable online, presenting a more clearly defined critical reaction. However, before the site took off, reviews were not usually available online (all individual reviews in this case would have been in print sources). This means that "Tomatometer" scores for these films are typically skewed, and may, at best, only reflect modern-day critics' opinions, with just a few archived versions of the older print reviews thrown in for good measure, and in such a limited way that they do not return the score to a point where it would reflect the true consensus of the time. As an example, take Alien, which has a 97% score on the site, but which had a rather mixed critical reaction in '79. Similarly, Fight Club, which polarised critics in 1999, but now posts a healthy 81% score, perhaps partly due to a gradual reappraisal over time. I don't think removal of the source would be to the article's detriment; I find it very difficult to believe that such an influential film as Jaws has not had its critical reaction, at the time and in years subsequent, summarised in higher-quality sources. All the best, Steve T • C 23:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi. I see you've removed the Rotten Tomatoes citation; that's good. However, I believe you've made a mistake with the replacement. Currently, the article says, "The film received universal acclaim", cited to the McBride book (pp. 255–256). However, those pages actually state that "Critical opinion on the film was wildly divergent", before going on to give a rough cross section of opinion at the time, how Universal dealt with that, and the effect on Spielberg. All the best, Steve T • C 20:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed again. (my other research showed that while the film had critics, it was mostly positive, the dissidents were just really polarized). — Preceding unsigned comment added by igordebraga (talk • contribs)
          • It seems odd to eliminate McBride entirely on this point, and could come across as cherry-picking conflicting sources to present a desirable narrative. You deem him reliable on 22 other occasions, but not here? On a related note, do you think it would be a good idea to show how Jaws' critical regard has changed over time, especially if the McBride view turns out to be the most accurate? There's little doubt that the film today is praised by a majority of critics; it's on this point that, carefully deployed, Rotten Tomatoes may be of use, in support of a higher quality source ("Based on n reviews collected between the years 2000 and 2009 ...") Steve T • C 00:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Returned the two negative reviews discussed on McBride (while adding a positive one). Most contemporary reviews I found were positive (even though I found 6 that had at least one complaint so far!), so there was no change of opinions. igordebraga ≠ 20:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nikkimaria: all the three sources you raised were removed or replaced. Are there any more examples that you question? igordebraga ≠ 14:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First off, igordebraga, thanks for taking this subject on. Love or loath the effect it had, Jaws is one of the most important movies in Hollywood--arguably world cinema--history. And it looks like you've done a lot of good research. However, I am seeing issues with the prose throughout. Rather than go back and forth over dozens of words and phrases here, if you're amenable, what I'd like to do is go in and copyedit it over the course of the week, reserving this space for any substantive questions that come up in that process. Let me know how you feel about that. DocKino (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering I even put this article at the GOCE requests, I will be most thankful for your copyedit. Go for it. igordebraga ≠ 02:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Box office performance", we read, "It is currently the 94th highest grossing film of all time with $470 million worldwide, and the 57th highest domestically with a total North American gross of $260 million." That's true, valuable, but not all that notable. I believe the film still ranks very highly when its box office figures are adjusted for inflation, a common manner of film history analysis. Could you locate and add the inflation-adjusted figures and rankings? (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did - though at the time I had done so, Box Office Mojo removed the adjusted gross and listed only the tickets sold (which is described in the following sentence...). Expanded.
  • In "Development", we read, "A small card gave a detailed description of the plot [of Benchley's novel], concluding with the comment 'might make a good movie'." Um..."a small card"? Does any historian indicate, or even suggest, the source of this crucial card? We need to deal with the issue of who produced this card, even if we can't definitively determine who did...though maybe we can. At any rate, we definitely need more here. [edited to describe card as of "unknown origin"] DocKino (talk) 08:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen Brown telling the story in a documentary, but seems he never found out.
  • Okay, two more things on box office: (1) "During its first weekend, it grossed more than $7 million, and it was the top grosser for the following five weeks." Box Office Mojo is good for the first part of that, but not too strong for the second. It shows data for weeks 1-4, then skips 5, and shows week 6. Also, i wouldn't be surprised if Jaws was number 1 for even longer than 5 (or 6) weeks. Can you hit some of the higher-quality sources to nail this down? (2) "The release was subsequently expanded on July 25 to a total of 675 theaters, the largest simultaneous distribution of a film in motion picture history at the time." Again, Box Office Mojo is fine for the first part of this, but I don't see any sourcing for the claim that it was "the largest simultaneous distribution of a film in motion picture history at the time". That's obviously crucial, and needs a good, clear source. DocKino (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Generally the prose is good. Here are a few comments from the lead and first few sections.

  • Slight change of nuance, so up to you, but I'd remove the opening comma. (Again, this is not relevant to the delegates' decision, like all personal pref. comments.)
  • Opening: "high-concept" film, but the linked article on this is most unsatisfactory, and is tagged as such. I don't see reliable sources and I've not heard of the concept. It doesn't ring true to me. Where are the ROs?
  • I suppose there's no alternative to the sexist "man-eating", is there? Women are safe in the water? Maybe there is no alternative. We used not to worry about these terms, but they're increasingly coming into question.
    • Guess there's no alternative to man-eater. And God, I hate political correctness.
  • Personal pref: "utilizing" is pretty ugly. What about plain English "using"?
  • "ominous yet subdued" ... would "ominous" be enough? I'm unsure whether such a threatening theme is subdued in the minds of the viewers. What do you think?
    • Minimalistic is enough? (after all, we have to point out the theme is threatening because it is simple!)
  • "and became the highest-grossing".
  • "the soundtrack" (that would remove another of the many "it"s and "its"s).
  • Consider removing the comma: "that to maximize"
  • OMG, $9M investment brought in $471M???? The good old days.
  • Logic ... sorry to be fussy: "only to be dragged back and forth violently and then under the water". So the dragging under the water wasn't violent? Your recasting may find a way of omitting "then", or may not.
  • "the trio try"—it's ok. You might try avoiding the t t. "the trio attempted a". Not sure.
  • Commas: the shorter the sentence and the more commas already hanging about, the less likely you are to add an optional comma: "A small card, of unknown origin, gave a detailed description of the plot, concluding with the comment "might make a good movie". Why not remove the first two? Flow needs to be balanced.
  • "pages" is odd here: "The script pages were mostly finished the night before the scenes were shot". Perhaps "the script for each scene was typically finished the ..."?
  • Personal pref.: "Nine days prior to the start of production"—plainer as "before"?
  • Could we have the pics (after the top one) a bit bigger? 240px or 250px means the readers don't have to squint to see detail-rich scenes such as the fishing village. I boosted a couple: up to you. Tony (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

  • File:JAWS Movie poster.jpg is too large. Reduce the resolution.
  • File:JawsJohnWilliams.ogg is of too high a quality. Reduce (when exporting in Audacity, click on options and set quality to 0). Is the name of the sampled song "Main Title and First Victim"? If so, include that in the article/sample header. Also, the full stop/period of the audio sample caption should be removed per WP:CAPTION.

—Andrewstalk 10:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on criterion 3. Remember to substitute {{furd}} into the pages of non-free media that has been reduced. —Andrewstalk 06:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice to see it continuing to improve.

  • So after some copyedits, we have "Richard D. Zanuck and David Brown, producers at Universal Pictures, independently heard about Peter Benchley's novel Jaws." That's good. Then we have the interesting story of how Brown came across it. Great. But on reflection, it's a bit odd not to also explain how Zanuck first came across it. If any of the sources provide that information, it should be included, however briefly. DocKino (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, you're using a system for book citations where you have a short ref in "References" and then the full citation in "Bibliography". Great. Except you have another 13 or so full-length book sources in "References". You're going to have to move all of those down into the "Bibliography" and replace them with consistently styled short refs up above. Yes, I understand the idea was not to include books in the "Bibliography" that are cited only once, but in addition to that being an odd idea to begin with, it virtually never works in practice. For instance, there are at least two books currently in the "Bibliography" that are only cited once, and two books that are not in the "Bibliography" that are cited more than once (Wyatt and Muir). So let's be consistent and get them all down there. Once you've done that, I'll do a copyediting pass to ensure the formatting's good and consistent. DocKino (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of my foregoing comments/questions have been addressed. If you'd like me to strike them out, igordebraga, let me know. Here's two more, and they're pretty substantial.

  • With all due respect to "Bruce" the shark, Jaws has three human stars, and it's weird that we're giving readers no idea what any of them look like in this film. An image with Scheider, Dreyfuss, and Shaw in costume (or at least two of them) would be very informative to our audience. See, for example, the group in-costume shots in the Featured Articles Tender Mercies and Star Trek: The Motion Picture. (And note that in both of those cases, the infoboxed poster already gives some minimal clue as to what the lead characters look like--the Jaws poster doesn't even do that.) The article simply doesn't rise to FA quality without this vital visual information.
    • I was already thinking about it... added.
  • I'm all in favor of citing audiovisual sources, but they need to be cited diligently. There are 25 citations of Spotlight on Location: The Making of Jaws, a documentary that appears on the 30th-anniversary edition of the Jaws DVD, yet none of these give an approximate time marker. That's very much like citing a book without giving a page number, and that's referencing unworthy of FA status. (Similarly, there's four untimed citations of Jaws: The Inside Story, a Biography Channel documentary.) In the Featured Article Sex Pistols, for instance, I cite both the movie The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle and director Julien Temple's DVD commentary on it multiple times, on each occasion giving a time marker. In the Tender Mercies FA, you'll find two citations that also follow this standard. Do you have access to the 30th-anniversary DVD to do proper citing? I guarantee you that this effort will improve the article and almost certainly correct some errors, large or small. (I've found, for instance, misquotations--none major, yet--from printed sources in the article. If those exist, and they do, you can be darn sure there are misquotations from untimed DVD refs.) I'm more than ready to help out. I've ordered the 30th-anniversary DVD from my local library and hope to have it in a few days. But I don't wish to verify and time all 25 citations alone... DocKino (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved the image you added from the "Cast" section to the "Casting" subsection for one major reason--I think the "Cast" section should go. While simple actor/role lists with no additional info such as this were once standard-issue in Wikipedia movie articles, it seems clear that they are no longer regarded as representative of our best style. Over the past year, three movie articles (Conan the Barbarian, Into Temptation, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier) from three different nominators (Jappalang, Hunter Kahn, David Fuchs) have achieved FA status; none has this sort of blank cast list. I know the aforementioned Tender Mercies, the most recent movie article FA with which I was substantially involved, doesn't have one either. (If there's one area where we'll never outcompete IMDb, it's in these sorts of raw name lists--so it's little loss if we leave that field to them.) I believe the thing to do is simply cut the section, and see if you can add a paragraph to "Casting" covering whatever there is to find relevant to Jaws concerning the actors who aren't already mentioned in the section (Gary, Shaw, Scheider, Dreyfuss). I would think there's a decent chance of finding material on the four other performers who are well-known enough to have Wikipedia articles--Hamilton, Gottleib, Kramer, Backlinie. (Benchley's small onscreen role is covered sufficiently in "Writing"). The article will better represent our best style, be more informative, and look tighter, too. DocKino (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:37, 24 January 2012 [4].

Poppy Meadow edit

Nominator(s): MayhemMario 14:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe this article could be a Featured Article. This is my first time; so I dont really know what to put here. This character's article in my opinion is at least in the top 5 of all Eastnders articles. The GA review (Number 1) was not great, a speedy pass. Another user did a GA reassessment which was great, the best GA review I have ever received. The character may have been a minor character in the scale of things; but made a big impression. User:Frickative got the article to GA aswell; so although Frickative may have not nominated this article for FA, I would like Frickative to get credit if this article does pass. As this is my first time, I have read the guidelines, aswell as reading the extremely helpfull User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA! MayhemMario 14:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a soaps person myself, but it'd be interesting to see an FA-quality article on a character.

  • "and The Sun criticised the termination of her contract." Avoid personification of publications; also, the contract of the actress was terminated, not the contract of the character. Done.
  • "Poppy Meadow as portrayed by Rachel Bright" Not sure "as portrayed by" is appropriate here. How about "Rachel Bright as Poppy Meadow"
  • "is dating Jodie's ex-boyfriend," Who is this? A completely off-screen character? Do we not even get a name?
  • I take it episodes do not have names- it would perhaps be helpful in the "storylines" section if the episodes were specified.
  • In the "casting" section, there's actually nothing about casting.
  • "The Sun assessed that this venture had failed" Again, avoid personification.
  • "and Susan Hill of the Daily Star called her "pretty".[35]" This is not really anything to do with her personality, which the other quotes are.
  • "RTE called her "insane" and "irritating"," Again, personification.
  • I think the characterisation section needs to be reorganised. It's a little quote-farm-y at the moment. -
  • "Digital Spy's Daniel Kilkelly and the Daily Star have similarly referred to them as a "ditzy duo" [37][38] Bright stated in an interview that in real life she is "nothing like Poppy".[22]" Spacing/punct issue.
  • "In the 19 September 2011 episode, Poppy discovered that Jodie's fiance Darren (Hawkins) had cheated on her.[11] Hawkins assessed" Why are you referring to a character by their surname here? - Hawkins is the name of the actor, who was interviewd about the storyline. Darren is the character, Hawkins the actor. MayhemMario 16:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hawkins assessed that" Odd turn of phrase.
  • "Laspinskas deemed his character" Is this Lapinskas or Laspinskas?
  • "He and Jodie later kissed" No, Darren and Jodie later kissed. La(s)pinkas and Darren are not one and the same. - It was Anthony and Jodie who later kissed, therfore creating a love traingle between him, Poppy and Jodie. MayhemMario 16:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Inside Soap predicted" Personification
  • "RTÉ wrote" Personification. Also, the way you're referring to it (and the formatting) is inconsistent.
  • "Digital Spy and the Daily Star later" You know what I'm going to say... Done.
  • "branded her "perhaps the greatest television bit-part character of the modern age"." I don't get it. Is this some kind of joke? I don't often read The Guardian, and I don't know who Stuart Heritage is, but this almost has an air of dry Charlie Brooker sarcasm. I think he is generally being truthfull, not sarcasm. MayhemMario 21:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Sun noted that... the Huffington Post similarly opined..."
  • Again, the reception section is a little quote-farmy.
  • I think more needs to be made earlier of the fact the character was a funny optimist, and the fact she was part of a double-act.
  • Why do you italicise Digital Spy? It's a website, not a magazine. Also, you give several publishers. What's up with that? We have given the publishers for every reference. MayhemMario 21:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give a few locations for newspaper publishers- I don't think you really need them, but, if you want them, I think you'll need them for the magazines, too. Deleted all. MayhemMario 17:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good article, and I'm surprised just how notable this character actually seems to be. However, I think it needs more work before it is ready for FA status. J Milburn (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - ranges should use endashes, spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- Hi, sorry about being late; J Milburn can you give me an example of one of the personified sentences to what you want it to be like? Also Nikkimaria, im still new(ish), confused what you mean. :) MayhemMario 16:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think what they're looking for is as follows:
  • "and The Sun criticised the termination of her contract." should tell who it was who leveled the criticism, e.g., "and The Sun's Jane Smith criticised the termination of her contract." (You supply the name of the author of the article who wrote the critical words.) You do this correctly for most of the article's intro; just in this one case do you attribute the criticism to the publication (personification) itself rather than the author. - Done.
  • for "12-18 November", use an en dash rather than a hyphen: "12–18 November". (It's the leftmost of the special characters listed above the "Please note:" header on edit pages.) Done. I found it in two references, which I also discovered were otherwise identical, though one was part of a large reference, while the other was in its own. I don't know whether there's a way to combine the two. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- There isnt, of what I know of, and thanks, :) MayhemMario 21:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will the person who is adding the bold Dones to reviewer comments please remove them to their own line and sign their entries, so we can see who is saying what is done? Please don't edit reiewer comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didnt reliaze I did, my bad. Done all comments above and below (even though some below were incorrect). MayhemMario 18:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as I uncovered several problems in a few minutes of looking. This does not appear to be ready.

  • The linking strategy needs attention; examples: "fictional character" is common language and of low value; "Queen Victoria" in "Queen Victoria pub" should not be linked unless to an article about the pub.
  • In the Introduction, I'm confused about your use of "Poppy" and "Bright" interchangeably. "Poppy would be returning" and then "Bright made her return". What is your strategy for using both?
  • Most troubling are the problems with sources. On three random spot-checks, I found three problems.
    • Ref 3a: Why place "bizarre and utterly irrelevant" in quotes but not "pointless" later? The article you reference uses that exact term.
    • Ref 29b: "The EastEnders website describes Poppy as someone who 'may come across as a pretty faced bimbo', but is willing to stand up for herself, is not a push-over, and 'woe betide you should you cross her'." You are closely paraphrasing without quotation ("is not a push over" vs. "she's no push over") which is plagiarism. Additionally, the source says nothing about her being "willing to stand up for herself" and does not contain the "woe betide you" quote.
    • Ref 34: "RTE's Sarah Hardy called her 'insane'." No, she didn't. The article calls her "insanely grating" which is not at all the same thing.

A complete audit by an independent editor will be needed, to check for plagiarism and mis-attribution. --Laser brain (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: At three weeks, no consensus to promote, and numerous issues have been raised that give the nominator plenty to work on before a clean start on the next nomination. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Finished all points. MayhemMario 18:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:37, 24 January 2012 [5].

The Emancipation of Mimi edit

Nominator(s): CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. The last two nominations ended prematurely, due to my extended absence. This time I'm in it until the article has earned the little bronze star. Thanks everyone :) CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP Comments
  • No dab links needed to be fixed. Looks good.
  • In Songs and lyrics, why is "'I gotta shake you off / Just like a Calgon commercial'" in single quotation marks? The Manual of style asks for double quotes.
  • Check for WP:OVERLINKing: Gospel music, Get Your Number, We Belong Together, Shake It Off, Say Somethin', VH1, The New York Times, Jon Pareles and PopMatters are linked more than once in the article body. I suggest going into edit mode and searching for these as some are piped with different names.
  • Why is "Other charting songs" not a level 3 header?
  • I do not believe iTunes--a media player software--publishes the iTunes Store--a music retailer. Wouldn't it be Apple Inc.?
  • FN 35–40: Amazon.com publishes its own site; the work and publisher are the same. For international sites, you would say for example "Amazon.ca" or "Amazon.de" instead of "Amazon.com". You can also specify in brackets the country of the site instead: "Amazon.com (US)", "Amazon.com (Canada)", etc,
  • Based on your choice of consistency, works and publishers should be linked on first occurence: FN 41 needs linking and FN 60 does not.
  • FN 89 is apparently dead per Checklinks.
  • FN 133: Is contactmusic.com good for FA?
  • Yes, it can unless there are used o sourced extraordinary claims. Nikki does not question its use. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 164: Should we specify that a source is in English on an English encyclopedia?
  • "Inc" and "Co." should be omitted in publisher names in "Nielsen Business Media, Inc", "Herald Media Inc." and "Tennessee Valley Printing Co., Inc" per documentation of {{Citation}}.
  • FN 19 and FN 84 both wikilink the work (Chicago Tribune) and publisher (Tribune Company). Check consistency in wikilinking.
  • FN 61: Link BBC News and BBC.

Please accept my comments in good faith and feel free to reply in you feel some are wrong and unreasonable. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 02:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! Thanks for stopping by. I addressed all of your points.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good work Nathan. Further concerns:
  • Quotations needs inline citation, even if they are in the lead ("comeback", "party record").
  • VH1 is still linked twice, once in the form of "Save the Music".
  • Per WP:DISCOGSTYLE, we use the abbreviations for the music organizations (RIAA, ARIA, etc.) for the Singles charts certifications, not the country's abbreviations (US, CAN, etc.).
  • For the album certifications, you have a header that says "(Sales thresholds)", yet they are not specified in the cells. You just have the certification. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
—WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Missed one.All points have been addressed. I will take a look at the prose sometime soon. :-) —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing! Thanks :D--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me

Orane has raised excellent points below and you've done a great job responding to them! The prose does look a little rough in certain areas; I decided to have a look at the lead of the article, and this is what I found:

  • "The Emancipation of Mimi is the tenth studio album by American singer-songwriter Mariah Carey, released in the United States on April 12, 2005 through Island Records."
    • (1) She is not a singer-songwriter, which is a profession dedicated to a completely different style, not necessarily those who write and record their own songs. She's a singer and a songwriter, but not a singer-songwriter.
    • (2) Something needs to be delineated here. It reads is if Carey was released in the U.S., not the album. Maybe put a "and was released" in there.
      • Hey WP. So thanks for coming back. I'm not sure I completely agree with some of your posts, so let me try and respond to each one individually so this is done as smoothly as possible :) #1). I fixed that one. #2). I'm not sure I really find this problematic. I think it's kind of obvious that we are talking about her album, not the singer herself.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Emancipation of Mimi was considered Carey's "comeback album"[1] by music critics and became her highest-selling release in almost a decade." – Is it me, or is the word "became" a bit redundant here, when "considered" does the job?
    • Again, I don't see an issue with this one. It was considered her come-back album not just because of the album's strong sales, but also because of its critical accomplishments. So what the sentence reads is exactly what I mean. It was considered a come-back release due to its strong critical reaction, and became (after a year of its release) Carey strongest seller in years.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the majority of" is merely a fancy way to write "most (of)".
    • So why write it in simpler form? I think honestly think either way works.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In most context, you can do without the word "also", which adds no meaning to a sentence usually, like here: "... most of which also appear as featured guests on various tracks."
  • I think the tense needs to be revised. When you generally describe the contents of a song or album you use present tense. However, what critics say are written in past tense. So you would say "The album reveals a more intimate side" and "the album showcases ...". However, you would still say "Critics noted" instead of "Critics note".
  • The phrase "commercial setback" is a confusing one and it will be unclear to the average reader what you are talking about.
    • Do you really find this problematic? I think its simple enough.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Think redundancy, some expressions are usually too vague for them to even be in a sentence, like "a variety of".: "... the album encompassed a variety of dance-oriented and uptempo styles that were in keeping with its celebratory aesthetics." Sometimes, the expression helps to be there, but is a fancy way to write "various".
  • Also, "celebrity aesthetics" may be another confusing pair of words that your average Wikipedia reader will be unsure of.
    • It says "celebratory" :) Hmm, WP, I don't think there is a rule to use only easy wording. Wikipedia (especially on FA needs to read like a professional article, not something based on 8th grade linguistics.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... as many critics called it Carey's best vocal performance in years." – The clause could do without the word "many" unless you really mean a lot of critics, which is unlikely.
  • A bit week for inclusion in the lead: "They had questioned Carey's vocal abilities on Charmbracelet, in which they found her voice to be airy, thin, and damaged." The lead must be focused on TEOM.
    • I understand your point, but it is only a sentence that works as a sharp contrast to TEOM.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album debuted at number one on the US Billboard 200 with opening week sales of 404,000 copies, the highest first-week sales of Carey's career at the time." – In case you decide to keep the sentence above, you have to disambiguate which album is "The album". Also, I feel as discussing exact opening sales in the lead is a a bit too much detail, even if they were her highest. The fact that it debuted at No. 1 is enough.
    • I really don't think readers are going to be puzzled when reading this. It is obvious we are talking about Mimi and its accomplishments. Also, I've seen opening sales mentioned in several promoted album articles, even when they aren't "highest" opening sales.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity, has their been any update on the sales after April 2008?
    • Not that I have been able to find. I always try to keep them updated.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'We Belong Together', the album's second release, topped the singles chart in the United States, where it accumulated 14 total weeks at number one, and was later named 'song of the decade' by Billboard." – For an album article lead, this is probably digressing a bit too much. And albums do not release singles. I think this can be tightened: "'We Belong Together', the second single, accumulated 14 total weeks at number one in the United States, and was later named "song of the decade" by Billboard." The song of the decade thing might need a citation.
    • I fixed this one. However, I don't think a citation is necessary. It is not a quote and can be easily found in the article's body.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't taken a good look at the rest of the article, but the immense size of some paragraphs jumps out on me, particularly in the Songs and lyrics, Promotion, Reviews, and Commercial performance. The mind can only process so much information, and splitting the paragraphs will give the brains a break and continue reading again. It's hard to tell what the size of a paragraph should be, but once as a reader you feel like you are a bit lost in one, it's time to split it. Paragraphs should be just long enough for he reader to easily gather the main idea that is being discussed. Not too short, else they will be left hanging.

This is a little worrying for the lead, but I don't feel that I should Oppose without having a good look at the rest of the article. I think you've done an excellent job. I'm just being picky here and trying to get the best out of this article. If you can give it a nice good copy edit, it will satisfy the 1a criterion of WIAFA. Thank you. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have responded to several of your points. Please take a look so you can understand my point of view on them. Also, you seem to be pointing out too many opinionated things and not actual errors. However, I will do my best to work them all out. Also, I don't feel can wittle down the sections any more without cropping important information. Remember, without the photos, the paragraphs would look much smaller.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't think it would be reasonable to Oppose based on such comments, so I didn't. Thank you for your honesty and I understand very well why you may think my comments are opinionated, but honestly, they aren't. They are in every effort to try and make the prose compelling, professional, even brilliant. This can be done by tightening it. That's why I feel that "a variety of" and "the majority of" are very loose and redundant when the same can be expressed in "various" or "most". Actually, this essay by Tony1 discusses this nicely, disregarding "misplaced formality" like "upon", "within", "multiple", and "majority","prior to", all of which are better off written as "on", "in", "many" and "most". I didn't raise "celebratory aesthetics" and "commercial setback" just for the sake of it. I actually do not know what these phrases mean. It has to be written clear and in plain English. Regarding the sentence abou Charbracelet's reception in contrast with TEOM's, I do think a simple "... as critics called it Carey's best vocal performance in years and an improvement from Charmbracelet." suffices. So only two concerns, lead may be over-detailed (this can be arguable) and prose may need copy editing. Don't get me wrong, this is a very well written article. Understand that my comments are for the best. My hopes for this FAC are just as strong as yours. :) —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Jivesh

*Added to the above comments about the references,

  • FN 44, link The Official Charts Company
  • FN 45 (and similar ones from Hung Medien), I know that it is consistency which matter but I have seen editors arguing that we should write Lescharts.com. Hung Medien or Australian-charts.com. Hung Medien - Do you get my point?
I forgot to reply. Jivesh, while I do understand what you mean, I'm not sure I agree with this method. It looks messy to me :S--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. It does not matter. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*FN 47, unlink Tribune Company

  • FN 53, is it really British Phonographic Industry?
  • FN 62 & FN 84 & FN 120 contain over-linking of both work and publisher
  • FN 99 contains over-linking of FOX News

I will leave more comments later. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All done buddy :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
May I suggest a copyedit for the article. There are certain awkward phrases that jump out at me throughout the article, and an entire section that would work best if it were reorganized. A few examples:
  • "Critics called considered it her "comeback album".[1]" That's the third sentence in the article. Not only does it have a stray word, the sentence itself sounds jarring since it's constructed as a stand alone sentence. I think it would sound better if it were a clause to a longer sentence.
  • "A number of artists are attributed with writing and production credits, including Jermaine Dupri, Snoop Dogg, Twista, Nelly, Pharrell Williams and James "Big Jim" Wright. Most of these artists also appear as featured guests on various tracks." It's probably just me, but this sentence sounds awkward. And, is it that notable to be placed in the very first paragraph? Why not third or fourth paragraph. Use the lead paragraph to establish the tone as to why the article was so great.
  • "Reid felt that the album's subtle production and live vocals made the record sound more authentic, whereas on several of Carey's sophomoric efforts, he head the singer's voice, but not necessarily her spirit." There's an incorrect spelling in there. See if you can spot it =) Also, some words are very ambiguous. You said that Read appreciated the "subtle" production. How was the production subtle? The inline citation does not support this. Also, what exactly is a "sophomoric effort"?
  • "The Emancipation of Mimi included a variety of tempos and genres not found on her previous release". A bit carried away, I think. I'd say she explored different aspects of the same genre. But would you really say that these genres that she explored were absent from all of her previous releases?
  • "While most tracks deduce their instrumentation from live bands and musical instruments". Deduce is an awkward word choice here.
  • "jazz-influenced gospel ballad "Fly Like a Bird". One of my fav songs ever. Don't remember it being jazzy. Source doesn't support this either.
  • "The song features a recording of Carey's deceased pastor". Try "now deceased" pastor. or just omit the fact that he's dead.
  • "In the song, the protagonist comes on to a love interest with the line" Come on is colloquial. She makes sexual advances to, she tempts, she allures, she entices... anything else.
  • "Being so, Carey opted to record the majority of the album live". "Being so" is a bit awkward.
  • "felt that the album followed a formula that was obvious on "Shake It Off"--a formula that was most apparent on "Shake It Off?
  • "He commented that in the strong and belted songs such as "Fly Like a Bird" and "I Wish You Knew" a strong and belted song? what is a strong song?
  • "Carey intended for the album to feature a rawer sound than some of her previous releases". I'm not sure rawer is a word. And if it is, it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.
  • The main issue that I'm having with the writing and recording section is that, again, it's too general. I get no impression of what she did with the individual songs. But let's say I overlook that. You don't necessarily have to do it my way. But, the section starts off rather awkwardly: "By November 2004, Carey had already recorded several songs for the album." Huh? I thought this section was supposed to tell me about these songs that she recorded up to November 2004. Yet, it starts off telling me that she had already done it. When did she do it? How? Where? With whom? Her answer to the question "What was the writing process with this album" found here gives more info that that entire section of this article.
  • If I'm being completely honest, I'd say that the article isn't completely ready. Close, but not quite there yet. Orane (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All done and more buddy :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Penguin raised some nice comments, many of which I agree with. And as usual, you can embrace or reject at will.
  • It's a relatively minor issue, but this sentence trouble me: "Following the relatively poor critical and commercial reception to her albums Glitter (2001) and Charmbracelet (2002), The Emancipation of Mimi was considered Carey's "comeback album"[1] by music critics and became her highest-selling release in almost a decade." Would it be better to say "Following the relatively poor critical and commercial reception to her albums Glitter (2001) and Charmbracelet (2002), The Emancipation of Mimi became her highest-selling release in almost a decade, and was considered Carey's "comeback album" by music critics." I think this way is best because it is syntactically and logically straightforward: "previous failures-->best-selling in a decade-[therefore]->comeback album", rather than "previous failure-[became]->comeback album-[and was also]->best-selling in a decade".
  • "Throughout 2004, the singer co-wrote and produced the majority of the album alongside several songwriters and record producers, such as Jermaine Dupri, Snoop Dogg, Twista, Nelly, Pharrell Williams and James "Big Jim" Wright; most of which appear as featured guests on various tracks."--incorrect use of semi-colon. Maybe you can try "In composing the album, the singer collaborated with several songwriters and producers throughout 2004, including Jermaine Dupri, Snoop Dogg, Twista, Nelly, Pharrell Williams and James "Big Jim" Wright, many of whom also appeared as featured guests on some many of the album's songs."-- or some variation of this sentence.
  • "... received generally positive reviews, as critics called it Carey's best vocal performance in years. They had questioned Carey's vocal abilities on Charmbracelet, in which they found her voice to be airy, thin, and damaged." --may be tweaked to "... received generally positive reviews, as critics called it Carey's best vocal performance in years, following criticism of her voice as being thin and damaged on her previous release." --just something simple-- the "thin, air and damaged" thing disrupts the rhythm of the prose.
  • "o promote the album, Carey performed at the 48th annual Grammy Awards, where she received the only standing ovation of the evening, and at the 33rd American Music Awards." Question: do you really think the fact that she received a standing ovation for a performance at an awards ceremony is notable enough to be placed in the introduction of an encyclopedia article about the album?
  • "but not something that would re-capture audiences around the world and re-establish her popularity as in the 1990s"-- as in the 1990s is awkward.
  • "Many took notice of Carey's more airy and light vocals"-- If I know my comparatives and superlatives, it's airy, airier, airiest and not airy, more airy, most airy. :P
  • "claimed she was no longer capable of the same degree of vocal prowess she had exhibited earlier in her career"-- claimed she now lacked the vocal prowess of her earlier releases... or something like that. My point is that the sentence is verbose.
  • "Three years later, with the release of The Emancipation of Mimi, Carey's critical and commercial popularity surged again;" How about saying something like "TEOM saw the resurgence of her critical and commercial popularity"...?
  • "Critic Andre Meyer of CBS News thought the material was "stronger", and called the album a move in Carey's long-term plan for pop domination, while giving off the "jittery R&B vibe that made Destiny’s Child so potent."[5] He went on to say that "Mariah has returned to singing – while still pushing the limits of good taste with her barely there outfits."[5]" why not in the critical reception section?
  • "Throughout 2004, Carey had already begun writing and producing material for the album." Stop saying she already began lol. Just say that "Carey began writing and producing the album in 2003 or 2004 or whatever year it is". Because whenever you begin the section saying she had already written it, you imply a glaring omission from your article.

Still small errors like those pointed out above. Here's a suggestion: print out sections of the article, read it out loud (listening to the flow and the musicality of the prose), and edit it with a pencil. Trim what you don't need, and try to make the wording as precise as you can. I won't oppose the article, because it's really good. These are just comments to get my support vote, and can be sorted out in a really short time. Good luck. Orane (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

—Andrewstalk 06:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Is the nominator still working on this article? I don't see any movement in almost two weeks, and I don't want to waste my time reviewing if interest has been lost in the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: this nomination has been up for over three weeks and has received no Support. It will have a better chance by coming back to FAC in a few weeks, after previous commenters here are satisfied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:37, 24 January 2012 [6].

DNA nanotechnology edit

Nominator(s): Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first attempt at promoting an article to featured status. I have been working on this article for several years, during which it has appeared at DYK and had a peer review. I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is a comprehensive, understandable treatment of a field of current research, something which would not usually be available to the general public except through Wikipedia. Of course, any feedback is welcome and appreciated, and I am happy to make revisions which further improve the article as part of the FAC process. Thanks in advance for your reviews! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape search - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for now. - There is no need to give the section headings in the references. I suggest you delete them. I am impressed, on the whole, with the quality and accuracy of the article, but the prose, particularly in the Lead needs some work to make the subject clearer to a non-expert. I don't think we need "molecular recognition" in the first sentence; this will put many readers off straight away. Why not just write, "DNA nanotechnology is a branch of nanotechnology, which creates designed, artificial structures out of DNA." There is also some redundancy here, "DNA nanotechnology makes use of the fact that, due to the specificity of Watson-Crick base pairing, only portions of the strands which are complementary to each other will bind to each other to form duplex DNA." I suggest something along the lines of, "DNA nanotechnology makes use of DNA base pairing, in that only portions of DNA strands that are complementary to each other will bind to form duplex DNA." I would also like to see more inline citations; often sources are not clear. There are many primary sources used, perhaps too many. Are there any review articles that can be used instead of some of these? Graham Colm (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments!
  • The tags in the references are to help readers if they want to scan through the sources to find papers on a given topic. I know it's non-standard, but I think it's helpful and should stay.
  • Agreed about the lead, I'll sit down and revise that sometime today.
  • The sources should be perfectly clear; the citations at the end of a paragraph support the entire paragraph. This is standard usage, and it avoids repeating the same citation after every sentence, which clutters the article and reduces readability IMO.
  • Actually, every single paragraph is supported by a review article. The more technical sections (Design, Structural DNA nanotechnology, Functional nanostructures) also cite original research articles. (You can see my opinions on using research articles as sources at this essay.)
Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Antony, it's nice to meet you. I have read your essay, and I agree with you in parts; but it's an essay and not a policy. If "every single paragraph is supported by a review article", why are the primary sources needed? I disagree that citations at the end of every sentence reduces readability; I find them reassuring. I would be interested to read other reviewers' comments on this, and those "non-standard" tags in the references.Graham Colm (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pleased to make your acquaintance too. Well, of course it's not a policy, but I've had this discussion before and I thought it would be useful to lay out my thoughts in a slightly longer format than a talk page allows. My main point is that research articles are useful for verifying statements in the text, often more so than review articles, and I think it would be hard to come up with a reason why removing already-present citations to research articles improves the article. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

  • I agree with user Graham Colm regarding the bold faced section names in the footnotes. That really threw me for a loop, and took me awhile to figure out what was going on. They need to be removed. First, that format is not consistent with footnote standards established by the WP community: if you think it is a good idea, you should initiate a discussion in WP:Citing sources or HELP:Footnotes. Second, a word/phrase like that at the start of a footnote is generally used to identify which portion of the material the footnote applies to. For instance, if there is a sentence like: "Dogs are smelly and hairy[1]", and the footnote reads: "[1] Hairy: Smith, p 23; Smelly: Jones, p 25", then the preface word "Hairy" in the footnote is identifying the specific material the footnote is supporting. Since this article is using the preface word in another way, that leads to confusion.
  • The prose quality seems decent.
  • The content seems to give an encyclopedic overview.
  • "..four-arm junction shown below, .." - figure is at right in my web browser.
  • "Unlike in natural Holliday junctions, in the artificial immobile ..." - sentence does not read well. Suggest re-word, especially eliminate the two words "in".
  • Agree with user Graham Colm regarding citations for every sentence. The fact is that FA quality more or less demands that every non-trivial sentence have its own footnote. Yes, it is a bit ugly, but it has the benefit that as time goes by, and other editors add/remove text from paragraphs, there is no risk that the original citation (at the end of the paragr) will get disconnected from a sentence at the start/middle of the paragraph. See WP:INTEGRITY for details. (Also, I note that for articles on math-related topics, the WP community has agreed that footnotes at the end of each paragraph are sufficient).
  • Agree with user Graham Colm regarding primary vs. secondary sources. I don't doubt that the sources used are excellent, and I'm sure many of the scientific articles are reviews (of more primary articles) ... but if the field was started in 1980 (32 years ago) there should be more overview books out there. Using overview books would reduce the risk of violating WP:OR issues (not that I'm suggesting there are any with this article). I can only find one book referenced the entire article, and it is a single chapter within the book by Pelesko. Are there no other books? Not a show stopper, just asking.
  • "... and thus the number of advancements in the field ..." - suggest "advancements" -> "advances"; advancements could mean job promotions.

End of Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review!
  • I was not aware of that particular footnote format; I've never seen that done in scientific publications, so I suspect it might be a humanities-specific usage. Nevertheless, if the overall sentiment continues to be that the bolded tags should be removed, I'll do so.
  • For paragraphs where different sentences come from different sources, I agree. But having the exact same citation after every single sentence in a paragraph gives it a very unprofessional appearance, and I routinely remove these if I come across them in my editing. Imagine what DNA nanotechnology#Fundamental concepts would look like if the exact same citation was used fifteen times, one for each sentence, instead of once for each paragraph. Also, WP:INTEGRITY only talks about references within sentences, and it does actually explicitly allow collecting references for aesthetic reasons (at the end of the sentence, but the same principles suggest that collection at the end of the paragraph is allowable if there aren't too many sources cited).
  • Again, research articles are not primary sources in the same sense that the term is used in humanities. In review articles the focus is generally on providing a very brief overview of an article's approach and establishing the context in which it relates to other articles, rather than including detailed technical analysis. Review articles are often inadequate for verifying the more technical statements in an article like this, and citations to research articles have great usefulness in directing technically-minded readers to papers that contain these details.
  • Actually, there are no textbooks specifically about this field, although I've heard of two which are in preparation and may or may not be published eventually. Although the field started in the early 1980s, Nadrian Seeman was pretty much the only researcher working on it until 1999 or so, when Winfree and Rothemund picked it up, and it expanded from there. It's still a small, esoteric field, and it hasn't quite had the time to develop the expansive big-picture kind of sources that other fields have yet.
Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've taken a closer look at Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines, and it supports both the inclusion of research articles, and for collecting citations at the end of a paragraph for uncontroversial knowledge. WP:SCICITE#Attribution specifically supports "supply[ing] the original source for an idea" to "provide attribution for experiments, theorems," etc., and WP:SCICITE#Uncontroversial knowledge says that for statements "widely known among people familiar with a discipline" such as those "contained in multiple references in the research literature (most importantly in review articles)", "it is acceptable to give an inline citation for one or two authoritative sources... often inserted either after the first sentence of a paragraph or after the last sentence of the paragraph." Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 21:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've tackled the prose points brought up above. My sense of FAC is that prose reviewers get stricter on more technical material ... and this is about as technical as it gets, so I'm going to do some pruning. Feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 21:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's common in scientific articles to stuff a lot of terms the scientists will be familiar with into the first paragraphs ... but most of our readers aren't scientists, and I've removed a few of the terms so they don't have so much to swallow all at once. I'm down to just one paragraph in the lead now, and it may make sense to pull more material out of the text for the lead. I added a sentence to the lead that's partly my own ... possibly unsupported in the article, I haven't read it yet ... but if we can support this, I think it may answer a question that some readers are going to be asking: "The same properties that make DNA useful as the carrier of genetic information in living cells serve it well as an engineering material: complementary portions of DNA strands bind together to form a wide variety of strong, rigid molecules of duplex DNA." - Dank (push to talk) 21:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC) tweaked 02:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought I would enjoy working on this article ... I know a little about how to write for FAC and about DNA nanotechnology ... but I'm feeling lost. With every choice, I don't know when explaining terms would be an unwelcome digression and when it's necessary for the target audience ... I guess I'm remembering now why I don't usually work on science articles. Some readers will ask: what's bionanotechnology? molecular self-assembly? DNA computing? FAC reviewers are going to want the lead to at least touch on things in the table of contents, but how do we do that without completely confusing the general reader? I guess I'm saying, I just don't know what I need to know to review this for FAC. I've worked on the lead some, and I think it's tighter than it used to be, so I'm hoping that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 02:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I absolutely think the lead has been improved by the tightening you've done. The sentence you added is definitely supported in the literature. I agree with the points about avoiding technical terms in the lead and trying to explain them elsewhere in the article, and I'll take a second look at the prose with that in mind. Thanks for the edits! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Iridia (predominantly prose; I have academic-paper expertise but do not work in this field, so can only make 1a comments)

  • The lead needs a fair bit of work to be accessible to a general audience as well as interesting; eg. using the phrase 'rational design' in the lead does not add understanding (eg. could be 'with a design philosophy of incremental changes to successful structures'). It also does not cover the content of the article: no mention of the history, no mention of the structures that have been able to be built to date.
  • I'd change out the title image for one like [File:DNA nanostructures.png] which is used further down, to connect more clearly that the purpose of the technology is model > physical structure.
  • The paragraph structure throughout needs to begin with more basic concepts and lead into the technical detail. eg. in Fundamental concepts: "The intent of this branch of nanotechnology is to create structures useful for engineering applications that are nanoscale in size. The material used is DNA. The physical properties of DNA that make it more useful for constructing structures than the metals etc used in its parent engineering field of nanotechnology are that it has specific allowed base pairing (and segue into para)." This should be more gentle on the unfamiliar reader, while retaining the good level of technicality. Otherwise reads quite clearly and well.
  • Re. sourcing: I'm happy to accept that you've done 1c due diligence on the lit search, since I'm not reviewing that aspect; I will note that expecting review books in a field this young in tech sciences is quite optimistic. My field's about that young, and the first review book (as opposed to articles) only appeared in 2008.
  • In History, expansion or a note on why the field didn't get picked up until recently would be good; just mention of technical difficulties etc might be enough. (or even: what made the money arrive?) The final paragraph might be better split and half moved to the front of the section.
  • (Oh my gosh this makes physical Wang tiles? So cute!)

I'm happy to provide a 1a support following these changes. Also, ping me if the review still needs a spot check after a few weeks have passed; I have academic library access to Nature etc for that. Iridia (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, and you last comment made my day! I've done some work on the lead, and I'm going to try to soften Fundamental Concepts and some of the other sections as well. I'll have to check the literature again to see if there's any reason anyone gives for the field's rise at that specific time. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have written a modified version of the lead here, since the current one has prose problems remaining and keeps catching reviewers. Nice job fixing the citation issues below. Be careful also in body text for universality. I saw a mention in the History of something happening in "fall": use a month in preference to assuming all your readers are in the N. Hemisphere. Looking forward to seeing how it goes! Iridia (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EdChem

Preface
Antony-22, first let me conrgatulate you on your first FA nomination. I think the article can reach FA level, though I believe some work is needed. Given the FA process is meant to improve an article, my comments necessarily focus on areas of weakness and are meant as constructive criticisms; however, please know that there is much in the article that is praise-worthy and I hope all that fellows is useful to you in being granted an FA.

I am dividing my comments up under several of the FA criteria and they will take me some time to complete. Therefore, I will sign at the end of each section once I have finished typing, so that you know it is done and to facilitate you adding whatever responses / comments you see fit.
Criterion 1(a) – well-written
I have some issues with the language / writing in the article:

  • The lead sentence is "DNA nanotechnology is a branch of bionanotechnology that designs and engineers artificial structures made of DNA." Designing and engineering are human activities, they are not undertaken by a branch of bionanotechnology. Perhaps this is meant to be something like "DNA nanotechnology is a branch of bionanotechnology in which artificial DNA structures are designed and synthesised" or "DNA nanotechnology is a branch of bionanotechnology concerned with the design and synthesis artificial structures made of DNA"? I am also not sure that the definition should include the engineering of nanostructures but not their synthesis or manufacture.
  • The next sentence has a similar problem, with DNA nanotechnology rationally designing structures. The caption under the figure has DNA nanotechnology seeking to make structures. In fact, this anthropomorphising is inappropriate in formal science writing and I suggest that the entire article be reviewed to alter sentences which are written in this way.
  • The "Design" section uses the word 'disign' or variants on it about 20 times, the writing can surely be improved.
Criterion 1(b) – comprehensive
Criterion 1(c) – well-researched
The major issue that I have in this area is not about coverage of the area (which seems comprehensive to me) but about putting the work into context.
  • The whole field of DNA nanotechnology involves the preparation of multi-molecule aggregates held together by weak interactions like hydrogen bonding. This is a subset of supramolecular chemistry, a huge field of chemical research that has grown large enough to be considered its own separate branch of chemistry. Yet, there is no indication in the article that it is a part of the field of supramolecular chemistry. Surely this is a critical part of the context within which DNA nanotechnology exists.
  • On a related point, the broader field goes back much further than the early 1980s. Jean-Marie Lehn shared the 1987 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his development of supramolecular chemistry. Having four molecules assemble into a single aggregate (as in the second diagram) may not have been done with DNA before but it was certainly not unprecedented in the literature. The DX structure with a central (blue) molecule the goes around another molecule is an example of a rotaxane, an arrangement known to synthetic supramolecular chemistry long before this DNA-based example was prepared.
  • Catenanes are two or more mechanically-interlocked cyclic molecules. One example is Borromean rings which have been prepared both with metal complexes (by Fraser Stoddart's group) and with DNA (by Chengde Mao and coworkers at NYU - Nature (1997) 386, p. 137). This could be part of a paragraph on comparative methods where DNA-based work reflects other chemical work. Exdamples would include tetrahedrane and cubane at the molecular level reflecting the larger (but still nanoscale) DNA structures for a tetrahedron and a cube.
  • This brings up a point in response to Antony-22's comments above, where he says that DNA nanotechnology is "still a small, esoteric field, and it hasn't quite had the time to develop the expansive big-picture kind of sources that other fields have yet." Good wiki-practice involves use of secondary sources where possible, and I suggest that these sources can be found by looking for books on supramolecular chemistry and review articles that reference the DNA work referenced on this page. For example, the book Supramolecular Chemistry by Steed and Atwood mentions the DNA work in the preface to chapter 15, and I suspect other recent comprehensive texts on the field will also include the DNA-based research.
  • In searching for articles that cite frequently-cited articles by Seeman and then restricting the results to review articles, I found the following that may provide useful macro-level perspective on the broader significance of DNA nanotechnology within the ongoing research literature:
    • DNA origami: a quantum leap for self-assembly of complex structures, an 11 page review published in CHEMICAL SOCIETY REVIEWS in 2011 - doi:10.1039/c1cs15057j
    • Nucleic Acid Based Molecular Devices, a 33 page review published in ANGEWANDTE CHEMIE-INTERNATIONAL EDITION in 2011 - doi:10.1002/anie.200907223
    • Binding Mechanisms in Supramolecular Complexes, a 54 page review published in ANGEWANDTE CHEMIE-INTERNATIONAL EDITION in 2009 - doi:10.1002/anie.200802947
    • Applied chemistry of natural DNA, a 13 page review published in CHEMICAL SOCIETY REVIEWS in 2008 - doi:10.1039/b801433g
    • Metal-Containing Nucleic Acid Structures Based on Synergetic Hydrogen and Coordination Bonding, a 67 page chapter in the volume 55 of the PROGRESS IN INORGANIC CHEMISTRY book series in 2007 - doi:10.1002/9780470144428.ch8
    • Chemical Topology: Complex Molecular Knots, Links, and Entanglements, a 31 page review published in CHEMICAL REVIEWS in 2011 - doi:10.1021/cr200034u
    • Supramolecular DNA assembly, a 10 page review published in CHEMICAL SOCIETY REVIEWS in 2011 - doi:10.1039/c1cs15253j - in fact, that whole issue of Chem. Soc. Rev. (v.40, i.12) appears to have potentially relevant articles
    • DNA as supramolecular scaffold for functional molecules: progress in DNA nanotechnology, an 11 page review published in CHEMICAL SOCIETY REVIEWS in 2011 - doi:10.1039/b820255a
    • DNA nanomedicine: Engineering DNA as a polymer for therapeutic and diagnostic applications and DNA Self-assembly for Nanomedicine, collectively 20 pages published in ADVANCED DRUG DELIVERY REVIEWS in 2010 - doi:10.1016/j.addr.2010.03.004 and doi:10.1016/j.addr.2010.03.005
    • Unconventional nanofabrication, a 34 page review published in ANNUAL REVIEW OF MATERIALS RESEARCH in 2004 - doi:10.1146/annurev.matsci.34.052803.091100
      • NOTE: I have not read any of these papers, this list just comes from me looking for reviews that cited Seeman's work. Some of these may be irrelevant to the DNA nanotechnology article, but I believe strongly that good secondary review sources are available for this subject, and I suspect that there are also good sources for the placement of DNA nanotechnology within the broader context of supramolecular chemistry.
  • On "supported by inline citations where appropriate", I agree with other reviewers that citations only at the end of paragraphs is less than ideal. I would also suggest to Antony that entire paragraphs based on a single source are less than ideal. If you use a variety of sources (and cite them for each relevant sentence) then there is more likely to be a broad and balanced coverage. For example, the first paragraph of the "Fundamental concepts" section is almost entirely about basic DNA strucuture. Surely there are better sources for this written by an author other than Seeman. This material must be in virtually every Biochemistry text written in the last 50 years, going back to Watson and Crick's work in 1953.
Criterion 2(c) – consistent citations
I don't care particularly about how the references are formatted, but I do care that the formatting is consistent. Whilst a generally similar format has been used, I notice the following issues. Please note that I have not listed every example of every issue, just an example, but similar issues in other references should also be addressed.
  • Authors should be shown consistently:
    • Some references have surname, first name + initials (e.g. Seeman, Nadrian C. in reference 3), others have surname + initials (e.g. Goodman, R.P. in reference 1)
    • Some references have spaces between initials (e.g. Niemeyer, C. M. in reference 4), others do not (e.g. Goodman, R.P. in reference 1)
    • An ampersand (&) is shown before the last author in some cases (e.g. in references 10, 13, and 15) whilst others do not (e.g. in references 1, 6, and 7)
    • Not all authors are always listed - for example reference 16 lists 11 authors, reference 19 lists 8 authors and then "et al."
    • Authorlinks: some authors are (sometimes) linked to their wiki-articles, others aren't - for example, Nadrian Seeman's name is not linked to his article in any references, Paul W. K. Rothemund's name is linked to his article in references 8, 20, and 34 but not in references 33, 35, and 57
    • In the case of chapters from edited books (like references 53 and 57) there is usually an (Eds) (or similar) after the names of the book's editors
  • Dates generally only need to show the year of publication, yet day, month and year are provided for many references (e.g. 1, 13, 14, 15, ...), just month and year for others (e.g. 2, 3, 17, ...), and just year for others (e.g. 4, 5, 6, ...)
  • Capitalisation in titles is inconsistent - some references only capitalise the first word (e.g. references 1, 5, and 7) others capitalise every single word (e.g. 2, 4, and 6)
  • Some journal titles are linked to their wiki-articles in only some references (e.g. links to the Journal of the American Chemical Society article are provided in references 14, 15, 20, and 22, but not in reference 39. Both Angewandte Chemie (reference 41) and Angewandte Chemie International Edition (references 4 and 42) should link to the Angewandte Chemie article, as do references 30 and 32.).
  • Page numbering ranges are inconsistently formatted (e.g. abbreviated as in 1641–7 (reference 6) or 318–22 (reference 9) or fully stated as in 1661–1665 (reference 1) or 763–772 (reference 7)) and in some cases (e.g. reference 4) only an initial page is given
more to come... EdChem (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the rigorous review! My responses are below
  • 2(c): I have harmonized the citation styles. Apparently, Template:Cite book does not include the (ed.) notation when the chapter field is used. Let me know if you find anything I missed. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1(a): I'm about to rewrite the lead, and I will take your suggestions to heart.
  • I ran a spell check and found no misspellings. Could you locate a specific example? Never mind, I misunderstood your comment. I've copyedited that section so that the word "design" isn't in every other sentence.
  • 1(b/c): While DNA nanotechnology may fall under the formal definition of supramolecular chemistry, in my experience the two fields are (today) fairly distinct. While there is a conceptual connection, the methods used are so massively different that the results of each field are not generally useful in the other, so that supramolecular chemistry results are not widely cited or used in the modern DNA nanotechnology literature. As a case in point, the 54-page review Binding Mechanisms in Supramolecular Complexes which you mentioned contains exactly one sentence mentioning DNA nanotechnology in passing.
  • It might however be important enough for historical conceptual context to have a paragraph in the History section, but any intellectual connection between the two fields needs to be based on what is mentioned in the early literature rather than a non-contemporary observation. I would have to take another look at the early literature to see if there is such a connection; I think there might be, but I can't say without textual evidence.
  • As I've mentioned earlier, currently every paragraph is already supported by review articles. I appreciate your efforts to identify further review articles and I will examine these to see if they are useful for expanding the article, both for the supramolecular chemistry connection and otherwise.
  • I agree with your point that more sources can be added to Fundamental Concepts, and I will do so. Note, however, that WP:SCICITE#Uncontroversial knowledge does allow collecting references at the end of the paragraph for this type of section. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a technical point, a DX molecule is not a rotaxane. The central strand is not kinetically trapped, it is thermodynamically bound to the other strands through base pairs. Also, the central strand is mechanically interwoven with the other strands, rather than being a simple ring around them. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – regrettably, for the simple reason that it fails WP:FACR 2a. The lead is too brief and doesn't adequately summarize the article. I saw other issues as well, but there's already enough comments above. I hope the nominator will bring it through again after resolving these concerns. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is in the middle of being rewritten based on previous comments in this FAC. I will have a revised lead sometime tomorrow. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the lead; I would appreciate your comments on the revised text. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the lead is improved, and I thank you for that. However, I still think the article still doesn't satisfy the FA criteria. It has numerous issues. For example:
  • The article has too many short sections, per WP:BODY.
  • It uses unexplained jargon, such as "transient dynamics" and "thermodynamic minimum".
  • There are numerous uses of "which" without a preceding comma, rather than "that" for example.
  • Unnecessary additive terms such as "also" and "In addition" are scattered throughout.
  • The phrase "much computationally simpler problem" needs to be rewritten, then given something to compare against.
  • "More recent work" and "but only recently" are dated statements.
  • In the sentence "While the idea of using...", the "but" is incongruous.
&c. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find these suggestions to be very helpful. I have fixed all of these issues except the first point; while the subsections within Structural DNA nanotechnology and Functional nucleic acid nanostructures are on the short side, I feel that merging them or converting them into bullet points would be unwieldy. WP:BODY does not provide guidance about what counts as a "very short" section is; I think these sections are short, but not very short. I look forward to any further improvements you might suggest to the article. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Just a quick first question, should the work by Mirkin et al be included (very highly cited paper). Is it in your topic? [7] TCO (Reviews needed) 03:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really; I'm familiar with the work, but it makes disordered aggregates rather than precisely-defined structures. Compare this to the nanoparticles hosted on DX arrays discussed in the Nanoarchitecture section. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK.TCO (Reviews needed) 05:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update from nominator I'm going to put in some more time over the weekend to further deal with some points that have been raised above. These will include:
  • Adding more context as to how the field relates to other fields of nanotechnology and chemistry, as suggested by Iridia and EdChem.
  • Looking into the extent of any historical connection with supramolecular chemistry, as suggested by EdChem.
  • Moving citations from the ends of paragraphs closer to the specific sentences they support.
I'm hoping that with these changes I can start to get some supports for this FAC. I have found these reviews to be extremely helpful in improving the article, but I'd like to avoid a situation where I get a lot of comments that I've acted upon, but few clear supports or opposes, and thus have no idea what to change to be more successful at FAC the next time around. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments. Aren't we lucky to have a specialist writing in this highly technical field. The prose does need careful sifting through. Here are random comments on the lead. FA material if worked on, yes.

