This article is about... Mulberry Street, basically Dr. Seuss's first book. Because it was his first, many writers have focused on it, and as far as I know, this Wiki article cites all of them. I don't really know anything about FACs, but Curly Turkey, who has been working with me on this article and who seems to be a regular here, says this article is just about ready. I'll take his word for it and brace myself for the deluge of constructive criticism. :D Bobnorwal (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:And_to_Think_That_I_Saw_It_on_Mulberry_Street.png: who is the cover artist?
File:MS_Kungsholm_1928.jpg: can we translate the permission details, and give a more specific source than "internet"?
File:Beatrix_Potter1.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whooops! I missed the bit about the source for the Kungsholm. I'm not having luck tracking down another copy of the image online, so for now I'll just comment it out. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great topic, really interesting read. I made some small changes. (I love the link between Seuss and Potter, which I'd never heard of before, despite reading them both as a young child.)
"By 1943, it had printed 31,600 copies, and Geisel's royalties were no more than $3,500" How about "but"? Also, what's that in today's money?
I think "and" works better. I'm not really sure if that was a small, average, or above-average amount of royalties to receive from that amount of sales at that time, so the "but" would be too presumptious at this time. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In 2012, on the occasion of the book's 75th anniversary, Michael Winerip argued that later Dr. Seuss books were more entertaining and inventive than Mulberry Street but that it is nevertheless important as a harbinger of the many books that followed." This is apparently unreferenced- perhaps move the reference to after this statement, or add another reference after it?
Fixed. Curly warned me about the ambiguity of my sourcing method at GAN. I fixed some of the sources but not all. This was one of them. You pointed out another one a few points down. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"other Dr. Seuss books" Why do you use the pen name here? Are you referring only to Geisel's works written under that name?
Fixed. I changed it to "Geisel's other books". Thank. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Deems Taylor adapted Mulberry Street into an orchestral work, Marco Takes a Walk. The work opens with a theme that represents the horse and wagon, which is followed by six variations that represent the various changes in Marco's story. The work's premiere, conducted by Howard Barlow, occurred at Carnegie Hall on November 14, 1942.[36]" I wonder if there's any more information about this?
What more would you like to know? The source that I based this passage on goes on for about three pages about that musical work. I haven't found any other sources about it, although they're probably out there. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd at least note that it may have been a one-off performance: Dr. Seuss and Mr. Geisel: A Biography: "Ted [Geisel] missed the event, and to his knowledge it was never performed again". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"nother group of children held up a banner that read, "And to think that we saw him on Mulberry Street"." What's the reference for this?
Can I suggest that the Fogerty point be moved to the paragraph with the orchestral work, while the homecoming thing is moved to the paragraph talking about the Springfield Cycle?
Really nice read- I'll take a snoop around for other sources soon, as I note that you haven't cited any journals- I imagine that there's going to be a bit of coverage of Seuss out there. J Milburn (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've jotted some comments on this page's talk page concerning possibly missed sources. J Milburn (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your work! As you can see, Curly and I are working to address all your points. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, thanks also for all your hunting down of sources. You're quite right about the lack of scholarly journals. The problem is one of practicality. I just don't have access to Project Muse, or at least I don't think I do. Bobnorwal (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great news! I found out I have access to it today. It's the weekend now, though, and I can only access it from my school's campus. I'll sift through the sources within a week. Bobnorwal (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- After remaining open a month without approaching consensus for promotion, no activity for a couple of weeks, and apparently further research to do, it's time to archive this nomination. Per FAC instructions, pls wait at least two weeks before returning to nominate this or any article; you can take that time (or as long as you need) to improve the article outside the pressure of the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm resubmitting this article following its first unsuccessful nomination, here, and here.
Since that time I've attempted to address all the issues raised by previous reviewers. These had to do with the use of lists; reliance on List of metalloid lists (another Wikipedia article); the structure of the article; use of notes; citation formatting consistencies; and citations to multiple editions of the same work.
Lists have been converted to prose. The List of metalloid lists is now referenced in a peer-reviewed academic journal (as is also the case with the metalloid article itself). The article structure has been overhauled so that the focus is on the metalloid category as a whole, rather than the commonly recognised metalloids. I've checked and adjusted the notes to make sure the article can be read and understood without necessarily needing to refer to the notes. I've checked and adjusted the formatting of citations for consistency. Multiple editions of the same work have been removed where redundant. Other minor improvements were made along the way.