  • I boosted the top image from 220 to 240px. Why not, especially as the caption is like a skyscraper. In fact, subsequent images have enormous captions; can't they be rationed and the text partly shifted to the accompanying main text? And/or the images widened a little to 240px? Also, A's, T's ... MoS says not to insert an apostrophe; so do the major style guides.
  • "making it an example of bionanotechnology and supramolecular chemistry"—does "it" refer to "information"? (Probably not.) I think you need to spell it out and/or recast.
  • English is such a pain when it comes to logical relations between clauses and phrases: "The field is occasionally referred to as nucleic acid nanotechnology, as structures incorporating other nucleic acids such as RNA and peptide nucleic acid (PNA) have also been constructed, although DNA is the dominant material used." What is the relationship to the last, "although" phrase to the foregoing part of the sentence? Clearly the main statement in this complex sentence isn't "The field is occasionally referred to as nucleic acid nanotechnology, although DNA is the dominant material used." At least I don't think it is. Split with semicolon or period?
  • Is it possible to remove "is used to" ... just "generates"?
  • "DNA nanotechnology was started by Nadrian Seeman in the early 1980s" ... you mean the field of ... was initiated/created/first developed by ...?
  • I'm for 2D or 3D rather than the expansion ... without explanation. Everyone knows it. But that's up to you. It's already a pretty long sentence, so as well, perhaps bin "that have been"? The semicolon doesn't work grammatically. Better as a comma.
  • "provides one of the only ways" ... I don't think this works. "few ways"? Tony (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, these are all good recommedations. I've made revisions to the lead incorporating the changes you've suggested. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

—Andrewstalk 21:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions.
  • I've reformatted the Mao image description using {{Information}}.
  • I've made edits to the captions, but in some cases where there is a sentence fragment followed by a full sentence, the fragment does get a period, as is standard usage.
  • WP:NFCC doesn't specifically say 300px, and as the image is currently 311px across I think it's small enough in any case.
  • The abbreviation "DNA" is universally used, and that is in fact the title of that article. It's not currently listed in the abbreviation exceptions list, but it should be.
Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck I am checking for instances of close paraphrasing and support by the source for the statements given. I made one check in each of the first five article sections.

  • Para ending "Unlike in natural Holliday junctions, each arm in the artificial immobile four-arm junction shown at right has a different base sequence, causing the junction point to be fixed at a certain position." Seeman, Nadrian C (2004): "complementary bases in the corresponding order". Article: "complementary to each other in the correct pattern" - suitable paraphrase. Content supported. Seeman, Nadrian C (2010): no matches, content supported.
  • Para containing "This is done using a nucleic acid hairpin structure as the starting material, which assembles in a cascade reaction in a specific order." Yin et al (2008): no matches. Pinheiro, A et al. (2010): no matches. I'm going to assume content supported by both (Nature letters are super-dense!); both the articles are appropriate to the paragraph.
  • Para containing "There have been multiple schemes for constructing DNA nanotubes, one of which uses the inherent curvature of DX tiles to form a DX lattice to curl around itself and close into a tube." Rothemund et al (2004): no matches, (again I think) content supported. Yin et al (2004): "program the tube circumference also as an emergent property". Article: "for which the rigidity of the tube is an emergent property" - use of phrase in unrelated way. No matches, content supported.
  • Statement "A later system extended the concept of DNA walkers to walk upon a two-dimensional surface rather than a linear track, and demonstrated the ability to selectively pick up and move molecular cargo." Lund et al (2010): no match, content supported.
  • Para containing "DNA origami rods have also been used to replace liquid crystals in residual dipolar coupling experiments in protein NMR spectroscopy; using DNA origami is advantageous because, unlike liquid crystals, they are tolerant of the detergents needed to suspend membrane proteins in solution." Seeman, N. (2007): no phrase match. Service, R. (2011): no match. Content supported.

I conclude with no problems found in these spotchecks. Iridia (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: per Tony1's comment, we are fortunate to have someone writing on such a complex topic and I regret having to close this nomination, but we are at the three-week mark with no Support or consensus to promote. As a nomination grows lengthy, it becomes less likely that reviewers will engage and support, and the fastest route to the bronze star is bringing a fresh nomination in two weeks. Good luck, and hope to see this article back in two weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:37, 24 January 2012 [8].

Pneumothorax edit

Nominator(s): JFW | T@lk 10:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is a pretty comprehensive take on a condition that is fairly well understood and affects a wide range of people in an even wider range of situations. It has been stable for quite some time, after I expanded it last summer, and had the benefit of a thorough GA review (with some useful expansion) by Doc James around that time. I'm hopeful that I have covered the current evidence base as good as possible. Thanks to everyone in advance for your comments. JFW | T@lk 10:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments by Axl:
    • Thanks for your thorough review Axl, as well as for corrections and improvements already made. I will be responding to each comment in turn but not necessarily in order. I will review the sources where necessary. I hope you don't mind that I've formatted the points & responses here with bullet points etc. JFW | T@lk 13:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the lead section, paragraph 3: "In larger pneumothoraces or when there are severe symptoms, the air may be aspirated with a syringe." I'm not sure that general readers will understand what "aspirated" means in this context. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Already changed to "extracted", I believe by Snowmanradio. JFW | T@lk 13:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Signs and symptoms", subsection "Clinical subtypes", paragraph 1: "It is exceedingly uncommon for PSP to cause tension pneumothorax." Why not say "It is rare for PSP to cause tension pneumothorax"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Agree that "exceedingly" may be too much hyperbole. JFW | T@lk 13:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Signs and symptoms", subsection "Clinical subtypes", paragraph 1: "Tall males, especially smokers, have a higher risk of PSP." The reference (Tschopp) does not state that being tall is a risk factor. Nor does it explicitly state that being male is a risk factor, though this could be inferred by comparing the incidence in males against the incidence in females. Bearing in mind that males tend to be taller than females, it certainly doesn't state that tall males have a higher incidence than (equally) tall females. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. I have removed it, as the same information is also covered in the PSP subsection under "causes". The height issue is covered in BTS (2010), but the references don't really support it. One is from 1964 (which I cannot access), but the second reference only discusses recurrence. PMID 7300447 is an older Mayo Clinic study that stated that the difference between men and women is mainly a function of their height. JFW | T@lk 00:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Signs and symptoms", subsection "Clinical subtypes", paragraph 1: "It has been found that PSP occurs more commonly during changes in atmospheric pressure and during exposure to loud music." I don't see any need for the first part of the sentence: "It has been found that ...". However this would create repetition of "PSP" with the preceding sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Removed redundant text while avoiding duplication of "PSP" in serial sentences. JFW | T@lk 13:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Signs and symptoms", subsection "Clinical subtypes", paragraph 3: "It has been found to occur in half of all cases of injury to the chest". Why not say "It occurs in half of all cases of chest injuries"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually the reference (Noppen) states "Pneumothorax [occurs] in up to 50% of chest trauma victims", which isn't the same as "it occurs in half of all cases of injury to the chest". Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Noppen says "Pneumothorax ranks second to rib fracture as the most common sign of chest trauma, occurring in up to 50% of chest trauma victims". I have rephrased "injuries to the chest" to "chest trauma" to align it closer to the original. JFW | T@lk 00:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Up to 50%" is not the same as "occurs in half". Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done. Changed. JFW | T@lk 20:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Signs and symptoms", subsection "Clinical subtypes", paragraph 2: "the unaffected lung is generally not capable of replacing the loss of function from the affected side. Hypoxemia (decreased blood oxygen levels) is usually present". These statements are not supported by the reference (Tschopp). Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Signs and symptoms", subsection "Clinical subtypes", paragraph 3: "coming second after rib fracture in the complications after chest trauma." Rib fracture is not a "complication" of chest trauma. The source (Noppen) did not state that. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Rephrased. JFW | T@lk 00:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Signs and symptoms", subsection "Clinical subtypes", paragraph 3: "The pneumothorax can be small (occult) in half of these cases." Does "occult" simply mean "small" in this context? The reference (Noppen) does not define "occult". Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have removed the word "occult" because it adds nothing to the meaning of the sentence. Whether occult or not, small pneumothoraces are risky if positive pressure ventilation is planned. JFW | T@lk 13:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am uncomfortable with using the word "small". The reference uses the word "occult", not "small". Ths BTS guideline defines "small" as a rim of air less than 2 cm around, which is not the intent here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. That's the trouble with the use of the word "small". I have changed it back, using the word "occult". I have however used the description "(not readily apparent)" because most people will not understand the word "occult" without a clarification. JFW | T@lk 00:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Signs and symptoms", subsection "Clinical subtypes", paragraph 3: "It is also often encountered in those already receiving mechanical ventilation." I am not convinced. Neither reference (Noppen & Leigh-Smith) supports that statement. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Noppen says that 7% of iatrogenic pneumothoraces are the result of positive pressure ventilation. Leigh-Smith says that in 5.4% cases of tension pneumothorax in major trauma victims, 64% of cases were in ventilated patients. I agree that Leigh-Smith does not make a causal connection, and Noppen does not say that tension is common. I have made changes to reflect this. JFW | T@lk 00:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Signs and symptoms", subsection "Clinical subtypes", paragraph 4: "Tension pneumothorax is defined differently by different sources, but is generally said to exist when there is severe hypoxia despite administration of oxygen, falling blood pressure or confusion." Leigh-Smith does not support that statement. It indicates that low SpO2 occurs in fewer than 25% of cases. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. I see what you mean. Leigh-Smith provides a definition ("significant respiratory or haemodynamic compromise (the latter especially in ventilated patients) that reverses on decompression alone") but also a list of symptoms aggregated from case reports and case series. I have now changed the section to mention both the definition (tension = respiratory or haemodynamic compromise) and the list of symptoms. I hope that this is clearer. JFW | T@lk 22:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Tension pneumothorax ... is generally said to exist when there is significant impairment of respiration or blood circulation." Presumably this is when it is due to pneumothorax? How about "Tension pneumothorax ... is generally said to exist when pneumothorax significantly impairs respiration or blood circulation."? Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done. Agree, although for a clinician it may be difficult to state with absolute confidence whether clinical deterioration is attributable to a pneumothorax unless there is improvement with treatment. (E.g. hypotension due to splenic laceration etc.) JFW | T@lk 20:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Indeed. There are many reasons for trauma patients to develop respiratory failure or circulatory shock. Thanks for clarifying this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Signs and symptoms", subsection "Physical examination", paragraph 2: "In very severe cases, the respiratory rate falls sharply, with shock and coma." The reference (Leigh-Smith) does not indicate the presence of shock. Box 12 in the reference includes "hypotension" as a pre-terminal feature. However hypotension is not the same as circulatory shock. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. I have rephrased this extensively on re-reading; I have moved all tension-related content to a subsection, because it is a distinct clinical scenario that can emerge (theoretically) in any patient with a pneumothorax. I agree that hypotension does not equate shock and I have changed this around. JFW | T@lk 22:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Signs and symptoms", subsection "Physical examination", paragraph 2: "Particular clinical signs may also be less useful in the recognition of tension pneumothorax, such as the deviation of the trachea (windpipe) to one side and the presence of raised jugular venous pressure (distended neck veins)." Those signs were not previously mentioned as helpful in the diagnosis of (tension) pneumothorax. Also, the phrase "such as" implies that there are more signs that could be listed. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Rephrased: Leigh-Smith and Harris are concerned that these signs are taught as being characteristic in tension, and attempt to set the record straight. Let me know if you agree with the new version. JFW | T@lk 22:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "Cause", subsection "Secondary spontaneous", I think that the list of associated lung diseases would be better presented as a table. similar to the various sources. Tschopp has a nice table that we could duplicate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Indeed, the current list of causes is almost entirely from Tschopp, with catamenial pneumothorax taken from Noppen. I have turned it into a nice table. JFW | T@lk 00:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "Cause", subsection "Secondary spontaneous", there is extensive discussion of Birt–Hogg–Dubé syndrome. This is a rare syndrome, and a rare cause of pneumothorax. The article's text constitutes undue weight. One of the references used is "Birt–Hogg–Dubé syndrome: diagnosis and management". This is not a relevant source for the article on "Pneumothorax". Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think I agree with the assessment of WP:UNDUE. The Robinson source (pneumothorax in kids) certainly mentions familial pneumothorax due to FLCN mutations, and the fact that Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome - although rare - is associated with pneumothorax, FLCN mutations, and a number of other problems. While rare in absolute terms, I believe we need to discuss familial pneumothorax and its associated syndrome. I used the Lancet Oncology reference to provide a little bit more information about BHD, which I believe is not unreasonable, especially with Robinson providing the necessary context. JFW | T@lk 13:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fishman's Pulmonary Diseases and Disorders does not mention Birt–Hogg–Dubé syndrome. However Fishman does state "Genetic risk factors that have been associated to [sic] PSP include the HLA haplotype A2B40, the α1-antitrypsin phenotypes M1M2, and the FBN1 gene mutations." In my opinion, that's a good indicator of the relative importance of Birt–Hogg–Dubé syndrome.
        • Light's Pleural Diseases does actually have a paragraph on Birt–Hogg–Dubé syndrome and the other FLCN mutation syndrome, as well as mentioning HLA A2B40.
        • Cystic fibrosis is also familial and much more common than Birt–Hogg–Dubé syndrome. However you aren't advocating an extended discussion of CF's clinical features in this article.
        • In my opinion, Birt–Hogg–Dubé syndrome deserves two sentences in this article. I also recommend a mention of HLA A2B40, and possibly α1-antitrypsin M1M2 and FBN1. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have no direct access to Light's. Could I persuade you to add a line about HLA A2B40? Is there a proposed mechanism for this association?
          • I did not provide details on CF because in the majority of cases the patient will already have received a diagnosis of CF prior to their first pneumothorax. The emphasis on Birt-Hogg-Dubé is mainly because it ties in with the FLCN mutations. JFW | T@lk 20:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have added a statement about HLA A2B40. The references do not propose a mechanism.
            • I agree that Birt–Hogg–Dubé syndrome carries a higher risk of pneumothorax than CF does. However this review states that 24–38% of Birt–Hogg–Dubé patients have a history of spontaneous pneumothorax. Therefore in the majority of Birt–Hogg–Dubé cases, the patient will already have a diagnosis of Birt–Hogg–Dubé syndrome prior to their first pneumothorax. In any case, that isn't my main point. It is the rarity of the syndrome that should guide the weight given to it in this generic article about "Pneumothorax". What proportion of "new" pneumothoraces are due to a new diagnosis of Birt–Hogg–Dubé syndrome? Of course no-one really knows because the syndrome is so rare. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Done. I have found a lovely reference (doi:10.1097/01.mcp.0000230630.73139.f0) that discusses all causes of familial pneumothorax. I have ditched Menko in favour of this reference because it is actually better for the purposes of this article. This source (from Curr Opin Pulm Med) also discusses α1-antitrypsin deficiency and homocystinuria as well as Marfan's, Ehlers-Danlos and Birt-Hogg-Dubé, and talks about the FLCN mutations in people with familial pneumothorax who have no other stigmata of BHD. I do hope this is better. The one thing I still need a solution for is adding α1/homocystinuria and BHD to the "secondary causes" table. Whaddaya think? JFW | T@lk 00:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thanks, that's a reasonable compromise. I don't think that there is any value in shoehorning α1AT deficiency, homocystinuria or BHD into the main table. They aren't in the main reference's table (Tschopp). I accept catamenial pneumothorax because it is mentioned in Tschopp, although not in the table. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Cause", subsection "Traumatic": "Medical procedures of the chest (iatrogenic), such as the taking of biopsy samples from lung tissue, inserting a central venous catheter into one of the chest veins, may lead to injury to the lung and resultant pneumothorax." The grammar of this sentence is faulty. "Iatrogenic" does not mean "medical procedures of the chest". Biopsy sampling of lung tissue always leads to injury of the lung. (Well, I suppose that it depends of your definition of "injury".) Yet the overwhelming majority of lung biopsies do not lead to pneumothorax. Is it really "injury to the lung" that leads to the pneumothorax? Actually lung biopsies are taken by one of two broad routes: either radiologically-guided (typically CT-guided) or via bronchoscopy. Bronchoscopic lung biopsy rarely leads to pneumothorax, especially as CT-guided biopsy has become widely preferred for peripheral lesions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. I have tightened up on the phrasing. I agree that lung injury is not required for pneumothorax. An air tract (e.g. a jugular venous catheter or a Trucut needle) is sufficient and breach of the parietal pleura by definition. JFW | T@lk 00:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, although the grammar is still incorrect. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure how the grammar could be improved. Please advise. JFW | T@lk 22:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Someone has now fixed the grammar. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Mechanism", paragraph 1: "The lungs are physically connected at the hila, where the airways and blood vessels enter the lung." This implies that the lungs are connected to each other at the hila. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Of course you and I know exactly what is intended, and the lungs are in a sense connected at the hila through the large vessels and the airways. But I struggled to make this sentence logically comprehensible, and decided to see what would happen if I removed it. JFW | T@lk 00:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Mechanism", paragraph 1: "They remain inflated inside the thoracic cavity because the pressure inside the pleural space (the potential space between the chest wall and the lung) is almost consistently negative throughout the respiratory cycle, effectively sucking the lung to the chest wall." That's a rather simplistic explanation, and not supported by the reference (Noppen). Noppen actually gives a good explanation for the lack of gas flow into the pleural space during normal function. The other reason why the lungs remain inflated is because the pressure inside the airways is higher than that of the pleural space, for which there are two further reasons. I suppose that the full explanation is beyond the scope of the general article on "Pneumothorax". Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I wrote it, I decided to cite almost verbatim from Noppen (because it sounded very straightforward). Please advise whether I should retain this or rephrase it in some way or another. I do agree that extensive discussion of respiratory physiology might be out of proportion. JFW | T@lk 00:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about "The thoracic cavity is the space inside the chest that contains the lungs, heart and major blood vessels of the chest. On each side of the cavity, a pleural membrane covers the surface of lung (visceral pleura) and also lines the inside of the chest wall (parietal pleura). Normally, the two layers are separated only by a small amount of lubricating serous fluid. The lungs are fully inflated within the cavity because the pressure inside the airways is higher than the pressure inside the pleural space. Despite the low pressure in the pleural space, air does not enter it because there are no natural connections to an air-containing passage, and the pressure of gases in the bloodstream is too low for them to be released into the pleural space. Pneumothorax can therefore only develop if air is allowed to enter, either through damage in the chest wall, or damage to the lung itself, or occasionally because microorganisms in the space produce gas." Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done. This sounds quite a lot clearer. JFW | T@lk 22:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Mechanism", paragraph 2: "Various lines of evidence suggest that this hypothesis may not be correct, such as the fact that pneumothorax may recur even after surgical treatment of blebs, and that blebs occur in 15% of healthy people. It has therefore been suggested that PSP is instead caused by areas of disruption (porosity) in the pleural layer, which are prone to rupture." Neither Noppen nor Tschopp deny the possibility that bleb rupture can lead to pneumothorax. Rather, they suggest that some pneumothoraces are caused by pleural porosity. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. I might have been misled by Noppen's statement that "although alternative explanations are available" and some comments by Tschopp that could also be interpreted as such. I have modified the section accordingly. JFW | T@lk 00:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Mechanism", paragraph 2: "Once air has stopped entering the pleural cavity, it is gradually resorbed spontaneously. Estimated rates of resorption are between 1.25% and 2.2% the volume of the cavity per day. This would mean that even a completely collapsed lung would spontaneously reinflate over a period of about 6 weeks." I'm not convinced that this is relevant to the "Mechanism" section. Perhaps move it to the "Prognosis" section? Wait, there is no "Prognosis" section? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I bunched this together as it seemed to be part of the natural history of the condition. I think it might be very appropriate in the subsection on conservative management, but I will await such a move until I've heard your views. A prognosis section might be relevant to discuss the risk of recurrence etc., but I hope you might agree that the prognosis of an individual episode of pneumothorax might be more suitable for the "management" section. JFW | T@lk 00:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure what you mean by "the prognosis of an individual episode of pneumothorax". Fishman includes mortality rates for PSP, COPD, CF & AIDS. These certainly could be included in a "Prognosis" section. Light's Pleural Diseases has details on the success rate of needle aspiration and chest tube in PSP. Light also includes recurrence rates for men vs women & smokers vs non-smokers. I am reluctant to include the somewhat speculative time estimate for re-inflation of a completely collapsed lung, because no doctor would treat that with conservative management. Light estimates 12 days for a 15% pneumothorax.
        • I would be happy to write a "Prognosis" section along these lines if you think that it would be helpful. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The BTS guideline uses the 6 weeks example to illustrate the "tincture of time" effect in PSP. By extension, a smaller pneumothorax would take less long (but they are not saying that). The word "even" is used to indicate this. I have moved the relevant sentence to the "Management/conservative" section where it is most relevant. I agree that we need a "prognosis" section, but I was hoping to reserve that for the rates of recurrence rather than the natural history of individual episodes. JFW | T@lk 22:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • "By extension, a smaller pneumothorax would take less long (but they are not saying that)." Actually it's the other way round. Small/medium pneumothoraces resolve at the quoted rate. By extension, a full pneumothorax might resolve in six weeks. The BTS guideline states "Thus, a complete pneumothorax might be expected to take up to 6 weeks to resolve spontaneously and, conceivably, in the presence of a persistent air leak, even longer." So it might take six weeks, less than six weeks, or more than six weeks. In my opinion, this speculation is unhelpful. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Mechanism", paragraph 3: "A previously uttered theory that the collapsed lung compresses large blood vessels such as the aorta is probably incorrect." The reference (Leigh-Smith) does not state that. Leigh-Smith states that the dog models that demonstrated early hypotension from great vessel obstruction probably aren't directly applicable to humans. Leigh-Smith goes on to say that in awake humans, hypotension is rare, at least in the absence of other significant pathology. In this group, there was no evidence of great vessel obstruction. However in ventilated patients, "the decreased cardiac output ... is probably attributable to a combination of hypoxaemia, diminished blood flow through the collapsed lung, reduced venous return, and possibly great vessel/ventricular compression." Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Rephrased and restructured. I have avoided citing the dog models, but used the clinical descriptions that generally point at a primary respiratory deterioration and respiratory arrest following a period of compensation. I have omitted the circulatory features, as they are clearly less common. JFW | T@lk 00:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Diagnosis", subsection "Chest X-ray", paragraph 1: "It is not unusual for the mediastinum (the structure between the lungs that contains the heart and several other organs) to be shifted away from the affected lung due to pressure." "Several other organs"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Agree that "several other organs" is redundant, especially because the thymus is not really relevant here and retrosternal goitre is rare. Changed to "heart and great blood vessels". JFW | T@lk 13:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Diagnosis", subsection "Chest X-ray", paragraph 2: "The size of the pneumothorax, i.e. the amount of space in the chest taken up by free air rather than air-containing lung." Wht not say "the volume of air in the pleural space"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Agree, sounds altogether less clumsy. JFW | T@lk 13:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Diagnosis", subsection "Chest X-ray", paragraph 2: "An air rim of 2 cm means that the pneumothorax occupies about 50% of the pleural cavity." I think that it should be 50% of the hemi-thorax. Oddly though, the BTS guideline is unclear about this. It only states "a 2 cm radiographic pneumothorax approximates to 50% pneumothorax by volume." Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Agree; changed. JFW | T@lk 13:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is debatable whether the volume referred to is the hemi-thorax or the volume of the fully inflated lung. However given the inherent error of the estimate, it probably doesn't matter. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Diagnosis", subsection "Ultrasound", "Four particular features on ultrasonography of the chest can be used to confirm or exclude the diagnosis." Either include the list of these four features, or delete the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. I have replaced "four" with "several", because Volpicelli quite clearly lists the features that a sonographer can use to diagnose or exclude pneumothorax. JFW | T@lk 00:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "Treatment", the picture of the man with a chest drain isn't quite right. The drain is placed too far anteriorly. There is no slack between the "omental tag" attached to the side of the abdomen and the entry point on the chest wall. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also thought that the drain should be in the mid-axillary line, especially for a "text-book" illustration. I did not notice that there was no slack between the fixing, but your comment sounds logical. I suppose the image should be removed, because it is misleading. Snowman (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The image also does not reflect my personal practice (it was drawn by User:Robertolyra), but I do not agree that it is completely wrong. The drain is still in the "safe triangle" as outlined in the BTS guideline, and the use of omental tags and leaving slack between the drain site and the tag seems to depend on personal practice. JFW | T@lk 20:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Many doctors do not know where/how to insert a chest drain correctly, or how to affix it. The picture is incorrect and misleading. It should be deleted from Wikimedia Commons. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The drain is placed anteriorly, but it is still in the safe triangle. Should we therefore not use it? And why should there be slack between the entry point and the omental tag? Surely the more slack the higher the risk of it getting caught on something? Please clarify. Feel free to nominate it for deletion on commons. It would be a shame because it is otherwise a good image. I have moved it to the talk page for specific discussion, and will try to find a better image. JFW | T@lk 11:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I do not believe that the drain is placed in the safe triangle. From the BTS guideline on chest drain insertion: "An omental tag of tape has been described which allows the tube to lie a little away from the chest wall to prevent tube kinking and tension at the insertion site." There needs to be some slack between the omental tag and the entry point through the chest, so that tension on the distal part of the tubing/bottle does not pull the drain out of the chest. Rather, such tension would tend to pull on the omental tag, which can be more easily replaced than the drain itself. (By the way, the diagram that supposedly shows the safe triangle, Figure 3, is incorrect.)
            • I already have asked for its deletion. However, given my lack of success in trying to engage with Wikimedia Commons participants in the past with other erroneous images, I don't expect anyone will even notice, let alone take any action. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Because you have removed the picture, I am striking this point. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I have made a formal request for this image to be deleted from commons. Snowman (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Treatment", paragraph 1: "In spontaneous pneumothorax, air travel is discouraged until it has completely resolved." That's not really a treatment. Rather it is secondary prevention. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe it is most appropriate to discuss the safety of air travel in the context of the management of an episode of pneumothorax. The content of secondary prevention mainly discussion prevention of further episodes. JFW | T@lk 11:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, fair enough. How about creating a new subsection (perhaps "Aftercare"?) at the end of the "Treatment" section to discuss air travel, diving and smoking advice? By the way, the BTS guideline also suggests that air travel should be avoided for at least one week after resolution of the pneumothorax. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done. I have followed your advice and grouped all this into a single section. I have also included the anticipated time off work from an occupational medicine textbook. JFW | T@lk 23:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Treatment", paragraph 2: "In traumatic pneumothorax, chest tubes are usually inserted (unless iatrogenic, see below)." I don't think that the caveat ("unless iatrogenic") is required. In traumatic pneumothorax, chest tubes usually are inserted. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is because Noppen states that iatrogenic pneumothoraces can be aspirated. I agree that it is distracting and I have removed it. JFW | T@lk 11:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Treatment", paragraph 2: "It is not yet clear if there is a subgroup of people with small pneumothoraces who do not require tube treatment and could be managed conservatively." I don't think that this sentence adds anything. Perhaps delete it? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. It's mainly based on Noppen. I agree that until there is consensus we cannot really discuss this. JFW | T@lk 13:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Treatment", paragraph 2: "If mechanical ventilation is required, the insertion of a chest tube is mandatory as it would increase the risk of tension pneumothorax." Mechanical ventilation increases the risk of tension pneumothorax; insertion of a chest tube does not increase the risk of tension pneumothorax. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. I agree that was confusing. JFW | T@lk 11:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Treatment", paragraph 3: "Any open chest wound is covered, as it carries a high risk of leading to tension pneumothorax." Is this specific to chest injury? Perhaps move it to a new paragraph? Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. I've moved this to the paragraph on traumatic pneumothorax as it is not only pertinent to tension (although its intention is of course to prevent tension). JFW | T@lk 13:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Treatment", subsection "Conservative": "This approach is most appropriate if the estimated size of the pneumothorax is small (e.g. <50%)." Should this be "i.e. <50%"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Agree. Replaced with "(defined as <50%)". JFW | T@lk 13:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about "(defined as less than 50% of the volume of the hemi-thorax)"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done. Followed your advice there. JFW | T@lk 22:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Treatment", subsection "Chest tube", paragraph 1: "In spontaneous pneumothorax, small-bore (smaller than 14 FG, 4.7 mm diameter) tubes may be inserted.... In traumatic pneumothorax, larger tubes (28 FG, 9.3 mm) are used." I haven't seen the abbreviation "FG". The BTS guideline uses the abbreviation "F". Most drain packets use either "F", "Fr" or "Ch". Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Quite right. While we use "French gauge" in conversation, "F" or "Fr" or "C(h)" seems to be the written convention. This is also pointed out on French catheter scale. Changed. JFW | T@lk 13:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Treatment", subsection "Chest tube", paragraph 3: "In SSP, surgery may be required earlier." How about "Failing this, surgery may be required, especially in SSP." Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Agree that this works better. JFW | T@lk 22:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Prevention", paragraph 1: "the decision depends largely on the suspected risk of recurrence. They however are often recommended after a second pneumothorax." The reason that pleurodesis is often recommended after the second pneumothorax is because the risk of further recurrence is much higher. Therefore the word "however" isn't really appropriate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Agree. I've removed the word. JFW | T@lk 22:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. I have adjusted the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Prevention", paragraph 1: "An exception applies in those who engage in diving; diving is considered unsafe unless permanent treatment has been applied; professional guidelines suggest that pleurectomy is performed on both lungs (see below) and that lung function tests and CT scan must be normal before diving is resumed." Can this long sentence be split? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Wasn't hard. Agree that there was an overdose of semicolons in that one. JFW | T@lk 22:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Prevention", paragraph 2: "The best results, with a recurrence rate less than 1%, are achieved with a thoracotomy." The BTS guideline quotes a rate of "approximately 1%". Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Thanks. JFW | T@lk 22:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Prevention", paragraph 2: "The best results, with a recurrence rate less than 1%, are achieved with a thoracotomy (surgical opening of the chest) with identification of any clear air leak." What does "clear" mean in this context? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. I imagine the thoracic surgeon can't always see the site of the air leak. If it is evident ("clear") it can be addressed directly. It works fine in a clearer, rephrased form though. JFW | T@lk 22:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Prevention", paragraph 2: "Thoracotomy is always performed under a general anesthetic." I'm not sure why that needs to be mentioned. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. I added it because Tschopp mentions it. At the same time, I agree that people probably understand that operations are done under an anaesthetic these days. Hence removed. JFW | T@lk 22:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Prevention", paragraph 3: "A less invasive approach is thoracoscopy, usually in the form of a procedure called video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. This also involves a general anesthetic but the lung is approached through small incisions between the ribs." It is not clear if "general anesthetic" refers to VATS specifically or thoracoscopy in general. Medical thoracoscopy is performed under sedation, without general anaesthesia. However medical thoracoscopy is infrequently used to achieve pleurodesis following pneumothorax because VATS has better success. Interestingly, Fishman's Pulmonary Diseases and Disorders states "Those patients who are high risk (elderly or significant underlying lung disease) can undergo this procedure [VATS] under local and epidural anesthesia." The BTS guideline states "[VATS] can be undertaken without general anaesthesia." However I have not heard of VATS being performed without general anaesthesia in my region. In any case, I don't think that the comment about "general anesthetic" is very helpful. Perhaps delete it? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. In contrast to thoracotomy, this may not be common knowledge because quite a few vague similar procedures (e.g. OGD) are done under sedation only. At the same time, because the section mentions both direct and video-assisted thoracoscopy I agree that we cannot comment too extensively on it. JFW | T@lk 22:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Prevention", paragraph 3: "The results from VATS-based pleural abrasion are slightly worse than those achieved by thoracotomy, but achieved with smaller scars in the skin." In the absence of any other statement, this implies that the only benefit of VATS (vs thoracotomy) is cosmetic. Arguably VATS may be preferable due to better tolerance from the patient, less pain, shorter post-operative recuperation, and lower cost. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Have added some advantages from BTS. Cost is not mentioned there. JFW | T@lk 22:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The BTS guideline includes the statement "A complicated meta-analysis of three retrospective studies and one prospective study comparing the cost of open thoracotomy versus VATS (not exclusively for pneumothoraces) concluded that the total economic cost of VATS was lower". Fishman states "While the risks associated with general anesthesia remain, overall costs [of VATS] are generally less than thoracotomy owing to a decreased postoperative period." Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Prevention", paragraph 4: "Not everyone may be prepared to undergo surgery." While that is true, it is rarely the reason why individual patients do not have surgery. Usually it it because the patient is unfit for surgery/general anaesthesia. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. I have removed the sentence, which was mainly intended to clarify why anyone would need medical pleurodesis. I think the paragraph works without this sentence. JFW | T@lk 22:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Epidemiology" section could be expanded. There is more information available in Light's Pleural Diseases and Fishman's Pulmonary Diseases and Disorders. I would be happy to add this extra information. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would be much appreciated, Axl. JFW | T@lk 13:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Epidemiology": "The annual incidence of PSP is 18–28 per 100,000 in males." I accept that Tschopp states this incidence. However both Light and Fishman quote a Minnesota study, with an age-adjusted incidence of 7.4 per 100,000 per year for males. Tschopp refers to the BTS guideline. Ironically, the BTS guideline refers to the same study in Minnesota: Incidence of spontaneous pneumothorax in Olmsted County, Minnesota: 1950 to 1974. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many sources cite the limited epidemiological data for the UK and USA, with higher rates reported in the UK, based on pretty ancient data. I am secretly hoping that your additions based on Light may resolve this. JFW | T@lk 00:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have changed the figures to those used by Light, Fishman and Melton. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Epidemiology", paragraph 1: "The incidence in children ... is estimated to occur at an incidence of 5 to 10 per 100,000." Is that per year? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Was presuming that incidence without modifier was annual, but have clarified. JFW | T@lk 22:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "History" section seems a little brief. I'll see if I can dig up some more info. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. This is probably better covered in the textbooks. JFW | T@lk 22:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that the history section could include diagnosis and mortality rates prior to X-ray. Snowman (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "References", some journal abbreviations have full stops (periods) while others do not. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. I have simply expanded the names of the journals, which I think is kinder to the lay reader while taking up very little extra space. JFW | T@lk 20:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reference 12 (Scalea, "Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST)") has a long list of authors while other references (11: Baumann, 17: Neumar) use et al. Reference 10 (Wolf) has five authors. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. All papers with over four authors now have three authors followed by et al. JFW | T@lk 20:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "In other animals": "Tension pneumothorax ... [is] followed by insertion of a chest tube and closure of the incision." How do you close the incision while a chest tube is going through? Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I imagine that the drain is not actually inserted through the incision, which is only made to relieve the tension. I will try to rephrase this to avoid confusion. It's straight from Merck. JFW | T@lk 22:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Regarding "plural pneumothoraces": this is illogical as each person has only one thorax unless, perhaps one is speaking of pneumothorax occurring in multiple people. Pneumothorax may be unilateral or bilateral. --24.84.113.11 (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it probably could be explained better and include the unilateral and bilateral possibilities. Snowman (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found the comment above stuck on to the top of the FAC, which had removed the title page from the FAC list. I hope I've corrected it now, but please review the page history to make sure all is in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: the convention seems to be to discuss terminology upfront. I agree that in biology the word "thorax" refers to the entire upper body, but a pneumothorax is said to involve only one hemithorax. Because the plural of "pneumothorax" is non-standard, I think it is entirely reasonable to clarify that "pneumothoraces" is the plural form. In clinical practice, someone with a pneumothorax in both lungs is said to have "bilateral pneumothoraces", while someone who has repeated episodes is said to have "recurrent pneumothoraces". With regards to Snowmanradio's comment, I think the opening sentence is not the place to discuss the distinction between unilateral pneumothorax and bilateral pneumothoraces. JFW | T@lk 13:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps, not in the introduction, but "bilateral" is not used anywhere in the article. Snowman (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I will ensure the point is covered somewhere in the article. JFW | T@lk 19:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments from RexxS: I'm aware that I promised to add some material relating to pneumothorax in scuba diving, before FAC, and I apologise for my failure to do so. It is fortunately a rare enough occurrence that its present omission should not be sufficient to cause concern over the comprehensiveness of this article.
    • The images would benefit from alt text. --RexxS (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm disappointed at the amount of jargon that has crept back into this article since the GAN, and I'm particularly concerned at the WP:jargon in the lead. Comparing this version (28 December 2011) with today's version (4 January 2011) shows a significant loss of readability for the general audience. In particular: --RexxS (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in the chest between the layers of the pleura, which are normally closely applied". This makes little sense to anyone not trained in medical jargon and requires a click-through a link to discover what pleura are (and that requires a high level of reading comprehension in itself - serous membrane indeed!). We actually need a Google search to find out what "normally closely applied" might mean. The previous text was "in the pleural cavity of the chest between the lung and the chest wall" and may have been less exact, but at least gave us an idea of what we are talking about, without having to follow two depths of click-through to accomplish the same result. --RexxS (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • How can you misunderstand; "normally closely applied"? Note the "plural cavity" is a misnomer and I think it is easily misunderstood. In health "plural cavity" is a potential space. I expect a reader would need to be trained in medical jargon to understand "plural cavity", and "plural cavity" has the extra layer of difficulty being a misnomer. In the comment above, I do not understand; "and that requires a high level of reading comprehension in itself - serous membrane indeed!". I really think that we should not be happy about text that is "less exact". I agree that the anatomy of the pleura is easier to visualise than to describe in a few words, but I think that introduction would benefit from having the word "pleura", and a simple explanation of what pleura are. Pleura is wikilinked, so I do not think that a reader would necessarily need to do web-searches to understand any part of the introduction. Snowman (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • First of all "normally closely applied" is two adverbs and a past particle which taken together make no sense at all in everyday use. applied: 1. having a practical purpose or use; derived from or involved with actual phenomena ( distinguished from theoretical, opposed to pure): applied mathematics; applied science. 2. of or pertaining to those arts or crafts that have a primarily utilitarian function, or to the designs and decorations used in these arts. Now how do you qualify that with the adverb "closely" and make any sense of "normally closely applied"? Is my inability to comprehend clear enough for you now? I had to do a Google search to find examples of how the phrase is used in medicine for it make some sense, and I'd be willing to bet that I'm not the only reader who would have to do that.
        • We need not worry here about the fine distinction of potential spaces in the term "pleural cavity". That's an issue for the Pleural cavity article, not for the lead of Pneumothorax (where the space is very real, of course). My complaint is that you feel it is sufficient to wiki-link a piece of jargon, and remove the words "that separates the lung from the chest wall" which went a long way to explaining the pleural cavity to the lay reader. In fact when you click-through to Pleural cavity, you are greeted with a further layer of jargon, thus: "The pleura is a serous membrane", which requires another click-through for most readers. Where does it end? and hence my contempt for the practice of assuming readers are going to interrupt their reading every few lines to attempt to make sense of another word that they have never encountered before.
        • I understand that we should not be happy about text that is "less exact", but we should not pursue that goal at the expense of text that is incomprehensible to the majority of readers. We can always explore inexactitudes in the body of the article, and I reject any suggestion that we should sacrifice readability for absolute precision in the lead of any article. I believe that the appropriate advice is expressed in WP:JARGON: Avoid excessive wikilinking (linking within Wikipedia) as a substitute for parenthetic explanations such as the one in this sentence. Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader, when more common alternatives will do. --RexxS (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The relevant definition is probably lower on the page you cite, "to be placed or remain in contact". The phrase may be more typical in British English.
          • The series of adverbs is perfectly acceptable. "These structures are normally closely applied" is grammatically no more complicated than "In this doctor's office, the wait time is normally very extended." WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Except that definition 14 at Dictionary.com has only an example of applying paint, where the sense is the action of application, not of position as it is used in the medical context. I am British and have been speaking the language since the 1950s, yet I have not previously encountered the past participle/adjective "applied" used in the sense of "near to" before. Please understand that my lack of experience with medical jargon does not imply that I am unable to parse English grammar, but the issue is not of grammatical complexity but of writing text where an ordinary English word (applied) is deployed in a manner found nowhere else in common speech. You might as well be writing "In this doctor's office, the appointment times are normally closely applied." and expect readers to divine a meaning. Plain English, please. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_mDTLphIVY --RexxS (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think that you are doing a good job in helping us to rephrase "every-day medical language" on Wiki medical articles. I would be interested to know your opinion on the heading "Signs and symptoms". The MEDMOS guidelines suggest "Characteristics" as an alternative. "Signs" used in this contex has a very precise meaning in medicine and I guess it could easily cause difficulty to non-medcial readers. Snowman (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, "signs" has a precise meaning here, such that the lay reader almost certainly would not appreciate the distinction between a sign and a symptom, and I suspect that most readers would lump them together in their minds as symptoms. Nevertheless, when taken together as a heading, I don't think that anyone would be surprised or confused by the content that follows in that section. From my point of view, I associate "characteristics" with a property of something (perhaps an unique or defining property), for example: "In England post boxes are characteristically red". So, in the medical context, "characteristics", having the meaning of signs or symptoms, is also being used in a narrower sense. In everyday speech I might say "A long recovery time is characteristic of Rheumatic fever", but I'm not sure that a long recovery time would qualify as a sign or symptom? Anyway, what I'm trying to convey is my slight preference for Signs and symptoms as a lay-friendly section header, but that represents only my own opinion. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we have to say "compromise respiration" when "make breathing difficult" or something similar is far easier to comprehend? --RexxS (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. I have rephrased this. JFW | T@lk 00:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that this part of your feed back has been helpful. I now see how to improve the introduction, but it is not in the way you have suggested. Excuse me, I do not always predict how lay people will misunderstand the text. Using technical words become a way-of-life. I think that most people would use "breathing" for the muscular actions of breathing. In pneumothorax (unilateral small and moderate perhaps) the external appearances of breathing are not significantly affected. The compromised elements are not the muscular actions of breathing. Inflation and deflation of the lung during breathing is what is compromised. The problem is that a lung that is partly surrounded by a pneumothorax is not fully ventilated. It is somewhat more accurate to say "respiration is compromised", but I see that you did not see why I chose these words. I have copy edited the introduction keeping it simple to help people understand the abnormality better. Please re-read the introduction and I hope that you will be able to understand the abnormality better, and feed-back would be welcome. Snowman (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the internal mid-line chest structures" – would it be bad to actually tell the reader what these are? --RexxS (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have added what the big ones are. However, is misses out masses of lymphatic vessels, lymph glands and nerves, the pericardium, the thymus, and loads more. I think that "the internal mid-line chest structures" is more accurate and I would have guessed that most people would have some inkling of what it meant? It is a narrow path between accuracy and over-simplification. Snowman (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Rephrased. JFW | T@lk 00:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are other less severe examples in the lead and many more examples throughout the text. While I know that some degree of jargon is unavoidable in medical articles, I don't accept that it is inevitable in the lead in this case, and I'd urge contributors to consider why they chose to employ a particular specialised word when a more generally understandable construction may be available. Words such as 'iatrogenic' and 'mediastinum', when found in image captions are examples of where a concise term is useful (takes less space), but the opportunity has been missed to link them to their definitions. --RexxS (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The decision to rewrite the lead was not mine. There were also references that disappeared (I like at least a few references in the lead section). I will address the stylistic issues that you pointed out in an upcoming edit. JFW | T@lk 19:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know you were not responsible for that rewrite and perhaps you will take my comments as an endorsement for your earlier version which I feel was much more readable. I understand the tension that occurs in medical FACs between a concise medical term and an often more wordy or less precise construction that is immediately comprehensible to a broader audience. We had recent confirmation in the Signpost of the quality of our medical articles, but we were criticised for being the least readable of the online sources. It is a distinct failing of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria that they do not directly address the issue of readability, but that should not stop us from aspiring to do the best we can for content that is to be recognised as Wikipedia's very best. --RexxS (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please report all the difficult jargon that you find. Jargon can be usually easily copy-edited by someone that understands the subject. My edits have already been copy-edited and I expect further enhancements can be made. There is no need for references in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • This might be slightly more meta than what is sought, but unfortunately as drafted currently the article requires someone to have come via the Collapsed lung redirect for it to become clear that a pneumothorax is in fact one of the most common conditions, all of which can be known as a collapsed lung. Clearly the medical term is the most accurate, however it does not promote the best understanding of the article to refuse to address the fact that if a person says "collapsed lung" they are almost certainly referring to a pneumothorax. I did try to have a discussion on the talk page but it doesn't appear there has been any significant response thusfar. BigHairRef | Talk 22:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • In view of recent comment in edit history (see this edit), I reinterate that there is not need for in-line references in the introduction. I think that in-line references tend to stiffle copy-editing and should not be added back. Snowman (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all the efforts to meet the concerns that I raised. I am able to strike all of the specific ones. Although jargon is always the bug-bear of technical articles, I'm happy with the readability of the article now, and I'd urge contributors to do their best to maintain that in future. Accessibility is good: the use of text, images, tables, and colours meets or exceeds our guidelines at WP:ACCESS and the W3C recommendations at WCAG AAA level. From those two perspectives, I'd support the promotion of this article. --RexxS (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • The article structure is not entirely according to MEDMOS. I suggest conformity with a heading structure indicatad in MEDMOS. (I have also indicated improvements and omissions): Snowman (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Classification: May also be placed as a subheading of diagnosis, where there is a "Subtypes" heading in the article. I think that a "Classification" would be better in a section of its own as in the layout here. Snowman (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Signs and symptoms or Characteristics
    • Causes:
    • Pathophysiology or Mechanism
    • Diagnosis: Differential diagnosis is not included (ie dd of chest pain). I think more should be made of clinical diagnosis (for medium and larger pneumothoraces), as some parts of the world may not have easy access to radiology. Snowman (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prevention or Screening (if the section only discusses secondary prevention it should follow the treatment section). Clearly surgery and other treatments here are secondary prevention, so this section is mostly mistaken and its contents should be included in "Management". Snowman (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Treatment or Management: This might include any type of currently used treatment, such as diet, exercise, medication, palliative care, physical therapy, psychotherapy, self care, surgery, watchful waiting. Section missing. Snowman (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prognosis This section is missing. Could include rates of recurrence. Snowman (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Epidemiology: factors such as incidence, prevalence, age distribution, and influence of gender.
    • History: Early discoveries, historical figures, and outdated treatments (not patient history). I think that it would be worthwhile and interesting to discuss diagnosis prior to radiology. Snowman (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Society and culture: There may be some notable cases. Snowman (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Research directions: If any. Snowman (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In special populations, such as In the elderly or In pregnancy or In children. This section is missing. Snowman (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In other animals - section missing. Snowman (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response: thanks for your comments. Firstly, MEDMOS does not demand that certain sections are included. In the case of this article, placing "classification" first would lead to a section that is near enough incomprehensible to the reader, because it would necessitate discussion of concepts that are only defined further down in the article. Therefore, the relevant content is discussed in "causes". I generally do not feel that medical articles should include the differential diagnosis (unless certain conditions have notorious mimics that are emphasised in secondary sources); a list of differentials this depends completely on the clinical presentation. I agree a "prognosis" section could include the risk of recurrence - this is information that could come from elsewhere in the article (e.g. increased recurrence rates in smokers). From my reading of the secondary sources (cited in the article or listed on the talkpage) I have not identified major research directions that we are not already discussing (apical blebs vs pleural porosity, for instance). I will have a look at the major veterinary sources to see if we need to discuss pneumothorax in other species. JFW | T@lk 20:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further explanation of the need for the article to conform to MEDMOS more closely. Of course, MEDMOS guidelines are not demands. However, it seems to me that this article needlessly disregards the guidlines on headings and page orgainisation. I think that Pneumothrorax is a condition that could easily conform to more of the MEDMOS guidelines on headings, than the article currently does. Consistency, is importand on the Wiki and makes the enclopedia easier to read going from article to article. In addition to lack of concordance with MEDMOS, I think that the current page organisation is quite bad for some topics. Examples: Snowman (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that it would be possible to write a "Clasification" section that is understandable and place it after the introduction as suggested by the MEDMOS guidelines. I would not expect to find "Subtypes" under "Signs and symptoms", and a "Classification" section would replace a "subtypes" section in the "Signs and symtoms" section. Snowman (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The classification is strongly dependent on features at presentation. I am not planning to change the order of the sections now. My view is that MEDMOS is generally a useful guideline, but I have never found it logical to place "Classification" at the top before you've even had a chance to describe the condition and possible subtypes in practical terms. Feel free to open a thread on WT:MEDMOS about this. JFW | T@lk 23:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • MEDMOS makes a strong statement about the contents of the "Prevention" section saying; "if the section only discusses secondary prevention it should follow the treatment section". The article completely disregards this. Snowman (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what way does it disregard this completely? All prevention of pneumothorax is secondary prevention. Please clarify. JFW | T@lk 23:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I am aware, surgery or an intervention are often done when other treatments have not resolved a pneumothorax. Surgery and other interventions are often a treatment of last resort for unresolved pneumothoraces, which also has the effect of secondary prevention. I do not think surgery can be classifid an secondary prevention and nothing else. Would you call an appendicectomy secondary prevention? Snowman (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am still not clear in what way the current "Prevention" section "completely disregards" WP:MEDMOS. As the article currently states, the same procedures may be used both as a treatment for unremitting pneumothorax and as prophylaxis for further episodes in those deemed high-risk. I have rolled the content together in the same paragraph. JFW | T@lk 18:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is what medmos says; "Treatment or Management: This might include any type of currently used treatment ...". The prevention section includes interventions that are often mainly used as treatment, so I think all of the prevention section should be re-named to something like "Interventions" (or a reader friendly version) and that it should be included at the end of "Treatment" section. Snowman (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I will look into this, but I am not completely certain whether these interventions are not primarily preventative. I am not a thoracic surgeon so I cannot say with confidence whether the interventions are more commonly used for treatment or for prevention. JFW | T@lk 01:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • You need to get this right. As far as I am aware, a surgeon would only operate on a chest with a pneumothorax as a treatment of last resort. Opening a chest would not be used for the sole purpose of secondary prevention of a pneumothorax. Talk insuflation can have complications and would not be used as only secondary prevention. Surgery and talk insufflation are used to treat pneumothoraces that have not resolved with other treatmetns. Snowman (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Have you read the guidelines from the British Thoracic Society, cited in the article? Recurrent pneumothorax, even when succesfully treated with intercostal drains, may warrant VATS-based or mini-thoracotomy based pleural abrasion with or without stapling of blebs. The same applies to people who wish to go SCUBA diving and have a history of pneumothorax. Talc insufflation can only be performed once the pneumothorax has fully resolved, as otherwise no pleurodesis will be achieved, and is therefore a form of secondary prevention per excellence. JFW | T@lk 19:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I did not know that about talk insufflation, but think that this is not grounds for putting larger thoracotomies in a "Prevention" subheading. Snowman (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • If your interpretation of Thorax is the usual clinical practice for mini-penumothorocotomies and talk insuflation, then this section is a mixture of topics, some of which are a combination of secondary prevention and treatment and larger thoracotomies, which are mainly treatment. I think that this section is badly organised. Incidentally, the article does not mention "mini-thoracotomies". Snowman (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Tschopp mentions that "recent reports show that there is a preference for smaller incision", but being a general article I did not think that it would be appropriate to go into the WP:HOWTO of the procedure. I imagine the incision made for "curative" and "preventative" thoracotomy is determined mainly by what the surgeon is planning to do, rather than the reason why the operation is performed. This depends on the results of imaging (e.g. presence of emphysematous bullae). JFW | T@lk 22:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I note that sections have been substantially re-organised for the better by User Jfdwolff; see this edit. Snowman (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the article currently, the "Causes", "Mechanism", and the "Subtypes" sections have a lot of repetition and this could be addressed with consideration of headings and the overall page reorganisation. Snowman (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is the price we're paying for having one comprehensive article about various subtypes of pneumothorax. I'd prefer to have a degree of repetition as opposed to confusing the reader. Do you have specific examples? JFW | T@lk 23:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that the repetition can be minimised with better page organisation. Snowman (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • See my response on the next point. A small amount of repetition is inherent in every reasonably well-organised article. JFW | T@lk 19:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Despite being rare tension pneumothorax has a high profile, because urgent treatment can be life saving. Aspects of this medical emergency are separated over several headings all over the article, and I think that explaining this contidion better can be considered with page re-organistion. Snowman (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, this is the price we are paying for treating all forms of pneumothorax in one comprehensive article. I am extremely wary of moving all content relating to tension pneumothorax into one section. After all, all forms of pneumothorax can precipitate an episode of tension. JFW | T@lk 23:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, this is an example of poor page organisation. Snowman (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have now moved all the clinical information on tension pneumothorax (history and physical examination) into one subsection. Given that every kind of pneumothorax could theoretically lead to tension, I do not want to isolate this content any further. I know you have a perspective on the organisation of the page, but unless you can come up with a suggestion that is in harmony with the current guidelines in WP:MEDMOS I think I prefer the current arrangement. JFW | T@lk 19:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Omission: pneumothorax and flying; see Thorax 2003 (a more up-to-date reference will be needed for the article). Snowman (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The 2010 guideline also mentions this. I agree that we should mention this, together with the content on scuba diving that RexxS has proposed on Talk:Pneumothorax. JFW | T@lk 23:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • In truth, we allude to this in the opening paragraph of "Treatment", and therefore no omission occurred. Axl has suggested that this be discussed in "Prevention". I am reviewing this. JFW | T@lk 13:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that the article should also say that both underwater diving professionals and pilots flying aircraft are indications for surgery. There is nothing about surgery in pilots in the article. Snowman (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Diving can be unsafe whether done professionally or not. I have added (under "aftercare") the point about pilots being considered for surgery. More diving-related content has been prepared on the talkpage, and will soon be added to the article. JFW | T@lk 02:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possible omission: Air and a fluid both present; air and blood (Hemopneumothorax), air and empyaema, or and a watery fluid (hydropneumothorax), Snowman (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • We are mentioning haemopneumothorax (diagnosis, 3rd paragraph), but I would need to find a reference to cover hydro & pyopneumothorax. JFW | T@lk 23:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possible omission: Pneumothorax caused by loud music; see "Loud music lung collapse warning" on BBC. Snowman (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • We are covering this already (signs and symptoms, 1st paragraph). I would not want to use BBC as a source. JFW | T@lk 23:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possible omission: President-elect of Argentina, Fernando de la Rua had a pneumothorax; see "World: Americas: Argentine president-elect discharged from hospital" on BBC. Snowman (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This happened 12 years ago and clearly has not made a lasting impact on the popular perception of the condition. I think that it should not be first of a list of famous people who once had a pneumothorax. JFW | T@lk 23:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You may not be looking at this from the perspective of a person from South America. Actually, the BBC is an extreamly realiable source and the BBC is (or has been) the single RS most often used on the Wiki. I think that it is useful so have some examples of famous people, who have had the condition and how it affected them. Of course, there may be other famous people affected. Snowman (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can you demonstrate that De la Rua's pneumothorax has had a lasting impact on the public perception of the disease, in the same way Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease has had an impact of the popular perception of that illness? The BBC might be a useful source to demonstrate that, but the current source doesn't. JFW | T@lk 19:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think that what is important to readers here is the cause of the illness in a famous person, in this case a typical episode. I do not see why a lasting impact on a nation is the only criteria here. Snowman (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • WP:MEDMOS (under "notable cases") has some guidance on this. If we agree to mention this one case we oblige ourselves to mention all other notable people who have once suffered a pneumothorax. This tends to snowball as people of less renown are added ad infinitum. JFW | T@lk 22:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possible omission: Pneumothorax and medical certification for the boxing sport; see Army Boxing Association (Army BA) Aade Memoire. Snowman (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not mentioned in secondary sources, unless you're aware of one. JFW | T@lk 19:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would be amazed if this is not included in sports medicine text books or review articles. Scuba diving is included in the article and to me it seems illogical to exclude other sports and activities. Snowman (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have provided a link to boxing on the RAF website, so I think I have conclusively indicated a possible omission. Please try a systematic literature search. Snowman (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • See comments to the next two points. JFW | T@lk 23:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possible omission: Pneumothorax and fitness to fly military and civil aircraft and fitness for space flight (NASA); see Spontaneous Pneumothorax and its Effects on Aircrews and Australian authority book. Snowman (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not discussed in secondary sources. See my next response. JFW | T@lk 19:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would be amazed if this is not included in occupational health text books or review articles. Snowman (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just a sampling: ISBN 0-63204-832-8 does not contain "pneumothorax" as a text word, and ISBN 0-70218-674-0 mentions it as an aside on one occasion. Are you aware of any sources? JFW | T@lk 20:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • The two external websites that I have linked show that the article has a possible omission, so I expect that there are reliable sources somewhere. Snowman (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • This is a very detailed and specialised subject that would be WP:WEIGHT if discussed in a general encyclopedia article. See also my comments below on occupational health perspectives. JFW | T@lk 23:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possible omission: A section on occupational medicine (fitness to do certain types of work). Snowman (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not discussed in secondary sources. I will have a look and see if there is a paper on occupational medicine and pneumothorax, but I'm not particularly hopeful. JFW | T@lk 19:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would be amazed aspects of pneumothorax are not included in occupational health text books or review articles. Snowman (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • See my previous comment. JFW | T@lk 20:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • May I suggest that you do a systematic search of the literature. Snowman (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Doing so would generate content based on primary sources. I have found a (short) paragraph in an occupational medicine handbook that distinguishes coarsely between light and heavy manual work, and I have indeed added this content to a new subsection called "aftercare". It does not discuss specific occupations, and I get the impression that there is insufficient data to make a hard recommendation about particular situations. A specialist occupational physician will probably end up making a risk assessment based on perceived exposure and risk. This is not something we can do in a general purpose encyclopedia article. JFW | T@lk 23:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possible omission: Pneumothorax as a sports injury. Snowman (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is this different from any other injury? JFW | T@lk 19:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Incidence in various sports could be added. Snowman (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • On the basis of which secondary source? JFW | T@lk 20:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have suggested a possible omission and I really think that it is not up to me to provide references for the article. Snowman (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • It certainly is when the general references for this article do not elaborate on the subject of pneumothorax specifically as a sports injury. For the purposes of a general encyclopedia article this might to quite granular and not relevant for the majority of readers. I am very happy to reconsider if you think there is a solid source that meets all the criteria from WP:MEDRS and gives a general overview of pneumothorax as a sport injury, but I believes it does an injustice to the many other traumatic cirumstances under which one could sustain a pneumothorax, such as road traffic accidents or being trampled by wildebeest. JFW | T@lk 23:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Actually, sports medicine is a respected sub-speciality. Snowman (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I don't think that materially alters the validity of my response. JFW | T@lk 00:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I think that your comment about "being trampled by wildebeest" does not materially alter the validity of my response. Snowman (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Ah, tu quoque. It was not intended to invalidate your response. I rest my case. JFW | T@lk 02:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inconsistency: The image description on Commons for File:Pneumothorax CXR.jpg indicates that the X-ray is a tension pneumothorax; however, any mention of this diagnosis is missing from the caption in the article. I would suggest that the overall shape of the lung on the affected side is somewhat irregular and this needs some explaining in the caption as well. Snowman (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The description on commons is wrong. The definition of tension pneumothorax is based on clinical parameters and not on the size of the pneumothorax or the presence of mediastinal shift (see the Noppen reference). JFW | T@lk 00:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that this sort of inconsistency should sorted out. May I suggest that you clarify the diagnosis suggested in the image description on Commons of this X-ray by the author or the editor who uploaded of the image. Snowman (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I will do, but I don't believe it has bearing on the suitability for this article to achieve FA. JFW | T@lk 23:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think that good and consistent image documentation is important. I think that the inconsistency seen in the caption on the page and the image description on Commons is not satisfactory for any medical article. Snowman (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, you'll be pleased to hear that I modified the caption on Commons. I hope this settles the matter. JFW | T@lk 00:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think that your modification of the image description on Commons might have the tendency to muddy the waters. I think that your modification of the image description on Commons does not help. I have asked User Kauczuk on Commons to clarify the diagnosis of the person, who was X-rayed. How do you know that the diagnosis was not a clinical diagnosis? I would recommend that you revert your edit and await for the author to reply. He might know a lot more about the X-ray than is apparent at the moment. This matter has not been resolved. Snowman (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I disagree. The X-ray shows a pneumothorax. Whether the patient was clinically in tension at the time of the X-ray is of no relevance to this article. I have simply removed the assertion that the X-ray shows "tension", because this is not a diagnosis that is made on an X-ray image. I wish we could move on from this. JFW | T@lk 02:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The image is related to the following case history on the "Clinical Cases Blog": Tension pneumothorax. The case history mentions a blood pressure of 78/61. The history is therefore consistent with tension. But it is not an X-ray diagnosis. JFW | T@lk 02:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I have put back some clinical information in the image description on Commons. I think that it is important to get this right. I think that the main point here is that the X-ray would give suspicion of a tension pneumothorax or is consistent with a tension pneumothorax. I maintain that it is somewhat misleading to present this as a typical X-ray for a left pneumothorax, as seems apparent in the image caption in the article. I am fairly sure that the possibility of a tension pneumothorax would have been mentioned in the X-ray report for an X-ray like this. I think that the caption in the article needs rephrasing. Snowman (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I have made a simple amendment to the caption, which I think now has the correct emphasis. Snowman (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                        • You have added "consistent with a clinical history of tension pneumothorax". This is exactly what you cannot conclude from the X-ray. Mediastinal shift is often seen in pneumothorax, even with the patient being completely stable (see Noppen). It is not equivalent to clinical tension. To suggest that this X-ray is "consistent with a clinical history of tension pneumothorax" perpetuates a myth. JFW | T@lk 22:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                          • This is exactly why the phrase is "consistent with tension pneumothorax" is appropriate, because it is not saying that there is not another cause of a shifted mediastinum. This is the correct way of highlighting a particular significant possible diagnosis that might be one diagnosis in a list of several possibilities. Snowman (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                            • The image caption is not the right place to highlight the distinction between compensated and tension pneumothorax. This distinction is made in the text. JFW | T@lk 11:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Unstable caption: I note that the caption has been reverted again; see this edit. This part of the article appears to be unstable to me. I think that the caption needs to give some indication that this sort of X-ray appearance can occur in clinical tension pneumothorax. This can be written into the caption in many different ways. On the WP Medicine talk page, I have invited editors for their opinion about this caption. Snowman (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Please note the pneumothorax web-page of e-medicine shows an X-ray, which is consistent with clinical pneumothroax. The caption on emedicine says; "This chest radiograph has 2 abnormalities: (1) tension pneumothorax and (2) potentially life-saving intervention delayed while waiting for x-ray results. Tension pneumothorax is a clinical diagnosis requiring emergent needle decompression, and therapy should never be delayed for x-ray confirmation." Perhaps, their caption could be improved by saying "consistent with tension pneumothorax", but I think that it is better to have mentioned tension pneumothrax than not have done. Snowman (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                • The caption is only unstable because you insist on changing it in a way that cannot be justified. As I have explained repeatedly, this X-ray does not show unequivocally whether the patient is unwell or not. That is something that requires a clinical assessment. I am surprised that you cannot seem to accept my point. As for Emedicine, it directly contradicts observation by Noppen & De Keukeleire that mediastinal displacement is a feature commonly encountered on X-rays of people with pneumothorax, whether stable or clinically in tension. JFW | T@lk 01:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • My change to the caption are entirely justifiable. This caption is being discussed on the WP Medicine talk page, where Doc Smith says that he thinks the expression "abc changes are consistent with a diagnosis of xyz" is a commonly used expression. The caption is about a situation where there is mediastial deviation, and is not about how common it is in this condition, so I find you quote from e-medicine is irrelevant. I would also like to reiterate that the image description on Commons originally said that the X-ray was one of a tension pneumothroax. I can not understand why anyone would want to leave out any mention of the clinical diagnosis or clinical findings (in this case as far as can be determined from the image description on Commons and from the original source) of such an important condition as tension pneumothroax. Snowman (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • I have several concerns about the Commons text, which I have described on WT:MED. In my opinion, these issues call into question the validity of the text. [By the way, his name is "Doc James".] Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • The image description on Commons may need to be rewritten carefully. The image is from clinical cases. The websites disclaimer says; "There are no real life patient data on this website." Snowman (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • The image description on Commons has no direct bearing on this article. The reader should not need to navigate to Commons to understand the image. At the moment, all we know is that the X-ray shows a pneumothorax. If we have to believe the text on the Clinical Cases blog, the clinical history may well be fictional. JFW | T@lk 20:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                          • The X-ray shows a lot of air between the lung and the rib cage on one side. I expect that emedicine used this X-ray for a reason to illustrate a fictional case of a tension pneumothorax. The reason being that the X-ray appearances of this X-ray are consistent with a tension pneumothroax. The X-ray is not rotated (sternoclavicular joints are symmetrical) and there is no fibrosis in the expanded lung. It shows deviation of the trachea and this can be a late sign of tension pneumothroax. Snowman (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                            • "a lot of air between the lung and the rib cage on one side" is not a particularly good sign for tension pneumothorax. In my personal practice I have seen a number of cases where the lung was entirely collapsed, yet the patient was entirely stable and only reported chest discomfort, with peripheral oxygen saturations of 99%! Deviation of the trachea on a chest X-ray is not the same as tracheal deviation on physical examination. You cannot conclude that just because the trachea is displaced on the CXR, the patient must therefore be in tension. JFW | T@lk 22:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                              • I think that this discussion has been advanced further at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Image caption in pneumothorax, probably because there has been more contributors to the discussion there. Snowman (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                                • All we have achieved there is the observation that chest X-rays of people suspected clinically of tension pneumothorax can delay appropriate management and should not be performed. I am personally of the opinion that we should not change the image caption any further, and I am not intending to restate my views again. JFW | T@lk 23:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Deviation of the trachea (windpipe) to one side and the presence of raised jugular venous pressure (distended neck veins) are not reliable as clinical signs, despite being taught as characteristic for tension pneumothorax.[4]". I think that the article it is not clear and contradictory on why a deviated trachea is not a reliable clinical sign and why it is thought that is is a characteristic feature. I think that many people would tend to trust ivory towers of training. My assumption would be that the presence of a deviated trachea with chest pain and breathlessness would be very significant. Snowman (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify: they are too rare to be useful, because their absence does not exclude tension pneumothorax. I will try to make the sentence clearer, but I am somewhat bound by the way Leigh-Smith has phrased it. JFW | T@lk 00:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that you may need to clarify the sensitivity and specificity of the clinical sign of a deviated trachea. Snowman (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, when assessing someone who is critically unwell, spending time to assess tracheal position may not be time well spent because if it is not deviated you have not excluded a tension pneumothorax. This is the point that Leigh-Smith makes, and I will ensure that the text faithfully represents this. Giving exact percentages is hard, especially because Leigh-Smith does not pronounce on the specificity of the sign (which is probably unknown). JFW | T@lk 23:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • ... how long does it take to check the position of the trachea? Snowman (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you do it properly, about 10-15 seconds. Which can make all the difference in someone with SpO2 60% and a systolic blood pressure of 45 mmHg. With regards to specificity, any cause of chronic volume loss (lobectomy, fibrosis of the upper lobes) can cause tracheal deviation, and the sign is therefore not specific for tension pneumothorax. JFW | T@lk 01:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, I would have thought about about 15 seconds or perhaps 5 seconds if it was marked. It is an interesting topic. Perhaps "... despite being taught as characteristic for tension pneumothorax" is historical now and the worlds top professors teach up-to-date facts about the windpipe. Perhaps, the wording in the article could clarify if this teaching is current or historical. If this teaching is historical, perhaps it could be included in the "history" section to avoid confusion. Snowman (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Do you have evidence for that claim? Tracheal position is still taught in ATLS. Unless you can prove that this teaching has been abandoned, I don't think it belongs under "history". JFW | T@lk 02:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Perhaps, this seems to be a case when one reliable source criticises another reliable source. The teaching stance of ATLS is not represented. Wikipedia should not take sides. I am not happy by the way the article deals with deviation of the trachea here. Snowman (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I would need to consult the ATLS manual to see how they discuss this. I don't think the current phrasing constitutes an NPOV violation. JFW | T@lk 22:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                        • The current wording about this in the article is; "Deviation of the trachea (windpipe) to one side and the presence of raised jugular venous pressure (distended neck veins) are not reliable as clinical signs, despite being taught as characteristic for tension pneumothorax.[4]". There is only one in-line reference (reference number 4) for this line, so in the Wiki article one review publication is contradicting the basis of standard teaching. I would have thought that the Wiki should not take sides and only give the point of view of the review here. The article is not explaining the case for standard teaching. Please to ahead and consult the ATLS manual; however, the review publication appears to contradict medical education in general over the significance of the position of the trachea. How important would it be if the position of the trachea changed from the time of the initial examination to the time of a second review examination in the emergency department? The progress of a tension pneumothorax can take minutes or hours, and for the slower progressing types there would be time to test and record the position of the trachea. Snowman (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Emedicine teaches that the deviation of the windpipe is an inconsistent and late sign, and goes on to say that "Although historic emphasis has been placed on tracheal deviation". My initial instinctive impression may be correct that teaching is up-to-date. Nevertheless, I remain unhappy about the way the current article appear to be taking sides. Snowman (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                          • As I said, I will be reviewing the ATLS manual at the closest opportunity, and consider including it as a source. It seems that Emedicine agrees with our current view, namely that absence of tracheal deviation does not exclude tension. JFW | T@lk 01:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                            • I would agree that up-to-date references say that tracheal deviation does not exclude tension pneumothorax. The part of the article that I think should be fixed is where is indicates that teaching is wrong with this; "... despite being taught as characteristic for tension pneumothorax". I do not know exactly what is the current teaching on the position of the trachea in tension pneumothorax, but the article indicates that it is out-of-date universality on the basis of one 2005 review. I think that the article takes sides on this. I expect that the teaching had a good bases when it was (or is still) being taught and this is not presented in the article. I would guess that this teaching in most places on the wind pipe has been revised on the basis of new research. I think that this Wiki article may risk unduly criticising current 2012 standard teaching on the basis on one 2005 review. The in-line reference for this is 2005, which is unsatisfactory for indicating what current teaching is. Snowman (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Fine, you win. I have removed the words "[...] despite being taught as characteristic for tension pneumothorax" because I am not convinced that we should provide loads of sources solely for the purpose of NPOV. The reason I originally added the words in question was because it was not clear why one would expect the trachea to be deviated or the JVP to be raised. JFW | T@lk 20:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                • Personally speaking, I think that the matter of who wins or looses is not important. The offending phrase was obviously problematic and I think that it would have made this part of the article sound silly to many. The FAC process generally tends to make articles better. It was a long road, but what is important to me here is that a misleading phrase on the Wikipedia has been corrected. I could have corrected it myself days ago, but I guess that the main authors of the page would have reverted my edit. During FACs I often edit pages directly writing explanations in good edit summaries and my edits are reworked, and when I team up with erudite editors I think that this can work well and the amount of discussion necessary in the FAC is reduced. Snowman (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • I hope you realise that my "you win" was tongue in cheek. Obviously this is not a contest. It is good that we seem to have come to an agreement here, although there is a small risk that the reader will think "why are they mentioning tracheal shift and raised JVP, only to say that they are not very sensitive signs?" JFW | T@lk 21:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • I think there needs to be a sentence before to say what are the most commonly found and most reliable clinical findings (I think this is reduced breath sounds on the affected side). Snowman (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • I have rephrased one sentence to read "Other findings often include quieter breath sounds on one side of the chest". Leigh-Smith states that this is found in 50-75% of cases, so still not universal. I'd say that is fairly reliable, but I don't think we can say that in so many words because the positive predictive value has not been calculated. JFW | T@lk 22:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • Incidentally, may I suggest minimising "tongue in cheek" comments, just in case they are misunderstood. Further, some readers, perhaps with English as their second language, may find this "figure of speech" difficult to understand. Snowman (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page organisation of information on tension pneumonthorax: It seems to me that information of tension pneumothorax is in several sections up and down the page and so I think that is probably difficult for a general reader to find out about this condition in the article. I could not see anywhere in the article to say specifically that oxygen is beneficial in penumothorax nor anything about the sequence of decompression with a cannula and then establishing bubbling in a chest tube. However, I might have missed a sentence or two about tension pneumothorax hidden in one or more sections. Snowman (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have already moved a fair amount of content on tension pneumothorax into a separate subsection under "signs and symptoms". For the remainder of the article, specific treatment for tension pneumothorax is highlighted where relevant. We are mentioning that oxygen is beneficial (under "Treatment#Conservative"). You have indeed missed the discussion about needle decompression followed by a chest tube - this is in the opening paragraphs of "Treatment" - that's hardly "hidden". JFW | T@lk 00:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • To me this indicates how difficult the information about tension pneumothorax is to find in this fairly long article, and I would recommend a re-think on page organisation of tension pneumothorax. Snowman (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • How do you propose this should be done within the framework of WP:MEDMOS? As I have stated earlier, tension pneumothorax is a subtype of pneumothorax, and the causes are identical. JFW | T@lk 01:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • More sub-sections (level 3 headings) dedicated to tension pneumothorax might help. Snowman (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • As I have been trying to explain, tension is a feature that can occur to any kind of pneumothorax. You are trying to make it sound like it is a distinct clinical entity. It's not. JFW | T@lk 02:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I am aware that there are a number of causes for tension pneumothorax. Of course, tension pneumothorax is to the chest as brittle bones is to the limbs. There is already a subsection on tension pneumothorax in the "Signs and symptoms" section and I think that the article could be better organised if there were sub-sections in the treatment and causes sections. Snowman (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I don't see a good reason to add a subsection to "causes". As for "treatment", the management of tension pneumothorax is covered by a single paragraph. The Manual of Style explicitly discourages the use of very short sections. That is why I went for the current solution. JFW | T@lk 22:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • In addition, there is "Surgery is often required" for tension pneumothorax in AIDS, which seems out of place in the "Chest drain" section. Snowman (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Surgery is not just required for tension but for PTX in AIDS in general. This is probably the best context to clarify this (rather than redoing the whole thing elsewhere). Also, it is the final paragraph on chest tubes and segues nicely into the section on surgery. JFW | T@lk 22:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • This FAC mentions "tension pneumothroax" 62 times at this juncture. I think that this is likely to indicate the the presentation of this topic has problems. A re-think on the presentation of this topic may be indicated. Snowman (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • This FAC mentions "tension pneumothorax" mostly in the discussion threads above. I think I have made an effort to organise the presentation of this topic, and we have engaged in a very long and mostly fruitless discussion on four words in an image caption on tension pneumothorax. I don't think the statistics are causally related to a problem with the organisation of the content. JFW | T@lk 23:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Omission: Pneumothorax and AIDS. Snowman (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • We are mentioning pneumothorax secondary to pneumocystis pneumonia (under "causes") which is the main reason by which AIDS could lead to pneumothorax. Is there anything else that we need to cover? The sources don't accord special importance to AIDS. JFW | T@lk 00:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is a section about the importance of pneumothorax in AIDS in Thorax 2010;65:ii18-ii31 doi:10.1136/thx.2010.136986 BTS guidelines: Management of spontaneous pneumothorax: British Thoracic Society pleural disease guideline 2010. Snowman (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done. Fair point. I will try to cover this somewhere. JFW | T@lk 02:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Only partially done. There may be other stuff to add to the article about AIDS. What about incidence of bilateral pneumothoraces in AIDS? Snowman (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Mentioned bilateral pneumothorax. Don't think we should discuss the medical management of PCP or AIDS in this context. JFW | T@lk 22:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copy-editing: "Professional guidelines suggest that pleurectomy is performed ...". What are these "professional guidelines"? Is the word "Professional" needed? Snowman (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. Anyone can issue a guideline, but it is only useful if accepted by professionals. JFW | T@lk 22:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possible omission: The role of self-help groups in the "After care" section? Snowman (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • None of the sources mention self-help groups. What kind of self-help would be appropriate for someone who has had an episode of pneumothorax, apart from stopping smoking? JFW | T@lk 22:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A chest tube (or intercostal drain) is the most definitive initial treatment of a pneumothorax."; I think that this is controversial or bias to USA treatment. It may be the practice in USA. A simple cannula is generally the first treatment in the UK. Snowman (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are misreading it. It is not ambiguous. An intercostal drain is the most definitive initial treatment. Aspiration is less definitive, in that it fails in 50% of cases. If definite treatment is needed (e.g. in a patient who is showing clinical signs of deterioration), aspiration might not be the right treatment. JFW | T@lk 22:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction needed on essential basics: "... inability to hear breath sounds on one side of the chest ..."; this is incorrect as there is not inability to hear breath sounds. If there were no breath sounds on the affected side, then a pneumothorax would be easy to diagnose with a stethoscope. In short, the breath sounds on the affected side are generally slightly quieter. Snowman (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) - see [9]. Nevertheless, replacing it with "deceased breath sounds" simply obscures the meaning for 99% of the audience. I've reverted that and would ask why "generally quieter breath sounds" isn't used for the text if that's what is actually observed? I assume this is meant to be referenced to Leigh-Smith? Unfortunately, I can't find anything to support those findings in the article. Perhaps other sources might be definitive on the issue. --RexxS (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have put back my comment, as User RexxS has answered it. See Box 12 in "Review: "Tension pneumothorax—time for a re-think?" S Leigh-Smith, T Harris. It says "Decreased breath sounds" in box 12. This source is the in-line reference for most of this paragraph of the article, so this is also an error of extracting information from the review. I would be grateful if user RexxS would help to amend this section writing in the correct information about breath sounds in good English. Snowman (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks, I hadn't looked hard enough in the boxes in Leigh-Smith. I can see what you were trying to do now, but I took your edit of "deceased" breath sounds to some kind of medical jargon for breath sounds that had stopped! and I missed it being an obvious typo for "decreased" - apologies. I'll have a try at editing the text to reflect the source. Please feel free to butcher my efforts mercilessly. --RexxS (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I had not realised that my edit that you reverted included a typo. I see how my typo lead to a misunderstanding. Thank you for explaining and fixing it. I welcome your work in rolling out plane English. Snowman (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possible omission of research directions: Some information at Management of Spontaneous Pneumothorax: An American College of Chest Physicians Delphi Consensus Statement Snowman (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The section "Priorities for Future Research" doesn't actually discuss any emerging research findings. Rather, it calls for "prospective studies that have adequate sample sizes and follow-up periods to show effects. Study end points should include the relevant clinical outcomes, such as mortality, morbidity, patient perceptions, functional status, and cost." I would not want to base an entire section on this, especially when the main point is going to be that "More research is needed". JFW | T@lk 22:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is a significant source and it is a research direction, so it seems to be what is indicated in MEDMoS. Snowman (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree that it is a significant source, but the "research directions" section should ideally be reserved for research that is widely thought (by secondary sources) to promising in the diagnosis or treatment of a condition. See dengue fever for some good examples. (COI: I wrote most of that section.) I am less certain that there is any mileage in saying that "the current guidelines are based on flaky data, and we need bigger trials"; no one should be forced to read that in an encyclopedia. JFW | T@lk 20:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I disagree, I think that it is important for readers to know that there has been few studies on management guidelines, and this area that has been recommended for further study. Snowman (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • We can certainly mention the fact that the guidelines are not built on gold-plated evidence, but that is not the purpose of the "research directions" section. JFW | T@lk 23:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Omission: Prognosis section; as indicated in MEDMOS. Snowman (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • MEDMOS does not mandate particular sections. Most of the relevant content is discussed in context in the "Management" and "Epidemiology" sections, and moving it to a separate section doesn't seem useful to me. JFW | T@lk 23:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that the Management section should have a section called something like "Emergency decompression", which can show more lengthy text on the management of "Tension pneumothroax". I note that my edit starting this presentation has been reverted by this edit. I doubt if I will edit the article or here much in the near future. Snowman (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Manual of Style (see WP:BODY) discourages the use of short sections. This is the only reason I reverted your edit, so there should be no concern with regards to future editing. I had already explained the issue of very short sections here, and I had hoped that this was clear. JFW | T@lk 23:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please focus on my suggestion about more lengthy section on the management of tension pneumothroax. Snowman (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (just the few things I could find that have not already been addressed by others above, I hope I am not repeating):
    • Treatment/prevention: should probably include smoking cessation
    • Diagnosis: possible additions: rib fractures with subcutaneous emphysema on x-ray highly suggestive for pneumothorax; most likely location where small pneumothoraces are seen on x-ray (should probably find a ref for these statements)
    • Relationship with pneumomediastinum; should this be mentioned?
    • "Several particular features on ultrasonography of the chest can be used to confirm or exclude the diagnosis.": which features? --WS (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response: thanks for your comments Wouter.
      • Done. Treatment/prevention: I have added something about smoking cessation in the "prevention" section, as the BTS guideline makes some recommendations in this area.
      • Diagnosis: As for subcutaneous emphysema, none of the sources mentioned this (but they are generally quite thin on traumatic pneumothorax). Perhaps Rosen10 mentions it, or perhaps you could recommend another source?
      • Diagnosis: The source mentions four features that could be beneficial for ultrasonographers. This is not a widely used technique, so I was a bit hesitant to include this. After all, this might be interpreted as canonical while it far from that. Also, the features are somewhat technical: "the lung sliding, the B lines, the lung point, and the lung pulse". We would need to clarify each feature in turn!
      • Hope this is helpful. JFW | T@lk 21:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I recommend an "Aftercare" subsection at the end of the "Treatment" section, which would include smoking cessation, flying and diving.
        • Is that really true? In Rosen's Emergency Medicine, I found no support for that, neither in the "Pneumothorax" section, nor in the "Rib fracture" section. Interestingly, in the "Hemothorax" section, there is a CT slice (Figure 42-11) on page 397 with the caption "Multiple rib fractues [sic] with extensive subcutaneous emphysema, with no pneumothorax seen." Oddly, there is of course a large haemothorax, which isn't mentioned in the caption.
        • Rosen's Emergency Medicine contains a single paragraph on spontaneous and secondary (non-traumatic) pneumomediastinum. The paragraph begins "Spontaneous pneumomediastinum is a closely related clinical entity", and goes on to describe several features that are different from pneumothorax. I am not convinced that pneumomediastinum has any place in Wikipedia's article on "Pneumothorax". If you insist, I suppose that a single sentence in the "Mechanism" section would be reasonable.
        • I'll let JFW address the comment about ultrasonographic features. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note: the {{Done-t}} templates cause the FAC archives to exceed Wikipedia:Template limits (which is why the FAC instructions asked that they be avoided), creating errors in archives. Could someone please remove them ? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{done-t}} :D --RexxS (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I missed that instruction. Sorry, and thanks to RexxS for doing the "search & replace" job on it. JFW | T@lk 21:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: we are past the three-week mark, with no consensus to promote, and a lengthy review that is likely to discourage other reviewers from engaging. The fastest route to the bronze star under these circumstances is typically a fresh start in a few weeks. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:37, 24 January 2012 [10].