I thank the earlier reviewers, Squeamish Ossifrage and John for their comments in response to my initial nomination. Despite my (unhelpful) initial misgivings the article is significantly better now. Sandbh (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just having a look at the mind-numbing "References" section, I am reluctantly leaning towards oppose. The citations are not properly and consistenly formatted -- for example, title case is not used, and ISSNs and ISBNs are missing for some of the print publications (ISSN 0040-1692 for Technology Review, ISSN 1536-3686 for American Journal of Therapeutics, ISSN 0165-0513 for Recueil des Travaux Chimiques des Pays-Bas, etc). This makes them difficult to digest and verify. I would like to know of Nikkimaria's views of the references first before I go any further.
Done. Have switched to title case for all references. Have added ISSNs per WP:ISSN (and learnt how to format them, proper-like). Sentence case was in use the last time I was at university several yrs ago and I'd gotten used to that. Appreciate the feedback. RL will get in the way of me being an FAC regular; I do have a look and make comments/edits now and again though. I hope the referencing looks better now. Tx again, Sandbh (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Removed dead link; replaced with Pyykkö 2012 citation and ref.
I took a quick look over the article... referencing the article to the article itself (i.e "The generic definition set out at the start of this article") to me is not good writing, but I think I've seen this at FAC before (brain comes to mind). I've also seen this on other broad topics, but I haven't seen an actual FA containing such phrases...
Fixed. Good call; I've had a go at rewording the start of the Generic section.
"In 2003, arsenic trioxide (Trisenox®)..." I don't think the trademark symbol is needed, and can you link "essential element"? Seattle (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done (x2). Thank you for the comments. Sandbh (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've had this article in my Watchlist for a long time, since its first FAC, but wasn't really looking at edits and how it was changing. During the first FAC, I felt it was far from FA standards for a number of reasons; now, however, the article looks a lot better. I gave it a quick read and now it is a decent work. Specifics will follow, but knowing the main author cares about the article, I feel positive about it.--R8R (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here goes:
Lead is very good. One thing I have to ask is, why show aluminum and carbon in the main diagram. I mean, selenium as a metalloid can be found easily in literature (esp. environmental and such), but Al and C are a lot rarer hits.
Tx for the kind words re the lede. I've shown Al and C for three reasons. The first is the almost iconic status of the dividing line between metals and nonmetals. The second (related) reason is that metalloids, as a whole, are most often thought of as being adjacent to the dividing line. However, there is no agreement as to just which of the elements next to the line warrant being classified as metalloids. So, I've simply shown how often the elements next to the dividing line are classified as metalloids, based on 194 metalloid lists. The third reason is in acknowledgement of the fact that—even though, taking myself as example, I would never not consider aluminium to be a metalloid—aluminium and carbon were the elements next most frequently recognised as metalloids after B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te, Po, At and Se. Sandbh (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I got it.--R8R (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Germanium was also thought... -- I can't find this in the main text of the article, where it would be benefitial (for example, in the Origin and usage subsection, or elsewhere)
Done: Copied text to end of germanium mini-bio; copy edited and added some extra content. Sandbh (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the Generic subsection, you first mention the common metalloids, then you mention Se, Po, and At; next, I would expect Al and C. At least in the list of elements "ocassionally classified as metalloids."
Fixed: The paragraph that talks about the common metalloids is limited to talking about that topic. It starts with a citation to the common metalloids and follows this with citations that vary the membership of the common metalloid club. Al and C are left out because there are no citations saying they should have the same status as the common metalloids. Have copy edited this para a tiny bit to try and make it clearer that the topic is the elements commonly recognised as metalloids. The next paragraph talks about the other elements that are still less frequently classified as metalloids, including C and Al. Sandbh (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(for example, nitrogen; carbon) -- why a semicolon here?
Oh, a semicolon is normally used to separate items in a list. Sandbh (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, "for example, nitrogen or carbon" would be more like natural (and still neutral) language.
Done
Why use "same" in the table when you can just copy the word in the cell above?
(see the mini-example, right) -- "right" is little use when, for example, you use a mobile version of Wiki
Fixed: Changed to 'see the mini-example, in this section.' Sandbh (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It could be cool if you managed to find someone to turn the dark gray color square into a line of the same color (since you use a line of that line, with the color of the line having a different function than other colors. Don't know if this is a requirement, but this could be a good idea.