Charles Boycott edit

Nominator(s): Quasihuman | Talk 18:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think the article I still think the article meets the FA criteria, no unresolved issues were raised in the last FA nomination. I'm ready to address any concerns that may arise in this. Thnaks in advance to all reviewers. Quasihuman | Talk 18:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was archived at its last FAC on 19 September last, after attracting very few substantive comments, no opposes, no supports, and has had no significant edits since that date. It should not suffer the same fate twice. I will read through and check out the prose; meantime, can I suggest a piped link from "bought a commission" to Sale of commissions, for the benefit of the casual reader? Brianboulton (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've previously copyedited and peer-reviewed this article, so I feel a bit close to it to outright *support* it at this stage. However I think it's very good, and the subject is fascinating. Graham87 05:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on prose: I'm not completely comfortable with the following phrases and sentences appearing in the article. I don't demand that all of them be changed if you disagree with my opinion. Just trying to help. =)

  • Neighbours would not talk to him. Shops would not serve him. Local labourers refused to tend his house, and the postman refused to deliver his mail. — Not the most fluent way to put things, I think.
    • I've replaced the full stops/periods with commas, but do you have any other suggestions for improving that sentence? Graham87 05:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've rewritten that sentence. Quasihuman | Talk 22:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • He died on 19 June 1897 in his home in Flixton after an illness earlier in that year, aged 65. — "aged 65" is pretty far from "He" here.
  • In the first paragraph under "Early life and family", the Boycott/Boycatt spelling issue appears three times; things should be rearranged so that it only has to be dealt with once.
    • Fair point; it probably requires access to sources to make sure that everything is cited correctly, so I haven't touched that section. Graham87 05:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I've fixed that now. Quasihuman | Talk 10:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was ill for seven continuous months between August 1851 and February 1852 — A bit redundant.
    • Removed "continuous". I'd be interested in the nature of his illness, if that is specified in the source. Graham87 05:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know what you guys think, but it still sounds a bit weird to me. I might say "He was ill for seven months between January 1851 and December 1852", but the way it is now, there are exactly seven months from the start to the end date. It's as if I said "He wrote down three numbers between 4 and 6". Well, what three numbers could you write? Also, the between is kind of annoying cause sounds like it might exclude August 1851 and February 1852, which can't be right. How about "He was ill for the seven months from August 1851 to February 1852" or just "He was ill from August 1851 to February 1852"? I don't want to get into too much WP:BIKE though.
      And yeah, I'd agree with Graham87 that if it's convenient, the nature of his illness should be specified. Leonxlin (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done, removed the 7 months as redundant. The source for that is vague about the nature of the illness, I'll see if I can dig up info on that from another source. Quasihuman | Talk 00:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • On the question on what the illness was, I can find no concrete information on this. There is a suggestion in Boycott that he may have had scarlet fever during his school days, and that this may have been the cause of the later illnesses, but it seems too speculative to include. Quasihuman | Talk 17:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • McGregor Blacker agreed to sub-let 2,000 acres (810 ha) of land belonging to the Irish Church Mission Society on Achill to Boycott and he moved there in 1854. — I would prefer a comma before "and", or changing it to ", who".
    • Done, with the second option. Graham87 05:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • a protracted dispute with Mr Carr, the agent for the Achill Church Mission Estate, from which McGregor Blacker leased the lands — Perhaps I'm mistaken, but should "from which" not read "from whom"?
    • Yes, correct, fixed. Graham87 05:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salvage was relatively big business at the time and the local receiver was entitled to a percentage of the sale and was entitled to keep whatever did not sell. — A few funny points add up to a somewhat awkward sentence here.
    • Yes, especially the two instances of the phrase "was entitled", which are made even worse by the appearance of the same phrase in the previous sentence. I'm not quite sure what to do here. Graham87 05:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed the sentence to remove the reference to salvage being a big business, and remove 'entitled' from the sentence. I hope that's better. Quasihuman | Talk 12:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The total rent due to Lord Erne was £500 annually, from which Boycott earned ten per cent — I would prefer "of which", but maybe I'm just being picky.
    • Yes, "from which" is a bit stilted. Fixed. Also replaced "for being" with "as". Graham87 05:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In his time in Lough Mask before the controversy began, Boycott had become unpopular — I would prefer "During his time".
  • Landlords generally divided their estates into smaller farms which were let to tenant farmers. — Is "let" a typo or a usage I'm not familiar with?
    • It's a synonym for "rented"; I've changed it to that word. Hope this is OK? Graham87 05:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Farmers were a very politically important group, they had more votes than any other sector of society. — I would prefer "a very important group politically" ("very" does not modify "politically" but "important") and something other than a comma to separate the two clauses.
    • Done. Replaced the comma with a semicolon. Graham87 05:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Parnell quote, there is inconsistent spacing around the dashes. Is this intended?
    • I doubt it; unspaced en dashes aren't used in Wikipedia anyway. Fixed. Graham87 05:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh cool, you got me to look up WP:DASH again. Apparently spaced em dashes aren't used either. Except they're in every item of this list. Whoops. Leonxlin (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Social ostracism applied to Boycott — This kind of wording appears at least twice in the article. I may be wrong, but this sounds funny. The first few pages of a Google search show no instances of "applying" ostracism "to" anybody. The only "applying" of ostracism is with the institutional ostracism of ancient Greece. Perhaps the section heading could be retitled "Boycott ostracized"?
    • It probably comes from James Redpath's wording in the section "Social ostracism applied to Boycott". Could it have been typical usage in the 19th century? But now that you point it out, it does sound funny ... you apply bandages to people, not ostracism. Graham87 05:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed both instances of it to used against Boycott, social ostracism was considered to be a weapon, which is used against someone. That's the best wording I could find. Quasihuman | Talk 11:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually scratch that, "Boycott ostracized" makes a better section title. Quasihuman | Talk 12:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lord Erne had agreed to a ten percent reduction due to a poor harvest, however, all but two of the tenants demanded a twenty-five percent reduction. — I am pretty sure there ought to be a semicolon before "however".
    • You're right. Fixed. Graham87 05:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erne had refused to accede to the tenants demands. — Missing apostrophe.
    • Added after the "S". Graham87 05:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next day, a second attempt was made to serve the notices, this was also unsuccessful. — Needs a semicolon.
  • "The Boycott Relief Fund" appears to be incorrectly italicized in the article.
  • In a letter to William Ewart Gladstone, then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom requesting compensation, Boycott said that he had lost £6,000 of his investment in the estate. — Missing comma.
  • Boycott returned to England after a number of months. — Awkward.
    • Needs access to the source, obviously. If the source does not specify the exact number of months, perhaps replace it with "some"? Graham87 05:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source does not specify the number of months, changed per Graham's suggestion.Quasihuman | Talk 10:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leonxlin (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:NBSP—I fixed some of them, please do the rest. --Z 04:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, I think. Are there any more? Graham87 08:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • All fixed AFAIS. --Z 09:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A photograph of (...)", "An image of (...)", ...—don't use such phrases in alternative texts of images; not needed. --Z 04:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the family changed the spelling of its name from Boycatt to Boycott"—"Boycatt" and "Boycott" should be Italic here. --Z 04:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, but that text might change soon anyway. Graham87 08:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize the images, and link to them with {{commons}}. --Z 04:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, but there are only two images in the category at the moment. Graham87 08:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's OK. --Z 09:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three F's or Three Fs, which one is right? If the latter, then its article should be moved. --Z 09:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suspect neither is wrong, the source for that uses F's, so I went with that. However, using apostrophes for plurals of acronyms has fallen out of fashion, and some sources use Fs. Most style guides recommend Fs except where doing so would be confusing, so I'll change to Fs. Quasihuman | Talk 11:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did you use {{quote}} multiple times for a single quote? If the problem was line breaking, you can use the template like this (use a named parameter [|1= in this case] and "br" HTML attribute). --Z 09:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, I think, I didn't know how to do this. Quasihuman | Talk 11:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I was bold and changed them avoid html tags. I hope that's OK. If there's a better way, I'm all for it. By the way, is the source missing a period at the end of the fourth paragraph of the Redpath–O'Malley dialogue? Leonxlin (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes it is, possibly a typo in the secondary source? I will check a primary source for corroboration when I have access to my library (possibly Tuesday, as Monday is a bank holiday). Quasihuman | Talk 00:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use {{Lang}} for non-English terms: {{lang|fr|[[cause célèbre]]}} (and wikilink, if needed?)
    • Done. Quasihuman | Talk 11:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It appears that "cause célèbre" (as well as "en route" later in the article) should remain un-italicized per MOS:Ety. Leonxlin (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Are there any available photos related to Boycott's U.S. visit? Graham87 08:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can make this request here too. --Z 09:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • From memory, there was one on the book by Boycott, the author was not identified, so I didn't scan it, any public domain claim would have needed information about when the author died. I don't have that book with me at the moment, but I will have it on Monday, so I can check out the status of that photo. Quasihuman | Talk 11:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks like my memory was a bit off, there is no photograph from the US visit in that book, there is a group photograph with Boycott & family & members of the relief column. That photo is of very poor quality (overexposed, looks like a scan of a dirty photo). Also, there is no info on the photographer, so that can't be used. Quasihuman | Talk 12:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another question: how many other siblings did he have, and what was his position in the family (was he the eldest or youngest child, etc)? Obviously he had at least one brother or sister because his nephew is mentioned in the article. I am also wondering whether he was related to Major Charles Boycott, father of the journalist Rosie Boycott? It's probably less likely that the cricketer Geoffrey Boycott was a relation. Graham87 16:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The book by Boycott, which I don't have at the moment, has more details on the family, I will consult that about this when I get it. Quasihuman | Talk 18:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the second sentence of the lead should be rewritten so that it doesn't sound like he served in the British army after the whole ostracism campaign. (Use the pluperfect?) Leonxlin (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why is the section on the boycott called "First boycott"? Was there another boycott? Leonxlin (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, none involving Charles Boycott. But of course there were many other notable boycotts. The one involving Charles Boycott wasn't the first, according to that article, but I'm having trouble thinking of a succinct and accurate section title. Graham87 09:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I considered, simply "Boycott", but that would be vague as it could be referring to the man himself. "The boycott" is forbidden by the MOS. "His boycott" or "Boycott's boycott" is frowned upon, but allowed if it is shorter or clearer than the alternative, as it may be in this case. I favour "His boycott", but am not sure, maybe there's a better alternative. I won't change it until others have commented on this. Quasihuman | Talk 10:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • "His boycott" sounds fine. Or maybe "Controversy in Lough Mask" or "Lough Mask affair", to match the previous section title? I don't know. It probably doesn't matter that much. Leonxlin (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done.

  • Is the Boycott book a republication? If not, do you know why it wasn't published until 1997, or was it edited?
  • Is there any possibility of obtaining some of the newspaper obituaries and articles you mention? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • On point one, that book is not by the Charles Boycott, but by a decedent of the same name. I have been using it as a primary source for fairly trivial details re family, early life etc. On point two, possibly, I have access to some newspaper archives, but some of the newspapers don't exist anymore, I'll see if I can find access to archives of these tomorrow, and I'll let you know what success I have. Quasihuman | Talk 17:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've started adding some old newspaper refs, these lack author information, and this has caused an inconsistency in the references due to the way the cite news template works (the date is in a different place for the citations without articles), I will try to fix this. I have used the name of the publication as an alternate for the author in the notes, I hope that's ok. Quasihuman | Talk 21:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Times is mentioned twice, the website doesn't even allow access to abstracts without payment, which I am not in a position to do. It is only available to me in the National Library of Ireland in Dublin, The Daily News is mentioned once, that is not available to me at all, the Belfast Newsletter and the Daily Express (Dublin) are available in the National Library. The Freeman's Journal is accessible to me online, and I have added a ref from that paper. The Annual Register and New York Tribune are apparently available on ProQuest, but not to me. I will make a trip to Dublin on Monday to get access to the National Library resources, but The Daily News, The Annual Register, and the New York Tribune will not be available to me. I think I've covered them all there. Quasihuman | Talk 13:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've got access to ProQuest and a limited Times archive; let me know if you've got specific articles you're looking for. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the kind offer, I don't have any specific details re article publication dates, so I will have to visit the National Library to find these details. I was unable to make the trip during the week due to illness, but now that I am well, I will do so tomorrow. In a stroke of luck, I have found The Daily News ref mentioned in the source via the online 19th Century British Library Newspapers archive. The article is not available for free (my university has access), but the archive is searchable for free (link to search). I haven't been able to find any other relevant articles via this archive, except for some obituaries in local British newspapers. Quasihuman | Talk 23:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The full text of the article appears to be available through this compilation at Project Gutenberg, though it's dated 24 October, not 27 October, and I'm unsure about adding it to the Boycott article. That e-book probably has more information about Boycott as well. I discovered it while trying to find the page number of the Daily News article. Graham87 03:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Of course, the Boycott article says that the letter was written on 24 October but it was published on the 27th of that month. I've cited the book in the Boycott article. The later chapter "The Relief of Mr. Boycott" goes into great detail about the military expedition to harvest his crops. Graham87 03:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, barring a failure of (1c) being discovered in the future. I don't find it particularly necessary to include The Times among the references. Leonxlin (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support rescinded for the time being. Noleander has convinced me that there's still work to be done. Leonxlin (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

  • Too wordy? - First sentence seems too lengthy to digest in one bite. Break into two? "Charles Cunningham Boycott (12 March 1832 – 19 June 1897) was a British land agent whose ostracism by his local community in Ireland as part of a campaign for agrarian tenants' rights in 1880 gave the English language the verb to boycott, meaning "to ostracise". "
I think there are multiple issues here. First, all or nearly all of the information currently in the lead sentence should remain in the lead sentence. The question is how to rephrase it to make it easier to parse. Second, I just looked up boycott on Wiktionary and some other dictionaries, and I don't think "to ostracise" is a good definition. Wiktionary's definition: "To abstain, either as an individual or group, from using, buying, or dealing with someone or some organization as an expression of protest." Here's a stab at a rewriting: "Charles Cunningham Boycott (12 March 1832 – 19 June 1897) was the British land agent whose name gave the English language the verb to boycott ("to abstain from conducting business with") after his local community in Ireland ostracised him in 1880 as part of a campaign for agrarian tenants' rights." Although it's really not much shorter, I think it's a bit easier to read. Thoughts? Leonxlin (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cites per paragraph vs per sentence: WP:INTEGRITY suggests that cites be given for each sentence, so that future edits to the paragraph do not cause the citations to get lost etc. I understand that some of the paragraphs have just a single source, but the WP trend for top quality aritcles is towards a cite per sentence. See WP:INTEGRITY for details.
  • Cite needed: "Boycotting had strengthened the power of the peasants in Ireland." This is a critical fact, and absolutely needs a specific cite so interested readers could read about it in more detail. Many other sentences in article are of comparable import, yet lack specific cites.
    That particular sentence seems to be a sort of summary of the rest of the paragraph, the contents of which are presumably found in the source cited at the end. Leonxlin (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have supplied a specific page reference for that sentence, and will do so for others of equal import. Quasihuman | Talk 14:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better title: Section title "Boycott brought to public attention" ... probably should be "Letter to The Times" or similar.
    Well, that section is not just about the letter to The Times. How about "Newspaper coverage"? Leonxlin (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed the heading to "Newspaper coverage" per Leonxlin. Quasihuman | Talk 14:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "Boycott" from section titles: Generally the (name of the) subject of the article is not repeated in section titles. For example "Boycott ostracized" should probably be "Ostracism by community" or "Community action" or similar.
    Changed "Boycott ostracized" to "Community action" and "Saving Boycott's crops" to "Saving the crops". Leonxlin (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify date: The year that the term "boycott" was coined is key. I presume, from context, it happend concurrently, but it would be better for readers if you explicitly supplied the date of the following conversation: "According to James Redpath, the verb to boycott was coined by Father O'Malley in a discussion between them.".
    I would doubt that the specific date of that discussion is known. I would agree though that some comments about early usages of the word would be in order. Leonxlin (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The date is in the source, so I have added it. Quasihuman | Talk 14:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later boycotts? - The section "Aftermath" does a good job of covering the immediate aftermath (1880-1881) ... but I see no discussion of long-term consequences. I expect to see discussion of (1) widespread adoption of term "boycott" in English usage; (2) list of a few significant boycotts that followed the original one (esp 1881 - 1910 era); (3) a big-picture summary how Boycotts are now a standard form of direct action in many countries. Lifting a small amount of material from the boycott article to meet these needs would not be inappropriate.
    Regarding (2) and (3): I doubt that there were any long-term consequences. There was this boycott long before Charles Boycott, and discussions of the boycotts during the American Revolution don't give any indication of the concept of a boycott being new or interesting. It's hard to imagine that the boycotts in the three decades following Boycott's controversy had anything to do with Charles Boycott. Furthermore, even if the 1880 boycott did have long-term consequences, if they weren't mentioned in the sources and biographies of Charles Boycott, then I think writing anything more about it would constitute original research. Leonxlin (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Leonxlin, boycotting was used before, what changed with this incident was that it was given a name. Discussing how the name came into popular use would be relevant, so I will see what the sources say about this. Quasihuman | Talk 10:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've adressed point 1, this is not discussed much in the pre-existing sources, so I've had to dig a little deeper. As explained previously, points 2 and 3 are problematic because in essence, boycotting existed before Boycott, what changed with Boycott is what it was called. It would be synthesis to connenct Boycott to boycotts after his time (with the exception of the boycotts covered in the Aftermath section), because the sources do not make such a connection. Thanks, Quasihuman | Talk 19:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lord Erne section out of place: The "Lord Erne" section needs work: (1) it is just a recitation of basic facts: no flow connecting it to prior or subsequent sections; (2) it apparently is giving background info, yet it is located after key mention of Lord Erne in paragraphs above it. (3) To a casual reader, the Lord vs Boycott can be confused: who owned the land; who was getting ostracized? The distinction needs to be emphasized. Maybe the best solution is to eliminate it as a section, and move the material to the top of "Life in Lough Mask before controversy" section?
    Merged the "Lord Erne" subsection into the top of the "Life in Lough Mask before controversy" section. The relationship between Lord Erne and Boycott seems clear enough to me. Leonxlin (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: we are past the three-week mark, with no consensus to promote. In such cases, the fastest route to promotion is typically a fresh start in a few weeks, assuring that all issues raised have been addressed before returning to FAC. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:08, 24 January 2012 [11].

Transformers: Dark of the Moon edit

Nominator(s): Fanaction2031 (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe this article contains most of the information the film requires, and it doesn't really have any more errors. It contains a good amount of pictures, and contains relevant information. Fanaction2031 (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I queried the WP:VPT, and the colon in the title is confusing the tool.[12] Article stats: [13] Confusion moved to talk; other items in the toolbox will need to be check by hand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in whether you notate web sources using website names or base URLs - compare for example the first two Collider refs
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? This? This? This? This? This? This? This?
  • Don't notate titles in all-caps
  • FN 27: retrieval date?
  • FN 34, 35, 36: publisher?
  • Fn 39: formatting. Also, could you cite the original source for this instead?
  • Check formatting of quotes within quotes in titles
  • Check for consistency in wikilinking
  • Look for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • {{dl}} needs to be addressed. This is tagged as a private video
  • www.legend3-d.com returns an error message

Oppose - stopping halfway through the refs, too many appear to be questionable. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous queries about reliability of sources have been raised, and there has been no response from the nominator in over a week. This nomination will have a better chance if it returns once sourcing concerns have been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:08, 23 January 2012 [14].