Could you explain that some more as I don't understand what you mean? As well, I just noticed the dividing line isn't access friendly per WP:ACCESS so perhaps I also need to add some descriptive text. That could remove the need to have a legend box for the line. Sandbh (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now you have colored squares for element categories and a colored square for the line color in the legend. Instead, you should have colored squares for element categories and a line segmant for the line. Is this description clearer? I can attach a picture.
That's fine too.
Fixed template streamlined and text expanded a bit for accessibility purposes Sandbh (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First you say two of the six are toxic, then you say all six are. I've removed the first phrase, but if you want it back, you can do that (but please explain why).
Fixed: Have rearranged this paragraph. Reads better now. Tx. Sandbh (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding -- this word is too fancy for me. Fancy is not maybe the word, but there is a MOS rule you should use less complex words when it's possible (for example, always "on" and never "upon," except for quotes and proper names). This might be an issue here. (If it's not, please let me know.)
Fixed. Changed to 'Even so'. Sandbh (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike metallic antimony -- made me think for a second I'd missed somrthing. Maybe better use "While metallic animony is relatively non-toxic" or smth like that?
Done Good idea. Sandbh (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm somehow glad there's no polonium radioactivity mention here :) (no action required)
type III-V semiconductors (such as ...) -- I think a small parentesized explanation would not hurt, for example "type III-V semiconductors (a semiconductor composed of one or more group III elements and one or more group V elements, such as ...)" Don't insist, though.
Fixed. Have added wikilink. Sandbh (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm, let's say it's okay now.
Cadmium telluride (CdTe) -- previosuly, you refer to a compound either by a name or a formula, and two lines later you have just "bismuth telluride" (don't know if such consistency is a good idea, just noting)
Fixed: I believe the approach I tried to follow was to use just prose, with the following exceptions: (a) when saying something like, 'the oxides…readily form glasses', where the ellipsis = the formulae of the oxides in question; (b) when there is no easy prose equivalent for a compound; (c) when the formula is not obvious, in which case the formula is added after the prose; (d) when industry usage is to refer to a compound by its formula moreso than its prose name (e.g. CdTe) in which case the formula is included, even if it is simple. I had a look at WP:MOSCHEM but it doesn't address this. Sandbh (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Reasonable enough. For future editors, I'd suggest you leave this guideline on the talkpage, so others can understand it too.
Done
When I find time, I'll continue from the section Elements commonly recognised as metalloids--R8R (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break, intended for easier editing via mobile devicesedit
It is about 10% less dense than aluminium but, unlike the latter,[219] is hard and brittle. -- a somewhat questionable antithesis. 10% isn't that much. I think the point was about as dense as Al, but a lot harder, then I suggest you remove the mention of percents. same for Si.
figures in the end of the same para, and almost all figures in this section --- mmm. not so great. I do realize what these figures are for and find them useful, but only because I know what they mean. Many, many people won't. Note that later on, you have the following: "with an electrical conductivity of 1.0–1.3 × 104 S•cm−1, a value similar to that of liquid mercury." (a very good note). This is a serious question. Luckily enough, it's not too difficult to solve. I suggest you do the following: you explain the difference between metals, nonmetals, and metalloids in the corresponding section, so you can explain the typical values for the parameters in that section as well. You should also explain what those parameters even are (by the way, it gives you possibilities for some awesome notes, like (hence metallic bonding) when explaining the band gap). Readers' love will be all yours ;)
Fixed.Clarification request to follow. I removed the content about superconducting transition points to lighten the dataload. For the boron entry, the first of the "big-six" biographical sketches, I added an electrical conductivity comparison (to tap water), and I added a note about the relative width of boron's band gap compared to the other semiconducting metalloids, and Se and white P. 'Band gap' also currently has a wlink and there is also more info about electrical conductivity values for metals, metalloids, and nonmetals in the existing 'Compared to those of metals and nonmetals subsection', including notes with numerical ranges. All the names of the parameters in the 'Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals' table in that section currently have wlinks, too. I hope this looks OK now; if not yet just let me know. Sandbh (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
band gap yet to be explained. Unlike electrical conductivity, which is a intuitively clear term, band gap will not be understood by those who have little understanding in the topic. So it could be cool if you squeezed in a short definition if the term. This is doable.
the energy required -- makes sense, but raises question about P (no action required, just noting)
aluminum: electron potential: It's very cool that you have that external link here. seriously. (no action required)
Thank you good catch Sandbh (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Up to polonium's profile, the only thing I have concerns about is the understandability of figures. Astatine's profile, though, reads as if it were written by another person in a different writing style (encyclopedia vs journal). My personal feeling is, that is because here, there are many authors names. I suggest you drop them because the text is always easier to read when it has fewer names unless we're discussing a story. There are a lot of reasons. Some are psychologic (for unprepared readers, names are attractions and deviate them from the point, etc.). My concern is that 99% of readers won't ever need these names, but , again, for an unprepared reader, these names are a ballast. This is different for journal articles. Even the 1% that needs them, will find them in ref descriptions. A de-personified text is easier to read, when it comes to an overview article. In a journal article, this is not relevant. Moreover, in journal articles, a reader may need those names. This is rarely the case for Wikipedia.
The next section is hard to write without names, though. Actually, it can go w/o names as well, but this would require rewriting. Besides, I don't see a point in having the 1954 and 2007 classifications when discussing near-metalloids (the text has only metalloids). Actually, are these authors crucial to the near-metalloid definition? Can't you go with something like "In 1935, a new concept of near-metalloids, elements that behaved like metalloids, but also like metals or nonmetals, emerged. This concept has occured in many works since then, and the elements classified as such were ..., ..., more rarely also ..." Authors are really secondary detail. They could be fine in a close-up spinoff article, but not in the overview article.
Done Trimmed and rewritten to tighten the focus; also changed the section title from special cases to honorable mentions (to better reflect the fact that the elements involved are ordinarily classified as metals and nonmetals). Superfluous refs still to be removed from References section.Sandbh (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On aurophilicity, see also.[23] -- shouldn't this very sentence be "see also [23]," as [23] isn't just a ref, but also a part of the sentence
Fixed
IE -- better spell out
Done
A more technical thing -- wikilinking is not always done at first occurrence. (Maybe there's a script that checks this. If you don't have it, tell me, and I'll fix it. errr, I only have the duplicate links script, sorry) An outsourceable thing. (I only noticed band gap inconsistency.)
Fixed, I believe. band gap wikilink. I have the script that checks for duplicate links but wasn't able to find a script for checking the first occurrence of wikilinks. Am checking this manually :( Done manually. I followed the WP guidance that said, 'Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.' and 'But note below that as a rule of thumb editors should only link the term's first occurrence in the text of the article.' Sandbh (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a very good article.--R8R (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your considered comments. A few items for me still to attend to. Sandbh (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Four items to go, in total Sandbh (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two to go; one about changing the legend box for the dividing line into a line segment; the other about figure overload in the biographical sketches of the commonly recognised metalloids. Sandbh (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One left (the legend box). Sandbh (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- This has been open six weeks now without approaching consensus to promote so I'll be archiving it shortly. It does appear that the article has improved since its first FAC so I'd encourage you to return here after the usual two-week break between FAC nominations. I'd also recommend, if you haven't already done so at some stage, inviting Squeamish Ossifrage and John to look over the article prior to that (sort of an informal peer review) to get their take on its readiness for another go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): JeremeK (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a famous unsolved crime spree in Texarkana in 1946. It was the inspiration to the movie The Town That Dreaded Sundown, which a new meta-remake will be out soon. I believe the article should be featured because the story will be interesting to those who will try looking into it because of the new movie and because I've worked very hard on this article for more than 3 years. I've done extensive research and contributed one of the most complete writings of the subject to Wikipedia. The article is very thorough and the references are well cited by extremely reliable sources (the original 1946 newspaper articles). I am an expert on this subject, having done some extensive research and investigation on this topic and have spoken with many family and relatives of the victims and investigators from that time. JeremeK (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The prospects for promotion of this article are poor. Of immediate concern are the lack of citations for many sections and statements. What cannot be verified by reliable sources will be considered original research. For an article this size, between 200 and 300 citations are not unusual. Graham Colm (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Thanks for calling my article poor without giving any constructive criticism, and because you didn't give any, it was just criticism. I have cited every quotation. I have sourced and cited almost all newspapers found on this subject. I can't produce any more newspaper accounts. What's there is there. All sources are reliable. If you can find more reliable sources, you'd be the expert on this topic; but there are none. Most "sources" are not reliable; but what does this expert know? I guess this will never reach FA; oh well. JeremeK (talk) 06:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not call the article poor. Graham Colm (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and suggest withdrawal:
Whole sections (not just the odd sentence, but entire paragraphs) have no references. That's an obvious one.
Bullet-points used rather than proper prose.