John Tyler edit

Nominator(s): Designate (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing Wikipedia for eight years and this is my first FA nomination. John Tyler was the tenth president of the United States, presiding a couple of decades before the Civil War. Now a hopelessly obscure figure, he was something of a Ron Paul character at the time: adamantly anti-Federalist, with a devotion to states' rights, and for that reason he was completely alienated from both political parties and only attracted a core band of supporters from his home state. In a twist of fate, his most recognizable accomplishments have nothing to do with shrinking government: expanding the Vice Presidency by unanimously declaring himself President, expanding the military and foreign treaties, and leading the charge to annex Texas from Mexico. He had no chance of re-election and ultimately renounced the Union government, making him a historical oddity.

I wrote this article last summer and took it to GA. After sitting on it for a while, I do think it approaches the FA criteria comfortably and I look forward to your input. —Designate (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very favorably impressed, and expect to easily support. The prose is very good, and it makes an obscure president interesting. There are a fair number of minor things, though: I will enumerate them over the next 2-3 days must do in parts, I'm afraid. Long article. Here's the first part. Feel free to question anything, or to disregard anything.

Lede:
  • "Brought him to power". Well, technically, what brought him to power was Harrison's death. The VPship wasn't worth a bucket of warm spit, famously. I would say "brought him to national office".
    " vetoed several of their proposals." I would say "vetoed bills enacting several of their proposals."
    "of expansionist Democrat James K. Polk over Tyler opponents Henry Clay and Van Buren." It may be unclear to the reader if Van Buren was running for president or vice president based on how it is phrased.
    "As a result of his opposition to the Union, his death was the only one in presidential history not to be officially mourned in Washington." Technically, George Washington's death was officially mourned in Philadelphia. I know, picky picky.
Early life
" to be born Under the Administration of a President. " Why the caps?
  • "Benjamin Harrison V. " Having the sentence end this way is a bit jarring because of the V.
  • "Speaker of the House" of Delegates. Suggest a link or pipe to the article.
  • "state court" rather than linking to that, suggest a link or pipe to Virginia Circuit Court, if that was the sort of judge he was.
  • suggest you change the parameter in the convert template to get hectares, which compare better to acres.
  • Did Tyler live at home when he attended William and Mary? Next county over, wasn't it?
  • " the bar exam" Speaking as a Virginia lawyer myself, and knowing a bit about our legal history, the bar exam wasn't a set thing in those days. I would certainly not say "exam", but I would suggest something like "who examined Tyler as to his legal knowledge" or some such.

More later, long article and many review commitments.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also saw those items mentioned by Noleander and similar things, but had not yet gotten to write them up. I took them as minor things easily dealt with as a most excellent newbie to FAC adjusts to reviewer expectations.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Early political career
  • "seated on the Courts and Justice committee" I would capitalize Committee, as the proper name of an institution that actually still exists by that name. Also add the year in which Tyler was elected to the House of Delegates.
  • "against the legislature's instructions." An explanation of how senators were then elected, a brief one, may be useful here. I face similar troubles with my McKinley era articles.
  • " Tyler's education had impressed on him a strong sense of anti-British nationalism, and at the onset of the war he urged military action on the assembly floor." The first clause should be shortened. I'm a bit dubious by your calling it the "assembly floor" unless they happened to be in joint session at the moment, of course.
  • " but no attack came their way" I am uncertain, the technicalities of grammar not being my strong suit, but possibly "its way"? Others may have an opinion.
  • ""he resigned" from the Assembly, or from the House of Delegates. Possibly you should mention his actual election to the Council of State, a significant honor for such a young man.
  • "Tyler's three terms in the United States House of Representatives would be his foray into national politics." If I recall correctly, not his only foray into national politics.
  • "He was sworn in as a Democratic-Republican[b] to the Fourteenth Congress on December 17, 1816, to complete Clopton's term. He was re-elected to a full term the following spring." OK, I grant the special election to fill the seat in 1816, which filled the seat until March 4, 1817. Are you saying they didn't bother to have the election for the next term until after it started? I realize Congress met in the winter, but wow. What if there was a special session? No Virginians? Also, out of respect for our Australian friends, we generally don't gratuitously refer to seasons of the year.
  • " had begun to adopt nationalist tendencies." Maybe say "wanted to strengthen the federal government."
  • "perceived corruption" If the corruption is not historical fact, suggest "what he saw as corruption".
  • " dawn of the Civil War" I would say "start of the Civil War", although I don't see why that was a particularly auspicious time to free slaves. It might be better if you could say he didn't free them in his will, as did, say, Robert E. Lee's father in law.
  • "physical violence against them.[13]" Perhaps "physical abuse of them"?
  • "regardless" anyway
  • " He resigned on March 4, 1821" Surely that was the date of the expiration of his term, rather than a resignation date.
  • "He was soon elected for a second stint in" Perhaps "After his departure from Congress, Tyler successfully sought election to the House of Delegates ..."
  • "The congressional nominating caucus" Can you say ten or twenty words at this point about how this system worked?
  • " from rural Williamsburg" You did not mention Williamsburg earlier. A link would be helpful on first usage, however it winds up.
  • "attendence" Enrollment.
  • "determinately powerless" intentionally powerless
  • "oratorical platform" By all means, if you have a chance to say bully pulpit, use it.
  • "A proposal was made " If accurate, say "Governor Tyler proposed" or some such.
  • "the Senate was already engaged in the 1828 presidential election" Not clear what is meant.
  • "Tyler served alongside his close friend Littleton Waller Tazewell, a fellow Virginian " Perhaps "Tyler's senior Virginia colleague in the Senate was his close friend Littleton Waller Tazewell"
  • "national infrastructure projects" I assume this means roads and canals? I would say at some point. You imply roads.
  • "sorely suggested" predicted
  • "to confirm several of the president's appointments (including Jackson's future running mate Martin Van Buren)" I would state that Van Buren became president, he is better known for that. Also, I would say what office he was confirmed for. As it is, it sounds a bit vague.
More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Break with Democrats and following subsections
  • " twelve-vote plurality" From my studies of Hanna I know that at least in the 1890s in Ohio, you had to have a whole number of legislators voting to be elected senator. Was it different then?
  • "the bank" As the bank has not yet been mentioned in this subsection, suggest a more complete designation be given.
  • "state-run banks" state chartered?
  • "Shortly thereafter, the Democrats took control of the Virginia House of Delegates, and Tyler's seat in the Senate was threatened. " His term was not to expire until 1839, no? Wouldn't there be another election before then?
  • "the Vice-President" I would name the incumbent and omit the hyphen.
  • "van Buren" You are inconsistent in the capitalization of "van Buren" (the V)
Later state politics (I would change the name of this section, perhaps "Return to state politics"
  • Is it really worth noting that Tyler was drawn into state politics as a senator? After all, the legislators were his electors. He couldn't avoid it.
  • Since you seem to be using Conservative Democrat as a term of art, it should be linked to something.
  • Who filled Rives' Senate seat after the term expired on March 4, 1839?
Vice-presidency
  • I would avoid the hyphen in the section name.
  • Since Harrison famously famously caught cold during his inaugural address, it would be interesting to know if Tyler suffered any ill effects.
Presidency
  • You mention, in the lede, Tyler immediately moving into the White House. You don't in the body.
  • "Yet it was not until 1967" I would strike "Yet"
  • "" a reference to his having become President, not through election, but by the accidental circumstances regarding his nomination and Harrison's death." I would shorten to "a reference to his having become president because of Harrison's death." Note MOS on capitalization of titles.
  • ", Senate President Pro Tempore" You capitalized and italicized this correctly when you were referring to Tyler's brief tenure in this office.
  • "A national backlash ensued, as Tyler was lambasted by Whig newspapers " Given the last thing that you were discussing was Congressional Whigs expelling Tyler, "backlash" would be taken to refer to them. Yet it seems to be falling on Tyler.
Cabinet
  • " to reform the Democrats" from here on, this sentence becomes increasingly hard to follow.
  • " Tyler aggravated this problem " What problem? Perhaps "Tyler aggravated the conflict".
  • "six other federal judges, all to United States district courts." Were there any other federal judges at the time besides Supreme Court and district court?
Foreign affairs
  • "His presidency was largely continuous with Jackson's earlier efforts to promote American commerce across the Pacific" rephrase
  • " told Britain not to interfere there, and began the process ..." Perhaps "telling". And I don't think you mean the "process".
  • "concluded where the border between Maine and Canada lay" Suggest "determined the border between Maine and what is now Canada"
  • "the civilizing, so to speak, " Perhaps you can quote a term Tyler used, and then say (as Tyler saw it)
  • "With their dispersion, they accepted the expansion of suffrage." I would simply note whether Rhode Island expanded the franchise. I recall that they did. The paragraph would flow better if you would put early on that at the time, few Rhode Islanders could vote.
Annexation of Texas
  • Rather than see also, suggest {{main|Annexation of Texas}}
  • " his platform" Suggest "his agenda"
  • "as the Constitution required Congressional approval for such military commitments." Suggest a "it was believed" be thrown in here.
Princeton
  • "It was only one day after completing the treaty" The one completed in February 1844, I assume. I would put a date on the disaster, then say "one day after completing the Texas treaty ..."
  • " ditty" link
  • "Prior to the Civil War and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln," I would paraphrase this, it really doesn't do anything as a quotation.
  • "Tyler considered his work vindicated" I would add "by the nomination of Polk".
  • " for completing the resolution" I would say "for the annexation of Texas" or some such.
  • You need to source the statement on Texas entering the Union. It should not be hard.
Post-presidency
  • "as an effort to devise means to prevent a war" strike. The name makes it self-evident what they were trying to do.
  • "The convention sought a compromise to avoid civil war while the Confederate Constitution was being drawn up at the Montgomery Convention." Implies the two were connected, if they were not, omit.
  • " He was sanguine about a peaceful secession, predicting that a clean split of all Southern states would not result in war." You are really saying the same thing twice here. Avoid the word "sanguine"'.
  • Put the source for the poem at the end of it.
Legacy
  • I see no need to list the titles of the books inline; just say things like "according to historian Joe Schmoe".
  • I like the end.
That's about it, plus the stuff connected with what other reviewers have stated, which I've tried not to repeat. Well done and I look forward to supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

  • Prose quality: Very, very good.
  • Peculiar attribution: "In what the Miller Center of Public Affairs considers "a serious tactical error that ruined the scheme [of establishing political respectability for him]",[78] Tyler appointed former Vice President John C. Calhoun in early March 1844 as his Secretary of State." If that interpretation is mentioned by several RSs, there is probably no need to attribute it per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV; but if that interpretation is held by only the one source, then it probably does not belong in the article. If the interpretation is a notable minority opinion, then the facts of the appointment should be stated first, and the minority opinion appended afterwards.
  • Too much detail? - ".... originally named Walnut Grove (or "the Grove") ..." The plantation is not important enough for a WP article, so I'm not sure that the reader needs to know the alternative names.
  • Move attribution into footnotes? "The Tyler presidency is generally held in low esteem by historians. Edward P. Crapol ..." This is followed by quotes from three named historians justifying that fact. The quotes seem a bit out of place, following the great prose above. Why not just put those names and quotes into a footnote? Or, as a compromise (per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) just include the names of the historians in the prose, and summarize their opinions in the prose?
  • Add update to footnote: "Harrison's unprecedented death in office caused considerable disarray regarding his successor. ...". Perhaps mention in a footnote that the US constitution has been amended to clarify the succession rules.
  • Section title - "His Accidency". Why was that chosen for the section title? It could be perceived as disparaging. I'm not sure the accidental nature of his term (or his contemporaries perception of the accidental nature) is the main theme of the section.
  • Paragraph cites: "Although his accession was given approval by both the ..." That paragraph contains several key facts, yet it is sourced with a single footnote at the end, to a single page in a source. Even if that page supports the entire paragraph, the WP:INTEGRITY guideline suggests that the footnote be repeated a few times (perhaps after every sentence) in case, in the future, other editors edit the paragraph and move things around, then the connection from the source and material is not lost.

End of Noleander comments

Comments – after a rapid skim (Wehwalt has awakened my interest in obscure 19thC US politicos) I have just a few points:-

  • He was elected VP in 1840 not 1841
  • The "Presidential election, 1840" section has no citations
  • In that same section, the meaning of Tippecanoe in the slogan "Tippecanoe and Tyler too" is unexplained. A brief mention that this was an old nickname of Harrison's would save readers having to use a link to find this out.
  • I notice uncited material in other sections, e.g. in "Cabinet and judicial appointments", end of "Ratification and 1844 election", and possibly elsewhere
  • Number ranges, e.g. "234–60" need an ndash separator, not a hyphen

I hope to get the chance for a full reading; it looks very promising. Brianboulton (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • Per MOS, citations should be before, not after, bibliography. The standard order is Notes → Citations → Bibliography
  • Information included in notes requires citation, as though it were text
  • You should be consistent about providing publisher location details (all or none)
  • It may be possible to add OCLC numbers for the pre-isbn books. This is not a FAC requirement, but it could be useful
  • I note that the White House presidential biographies are from The Presidents of the United States of America, by Michael Beschloss and Hugh Sidey. Copyright 2009 by the White House Historical Association. You should extend source information to include this (lest some bright spark raises the issue: "What makes the White House a reliable source?")
  • Page ranges in citations require "pp.". See citations 2, 3, 5 and a few others
  • Citations 49 and 67 appear to refer to the same source, so why are they formatted differently? (see also 69 and 78: shouldn't all these be combined?)
  • Citation 55: publisher and ISBN lacking. Why is this treated differently from other book sources? Also, "pg." is inconsistent (see also 83)
  • 91: Why is this not listed among the article sources?
  • What makes http://www.sherwoodforest.org/Genealogy.html a reliable source?
  • Retrieval dates required for online sources that don't exist in printed form. That applies to 99, 100 and 101; check also for others.
  • External links should not include listed sources, e.g. the first one. The list of external links is rather long, probably with some replication of information and could probably be culled. WP articles should be comprehensive; too long a list of external links might suggest otherwise. Brianboulton (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources look reliable and information is properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks very good so far. I'll withhold my comments until the ones above are addressed, to avoid duplication. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: I am concerned that, despite considerable reviewer input, the nominator has not responded; some comments have stood for over a week. There may of course be a reasonable explanation, but I can't see any evidence of this editor's recent activity. Does anyone know where he is? Brianboulton (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started working on this offline but it's a lot to go through. I appreciate all the comments and I'll get back to everyone soon. —Designate (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Could you leave a note on my talk page when you are done so I can do a re read?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • On what source(s) was File:United_States_1842-1845-03.png based?
  • How do we know that File:John_Tyler.png is a US government work?
  • File:John_Tyler's_grave.JPG needs a licensing tag for the memorial itself as well as the image
  • File:Julia_Tyler.gif: given that the Executive Office of the President did not come into existence until the 1930s, how could this work be by an employee of that office?
  • File:Tyler,_Texas,_sign_IMG_0444.JPG: what is the copyright of the rose image? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't heard from the nominator in nine days, after earlier concerns were expressed about same. There is lots to work on here-- a fresh nomination after these items are addressed may be the fastest route forward. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:46, 23 January 2012 [15].

Ahalya edit

Nominator(s): Redtigerxyz Talk 10:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This GA article (since June 2011) is about Ahalya, a paradoxical figure in Hindu myth, both venerated and condemned and who has become famous in legend due to her sexual behaviour. The article recently underwent peer review with promising comments and got copyedited by User:Cwmhiraeth minutes ago. I am nominating this article for featured article because IMO, it satisfies all FA criteria after the copyedit and the peer review. Redtigerxyz Talk 10:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • The opening sentence is quite long, especially for in the lede. Consider splitting it after Gautama?
As per WP:LEADSENTENCE, if someone is particularly famous for 1 particular reason, then it should be noted in the first sentence. Her primary identity is not wife of Gautama, it is her transgression and its consequences. --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is true. I just found it a bit difficult to navigate, but I agree that it is essential. Auree ★ 15:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later on in that same sentence, it reads "the resultant curse by her husband and her subsequent liberation by Rama, an avatar of the god Vishnu." After its been split, can we place a comma after "and" here? It feels like the list goes on after "by Rama" without it. Additionally, I'm not sure how "resultant curse" links to the preceding bit.
Changed a comma to -. The curse is a result of the extra-martial coitus, which is elaborated.
Hmm, I edited to something different. Feel free to revert if you disagree. Auree ★ 15:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just 1 thing: the article does not use the serial comma convention. It is the "without serial comma" convention, usually followed in Indian English. So removed the serial comma for consistency. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to her unflinching acceptance of the curse and loyalty to her husband, Ahalya is extolled as the first of the panchakanya ("five virgins"), archetypal chaste women, the recital of whose names is believed to dispel sin." – Something doesn't feel right here. I think the comma after the parentheses should be removed, and it could use some further clarification.
Do – work here?--Redtigerxyz Talk 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do you feel about adding the "archetypal chaste women" bit into the parentheses? Auree ★ 15:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant adding it in the parentheses along with the "five virgins" bit. However, I realize that would probably look stupid. Is "archetypal chaste women" an alternative term or does it just serve to elaborate on what the five virgins are? Auree ★ 19:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"five virgins" is literal meaning. archetypal chaste women is their characteristic. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, makes sense. I tweaked it a bit and I feel it flows better--what do you think? Auree ★ 17:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds better. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later sources however, often absolve her of all guilt, describing how she falls prey to his trickery, or is raped." – It reads quite odd without a comma before "however".
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ahalya as well as her lover Indra, are cursed by Gautama." – What's wrong with using "and" here? Also gets rid of one of many commas in the prose.
"as well as" is used as an alternative to "not only ... but also". Not only is Indra (who is the guilty party) punished, but also the innocent Ahalya is cursed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I just feel it weakens the prose. It still needs a comma in there somewhere, then. Auree ★ 15:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "short stories as well as in dance and drama." – Comma before "as well as" for readability.
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's from the lede for now. It is very comprehensive, but overall I found it a bit verbose and difficult to grasp in some areas. I'm no expert on the subject at hand, however, so my comments might be too nitpicky. I'll be glad to continue the review after more feedback is given. Auree ★ 19:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your replies. After reading through it a second time, I do feel it is well written. I've made some small changes myself and will continue the review asap. (: Auree ★ 15:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Name and development - very engaging, just a few nitpicks
  • "The word "Ahalya" is broken up as [...]" – I'm not 100% sure on this one, but here Ahayla should probably be italicized and the quotations removed per the MOS. Reoccurs later on as well.
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some Sanskrit dictionaries translate Ahalya as "unploughed",[1][5] however, some recent authors, arguing that sexual intercourse is often likened to the ploughing of a field, interpret the word to mean "one who is not ploughed", i.e. a virgin; or "one who should not be ploughed", i.e. a motherly figure and in the context of the character Ahalya, someone beyond Indra's reach." – This is a borderline run-on sentence; is there any way we can split it?
Can be split before "However". --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, we could just tighten the sentence and remove two commas. I suggest changing "some recent authors, arguing that sexual intercourse is often likened to the ploughing of a field, interpret the word to mean "one who is not ploughed"" to "some recent authors argue that sexual intercourse is often likened to the ploughing of a field and interpret the word to mean "one who is not ploughed". Auree ★ 18:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Brahmanas (9th to 6th centuries BCE) are the oldest scriptures to reveal the relationship between Ahalya and Indra but the Bala Kanda book of the Ramayana, a 5th to 4th century BCE epic which narrates Rama's life, is the first to explicitly mention her extra-marital affair." – Consider splitting before "but"?
Needs a "however" then. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "conscious decision" seems a bit redundant to me. I'd remove "conscious"
All decisions are not conscious. The phrase "conscious decision" is used to emphasize her deliberate act of doing something against the gender norms. Similar eg. at [16]--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite the fact that Ahalya is cursed to endure several penances to expiate her sin in the Bala Kanda," – Tighten to "Although Ahalya is cursed to endure several penances in the Bala Kanda,"?
Good idea. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also consider splitting that sentence after "illustrious woman", so that the bit in between parentheses can be reworked to prose.
Actually the mahabhaga adjective is an important contrasting adjective to the curse and related to the "goddess-like and illustrious woman" part. mahabhaga is used many times, compared to other adjectives meaning goddess-like or illustrious. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This interpretation contrasts with that of Rambhadracharya, for whom the word mahabhaga in the context of Ahalya's story means "extremely unfortunate" (split as "maha + abhaga")." – We already know how the word is split, so I suggest removing the parenthesized bit.
Note the splitting is different. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh, you're right. I didn't notice that--sorry! Auree ★ 18:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ahalya is purified by offering Rama hospitality." Does this part rely on footnote 15? If so, that source should be cited to at the end for clarity.
Elaborated in relevant section: Ramayana, where references exist.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, though if possible, it wouldn't hurt adding a reference just to be sure. Auree ★ 18:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has been argued that this later version of the tale is the result of a "male backlash" and patriarchal myth-making that condemns her as a non-entity devoid of emotions, self-respect and societal status." – Could this be reworded to plainer English?
Can't figure out how to make it simpler, without loss of the intensity. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly the ""male backlash" and patriarchal myth-making that condemns her as a non-entity devoid of emotions" part, but if you cannot find a different way to word it's no deal-breaker. Auree ★ 18:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can't think of anything. Feel free to change. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In contrast, Ahalya's encounter is regarded as purely erotic and not resulting in procreation, and thus Ahalya faces the ire of the scriptures." – Not sure how to reword this, but it feels a bit off.
Reworded.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all, a very good read, albeit a bit hard to follow at times. This might just be due to the subject at hand and me being unfamiliar with it though, and the overall writing is of professional standard. I've made a very light c/e to the section, catching mostly minor style issues and punctuation. Please check my changes. Auree ★ 20:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edits. I understand it will a little difficult to comprehend for those unfamiliar with Hinduism. I have similar thoughts about those astronomy FAs :) --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Creation and marriage
  • "the Creator" is introduced as a new term, but I'm not sure what it's referring to here. Brahma, I assume?
The text is not clear. The Creator may mean the generic God or the particular creator god Brahma. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a fan of it, but I'll let it slide. Auree ★ 19:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Harivamsa (dated between the 1st and the 3rd century)" – Is there any way to keep the dating notation here consistent with the others?
  • "When that time arrives, the sage returns Ahalya to Brahma, who, impressed by the sage's sexual restraint, bestows her upon him." – Here, writing "impressed by Guatama's sexual restraint" would probably make it clearer as to whom "him" refers to at the end of that sentence.
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Meanwhile Indra, who believes that the best women are meant for him, resents Ahalya's marriage to the forest-dwelling ascetic" – Forest-dwelling "ascetic" seems a bit POV, though the text probably implies that Indra regards Guatama as such. Could this be made clearer? Additionally, considering tightening by removing "Meanwhile"
ascetic is a fact, which is asserted by various scriptures. The implication is the right meaning. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the divine sage Narada mentions to Brahma that Gautama went around the three worlds before Indra, explaining that one day as part of his daily puja (ritual offering), Gautama circumambulated the wish-bearing cow Surabhi while she gave birth, which, according to the Vedas, made the cow equal to three worlds." – Split before "explaining"? The second part could also be reworded to reduce the amount of commas, e.g. "[...] before Indra. The sage explained that Guama circumambulated the wish-bearing cow Surabhi while she gave birth as part of his daily puja (ritual offering), which made the cow equal to three worlds according to the Vedas."
Good suggestion. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "site of her epic curse" – Remove "epic"? It doesn't seem to add much additional meaning, unless I'm interpreting it incorrectly.
"epic" is used here as a pun: "noting or pertaining to a long poetic composition (Ramayana)" and "of unusually great size or extent"--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As before, I've made some very minor tweaks to the section, which can be viewed here. Auree ★ 19:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Encounter with Indra: Curse and redemption
  • "Indra, the "lover of Ahalya ... O Kaushika, Brahman (Brahmin), who calls himself Gautama"" – The middle part ("O Kaushika, Brahman (Brahmin)") of the quotation is a tad abrupt and confusing to me without any clarification. Is the quote necessary, and if so, can that part be omitted using a bracketed ellipsis [...]?
  • Wait, who is Kaushika even? Aside from the preceding ambiguous quote, this is the first time we read about him in the article...
  • "Indra's adoption of the Brahmin's form to "visit" Ahalya" – Not quite sure what this means
Reply to 3 comments: Kaushika is inferred as Ahalya's husband as Indra takes his form and "visits" Ahalya, like the Ramayana legend. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an allegory for the Sun (Indra) taking away the shade of night (Ahalya)" – Since "Sun" is capitalized here, how do you feel about capitalizing night? Or just de-capitalize both.
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Bala Kanda mentions that Ayodhyan princes Rama and his brother Lakshmana and their guru Vishwamitra pass Gautama's desolate ashram" – I had to reread this a few times before I understood, but I'm not sure how to reword it (missing commas?)
  • "touch her feet giving obeisance" – Reword to "give Ahalya obeisance by touching her feet" or something similar?
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The gods and other celestial beings shower Rama and Ahalya with flowers and bow to Ahalya" – Should this be "shower Rama and Lakshmana with flowers", or is Lakshmana excluded?
No... no... Only Rama and Ahalya is mentioned.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Indra is cursed to suffer imprisonment, loss of his peace of mind and to bear half the sin..." – Reword to "Indra is cursed to suffer improsonment, lose his peace of mind and bear half the sin..."?
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the innocent Ahalya is cursed to lose her unique quality of being the most beautiful woman, as this was the cause of Indra's seduction." – Tighten by removing "as this was"?
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would "sexual adventure" be the best choice of words?
Adventure is used in sense of a "risky or unexpected undertaking", also to avoid repetition of encounter. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I feel the mention of one of the sons was a bit abrupt, as it is the first thing being said about any of her children.
It is more about noting Gautama's reaction here.--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, though I feel it's still a sudden/random introduction of one of her children. Auree ★ 19:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, Chirakari does not follow the order at once and, as is his habit, thinks it over for a long time, before arriving at the conclusion that Ahalya is innocent." – This could be tightened and rejigged for less repetitiveness. Something like "However, Chirakari is hesitant to follow the order and later concludes that Ahalya is innocent."
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Söhnen-Thieme considers the words "violated" and "renowned" indicate that Ahalya is not considered an adulteress here." – Missing a "that" after "considers", perchance? Also, "here" could be reworded.
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stopping at Puranas for now. Aside from some content issues, surprisingly little to nitpick about in this section (these are my edits). The Epics: Ramayana and Mahabharata reads beautifully--my compliments! Something I noticed: in the lede, it reads "mediaeval"; however, a subsection titled "Medieval vernacular versions" appears later on in the article. This should be made consistent. Auree ★ 00:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing...
  • "The Puranas bring themes echoed in later works like the unsuspecting Ahalya being fooled by Indra's devious disguise as Gautama in Gautama's absence, Ahalya's defence plea, the innocent Ahalya cursed and turned into stone, the touch of Rama's feet turning the petrified Ahalya into a sanctified beautiful maiden, Indra escaping as a cat and Indra being cursed to be castrated and/or to carry his shame in the form of a thousand vulvae on his body for all to see, which are later turned into a thousand eyes." – This is one, big list-sentence. Could it be adjusted a bit to enhance the readability (maybe by using semi-colons to separate each item)?
Added semi-colons. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gautama orders her to go to the forest and become a stone until rescued by the touch of Rama's feet." – How does "restored by the touch of Rama's feet" read to you?
Better. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is "Gautam Patel"? Needs clarification
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but instead of using hyphens for interruption, use spaced en dashes (–) or commas. Auree ★ 18:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In this version, Rama does not have to physically touch Ahalya with his foot. The mere touch of dust from his feet is enough to bring Ahalya back to life." – Very closely related sentences; consider adjoining with a semi-colon.
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Commenting on this narrative in the Ramacharitamanasa, Rambhadracharya says that Rama did three things, he destroyed the sin of Ahalya by his sight, he destroyed the curse by the dust of his feet and he destroyed the affliction by the touch of his feet, evidenced by the use of the Tribhangi (meaning "destroyer of the three") metre in the verses which form Ahalya's pageyric." – Ungrammatical comma after "three things"
Changed to : --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rest looks good, made a few edits as well as some minor stylistic adjustments here and here. Auree ★ 19:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose and comprehensiveness. Holding off for now pending the sourcing issues pointed out by Nikkimaria below. I honestly forgot to take a look at the citation quality but I agree that it needs quite a bit of cleanup. Auree ★ 22:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note on prose and comprehensiveness: Some suggestions still remain open but they're not nearly significant enough to hold me off from supporting. I'll say this now: I was really impressed with the article and how extensive it is. Most of the issues I could discern were relatively minor and prose related, and after seeing Mark Arsten's excellent comments being largely addressed, I'm confident that this article is of standard. Thanks for all your work, Redtiger--it was a pleasure working with you! Auree ★ 19:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments at 18:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC) from Mark Arsten: I'll try to give this a close examination over the next day or two.

  • I put some non-breaking spaces in.
  • The date formats aren't consistent in the references section. (July 18, 2011 and 4 December 2011).
Following first. Please let me know if I missed any. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to be consistent with how you abbreviate page ranges (pp. 147–148 and pp. 145–6)
Following second. Please let me know if I missed any. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advisor.js is giving me a "Bad ISBN checksum" warning on the page, not sure what that means though.
The .js doesn't understand ISBNs ending in X.--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know that, ok.
That is my guess. However, I checked. The isbn seem right. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might want to check that the image captions line up with the MOS:CAPTIONS rules. 18:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Make sure that you're consistent with providing locations for publishers. 18:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
All locations can be removed for consistency. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to be consistent about the use of the serial comma. 19:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Using "no serial comma" convention. Please let me know if I missed any. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead looks ok to me, just a couple things: is the Wiktionary link really necessary? I don't think the last paragraph flows as well as it could, the part about "Other traditions deal with her children" seems a bit awkward at its present location.
In the PR, a editor advises to link atone (Atonement). Since an Atonement in Hinduism does not exit, the Wiktionary was linked. Reordered. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I wonder if that redlink could be redirected at least. Oh well, that's out of scope here.
  • I made a few small copyedits, feel free to revert if you don't think they were an improvement. 20:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Overall I think the article is well written but I have some small comments and questions on the prose. 21:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

  • "a motherly figure and in the context of the character Ahalya, someone beyond Indra's reach." Would a comma after "and" make sense?
after and? Not sure... Why is it needed? --Redtigerxyz Talk 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure, but it's ok without one, I guess.
  • "They alternately state that the jealous Indra tricks Ahalya into having sex by disguising himself as Gautama or that he rapes her." Should this be "alternatively"?
oops... Good catch. --Redtigerxyz Talk 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "places her in the care of the sage Gautama until she reaches puberty." You've already mentioned that Gautama is a sage, does it need to be mentioned again?
was first mention of Gautama in the story-telling. Can be dropped. Everyone will the first line, assumed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "explaining that one day as part of his daily puja (ritual offering)," Should there be a comma after "day"?
Changed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Ramayana records that Gautama's ashram is located in a forest (Mithila-upavana) near Mithila, where the couple practise asceticism together for several years." Could "together" be removed here or do you think that's necessary?
They can do it living separately. Does "the couple" imply "together"? --Redtigerxyz Talk 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now that I re-read it I think it should stay in.
  • "The Padma Purana and Brahma Vaivarta Purana (800–1100) describe the ashram to be near the holy city of Pushkar." Would "as" be better than "to be"?
IMO, "to be" is better. --Redtigerxyz Talk 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that was just a suggestion.
  • "Gautam Patel credits Kalidasa with being the first person to introduce the petrification motif." Would "as" be better than "with being"?
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few more questions, nothing major though. The article is looking pretty good to me. 23:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

  • "sage Satananda is depicted to be mocked as son of Ahalya, the adulteress." This reads a little awkwardly to me.
Satananda is mocked as a son of an adulteress. How to put this in a better way and explaining the son-mother relationship.--Redtigerxyz Talk 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I can't think of a better way either.
  • "the condensed narrative of the Ramayana in the Mahabharata, does not mention Ahalya's violation and her redemption by Rama." Not sure, but maybe swap "or" in for "and".
"and" is right, as referring to 1 sequence of events (1 unit).--Redtigerxyz Talk 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's fine.
  • "Söhnen-Thieme considers the words "violated" and "renowned" indicate that Ahalya is not considered an adulteress here." Maybe rephrase to avoid having consider twice in the sentence.
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Brahmanas section you start a couple sentences in a row with "In the...", maybe rephrase one?
any suggestions?? Can't think of a solution. --Redtigerxyz Talk 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something like "The author of the Sadvimsha Brahmana does not explicitly state..."?
Changed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another legend, generally told in Indian folk tales, tells that Aruna," maybe rephrase to avoid having "tales" and "tells" right next to each other?
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She passes them off as sons of Gautama; however, her daughter, Anjani, by Gautama, reveals her mother's secret to her father." Could this be rephrased to do away with a comma? Perhaps "She passes them off as sons of Gautama; however, her daughter, Anjani, reveals her mother's secret to her father Gautama."
Needs to be reworded. Also, ambiguous "her". Tomorrow. --Redtigerxyz Talk 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A well-known verse cited about Ahalya runs:" do we need to work "cited" here?
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • he sentence that begins "Bhattacharya, author of Panch-Kanya..." is fairly long, maybe split it up?
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "like Sita and Savitri, this very action has made her immortal in legend." could "very" be removed?
Used for emphasis. Similar instances --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I guess that's fine then.
  • "The right-wing Hindu women's organisation Rashtra Sevika Samiti considers Ahalya as the symbol of..." Maybe remove "as"
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "especially the British colonisers and Muslim invaders" maybe wikilink "British colonisers" and "Muslim invaders"?
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe include a quote from Tarabai Shinde?
Not available in the reference on hand. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, not a deal-breaker.
  • Maybe this sentence could be tightened a bit? "Like Bhattacharya, Kelkar, author of Subordination of woman: a new perspective, feels that Ahalya was made venerable due to her acceptance of the norms of conduct for women and as she ungrudgingly accepted the curse while acknowledging that she needed to be punished."
Please check. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me now.
  • More comments from Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has been argued that this later version of the tale is the result of a "male backlash" and patriarchal myth-making that condemns her as a non-entity devoid of emotions, self-respect and societal status." Maybe note who has argued this?
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While historic narratives are Rama-centric, contemporary writers make Ahalya the focus of the story. maybe "contemporary writers focus on Ahalya"?
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most commonly through the short story genre or" Maybe "most commonly through short stories"?
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Enamoured by Ahalya's beauty and learning of her husband's absence," Not sure here, but maybe "aware of" instead of "learning of"?
IMO, "learning of" is better here.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, not a big deal.
  • "and curses him, causing him to lose his testicles." I'm a bit afraid to ask: but how did he lose them? Did they just fall off or did someone chop them off?
No idea. Not very explicit. They just fall off.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This made me laugh for some reason, but I guess it's fine.
  • "The Brahma Purana is a rare exception where Rama is dropped from the narrative and the greatness of the Gautami (Godavari) river illustrated." This sounds a bit awkward to me.
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "curses her to be reduced to a mere skeleton of skin and bones." Isn't a skeleton by definition only bones?
skeleton can mean a "an emaciated person", as used here. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that's fine then.
  • "own form to ask for a sexual favour, which is flatly refused by Ahalya." Do we know more specifically which kind of favour was requested?
sexual favour: sex. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I wasn't sure if the text was more explicit.
  • "In this epic Vishvamitra tells Rama that the cursed Ahalya has assumed the form of a rock and is patiently awaiting the dust from Rama's feet." comma after epic?
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she feasted her eyes on Rama which liberated her from her worldly existence." maybe ", an act which"?
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That night, when Ahalya longs for conjugal pleasure, Gautama refuses her, saying that she is in not in her fertile period." "Conjugal pleasure" seems a bit flowery, maybe just say "sex"? Also, is there a more specific target for the wikilink than Menstrual cycle?
"conjugal pleasure" are common in scholarly books [17]. It is specially used for sex between a married couple. Menstrual cycle talks about that period.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, not a problem.
  • "who transforms into a cock and compels Gautama to leave for his morning rituals." not trying to be funny here, but maybe just say "Rooster" again.
Actually cock is often used in Indian English and rooster is never used. Maybe because of the slang (read vulgar) meaning, you suggesting replacement. Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, "cock" is not used very often (to mean rooster) in my experience these days with American English. I think it stood out more to me since the context involved sex to some degree.
I hope you two don't mind if I chime in here. This article is meant to be written in Indian English, so you should consider changing all "rooster"s to "cock"s, Redtigerxyz, since you are Indian and you know this best. It might also help if you could look everything through again for optimal consistency in Indian English spelling/variants--our suggestions might have affected this as well. Auree ★ 19:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Three arguments I see for not using "cock": 1. the American English cock seems to be very infamous 2. most of the readers will be of the western world 3. Since we are talking about sex, most readers are going to think about the American cock and can be confused. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I usually try to be very sensitive about Engvar issues, I certainly don't want people insisting on foreign-sounding terms in articles I write. "Cock" is acceptable here, but if there is a way to make it sound natural in Indian English without using "cock" I'd probably prefer that. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can't think of one. Replacing with cock again. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Pratibha Ray's Oriya novel Mahamoha (1997) deals with Ahalya's tale." Maybe add a bit about the novel?
Will check on weekend. I know a reference that says she is portrayed as a tragic heroine in this novel. May be if this does not suffice, removing will be a better choice. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added more info. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm satisfied with that. I tweaked the sentence a bit.
  • "only to end up cursed to become a stone with no life herself." Maybe remove "herself"?
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The "Marxist critic" Gnani, in his poem Kallihai," Does that phrase need to be in quotes?
This is a view by the author, thus the quotes. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I guess that's fine then.
  • Last comment, maybe you should downcase the Ritha Devi source?
The name of chapter and journal is printed like that. So have retained it that way --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, well, if no one else objects than I guess I'm ok with that.
Well, Nikkimaria has a wiki-policy to deal with this situation. Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Auree and Mark Arsten, thanks for your constructive edits. It's getting late in India. Feeling sleepy.. Will address rest of your comments tomorrow. --Redtigerxyz Talk 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, I'll try to finish looking over the whole article soon, but I've been impressed by what I see thus far. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Struck resolved comments. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an experienced reviewer, so feel free to tell me if you don't think my suggestions make sense. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and edits. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support At this point, all substantive issues that I could find in the article have been dealt with. I am no expert on the subject matter, but in my opinion this is FA quality. In addition, the article was quite interesting and I learned a lot. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Use consistent punctuation and spacing for shortened citations, and be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated or not
I will handle the spacing issue on the weekend. About ranges abbreviated or not (interpreted as pp. or not): Manushi (141): 4–7. (no pp.); Śrīmadvālmīkīya Rāmāyaṇa pp. 681–2. This happens due use of {{cite journal}} (no pp.) and {{cite book}} (pp.)--Redtigerxyz Talk 13:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, p. vs pp. is a different issue. For abbreviating, compare current FNs 18 (pp. 141–173) and 10 (pp. 149–52). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't include ellipses at the beginning and end of quotes
... at the beginning of the quotes (in references) says that the quote is not from its beginning. Convention as used here. WP:MOS is not clear on the issue. In text, I have not used ... in beginning or end eg. "nobility of her character, her extraordinary beauty and that she is chronologically the first kanya" (Changed) --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use dashes for ranges always
Done. Fixed dashes by javascript. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't need retrieval dates for convenience links to print-based sources like Google Books
Done. Books do not have retrieval dates. However, they are retained for newspapers as I do not if the articles were printed or not. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for publishers or not, whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not, etc
(changed) ISBN is as printed in the book; hypenated or not is the book's choice. Locations removed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't write titles in all-caps
The titles are as printed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but per MOS:ALLCAPS they should be corrected (for example FN 24). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 22: formatting needs cleanup
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for consistency in wikilinking
Please give an example. Unclear. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For example, The Hindu is linked in FN 84, but is not linked in FN 67. It should be linked either on first appearance only, every time, or never. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first, whether initials are spaced or unspaced, etc
Format is Last, First. In case in some (generally South Indian) authors, no last name exists eg. K. Santhosh, Ritha Devi etc.--Redtigerxyz Talk 13:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - too many inconsistencies in source formatting at this point, and I didn't get all the way through. Please do some cleaning up here. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments: Auree, Mark Arsten, Nikkimaria. Will work on it over the weekend. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I was asked to check the changes made to the source formatting. I still see some inconsistencies in things like page range notation (e.g. FNs 6 and 12 vs. FNs 10, 11 and 13) and lack of spaces after full stops (FN 17). Here are some other things I noticed Auree ★ 19:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry. I could not fully understand page range notation issue. FN 6 is formatted using {{cite journal}} (so not pp.), FN 12 using {{cite book}} (with pp.). The convention followed is that the common part in the end page is not repeated. eg. 12 to 19: 12-9, 12 to 22: 12-22, 146 to 148: 146-8, 1 to 7: 1-7 --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall I'm not a fan of how the pages are being notated, especially in short citations when the page range is exceedingly large.
Most long ranges are translations or long stories, which are summarized or linked online article pdfs. Any specific page ranges I need to address? --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some short citations also have commas before the pages (after the author names) while most of them don't.
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some initials don't have full stops.
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 29: check author name notation.
P. Ram Mohan is his first name. No last name. P. is not initial, but the shortened name of his village. This is common in South Indian names. I have added the first name in the "last" parameter in {{cite book}} as it does not show first name if last is blank. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is a location indicated only for FN 42 (might be missing others)?
Missed one. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 74: consider using a spaced en dash instead of the slash.
Done. It was as printed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't include designations like Pvt. Ltd., and Inc. when listing publishers
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a fan of how some dates are listed either.
Please elaborate. Convention is "Month dd, yyyy". --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And more inconsistencies such as these. Overall citations aren't bad, but they are still somewhat messy. Auree ★ 19:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this analysis. Good work has been done, but some more is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments and patience. I am sorry but I tend to miss a reference or two in formatting. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Getting there, but some still need attention: 23, 81, 87, Mukherjee reference entry...Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 23: What is needed? Ref 81 is complete: No more info (including isbn) available, Author has no last name. Ref 87: Chapter name has a /. Mukherjee: ISBN as printed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
23 has italicization issues, 81 uses a hyphen instead of a dash. Others seem to have been corrected. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 81 done. Ref 23 uses templates cite book and cite web. Italics is done by them. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
(I'm traveling and unable to offer more comments than the ones below; more importantly, I'm unable to follow up, and the FAC delegates may choose to ignore my oppose.) Although there are many prose errors in the article, the outstanding issues are those of coherence and, related to it, inconstancy of register, both insinuating that the source material has been inadequately digested. I would recommend that the article be reviewed by someone from the India project (such as user:Saravask, who has written a number of FAs, user:AshLin, or user:RegentsPark) and/or someone from a mythology Wiki project. The FAC delegates could invite them.
  • Some issues I noticed in the very first sentence:
    • "In Hinduism?" ("In Hindu mythology" or "In Hindu religious literature" would be more accurate.)
      • [18] "In Hinduism" is used in defining Indra. If anyone prefers the other variants, I am not opposed to it. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • One source is enough? Many more sources use "Hindu mythology" as any search will show. Wikipedia's own Indra article uses "Hindu mythology." Your nomination statement above describes Ahalya as a paradoxical figure in "Hindu myth." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • For the record, I had added "Hindu mythology" [19], but someone else changed it to "Hinduism". I just can't keep reverting whatever any one changes in the article, just because I didn't write it. "Hinduism" was also correct. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, you can. You are the nominator. It's your job to make sure the text is FA worthy. "Hindu mythology" is by far the predominant usage in the secondary sources. An encyclopedia, a tertiary source summarizing the consensus among secondary sources, has to comply with predominant usage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the list of other-languages names, Sanskrit, Thai, and Malay have scripts (Malay uses the Latin alphabet), whereas Tamil has a transliteration. Why the inconsistency? And why is the IAST pronunciation listed in the middle of these?
      • The scripts are added by users other than me. We can remove all except IAST and Sanskrit as done in Ganesha. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gautama is more commonly associated with Gautama Buddha and in fact redirects to it. Why then is the link Gautama Maharishi presented as "sage Gautama." It will cause confusion.
      • Gautama, in context of Hinduism, is the sage Gautama. [20], PURANIC ENCYCLOPAEDIA p. 285 by Mani, Vettam, [21] --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It might or might not be (what you say) "in the context of Hinduism," given that Gautama Buddha is one of the dashavataras (ten avatars) of Vishnu and likely more important than a sage, but it is the context of Wikipedia that concerns us here. Gautama redirects to Gautama Buddha. To then write Gautama Maharishi as sage [[Gautama Maharishi|Gautama]] is confusing.
          • [22] "Gautama Maharishi" is hardly used and a term seems to be popularized by Wikipedia. [23] Most books call him Gautama. Buddha is never called "Gautama Buddha" in Hinduism. I would actually start a move request for Gautama Maharishi to Gautama (Hindu sage) or Gautama (rishi). --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your plans for page moves notwithstanding, you still need to disambiguate the name "Gautama Maharishi" (or "Gautama (sage)" OR "Gautama rishi") from the redirect Gautama-->Gautama Buddha in the first instance of its use in this article. "Sage Gautama" is not enough, because many people consider the Buddha to be a sage. In fact his common appellation Sakyamuni is translated as the "Sage of the Sakyas." Find some other say to disambiguate. The problem is that you are trying to say too much in one convoluted sentence, and are not able to pull it off. Consider not introducing "Gautama" right away. There is no reason why he has to be in the lead sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Gautama has to be there in the lead sentence. Ahalya is often described as a rishi-patni, wife of a sage. How about rewording as "In Hindu mythology, Ahalya is the sage Gautama's wife, who was seduced by the king of gods - Indra, thus cursed by Gautama and subsequently liberated by Rama, an avatar of the god Vishnu." or similar. About disambiguating Gautama as "Gautama Maharishi", "Gautama Maharishi" hardly used in academic sources [24]. "sage Gautama" [25] generally uses the Hindu sage. Interestingly, the Gautama in "Gautama Buddha" also means the Hindu sage Gautama [26]. Gautama is a patronymic of the Buddha and Sakyas in general. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Regardless of the reasons you offer, I don't see any evidence in the sources that "Gautama" is essential. In fact, of the 12,000 books that discuss, "Ahalya," and "Indra," approximately half mention Gautama and half don't. We can certainly add Gautama in a later sentence and pare down the lead sentence, which has become quite unwieldy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • "half don't" is not accurate. The search result is flawed. Some examples which have Gautama, but appear in "half don't" list [27], Myth and mythmaking (a major reference in the article), [28] (which misspells Gautama as Guatama), [29] (Gautama as alternative Gotama). "half don't" also has result about Yoga Vasistha's Ahalya (a queen) and Indra (a Brahmin), which is inspired by the tale of our Ahalya (the rishi-patni) and Indra (Heaven's king) and allusions to Indra as one who violated Ahalya, "a wife of a saint" [30] (rishi-patni is used in this text). --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The expression "is primarily known for" is generally applied only to historical figures, not to mythological ones. (One doesn't see "Zeus is primarily known for ..." (do a Google books check)
    • "sexual encounter?" this is atypical language for mythology- or history-of-religions discourse. Did she seduce Indra, allow herself to be seduced? Or did he violently force himself upon her? If the latter two, "seduction" is a better choice. (The language used here is important and generally indicative of understanding of source material.)
      • If one reads ahead, para 2, this is explained. There is no one account of what happened. It can be seduction or rape or . --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • But one can't read ahead. It is the lead sentence! It is the first encounter (if you will) of a reader with your text. You can't assume that we will read ahead to paragraph 2 before proceeding to sentence 2. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • We can't editorialize by adding "seduction" or "rape". --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are editorializing by using "sexual encounter." "Seduction" is used in over 1,500 book titles that tell the Ahalya story; "sexual encounter" is used in precisely four! "Encounter" introduces it own meanings: a hostile meeting, a momentary meeting, a chance meeting, meanings that may or may not be a part of the Ahalya myth. "Sexual encounter," especially, in contemporary usage implies equality of sexual initiative between the participants. This is not the case in most versions of the Ahalya myth. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "god-king" is usually applied in the Indian context to figures such as Rama or Krishna, who ruled over human subjects, but were simultaneously divine. Indra, however, was the King of Gods, dwelling in heaven, and something quite different. (On Google books, "King of Gods, Indra" returns 3,670 books, whereas "God king Indra" returns 213
      • Many books like [33], [34], [35], [36] do use "god-king" for Indra. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I had just produced 213 books that used "god king." What was then the point of producing four? I'm suggesting "King of Gods" is more commonly used (by 3,670 titles in fact). See your own quote in defense of "In Hinduism" above. It describes Indra as the King of Devas (gods). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the resultant curse." "resulting curse" is a better choice. "resultant" implies some inevitability.
    • "curse by her husband." -->"curse imposed on her by Gautama"
      • Done, but since we are talking about a specific curse "the" is needed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "liberation by Rama" Since we don't know what the curse is, "liberation" is confusing. "lifting of the curse by Lord Rama" is better.
      • Replaced with "redemption". Not just "lifting of the curse", also Lord will be a Hindu POV. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "an avatar of god Vishnu. This is really not needed as an average reader is even less likely to have heard of Vishnu and can glean the same information from the Rama link.
      • The association of Rama with Vishnu is important as the "human" epic hero Rama becomes "divine" with this connection. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS at the beginning of the second sentence: "unflinching?" "Unflinching" in its contemporary sense alludes to an internal process. She may have submitted to the imposition without outward protest or without shrinking back (i.e. flinching), but that is not the same as unflinching, which these days implies "steadiness." (This is off the top of my head. I could be wrong.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • [37] cites "unflinching courage". Unflinching is used in the same sense. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm aware of that sense. Unflinching courage, unflinching gaze, all have aspects of steadiness, but "unflinching acceptance" of a curse which, in the popular version of the myth, turned Ahalya into a rock makes less sense. At the very least the register (of "unflinching" here) is inappropriate. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • [38] "unflinching acceptance" seems to be a popular expression. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I said that "unflinching" usually has the implication of steadfastness or resolve continuing through time. All your examples have that meaning: "unflinching acceptance of mystery and disillusion," "unflinching acceptance of the burden of history," "Unflinching acceptance of human finitude," and so forth. The two foremost references in the English language (OED and Webster's Unabridged) offer the following examples: 1) A fresh element of resolute, unflinching, persevering determination. 2) Yet he is‥determinedly persevering, unflinching as a foe. (OED) 3) lived a life of unflinching probity 4) an unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account (Webster's Unabridged). The unflinching acceptance of a curse makes less sense. A curse is usually uttered out aloud when it is placed on a person. Where is there time to be unflinching, or unwavering? Predictably Google books searches for "unflinching acceptance" curse turns up empty. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • All this is now moot. I just discovered that "unflinching acceptance" is a direct quote from some papers by P. Bhatacharya. We can't have it without quotes in the lead. The expression is also not that memorable or precise that it can only be quoted, but not paraphrased. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes it is. It is given with quotes in the relevant section "Assessment and remembrance": 'It is this "unflinching acceptance" of the curse that makes the Ramayana praise and venerate her'. "unflinching acceptance" is a common expression used in academic sources. If quotes are needed again in the lead, they can be added. The implication "the implication of steadfastness or resolve continuing through time" is intended in the article. About the curse, the curse here (throughout the article) does not mean only the imprecation, but also "evil or misfortune that comes as if in response to imprecation" [39][40].--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You certainly cannot remove the quotes in the lead (regardless of whether the same words are quoted in a later section). It is plagiarism, no ifs ands or buts. If "unflinching acceptance" is, as you say, a common expression, then it is easily paraphrased in the lead (where quotes are frowned upon.) In any case, you can't just use "unflinching acceptance," you have to add "according to author P. Bhatacharya" or "in the words of author P. Bhatacharya." I do understand the curse implies the sentence and not just the uttering of it, but in this instance, in (by far) the most popular version of the myth, Ahalya is turned into a rock. Where is there time or state to show unflinching acceptance? I think at this point you are arguing for the sake of arguing. The expression doesn't make sense, its register is not right for the lead, and even if it were, it would need to be quoted with the author's name, all of which is unnecessary in the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Reworded. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid, I don't have time for protracted dogfights. If you truly believe that, by producing an obscure example or two, "primarily known for" can be applied to Ahalya (when there is no precedence in the literature of it being applied to Indra, Vishnu, Shiva, Zeus, Minerva, Noah, Satan, ...), so be it. Let others be the judge. And "redemption?" No. A curse is lifted or removed. Redemption means something quite different. The article remains full of such unconventional expressions, which to me indicate incomplete understanding of the sources. Please also indent your replies above properly so that they can be distinguished clearly from my examples. This is all I have time for. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Equating Indra et al. to Ahalya, primarily known for one event is not the best comparison. As one goes through the references, the term "redemption" is often used in the context of Ahalya online examples. If one understands the sources and commentary by scholars, it is not just about lifting of the curse, it is about destruction of the sin, a theme concurrent in all narratives. As in many of our past encounters, we can agree to disagree. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be consistently misinterpreting what I'm saying. Added to that, your remark about past encounters makes me wonder if you're taking my criticism seriously.
My apologies if "past encounters" hurt you or gave you the impression that your comments were ignored. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not the "primarily" that is the issue here, nor even "known" (which here means "familiar" or "recognized" (see OED on-line edition, 2012)). It is the "for" which is the problem, and which here means "on account of" or "because of." It suggests causality. Causality, however, cannot bridge mythological events and real ones. In other words, Ahalya is known/familiar, not because of her seduction, but because the story of her seduction is widely read.
  • As for "redemption," I'm simply responding the the construction of the sentence. You introduce the "curse." The counterpoise to the imposition of a curse is its lifting, not redemption. The redemption may have occurred, but it is irrelevant in the sentence because you haven't told us anything about sin. There are many such errors appearing throughout the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverted to liberation. Liberation was right. "liberation from a curse" is often used. [41][42][43],"Angiras cursed him and changed him to a big serpent and he was promised liberation from the curse" (Puranic Encyclopedia p. 40), [44][45][46]--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Lead, sentence 2). "Due to her unflinching acceptance of the curse and loyalty to her husband, Ahalya is extolled as the first of the panchakanya ("five virgins"), archetypal chaste women of whose names the recital is believed to dispel sin."
    • (General remark) The same issue of causality again. The mythical cause (acceptance, loyalty) is linked to real world effect (elevation to first among five virgins). This needs to be stated differently, without the causality. In fact, I have merely explicated here what others above have alluded to as "sounding a bit off."
      • The causality argument seems to ignored by many writers. The style of writing is consistent with their style. "Ahalya subsequently became the epitome of the chaste wife, unjustly accused of adultery, and her proverbial loyalty to her husband makes her one of the five exemplary chaste women daily invoked by Hindu wives." (Dictionary of Hindu Lore and Legend) "(Sita's) nobility, loyalty and restraint have been a source of strength, guiding Hindu families for centuries", "Interest and active participation in matters beyond their homes was noted for Draupadi, Tara ..., but they were not held in greater esteem on that additional account than Sita ... " (Mukherjee), "It is the nobility of her character, her extraordinary beauty and the fact of her being chronologically the first kanya that places Ahalya at the head of the five virgin maidens." (Bhattacharya). --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • PS It can easily be the other way around; in other words, the need to idealize compliant virgins was the cause and the construction of the myth the effect. I'm sure there are readings which interpret the myth to have been constructed during a time of increased patriarchal control (and increased subservience of women) in Hinduism. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • As per scholars, "increased patriarchal control" lead to the stone motif. Everything else is not said by any Ahalya scholar. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "unflinching." I have already expressed my reservations about its inappropriateness above.
    • "first of the panchkanya ("five virgins")" is ambivalent. What does it mean? First chronologically (in mythic time)? First in importance to the ritual? First name to be recited? Most virginal?
    • "of whose names the recital is believed to dispel sin" This is archaic, was archaic in the late 19th century, and is archaic in Indian English. Change to ", the recital of whose names ..."
      • Different people have different ideas. For the record, it was changed to the way it is during the FAC by someone other than me. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does the recital of names of virgins have to do with dispelling sin? The allusion is too vague. What kind of sin? If I steal a mango and lie about it, how will reciting the names of virgins help? The average reader is clueless here. In other words, if you can't clarify the allusion, and make it meaningful, it is best to not mention it in the lead where space is it at a premium.
      • "What does the recital of names of virgins have to do with dispelling sin" is like asking why a certain prayer gains you favour of God. . Members of other religions may consider it absurd, this is what Hindus believe. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — What a beautiful article and interesting read. Easy to support this once concerns raised by Fowler and Nikkimaria are settled. Sorry that I can't offer deeper critique—don't know much about how this type of article is supposed to be done. Saravask 05:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks in, this FAC appears stalled with several opposes on several issues, and the review is quite lengthy. Addressing issues raised and coming back fresh in a few weeks will give this nomination a better shot. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:28, 23 January 2012 [47].