Inappropriate in-line external links to Google Maps.
Virtually the entire article is sourced to contemporaneous newspaper reports - what about using books on the subject?
Excessive use of quotations, which makes this read more like a long newspaper article than an encyclopedia.
Excessive details (do we really need to know the date, time, venue and clergy involved in the funeral service for Richard L. Griffin? Etc).
Poor prose. From the lead: "The Moonlight Murders, a term dubbed by the news media, refer to the true unsolved violent crimes committed in and around Texarkana in the spring of 1946 by an unidentified serial killer known as the Phantom Killer or Phantom Slayer. The unknown killer is credited with attacking eight people, five of whom were killed within ten weeks, usually three weeks apart." "A term dubbed by the news media"? "true unsolved violent crimes" - as opposed to untrue crimes? "In and around Texarkana" - where is that? "Unidentified serial killer... unknown killer" redundancy. "Five of whom were killed within ten weeks, usually three weeks apart" - how does that maths work?
I could go on but I won't. This needs a lot of work before it could be considered one of the finest articles on Wikipedia, and FAC isn't the venue for this. BencherliteTalk 19:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response...
There aren't very many books out on the topic. All books before the newest one which came out in early 2013 only had one chapter on the topic and had a lot of wrong information. The newest book is entirely about the topic and I have referenced and cited from it. Yes, the news media dubbed "The Moonlight Murders". This was not a term used by police nor newspapers. The news media called it the Moonlight Murders several years after the crimes were committed. Untrue crimes are called fiction. These are not fictional crimes. Yes, these are TRUE crimes. Texarkana... there's a reason why it's linked to the Texarkana article...click it and find out where it is. The "math" is not hard to figure out. Five people were killed within 10 weeks, usually three weeks apart (this would mean about 2 kills per 3 weeks; since it was "usually" three weeks, one was four weeks apart; really it's not that hard). I honestly don't care about the FA anymore. Just remove it from the candidacy, please. JeremeK (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about... a new roller at Cedar Point amusement park in Sandusky, Ohio. I am nominating this article for a 2nd time because the comments from the first nomination have been addressed and is ready to be reviewed. It has gone through copy edits, a peer review and a GA review. As the creator, I've been watching and contributing to the article from the beginning and could answer any question that might come up about the ride. Thanks, Astros4477 (Talk) 21:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I had to stumble by, given I have an FAC of my own, and I've been to Cedar Point before.
In the infobox, should you clarify that the total cost is in 2013 U.S. dollars? Is that standard?
We do usually clarify it it's US but I don't think we've ever clarified the year in which the amount is.--Astros4477 (Talk) 02:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is Cedar Fair?
They are the owners of the park but I don't know how I would incorporate that into the article.--Astros4477 (Talk) 02:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of "History" section has a few too many instances of [X person said Y]. For example: "On May 30, 2012, the Sandusky Register reported that a memo written by Ouimet to Cedar Fair's board of directors on February 15, 2012, stated that a new Wing Coaster code-named "CP Alt. Winged" would be introduced in 2013, and that it would set new records for its drop, speed, and length, and that the new coaster would have a "Front Gate Statement—a roller coaster that flies overhead, rolls and flies back—highly visible above guests entering the park."" - one, that's a bit long for a single sentence, but two, the emphasis should be on what happened, not who reported what happened.
"a 170-foot-tall (52 m) Wing Coaster which would be manufactured by B&M" - "which" --> "that". Ditto later with - "the first element of the coaster which is similar to the dive drops on"
"On April 10, 2013, Cedar Point launched an auction in which bidders could bid to become one of the first 64 public riders on GateKeeper on May 11, 2013. The auction ended on May 6." - these sentences could be merged. Also, no need for the two year mentions, IMO.
Removed years and second sentence, I realized it's not really needed.--Astros4477 (Talk) 02:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "Construction" section has some great facts, but it's pretty dry prosewise.
I was able to merge and expand some sentences.--Astros4477 (Talk) 03:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"12 million pounds (5,400,000 kilograms)" - why does one say "million" and the other have all the commas?
Probably because IMO, it looks better than 5.4 million. But that can be changed.--Astros4477 (Talk) 03:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a huge deal, but I just thought consistency would be better. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"turns 180 degrees to the right" - isn't 180 degrees basically a U-turn? Might there be some less technical way of saying it turns to the opposite direction or something?