Brian Halligan edit

Nominator(s): Woz2 (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subject has been an important figure in the transformation of marketing from mass-media interruption marketing (think soap opera interrupted by soap commercials) to a new era of permission marketing (think organic results from a Google search). The article summarizes his background and his published explanations of this so-called inbound marketing trend, and what businesses can do about it. The peer review is here. Woz2 (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose sorry. Not badly written, but the sourcing just isn't up to scratch. This is used four times: more than any other source. Per criterion 1(c), the claims in the article must be "verifiable against high-quality reliable sources". There are quite few of those in the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the feedback! Don't apologize. This is my first FAC so it's mainly a learning experience for me. I'll look for more diverse and reliable sources. Woz2 (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added three more refs from reliable sources to replace three out of four that relied on the self-published source. The fourth is OK I think because it supports the statement "he uses the term inbound marketing." I suppose I could replace that too because that's his book title. What do you think? (I'm thinking about the sections of WP:SPS "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (i.e. Wiley, MIT Sloan in the case of Halligan) and "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves..." of course) Woz2 (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Sorry, but I just don't think this is ready. Some questions/suggestions:
    • Perhaps most importantly, is this article truly comprehensive? There are only two sections ("Education and career" and "Publications, speeches, and awards"), and there is not even a mention of his nationality, or where he was born/raised. Is there truly no personal information available about this man, other than where he received his degrees? I've read the article, and I really don't have a sense of this man at all, which is why I question whether or not this is truly comprehensive.
      • I included everything I found. He listed his birthday but not his birthplace on his Facebook page and I wasn't able to find his birthplace anywhere else. Woz2 (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I emailed the subject and he kindly replied with info about his birthplace and early education. He said it's OK to include the info on wikipedia but said that it wasn't published in a reliable source anywhere that he knew of. I added the info he sent me but wasn't able to add a reliable source because "private communication" isn't a RS on WP. What to do? Woz2 (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead describes Halligan's books, but does not name them; the "Publications, speeches, and awards" section names the books but doesn't describe them. It should really be the other way around, since WP:LEAD stipulates that lead sections should not introduce material not covered in the body of an article.
    • The "Education and career" section is written backwards; it begins in 2006, with Halligan co-founding HubSpot, but at the end of the second paragraph it mentions him graduating with his MBA in 2005. It would flow far better were it written in chronological order, since that's how one's life generally occurs. ;)
      • I went with reverse chronological order because it puts the most important info first. I can re-arrange it if that is what is required. Woz2 (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done! Woz2 (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is Hannigan's name (as author) bolded in the citations, whereas other authors are not?
      • It seems to be an artifact of authorlink attribute of the citation template. It generates a wikilink and when a wikilink appears on the page to which is refers, it is automatically bolded. If the bolding is an issue, I can fix it by deleting the authorlink attribute. Woz2 (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed per recommendation on the help page for self-links. Woz2 (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other consistencies in the citations: websites should not be italicized (inboundmarketing.com), and why not include the proper name of the website, rather than a shorthand URL? inboundmarketing.com = Inbound Marketing.
      • The citation template has an attribute "work" which gets italicized. My understanding was that the work attribute should be set to top level domain. I'll check.Woz2 (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. Fixed per the citation template example. Woz2 (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good start, but it simply doesn't seem complete or polished enough for FA. I made some simple punctuation/MOS fixes here, but there may be some I missed. I totally understand the inherent issues with writing good-quality BLPs, and if the information isn't available, it just isn't available. If you have any questions, let me know. María (yllosubmarine) 21:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will. Woz2 (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This FAC seems stalled after ten days, with two opposes and no supports. This article may have a better shot at Featured status if the two opposers can be satisfied, and the article revisited in a later FAC. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:22, 23 January 2012 [48].

S&M (song) edit

Nominator(s): Calvin • Watch n' Learn 16:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it's as close to FA standard as it has ever been. Kinda expecting the worst though, as this is it's fifth nomination. So hopefully if it is promoted, I can be pleasantly surprised and ecstatic! I really believe in this article and have spent about 6/7 months working on it. Plus, I really don't want to have the record for most failed nominations! Lol. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 16:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Calvin999. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question (aside from wondering about your particular interest in this song :P ). You say there are five writers for a song barely over 4 minutes in length. What did each of the five contribute? How was the writing session conducted? Did one of them write the words and the others contribute to the music? Did one write the chorus and another write the verse? Were any of the "writers" just honorary additions? My background is in jazz, so I know that Donna Lee, although written by Miles Davis, is credited to Charlie Parker. The writing stuff is a key bit of information, IMO, if this were to be featured. Also, when was it written? It could've been from years earlier. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol. Who wrote which line is not available. I've never seen an article on here, or more specifically popular/mainstream music, which states who wrote which line. And it was written in 2010. It says in the article. Ester Dean conveived the idea and wrote the hook and some of the chorus. But that's it. That's in the quote. I'll see what I can do with the credits. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 17:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Stargate composed the instrumentation. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 17:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, I didn't mean who wrote each line, but some semblance of how the collaboration worked would be good. The "Background and conception" didn't say anything about the song being written in 2010, that's where I was looking. The infobox says it was recorded at "Roc the Mic studios", among other places, but the article doesn't back that up anywhere. The article also says "It was produced by Stargate and Vee, and was composed by Stargate." But then Ester Dean is the one who conceived the idea? In music, the person who conceives the idea and hook is the person who generally composes it. As a composer myself, I find this confusing and contradictory. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't any information about how they came together. Have added year recorded and recording locations to the Background and conception section, with sources. Have changed to "It was produced and instrumental composed by Stargate and Vee." Composer is the same as a writer, as they created it, so technically all four composed it. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 21:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, composer is one who does the music. If one of them did lyrics but not the music, then they're not technically a composer. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, so Stargate and Sandy Vee did the music. Lol. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 22:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, I'm confused. You said there were four composers, but you say three did the music. Also, for this sentence - "It was produced and instrumental composed by Stargate and Vee" - do you mean "instrumentally composed"? That could be written better, if so. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ester Dean came up with the concept and some of the lyrics (stated in the interview). Stargate, Dean and Vee co-wrote the song. Stargate and Vee provided the instrumental. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 22:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry Calvin. The prose is still below the required standard. We have, "It was produced and instrumental composed by Stargate and Vee." What does this mean? Does it mean arranged? Why do we have brackets here, "Chris Ryan of MTV wrote that the singer "[hollers]" the chorus." And, spot the grammatical error here "Interspersing scenes show Rihanna and other people in dominatrix clothing, implying various explicit acts with the singer wearing a feather boa and a top with the word "censored" across it." There is redundancy here, "On its release, the video was immediately banned in eleven countries due to its overt sexual content." In the chart performance section, most of the details are already in the table below, why repeat it all here? It makes very dull reading. I don't like having to repeatedly oppose this article's promotion because of the prose, but, despite numerous copy editing, it is still does not satisfy the very high standards required of a Featured Article. Graham Colm (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed "instrumentally" to "who also arranged the instrumental". And "hollers" is in brackets because the critic said "hollering", which doesn't fit there. I can't see a gr error in that sentence? Removed "On its release". Well, if I remove the details of chart performance, where would be no need for that section, right? Calvin • Watch n' Learn 23:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"arranged the instrumental" might be vernacular English, but it's not polished prose. Why not just say "produced and arranged". Regarding the grammatical error, may I remind you again of fused participles? I don't always object to their usage, but the sentence in question is ambiguous as a result. Graham Colm (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know what arranged means, but some people who aren't musically inclined might not know. I'll just wiki-link it. Okay, I will re-word that one. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 23:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never underestimate the intelligence of our readers and avoid overlinking. Graham Colm (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's best if it is linked here though. And I have re-worded that sentence. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 23:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. And the problem wording in that sentence is "with the singer wearing", the edit has not solved this. The Chart Performance section suffers from proseline, which is fact after fact that lacks flow and is boring to read. Graham Colm (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unlinked and removed. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 00:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was no need for the talkback template that was posted on my user page because I watch all FACs that I review. But I guess it was meant to elicit further comments, so here are some. Spot the error here, "The songs conception was initiated by Dean", and here "The lawsuit resulted with Rihanna being ordered to pay LaChapelle an undisclosed sum of money." (We have discussed the problem in the second sentence numerous times before, in this and the previous FAC, but I can't get you to understand the error. My concerns regarding proseline have not been addressed or commented on. The article is still riddled with redundancy, for example, "these remixes were released as a digital remix package". And, how can reviewers consider this article for promotion when it now has a section that "is in the middle of an expansion or major restructuring". The article falls far below FA standards and I will not be withdrawing my oppose until I see a radical improvement in the quality of the prose throughout. Graham Colm (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed those three points. And these is an under construction banner because a reviewer has said I should include a release section. Thus, instead of having a one line section, I have put the banner there so people know I haven't left it like it on purpose. And I left you a TB because I didn't know if you knew I had addressed your points. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 22:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The edits have not solved the problems. All that was needed here was an apostrophe as in "The song's conception was initiated by Dean", (but this is still an odd-sounding phrase). And here, another one "The lawsuit resulted with Rihanna's being ordered...". But your text now reads "The lawsuit resulted with Rihanna ordered to pay", which is not English". But, you could have written, "as a result, Rihanna was ordered to pay", which is much better. The redundancy here, "these remixes were released as a digital remix package" was only the repetition of "remix", but you seem to have deleted the whole sentence. Redundancy does not mean unnecessary facts – it means unnecessary words. A sign of professional prose is when every word is the right word and every word is in the right place, and when sentences carry no passengers. In essence, these are the problems that are constantly preventing the prose satisfying criterion 1a. Graham Colm (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then why didn't you say only change one word? Writing the whole line implies that the whole line is not needed. Anyway, have fixed these points again. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
Because I asked you to spot the errors in an attempt to encourage critical self-editing, which, and has been lucidly pointed out by Oran below, is something you need to nurture. Graham Colm (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well I've done everything you have asked to be changed. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
No you haven't, not by a long chalk. My comments are generic, not specific. I gave you examples only. Graham Colm (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you expect me to do then. Examples are specific, not generic. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 23:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Study this, which is the best guide to professional prose-writing on the Internet. Graham Colm (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • "With the release of the remix single, digital sales pushed the song to the top of the chart for one week gave Rihanna her tenth US number-one single on the Hot 100 chart and Spears her fifth."--Run on sentence.
  • "It reached number one in Australia, Canada and Poland, and on the UK R&B Chart. The song attained top-five positions in Germany, France, Ireland, and Spain as well as the UK R&B Chart."-- Did it peak at #1 or the top five on the UK R&B chart?
  • "Due to its content, was banned in several countries and restricted to nighttime television in others"-- Missing an "it" or "the video" right before "was banned...".
  • "The resolution of the lawsuit was announced on October 19, 2011, with the outcome that Rihanna was ordered to pay LaChapelle an undisclosed sum of money."--Repetitive and poor structure.
  • "Rihanna performed the song for the first time at the 2011 BRIT Awards at London's O2 Arena on February 15, 2011, as a part of a medley with "Only Girl (In the World)" and "What's My Name?""-- This sentence directly follows the mention of the lawsuit, and is jarring and non-linear.
  • This is just the intro! I'm not going to oppose. I'm tired of opposing. Calvin, the article has potential. But you need to write more carefully. These aren't mere grammatical errors. You just aren't being careful with what/how you write. Stop looking for the errors--your eyes are going to keep filling in the blanks for you. You need to read the article out loud to yourself, and you'll hear the gaps. Good luck. Orane (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I'm pleased you said that because quite a few people have told me this won't become an FA. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 13:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The songs conception was initiated by Dean, who first developed "S&M"'s hook, "Na, na, na, c'mon.""...yeah, this sentence is not working. Needs to be restructured or removed altogether. The intro is better. Thanks for addressing my suggestions. The problem that I'm still having with "Rihanna performed the song for the first time at the 2011 BRIT Awards at London's O2 Arena, as a part of a medley..." is that it's just so non sequitur. Articles on pop songs/albums now seem to follow this template of stuffing the intro and an entire section in the article with info about when and where a song was performed. And the major problem is that it's often not properly contextualized. So here's a suggestion: remove that last bit from the intro and put it in the second paragraph. Then begin the sentence with something like "To promote the song, Rihanna performed it on this show and that show ..." That way, the info is at least placed within a promotional context and linked to the song's chart performance.
  • Rest of the article still needs copy-edit. I see you working on it. Good job and good luck! Orane (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to Oppose Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18
50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

--->>> Prose and a few queries (From lead only)

  • It was released on January 21, 2011, as the album's fourth US single, and third international single - So this leads me to think that it was released both in the US and other countries on January 21, 2011
  • Still confusing, on February 11, 2011, as the third international single ---> on same date worldwide? That's why I understand from the way you have phrased it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that. You did not understand my question. Was S&M released worldwide on February 11, 2011 itself? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I never said worldwide on that one day. I said that it received international release on that day, meaning that from that day it was internationally released.
  • So you are leaving readers to interpret the information now? Is that what an FA is supposed to be? Do you think the way you worded that sentence will lead people to think that meaning that from that day it was internationally released? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "S&M" is a Eurodance and dance-pop song - That's all you will mention about the composition in the lead?
  • Since when is keyboard sounds an instrument? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a major E in Eurodance in the lead but what happened in composition?
  • Don't you think it is necessary to briefly mention what motivated the development of the song in the lead?
  • The songs conception was initiated by Dean <--- However, I asked what motivated its development, not who. Do you mean the song was inspired by Ester Dean? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's worse now. My question / what I am asking for is simple? I want you to say how the song came about? But say it briefly without going into too much details? What was she thinking before starting to write? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I have. I've said how the song came about. She thought of the hook first, then the chorus. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • You think the sentence sounds good? The song's conception was initiated by Dean, who developed "S&M"'s hook, "Na, na, na, c'mon." You are in fact telling who initiated the song's conception and not what motivated its development. I know Dean is directly linked to its conception but try to lay more emphasis on what I have asked for. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From lead: Critical reception of the song was mixed, as some reviewers criticized the song's overtly sexual lyrics, while others called it one of the best tracks from Loud.
  • From critical reception: "S&M" garnered positive responses from music critics.
  • Now you have to explain this to me.
  • reviewers - Do you think reviewers is good enough? I would have written music critics
  • Did you realize how many times you used the song in the first paragraph of the lead?
  • In April 2011, the song was re-released to digital outlets as a remix single, featuring guest vocals by American recording artist Britney Spears. This sentence can be a simple one and yet be miles better. Read it aloud five times and tell me if it sounds good.
  • It seems you did not understand. Now you have removed that Britney Spears feature on it? She is an A-list artist. Why did you remove that? We are not talking about a remix done featuring a DJ here. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I haven't. It's at the bottom of the third paragraph. This makes the lead the same order as the body. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • If that's the case, the order of the body itself is wrong. How is the remix mentioned after the chart performance when it pushed the song higher on the charts? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh my goodness. My point is that it looks awkward to mention that the remix pushed the song up to number one and then only later write that "a remix" was released on this or that date. It does not flow neither here in the lead nor in the body of the article. Don't just pay attention at the article. Pay attention to the order of the events. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is back in the first paragraph. Now, this is mentioned first, then how sales affected chart positions in the second paragraph. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • A whole paragraph for chart performance in the lead? I know the song was successful but you dedicate a whole paragraph to it? And it's even comparable to the size of the fist and last paragraph. Do we need details like "S&M" debuted at number 53 on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart upon the album's release, and peaked at number two. With the release of the remix single, digital sales pushed the song to the top of the chart for one week. This gave Rihanna her tenth US number-one single on the Hot 100 chart and Spears her fifth. The song also peaked at number one on the Billboard Hot Dance Club Songs chart and Pop Songs chart?
    Yes, the Hot 100 isn't the only chart worth mentioning. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • Again, you did not understand. Do we need to know "S&M" debuted at number 53 on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart upon the album's release?
  • So what? Why should this be mentioned in the lead? You are now even going to say where it debuted in the lead itself? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And " digital sales pushed the song to the top of the chart for one week"?
  • Why should we know it peaked at number one for one week? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And pushed?
  • Do you have an alternative for push? As I told, we are not working for GA standard here. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This gave Rihanna her tenth US number-one single on the Hot 100 chart and Spears her fifth. can be joined with the previous sentence if you remove the unnecessary details. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have put a colon there. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • A colon does not help. It is till not good. "With the release of the remix single, digital sales pushed the song to the top of the chart for one week; this gave Rihanna her tenth US number-one single on the Hot 100 chart and Spears her fifth." What do you mean by that? It did not have digital sales before? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course I know that. :P My point is that why you say With the release of the remix single, sales placed the song to the top of the chart for one week. That leads me to think that the song started selling only when the remix was available. I am beginning to think that you do not pay attention to what we tell you; I mean you do not make an effort to understand what is being dawn to your attention. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put that digital sales placed the song at #1 because it was only realeased digitally. It's rather simple. But have now said "placed" instead of "pushed", as you said to change it. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • Do you realize the way you have worded it gives the impression that only digital sales from the remix took the song at the summit of the chart? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. The week the remix was released, it went to #1 Jivesh. This is 100% accurate and what happened. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • You are wrong again. Downloads from the remix alone did not take the song to number one. Downloads from the album version when combined those from the remix helped it top the Hot 100 chart. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wrong that the week the remix was released it went to #1? No, I'm right Jivesh. But yes, combined sales made it number. But what I was saying was that with the sales of the remix, that was what made the song number one. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • Did I say that? That was your interpretation and that does not surprise me at all. And if you are still arguing, then let me tell you that this not how you will get your FAC passed. We are all trying to help you here. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The song attained top-five positions in Germany, France, Ireland, and Spain as well as the UK Singles Chart. - Why that wording? And attained top-five positions in... the UK Singles Chart?
    Fixed. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • It reached number one in Australia, Canada and Poland, and on the UK R&B Chart. --> still bad. And why the extra and? Didn't you read my previous comment? What about It reached number one on the singles chart in Australia, Canada, Poland, and on the UK R&B Chart.?
  • No you haven't. Did you read my suggestion? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It reached number one on the singles chart in Australia, Canada, Poland, and on the UK R&B Chart." Why say single chart, which is singular, then list countries, which is plural? Have included it anyway. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • Why? For consistency my dear. You list a number of countries, then suddenly write chart? That looks bad. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third paragraph of the lead needs a complete make over. It is good to join short sentences but join the appropriate ones together.
  • It's shaping up well but still not very good. Repetitive use of video at close proximity. Nothing about critics? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • By replacing the video with it. Alternate the wordings. Is that asking for too much? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only say video twice Jivesh. I use "it" a lot more.
  • My point is the proximity at which you are using those words. "Due to its content, the video was banned in several countries and was restricted to nighttime television in others. The video spawned a lawsuit when photographer David LaChapelle alleged that it used imagery from his photo shoot for Vogue Italia." You need to examine what is being told to you. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the reader need to know in lead that "S&M" was performed as a medley? You even add the date. I don't see how that performance was iconic / special enough for you to give all these details here.
  • Yes, because she didn't performance S&M in it's entirety.
  • Really? Why do we need to know the date and the location in the lead? Was it an iconic performance? I doubt it was. Again, I feel like you did not read and understand my comment properly. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the date. That was the performance Jivesh. It's no different to saying that an entire song was performed. It's misleading to write that she performed it for the first time when it was less than 1 minutes worth. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • I still not see why we need all that detail in the lead? And if I had to choose the most notable performance, it would be the Billboard one. That would save you from adding unnecessary details or clarifications that the song was performed as a medley. Frankly, should we really know it was a medley wit h"x" and "y" songs? This is only a lead. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not saying it was a medley is not providing accuracy. I'm not budging on this one. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • I am not the only one who pointed this. Now it depends on you if you want to "budge or not". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most importantly, how did critics receive the video? You must let the reader know since you clearly indicated that it was a response to critics.

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • and restricted to nighttime television in others - Spot the error

--->>> Infobox

--->>> Background and conception

  • Link all the writers / producers again.
    Linked. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • The first sentence is confusing. You write "under their stage". Well, writers do not write songs under their stage name. They produce songs under their stage name. If you can make a good sentence with the appropriate words, you may be able to combine the first and second sentence. Try something. If you are not able, I will do it for you.
    Have written: with production helmed for the former three. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • Still bad. I suggest, "S&M" was composed by Sandy "Vee" Wilhelm, Ester Dean, and Stargate, a duo consisting of Mikkel S. Eriksen and Tor Erik Hermansen. Link where appropriate. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should make the first paragraph connect to the song. As it is now, it seems like you are talking about Rihanna's fantasies.
    Doing. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • an interview for Rolling Stone... an interview with Gail Mitchell for Billboard... an interview for The Boom Box ... in an interview for Spin magazine ---> Be consistent, will you give the author's name or not? If there is one, I see no harm in adding it.
    Rolling Stone there wasn't one. Billboard there was. The Boom Box there wasn't. Spin there wasn't. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • The Boom Box is a magazine.
    Italicised. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • Rihanna has an "alter ego"? If yes, don't put it in quotes. However, I am surprised. she never talked about it, right?
    Perhaps it is one that isn't very public. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • That's funny. She is the most public person I know. Lol. But this won't be a problem. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dean spoke about the process of writing songs for Rihanna in an interview for The Boom Box, and explained that she wanted to channel Rihanna's "alter ego" and use it as inspiration for writing "S&M"'s lyrics. - Extremely long.
    Split into two sentences. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • She explained that she wanted to channel Rihanna's alter ego and use it as inspiration for writing "S&M"'s lyrics. - Very verbose structure. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "S&M" is the fourth single from Rihanna's fifth studio album, Loud, and was sent to US Top 40/Mainstream and rhythmic radio station playlists on January 25, 2011.[7] Why is it here? We are working for FA, right? I think everything should be put in an appropriate section.
  • You have enough material here to write a decent release section.
    Okay. Will do. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • On a general note, the Background and conception seems like a quotefarm. I suggest paraphrasing where possible.
    Paraphrased the Spin quote. Now there is only one quote per paragraph.
  • I appreciate your effort but it's isn't quite to the level of the prose to be in an FA. The singer continued to say that the songs message is a way of saying that people can talk about something a person has done, that they will always find something negative to say and it cannot be helped. Read it yourself. Read it aloud. Does it sound good? And spot the mistake(s). Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All I can say is that the overly verbose structure does not look good. It may be good for a GA. But this is an FAC. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--->>> Composition

  • That music sample caption is a repetition of what is in the background section. So you are using a music sample to show what Rihanna feels about the song?
    Re-wrote. Included info about the sample, hook and instruments. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • The correct word it uptempo.
    Corrected. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • Why is groove linked to tempo?
    Changed to beat. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • Still bad. Groove should be linked to groove. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are linking sheet music, why not link instrumentation as well?
    Linked. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • What is "ear-frotting"?
    It's the description given by the critic. Frotting is a sexual term, so I guess he is relating to that in a weird way. Removed it anyway. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • You did well by removing it but add it in the CR. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why did you construct such a sentence previously? Lol. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And even after x number of instances, it is still wrong: The instrumentation of "S&M" consists of synthesizers, pounding beats,[9] and keyboard sounds. Since when are keyboard sounds instruments? And pounding beats are instruments as well? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pardon? Why are you telling me this? I was talking about the instruments. And bass beats is instrument? Where was beat linked before? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, this sentence is totally wrong - The instrumentation of "S&M" consists of "ear-frotting" hooks, synths and pounding beats.
    Removed: "ear-frotting" hooks, Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • However, keyboard is an instrumentation and I cannot understand why it isn't here.
    It is there, look at the next line. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • It should not have been in the next line. It should have been in the previous line. That was my point. Group the instruments appropriately. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move it to CR. I mean the "ominous and snarling". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ryan continued, writing that "S&M" was similar to "Only Girl (In the World)" - What aspect?
    Added in. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • Really? For me, it is till the same. Ryan continued, writing that "S&M" was similar to "Only Girl (In the World)"'s production, the lead single released from Loud, which was also produced by Stargate. - What was he comparing? Which aspect? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The organisation of the content is pretty award. You speak about vocals, then move to similarities, and then to lyrics all in one paragraph?
    Lyrics is by itself now. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • Rihanna sings about sex and BDSM related acts on "S&M".[14] <--- What about this then? I don't see it grouped with the lyrics. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, she explained that the song should not be interpreted literally, but rather, metaphorically. I can no longer count the number of says this sentence has been used though re-written.
    Removed. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • Close repetition of chant/chanting.
    There is no repetition of those. I use chant once and chanting once. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • Chant and chanting is the same as singing and singing. Why don't you use alternatives? Or at least do not use chant and chanting so close. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the chorus, the singer "frostily chants" the lines "Cause I may be bad, but I'm perfectly good at it / Sex in the air, I don't care, I love the smell of it."[16] After chanting the lines "Cause I may be bad, but I'm perfectly good at it / Sex in the air, I don't care, I love the smell of it," Rihanna sings the line "Sticks and stones may break my bones / But chains and whips excite me."[17] James Skinner of BBC Music described her delivery of the line as "forced", criticizing her for not projecting a "daring" sound. - What is this?
    What do you mean? Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • Are you asking me now? Lol. Did you read what you wrote? Read it aloud. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am telling you for the last time. Read it aloud and pay attention. "During the chorus, the singer "frostily chants" the lines "Cause I may be bad, but I'm perfectly good at it / Sex in the air, I don't care, I love the smell of it."[15] After singing the lines "Cause I may be bad, but I'm perfectly good at it / Sex in the air, I don't care, I love the smell of it ...". How can you be so ignorant? This is the limit. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • James Skinner of BBC Music described her delivery of the line as "forced", criticizing her for not projecting a "daring" sound.[17] Nathan S. of DJ Booth echoed Skinner's opinion of the line, writing that Rihanna delivered it in an "un-sultry" manner and "light pop voice".[18] Meg Sullivan of The Music Magazine criticized the hook, "Na na na, c'mon," citing it as "a classic sign of 'I had nothing else decent to write'."[19] - Wait, is this composition or critical reception? As far as i see, you are not explaining, you are quoting the description / remarks of critics. This is purely critical reception. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    They are talking about the lyrics I have written about. And I have expanded upon what they have said.
  • I write it again, this is pure critical reception. James Skinner of BBC Music described her delivery of the line as "forced", criticizing her for not projecting a "daring" or convincing sound.[16] Nathan S. of DJ Booth noted that Rihanna delivered it in an "un-sultry" manner and not committing to what she is singing about.[17] Meg Sullivan of The Music Magazine criticized the hook, "Na na na, c'mon," citing it as a line which was included in order to fill a gap. And you tell me the contrary? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyway, your choice of words proves that was critical analysis. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--->>> Release and reception

  • In the United States, "S&M" was the fourth single to be released from Loud, and was made available to download on January 21, 2011 This sentence can be much better --> "S&M" was released digitally, as the fourth US single from Loud, on January 21, 2011.
  • US Top 40/Mainstream - Why not change it to contemporary hit radio? It is the same thing and this will let you not use the x/y format. Actually Top 40 and mainstream are the same thing. Same for rhythmic. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was sent to US Top 40/Mainstream and rhythmic radio station playlists on January 25, 2011.[18] The song was sent to US urban radio station playlists on March 8, 2011. - Can easily be one sentence if you choose the correct words and clauses.
  • to download digitally - I know we download digitally, so please reword.
  • What is the sentence doing here? On April 11, 2011, the remix single featuring Spears was made available to download digitally worldwide.[22] You have not even talked about the remix yet in the body of the article. So, you will need to re-arrange the whole article / move some sections.
  • Outside of the United States, the song was the third single to be released from the album. It was released on February 11, 2011, in Spain to download digitally[20] and was released on March 18, 2011, in Germany as a CD single. - Repetitive
  • "S&M" garnered mixed responses from music critics. Sal Cinquemani of Slant Magazine, and Thomas Conner of the Chicago Sun Times wrote that "S&M" was reminiscent of Rihanna's previous album, Rated R (2009). - Did they discuss any aspect?
  • Precisely by divesting sex of emotion and re-imagining violence as fetish ("sticks and stone may break my bones / but chains and whips excite me") can fit in composition.
    The entire quote? Aaron • You Da One
  • Well, I am not telling you to quote. Try to write in try own words. Paraphrase. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetitive use of the song.
  • Why is beat linked again?
  • Forgive me for this but the critical reception is a QUOTEFARM. A critical reception section is normally supposed to made up of quotes but this one is the limit. Every single line has been quoted here. Please attempt to paraphrase some of them. And some of the quotes are simply giant (if I can use this word).
  • In the UK, "S&M" was deemed too explicit for daytime airplay, was edited to remove all references to sex, chains, and whips, and was renamed "Come On" for BBC Radio 1. - Bad sentence. Reword and break it into two or use a semi-colon.
  • Is there anymore information about the daytime ban? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's all there is. It was just banned from radio. Well I say banned, whenever I heard it they just removed half of the chorus and bleeped out those three words. And I have address all other points for this section. Aaron • You Da One 14:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---> Second review by Jivesh

  • I will check each and every change you brought or did not brought about very soon. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You did well by removing this because that was clearly WP:OR and WP:SYN. We do not interpret instruments used. And to think we argued on that. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This time I will only quote the bad prose / structure of sentences and you see the changes you should bring. I think i have explained enough now.
  • 1) Lead
  • on February 11, 2011, as the third worldwide single. - Again same thing. Was it released on that date itself in all countries outside the US. I won't come on his gain. You have to be more careful. This should be the fourth of fifth time I m pointing at this sentence.
    Reworded/disambiguated "worldwide". Yes, everywhere but the US on Feb 11. Aaron • You Da One
  • It is worse. A lead is not supposed to be detailed that much. The correct sentence will be and as the third single to international markets from February 11. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inspired by channelling Rihanna's alter-ego, Dean conceptualized and developed "S&M"'s hook, "Na, na, na, c'mon."
    Removed alter-ego. Aaron • You Da One
  • Inspired by channelling Rihanna sounds awkward. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • up-tempo dance-pop and eurodance song - Spot the mistake. You have to learn from your mistakes. I see you instead repeat them.
    I don't see a mistake. Aaron • You Da One
  • It is uptempo and I had already told you this in my first review but you have repeated your mistake instead of learning from it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "S&M" was re-released as a remix single, and featured guest vocals by American recording artist Britney Spears. It was made available to download digitally worldwide on April 11, 2011. - Find a better place for this information
    It has to stay here because I talk about how the remix helped it peak at #1 in the second paragraph. In the third wouldn't make sense. Aaron • You Da One
  • Can I know why you have removed the information? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical reception of "S&M" was mixed, as music critics criticized the song's overtly sexual lyrics, and others called it one of the best tracks from Loud.
    Replaced "and" with "whilst". Plus reworded the first clause. Aaron • You Da One
  • Upon its release as a single - Necessary?
    Removed. Aaron • You Da One
  • With the release of the remix single, combined sales placed the song to the top of the chart for one week - Unnecessary detail. I can no longer count the number of times I wrote this. And combined sales of what?
    Reworded. Aaron • You Da One
  • However, with combined sales from a remix version featuring guest vocals by American recording artist Britney Spears, "S&M" became Rihanna's tenth US number-one single on the Hot 100 chart, and Spears fifth - This sentence is imply bad. The previous one (though it was not good) was better. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It peaked at number one on the Billboard Hot Dance Club Songs chart and Pop Songs chart. - Billboard or US? Think well before replying. Don't be in a haste.
    I've put US. Aaron • You Da One
  • It reached number one on the singles chart in Australia, Canada, Poland, and in the United Kingdom on the R&B Chart. - Something here reads awkwardly
    Really? Have reworded it.
  • Yes, it really did or lease I would not have written here. The song peaked at number one on the US Hot Dance Club Songs chart and Pop Songs chart, and also reached number one on the singles chart in Australia, Canada, Poland, and on the UK R&B Chart. is long and over-detailed. Do we need to know about Billboard component charts in the lead now? That's too much. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The song attained top-five positions in Germany, France, Ireland, Spain, and in the United Kingdom. - Read and look for the correction to be made.
    Removed UK. Aaron • You Da One
  • There is frankly too much about the Chart performance in the lead. Too much.
    I disagree. It became her 10th #1, the shortest time ever for an artist to get as many. This is a very important detail. The rest is a mere overview. Aaron • You Da One
  • Do we need to know about Billboard component charts in the lead now? That's too much. Disagreeing on nearly everything will bring this article nowhere. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To promote the song, Rihanna performed the song at the 2011 BRIT Awards at London's O2 Arena, as a part of a medley with "Only Girl (In the World)" and "What's My Name?". - For the last time, this is only a lead. We do not need details like it was performed as a medley or anything else. There is not anything which makes this performance iconic, so please stop with these details. And that sentence itself is not a good one.
    Well, we will have to agree to disagree! Because technically, she didn't sing S&M, only a verse and chorus. No one else see's this as a problem. Aaron • You Da One
  • Respected Graham does. Do you ant a third opinion. Someone I can ask to come here? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I think you have agreed to agreed with me as I see you have shortened the sentence. Be careful with what you write here and what you do on the article. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It spawned - Please find a better word that spawned
    "It initiated". Aaron • You Da One
  • The third para looks good. Graham's suggestions always help. I see you used them as he posted. Good. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2) Background and conception

  • Ester Dean did additional writing. - It does not connect well with the previous sentence and it is rough as User:Adabow said.
    Actually, it wasn't me who wrote that. Rather, someone who commented on this review. But have changed anyway. Aaron • You Da One
  • It does not matter who wrote it. I am sure his intention was only to help. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The song was recorded in 2010 during Rihanna's Last Girl on Earth Tour, at Roc the Mic Studios in New York City, Westlake Recording Studios in Los Angeles and The Bunker Studios in Paris - Was the tour taking place at the "at Roc the Mic Studios in New York City, Westlake Recording Studios in Los Angeles and The Bunker Studios in Paris"? That's the impression you will givea reader who does not know Rihanna.
    Made clearer. Aaron • You Da One
  • In an interview for Rolling Stone, Rihanna spoke about her interest in bondage and other S&M activities, saying: "I like to take charge, but I love to be submissive ... being submissive in the bedroom is really fun. You get to be a little lady, to have somebody be macho and in charge. That's sexy to me."[2] Lindsay Goldwert of Daily News felt that Rihanna's comments on the types of sexual activity that she enjoys may be part of a healing process, after she was assaulted by her former-boyfriend Chris Brown in February 2009. - I will request you for the last time to make this connect to the song.
    Done. Aaron • You Da One
  • "I wrote it, Father forgive me, on a Sunday. The track was already there. The first thing that came to me was 'Come on, come on.' I'm thinking, 'I don't know what in the hell this is about to be.' And I remembered I'd seen something that said, 'Sticks and stones may break my bones.' Then came 'But chains and whips excite me.' And I'm like, 'Oh, my God, I got to write that.' I'm in the studio with the engineer and just kept looking at him, asking, 'Is that OK?' And he says, 'I like it.' When people have a great track that speaks to me, it feels like it already has a story in it." - Will you put that in an encyclopedia or should i say an FAC?
    Have shortened the quote. Aaron • You Da One
  • Dean spoke about the process of writing songs for Rihanna in an interview for The Boom Box. She explained that she wanted to channel Rihanna's alter ego and use it as inspiration for writing "S&M"'s lyrics.[5] Dean praised Rihanna for her ability to take risks with her music, saying: "Rihanna will say things that other chicks won't say. That's Rihanna. Music is about fantasy. This is what people want to do, but are afraid to do." According to the interview, all this is about "Rude Boy", nor "S&M".
    This was given to me by Orane at the last FAC. It still relates to S&M, as she wrote both. It still applies. Aaron • You Da One
    Why did you remove it then? What's the point of arguing and then removing it without letting the reviewer know. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's obvious that you wanted it removed! Aaron • You Da One
    You should have written Removed then. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The singer continued to say that the meaning behind the song was inspired by how people can talk about something a person has done, but they will always find something negative to say, concluding that it cannot be prevented. Avoid verbose structure (I am telling this for the sixth or seventh time).
    Done? Lol. Aaron • You Da One
    I see you have re-written it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeppp. Aaron • You Da One

3) Composition and lyrical interpretation

  • I am happy you used one of the compositions I have written as a model.
  • I don't think the length of a song is required here but I won't argue if you want to leave it.
  • The music sheet says guitar not guitar strings.
    The guitar doesn't produce the sound Jivesh, it's the strings attached to the guitar which creates the sound. Instruments with strings on them are collectively known as string instruments anyway.
  • Bass beats is not an instrument and it is not sourced. Did you mix up the sources?
    Bass is created by using a keyboard and string instruments, which are both used. Have removed anyway. Aaron • You Da One
  • Oh yes you did well by choosing to reword because you were wrong and accept it. Bass beats is not instrument. Bass instrument is the instrument. You can still add bass instrument there. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stargate and Vee arranged the songs instrumental - What is this sentence doing here?
    Because they did? I'll remove it then. Aaron • You Da One
  • Because they did? That's your explanation? Oh my goodness, that's supposed to be in the background section. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chris Ryan of MTV Buzzworthy compared "S&M" to "Only Girl (In the World)"'s production, the lead single released from Loud, which was produced by Stargate. - How did you reach to the conclusion that he was referring to the production?
    Because he as talking about the production. Aaron • You Da One
  • a sexually aggressive tone in her vocal performance - Looks like a bad sentence
    How? Aaron • You Da One
  • Tone in her vocal performance? Plus having this in one line makes it look worse. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlink sadomasochism in second paragraph.
    Unlinked. Aaron • You Da One
  • The lyrics of "S&M" revolve around sex, sadomasochism, bondage and BSDM fetishes, as Rihanna describes her sexual fantasies and turn-ons. - Re-write or cut in to two.
    Used a semi-colon (;) Aaron • You Da One
  • It was described by Meg Sullivan of The Music Magazine as a case of "I had nothing else decent to write." - Isn't this CR?
    I haven't said criticized or used any word indicating that it is being critical. So no. Aaron • You Da One
  • Frankly, you think that this fits in composition? Did you read and understand the sentence? It's clear the reviewer is reviewing it negatively. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rihanna provides the juxtaposition that although she acts in a non-conservative manner, implying she is "bad", that is not the case in the bedroom, confirming that she is "good" at performing sex. - Hmm, I think you know by now what is to be done.
    Hmm, reworded a bit. Aaron • You Da One
  • You rewording did not improve it. Please work more on it. Jivesh1205 (Talk)
  • After singing these lines, Rihanna sings the line
    Changed to chants. Aaron • You Da One
  • The singer proposes her fantasies and turn-ons to the listener - Isn't this a repetition?
    Removed. Aaron • You Da One
  • Can you write a better music caption? Are you sing it to demonstrate that "S&M" features the sampled synth line from Depeche Mode's song "Master and Servant"? If yes, let me tell you, it won't work. As that can perfectly be expressed into written words.
  • The other line also does not work though I think it is much better than the previous one. You need a good caption.
    Doing. Aaron • You Da One
You have done it, right? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4) Remixes

  • Is that a block-quote? Sorry, but it's difficult to know with an image to the left. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • An official remix of "S&M", featuring rapper J. Cole, was released on January 17, 2011. - Was it really released as you wrote?
  • An official remix of "S&M", featuring rapper J. Cole, was released on January 17, 2011.[17] It was remixed by DJs Dave Audé, Sidney Samson and Joe Bermudez; these remixes were released as a digital package. Read this, does it sound good? I feel like you want to say "[The remix of "S&M"] was remixed by DJs Dave Audé, Sidney Samson and Joe Bermudez; these remixes were released as a digital package.]
  • Compare this from the composition section: ""Cause I may be bad, but I'm perfectly good at it / Sex in the air, I don't care, I love the smell of it." to this from the remix section: "Shut me up, gag and bound me/'Cause the pain is my pleasure/Nothing comes better", and correct your mistakes.
  • In a radio interview - Name of radio?
  • I asked my fans last week who they wanted me to collaborate with, and Britney was one of the most popular names. is a repetition of what has already been written. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5) Release look good now. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "S&M" was the third worldwide. US also forms part of the world, so change world to international.
  • Consider linking iTunes
  • Oh you better apply it when you yourself told me this on a GA review. The other stuff existing is linked to you. "S&M" is an FAC. :) So be careful. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources--minus spotchecks--and media

Reliability

  • Please establish the high quality reliablity of these sources: Boombox, DJ Booth, Masterbeat (possible dead link), Allaccess
    The Boom Box (was given to me by Orane in the last FAC) and is owned by AOL, and owns the trademark. DJ Booth: "© The DJ Booth LLC. Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.". I don't know about Masterbeat, apart from the owner worked for IBM. Allaccess: "AllAccess.com is owned and operated by All Access Music Group, Inc, a privately held corporation formed in 1995, by President/Publisher Joel Denver and his wife and partner, VP/CFO & Operations Ria Denver." Calvin • Watch n' Learn
    That doesn't quite explain what makes these high quality reliable sources. What are the article authors' qualifications? What about the experience and bylines of the author, publisher and editor-in-chief. Have highly reputed sites cited these web sites? Sure Boombox is published by AOL, but that does not quite explain why it is reliable. Urlesque and PopEater (both published by AOL) are not quite high-quality-reliable, so what makes this one different? Take it from this approach. In place of AllAccess, you can try Radio and Records and see if they have the information. Regarding DJ Booth, just because the content is free does not make it reliable. Again, look at the background of the authors, editors and publishers to see what kind of fact-checking they do. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed Masterbeat and replaced with iTunes. The Boom Box interviewed Dean herself, so they must be pretty reliable to get an interview with her. Nathan S is a paid employee of DJ Booth, I have emailed him asking for his qualifications. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
    Nathan from DJ booth replied to me:

"We're being questioned as a high quality source? I'm actually offended. DJBooth has been active for over six year, becoming one of the premiere destinations for urban music and averaging over 1 million unique visitors a month. Part of the Complex Media Network, DJBooth is also a digital distribution company that has exclusively released Yelawolf's "Trunk Muzik" (Interscope), Big K.R.I.T.'s "KRIT Wuz Here" (Def Jam) and many more. We are also a privately owned company headquartered in Brooklyn, with offices in Chicago in L.A. Hope that helps, really appreciate you fighting to get Wikipedia to include that link Aaron.

Peace, Nathan"

Okay, but with all due respect to Nathan, he didn't explain his qualifications or the site's fact-checking etc. It sounded more like promoting tbh. This does not look promising either. You're on the right track though. Plus, just because Boombox did an interview does not mean it is a high-quality reliable source? What kind of fact-checking does the site do? Author qualifications? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Boombox and DJ Booth were removed after extensive discussion on my talk page. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 03:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might be wrong, but I'm not quite sure about the reputation of Justia.
    It's the official court documentation. Calvin • Watch n' Learn

Italicization

Publisher notation

  • Check for consistency in how publishers of magazines are notated (brackets or no brackets).
    Not done I see. Some have brackets (NME, EW, etc.) whereas others do not. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed NME and EW. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • Check for consistency in how publishers of web publications (e.g. MTV UK, Reuters) are notated (brackets or no brackets).
    None of the MTV sources are in brackets as it is not a publication or newspaper. Removed brackets from Reuters. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • Check for consistency in Entertainment Weekly publishers, and Rolling Stone publishers.
    They are fine, not sure what you want here. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
    Check for inconsistencies like Jann Wenner vs. Wenner Media and "Time Inc" vs. "Time division of Time Warner" (the former of which is probably best). —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, Jann Wenner. And Time Inc. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • Repetitive: "Justia.com Dockets and Filings. Justia.com Dockets and Filings."
    Removed the work parameter. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • "Inc", "Ltd", "Co.", and "Publishing" are omitted from publisher names in refs. Time Inc. is an exception to this.
    Removed all instances. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
    Check again FN 85. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 03:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed. Aaron • You Da One

General inconsistencies and errors in refs

  • Just a suggestion, but you could be more specific on the MTV refs (MTV News, etc.).
    Been more specific with them. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
    Check FN 34. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 03:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Aaron • You Da One
  • Be consistent in how notes like (To access certification, or type xxxx into search, etc.) are written: italics or no italics, parentheses or no parentheses
    I can only see one? Calvin • Watch n' Learn
    Compare FN 103 and 130. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 03:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Aaron • You Da One
    Check placement of where the note is. (before retrieve date, after publisher, etc.) —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Aaron • You Da One
  • FN 29–38 are the same as the ones under {{Singlechart}}. Hence, ref names should be there and not just same refs used twice.
    I used proper formatted references in the Chart performance section, but the tables chart has pre-coded ones. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
    There is a way you can re-use the pre-coded refs. Use <ref name=sc_[chart id of chart link, or what is put in under the first parameter in the template, like "Austria", "UK", "UKrandb", etc.]_Rihanna/>
    Alternatively, you can fill in a "|ref name=" parameter in the Singlechart template and use that ref name for a chart reference. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Still not done. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 03:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Aaron • You Da One
  • Are you sure FN 37 has the right title?
    Removed anyway.
  • Check for consistency in wikilinking, like Ryan Seacrest.
    Linked. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
    Works and publishers should be linked on first occurrence. Check again. For example, compare FN 20 and 65. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    More inconsistencies. MTV News is not linked, and refs should be linked consistently on first, every or no occurrence. Please check again. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 03:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Aaron • You Da One
    Not quite. I don't see first occurrence. Check BBC, EW and Rap-Up. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have a second look for inconsistencies in general.
    Please check Arizona Republic ref for publisher notation inconsistency. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 03:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Aaron • You Da One
    Not done. Brackets or no brackets? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media

  • Could the caption of the sound sample focus a bit more on the musical composition? Lyrics are okay, but some detail on the "thundering dance beat" and sampling?
    I second. I don't see how the music sample is necessary based on the current caption. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done already. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • The summary in the File:Rihanna - S&M.ogg page says that the "Source" is S&M, when it should be the album, Loud.
    Okay. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • Music video screenshot caption needs a period (full stop).
    Added. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
    It looks as though it has been reverted. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 03:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Added back. Aaron • You Da One
  • Music video scrrenshot fair-use rationale needs to explain how it in particular adds to the article and is crucial to the understanding. What's the importance about this image?
    Okay. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
    Better, but not quite there yet. Say in the rationale what the image depicts. More detail than just "Rihanna under a plastic wrap." And instead of under Licensing, this is probably better off in the table of the FUR, in "Purpose of use". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Gave a description. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
    Meh, good enough. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 03:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captions of File:Rihanna, LOUD Tour, Oakland 1.jpg and File:Spears FFT SM Detroit.jpg are not a sentences and should not have periods/full stops.
    Removed.