I'm not sure what we could change it to as it does make a U-turn.--Astros4477 (Talk) 02:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, thinking about it again, it's fine. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent whether or not you have a dash for "170-foot "
"67 miles per hour " - any reason for writing it out?
Nope, but I rarely see it abbreviated.--Astros4477 (Talk) 03:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You abbreviate it in the lede though. And since km/h is abbreviated, so should mph. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Next, the train goes through a giant flat spin, which is followed by a zero-g roll, which features two keyhole points as it passes through two 100-foot (30 m)-tall towers." - don't use "which" twice
"GateKeeper is the fifth Wing Coaster to be built and the third in the United States—the others being X-Flight at Six Flags Great America and Wild Eagle at Dollywood." - no need for dash when comma would work.
"It is the longest and fastest Wing Coaster, has the longest drop, and features the most inversions of any Wing Coaster" - don't say "Wing Coaster" twice
"Complaints about the shoulder restraints becoming too tight for tall people sitting in the brake run at the end of the ride have been received" - wording is a little awkward
"GateKeeper also helped Cedar Fair to achieve "record revenue, record attendance, record distribution and record stock pricing" in 2013" - who said this quote?
Thanks, I'm happy to support now! Just a few last things that aren't that crucial to my support. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- with no activity for some weeks this review has clearly stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about a junior branch of what later became known as the House of Plantagenet, as the most powerful nobles in England bar the monarch they played a significant part in the medieval history of England but apart the Wars of the Roses this is largely forgotten, as is much on the background apart from the three Lancastrian monarchs. Hence it is a bit of a backwater on Wikipedia that perhaps deserves a greater prominence. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Minor note: Right off the bat, I see several large paragraphs that could be broken up for easier readability (in particular the lead and the section entitled "Duchy and Palatinate of Lancaster"). Thanks, Ruby2010/2013 16:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Extra paragraph spacing added to both, thanks. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The map indicates the extent of the earl's lands, but does not indicate that it is shaded in grey, and what "Maddicott" is supposed to mean is unclear (a book that is not in the bibliography it seems). Caption improved and reference added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC). Various issues with this image seem intractible so I have removed it. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Y[reply]
Suggest outdenting Henry VI so he has his own section. Better yet, combine with the following section. Combined with following section - Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Y[reply]
any magnate with sufficient power and Plantagenet blood could consider the throne I don't think "consider" is quite the right word here. Changed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Y[reply]
Isn't the picture of Agincourt in the wrong section? - moved - Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Y[reply]
Could you elaborate on Henry IV's elevation to the throne, and on Henry VII's claim? Done - what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Y[reply]
The article says that the last of the Beauforts (who?) were killed. But Lady margaret Beaufort was still very much alive. Edmund + added last "male" Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Y[reply]
I remember something similar when Ted Kennedy died. His sister Jean apparently didn't count. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support All my points have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review (in addition to the issues raised by Hawkeye7)
Agincourt caption needs editing for grammar Y
Why does only one table image include a caption? Caption removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Y[reply]
File:Thomas_of_Lancaster_posessions.png: what base map was used to create this image? Contentious map removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Y[reply]
File:Schlacht_von_Azincourt.jpg needs US PD tag Image changed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Y[reply]
File:Siege_orleans.jpg needs US PD tag and source info Image removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Y[reply]
File:Edmond1.jpg: the PD-Art tag refers to a 2D work, which this is not Image changed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Y[reply]
File:JindrichLancaster.jpg needs US PD tag and should include a separate licensing tag for seal vs photo of seal Image changed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Y[reply]
You should have a source that can be verified - is it possible to retrieve this through an archiving service like archive.org? Nikkimaria(talk) 16:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:King_Henry_IV_from_NPG_(2).jpg: "This tag can be used only when the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was." Same with File:King_Henry_V_from_NPG.jpg Image changed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Y[reply]
File:HenryVIofEngland.JPG: first source link is dead. Image changed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC) YNikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we using an image of Crouchback for both he and his son? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's always great to see a general medieval article at FAC. At this stage, I think there is a fair amount of work to be done on it it though, and would recommend taking it through an ACR or similar before FAC. Part of this is copyediting issues.