Oppose for now. Please address issues so that I can strike out my oppose. Article may need some copy editing per above reviewers, but not opposing based on this. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting Penguin. I'm at uni all day tomorrow but will try and get some of these done in my breaks. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 00:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need to have a better look for inconsistencies in the references. Take your time however. I'd also like to add that that you can't just have a {{under construction}} in a featured article candidate. The article was supposed to have been complete and ready before FAC. But I hope what you're doing at this stage is drastically going to improve things. Thanks and cheers, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the banner, I didn't make a dedicated section, not enough info. It's in with the reviews. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 23:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, issues still lie throughout. Not striking my oppose yet. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 03:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the iTunes references [93] and [149] are dead. You should replace them. Plus, I think that S&M was also released in other teritories via iTunes. You can expand the Release section. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 12:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
    Don't see how. You didn't change the digital download for Ireland (which is dead link) and you replaced for United Kingdom with the Loud Ireland iTunes release. Quite illogical. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 15:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    93 was the UK Tomica. Ireland can't be dead because I was just on it. And I replaced Masterbeat with the iTunes remixes, which are the same. Again, can't be dead as I was just on it. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
    How its okay when the Ireland digital download opens Loud from IE iTunes? — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 15:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the URL. It has S&M in it. It re-directs there. So it's not dead. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 15:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Still not good. From where we know that S&M was released in February 2011 when the release date for the album stated there (but still wrong) is 19 August 2011. Why for instance you don't use this one? — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 15:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Used. Ireland doesn't have that I can see. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 15:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right. It was probably removed from the Irish iTunes. Further fix the reference and change Ireland with Spain. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 15:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I already had. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 15:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • File:Rihanna S&M.jpg needs a specific source
    Done. Can't get much better than the photographer's lawsuit of that specific copied image. Aaron • You Da One
    No, not done. You didn't edit the file page at all. —Andrewstalk 04:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh i thought you mean't the picture in the article. Done. Aaron • You Da One
  • MOS:CAPTION issues, especially in relation to full stops/periods.
    Done. Aaron • You Da One
    The first "sentence" of the audio caption is not a grammatically complete sentence, so a full stop is out of place here. Either reword it into a full sentence or rewrite the whole caption into one incomplete sentence. The music video screenshot needs a full stop. —Andrewstalk 04:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. And I need to rewrite the audio sample anyway. Aaron • You Da One
  • The two image in the 'Reception and ban' section aren't aligned properly.
    They are now. Aaron • You Da One
  • WP:ORDINAL issues in 'Chart performance'
    Fixed one issue. Aaron • You Da One
    There are still inconsistencies. ""S&M" debuted on the Danish Singles Chart on February 11, 2011, at number 34 and peaked at number two." ""S&M" ranked at number 15 on Billboard magazine's best-selling top 50 Pop Songs and number two on the top 50 best-selling Dance/Clubs Songs of 2011." —Andrewstalk 04:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see what is wrong. Single digits are written as a word and double digits are written numerically. Aaron • You Da One
  • Some tables should be made sortable
    Which ones? Aaron • You Da One
    Certifications and year-end charts. —Andrewstalk 04:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Aaron • You Da One
  • A bit of overlinking in Radio and release history table. Why is the 'r' in 'rhythmic radio' capitalised. Also the link to the book should be moved to the 'See also' section
    Should I unlink Remix single then? And I have moved down. Aaron • You Da One
    Yes; I don't see why not. —Andrewstalk 04:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlinked. Aaron • You Da One
  • "Inspired by channelling Rihanna's alter-ego" - explain. What alter ego; what are the alter ego's characteristics?
    Removed. Aaron • You Da One
    I second this. In fact, I brought this point above. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a more thorough look in a couple of hours. —Andrewstalk 06:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The theme of the song is absent from the lead
    Added. Aaron • You Da One
  • "Critical reception of "S&M" was mixed, as music critics criticized the song's overtly sexual lyrics, and others called it one of the best tracks from Loud." - "music critics" implies all of them, which makes "others" a bit confusing
    Has been reworded. Aaron • You Da One
  • " It reached number one on the singles chart in Australia, Canada, Poland..." - implies there is one chart for all these countries
    I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS will probably be thrown back in my face, but this is actually the same to a recently appointed Rihanna FA.
  • "Ester Dean did additional writing." - sounds rough
    Has been reworded. Aaron • You Da One
  • "former-boyfriend" - why the hyphen?
    Removed. Aaron • You Da One
  • Is the "I wrote it, Father forgive me, on a Sunday." part of the quote really necessary in an encyclopaedia?
    Yes. "S&M" is a sexually provocative and blasphemous song. The fact that Ester Dean started writing it on a Sunday of all days (I'm sure you understand why, Christianity and all) is an important point. Aaron • You Da One
    Yes, as a practicing Catholic I understand the significance of Sundays, but I disagree that the day of writing is important. —Andrewstalk 04:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the first sentence. Aaron • You Da One

I'm going to have to oppose on prose quality at the moment. See WP:1A for advice and exercises on how to improve prose quality. —Andrewstalk 07:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Further comments[reply]

  • "The lyrics of "S&M" revolve around sex, sadomasochism, bondage and BSDM fetishes." - a few redundant words here, considering what BSDM stands for. Perhaps simply remove "BSDM"?
    Removed BDSM. Aaron • You Da One
  • In the 'Radio and release history' section, what is the point of lumping several references into one inline citation when the citation is repeated for each country? Either separate the references or place the joint citation in the format cell, spanning several countries. Adding onto that, why are references #12 and #27 not merged (if you choose to stick with that format)?
    What do you mean "place the joint citation in the format cell". I don't understand. And what do you mean about 12 and 27? 12 Is the album version single released in South America on Feb 11, 2011, and 27 is the remix single ft. Spears released worldwide on April 11, 2011. They aren't the same. Aaron • You Da One
    OK, so all the February 28, 2011 remix package releases use the same inline citation, right? Why repeat that citation for every country? Why not place the citation next to "remix package"? And no, both #12 and #27 are for the February 11, 2011 digital download. —Andrewstalk 20:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done both. Aaron • You Da One 21:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the 'See also' list in any particular order? Alphabetical would be the way to go, I think.
    Have put in order or country, then by component chart (if applicable). Aaron • You Da One
  • In the 'Copyright infringement lawsuits' section, why is the first letter of the blockquote bracketed?
    Probably because it was lower case to start with. Aaron • You Da One
  • "Rihanna opened the Billboard Music Awards, with a performance of the "S&M" remix..." - misuse of comma
    Removed. Aaron • You Da One

I'm sorry, but I can't list every prose issue. I suggest printing a copy of the article out and taking a pen or highlighter to it. Have a few looks at it, with substantial breaks in between. Fresh eyes are better at spotting mistakes. Read the article aloud to yourself, too. —Andrewstalk 04:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andrew. Aaron • You Da One 14:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Infobox
  • Why is Rihanna wikilinked twice? (single by... and chronology)
Lead
  • "It was released on January 21, 2011, as the album's fourth United States single". Why not just abbreviate United States with US?
  • It should be written in full in its first occurrence. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instrumentation should be un-linked, everyone knows what is a "instrumentation" esp knowingly that "S&M" is a song.
  • I told the nominator to wiki-link it for consistency. If he unlinks this, there will be countless other terms he will have to unlink. And the sentence "everyone knows what is a "instrumentation" is an assumption of yours, right? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain why all the other instruments are wikilinked but synthesizers isn't?
  • "The song attained top-five positions in Germany, France, Ireland and Spain" --> changed it to "It attained..."
  • Sadomasochism is wikilinked twice in the lead
  • Why is Sexual fetishism wikilinked at the second occurrence in the lead?
Background and conception
  • Why not just place Ref#1 at the end of the first sentence?
Composition and lyrical interpretation
  • Not sure why this "(Some Great Reward, 1984)" is even needed?
  • sadomasochism is wikilinked three times in the article body (once in the previous section, once in this section, and once in the critical reception)
  • Consider un-linking Instrumentation.
  • Again not sure why all other instruments are wikilinked and not the synthesizers, guitar is a very common word btw.
  • "Only Girl (In the World), - is missing the end quote.
Remixes
  • Why isn't Spears' wikilinked here? She is only wikilined in the "Live performances" section.
Critical reception
  • hook (music) is wikilinked twice in this article (once in composition and once in this section)
  • Why isn't USA Today wikilinked?
Reception and ban
  • YouTube is wikilinked twice in this article (once in the previous section and once in this section)
  • I'm not sure if its okay to wikilink all relevant information if its already wikilined in the article. Can someone explain?
Copyright infringement lawsuits
  • "LaChapelle alleged that the video infringed upon eight of his photographs published in GQ, i-D, Australian Vogue, and elsewhere between 1997 and 2010." - However, the lead says Vouge Italia not Australian Vogue.
Live performances
  • Only Girl (In the World) is wikilinked twice in this article (once in the composition section and once on this section)
  • "received following the final of the seventh series of The X Factor, on December 11, 2010. " - do you mean "finale"?
  • We know who is Spears by this time, removed the wikilink and just write Spears

Hope for the best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 02:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extremely long FAC, with multiple opposes on multiple issues and no support after almost ten days. This article will have a better shot if it comes back fresh in a couple weeks, after all of the current opposers are satisfied. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 19:41, 20 January 2012 [49].

Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars edit

Nominator(s): Khanassassin (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... It meets FA criteria, plus it has also been through GA... Khanassassin (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC) - BTW, I'm also The IP User --193.111.221.60 (talk), who made the article a GA, and now also (hopefully) a FA... :)[reply]

Oppose: This nomination looks premature; the article was promoted to GA only on 17 January. FA criteria tend to be strictly enforced in the FAC review process, which among other things requires prose to be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". I have identified issues of grammar, spelling and punctuation in the brief lead section. I can see other points requiring similar attention in the main body of the article. Here are the lead points:-

  • The word "released" occurs three times in the first one-and-a half lines
  • "It has also been ported to the Mobile phone" - you should find better phrasing, and remove the capital from "Mobile"
  • "mid-90's": No apostrophe required (and better as "mid-1990s")
  • "The player assumes George Stobbart" doesn't make sense. Do you mean "The player assumes the identity of George Stobbart"?
  • "George Stobart" should be placed in quotes to emphasise his fictional character   Done
  • The hyphen after "George Stobart" should be either an ndash or an mdash, but punctuation with a comma would do as well
  • eyewitness" is one word
  • "while dining together" is too trivial a detail for the lead
  • "The game is serious in tone, but consist also of humor..." Spot the error
  • "diauloge"?
  • "The Game was spawned by a number of sequels..." This makes absolutely no sense. I assume the words "was" and "by" should be removed? If that is the case you will need to reorganise the next sentence ("Charles also led..." etc)
  • "Revolution released a remake in 2009" Who, or what, is "Revolution"?

Preparation for FAC usually involves a close copyedit from an editor who has a high degree of skill with prose. At present your best bet may be to withdraw this and renominate after a period of careful preparation. Brianboulton (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with the lead issues!   --Khanassassin (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see instructions at WT:FAC and avoid editing other editors' entries, please sign your entries, and templates cause errors in the FAC archives due to Wikipedia:Template limits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and suggest withdrawal. This is not nearly polished enough to be presented at FAC. A quick glance reveals many issues: Sasata (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • inconsistent placement of citations after punctuation
  • improper/inconsistent use of which/that
  • many short one or two sentences "paragraphs"
  • prose is not brilliant, nor of a professional standard. A small sampling:
  • "After writing her story up, her editor Ronnie tells her to drop it at which Nico becomes angry."
  • "Charles decided to contact him to suggest that he writes the music. Barrington then took the offer."
  • "So, he decided..."
  • "In edition to working on the visual references for the game,"
  • "App Spy praised the game's great looking visual presentation, excellent touch screen controls and challenging puzzle gameplay, and called it a must own game, even for newcomers to the genre, but stated that the hint system can make things too simple, and that the auto-save function isn't the greatest."
  • "Francis Rizo III of Video Game Talk stated that Broken Sword with its engagingly deep storyline, gorgeous art, fun writing, entertaining puzzles and terrific vocal cast, just raised the bar to a level that will be incredibly hard to meet for any game, and that people should buy it, as it is fun and its success may spur developers to take another look at this somewhat dormant genre, supplementing the wave of Wii ports with something new and original." is this a quote?


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 19:41, 20 January 2012 [50].

IPad edit

Nominator(s): -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has been a GA since June 2010 and has improved further since then and seems ready for the next stage now. Thanks in advance for your comments. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape search – The Lead might need revising slightly to avoid close paraphrasing with content on this website, [51] which has, "The iPad is particularly marketed as a platform for audio and visual media such as books, periodicals, movies, music, and games, as well as web content. At about 1.5 pounds (680 grams), its size and weight are between those of most contemporary smartphones and laptop computers. Apple sold 3 million of the devices in 80 days after the release." There is also some duplicated content here [52], which is not a concern because although the text is not attributed to Wikipedia, it contains the same internal links and has clearly been copied from our article. Graham Colm (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the first link if you expand it "This page has been adapted from the Wikipedia entry of December 9, 2010." - that said I don't think they've done a particularly good job of attributing the content. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry I missed the small print. Best of luck with the rest of the FAC. Graham Colm (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - I missed it too at first :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclined to oppose, sorry. Sampling the "usage" section, there are quite a few problems. Generally, the section is very choppy, jumping from random factoids to unsourced general statements about the uses to which the Ipad can be put. Some specific issues:
  • Many colleges and universities have also used the iPad. Source? How do they use it?
  • Youngstown State University in Youngstown, Ohio, began offering three-hour rentals for the iPad for its Fall 2010 semester, in addition to rentals for the Amazon Kindle, laptop computers, and Flip cameras. Why is one university significant enough to be mentioned? The source cited is not independent, so it's not like this is an obviously notable factoid that's been picked up in the news.
    • Removed the superfluous content - leaving the bit about the iPad itself as some content along those lines seems worthwhile - although it needs rewording. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the healthcare field, iPads and iPhones have been used to help hospitals manage their supply chain. Source? The only source for this paragraph looks spammy.[53]
  • During the 2010 Major League Baseball free agent season, the agent for the player Carl Crawford was sending iPads to prospective teams interested in Mr. Crawford. Significance? "Mr Crawford"?
  • "NFL" is wikilinked twice in one paragraph and never spelt out. Our readers aren't not all Americans.
  • In sports, new technology proposes the viewer to choose its alternative angles while watching the game. ??
  • The iPad is able to support many music creation applications in addition to the iTunes music playback software. These include sound samplers, guitar and voice effects processors, sequencers for synthesized sounds and sampled loops, virtual synthesizers and drum machines, theremin-style and other touch responsive instruments, drum pads and many more. Source? These two sentences read like an ad.
    • I'm pretty sure this is true, I'll look for a source/do a rewrite. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • During 2011 the iPad has shown popularity among the protestors in the December 2011 political protests in Russia. (1) Tense problems "has shown"; (2) convoluted wording; (3) what's the significance? Were the protesters using the Ipad to help their cause, or just playing video games? --Mkativerata (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed, thinking about it again it seems pretty superfluous. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I commend the work that's gone into this article, but I don't feel it currently meets the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:

  • Too many citations in the lead - per WP:LEAD, most of this material should instead be cited in the article body
  • {{deadlink}} and {{cn}} need to be addressed
    • I thought I'd fixed the deadlinks yesterday, but they seem to have come back from the dead! Re-fixed. The citation needed on the discontinued date has been backed up by the announcement of the next model. Will that do? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very short paragraphs and subsections break up the flow of text
    • Other than the 'Recognition' section this is fixed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation formatting should be more consistent - for example current FN 147
  • There's a redlinked image - has it been deleted, or is the name incorrect?
  • File:1stGen-iPad-HomeScreen.jpg needs to identify the copyright holder
  • File:IPad_in_Case.jpg: what is the copyright status of the onscreen image?
    • Switched to a new picture with no on-screen image. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MOS issues - overlinking, bracketed ellipses, etc
  • Use of sources of questionable reliability, for example ifixit and macrumors. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the sources, ifixit has been used by CNN, BBC and the New York Times. I think that makes them reliable. With the other issues I'll take a look. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but in this case I don't agree. The site's description is "the repair manual you can edit", making it analogous to a wiki. Wikipedia itself has also been cited by the press (see study), but that doesn't make it a reliable source. Do you have another argument to support ifixit? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll have a think - I didn't think it was user editable. I may well be able to use another source which will save the bother. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Don't mix % and percent. P. S. Burton (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will try and have a good look through the more difficult issues tomorrow, but otherwise I am busy this weekend so won't be able to take a look then :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I did a double-take at the initial cap here; glad to see the article title doesn't do it.
  • "a line of tablet computers". Is there a more recognisable word than "line"? I had to think for a second to work it out right at the start.
  • Is all of the boldface necessary in the infobox (which is rather long, partly because new lines are taken so generously; the infobox is also rather wide).
  • What does this mean? "Released November 10, 2011; 2 months ago".
  • MOSNUM says to use the leading zero (.34, etc). I think it should be "0.50", too.
  • "which can connect to HSPA or EV-DO data networks and on to the Internet." I'm wondering about the "and on to the".
  • "a homage", surely, not "an homage".
  • "3" wraps to "million" at my width. Possibly a non-breaking space?
  • "the iPad officially launched in China"—it launched what?
  • Try to avoid with + noun + -ing: "The device was initially popular with 300,000 iPads being sold on their first day of availability." ... why not just "The device was initially popular: 300,000 were sold on their first day of availability." Or you could drop the slightly obvious first clause.
  • "By May 3, 2010, Apple had sold a million iPads,[50] this was in half the time it took Apple to sell the same number of original iPhones." This is a comma splice.
  • "first generation iPads"—hyphen required.
  • "It includes front and back cameras"—"It" doesn't back-refer to "dual core Apple A5", I think.
  • "United States, as well as to United States"—could the second US be "American"?
  • PS, MOSNUM says to space the multiplication sign: "243×190×13.4 mm".
    • Are you sure about this? Its currently done using a template Template:convert/3, so I'd have to ask for the template to be changed if this is the case, but WP:MOSNUM seems a little unclear. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to where I've read thus far. Tony (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose sorry for doing this, but I feel there are several outstanding issues. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please check the titles of FN 15 and 38 for capitalisation and consistency.
  • FN 80 is dead.
    • Removed, looking at other sources it doesn't appear to be true. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check the ordering of authors' names for consistency ("Last name, First name" vs "First name last name").
  • The last two footnotes are yet to be completed.
  • Retrieval dates missing from FN 35–37, 97–99, 105, 130, 173–176, 187 and 190.
  • Make sure you have commas after dates, such as "In April 2010, the New York Times...."
  • Please italicise all newpapers' names.
  • Ref missing for "NewsCorp created an iPad-only publication, The Daily, in February 2011." Same with "The iPad can be charged by a standalone power adapter ("wall charger") also used for iPods and iPhones, and a 10 W charger is included with the iPad."
  • Alt text should be added, as per MOS.
    • According to the alt text tool all the images have that now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what the intended difference between File:IPad-02.jpg and File:Steve Jobs with the Apple iPad no logo (cropped).jpg is. Aren't they the same generation?


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 19:41, 20 January 2012 [54].

24: The Game edit

Nominator(s): Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 21:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the criteria. I have gone through the article and made some small changes. I am not the most significant contributor to the article by far, however think I can make the necessary changes to have this article promoted. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 21:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

—Andrewstalk 22:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support based on criterion 3 only —Andrewstalk 05:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now. This is a solid article, but I don't think that it's of FA quality yet. In particular, some of the prose needs work and the final section of the article is unpolished. My comments are below, and as a disclaimer I should note that I'm one of the few people in the English-speaking world who've never watched an episode of 24! — Nick-D 23:01, December 29, 2011 UTC — continues after insertion below
    • "The Game was nominated for a BAFTA award for its screenplay elements." - you should note that it didn't win
      • It is noted in the reception section that it didn't win. Does it need to be noted in the lede as well?
        • Probably not - it is self evident, I guess. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "including 3 movies" - replace '3' with 'three'
    • Was the cover system really 'unique'? I'm pretty sure that I played FPS well before 2006 which included functions to crouch behind objects. The reference provided doesn't say this was 'unique' to this game.
      • Fixed. Yeah, I couldn’t see it anywhere either, so I’ve changed the sentence to "Most of the game's missions take place in third-person shooting format, combined with the use of a cover system". Does that work for you?
    • Most of the para which begins with "There are several missions in which the player controls a motor vehicle." is unreferenced
    • The first sentence of the 'Minigames' section should introduce the topic. "With the exception of the interrogation minigame, they are all computer puzzles" doesn't really introduce the fact that the game includes minigames
    • Given that the use of torture in the interrogation scenes in 24 was controversial, was torture included in the game's interrogation minigames?
    • "24: The Game takes place 6 months after Day 2 and two and a half years before Day 3." - I suspect that this makes sense to the people who've seen the TV show, but it flies over my head. Am I right in thinking that Day 2 and 3 are the second and third seasons of the show?
    • "Section one revolves around an attack on Jim Prescott" - likewise, who this is needs to be explained
    • "News that many of the sound effects and noises from the TV series would be used in the game was also mentioned in the announcement." - the use of 'news' in the context of a press release is a bit odd. I'd suggest turning this around to something like "The announcement also stated that sound effects and noises from the TV series would be used in the game"
    • "Speculation about 24: The Game was initially positive following the announcement that it would be developed by Sony Computer Entertainment's Cambridge Studio." - "speculation ... was initially positive" isn't good grammar, and why was the use of the Cambridge studio seen as being a positive?
    • "the fall of 2005" - which is spring here in the Southern hemisphere... I'd suggest changing this to 'the northern fall of 2005' or similar
    • Was the game released outside North America and Europe? I'm pretty sure that I saw it here in Australia.
      • It was released in Australia as well. I've added that in with this edit.
    • Given that almost all computer games based on TV shows and movies have been disappointing, were expectations really 'high'? This also isn't referenced.
    • "was also liked" - this is a bit awkward
    • "although fans of the series may find that the viewpoints, motives and reasoning of the villains isn't covered well." - ditto
    • "Voice acting was generally popular" - this is cited to a single review, which obviously doesn't support this claim about the overall response to the game
    • "well liked" - also awkward
      • Fixed, changed to "well received" here but the structure of the reception section is a bit off (per comments made here) so I think I'll restructure the reception section similar to Final Fantasy X. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 07:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is looking better, but there are still several instances of comments about the general reception to aspects of the game being cited to a single reference Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The soundtrack and musical score were singled out for particular praise" is cited to one website that appears to do nothing but review soundtracks, and so doesn't support the statement that this was "singled out for particular praise"
    • "The music was recorded using an orchestra, while the music in the TV series was mostly synthesized." - shouldn't be in the 'reception' section
    • "The use of licensed assets in these ways proved to be the game's main popular point, with almost all gameplay sections heavily criticized." - this is unreferenced, and 'licensed assets' is jargon.
    • "Sniper variants of this fared better." - what the 'this' is here is a bit unclear
    • "The vehicle sections were also disappointing, with physics and vehicle handling being rated poorly." - this is cited to only a single review, so doesn't support the implication that these elements of the game were generally poorly rated
    • 'artificial intelligence' is linked the second time it appears in the article, and is abbreviated as AI the first time
    • "The use of artificial intelligence in these sections were heavily criticized" - again, this is referenced to only a single review, so doesn't really support the statement that this was "heavily criticized".
    • " Interrogation scenes were, in contrast, well liked, with reviewers finding the dialogue during these scenes entertaining" - this statement about 'reviewers' is also referenced to a single review.
    • Is any information available about the game's sales and if it made a profit?
      • Had a look in LexisNexis, there's probably stuff there but I couldn't find anything. Couldn't see anything in Google archives either. I think the inclusion of "24" in the search makes things tougher...not sure what to do there. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 01:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • This might not be publicly available. I presume that you've checked the company which published this game's annual report? (which should be somewhere in the corporate section of its website). Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have any sequels been proposed or made? Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No sequels were made for the game, no, and none were proposed. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 00:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Part of the reason for me bringing this to FAC is because I think it meets the criteria, but know that I others who are much more skilled in article writing will pick up issues, so I can address them, which I hope to do. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 23:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, it seems like this article is a bit short on sources. Of the 21 currently included, 3 are from the game's publisher, and four more are a game walk-through. Any chance more sources are available? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had a look for more sources and had a fair bit of difficulty finding anything, even in LexisNexis. I think it might be due to the "24" bit, searching for 24 will include dates as well. Kinda came up dry. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 01:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any update on this? Were you able to find additional sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not much luck, no. Most of what I found were game reviews, which I am adding in the reception section, but that's about it. Just to add, I apologise for the delay in attending to some of these items. I've been crazy busy these last few weeks, but I intend to have these items fixed over the next few days. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 03:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 19:41, 20 January 2012 [55].

Samuel Colt edit

Nominator(s): Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... "God made men, Samuel Colt made them equal". I found this article in poor shape, it was loaded with misconceptions, terrible prose and poor sourcing. I put in a lot of work on it, improving the prose and adding references and citations. I took a break from it to work on a few supporting pieces including his company and a biography of his brother John C. Colt that I will bring to FAC if this is successful. Recently took it to GA status and feel it is ready for FAC. Most people know Colt as the inventor of the revolver, but he was much more than that. He was America's first Industrialist Tycoon; he built a company that has continually stayed in business for almost 2 centuries; in his lifetime he created or perfected the assembly line method of production, introduced the advertising phrase "new and improved", used art and corporate gifts as marketing tools, sought better working conditions for his employees and bullied, bribed, bartered, and worked his way to the top of his field. His life's motto was"If I can’t be first, I won’t be second in anything. The little reputation I have gained for originality of thought and conception has grown out of the impression made by that simple adage and however inferior in wealth I may be to many who surround me I would not exchange for their treasure the satisfaction I have in knowing I have done what never before has been accomplished by man. " Thank you.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media review Interesting fella

—Andrewstalk 04:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I fixed the missing infoon the first 2, I will look into requesting a touch up on Walker's picture, I might have a source for that artist on the factory, but I cannot remember where I saw it, should not take more than a day or 2. I attributed the 2 links, let me know if you have any other comcerns and thanks again for the media review. PS, if you think he's got an interesting story, check out the brother's article at John C. Colt.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the armory picture from 1857 is an illustration from a now defunct magazine that never credited its illustrators. I submitted Walker's pirtrait to the photo lab, thanks I never knew we had such a resource.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that portrait of Walker looks fantastic now! Good job, happy to support. —Andrewstalk 22:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support on criterion 3 only —Andrewstalk 22:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Oppose. Hi Mike, welcome back to FAC. The problem is that there are so many little problems that I won't be able to fix them all in the two hours I generally devote to copyediting at FAC. Running through quickly, "william Marcy and President James K Polk" (uppercase, missing period), "US" vs. "U.S." (be consistent ... "US" is a little better at FAC these days), "Hartford Connecticut" (lots of these ... you need a comma after the city, and if there's no other punctuation after the state, another comma after the state ... WT:Checklist has links to style guides on this point), "His second attempt making mines for naval use" (it wasn't his second attempt making mines ... it was his second attempt, making mines. You need commas before non-restrictive clauses), "Colt's revolvers saw use" (oops, I see someone has fixed this already ... in general, avoid "saw" in this sense, except when shifting the reader's focus to a particular time period ... "the 1940s saw the introduction of ..." is sometimes okay), "Colt's innovative contributions to the weapons industry have been described by arms historian James E. Serven as 'events ...' " (a contribution isn't usually an event), "double barreled rifle" (hyphen), "districtscuttled" (oops). There's no requirement, of course, that you have to be good at catching stuff like this yourself ... many great writers aren't ... as long as you can find someone to do it. You can try listing it at WP:FACG, although the Guild will probably take a few weeks to get to it. - Dank (push to talk) 20:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your honest comments, I fixed almost all of these. Sometimes I think we need a spellchecker type of tool built in here or some type of a gui to make it easier to add wikilinks after the writing. I copied and pasted the article into MS Word and caught what you pointed out and a few others.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice work by you and by User:MathewTownsend on this one. I should be able to get at least a significant chunk of it done, now, I'll get started. - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that in some cases, my changes might shift the meaning, if I think I'm probably right and if the tighter language seems necessary to meet FAC standards ... so please explain or revert if I get the meaning wrong. For instance, I shortened "Colt is credited as being the first industrialist to successfully make use of the assembly line method of production." to "The first industrialist to make successful use of the assembly line, Colt ...". (Too many sentences were starting with "Colt", for one thing.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate the changes. Often I get put off by my own writing for that reason, I like seeing alternatives.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a lot of fiddling with the lead, feel free to tweak or ask why I did what I did; FAC standards for the lead are a little tough. Skimming, it looks like I can leave most of the rest of the article intact. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While on this voyage, Colt made a wooden model of a pepperbox revolver.": This will be confusing for some readers, since you're saying he came up with the idea of a revolver on this trip, but also made a model of a revolver that already existed. (Understood that you're talking about a different kind of revolver, but many readers won't know this.) Not sure how to resolve this. - Dank (push to talk) 16:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I clarified while keeping it simple, outside of wiki I write for a mainstream news source and for the firearms and cutlery magazines. I find if I go too simple for the gun magazines, the readers don't like it; whereas if I don't give enough detail in my msm piece about guns, how they work, klaws, etc..those readers don't know what I am talking about! Colt's pepperbox had a unique mainspring which I explained in the article, then later went on to say after the "Dr Coult lectures" that he abandoned the multiple barrel idea of the pepperbox.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When Colt returned to the United States in 1832": Had he been out of the country, or just at sea? - Dank (push to talk) 16:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Corvo took him to India and back, I believe that is why he added the "of Calcutta" to his Nitrous Oxide tour.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was during this time": During which time, when he was talking about cholera or when he was lecturing? - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He was a 19-year-old kid lecturing about nitrous and was so convincing in his "lectures" that they thought he was a real doctor who had studied medicine, so when the cholera broke out they turned to him for advice.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in how multi-author sources are notated
  • FN 26: formatting
  • Foster-Harris or Forster-Harris? Schecter or Schechter? Check spelling for consistency
  • Some of your Bibliography entries are missing dates
  • Use a consistent date format
  • Look for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • FN 54-55: punctuation
  • FN 55: date
  • FN 57: publisher, page?
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations for books, and if so what information is included
  • No citations to Bern, Edmund, Grant, Kelner
  • See also should go before references
  • Can you justify the use of Kelner wrt WP:SCHOLARSHIP
  • Don't need page number in Rohan bibliography entry. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I believe I have addressed them all.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good job so far. There are still a few inconsistencies. For example, compare FNs 21 and 22 - notice the punctuation change? Where in Ohio was Carey published? Where was Klepper published? Doubled period in FN 44, hyphen in FN 10, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well slap me twice and call me a bastard! Looks like that was the change in templates from cite book to citation; I never knew that! I fixed the locations, one was a spelling error in the parameter for the template the other an oversight. I think I fixed the hyphen issue, but I'll check for more. I used to have a character map with the dash but it looks like it's gone now.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More: why include database name in FN 11 but not 13? Why is there a location in FN 53 but not 47? Why are Roe and Hounshell using the {{citation}} template when other sources use {{cite book}}? Why does Hounshell include "USA" when other US-based sources do not? Why does Lehto's middle initial warrant a period when his coauthor's does not? Where was Lendler published? Why does Dickens include publisher and location when other journal articles do not? Why is Roe's reprint state abbreviated when other states are not? Why are Serven's initials spaced when others are unspaced? Where was Tucker published? Why are Further reading states abbreviated when citation states are not? How many sourcing questions could a woodchuck ask if it wasn't so busy chucking wood? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fix these, short answer: patent refs (11 and 13)were put in by some schizo 3 years and 4 months ago, well I don't know if he is a schizo, but he used 2 different ways of putting the same type of ref in. Hounshell is an old ref that is in a template somewhere and at least 3 articles link to that...maybe I'll ditch it, I guess if we're quibbling over the spacings of letters and periods after initials in middle names that I'm not half the retard or a "hack writer", like the rumors suggest. I've never seen a woodchuck actually chuck wood, nor have I seen a rock chucker actually chuck rocks. :P --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, stupid human tricks.

Comments

  • Maybe it's just my ignorance, but "Like most Democrats of his time, he did not see slavery as a moral issue" seems to need a citation.
  • "Colt was the first American manufacturer to use art as a marketing tool." Seems overly broad to me and is certainly in need of a citation, especially considering that you're using 'art' in the sense of decoration on goods. Seems to me that this could include practices back to when people started bartering.
  • It was more than that, certainly in the presentation type guns, but art in this sense means hiring George Catlin to specifically produce artworks that prominently featured his guns in the hands of big game hunters and Western heroes. Much like companies paying film makers for product placement today.
  • "The first industrialist to make successful use of the assembly line" seems in need of citation.
  • It is cited in the article, if you want me to cite items in the lede section, I'll do it, but most FAC reviewers tell me not to do that, unless something changed since my last FAC.
  • No offense intended, but overall comes across as a bit POV admiring. None the less a solid job. Doug (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • None taken, I don't particularly agree with that assessment as in many ways Colt was a prick. Maybe I just suck at writing and the good parts outshine the bad.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

  • Wording: "Having some money saved and keeping ...". Starting with "having ..." seems slangy to me.
  • Wording: "Colt's manufacturing methods, directed at beating his competition,....". I would think that every aspect of his business is aimed at besting the competition; so that "directed at .." seems to be superflous. Maybe better to say something like "Striving to gain a competitive edge, Colt adopted/invented new manufacturing techniques ..."
  • Wording: " Colt set out to establish a factory in Europe and chose London." Probably better to explicitly finish with "... as the location of .."
  • Wording: "The factory's machines mass-produced its parts that were completely ..." Eliminating the "its" may read better.
  • Wording: "Samuel Colt died from gout" . My ears would prefer "of gout" but that may be just me.
  • Confusing: "Colt historian William Edwards wrote that Samuel Colt had married Caroline Henshaw ...". I cannot make heads or tails of what is being said. The child was Samuels, and there was a cover-up marriage to John? The first sentence of this paragr should plainly state the controversy ... subsequent sentences should give background/detail.
  • Cite needed: "Colt was the first American manufacturer to use art as a marketing tool when he hired Catlin to prominently display Colt firearms in his paintings. ". That sounds hard to believe, so you should include the name of the source that makes that assertion in the prose (per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV ). E.g. "Historian Joe Smith contends that Colt was the first ...".
  • Background needed: "Apart from gifts and bribes, Colt employed an effective marketing ..." The issue of bribes appears very abruptly here. They need to be identified and explained before this sentence. There is a mention of bribes far above re patent extensions; but that is not applicable to this marketing context.
  • Reword: "Colt felt that bad press was just as important as long as his name and his revolvers received mention. " "as long as" is slangy here. Perhaps better would be "Colt did not object to poor press coverage, provided that his revolvers were mentioned."
  • Legacy section: contains sentence: "Before his death, each barrel was stamped: "Address Col. Samuel Colt, New York, US America", or a variation using a London address. Colt did this as New York and London were major cosmopolitan cities and he retained an office in New York at 155 Broadway where he based his salesmen.". Two issues (1) this seems to be unrelated to Legacy: move into an earlier section; and (2) The phrase "Before his death,.." implies the barrels were changed after his death. To what?
  • Legacy again: Much of the material in the Legacy section is related to things during his life. Such as "Apart from gifts and bribes, Colt employed an effective marketing program which comprised sales promotion, publicity, product sampling, and public relations ..." and "When he opened the London armory he posted a 14 foot sign ...". Move all that material to an earlier section.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 19:41, 20 January 2012 [56].

William S. Clark edit

Nominator(s): Historical Perspective (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article meets the criteria. Since reaching GA status, the article has had a subsequent peer review and, as a result, further improvements have been made and the article further expanded. I believe it is just about ready for FA. Given William S. Clark's international importance, his significance to both the history of Massachusetts and Japan, I believe his article would make a unique addition to FA biographical articles. Historical Perspective (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ranges should use endashes
  • Be consistent in how "quoted in" citations are punctuated, how initials are punctuated, etc - lots of punctuation inconsistencies
  • No citations to Konishi
  • FNs 47 is missing full bibliographic info
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publisher location, and if so what info
  • Konishi needs date and pages. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I believe I've rectified the above.
  • Inserted ndashes. If you see any I missed, please let me know.
  • Fixed punctuation inconsistencies in citations.
  • Added back the Konishi citation...it somehow got dropped along the way.
  • Added a citation template for FN 47.
  • Added publisher info for a couple citations in which it was missing. Due to use of various citation templates (journal, web, news, book, etc.) the publisher info does appear in different formats and may appear inconsistent, but I prefer to stick with the templates.
  • Fixed Konishi reference.
Thanks again for the comments. If you see anything further, please let me know. Historical Perspective (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixes, but there are still some issues here - see for example FNs 60 and 65. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Got those. Thanks. Historical Perspective (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Interesting article, but I spotted a fair amount of prose issues throughout. Here are some examples; no guarantee that this is a comprehensive list.

  • Education and early career: "The program was not successful, however, and it became clear to Clark that a new type of institution would be necessary if agricultural education were to be taught effectively." "were" → "was"? Not sure whether education can be considered a plural word; then again, I don't edit such articles so I'm not sure.
  • Family: Why is the link to William Richards presented under both William and Clarissa Richards' names?
  • Civil War: Period needed after "The gun was the first artillery piece captured by the Union Army during that engagement".
  • Massachusetts Agricultural College: "The proceeds from the sale of the land was to support the establishment...". "was" → "were". Watch for singular/plural conflicts like this one.
  • "Clark resigned his commission in the army one month after the MAC voted into existence by the Massachusetts Legislature." Missing "was" before "voted".
  • "Clark became president of the college in 1867 and immediately appointed a faculty, completed a construction plan, and in the fall of 1867 MAC admitted its first class of 49 students." The last part of this sentence ("and in the fall of 1867...") doesn't flow that well with the rest when you read it in its entirety. You could try some minor work that involves a semi-colon, or even split it off into a small sentence.
  • What is intended to cite Clark's resignation year? If it's the same cite used for the quote in the same sentence, I see no harm in moving the reference to the end of that sentence.
  • "and also a member of other scientific societies." The word "also" is basically redundant and doesn't serve much purpose with "and" already there.
  • Japan: Redundancy from one sentence to another in "who enrolled after Clark's departure. In 1877, shortly after Clark's departure".
  • Later career: "Clark became interested in a scientific floating college proposed by James O. Woodruff. Woodruff's...". Again, some repetition between sentences that is best avoided.
  • The part that goes "made for an unfortunate combination that would lead to disaster" is laden with POV-ish statements. Can it be toned down a little?
  • Shouldn't "law suits" be one word?
  • "had mismanaged affairs at the company's New York office resulting in firm's collapse." Close would be better as "resulting in the firm's collapse." Giants2008 (Talk) 18:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for these comments. I am a little buried right now with the post-holiday deluge at work, but I will get to these changes as soon as I can. Thanks again. Historical Perspective (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Sorry, but it's been over a week since this comment and no work has been done on the article. At a time when FAC is pushing 50 noms, we can't afford to leave stale nominations here, particularly when prose issues exist in them. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had actually blocked out this morning to get to this. Working on it now. My comments will be up within the hour. Historical Perspective (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, these corrections have all been made. With the exception of the first. "Were" is correct as it is in the subjunctive tense. I am sorry for the delay in responding...a couple work crises have prevented me from even thinking about Wikipedia recently. But things have smoothed out and I should be able to devote appropriate attention to this nomination now. I hope you might therefore reconsider your oppose. Best, Historical Perspective (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose reconsidered above. I still would like to see one or two others take a look at the writing since one editor can't catch every little nit-picky point. If others indicate that the prose is okay, I intend to support this. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - mostly relating to the time Clark spent in Japan.

  • Can we have a photo of the statue of Clark on the Hitsujigaoka observation hill? This is an iconic image in Japan not only for Clark, but for the whole of Sapporo. Have a look at this Google Image search for "クラーク" (Clark) for a taste of what I mean. There are already a few images on Commons: [57][58].
  • The "oyatoi" in "oyatoi gaikokujin" isn't a proper noun (it just means "hired"), so it should be lower-case.
  • Can we have a bracketed figure in meters after "at an elevation of 3,200 feet"?
  • The origin of "Satemo" as a Japanese expression could do with a little clarification. In the source it only says that Clark thought it translated to something like "all right", not that this was actually a rough translation. In one of its senses it could have this meaning, as in "all right, let's start" - a general intention to do something. However, it also seems to have a couple of different meanings, and the "mo" isn't often appended in speech today. It might be best just to say that Clark thought that was the translation, rather than what it actually is.
  • About "the slogan is included in most Japanese schoolbooks with a biography of Clark" - this is ambiguous at the moment. Does this mean that if a Japanese textbook has a biography of Clark, then most of them include this slogan? It could read that most textbooks for every subject in every school year throughout the Japanese school system have both a biography of Clark and include this phrase. The latter doesn't seem likely to me, but I do think the phrase is famous enough that it could be included in multiple textbooks for multiple subjects for multiple school years. I'm not aware of the actual extent, though, so this could do with clarification.
  • When mentioning the Sapporo Independent Christian Church, could you also mention that it was a forerunner to the non-church movement? I found a source that mentions this too.

Also, if you need any help with Japanese-language sources or with local research, I may be able to assist. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 17:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the comments. I particularly appreciate your perspective relating to Japan and the Japanese language. Responses to your comments follow:
  • The statue of Clark in Hokkaido is indeed an iconic one and it was once included in the article. However, when the article was peer reviewed, the image was deemed to have a copyright issue as it is a photo of relatively new artwork. So I removed it. You can see that peer review here. Perhaps it might be worth submitting the question to the Commons help desk and seeing what they think. I will pursue that.
  • Took care of oyatoi.
  • Added a meter conversion.
  • Reworded the "Satemo" sentence along the lines of your suggestion.
  • The sentence about textbooks was confusing, I agree. The ambiguity was derived, I think, from my paraphrasing Maki's statement. So, I added a quote and let Maki speak for himself as to what appears in Japanese textbooks. I also simplified the statement by saying that "many" textbooks carry this information about Clark, avoiding, I hope, the implication that he is covered in every book.
  • Kanzō is mentioned in the Japan section and I added a reference and wikilink to the non-church movement in that section. Also the citation you provided. Thank you for that.
Best, Historical Perspective (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shame about the Clark statue - after reading the peer review I have to agree, though. Those Clark statue photos should probably also be removed from Commons, unless we can get permission from the copyright holder. I found out that the sculptor of the Hitsujigaoka statue was Tandō Saka (kanji: 坂 坦道, hiragana: さか たんどう） from this link, and then from his studio website I found out that he died in 1998. Judging from the Commons page linked to in the peer review, it looks like the statue will become public domain in 2048, but for now I assume the copyright is held by his relatives.
Also, thanks for the various fixes - I like the way you've rephrased things. I only have one more thing to add, relating to the Sapporo Independent Christian Church. My main reason for bringing up the non-church movement was because the mention of the Sapporo Independent Christian Church in the "legacy" section doesn't give much context or links to further reading. I've been looking around at some sources, though, and the church looks notable (if not all that famous), so I think we can just create an article on it and put the relevant context in there. I'll go ahead and create a stub - would you mind linking to it? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 20:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, created the stub at Sapporo Independent Christian Church. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 22:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the wikilink to your new article. Thanks. I also got an answer back from the folks at Wikimedia Commons. Unfortunately, the pictures of the statue definitely cannot be used. Too bad. But the law is the law, I suppose. If interested, you can see the copyright discussion here. Historical Perspective (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Independently of this discussion, I created deletion request for various statues of him, and found this page because a person posted a link to this page from the deletion request. You might wish to comment there. For your information, since the date of death is now known, I have added some wiki code to the images on Japanese Wikipedia so that ja:Template:屋外美術 automatically is replaced by ja:Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons in 2049. This will also strip ja:Template:写真の著作物 from the licence statements on Japanese Wikipedia in 2049. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I will add comments here as I go through the article.

  • Any reason not to put the date of birth in the body of the article? Per WP:LEAD it should be in the body if it's in the lead, plus this way the source will be apparent.
  • "Upon his return to Amherst in 1852": this gives us two "in 1852"s in quick succession. Could we change the second occurrence to "He returned to Amherst that year ..."?
  • A couple more comments about the second and third paragraphs of the "Education and early career" sections. Can we get dates for when the Division of Science was formed, and when it became unsuccessful? And what does it mean to say that it was unsuccessful? Was it dissolved? Do we need "At Amherst College, he ..." when the context is clearly Amherst College? Does Browne give more information about Clarke's search for support for an agricultural college? As it stands that sentence is disconnected from the narrative in the previous paragraph; the dates aren't precise enough to even know which came first.
  • Looking around on Google Books for sources, I ran across The history of the town of Amherst, Massachusetts, Volume 1 by Edward Wilton Carpenter and Charles Frederick Morehouse -- I don't know if you've already looked at this and discarded it, but I thought I'd pass it along.
  • You mention a memorial to Clark in Amherst; any chance of a picture? I will probably be in Amherst myself some time this year so I can take a picture then, if no other option is available.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the comments. I've addressed them as follows:
  • I've added his date of birth to the first section and supplied a citation.
  • I fixed the "1852" duplication as you suggested.
  • I've supplied dates for the Division of Science and explained that it was discontinued due to lack of enrollment. Supplied a citation for that as well. I edited the final sentences a bit to explain that his involvement in the agricultural education movement came after the dissolution of the Amherst Division of Science and that he found it necessary to work through organizations beyond Amherst to further this effort. I think this better ties the Amherst paragraph to the short paragraph about his involvement in agricultural boards.
    That's much better. However, I think you could now absorb that last paragraph into the previous one. How about "It became clear to Clark that a new type of institution would be necessary if agricultural education were to be taught effectively. He was a member of the Massachusetts Board of Agriculture from 1859 to 1861 and was the president of the Hampshire Board of Agriculture from 1860 to 1861, and later from 1871 to 1872, and he used his position in these organizations to seek support for an agricultural college in Massachusetts." The only thing this would omit is "sought involvement"; do the sources say that he specifically sought these positions in order to advocate? If so, more tweaking would be needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a picture of the Memorial, but I think per copyright laws it cannot be used...unfortunately. The artist is still living.
    I keep forgetting that the US doesn't have freedom of panorama; it amazes me every time I'm reminded of it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if these changes look good and if I can address anything further. Thanks again! Historical Perspective (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I ran out of time today; I will come back to this tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have combined the paragraphs as you suggested. Thank you, I think that reads much better now. The sources are clear that he used these organizations to advocate for an agricultural college. And while we might infer that he sought involvement specifically for that purpose, the sources do not really spell it out that way. So, I think it reads properly the way you've suggested it. Historical Perspective (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments. I've read through a couple more times, and although I have some nitpicks with the prose, my main concern is that the article seems quite short. The Maki biography (from what I can see of it on Google) seems fairly detailed, and I wonder if more could be brought in from that source. I looked through it to see if I could find examples of material that would be helpful. How about mentioning Maki's suggestion that the time in London in 1850, and particularly the visit to the Linnaean Society, were instrumental in cementing his interest in botany? Or mentioning that he also studied mineralogy and German when he was in Göttingen? Or the topic of his dissertation? Or his work for the fundraising committees and library fund? Perhaps not all these points are worth mentioning; I understand that you have to exercise some selectivity in choosing from the sources. Still, I am concerned about the comprehensiveness of the article. Do you feel that it could be usefully expanded, given the sources you have? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 19:41, 20 January 2012 [59].

1740 Batavia massacre edit

Nominator(s): Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it fully meets the criteria. This is my first featured article nomination, although I have participated as a reviewer in several others. This article is about an important event in Indonesian history, one that led to an all-out war throughout Java and caused tensions between Chinese Indonesians and native Indonesians that are still felt today; it represents a good balance of Dutch, English, and Indonesian sources. I would like to give heartfelt thanks to Drmies for his help with the Dutch sources and users Ohconfucius and Mark Arsten for their help copyediting. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The links on FNs 53 and 57 are not working correctly
  • be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations, and if so how these are formatted
  • Don't mix different types of citation templates - standardize on either citation or the cite family
  • Be consistent in whether initials are spaced or unspaced
  • All ranges should use endashes. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I like history articles, particularly those that deal with events of which I have absolutely no prior knowledge, so I will enjoy reading this. Meanwhile, here are some prose issues from the lead:

  • I suggest "activated" rather than "called into force", which is clumsy just after "deadly force".
  • Full stop rather than semicolon after "50 Dutch soldiers".
  • "In response the Dutch sent over 1,800 troops and supporting units, leading to the Chinese populace being stripped of all weapons and put under curfew." First, by "sent over" do you mean "dispatched", or "sent more than"? I suspect the former, but this should be clarified. Secondly, there is an unnecessary lapse into passive voice. Suggest: "In response the Dutch [dispatched] 1,800 troops and supporting units, who stripped the Chinese populace of their weapons and imposed a curfew."
  • "called another meeting of the Council" - no previous mention of an earlier meeting, and what is this "Council"?
  • What is "Kali Besar"?
  • "...until Valckenier called more forcefully for a cease of hostilities on 22 October". I think you probably mean "until, on 22 October, Valckenier called more forcefully for a cease of hostilities".
  • "The massacre is generally agreed to have killed 10,000 ethnic Chinese; only 600 to 3,000 survived." This is expressed a little vaguely for an encyclopedia article, and is also oddly worded; the massacre is the killing, not the means of it. I would suggest something more definitive, e.g. "Historians have reckoned that the massacre resulted in around 10,000 ethnic Chinese deaths. Estimates of the number who survived vary between 600 and about 3,000".
  • "...is credited for the etymology of several areas in Jakarta." This should be stated rather more plainly, and I'm not sure about "credited" in this context.

I'll read the rest over the next few days (in between the cigars and brandy), and will add further comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I instituted most of the changes you suggested, but for the curfew etc. I did a different rephrasing to make the meaning clearer. Thank you for your comments, and enjoy the brandy! Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Further comment: Sorry, although I found the subject-matter interesting, the prose needs quite a lot of attention, especially in the "Aftermath" section which is very confused at times. This is disappointing, since the article has been through GA and peer review. Here is a selection of the problems I found, reading through:-

Background
  • You have linked "natives", but you need to say "native Indonesians" in the text, rather that making readers use a link to find out who these natives were.
  • As Indonesia was not independent at the time, I feel uncomfortable using "Indonesians" in that sentence; there was no "Indonesia", and the word wasn't even coined until the 19th century.
  • OK, but you had better amend "1,594 Dutch and Indonesian forces" in your text. And perhaps "During the early years of the Dutch colonisation of Indonesia" is maybe suspect, too? Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, changed.
  • "extort" is a transitive verb, so it can't be used as you have done. People can't be extorted; "extortion" is something done to them. I suggest you change "extorted" to "exploited"
Isn't it intransitive verbs that cannot be used in the passive voice? Either way, changed.
  • "British explorer and historian of Java Stamford Raffles notes that..." is a very clumsy formulation. Suggext: "Stamford Raffles, the British explorer and historian of Java, notes that in some..." etc
Done
  • "among other circles": "other" suggests a previous "circles", which isn't there. Suggest "among some circles"
Done
  • "These measures caused unrest"; it is not clear what measures are being referred to here
Done
  • "changes in worldwide supplies to the European market" - why is this factual statement in quotes?
Because it's verbatim from the source. I'll rephrase.
  • "some councillors" - again, you need to identify the council (there's a reference later in the paragraph to the "Council of the Indies"; perhaps give this name earlier.
Done
  • "This continued to be contested" → "This policy continued to be contested"
Done
  • "accepted increduously" → "received incredulously" (note spelling "incredulously")
Done
  • Again, unnecessary quotes around "extraordinary measures"
  • Done
Massacre
  • "Kali Besar": for clarity, I suggest you say "the Kali Besar stream"
  • Kali, literally translated, is stream. As we don't say "Sungai Mahakam River" I'll change it to Besar Stream like in the lede.
  • "Chinese settlements elsewhere in Jakarta" - should the present-day name "Jakarta" be used here?
  • Changed
  • "Tanah Abang survivor Captain Jan van Oosten" Reformulate: "Captain Jan van Oosten, a survivor from Tanah Abang"
  • Do we need "local time (UTC+7)"? UTC wasn't invented then.
Just local time. I had included UTC to show which time zone it would be
  • "...only dying on 12 October" I think this should be "dying out".
  • Done
Follow-up and further violence
  • "two ducat" → "two ducats"
  • done
  • "bandits" doesn't need quotes
  • I had put quotes as it is possibly POV. I'll remove them.
  • If you're worried, a more neutral term might be "irregulars". Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • "Native Indonesians" → "native Indonesians"
Changed to natives (per above)
  • Terms such as "Bugis" need explaining; don't make your readers link to another article to get a definition.
Added "ethnic"
  • "On 8 November, 2,000–3,000 native troops were requested from the Sultanate of Cirebon." Requested by whom, and for what purpose, seeing that a cease-fire was in force?
  • Added.
  • Still doesn't say who requested the troops. By "reinforce", do you mean "protect"? Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressed.
Aftermath
  • More unjustified quotes ("almost without interruption") Quotes should be use for striking or memorable wording, not commonplace or everyday phrases
  • Had quoted as it was verbatim. Removed
  • Generally, you quote verbatim only memorable phrases, or longer extracts where use of the original wording is thought justifiable to emphasise a point. Otherwise, simple paraphrases of commomplace expressions is preferable. Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotcha.
  • "Early 1740 Valckenier asked permission to be dismissed." It's "Early in 1740; but what does "asked permission to be dismissed" mean? I could understand "asked to be dismissed", though probably "asked to be replaced" is nearer the mark. But "asked permission to be dismissed" is simply nonsense; you ask permission to do something yourself, not to have something done to you.
  • This was added a little after the nomination, so I'll touch that up.
  • The meaning of "vote of no confidence" is obvious, so no link necessary.
  • Done
  • I am losing the thread here: "In January 1741 Van Imhoff was sent to the Netherlands to face charges of insubordination. In October 1742, after these charges were dismissed by the Lords XVII (preceded by Lieve Geelvinck), Van Imhoff was sent back to Batavia as the new governor-general of the East Indies and arrived in May 1743." Can you render that in plain English?
  • Better?
  • "It seems Valckenier had left the Indies..." "It seems..." is not particularly encyclopedic. How does the source make this conjecture?
Fixed
  • "Seven months after Valckenier had left, he was locked up in the prison of Fort Batavia and three months later the trial began." I'm confused again. He was locked up in Fort Batavia seven months after leaving the place? And then "three months later the trial began". Presumably Valckenier's trial, though you don't say so. What were the charges? Who was conducting the trial?
  • Looking into it (has been rephrased).
  • The encyclopedia of biographies has it for his involvement in the massacre and for "selling out the office" ("geweest ambtsverkoop").

Note: These paragraphs are still very confusing. The reader will want to know:-

    • Who appointed Van Imhoff, and why was he appointed when he was evidently already on his way beck to the Netherlands to face charges of insubordiation?
    • Why did Valckenier go to Capetown? When did he arrive there? When was he returned to Batavia?
    • "12,333" is a very large number; please give some instances of what these items consisted of - were they all documents?
    • What was the date and cause of Valckenier's death? Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done
      • Done
      • Nothing about what it consisted of in the source. Logically it should be documents, but evidence could just as well be a goodly number of witnesses.
      • The source doesn't give a cause, just that it was in his cell on 20 June 1751. Should we include the date, or just the year?
  • "he was condemned to the sword". This may be what the source says, but you should render it in plain English: "He was condemned to death"
  • Fixed
  • "Nine months later the trial was reopened when Valckenier had produced 12,233 articles to defend himself." Extraordinary; what do you mean by "articles"?
  • Fixed

Considerable further work needed to achieve featured status. Brianboulton (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that should do it. Thanks for the review! Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed the remaining grammar issues. For the comprehensiveness issues, it'll have to wait about an hour (I'll need to go to a web cafe). Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you've done good work, and most of my concerns have been addressed. My final prose comment: "a 12,233 article-long diatribe" is clumsy, and the word "diatribe" is pejorative. Why not just say "a lengthy statement" and avoid difficulties? I am leaning towards supporting this promotion; I don't have time to do the final polishing, but it sees as though Dank is prepared to to this. If he gives an all clear, and an image review (currently lacking) produces no further issues, I will be ready to give full support. Brianboulton (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
observations by Gnangarra
  • Background section the term running amok wasnt used until the 1770's after observations by Cook, also its meaning at the time doesnt jel with its usage
  • Background section At the same time native occupants of Batavia are these Javanese people or some other group
  • aftermarth alternatively, the Lords XVII instructed that he be replaced by van Imhoff as punishment for sending too much sugar and too little coffee in 1939. wow sanctioned for sending too little coffee 200 years after the event :)
  • effects section historian of Java Stamford Raffles writes that Dutch historical records are "far from complete or satisfactory" Raffes is deceased should it not be he actions are past tense ie wrote rather than writes.

Outside of those points its an interesting read, well done Gnangarra 14:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • As amok is from the Malay term amuk, it may be justifiable here even if it predates English usage. Otherwise, would you object to "rioted", "fought against the crew", or other such wordings?
  • I have some ethnic groups listed further down, rather than put a comprehensive list (which is not all supported by sources). I'll rejig it.
  • Total typo. Mind you, he was released from his death sentence after he was dead so...
  • Fixed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have no further concerns please consider this a support for its promotion to FA Gnangarra 13:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd like to see a little more support before I copyedit. - Dank (push to talk) 04:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Double quotes. I'm used to putting definitions in single quotes for my linguistics classes.
    • Understood; single quotes are common outside the US, but double quotes have consensus at FAC. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "at a meeting of the council": which council?
  • Fixed
    • Not fixed, because I don't know what the "Council of the Indies" is. - Dank (push to talk)
      • Further clarified
  • "the massacre resulted in around 10,000 ethnic Chinese deaths": I changed this to "around 10,000 ethnic Chinese were massacred"; is that right? - Dank (push to talk) 02:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine.
  • "rumours ... that they died when running amok on the ships": Readers rarely click on links of uncommon terms if they think they know what term means, and few readers will know that the term "amok" comes to us from Malaysia, or that "running amok" has a psychiatric meaning separate from the meaning in dictionaries. So, you've got some judgment calls here. Rumors are unimportant more often than they're important to encyclopedic content, so unless the rumors themselves had an impact, you could delete this bit. Or, you could explain that "running amok" means going on a "killing spree perpetrated by an individual out of rage or resentment over perceived mistreatment" (per the link, and that's my sense of the term ... actually, don't include all of that, condense it). Or, you could say "killing spree" and leave out "amok". Your call. - Dank (push to talk) 02:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Along with the economic boom caused by trade between the East Indies via Batavia and China, the number of ethnic Chinese in Batavia grew rapidly": I don't follow.
  • Added
  • "At least another 15,000 lived outside the city walls, with numbers reportedly as high as 80,000.": "Reportedly" raises but doesn't answer the question of why the spread is so large and why you doubt the larger figure.
  • Changed. Setiono says "more than 15,000", while Armstrong, Armstrong, and Miller give the (much) higher number. The number may be influenced by how far outside the wall they are counting, but it doesn't say in the sources "up to Tangerang" or "up to Bandung" etc.
    • "Between 15,000 and 80,000 lived outside the city walls.": Not fixed; that's not encyclopedic writing, any more than "Between one and eight typhoons hit Malaysia in 1740." The spread is too wide, and suggests either that the sources don't know what they're talking about, or that there's missing information. In this case, there's missing information that explains the spread; fill in the information. - Dank (push to talk)
      • As the sources are unclear as to why there should be such a horrid clash in numbers, I've worded it so that it is undeniably factual "Thousands more lived outside the city walls."
  • "The Dutch colonials required them to carry registration papers, and initially sent back to China those who did not carry such papers.": Did all of the ethnic Chinese immigrate from China? If not, then "back" is wrong. When is "initially"?
  • "With both natives and the Dutch increasingly suspicious and resentful": You're reporting on states of mind here; better is to say what they said and did that suggested those states of mind, and either skip "suspicious and resentful" or use it in a topic sentence or conclusion.
  • Turned into topic sentence
    • No, you didn't understand my objection, and and your new sentence doesn't have a verb. - Dank (push to talk)
      • Sorry, added verb. I've also tried adding a bit more to make it clearer.
  • "and their economic prowess": What was being interpreted as prowess? Do you mean their wealth, or maybe their work skills?
  • Wealth. Changed
  • "deported to Zeylan (modern day Sri Lanka), where they would provide manpower for cinnamon harvesting.": What does "would" mean here, the future-in-past tense, or "were to", or "would have provided"? If the government is sending them off to do farm work, is that forced labor?
  • Made clearer
    • Not entirely. - Dank (push to talk)
      • "Should ... were to be" changed to "would ... would". I'm not sure what else you find lacking... a suggested fix would be great.
  • "the Dutch were told by the local Chinese captain": What's a "local Chinese captain"? Local to what?
  • A person put in charge of the Chinese populace by the Dutch. Expanded on in-text.
    • Better.
  • "the Chinese were seen as occupying some of the most prominent neighbourhoods": Did they just fantasize that the Chinese lived in prominent neighborhoods? Would ""the Chinese occupied some of the most prominent neighbourhoods" not be right for some reason?
  • Well, there's the thousands of poor millers living outside the walls who would not have lived in prominent neighbourhoods. Most were poor and would not have had access to the "nice neighbourhoods". However, the locals and Dutch did not notice or possibly did not care. In another period, before 1998, the press reported extensively on the Chinese konglomerat (conglomerates, uber-wealthy) while ignoring the poor Chinese spread throughout the archipelago, such as at Singkawang; it's a common way to stir up antipathy against the Chinese.
    • Not fixed. - Dank (push to talk)
      • To address your question directly, in my opinion "the Chinese occupied some of the most prominent neighbourhoods" would imply that all Chinese were in these neighbourhoods, while it was actually a misconception. I'll change "seen" to "perceived".
  • Oppose for two reasons: the problems here can't be fixed by copyediting, and my past experience has been that when I'm not sure of the meaning of so many sentences, it has turned out that the nominator wasn't sure of the meaning, either. That may of course be unfair, you may know exactly what you're talking about, but I can't be sure. - Dank (push to talk) 04:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've worked on redressing your comments here. As for the sentences you aren't sure of the meaning on, a lot of it depends on historical context which perhaps 99.9% of our readers don't have. Having lived in Indonesia for 4+ years and done my bachelour's thesis on discrimination against Chinese Indonesians, I've been reading up on the issue for a while now. Regarding the Chinese captains, that is probably worth an article at some point. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice: I will be leaving for Australia for the RecentChanges Camp on the 18th local time (UTC+7); I'm not sure how much time I'll have for editing Wikipedia, but I will do my best to reply to any comments promptly. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 19:41, 20 January 2012 [60].

Bulgaria edit

Nominator(s): - ☣Tourbillon A ? 09:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been maintaining this article for a while now, and for a few months I've been working to make it meet the Featured Article criteria. It has been GA promoted, and recently received a very useful peer review. I made some of the photos and asked for permissions for others, so I hope readers will find it well-illustrated at the very least. This is my first FAC nomination, and I will be very glad to receive any feedback. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 09:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a few dead links in the references (Example Reference 127). I will attempt to repair the links, or retrieve archived copies. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to repair all of the dead links, with the exception of references 101, 123, and 132. It appears that these urls do not have relevant archived copies either. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all three links. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 09:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I believe the article meets all of the Featured article criteria. This is a nicely done article. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with the above opinion of Alpha Quadrant. Jingiby (talk) 08:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I disagree with the assertion by the above two reviewers that all the FA criteria are met. Here are some specific concerns:

  • WP:ENGVAR requires consistency in the variety of English used - for example, you have both "neighbour" and "neighbor"
Working on it. Done, converted to British English.
  • Citation formatting needs to be much more consistent - currently have mixed templated and untemplated citations, print sources missing publishers or page numbers, etc
Working on it. Thought some sources with less information on them wouldn't need templates, but I'll process them too. Done. Please be aware that one or two print sources do not have an ISBN. I have tried hard to find one, but some books seem to have been published without such a number. I've specifically checked ISBNs for all print sources used, and if it is missing someplace - it is because I have not been able to find one.
Still inconsistencies here. Compare FNs 134 and 133, 13 vs 15, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple WP:MOS issues - bracketed ellipses, italicized quotes, etc
Those are in source quotes. "[...]" signifies that a part of the original text is dropped out. Italicized quotes are in footnotes too (working to put them all in a template). Done.
Ellipses should only include brackets if there was also an ellipsis in the source - see WP:ELLIPSIS. Also, don't need ellipses at the beginning and end of quotes. Also note that these were examples only of issues - on a quick look, I also see unconverted metric measurements, and likely others. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed that recommendation in MoS (and frankly, wasn't aware of this rule in English). Removed all brackets. Also added conversions for metric units where they were lacking (only in Geography, as far as I noticed).- ☣Tourbillon A ? 19:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Campaigns_of_Ivan_Assen_II.png: on what source(s) was this image based?
Source is Essential History of Bulgaria in Seven Pages. I've added it to the image description in Commons.
The architects of the Sofia University and National Assembly building have died more than 70 years ago. The wind turbines are (arguably) machines, not habitable structures, I don't know if that will be a problem.
Okay, but you also include a picture of Sofia. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is an image of several banknotes, would that be more appropriate ? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 19:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't duplicate cited sources in External links
Fixed.
  • Some uncited material - for example, "Rainfall varies between 500 and 800 millimeters (19.7 and 31.5 in) in the lowlands and between 1,000 and 2,500 millimeters (39.4 and 98.4 in) in the mountains"
Fixed, info was in LoC source but improperly cited.
  • Bibliography-only attribution tags claiming material from PD sources
Should I remove the tags or restructure the Citations/Sources section ?
Tags removed.
  • Spell out numbers and ordinals under 10
Fixed.
  • Article needs a thorough copy-edit for readability, clarity and grammatical issues - for example, "higher education consists of a 4-year bachelor degree and a 1-year Master's degree's degree"
Working on minor errors such as the one pointed out. Done, please notify me if there is anything I've missed. Does it really have readability and clarity issues ? Apart from the few mistakes I have not noticed, I seriously don't think there are major problems with the flow of this article...
Yes, really - it is mostly free of grammatical errors, but FA requires a higher prose standard than basic correctness. Another example would be "North of the Danube, where a significant number of Bulgarian nobility and common folk remained, the population was under the jurisdiction of various autonomous, predominately Wallachian-led Christian principalities, where the Bulgarian alphabet continued to be used[29] and many cities, like the Wallachian capital of Targovishte, kept their Bulgarian names." Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, alright, I'll list it for copyediting at the Guild of Copyeditors. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 19:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "profile-oriented" education? Make sure the article is accessible to non-specialist readers. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Humanitarian, scientific or sports profiles. I believe these exist in most educational establishments around the world, maybe a bit of rewording would be useful but one does not have to be a "specialist" in order to understand. Fixed.- ☣Tourbillon A ? 22:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps it just needs to be better explained, as I still don't understand what you're saying. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to simply "specialised in a certain discipline". - ☣Tourbillon A ? 19:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (briefly for now) from Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a large number of sources and text that needs to be spot-checked. To help with that, can the nominator(s) say which text they personally worked on and which text is earlier material added by other editors? Another way of putting this is asking when the nominator(s) began work on the article and how much checking of the article content present at that point was done before the push for GA and FA status?
A vast portion of the text in this article has been re-written or newly added by me in the last year or so. That is, the original text which existed during the GA nomination remains, but some words were changed and new figures and statements were added. The content in general is not changed. I kept the sources used by previous contributors, but many of them were improperly cited and I had to search for new ones. Most of the currently used sources have been added or updated less than 3 months ago, as many of the links were dead.
Thank-you for giving some of the background here. That helps those reviewing the article. Carcharoth (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care should be taken with US Library of Congress sources in terms of linking. The links often expire and this one (currently reference 64) is a query URL as indicated by the 'cgi-bin/query' bit. As that page says: "Do NOT bookmark these search results. Search results are stored in a TEMPORARY file for display purposes. The temporary file will be purged from our system in a few hours." You've either worked out a way around that, or the temporary files have yet to be purged. On the other hand, the LoC itself uses these search URLs as links from the content page here. At the least, I think you should cite that contents page as the 'real' source, and link to it, even if you provide the direct link as a courtesy. In the bibliography, you (or someone) does cite 'Bulgaria Library of Congress Country Study' as a pdf. This is the same thing, so some rationalisation of the citations is needed there. I count 25 separate references to the LoC Bulgaria country study, and the formatting and citation style is different in nearly every case.

As Nikkimaria points out, there is lots of work that needs doing on the citation formatting. You are unlikely to get further reviews here before that is addressed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The LoC links used do not expire. These are permanent links, and I have been using them on numerous articles for a very long time now. They do not disappear, and will not become dead links if that is the main concern here. As for the .PDF country study, it is a newer, 2006 edition with updated figures. The other LoC source is from 1992, but contains more comprehensive information on history and geography. I wouldn't push it for FAC with sources that would become impossible to check only after a few hours, and as I already mentioned, the article has received a peer review. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 06:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you think the links won't expire, and that the LoC use the links internally themselves, and that you have used them for a long time on other articles, but I do think that it would pay to be cautious here and provide two links: one to the contents page (which is clearly stable) and one to the individual sections (as you do at the moment). Thank-you for clarifying the use of the 2006 pdf, though it is still not clear which LoC sources are used where - there are other issues with citation formats as well. Currently "{{cite web|url=[[s:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Bulgaria/History]]|title=History of Bulgaria|publisher=Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911|accessdate=9 December 2011}}" is not producing anything useful (this reference occurs twice). I'm sure it is possible to fix that, but in addition to doing that you could also name in your citation the author of that EB1911 article: James David Bourchier. And please just do a search in the article for "Library of Congress" and you will see what I mean when I say that it is not clear which citations are to which versions of the country study, and it will also be clear what I mean by the citation formatting being inconsistent. It is relatively easy to fix this, and if this is done I will likely then review the rest of the article, which I think is well-written, but I want to be able to check sources as I go and as currently formatted I can't do that rigorously. Carcharoth (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for those remarks, I am currently working on it. Since I'm not certain how to link to Wikisource material, would it be a problem if I use the "cite web" template and simply link the URL ? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 08:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC) everything is fixed. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked again (thanks for the work on the citations) and there is one stray LoC citation still: currently number 88 "Bulgaria Library of Congress Country Study, Judicial Branch, p.17". That should be formatted like the other ones. Five more points: (i) In the bibliography, you link both the 2006 'Profile' and the 1992 'Country Study', though you may have been trying to link the online contents of the 'Profile' - please check the changes I made here; (ii) You could rejig each reference to a chapter in the 1992 Country Study to link to the entry in the bibliography, like you do for the 2006 Profile, but that's up to you; (iii) Looking at the Country Study table of contents, I followed the link to the LoC Call Number, and that seemed to say it was published in 1993 with the research conducted in 1992 - could you clarify this? (iv) The 2006 'Profile' isn't a full update of the 'Country Study' if I'm reading the LoC pages right - the 2006 profile is linked from the 1992 'Country Study' table of contents (the 'Visit updated Profile (PDF)' bit) and is also mentioned here. Is there any way of knowing whether the Bulgaria 'Profile' was created in 2006 or just most recently updated then? Some of this could be clarified further (for example, making clearer the difference between a 'Profile' and a 'Study'). (v) Back at the 'Country Study' table of contents, there are four authors named: Glenn E. Curtis, Pamela Mitova, William Marsteller, and Karl Wheeler Soper - I would personally name authors where they are known, but not sure what the standard is at FAC for this. The distinction between the 'Country Study' (named authors, paper publication and online) and the 'Profile' (anonymous(?) updates by LoC staff, published online) is worth drawing, I think. Carcharoth (talk) 13:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(i) and (ii) have been fixed, I hope this rearrangement will make the sources easier to verify; (iii) and (v) were hopefully fixed - I wrote that it's a 1992 research, but a 1993 publication and all names have been mentioned; (iv) I would regard the PDF profile as a more concise and up-to-date version of the country study - as a matter of fact, several countries that are not among the listed in the 1992 edition of the country studies, such as Mali, have their new, own profiles. I think the difference is quite obvious when we have names added to the Country Study and only a publisher to the Country Profile. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 17:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I hope to have time to do a more in-depth review at some point over the next week. Because this is such a broad country-level article, that will take time. If any other reviewers would like to split the review up by section (the article has seven main section), that might help. Carcharoth (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Text copied verbatim from public domain sources needs checking - Above, Nikkimaria correctly pointed out that the bibliography contained "attribution tags claiming material from PD sources". You removed the tags here (they were a {{Loc}} and a {{1911}} tag). Such attribution tag removal should only be done if the original text, copied verbatim, has been rewritten. If verbatim text remains, the tags should also stay. You will need to see what other FAC reviewers think of this (I would suggest asking at WT:FAC). I've done one spot check of the material cited to page 17 of the 2006 pdf (the citation that I pointed out previously wasn't in the same format as the other citations - this was the one I was looking at so it was the most convenient one to spot-check). Comparing the source and the current version of the article, I found the following bits were text copied verbatim (or almost verbatim) from the (presumably public domain) Library of Congress (LoC) source, page 17 of which is currently cited three times (as footnote number 84):

  • (i) Source: "Bulgaria has universal suffrage for citizens 18 years of age and older. Elections are supervised by an independent Central Election Commission that includes members from all major political parties. Parties must register with the commission prior to participating in a national election."

    Article: "universal suffrage for citizens 18 years of age and older. Elections are supervised by an independent Central Election Commission that includes members from all major political parties. Parties must register with the commission prior to participating in a national election."

  • (ii) Source: "The Supreme Administrative Court and Supreme Court of Cassation, the highest courts of appeal, rule on the application of laws in lower courts. The Supreme Judicial Council manages the system and appoints judges."

    Article: "...the highest courts of appeal—the Supreme Administrative Court and Supreme Court of Cassation—rule on the application of laws in lower courts. The Supreme Judicial Council manages the system and appoints judges."

  • (iii) Source: "Regional governors are named by the national Council of Ministers, providing for a highly centralized state. Municipalities are run by mayors, who are elected to four-year terms, and by municipal councils, which are directly elected legislative bodies. Subnational jurisdictions are heavily dependent on the central government for funding"

    Article: "Regional governors are named by the national Council of Ministers, providing for a highly centralised state. Municipalities are run by mayors, who are elected to four-year terms, and by municipal councils, which are directly elected legislative bodies. Subnational jurisdictions are heavily dependent on the central government for funding."

The inclusion of text like this is why the {{Loc}} tag was there in the first place. I realise that it is difficult to rephrase some of this material, but it shouldn't be used verbatim like this. This is why my first question here was about the history of the article and how much the text had been checked against sources and rewritten if needed (I've not looked at any of the other LoC citations or the EB1911 citations to see if there is similar verbatim text). If you disagree on whether this level of checking is needed, please ask at WT:FAC for someone else to take a look at this. Carcharoth (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been there for some time now (like a couple of months), and the usage of text like this has been addressed at the peer review. All the information from non-PD sources has been rewritten so that there won't be any similarities between the article and the original source. Where a PD source is used, the text is mostly the same as in the source. I figured that the presence of tags was suggested as a problem, that is why I removed them - maybe I shouldn't have done it. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since it was Nikkimaria who originally raised the issue of the tags, I'm going to ask her if she has time to come back here and look at this. That is probably the simplest way forward here. If the EB1911 tag is going to stay, someone needs to read the entirety of the EB1911 article and compare it to this article. If no verbatim text remains, the tag is not needed. I would normally suggest trying to find in the history when the EB and Loc tags were first added, but that may be difficult here with an article that has a page history going back to 2001 (I went forward from the early versions and gave up towards the end of 2006). FWIW, early versions of this article were heavily based on "the CIA World Factbook 2000 and the 2003 U.S. Department of State website", so it is nothing new to have Wikipedia country articles based on heavy churn of PD text from US government agencies. I'm just not sure if that is the standard that applies at FAC. I don't think it should be the standard, but others may disagree, hence me saying you should try and get others to comment. Carcharoth (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on that, and that's why I raised the issue. Assuming it's been sufficiently rewritten (and that I haven't checked), it shouldn't be a problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid prolongued checking of information, the tags were actually added during the peer review last month. Along with that, I reworded some of the EB1911-based sentences therefore it's not really verbatim text used from this source. The only problem in this area is the material from LoC, and especially the Geography and Politics sections. Large portions of the statements there are directly copied from the country studies. I'll try to change the structure so as not to complicate the issue any further, it's not good to have copied text anyway. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I did my best to rewrite the directly copied text. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 11:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick look shows there's still some tidying up to do in the prose. I'll try to come back to this soon. Images could be rationalised to the right side in many cases, given that different window-widths produce unsatisfactory relationships with the text when the pics are on both sides. Is the "official" government website appropriate to cite at the bottom? It looks like the current PM's propaganda machine to me. Tony (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above, I'll list it for review at the Guild of Copyeditors. Image aligning is generally following MoS (left-right staggering), and I viewed the article from several different computers and resolutions precisely to check if problems occur on this issue. Placing all images on the right wouldn't really look good. And wow, I looked at the Council of Ministers' website just now. Didn't knew it has turned into a mouthpiece for a political party, I'll remove it. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 19:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "about 97 per cent of the population own a private home."—hello. This is simply not credible for any country. Tony (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can provide a few more sources on this figure, but I decided to leave only this one (it is the most reliable) to avoid stacking too many cites on a single statement. And as absurd as it may sound, it's pretty much true... - ☣Tourbillon A ? 19:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That seemed questionable to me too, do you mean 97% of the adult population? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just reviewed the source again, says that 97% of the population live in privately owned homes. I'll change it. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 08:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that makes a lot more sense. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry to be a bore, but this has a little way to go before it's of FA standard. The easy stuff is to get it copy-edited and MOSified (a 4-year bachelor degree and a 1-year Master's degree" ... please see MOSNUM). I removed (at someone's urging) the gobbledy at the opening; it's something I've never understood about articles on topics rooted in languages with non-roman scripts. "Bulgaria i/bʌlˈɡɛəriə/ (Bulgarian: България, tr. Bŭlgariya, IPA: [bɤ̞ɫˈɡarijɐ]), officially the Republic of Bulgaria (Република България, tr. Republika Bŭlgariya, IPA: [rɛˈpublikɐ bɤ̞ɫˈɡarijɐ]), is a ...". The readers' attention is at a peak right at the opening, and we clutter it with a tome of stuff they can't understand. If readers want cyrillic equivalents and phonetic thingemies (also understood by hardly anyone), let them go to the Bulgarian WP ... the link is just at the left.

    I've removed a few overlinkings. More remain: why is telephone linked? Could we have "bn" or "billion" rather than 000000000?

    The pics were rather small, and it's much better to prefer top-of-section placement, and right side, given the huge variation in window widths used by our readers.

    The capping of "Empire" and "State" ... it's not even consistent within the article, and I'm pretty sure these are now down cased on WP (there have been a few high-profile RMs to achieve this).

    Are you sure about all of the stats, given the mistake about the 97%?

    The longest river located solely in Bulgarian territory, the Iskar, has a length of 368 kilometres (229 mi)." -> "The longest river entirely within Bulgaria, the Iskar, is 368 kilometres (229 mi) long." ... Lots of clean-ups like that are needed. At random: "the European union average" (isn't it U?).

    Could you translate titles into English? What is this: "Еврокомисията наля 388 млн. лв. по сметките на фонд "Земеделие"" (in Bulgarian). Dnes.bg.

    There is just the faint scent of POV towards a slightly more positive view of Bulgaria than might be justified; I particularly worry about the stats. And some of the sources are certainly authoritative (CIA, etc); but sorry to be snobbish, do I believe a "Bulgarian National Investment Agency" report? I'm not sure I'd believe some government reports from my own country ... the type where the minister's office sees it first.

    But this could well become FA, either after continued efforts by the nominators or in a second nom. Tony (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into all of those. I can not promise whether all of this will be completed by the time this nomination expires as I'm having an exam week, but I will do my best to address all the issues. I've checked all statistical sources, the home ownership rate is a single mistake - I've simply misread the source. I'll fix all MoS issues in the next two days, though I can't be certain about the process of copyediting. There is one thing that bothers me, and that is the alignment of the images - the current positioning creates a lot of chaos, at least on the computers I use. For example, the current position of the feast at "First Bulgarian Empire" creates a huge gap - that certainly doesn't look good. Anyway, thanks a lot for the feedback. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although the article is obviously imperfect, I think it meets the FA criteria. However, there are some good points above, which should be addressed. Consider this a support when the sourcechecks come out clear. I wouldn't rely on the guild for FA prose, that isn't their mission, and many won't be able to do it to the degree often asked for here. I disagree with the above reviewer about the aligned images. WP:MOSIMAGES encourages image staggering, and prevents what is (on my screen) a weird shifting of text widths, and also prevents pictures being forced out of their section. As in every article, watch out for short paragraphs (I notice a one liner in the lead, and a couple of two liners scattered throughout). If your checking sources, note that information usually doesn't require more than one source, and if two sources support separate parts of a sentence they should be placed after the information they source not the whole sentence (or situations like the list of classical composers occurs where a sentence is followed by four sources). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per my comments above, and the fact that the opening is incomprehensible:

Bulgaria /bʌlˈɡɛəriə/ ⓘ (Bulgarian: България, IPA: [bɤ̞ɫˈɡarijɐ]), officially the Republic of Bulgaria (Република България, IPA: [rɛˈpublikɐ bɤ̞ɫˈɡarijɐ]), is a parliamentary republic ...".

Here it was, even worse, before I complained there:

Bulgaria /bʌlˈɡɛəriə/ ⓘ (Bulgarian: България, tr. Bŭlgariya, IPA: [bɤ̞ɫˈɡarijɐ]), officially the Republic of Bulgaria ([Република България, tr. Republika Bŭlgariya, IPA: [rɛˈpublikɐ bɤ̞ɫˈɡarijɐ]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)), is a parliamentary republic ..."

User:Future Tense, who has a conflict of interest (look at the language user boxes on his user page) seems to have taken exception to opening an article on en.WP with language and symbols that our English-speaking readers can understand. So we're back 80% of the way, after I'd footnoted the gobbledy and produced a nice clean opening. Here is what the article had for a few days, which I believe is what our readers would far prefer:

Bulgaria, officially the Republic of Bulgaria,[5] is a parliamentary republic in Southeast Europe. It borders Romania to the north, Serbia and Macedonia to the west, Greece and Turkey to the south, as well as the Black Sea to the east. ....

I do believe the needs to bolded, by the way. The fact that almost no reader knows how bɤ̞ɫˈɡarijɐ and ʌ|l|ˈ|g|ɛər|i|ə are pronounced (it's weird to have this shoved in readers' faces before they get to the second word of the article), and that English-speaking readers should not be expected to know Bulgarian script, is good reason that this gobbledygook should be footnoted or relocated elsewhere so that the opening sentence is not interrupted by two and half lines of this stuff after the first word. This is a problem in terms of Criterion 2(a), which requires "a concise lead section". This is the opposite of concise. The impossible opening is in addition to issues concerning prose, and a potentially skewed angle (I could look into this more). Tony (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think a reasonable compromise would be to give the Cyrillic and a single IPA transcription of the short form ("Bulgaria"), while leaving the official form untranscripted. All country articles have the original name of the country at the beginning. Not having the Cyrillic name of the country is simply unacceptable. The prose isn't flawless, but when I asked some GOCE users to do some work on the article a while back, the results were not what I'd expect (orthography, even poorer prose, etc.). I'm working on these issues, but as I said, I'm occupied IRL this week and my time here is limited. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one has provided a shred of reason as to why a foreign script should appear in the article at all, let alone intrude massively after the very first word, creating a mile-long hike to get to the second word. What exactly is the purpose? And why can't it be footnoted? Second, why has someone reverted my fixing of the strange double image in the Geography section? Could we have some reasons? Third, the prose is simply not good enough; I'm not concerned with who has done what—I just worry about the product. Tony (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because all country articles have the local name in the introduction, and that is generally the standard in country introductions in Wikipedia and beyond ? Take FA examples such as India, Chad, Belarus, Germany and Japan, not to mention virtually any other article around here. The double image puts a huge weight to the right when outside its current frame and makes the third one, of the eagle, to go out of the Geography section. I don't see why that would be a problem, given that other FA articles, such as Peru, use this formula. Fixing the prose will take more time, though if GOCE editions later do not satisfy the standards, then it will be a problem of those who review FACs, not mine. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 16:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other articles have other faults, too. That is no justification for making the opening of this article impenetrable. And here, the problem is dire given the double-barrelled bolded items. You still haven't given a single good reason for including this gobbledy right at the opening, beyond the copy-cat argument. Copy their bad grammar and image placement, too? Tony (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref query—what makes this a reliable source? ""Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja" (in Russian). Vostlit - Eastern Literature Resources. Retrieved 4 December 2011. "В то время пока Владимир был юношей и правил на престоле своего отца, вышеупомянутый Самуил собрал большое войско и прибыл в далматинские окраины, в землю короля Владимира."" And what does the Russian text here say, since it's in the reference list? Could I remind you that this article is for English-speakers? The google translation of the linked page leaves open the reliability of this source; it looks like a wiki, with lots of fly-by comments. I can see "University of Ottava 1986" at the bottom, but ... it's used as justification for a claim about an important part of early Bulgarian history. Tony (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deny other articles have faults. But if the number of articles using the original name + transcription formula is abour 300 for countries and several hundred thousand for biographies and settlements, then I would think twice before asking a question such as "Why would a foreign script appear in the article at all". If you still need a valid argument, consider starting with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). This is Wikipedia in English, it's not a Wikipedia of the Anglosphere only, I hope you can make the difference.
Done on the source, replaced the previous Russian one with Encyclopaedia Britannica too. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 08:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was just the first source I examined at random. The way this FAC is going, egregious errors in stats and highly unsatisfactory sources are pointed out as examples, you then "fix" them, one at a time, and we return to thinking everything's tickety-boo? This is why the article is not yet ready for promotion. Please withdraw it and thoroughly audit every aspect. The nomination was premature. Tony (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the peripheral matter I complained of, the appalling clutter of incomprehensible symbols and cyrillic lettering that wedges the first word of the article from the second, your response is odd. Could you tell me why the Bulgarian WP doesn't provide the roman-script, English-language Australia—perhaps even a transliteration of the English word, not to mention IPA symbols that hardly any reader would understand in any language—after the first word in its article on that country? Have a look here. Do you know why they don't do it? Because it's ugly and disruptive, just when the readers want to glide into an interesting article in the language they've chosen to read it in: Bulgarian. Tony (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First thing is that the Bulgarian Wiki has no Manual of Style and distinct guidelines, and article formatting follows that of print encyclopaediae and academic works. Since I'm working on the Geography project there, I would mention that Australia is likely an exception; most quality country articles do mention the native name (Sweden, Germany, Japan, China and so on).
I've checked for other errors on stats, as most of the sources were added relatively recently, and I said the home ownership was an isolated case. I don't know whether my responses are odd, or your behaviour is - quite frankly it looks like trolling to me. I really do not understand what your problem is; if you will not review the article thoroughly to raise concrete issues, and not just pick "examples of egregious errors", then feel totally, completely, absolutely free not to review it. I considered withdrawing the nomination even earlier due to the apparently skewed and subjective criteria by which Featured Articles are promoted. I don't consider that getting an "oppose" vote for mixed English variations and brackets while another nomination gets a "support" with the same remarks mentioned as "minor issues", or generalisations on poor quality because of a handful of problematic fragments to be anywhere near fair. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 16:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 19:41, 20 January 2012 [61].

Maniac Mansion edit

Nominator(s): Guyinblack25 talk, JimmyBlackwing (talk), MuZemike 01:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been extensively worked on by several editors since February 2011, going from an article with several cleanup tags and no lead to a complete article that is nearly 5 times larger. It has already passed WP:GAN, gone through a good WP:GOCE copyedit, and went through stalled A-Class nomination.

About the subject itself, Maniac Mansion was the first adventure game published by Lucasfilm Games and is often regarded as one of the most important titles in the adventure gaming genre, whose game engine would be implemented in many games that followed. –MuZemike 01:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - very complete and well-written article on a seminal title in computer gaming history. Well done. I hope you'll work on one of the King's Quest, Space Quest or Monkey Island game articles next! Lemurbaby (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lemurbaby- Jimmy and I are currently fixing up The Secret of Monkey Island. I don't know if we'll take it to FAC though. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Media review: No concerns. Only two of the images (the game's cover artwork and the screenshot) are non-free and both have adequate rationale of use. Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - It's a definite FA - you can tell it just by simply reading Overview section. Great work, guys, keep up in the same vein! Electroguv (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read beyond the Overview section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I did! And, I also would like to expand on my previous statement: though I am quite new to WP:VG, I think that the article fits FA criteria as it is comprehensive and informative. It may certainly have a number of flaws, but generally, it is a polished, well-done piece of writing. Electroguv (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • FN 3: page(s)?
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publisher info for magazines
  • FN 27: page(s)?
  • Be consistent in how Grumpy Gamer refs are formatted
  • Given that FN 79 is self-published, what are the author's qualifications?
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the double periods that I found and standardized the use of "Grumpy Gamer". The author for ref 79 wrote for Cinefantastique, a horror, fantasy, and science fiction film magazine, which is the same subject as book. In fact, content from that book was reproduced from the magazine. We'll take a look at the other issues soon. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Nearly all of the print sources should have publisher, location, ISSN, and OCLC information. If they don't, that means I was unable to locate them, as some of them are fairly obscure foreign gaming publications that have very little information about them as-is. –MuZemike 22:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further responses-
  • I did not see more formatting inconsistencies in my sweep. Please let me know if I missed any.
  • I added pages to ref 3.
  • I added publishers were I could. The remaining four without them listed are foreign language magazines that I am unable to find the information for.
  • The VG Project considers Kotaku a reliable source.
(Guyinblack25 talk 21:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I checked the foreign language Wikipedias and found the publisher names. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose. This is rather poorly written in places and needs a thorough copyedit. A few examples from the first few sections:

Lead
  • "A comedy horror parody of B movies ... they based the story on horror film and B movie clichés". Why do we need to be told twice?
  • "Regarded as a seminal adventure title, Maniac Mansion received critical acclaim across all ports". Rather odd phrasing, "across all ports".
  • "... and has received fan remakes with enhanced visuals". How can a game receive anything?
  • "A TV series was created in 1990, which Eugene Levy created and which starred comedian Joe Flaherty as the mad scientist". That's pretty ugly.
  • "The engine and its accompanying scripting language have been later re-used for many other games." They could hardly have been re-used sooner.
Overview
  • "... something in which the rest of his family has supported and encouraged."
Conception
  • "Gilbert had been recently hired at Lucasfilm Games by Noah Falstein on a three-month contract to program Koronis Rift, which Falstein was the lead developer." Obviously something missing there.
  • "They drew inspiration on the game's main ideas over what Winnick said was "a ridiculous teen horror movie" they have watched, which the teens were in a house and got slaughtered one by one, not once thinking about leaving the house." Lots wrong with that sentence, not least the tense ("have watched").
  • "The ranch's Main House inspired Winnick's design of the game's mansion, leading him to create the concept art for it." What is "it" referring to here?
  • "Gilbert and Winnick based the characters both on stereotypes and people they knew". What is "both" bringing to the party here?
  • "According to Winnick, the Edison family were based on various movie characters ...". Family is singular.
  • "To parody the horror genre, they inserted many clichés into the story, drawing inspiration for several in-game elements from horror films". As opposed to cowboy films? It wouldn't have been much of a parody if they hadn't.
  • "The designers included a man-eating plant similar to the antagonist of the 1986 film Little Shop of Horrors." Are you certain that "antagonist" is the correct word here?
  • "He was an adventure games fan and decided that the ideas he and Winnick had conceived would work well with the genre". Who was, Winnick or his cousin?
  • "... this extended the game's production time beyond that of Lucasfilm Games' previous titles, which almost resulted in Gilbert's termination." Lucasfilm felt to strongly that they were prepared to kill Gilbert?
  • "... the dialog would be provided by David Fox. Maniac Mansion would be one of the first games to feature alternate endings". Ugly.

Malleus Fatuorum 13:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure I understand the reason for your opposition, you believe that there are sentences with redundancy and incorrect verb tense? Not that the sentences are ugly. If that is the case, then we'll do a sweep of the article again, with those ideas in mind. The one point I disagree with is the use of "termination" as it is an appropriate (and common) term for what is being said there. However, I'm not married to the word and can change it to "dismissal" or another synonym if you feel strongly about it. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I believe it's poorly written, as I said, and needs to be properly copyedited. The GoCE tends just to look at grammar, punctuation and spelling, but FA demands much more than that. And in this case I think you should ask for your money back from the GoCE, because they haven't even done the basic stuff. Malleus Fatuorum 14:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus- I copy edited the article and will request another set of eyes to do another copy edit. Please let me know if the edits are an improvement. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not sure if Malleus is going to be able to get to it right away, as he has been blocked for a week (though currently unblocked briefly as part of his ArbCom case). –MuZemike 21:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit: for an image caption - "Maniac Mansion's mansion" to "the mansion in Maniac's Mansion". The former is quite a mouthful to say, and reads uncomfortably. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd even recommend "the setting of Maniac Mansion" to avoid the double "mansion" but I'm not sure how accurate that would be. — Joseph Fox 17:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since the 99% of the game takes place in the mansion, I think setting is accurate. I changed the caption. Let me know if there's anything else. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Update from Malleus Fatuorum There are still problems with the prose, which I don't think has improved significantly since I first commented. A few more examples:

Lead
  • "The pair used people they knew and characters from movies, comics, and horror magazines to design the game's characters." No, they didn't use them to design the characters, they based their designs for the characters on them.
  • "This interface was born out of the designers' desire to improve on contemporary text parser-based graphical adventure games". Are you absolutely confident about "born out of"?
  • "To reduce the effort required for the game ...". Is that the effort to play the game or the effort to write it?
  • "... Gilbert implemented a game engine called SCUMM, which would be re-used for many other LucasArts titles." Why "would be" rather than "was"?
  • "The developers reduced the game's size to 64 KB to fit within the Commodore 64's size limitations." Why "limitations" in the plural? Memory size is one limitation.
  • "The developers based the mansion's design from the Main House at Skywalker Ranch". Should obviously be on the Main House.
  • "Regarded as a seminal adventure title, Maniac Mansion was critically acclaimed; reviewers lauded its graphics, cutscenes, animation, and humor. Its point-and-click interface has been regarded as revolutionary by reviewers and other developers ...". That "regarded ... regarded" looks a bit awkward. Not quite sure what you're implying with "has been regarded as revolutionary". Either it was considered revolutionary or it wasn't.
  • "... has been placed on several 'hall of fame' lists ...". You don't place things on a list, you place them in a list.
Overview
  • "Players can select among fifteen different commands ...". Should be select from, not select among.
Conception
  • "... and it was then in which both Gilbert and Winnick found that they shared similar tastes in humor, movies, and television programs".
  • "... the game ends if all the characters die". Doesn't it end when all the characters die?
TV adaptation and game sequel
  • "They also made the original game playable on an in-game computer, which Grossman attributed to a software bug." That simply doesn't make sense.

Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up questions:
  • I was confident about "born out of". Should it be "born from"?
  • I reworded the second "regarded", but kept the verb tense. As I understood it, present perfect tense was for things that occurred at unspecified time in the past. Does this situation (commentary that has occurred intermittently over a decade) not fit that criteria.
  • In the "Conception" section, I'm not sure what issue you're trying to tell us here, but I assume there is something wrong with "...was then in which both...". I'm not sure what exactly though. Is there a grammar rule that can point us in the right direction?
  • Also in "Conception", I believe we wrote "if" because the characters dying is a condition that must occur for the game to end. The game can be completed without any characters dying. Maybe it's the computer geeks in us, but I guess our assumption is that "when" implies that the characters will die. Is that not the case?
  • Fixed the "TV adaptation and game sequel" comment. Hopefully it makes more sense now. The original story started with a software bug that was the result of a file size limitation in the engine. The reason for the bug led Gilbert to reminisce about the original's file size. The reminiscing prompted the designers to include the original as an easter egg.
Please let me know and I will address the issues accordingly. (Guyinblack25 talk 00:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • "The developers based the mansion's design from the Main House at ...". Should be "on", shouldn't it?
  • "text parser-based graphical adventure games"—if this is in AmEng, why not do the CMoS thing (an option in WP's MoS): "text parser–based graphical adventure games". It's reasonable as it is, I suppose, although I'd use two hyphens (or the single dash).
  • "To reduce the effort required for the game"—do you mean to program it or to play it?
  • "Its point-and-click interface has been regarded as revolutionary by reviewers and other developers, and it led competitors to adopt similar interfaces." The tenses are difficult. I'm ok with the "has been", and I guess you rejected the use of "is", if that would shift the emphasis too much to the present. But then why not "has led"?
  • "something that his family has supported and encouraged"—you could lose the "that" for easier reading, although it's grammatical at the moment.
  • "main protagonist Dave Miller's cheerleader girlfriend, Sandy Pantz"—bit of a mouthfull. "Sandy Pantz, the cheerleader girlfriend of the ..."?
  • "two-dimensional (2D) game" (hyphenated unit linked). I'd have thought everyone on earth knew simply "2D" since Avatar 3D and similar. No big deal.
  • 20 years but fifteen different commands?
  • "possesses" could be "has".
  • Bumpy: "The game may be completed with any character combination, but, because many puzzles can be solved only with specific skills, there are different ways to finish the game, depending on". Why not remove the comma after "but"?
  • "and what they do"—they means the characters or the player? (I guess the characters, but singular they is common and usually acceptable, so there's an ambiguity here for many readers.)
  • The Ron Gilbert pic: caption is like a skyscraper. Do we need the "upright" mode in this?
  • Caption: "The Commodore 64 system's constraints forced the designers to adapt." Adapt what? Caption shouldn't fall off the edge like this. Perhaps it's an intransitive "adapt" (adapt their programming approach?).

I haven't read any further. Looks promotable after close scrutiny of the prose. Tony (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just chiming in- I have made edits per Malleus and Tony's comments. But I'd like to ask for clarification on the outstanding issues. Unfortunately, free time has not been my friend and I may not have an opportunity to ask until after the weekend. I still intend to address the issue and ask for time to do so. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
I made copy edits to address most of the points you brought up. Here are follow up questions.
  • I edited the "has led competitors" part. But I guess I'm not completely clear on when to use present perfect and when not to. I posted a similar question about verb tense to Malleus above and would appreciate your input as well.
  • I wrote out "two-dimensional", because I've gotten dinged on video game jargon in the past. Now I try to err on the side of caution. But if this particular phrase is nothing to worry about, the I'll gladly switch to the easier to write "2D".
Please let me know and I will address the issues accordingly. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]


So, let me guess: Is it this anti-video game bias that is preventing this and any other video game FAC from being promoted to FA, or is it something against me personally? --MuZemike 08:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 00:22, 15 January 2012 [62].

Brunei edit

Nominator: Hallows AG 07:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is well written and on my opinion, passes all FA criteria. The article can be considered as important as it is an article about a country. Hallows AG 07:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Welcome to FAC, but I don't think this one is ready. This article has had no reviews other than a quick fail at WP:GAN in September (see the article's talk page). This is the diff since September; a lot of work has been done, but the objections mentioned at the GAN review are still valid, I think. You may want to try a peer review. - Dank (push to talk) 11:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was again reviewed in December here and passed all GA criteria. The article is now a GA.--Hallows AG 12:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, you're right, and I've added the quick-failed GAN from December 20 and the promotion 4 days later by an editor with no other experience at GAN (and not much with articles generally) to the talk page. The promotion came after these edits. I recommend submitting the article to WP:GAR for a reevaluation. - Dank (push to talk) 13:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - At least one uncited paragraph and several bare or almost bare URLs. I'm sorry, but it seems your GA review was less than thorough. Also, comprehensiveness-wise, your history section is a little threadbare. Take a look at Indonesia or Canada for examples of FA country articles. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the uncited paragraph? Also, please note that I did not review the article myself--Hallows AG 13:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was renamed Barunai in the 14th century, possibly influenced by the Sanskrit word varuṇai (वरुणै), meaning "seafarers", later to become Brunei. The word Borneo is of the same origin. In the country's full name Negara Brunei Darussalam, Darussalam (Arabic: دار السلام‎) means "Abode of Peace", while Negara means "country" in Malay." Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, I'm not saying you did anything wrong, only that the GAN process didn't work well in this case, and the article probably doesn't meet GAN standards. - Dank (push to talk) 14:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm very sorry about my stance, by I think there are various aspects that could be vastly improved, namely the filling in of footnotes, the addition of alt text. Perhaps more serious is the lack of comprehensiveness -- United States has 10,128 words, whereas this article only has 2,797 words. I suppose there is much to write about Nrunei, but I would've expected the word count to be at least 4,000. All in all, the article had barely scraped through to GA, so there is much more work getting it to the next level. Try hard, though. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 01:53, 13 January 2012 [63].

Xbox 360 edit

Nominator(s): TrebleSeven (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be really for FAC now. It has tons of information of the page, a brilliant lead, and lots of sources. It has improved drastically since it's last nomination in 2007, and I think this article really does have the potential to go through. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TrebelSeven and welcome to FAC! Have you contacted the primary editors on this article to see if they think it is ready for FAC, as is required? Also, I see quite a few problems with this article that make me think it is not ready for FAC, including a cleanup banner in one section, missing references in several places, references missing information, etc. I would recommend that this nomination be withdrawn until these problems have been dealt with. Dana boomer (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please withdraw: there's a Refimprove template, which, if this was a GAN, would've been a quick fail. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 01:53, 13 January 2012 [64].

Limp Bizkit edit

Nominator(s): WTF (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because one of the GA reviewers suggested nominating it before it was passed. WTF (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I'm sorry, but I have to oppose based on lazy sourcing. We need author, websites and publishers, and they need to be formatted properly (eg ref 26 lacks the author in the citation, but when I click on the link, the author's name is the first thing I see; ditto ref 14; for ref 20, ew.com is lacking as a proper source. We need "work=Entertainment Weekly. publisher= Time". And page references are waaayyy to broad. Instead of linking 20 different ref tags to one citation that has a page range of 30 pages (i.e. Devenish, Colin (2000). Limp Bizkit. St. Martin's. pp. 1–20. ISBN 031226349X and ^a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae Devenish, Colin (2000). Limp Bizkit. St. Martin's. pp. 21–51. ISBN 031226349X.) why don't we be more specific about which page has which particular info? A quote in the audio sample info-box lacks citation. Also, do you mind expanding the intro just a bit? It reads well, but it's too short. All in all, there are glaring stylistic and MOS issues that need to be dealt with, and I suggest withdrawing the nomination and resubmitting when you are ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalist (talk • contribs) 19:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those can be easily fixed. The Devenish cites are formatted on a chapter basis, but the chapters are unnamed. Pages 1-20 = Chapter 1, etc. WTF (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean formatted on a chapter basis? Does the book not have page numbers? Orane (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it does. The complaint was that it showed page numbers, but no chapters, so it looked to Journalist that it was separating pages for no reason (1-20, 21-51). But the reason it was set up that way is because there's no chapter titles. So I clarified why the citations were set up that way by adding "Chapter 1", "Chapter 2", etc. to each chapter separation to make it clearer why the pages were separated in such a way.--WTF (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Journalist and Orane are one and the same, btw. And to cut to the chase and to be as specific as possible, I'm saying this: pagination is vital to book sources. Whether or not the book has chapters is irrelevant. Is it possible for you to format the individual citations so that I can source a particular point to the singular page it was taken from? That's the convention, as far as I'm aware. Orane (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it would be difficult to source points to singular pages. The chapter formatting works better to cover the material cited.--WTF (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Durst's problems with his girlfriend inspired him to write the song "Sour".[2]" Are you telling me that in order to find out if this quote is properly attributed, I'd have to peruse 30 pages from the book? No thank you. My oppose vote remains. Orane (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a quote, that's a statement, and the attribution is correctly cited to the chapter discussing the production of that album.--WTF (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, let's just see how far your FAC goes with your mindset. Orane (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That I want reviewers to be reasonable and you aren't?--WTF (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is how we format book sources. Inline citations use page numbers. And then the more general sources appear in the Reference section, without page numbers. And the article's writer(s) did not think it unreasonable to use this format. Orane (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a waste of time for me to completely reformat the article based on an idea that you, personally, think works, but is not an actual guideline. If you think it'll look better to have countless unneeded extra citations for the same sources, you can reformat it yourself. As it stands, your request for me to go over a book that I currently don't have physical access to to reformat it in a way that is both tedious and time consuming.--WTF (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then the article isn't featured article quality. It's as simple as that. You have to put in the required work to get the reward. I'm not forcing you to source it properly. I'm just saying that that is what you need to do in order to have it featured. Do whatever you want. I really couldn't care less. Orane (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And by the way, it's not my opinion. It's policy. Read up on it sometime. Orane (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is sourced properly. You're asking me to change the formatting, which has nothing to do with policy. Again, you don't like the formatting, it's not a guideline. If you don't like the formatting, change it yourself.--WTF (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wisdomtenacityfocus, while I don't necessarily agree with all of Journalist's points, consistent and appropriate formatting is required by the FA criteria, and this article does not currently meet that standard. On a quick look I see differences in date formatting (ex FN 3 vs 4), incorrect DOIs (FN 27) and other problems. In regards to page ranges, it is helpful to use shorter ranges to assist in verifiability, particularly when citing direct quotes (which appear only on 1-2 pages in a source). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I also have to agree with Orane. Page numbers are the way to go. WP:CITEHOW states that inline citations are used "in order to identify the source, assist readers in finding it, and (in the case of inline citations) indicate the place in the source where the information is to be found." With this in mind, wouldn't it be easier for a reader to pinpoint the exact place in a text where certain material comes from if they were provided with a specific page number? We should as contributors endeavor to help the reader, not hinder them. Page ranges/chapter numbers are therefore less helpful than exact page numbers, and I would suggest that this article would benefit from switching from the former to the latter. I know it must be a bear to consider obtaining the book and then re-sourcing everything so that it's clearer and more encyclopedic, but the article would certainly be improved by doing so, and would better fulfill the FA-criteria. If nothing else, keep this in mind while sourcing future articles. María (yllosubmarine) 20:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - this article has multiple issues, which together suggest it is not appropriate for FA status at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Fred_Durst_at_the_2008_Tribeca_Film_Festival.JPG lacks any indication of licensing
  • WP:MOS issues - unnecessarily bracketed ellipses, overlinking, etc
  • Article is in need of some copy-editing to address issues of grammar, clarity and flow - for example, "Arvizu persuaded Ross Robinson to listen to the demo, who finally listened to the tape after it was appraised by Robinson's girlfriend" and "because of the teenagers death" are both grammatically incorrect
  • "the phrase "Chocolate Starfish" referred to Durst himself, as he had frequently been called an asshole" - you're going to need to explain that one
  • Multiple inconsistencies in reference formatting, some of which are outlined by Journalist above
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph of Fred Durst was uploaded by the photographer and is on Wikimedia Commons.--WTF (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources issues

  • Two styles of retrieval date (see ref. 10)
  • Use of both "Retrieved" and "retrieved"
  • "BBC News" wrongly italicised
  • Inconsistencies in page range formats, e'g "79–95" but "30–2"

All these need fixing. Don't be discouraged, though; you can get there. Brianboulton (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The page range thing is that it only covers a few pages. "30-2" is pages 30 through 32.--WTF (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Nikkimaria, Maria, Orane, and Brianboulton, all of whom have raised excellent concerns. I suggest Harvard referencing for printed sources or else, you'll be giving the spotchecker a difficult time. The prose isn't particularly spectacular either: Second sentence of the lead needs to be read aloud and reworded: there are two "and"s that are so close to each other. Grammatical error in "After a impressive performance when they opened for Korn at the Dragonfly in Hollywood". And who is to judge how impressive this performance was? Articles must adhere to WP:NPOV. Also, is what Interscope has proposed to pay Bizkit in US dollars? Currency needs to be clarified. This reads bad aloud: "Further criticisms of the band appeared in Rolling Stone and The New York Times; New York Times writer Ann Powers wrote...". Finally, MOS issues in the headings; we don't write 1994–1995, but 1994–95, etc. Sorry, but refs need cleanup and serious copy editing needs to be done for clarity, grammar and neutrality. This is not FA quality yet, but maybe it can be. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Impressive" to the audience. Changed it to "well received".--WTF (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 01:41, 11 January 2012 [65].