Examples from the lead and the first section include:
Wikilinking. Why aren't Earl of Leicester etc. linked in the lead? Or Thomas? etc. Later, Count of Champagne and Brie etc. Y
"Founded by Edmund Crouchback the second son of Henry III of England." - doesn't feel like a complete sentence. Also, was it founded by Edmund? Or is he just declared to be the first in the dynasty? Y
"to wealthy heiresses of his subjects. " - can you have an heiress of a subject? It felt like an odd phrase. And aren't the heiresses subjects as well? Y
Grammar on apostrophes. " the three Lancastrian monarch’s legitimatised their reigns" Y
" and Henry VI of England and (II of) France" - the "(II of)" felt rather ugly here. Y
"The House became extinct on the execution of the son of the last Lancastrian King" - the son was...? Y
"The counties containing Thomas of Lancaster's main possessions..." - the map seems to be using the county boundaries from before the 1970 reforms. South Yorkshire is now a county in its own right, which probably doesn't help the clarity here.
"After Henry III of England’s royalist forces" - I don't think he had any other forces than royalist ones. Y
"Earl Ferrers (Derby)" is this the full name of the title? It read a bit oddly - I've heard of Earl Ferrers, and the Earl of Derby, but not Earl Ferrers (Derby). The titles are synonomous Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Y[reply]
It feels like there are commas missing - e.g. " Her daughter, Edmund's step daughter Joan I of Navarre was queen regent of Navarre " - shouldn't this have a matching comma after Navarre? (this is a pattern elsewhere) Y
"Thomas and Henry served in the coronation of his cousin, King Edward II of England" - repetitive linking of Henry. Also unclear who "his" is in this context. Y
"Thomas became was one of the Lords Ordainers" - "was" seems a mistake here. Y
"this was seen by Thomas as an end it itself" - "in itself"
"Edward' s Queen Isabella of France" - capitalisation of Queen. Spare space after the apostrophe. Y
" pursuing and capturing the king " - "King" should have a capital here
"Following Edward’s deposition and murder" - there's a LOT of literature around Edward's death. I certainly wouldn't mention any murder without a lot of qualification. Y
"Parliament" - capitalisation changes later. Also worth linking on first use.Y
"However faced with Mortimer’s increasingly dictatorial rule in 1328 and 1329 Henry led the opposition before Edward was able to assume control." - I'm not convinced that Mortimer's dictatorial rule was precisely the problem, or that Henry was leading the opposition on behalf of Edward - worth having a look at the literature around this in more detail (Dan Jones isn't the right source here for a FA, in my opinion). Y
More generally, I'd be querying why there isn't more in legacy section on the impact on the arts (e.g. Shakespeare's plays). It would also be good to know when the term "House of Lancaster" is first used historically Hchc2009 (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can see you've put a lot of work into this important article, for which you should be commended, but I'm afraid it has a ways to go. Suggest having someone at WP:GOCE give its prose a good copyedit (didn't see Hchc's comments when I posted this, so there may be some duplication).
Founded by Edmund Crouchback the second son of Henry III of England. -- fragmented sentence, and this is only the second sentence of the lead Y
Edward III married all his sons to wealthy heiresses of his subjects. -- (not sure what "of his subjects" is supposed to mean here)Y
Some take as the founding of the Royal House. -- another fragmented sentence Y
The House became extinct on the execution of the son of the last Lancastrian King and the murder of the King himself by supporters of the House of York in 1471. -- it isn't really clear which king you are referring to (many will know you mean Henry VI, but for those who don't, suggest naming him again) Y
The first See also link should go near the bottom per WP:LAYOUT, the other should be deleted WP:ALSOY
Edmund was created Earl of Leicester on 26 October 1265, Lancaster on 30 June 1267 from which the House has been named, Count of Champagne and Brie in 1276 by right of his wife and Earl Ferrers (Derby) in 1301. -- should be split up for easier readability Y
Why the links to specific individuals at the beginning of each section if they're already linked below? Y
Edmund's second marriage to Blanche of Artois placed him at the centre of the European aristocracy. She was the widow of the King of Navarre. -- seems fragmented, you could probably combine them Y
Her daughter, Edmund's step daughter Joan I of Navarre was queen regent of Navarre and on her marriage to Philip IV of France also queen consort of France -- needs a rewrite (try to avoid repetition of daughter and queen; also, consider adding punctuation) Y
When Edmund's son Thomas married the heiress of Henry de Lacy, 3rd Earl of Lincoln he inherited the further Earldoms of Lincoln and Salisbury becoming the most powerful nobleman in England -- needs a comma or something Y
Thomas and Henry served in the coronation of his cousin, King Edward II of England on 25 February 1308 with Thomas carrying a great sword and Henry the royal sceptre -- don't you mean "their" cousin? Y