Hotel Polen fire edit

Nominator(s): SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 02:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is currently a Good Article and after addressing the issues raised at Peer Review I believe this article is ready to become a Featured Article. I have translated this article from the Dutch Wikipedia and significantly expanded it. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 02:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments, leaning to oppose: a very interesting subject, but I just don't think this article is ready yet. I see quite a few issues with the prose, which may stem from it being translated? Some examples:
  • Hotel Polen (English: Hotel Poland), a hotel in the centre of Amsterdam burned to the ground. -- This reads very strangely, and it's somewhat repetitive from the first sentence, which already establishes that the Hotel Polen fire took place in Amsterdam.
  • The lead does not fulfill WP:LEAD, in that it does not summarize the article as a whole. Consider expanding to include information regarding the fire's cause and cultural impact.'
  • The exact cause of the fire is still unknown after nearly 35 years. There is only speculation.SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 22:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that, but there's currently an entire section in the article called "Cause" -- that there is no known cause should at the very least be mentioned in the lead per WP:LEAD. My point is that it needs to be expanded to properly summarize the article in its current state. María (yllosubmarine) 23:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the beginning of the 16th century there was an inn on the site where the Hotel Polen later was located. -- Very awkward; "was later located".
  • At the end of the 18th century the "Poolsche Koffiehuis" (English: Polish Coffee House) -- Probably incorrect per MOS:FOREIGN and/or WP:ITALICS: Poolsche Koffiehuis and "Polish Coffee House", I think? (Check just to be sure!)
  • In 1891, the Hotel Polen was established by the "Maatschappij tot Exploitatie van het Poolsche Koffiehuis" (English: Polish Coffee House Society)[6] after the adjacent space on the Rokin was bought and a building was constructed there which had been designed by the architect Pierre Cuypers,[6][7] who also designed the Amsterdam Central Station and the Rijksmuseum. -- Borderline run-on, break into several sentences.
  • On the ground level of the building a café-restaurant was opened. -- Syntax: A café-restaurant was opened on the ground level of the building."
  • The Hotel Polen was once known as a fashionable hotel. -- Redundancy of "Hotel... hotel". Establishment? Business?
  • The building had nevertheless been inspected by the fire department and deemed safe. -- When?
  • They did issue a list of proposed improvements to be implemented by the hotel. -- Such as?

These comments cover only the lead and the first section ("History"), so there are other outstanding issues aside from what's listed here. I would suggest getting a few independent copy-edits, especially from those who have experience with writing/reviewing FAs. You can also ask for a reviewer or two at WP:GOCE; it seems they even have a section for hopeful Featured Articles, so hopefully you'll get an in depth review of the prose. The article just isn't at FA level yet, but like I said it's a very good subject, so it's worth the effort. My suggestion would be work on the prose, make some new copy-editor friends, perhaps go through another PR, and then make your way back here when ready. Good luck! María (yllosubmarine) 19:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now, unfortunately, per María. The prose still needs a lot of work, and I can detect a number of style issues. The lede looks quite meagre to me, though the article is relatively short, which brings us to its comprehensiveness. I cannot make a call on this, however, as I'm unfamiliar with the subject. Nevertheless it remains opposable on prose grounds, and I suggest having an uninvolved copy-editor look it over. If the article doesn't garner more replies or reviews in the following weeks I'll attempt to review it myself. All the best, Auree ★ 20:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I am a native Dutch speaker, so I can perform spotchecks on Dutch sources if required. Just ping me if this is necessary. Auree ★ 20:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be grateful for any assistance you can give. Thank you! SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 21:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator has requested my help in improving the article, so I'll take on the role of copy-editing for now. Auree ★ 21:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice if we could have some more details on the hotel, such as how many stories (levels) it had. Auree ★ 21:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of stories is mentioned in the infobox. In the Netherlands the "first story" is known as the Begane grond (ground floor) or Parterre (from the French word meaning the same). What is known as the second story in the US is known as the first floor and so forth. The ground floor was rented to a furniture store so there were five floors above the ground floor. Detailed layouts are depicted in the Fire Department report. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 22:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, was it the café or the furniture store that occupied the ground level? The "History" section states the former... that should probably be double-checked. Edit: I'm not too sure if "History" is an applicable title for the section here. I suggest changing it to "Background" or somesuch, since a fire—which is what the article is about—doesn't really have a history. Auree ★ 22:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was first a café then when business declined it was shut down and the ground floor which previously was occupied by it was rented to the furniture store. Edit: I changed "History" to "Background" per your suggestion. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 03:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try incorporating a bit more information about the hotel itself in the lede, and a lot more details about the fire and its result. A very essential part, the cause, is also missing here. Format-wise, I reckon the lede should look something like this, while the references be moved to the body of the article. Auree ★ 21:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite a bit of work needs to be done, as can be seen from the comments on the lede alone. I recommend withdrawing, working on improving the article in the mean time and bringing it back here once it's ready. I'll be glad to help you outside of FAC, but I just see too many issues here to address while this is at FAC. Auree ★ 21:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After some consultation I decided to withdraw the nomination for now. I hope I will still get come constructive criticism so it may pass a future FAC nomination. Thanks everyone for your input. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 00:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck, and thank you for taking on this article and working with us! I'm also a native Dutch speaker, so I'm sure we could work to get this article in great shape. Just let me know how I can help on my talk page after the current comments have been addressed. Auree ★ 00:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 01:41, 11 January 2012 [66].

Hurricane Igor edit

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarded as the most destructive tropical cyclone in Newfoundland history, Hurricane Igor caused unprecedented flooding across eastern portions of the island, isolating more than 20,000 people. After falling by the wayside last time around at FAC, I've fixed up previous concerns brought up by reviewers and added some more information. I fully believe that this article represents the most comprehensive account of the storm available and meets FA criteria. As always, all thoughts and comments are welcome and encouraged. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Do you by chance have anything more on Operation Lama? - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anything specific? The majority of the second paragraph of Aftermath is about the operation. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not so familiar with Canadian military practices. I have a bias here; I'm aware that the only contact that much of the US public has with the military comes after disasters, including hurricanes, so these clean-up operations have a disproportionately large effect on opinion and even policymaking. I don't know if the same is true in Canada, but if your sources have anything more on the operation itself or reaction to the operation, it would be nice to see a subsection on the operation. - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
  • SSHWS requires an endash, not a hyphen. Since the article currently uses a hyphen, I think you got it mixed up? Also, the preceding sentence looks fine to me; clear and concise. Auree ★ 18:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "completing this phase within hours after of striking southern Newfoundland." You mean it was no longer an extratropical cyclone, or you are talking about it as a tropical cyclone?
  • Changed to After turning northeastward, Igor began an extratropical transition, which it completed after striking southern Newfoundland. in a drive by copyedit. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The remnants of Igor were later absorbed by another cyclone on September 23" Er, being specific won't be harmful here
  • Not sure what bit of information you're looking for here. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While over the open ocean, large swells produced by the hurricane resulted in three fatalities," Instead of using the latter comma, use an em dash
  • Changed to em dash. Not sure if it's me but the em dash seems a bit large, did you mean en dash instead? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with roughly 27,500 residences losing electricity" → "with roughly 27,500 residences having lost electricity"
  • "isolating roughly 150 communities" I'd recommend using a different word other than "roughly" as you used it just four sentences earlier
Meteorological history
  • "classified a tropical depression; at this time the depression was situated roughly 90 mi (140 km) southeast of the Cape Verde Islands." This should be shortened to something like "classified a tropical depression while situated roughly 90 mi (140 km) southeast of the Cape Verde Islands."
  • "at which time it was named" → "and was subsequently named"
  • "[[National Hurricane Center]] (NHC)" should be formatted as "[[National Hurricane Center|National Hurricane Center (NHC)]]" per this.
  • "Development of Igor quickly ceased once it was named as a nearby disturbance" Seems to imply that it was named after a "nearby disturbance" — I'd recommend using "while" in place of "as"
  • I can see your point if you cut out the remainder of the sentence but if read as a whole, I don't read it that way. Maybe someone else could lend their opinion too? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with the problem, but I'm not a fan of the suggestion provided. Overall the sentence is a bit odd, so I'd suggest rewording to "Igor stopped strengthening due to moderate wind shear from a nearby disturbance, which displaced the convection from its center" or something along those lines. Even that sounds a bit off, though. By the way, since this article largely covers a Canadian storm, shouldn't the spelling comfort to Canadian English ("centre" rather than "center")? Auree ★ 13:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with tropical storm-force winds covering an area roughly 680 mi (1,090 km) wide." You use "roughly" just one sentence after the previous usage
Bermuda
  • "the watch was upgraded to a warning as" Clarify by changing "watch" to "hurricane watch" or "warning" to "hurricane warning"
  • No other type of watch or warning was mentioned for Bermuda before so it can easily be assumed to be the hurricane watch in the previous sentence. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Bermudian government closed its schools" I thought residents/agencies/etc. of Bermuda were referred to as "Bermudan"
  • I thought the same thing but this was brought up in the previous FAC. It's Bermudian per the Bermuda article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Against initial fears" Here, it seems to say that they occurred in conjunction or agreement with the fears; it would be more concise if you used "defying" or something like that
  • I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Could you clarify this a bit? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
United States
  • "Rip currents in Florida pulled two people out to sea, who were rescued." → "Rip currents in Florida pulled two people out to sea who were later rescued."
Canada
  • "On September 21, the CHC" It sounds a bit strange when you use "on" followed by the date in the previous sentence and use it again here. I'd prefer "The following day, the CHC" or something of that sort
  • "In St. Lawrence, a confirmed 9.37 in (238 mm) of rain fell," Shouldn't that be a "confirmed total"?
  • "In Cape Pine, near where the center of Igor tracked, sustained winds of 80 mph (130 km/h)[nb 3]" Notes or refs should go after punctuation if possible
  • "it was noted as a 1-in-50 year event, including powerful winter storms." Clarify that you mean including winter storms, it would be a 1-in-50 year event
Aftermath
  • Guess that was fixed in one of the drive by copy edits. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "complaints were made by several people, including church ministers" Remove unnecessary comma
  • This was reworded as well by another edit to Over the course of the recovery phase, several complaints, including concerns lodged by church ministers... Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant oppose on prose for now Comment - Thank you for taking this on again. The article is extremely comprehensive and well researched. Unfortunately, the prose is a bit poor in several areas, which I wouldn't expect from a FA. I've read through the article, and found that problems such as ungrammatical or unnecessarily wordy constructions (including dangling modifiers and "with + ing" setups) extend beyond the lede. The choice of words is also odd and informal in some areas (quickly scanning through the article brought up "Due to a overestimated bias in Igor's intensity," "Igor prompted the issuance of tropical storm watches", "Against initial fears, Igor left relatively little damage across Bermuda", "mass exodus", "The main complaint brought about was", "was to last for the duration of the emergency phase in the storm's immediate aftermath"). I suggest having an uninvolved copy-editor look it through. More specific concerns from the lede below. Auree ★ 18:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The origins of Igor were within a broad area of low pressure – within? Additionally, try avoiding the passive voice here (e.g. "Igor originated from a broad area of low pressure").
  • A prolonged turn towards the north was apparent by this time. – pretty awkward wording, plus I'm not sure what it's saying.
  • I'm not quite sure what is wrong with the current wording. Its saying that by the time Igor reached Category 4 status, a gradual [prolonged] turn to the north had become apparent. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see what it means, but the wording is quite odd. First off, it's in passive voice, and unnecessarily so. Also, "was apparent by this time?" It could easily be reworded using simple and concise prose (e.g. "Igor then made a prolonged turn toward the north", or if you wanna keep the past perfect tense: "By then, Igor had begun making a prolonged turn toward the north"). Auree ★ 21:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a fan of using a broad term like "system" when much more accurate terms have appeared in the article ("hurricane", "cyclone", even "storm").
  • After turning northeastward, Igor began to transition into an extratropical cyclone, completing this phase within hours after of striking southern Newfoundland. – tighten to "After turning northeastward, Igor began an extratropical transition, which it completed after striking southern Newfoundland."
  • The following 'graph has a lot of the type of issues I mentioned before (dangling modifiers and such). Auree ★ 18:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources - will do a check on formatting of sources, but before you address these I suggest reading this and applying any relevant changes recommended there for optimal formatting quality (especially cite template choice). Auree ★ 19:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources need consistency in whether middle name initials for re authors are listed or not
  • Watch out for unnecessarily wikilinking to things like PDF, DOC, and TXT formats
  • Ref 13: Agence France-Presse is not work; Sydney Morning Herald is
  • Ref 15: Bernews should be work for consistency with other newspaper formatting
  • Ref 17: Check publisher/author formatting
  • Ref 20: Same problem as ref 15
  • Ref 25: See here (comments for Ref 13)
  • Ref 33: Author field is confusing
  • Ref 41: Same problem as refs 15 and 20
  • Ref 42: Nitpicking, but check title
  • Ref 44: Needs a closer look. I'm not sure if CBA News is just the hosting website rather than the publisher of the document. As for the actual document, it appears to have multiple chapters written by different authors with multiple editors... I'm not too sure, so I'll ask User:Fifelfoo to help out with this one. Auree ★ 19:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got Ref 44 and fixed it in the article. At its heart Ref 44 is an email, forwarded multiple times during email correspondence, contained in a set of government correspondence, that was then prised open by a media authority under Access to Information, and finally published under a pseudo-title by the media organisation on its website. I used cite report to get the "unpublished" type display, and then set |type=email archive. For the title of the Access to Information publication, I used the |series= field. As none of these titles are real, I used long descriptive titles for documents. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see that you found your way here already. That citation is a first to me. Thanks again, Fifelfoo! Auree ★ 21:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – This article is well-written and reads surprisingly well. Everything seems to be formatted correctly, and I'll leave whatever sourcing issues there are to Fifelfoo and Auraem. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments by Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box)
  • I don't have much to say, but Hylian Auree's excellent FAC review mimics normally what I'd produce. He did a great job explaining it.
  • A nitpick personally, but is "the most intense tropical cyclone of the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season" necessary in the first sentence of the meteorological history?
  • "In the storm's wake, military personnel were deployed to assist in recovery efforts and aid distribution." – This one tends to want to me to ask to rewrite it, because it doesn't sum up the aftermath as well as the good-looking Aftermath section does. I'd at least mention the Ophelia issues afterwards.
  • You have List of retired Atlantic hurricane names see also'd twice. Is it necessary to see also both in the namesake section and within the Aftermath? I'd probably personally toss the Aftermath one.
  • "The main impacts" – From a personal standpoint, something seems very off in wording like this. Is there a different way it could be worded?
  • "Long seen to be within Igor's track, Bermuda was finally placed under a hurricane watch on September 17 as the threat became imminent." – I'd reword this, seems a little POVish to me, but people may disagree.

Just my stuff for you to work on. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 21:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images are unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:31, 9 January 2012 [67].

Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game edit

Nominator(s): Jrcla2 (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article status because it is already at GA status and I would like to see it be the Main Page's Featured Article this coming March 2, 2012. That date marks the 50th anniversary of Chamberlain's remarkable achievement. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box)
  • Citations are a major issue for this article, unfortunately:
  1. The date formatting is a mess. My suggestion is to find one style such as January 6, 2012 and stick with it among all citations.
  2. Citation 23, exactly what is the author here? There seems to be some formatting issues.
  3. There are very few to no retrieval dates in the citations that do have links, that should be rectified.
  4. Citation 1 and 12 is underformatted.
  5. Why is a book cited in the references but not in the Further Reading like Cherry is?
  6. I can see you tried your best, but these need a large overhaul period.
  • The lack of photos pardoning the one in the lead bothers me a slight, but not urgent.

Just thoughts to ponder. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 21:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Zagalejo^^^
  • I would guess that part of the reason his accomplishment didn't make much news is that the NBA, in general, wasn't as popular in the early 1960s as it is today. Do any sources discuss that fact?
  • A general issue: who was using that German book as a source? Is that really the best available source? Is anyone even available to check the text against the source? Zagalejo^^^ 23:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add more as I look through the article. Zagalejo^^^ 22:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose a quick glance I see a bunch of issues.
  • I agree with Zagalejo about the German source, I highly doubt a three page mention in a book about a bunch of basketball stars (according to book) is the most reliable source on the game.
  • Citation number one, I don't see in the source where NBA calls the game one of the greatest ever, (it's originally from ESPN as well), and a claim like that needs more than a few sources.
  • Lead needs to be thickened per WP:LEAD, a bit about the background, the game itself and the aftermath should be mentioned.
  • Comprehensive issues. I see nothing about how the game was totally different from the 1960s until now, on why Chamberlain feat probably won't get accomplish again, potential rule changes because of the game (this game raised eyebrows within the NBA), how the game helped put professional basketball on the map (Chamberlain appeared in the Ed Sullivan show two days after the game), why the game was controversial, and changed sports journalism as no journalist was in the game being "meaningless" and so forth.
  1. Some of these issues is listed on the Walt 1962 book, which isn't used.
  1. I have many more concerns, especially with tone which I will comment tonight Secret account 00:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but I couldn't make it much farther than the references and first few sections before seeing problems that cause a failure to meet FL criteria. Several significant ones have been picked up above; here are other examples that stuck out to me.

  • Reference 1 goes to ESPN.com, not NBA.com.
  • Ref 8 has a p. for a page range when it should be pp.
  • No page numbers are provided for content from ref 9
  • In ref 15, the newspaper that runs that website isn't given, which means that only giving the Associated Press as the publisher is misleading. I had to do some detective work before coming here to see if the source was reliable, which is not a great thing at this stage.
  • In general the references are underformatted and require significant work. I'm also concerned about whether the German source is the best that can be provided. There's nothing that says a foreign source can't be used, but if good sources are avaliable in English, they'd be preferable.
  • Some prose issues exist as well. For example, we have in the lead "The Warriors won the game 169–147, setting a then-record for the most combined points in a game by both teams with 316." It wasn't just the Warriors who set the record; the Knicks played their part too. That needs some re-writing.
  • MoS violations in the game report, where there are numerous scores given without the proper en dashes. "Warriors-Knicks" from Prologue could also use an en dash. While not a big deal on their own, the issues here symbolize a lack of sufficient preparation before the nomination.
  • Also, I see "Warrior-Knicks" later in Prologue. I'd imagine the first name should be plural.
  • The whole third paragraph seems a little out of place in an article about this particular game. I'd be much more interested in a few sentences on why a team based in Philadelphia was playing home games in Hershey in the first place. Maybe this whole paragraph would be a better fit with the added information.
  • "So their inexperienced backup pivot, Darrall Imhoff, was forced to play against scoring champion Chamberlain." I've seen a lot of examples of stellar writing in my time as an FAC reviewer. None of them involved sentences starting with "So".
  • First 42 minutes: "causing arena speaker Dave Zinkoff to fire up the previously sleepy crowd." Were the fans taking naps during the game or something? Also, "fire up" is not that formal.
  • I see "later stated that resistance was futile" in the middle of this section." That's really informal sportswriting-like commentary, and is laden with POV. How did that get past GAN?

Overall, this is a long way from FA standards, and I doubt that it can be fixed in time for this nomination to have a reasonable chance of success. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose mainly because a book dedicated to this game should be referenced.

  1. If Wilt, 1962: The Night of 100 Points and the Dawn of a New Era listed in Further Reading is an entire book on the subject of this game, it would be an oversight to not use it or a similar book as a source.
  2. "meaningless late-season match": elaborate on why it was meaningless
  3. "pivot": explain, wikilink, or just use "center"
  4. "ordered his men to feed Chamberlain": use layman term for feed
  5. "kept his cool despite getting perpetually triple and quadruple-teamed": was this not standard for Wilt?
  6. "He scored another 28 points to lift": in the half or reative to when?
  7. "possibly break a free throw shooting record": should mention here his typical free throw problems
  8. "Warriors guard Guy Rodgers would end the game with 20 assists.": mention at end instead of middle, wikilink to assist
  9. "However, according to all eyewitnesses, the game became a farce.": remove however
  10. "He had no three-point field goals (the NBA did not start recording them until the 1979–80 season).": Is this needed?
  11. Who held records before Chamberlain broke them? Also not sure is a table would be helpful for the record with total and previous and current holders
  12. "Al Attles said that after Chamberlain's previous record 78-point game": move to Prologue.—Bagumba (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 14:10, 2 January 2012 [68].

Mandell Creighton edit

Nominator(s): Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems appropriate, on Christmas day, to nominate the Wikipedia article on Mandell Creighton, ecclesiastical historian and former Bishop of London, to FAC. The article has a tangled and fitful history. It first appeared here in October 2009 in an unsuccessful nomination, by user:Iridescent, for which I was one of the reviewers. During the following weeks, looking at first to simply add more material, I read James Covert’s superb biography of the Creightons, and ended up completely rewriting the article. I then put it on the back burner whose flame eventually sputtered, leading the article to go cold. This may have happened because I became overwhelmed by real life, but also because I felt conflicted. Eventually, in April 2011, fearing that the article, like its protagonist, might become extinct, I put it up for peer review. I received one (and it takes only one) insightful review from user:Tim riley, which breathed new energy both into the article and into my flagging resolve. Although I let the article lie fallow for another six months, I found, as if by magic, all sorts of helpful infoboxes, links to wikiquotes, wikisources, and the like appearing upon my return. The work of Wiki-gnomes is seldom acknowledged. I now await critical comments from the FAC reviewers. I am grateful (even in seeming antagonism) to user:Iridescent for bringing Mandell Creighton to light first on these pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Please check the image captions for stray periods. Graham Colm (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Did find a missing period in an image caption, but no strays, but my eyesight is no longer what it used to be. Perhaps someone else will take a look. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CAP, I have removed the periods from the ends of captions that are noun phrases. Graham Colm (talk) 09:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Good point. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape check - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am most interested to see this here (see my own humble effort), and intend to post some detailed review comments when I am a bit less sleepy. One immediate comment on image sizes: why are most of them so huge? There is no need for this; they are perfectly clear in their thumbnail format. As it is, the images are over-dominant and tend to distract from the text. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome aboard. The images are huge, now that you mention it. My handiwork it is, apparently. All reduced now to WP default size. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The images are appropriately sized, now, but there may be an issue with the licencing of those scanned from A Victorian Marriage: Mandell and Louise Creighton. For these to be PD in the US we need to establish that they were first published before 1923; this requirement supersedes the "life + 70 years" which is the basis of the current licencing. I strongly advise that you consult one of Wikipedia's images experts, e.g. User:Jappalang for advice about the appropriate licencing for these images. Brianboulton (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a note on Jappalang's talk page. The photographs have been credited (in Covert) to the wife of a Creighton grandson. That strongly suggests they were not published elsewhere earlier. Have my fingers crossed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By "credited" I take it you mean she has given the book permission to use these. If she holds the copyright, then there could be problems reproducing them here. But let's see what the experts say; I am rather a novice in such matters. Brianboulton (talk) 14:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The photograph captions have her name, Christian (Kisty) Creighton, in parentheses at the end; however, nowhere does "© Christian Creighton" appear. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: On more general matters, this article looks promising, being fluently written and evidently comprehensive. It could have done with a detailed prose check before its nomination, as there are numerous prose niggles throughout the text. Rather than fill up this page, I am posting these to the article's talk page. Beyond prose glitches I have so far (I'm about half way through) identified the following issues for attention:-

  • Over-citation: E.g. a single citation at the end will cover the whole first paragraph of the Early life section — Brianboulton (15:31, 26 December 2011), — (continues after insertion below.)
    • Yes, a bad habit (in this context) arising from working on articles that are controversial. Will unify in fewer cites.
      • Done — Fowler&fowler (23:56, 26 December 2011), — (continues after insertion below.)
  • "Cumbria" as a region did not exist before 1974, Until then, Carlisle was in Westmoreland.— Brianboulton (15:31, 26 December 2011), — (continues after insertion below.)
    • This I didn't know. Will amend. Done — Fowler&fowler (23:56, 26 December 2011), — (continues after insertion below.)
  • I'm not sure about the Durham Grammar School; "the" isn't normally used when the first word in a school's name is a place. You wouldn't, for example, say "the Eton College" or "the Charterhouse School", though you would say "the Royal Grammar School, Guildford".— Brianboulton (15:31, 26 December 2011), — (continues after insertion below.)
    • What you say sounds right, but a quick check in Google books suggests that "the" has been used with "Durham Grammar School," in the 19th century, in the 20th, and in the 21st. But I'm happy to remove it if it doesn't sound right. Please advise. — Fowler&fowler (23:56, 26 December 2011), — (continues after insertion below.)
  • As a matter of curiosity, how did a schoolboy qualify for a postmastership, which term normally designates a senior undergraduate?— Brianboulton (15:31, 26 December 2011), — (continues after insertion below.)
    • According to Covert, "Failing to win it (a classical scholarship to Balliol (my parentheses)), he applied to Merton and was elected to a classical postmastership. Postmasters, dating back to the 1380s, were those scholarship students who formed the academic nucleus of Merton. (p. 38)" Other Wikipedia pages, for example, Thomas Fowler (a contemporary of Creighton and later, briefly, vice-chancellor of Oxford) and Louis MacNeice, describe similar transitions from high school to postmasterships at Merton. But, then, I'm not an expert here. — Fowler&fowler (23:56, 26 December 2011), — (continues after insertion below.)
  • "he had decided to accept holy orders". Something is surely missing, here. To "accept" holy orders, he must have undergone some form of training and preparation. When did this happen, and what were the dates of his ordination, first as deacon and later as priest? Where was he ordained, and by whom? This information must be on record.— Brianboulton (15:31, 26 December 2011), — (continues after insertion below.)
    • Good point. Will get back on this.
      • Creighton was ordained deacon by the Bishop of Oxford in 1870, three years after he received his BA and became a don. He preached his first sermon in April 1871. I have rephrased the "accept holy orders bit;" will add more. — Fowler&fowler (23:56, 26 December 2011), — (continues after insertion below.)
  • The article is long; in some cases I feel that there is overdetailing on unimportant matters. One example: "Most visitors stayed at least overnight. In one year, 69 visitors were recorded in the family visitors' book." This does not really contribute to our knowledge of Creighton and could easily be excised. There are other similar cases.— Brianboulton (15:31, 26 December 2011), — (continues after insertion below.)
    • I agree. The article was written quickly in the after glow of having just read Covert's book. I felt then that no detail was unimportant.  :) Will prune the fluff.
      • I've pruned some, but I have to say, I'm finding it hard to let go.  :) Perhaps if you could identify other excesses, ... — Fowler&fowler (23:56, 26 December 2011), — (continues after insertion below.)
  • Do we know why the Creighton children were home-schooled, when there were evidently schools available - in which Creighton took a particular interest?— Brianboulton (15:31, 26 December 2011), — (continues after insertion below.)

More on the way... Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few more concerns:-

  • Do we need the long roll call of the people met at the Harvard anniversary? None of these figure elsewhere in the article; a couple of the more distinguished/recognisable names would be adequate
    • Yeah, that does seem long, especially when each gentleman has three names. Will chop.
  • References in the text are to volumes 3 and 4 of the papacy history. But I note in the list of works in the sources section, the volume numbers are in Roman form
  • Talking of "perks" seems a bit trivialising. Also, £10,000 a year wasn't just a "comfortable" salary, it was enormous – twice the prime minister's stipend, and worth about £900,000 at 2011 values (the current Bishop of London's annual salary, incidentally, is about £53,000). I'd like to see some further confirmation of what we were paying our bishops back then .
    • I'm happy to take out the reference to salary, but it really was that much. In 1909, the Archbishop of Canterbury was making £15,000, York: 10,000, Bishop of London: 10,000; Durham: 8,000. (See for example, page 137 of Jackson, Samuel MacAuley (1909), The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Thought: Draeseke-Goa V4, Funk and Wagnals, pp. 137–, ISBN 978-1-4286-3178-6. The Church of England's yearly income from voluntary contributions totaled £8 million in 1909, and from ancient endowments, another 5.5 million. If the multiplier really is 90, then the voluntary contributions by worshipers then totaled GBP 720 million in today's dollars, which is almost the same as what they are today (750 million) when there are likely more parishes with higher costs (infrastructure, salaries, pension funds, ...)
  • On perhaps a more serious issue, I note that of the 146 citations, 124 are to Covert's book (85 percent of all citations). This looks like over-reliance on one source. A reasonable number of sources are listed, together with substantial further reading, so there does not seem to be a shortage of relevant material. Why, then, so much focus on Covert? Brianboulton (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was thinking about the same thing today. The problem is that Covert's is the only biography. The other references have a mention or two here and there, but nothing substantial. Louise Creighton's biography, Life and letters of Mandell Creighton, of course, has a lot of detail (much reproduced in Covert), but that book was published in 1904. I pretty much scoured everything that was available in November 2009. I will be looking at books published in the last two years to see if I can swap attributions. (See my "to do" list on Talk:MC.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had something of the same problem with the Lang article – a single biography (and that written in 1950). However, Crowder's ODNB entry for Creighton lists a number of sources of a reasonably recent nature. These include: Martin & Highfield: A History of Merton College (1997); G. Carnell: The Bishops of Peterborough (1993); D.L. Edwards: Leaders of the Church of England (1971), and others. And, of course, there is Crowder's article itself; citing basic information to it would help to reduce the reliance on Covert. As a further source, I can consult the British Library's newspaper archive for any interesting contemporary references to Creighton; there are bound to be some relating to his time as bishop. Brianboulton (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whoops. I completely forgot about ODNB.  :) I had read it back in 2009, in fact the previous version of the article had used it too, and I meant to incorporate it once I'd finished Covert, but completely forgot. Thanks. That is very helpful. (Covert's book is part critical biography and part popular and anecdotal. That mix has trickled into the article. Crowder's register is certainly more encyclopedic.) If you can consult BL's newspaper archive, that'll be great. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • PS Should I be taking the article off FAC review, rewriting it, and then resubmitting in a couple of months? (I will be traveling after the 3rd and may have less time after that date.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • This might be the best course. As things are, I doubt there will be a consensus to promote by 3rd January. Withdrawal and resubmission would give plenty of time to get all the niggly things right, and I'd be happy to work with you on this. Your call, however. Let me know what you decide. Brianboulton (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK. I've left a note below stating my intention to withdraw as soon as the images issues are sorted out. Thanks again for all your help! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review concerns (per request stated above): Brian is correct in that the copyright status of the images in the US must be ascertained. The US-side copyrights are determined by US law (which is more interested in publication dates), not by the images' country of origin (the place of publication). To be considered legally published, the work must be authorized by the copyright holder. In this case, the photographs are credited to Creighton's granddaughter-in-law; this means she is credited as the source of the photographs, but perhaps not the copyright holder. For some of the images (e.g. File:CreightonFamilyCarlisle2.jpg, File:CreightonOxford1.jpg, this turns out to be not an issue; for others, it could be as detailed below.

  • File:CreightonAndDaughtersCambridgeA.jpg: UK law is more strict on the concepts of "anonymous" authorship; it demands that one must make reasonable research before one can claim the author is anonymous. Reasonable measures include contact with the provider/publisher of the image. I do not see these measures as having been taken. Taken in 1888, the photographer could have reasonably lived till 1943 if he took the photograph in his mid 20s (meaning UK copyright is till 2014). If the author could be identified, then this also falls foul of US law (70 years pma for unpublished materials with identified authors). If indeed no further information can be gotten (contact must at least be done), then we could claim this as anonymous and be more assured it is PD in UK (anonymous 70 years post creation) and US (anonymous 120 years post creation) without worry.
    This was published on p. 368 of Life and Letters of Mandell Creighton, Volume I; it was taken by T. Bennett and Son. The photo studio should be contacted or researched to ascertain who was the author. If not, uploading this image to Wikipedia and using the local copy would resolve the issue. Jappalang (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'll first upload it to Wikipedia. Thanks, btw, for your superbly detailed replies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:CreightonAtPeterborough.jpg: Taken in 1893, this is an issue. If of anonymous authorship and not copyrighted to the Creightons (thus unpublished), it would still be considered copyrighted in the US till 2014 (1893 + 120 + 1).
    This was published on p. 84 of Life and Letters of Mandell Creighton, Volume II, without identification of author. I advise uploading it to Wikipedia instead unless one contacts the Creightons and ascertain they have no knowledge of who took it. Jappalang (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Will upload to Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:LouiseCreightonB.jpg: Preferable to move this to Commons, where Commons:Template:PD-US-unpublished can be used to signify its status in the US (one could of course copy said template contents to the image here, but seems too much work in the end...).
  • File:Mandell Creighton Vanity Fair 22 April 1897.jpg: This should not have been stored on Commons unless F. T. Dalton's have been established to be earlier than 1941. He is said to have flourished during the 1890s and 1900s, which could mean he might have lived till the 1950s. This image would be best stored on Wikipedia with {{PD-1923-abroad}}. Stored on Commons, it is more likely a policy-violating material.
  • File:Creighton memorial Peterborough Cathedral.jpg: The UK allows freedom of panorama for non-2D works of art in public places. If this slab is considered a work of artistic craftsmanship then FoP would apply and the image is safe. Otherwise, the permission of its creator's (Henry Harris Brown) estate is required to make the image "free". Please refer to commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#UK-centric: does the subject of File:Creighton memorial Peterborough Cathedral.jpg qualify as a work of artistic craftsmanship?. Jappalang (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks plenty artistic to me. :) How is the artistic status decided? (Would have helped if I'd read the Village pump thread first. Thanks for doing this.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I think JackLee's argument at Commons is convincing. There is a degree of craftsmanship and artistry here so a work of artistic craftsmanship it is in my view. Jappalang (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Would it be better to have his photograph (e.g. http://www.archive.org/stream/lifelettersofman02creiuoft#page/284/mode/2up) as the identifying image instead of a painting? Would a photograph not be a better and faithful representation of the subject? Jappalang (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you make a good point. Will upload that picture. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • A question of my own: Does the painting not have the right licensing for Commons? (I see that it does have the PD-US-1923-abroad tag.) I guess, for me, the painting does have the great advantage of color. One can see the actual color of Creighton's robes. I, myself, would prefer to have the painting (if it is kosher) in the infobox and put your image in the London section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no PD-US-1923-abroad on Commons (which has only PD-1923). Wikipedia has the PD-US-1923-abroad to clarify that such materials should not be moved to Commons without further consideration on whether it is PD in its country of origin. Jappalang (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler, could you provide the page numbers for the other photographs? It would be helpful for future re-users. Jappalang (talk) 06:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks Jappalang, That is very helpful. I have provided page numbers and complete citation to Covert's book in each of the photographs. I can't say that I've clearly understood what I should be doing next. Should I be contacting the publishers, Hambledon and London Ltd., or the author, James Covert? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Covert retired in 1997. Assuming he was 65 then, he should be pushing 80. In 2003, Continuum Publishers acquired Hambledon and London; In July 2011, Bloomsbury PLC acquired Continuum. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think Covert should be the first step (since the person liaising with Ms Creighton would be him). Most probably, he would not know and would refer you to Ms Creighton, but those are the steps UK laws likely require us to take. If he is invalid, then perhaps Bloomsbury might have the contact information. If clarification cannot be obtained, it would be best to remove the first two pictures from the book listed in bullets above. For Louise Creighton, I have implemented a temporary measure.[69] As for the Vanity Fair image, upload it to Wikipedia with the advice above and use the local (Wikipedia) copy. Jappalang (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I just discovered that the first two pictures above were published in Creighton, Louise (1904), Life and letters of Mandell Creighton, volume 1, Longmans, Green, and Creighton, Louise (1904), Life and letters of Mandell Creighton, volume 2, Longmans, Green. That means that "PD-US-1923-abroad" will apply. For the remaining two, I will implement what you suggest. These volumes have some more pictures (especially one of the 15 year old Creighton) which I might upload, if they don't have too many jpeg artifacts. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, that is great, so it seems Covert's assumption that the photographs were never published was wrong some of the photographs were already published (since Creighton's wife published his letters with the photographs in 1901, they must have been reproduced with the authors' permission; they were likely alive and prepared to pursue copyright infringement). Better quality (and higher resolution) pictures can be extracted here and here. I note that Mrs Creighton has listed the photographers in the List of Illustrations for certain photographs; that means investigation must be carried out on their life spans. It would be safe to have those images (published in those 2 books, but uncertain on whether their authors have died more than 70 years ago) on Wikipedia with {{PD-1923-abroad}} instead of Commons. Jappalang (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Um... with the discovery of Life and letters of Mandell Creighton, several new PD (at least in the US) photographs are also found and introduced into the article. The end result, however, seems a bit too much (on a 1920px-wide screen, the left and right are all images or quote boxes). Maybe a bit of consideration on which images/quoteboxes to use should be taken? Copyright wise, I believe there is no more issues with the images currently used in the article. Jappalang (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yup, guilty as charged. I did go overboard. I've removed the caricature image (per BB's suggestion in review). I've left the others in for now, but will be keeping your remarks in mind when working on the article again. Thanks again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness or distribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't need ellipses at the beginning or ends of quotes
    • Done. Removed all.
  • Don't need to include total page count for books
    • I've removed the page count for all references except those in the subject bibliography (where I think they provide useful information). If it is against MOS guidelines, please let me know.
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher locations for books
    • Added location to all.
  • Subject bibliography should appear before citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, SandyGeorgia, about the templates. I forgot about not using them! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note
Since the article relies largely on one source, since other sources have been identified which need to be incorporated, and since I don't have enough time to do this before I start traveling on the January 3, I feel it is best to withdraw the article from FAC review and to resubmit in a couple of months. I will formally let it remain here for a couple of days yet until the image issues have been sorted out. You are welcome to make suggestions here until that time, but please don't vote (support or oppose). Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Final summarizing note
I will be working on diversifying the sources and also on making the latter half of the article more nuanced. I will resubmit in a few months time. I'm grateful to user:Brianboulton for bringing to bear on the article his outstanding reviewing skills. The prose review is now complete, although not yet entirely implemented. I'm also grateful to user:Jappalang for his offering without delay his great expertise on images. I would like to request the FAC delegates to now withdraw the article from FAC review. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 11:38, 1 January 2012 [70].

Super Meat Boy edit

Nominator(s): PresN 00:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, hopefully second time is the charm for this indie video game. Last FAC in July ran into some fixable issues that were then not fixed as I got really busy at work. Four months later, here it is again! As before, it's been copyedited by Diannaa of the WP:GOCE as well as beat on in the last FAC, all of the refs are working and archived, and it has alt text and no redirects. I think I've addressed everything that came up in the last FAC, so hopefully it will be smoother sailing this time. --PresN 00:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed the link/archive.
  • Kotaku is considered a reliable source per WP:VG/RS, for the authors in question- Michael McWhertor, reviews editor, was asked by SCE to appear on the second season of their reality tv series, The Tester, as well as a guest on Gametrailers TV. Stephen Totilo has worked with MTV Networks on video games, written articles for IGN, the New York Times, Newsweek among others.
  • Gamerevolution is considered a reliable source per WP:VG/RS, and is cited in dozens scholar articles per Google.[71][72] It is also a source material for several books,[73] such as Playing Video Games: Motives, Responses, and Consequences by Peter Vorderer and Jennings Bryant,[74](p. 310) and Alice's Adventures: Lewis Carroll in Popular Culture by Will Brooker.[75] (p. 254)
  • Destructoid - I had a justification, but then I remembered that I don't much like the site or want to drive traffic to it, so it's been replaced. --PresN 21:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great article, but a few flaws I've got to mention:

  • the wikilinked "Windows PCs" redirects to Microsoft Windows, so it may be best to wikilink it as "Windows PCs"
  • "Ghosts 'n Goblins" is overlinked, being wikilinked more than once in the main body of the article, while GameTrailers is overlinked in the Reception section
  • Does "United States" need to be wikilinked?
  • The "(XBLA)" from "Xbox Live Arcade (XBLA)" is first used in the Development and marketing section, despite "Xbox Live Arcade" being used in the lead, as well as the Gameplay section before it

That is all; if you have the time, please analyse the article The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, which is at FAC, and leave any commwnts on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion/archive5-SCB '92 (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All done, thanks! --PresN 23:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Pretty sure collapsable tables, like the ones for the characters and soundtrack, are discouraged by the MoS.
  • WP:COLLAPSE doesn't prohibit them, it just states that you shouldn't collapse article text, reference lists, or image galleries. The default collapsible table has been fixed in recent years so that it is properly read by screen-readers. --PresN 06:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Development and marketing: There are a couple examples of double periods, caused by the end of sentences coming right after game titles with periods at the end. There's one at the end of the section's first paragraph, and another in a sentence mentioning WarioWare D.I.Y. Not sure what the MoS presribes for this, to be honest.
  • Refs 20 and 48 have parts of their titles in all caps, which they shouldn't be even if the sources present them that way.
  • Has Twitter (ref 22) become a reliable source? I'm not aware of it being considered one, although the fact that it's from the company may make it a primary source of sorts. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Twitter is a medium like a blog, not a source, since the company/person in question is doing the writing, not Twitter itself. As such, reliability falls to the poster, which in this case is the developers, so it's a primary source. --PresN 06:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 06:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't read the article yet, but I would call the playable character list gameguide info and recommend its removal. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Well, I disagreed last FAC, but you're right. Removed the table and merged the info into the Gameplay section. --PresN 20:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • "the evil Dr. Fetus." - not sure why we need to call him "evil". It is understandable one way or the other.
    • ", though the red blood left behind on surfaces that the player has touched remains.[4]" - will this affect the gameplay if the blood is on the ground?
    • "flash version" - flash should be capitalicized
    • "The game was explicitly designed by the team to be their version of Super Mario Bros.[12]" - sounds odd
    • "In 2011 Voxelous" - no comma?
    • "is 2'25" long," - do you mean 2:25?♫GoP♫TCN 16:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed all of these. --PresN 17:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I did some edits and hopefully improved readability a little. I think it's a great article. One question though, is there any plot information to be added? It doesn't sound like the game has a very complicated storyline, just asking. Tango16 (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's basically no story- each level is in a vacuum, and between worlds are short cutscenes that do little but show meat boy getting close to bandage girl, Dr. Fetus stealing her away, and a reason for the transition in level theme. The plot isn't noted in any review or synopsis, and isn't a driving force for the game's action. --PresN 17:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, then. I don't have any other questions about the page. Tango16 (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial Spotcheck 1/63 sources Footnote 12 was cited m times, and was the most heavily relied upon item. It is a primary, sometimes it was cited properly with a backing secondary, sometimes not. Frustratingly, despite this being a 4 page source, the citation fails to give the page number for various claims. I don't have any concerns regarding paraphrase due to the style of writing used which is appropriately synthetic and involves rewriting from scratch imho. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is a primary source so heavily relied on for narrative as well as anecdote, and so little backed up by secondary sources?
    • Fails verification: "The PC release was more heavily promoted than the XBLA version." Care to explain why when all the other uses are very careful? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to all- I'm going to be a bit slow for the next week or so; I'm out of the country so my internet access is spotty. As for Fifelfoo in particular- First off, I've never heard of anyone asking for page numbers for a 4-page interview. I can certainly do it though (not right now, but hopefully in the next few days). As for the use of the source- it's not self-published (so does that count as a primary source?), and its used exclusively for the development section, so I'm unsure what you mean by "narrative". It's not backed up with other sources for the simple reason that no other sources for that information exist. Indie video games, and indeed, video games in general, seldom get any third-party articles about their development process- a post-mortem by the developers is generally the best source we have for what went on before the game was announced or released. As to your second point, it's a combination of two parts of the source (and I'm fully open to rewording it; it was changed in the last FAC as well) - on page 2 they talk about how much they worked with Steam to design the PC release sale and promotion, while they spend the entirety of page 4 complaining about how little the Xbox release was promoted. The only purpose to the sentence is just to note that the problems that the article talks about happening with the Xbox release were not present in the PC release, and not to make a strong statement about the amount of PC promotion. --PresN 17:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 11:38, 1 January 2012 [76].

Martha Layne Collins edit

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers the life of Kentucky's first (and to date, only) female governor. It passed a GA review on April 8, 2010, but has not undergone a peer review. Collins was the seventh female governor in U.S. history and the third who was not the wife or widow of a past governor. She got some consideration as the Democratic VP candidate from Walter Mondale before Mondale chose Geraldine Ferraro. I'm hoping to get an FA pass in time for this article to be considered for TFA on International Women's Day (March 8), or at least sometime during Women's History Month in the U.S. (March). Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 4: why no author?
    • Fixed.
  • Use a consistent format for shortened citations to authorless newspaper articles - for example, compare FNs 4 and 9
    • Well, FN 4 was messed up to begin with. All authorless newspaper articles should be of the form "title". Newspaper name. If you find any that aren't, please let me know.
  • For multi-author works, be consistent in how many authors are included in shortened citations
    • Assume you mean A New History of Kentucky; added Klotter
  • Check formatting on Wolfe and Kocher citations compared to other newspaper articles
    • Fixed
  • FN 52: check capitalization
    • Fixed.
  • FN 55: check Hall of Fame title
    • Fixed.
  • No citations to Chellgren, "Midway College Elects Trustees"
    • Fixed.
  • Check alphabetization of bibliography
    • Fixed.
  • "Toyota Incentives Legal, Court Rules; Justices Split 4—3 Over Package" - should use endash, not emdash
    • I hate dashes.
  • University Press of Kentucky or The University Press of Kentucky?
    • Fixed.
  • Check newspaper name on Kocher
    • Fixed.
  • Be consistent in how you notate authors/editors of larger works (ie. "In..."). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed by adding second author for A New History of Kentucky
Thanks for your comments. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 11:38, 1 January 2012 [77].

Jud Süß (1940 film) edit

Nominator(s): Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this as a featured article because, after a couple of months of work, I think it's ready. This is an important film as it is one of the two or three most famous and studied antisemitic films of the Nazi era. It has been the subject of at least three documentary films in recent years and, unfortunately, seems to have been revived in neo-Nazi and white supremacist circles. Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't leave spaces between footnotes and the punctuation they follow
  • "Even these characters and their actions are distorted to support the film's antisemitic message." - source?
    • Almost every source supports the assertion that the film distorts the historical characters; some sources support the assertion that the film does not closely track the historical record. However, the specific wording of this sentence is my own summary of what is written (and supported) in the rest of the article. Thus, there is no one source that makes the specific assertion in the sentence. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additions or changes to quoted material should be made using square brackets; punctuation things like dashes should be silently addressed
  • Ranges should use endashes
  • Sources should appear after footnotes
  • Watch for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods, italicization errors, etc
  • Why does the Nelson listing have a retrieval date but no URL?
  • Don't mix templated and untemplated sources
  • Formatting for Sources should be internally consistent and the same as that used for footnotes
  • Don't duplicate full bibliographic info between footnotes and Sources
    • What should be left out of the sources? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing. Usually when one includes a sources section listing sources used in footnotes, it's because one is using shortened citations, {{sfn}}, {{harvnb}} or similar. Thus, as a footnote, you might have "Fox, p. 4" (or however you wanted to format that) and the full bibliographic info in Sources. Alternatively, you could ditch the sources section altogether and just have full bibliographic info in footnotes. It's up to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Resolved - I chose to ditch the sources section altogether and commented out the "Sources" section since all the bibliographic information is already in the "References" section. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
  • FN 7: formatting
  • Web sources need publisher and retrieval date

Oppose for now, as there are a lot of formatting issues to deal with in citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Many of the issues mentioned above have been addressed. I'm still working on some of them. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question I was just wondering why the cast section is needed if they are inline the plot section and there is a casting section. Also why is it in a table? --Peppageಠ_ಠ 22:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... I dunno. It seems de rigeur for articles on films to have a "Cast" section that provides a concise listing of the cast. I'm not wedded to having it but, when the article went through peer review, Brianboulton seemed to think that the Plot, Analysis and Cast sections were standard for most FA-quality articles about films and so should be presented first in the article rather than last so I moved them up to the top. The "Plot" section mentions the key actors but, because the article is already quite long, it does not cover all the action of the film or even all the actors. Similarly, the "Casting" section covers only the casting of the four lead actors because several sources cover the story of their reluctance to accept the parts offered to them.--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at MOS:FILM#Cast for the answer. Perhaps it would be best to take the names out of the plot and leave the section? I think the table is the real issue anyway, I don't see the need for it. --Peppageಠ_ಠ 03:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me about MOS:FILM. I didn't know that existed. I will look it over and see if there are any other issues that need addressing. As for the "Cast" section, I will de-tableize the info immediately and see if anybody else objects to the section remaining. I will also compare the list in the "Cast" section against the summary in the "Plot" section. If all the important actors are mentioned in the "Plot" section, it might make sense to dump the "Cast" section altogether. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved - I took a look and there are no actors mentioned in the "Cast" section that weren't being mentioned in the "Plot" section so I commented out the "Cast" section altogether. Thank you for your suggestion. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 15:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I want to get your thoughts on a possible page title of "Jud Süss (1940 film)" ... although after the ß (ess-zed) is explained in the text, I don't have a preference in whether to use it in the text. It's a somewhat thorny issue ... 20 years ago, serious copyeditors were generally adamant about allowing only a few accent marks, no other non-English diacritics and characters, generally in text but especially in titles and headlines. Chicago has loosened up a bit recently ... but I can't figure out yet how far this new tolerance for strange letters (strange to most English-speakers) has progressed; different guides say different things. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 15:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ugh... this whole question about "ss" vs. "ß" is a can of worms. I have opened this can, eaten the worms and now have an upset stomach. Earlier versions of this article had a mish-mash of inconsistent usage wrt ß and umlauts. As I worked to regularize the usage, I had some doubts about the best way to handle some issues so I posted a query on WT:GERMANY. The discussion can be found here. In brief, I was given specific advice regarding the spelling of the names Malte Jaeger and Werner Krauss (no umlaut, no ß). I was also informed that there is no consensus and indeed a fairly gnarly difference of opinion regarding the use of diacritical marks in article titles. I was advised not to try to form a consensus regarding "ss" vs. "ß" in article titles because it would just increase the already existing disruption. Note that, if we were to get rid of both the umlaut and the ß, we would wind up with "Jud Suess" which is really the least used of the various ways to spell this name. If there is a strong opinion that this article should be titled "Jud Süss" instead of "Jud Süß", I could accede to it although I think I would want to get the opinion of editors at WP:GERMANY first before finalizing anything. For what it's worth, my rationale for the current article title is that "Jew Süss" is the title of the 1934 British film and "Jud Süß" is the title of the 1940 film that is the subject of this article. This more or less reflects usage in the sources although there is not always a consistent usage and "Jud Süss" does appear although not as frequently as "Jud Süß". Had enough? Have the worms given you an upset stomach as well? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a tough one. Here are a few ngrams from books.google.com: Jud Süß (no hits!) vs. Jud Suss vs. Jud Suess, dass vs. daß, heißt vs. heisst. ß seems to be losing, despite the inevitable presence of German text in some of those hits. My sense is that most copyeditors are still opposed to characters that many English-speakers won't even be able to guess at, but characters where they're likely to guess the wrong pronunciation (such as Ł and Ř) are now okay. So ... is ß now okay because it might be mispronounced as a B? Not sure, but the ngrams seem to suggest we're not there yet. (ü is fine btw, AP Stylebook and Chicago have supported it for a long time.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm... it seems that my memory did not serve me well. A quick glance at the first few pages of results from a Google Books search suggests that "Jud Süss" does in fact appear more frequently in English-language sources than "Jud Süß". (Google converts a search for "Jud Süß" into a search for both ""Jud Süß" and ""Jud Süss". I suspect I was confusing English-language sources with German-language sources. Based on this, I am more open to the idea of renaming both the article and the name of the title role throughout the article. If no one else puts an oar in, I will do this in the next few days. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no need to add disambiguation links to a page whose name already clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term. (WP:DISAMBIG#Usage_guidelines) --Z 20:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When we have a quoted text in another one, single quotation (') should be used for the former (footnotes #57, 77, and 87); Example: "quoted text... 'inner quoted text' ...". --Z 20:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect these titles (if necessary[?]): Jud Süss (1940 film), Jud Süss (1940), Jew Süss (1940), Jew Suss (1940 film), Jud Suss (1940), Jew Suss (1940). --Z 20:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is still another unsourced statement, it would be good if you can fix that. --Z 20:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see '(in German)' somewhere and '(German)' somewhere else. Article should follow a consistent style. --Z 20:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using footnotes in footnote is wrong. (minor issue though) --Z 20:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be better if you use citation templates in "Further reading" section. --Z 20:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet. I doubt this article is readily intelligible to anybody who doesn't already know about the subject. Let us have this article in a comprehensible order before we expose it to the public.
    Immediately after the plot summary, we have:
    Some of these departures were based on the Feuchtwanger novel and the Mendes' film adaptation of it; others were introduced by Goebbels and Harlan
    Feuchtwanger has not been mentioned before, and his novel is described far below.
    This is followed by:
    Although Lion Feuchtwanger believed that Harlan's film relied heavily on his novel, Bergfelder and Cargnelli characterize the film as "based primarily on Wilhelm Hauff's novella" and assert that it only uses a few characters from Feuchtwanger's novel
    Who are Bergfelder and Cargnelli? why should the reader care about their opinion (which contradicts the sentence above)?
    More importantly, Hauff's novella and its plot is not described at all, as far as I can see. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

Oppose for now on these issues. —Andrewstalk 23:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you for your review. I confess I know very little about how to edit the metadata of image files. In particular, I need some help with figuring out how to add an English description to {{information}} of an image when there is already a German description. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For example, for this one, click on the   icon on the topright corner, then go to the edit page (login before that) and add {{en|Description in English}} just before the German one:
{{Information
| Description = {{en|in English}} {{de|in German}}
...
--Z 09:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/January_2012&oldid=872861478"