Why is a book about 1330 England being used to cite something for during the reign of Henry IV of England? I have the Mortimer book in front of me and don't see anything that supports their corresponding sentences, unless I'm missing something? YRuby2010/2013 06:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you for the kind words - I think I have been through and covered most of the points. Will have another look at this next week Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- As far as FAC's concerned, I think it's a bit late in the day for a copyedit to be made to this article, and I'm inclined to archive this and recommend, as Hchc2009 does, that you take it through MilHist ACR or Peer Review before renominating here. However, I'll give Hchc2009 and Ruby2010 a chance to revisit their comments/opposition before going that route. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fair enough Ian. Both feel that a ce is in order and it is late in the day for this review. I was hoping that this process would enable improvement to the article on an interactive basis if it was required for FA but this doesn't seem to be case. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, FAC isn't really supposed to be about major improvements, although it does admittedly seem that way a lot of the time. Anyway, as there seems to have been no further activity since I last stopped by, I think we'd best call it a day here. My suggestion would be to pursue the ce and work on any outstanding issues from the FAC reviewers, then go for PR or MilHist ACR before revisiting FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Seattle (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Billy Bates was a second baseman best remembered for scoring the winning run for the Reds in Game of the 1990 World Series. After that one memorable moment, he never played in Major League Baseball again. Noted for his speed, Bates also beat an unchained cheetah in a race. It passed as a good article, and I think it's better than my other FA, Mike Capel, just due to the increased notability. Thus, I give you Billy Bates. Seattle (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dont you think it is too soon to nominate this? You made this FAC practically instantly after the GA passed. You should have at least someone else look, or a peer review. Beerest 2talk 02:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think it's too soon to nominate it. It was just looked over at the GA nomination, and I think it's reasonably close to FA quality as it stands. Seattle (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently, not always. I had in mind WP:FACR: 'A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing…It has the following attributes...It has images and other media, where appropriate...' It seems odd to me to have a biographical article such as this, without at least a picture of the subject. Sandbh (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well thats what sucks about the fair use rules. Since there is no public domain picture of the subject, we have to make do without one. There are several FAs that dont have a picture of the subject simply because there is no free one. Beerest 2talk 22:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I included the best image of him I could find as an external link. This should suffice until 1.) he dies, or 2.) a free image of him is taken. Seattle (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Check formatting of references: currently a mix of sentence case and title case; WP style is title case---see MOS:CT
OK. Working on now... Seattle (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed. I never knew about that part of the MOS. I'll take another look at Capel's article and apply those changes as well. Thanks for the comments. Seattle (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
'Born in Houston, Bates attended the University of Texas, where he and the Texas Longhorns won the 1983 College World Series.'
As someone who knows relatively little of baseball, the only Texas Longhorns I know of are the college football kind. Is there a way of making it clearer that the reference is to the TL college basketball team rather than the football team?
Changed to "Texas Longhorns baseball team".
'Though defensively he played as a second baseman, the Reds primarily used Bates as a pinch runner.'
I don't follow why this sentence starts with 'Though'. Is there something peculiar about a 2nd baseman/pinch runner combo?
Yes, a pinch runner is on offense only and a second baseman is on defense, there is a contrast there.
Cld this contrast or unusual combination be made clearer to the general reader? Sandbh (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Born in Houston, Bates attended the University of Texas, where he and the Texas Longhorns won the 1983 College World Series.'
I know what you mean to say however it gives more prominence to Bates' role than I think is intended.
Reworded sentence.
'Drafted by Milwaukee in the 4th round of the 1985 MLB Draft, he rose through the Brewers' farm system and won multiple minor league titles.'
Cld you make it clearer that Milwaukee are a MLB team rather than waiting to later in the sentence. For example: 'Bates joined major league baseball in 1985 when he was drafted by the Milwaukee Brewers as a 4th round pick. He subsequently rose through the Brewers' farm system and won multiple minor league titles.' Also, does 'won multiple minor league titles' refer to Bates or the Brewers? Sandbh (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Milwaukee is mentioned in the first sentence as a MLB team, also did a c/e. Seattle (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rise to the majors
'El Paso's 85 wins were the most in the managerial career of Duffy Dyer, which lasted eleven years.'
This seems to be a superflous sentence that has nothing to do with Bates.
'His 117 runs scored also led a Denver club that won its final 11 games to finish 79–61, one game ahead of the Louisville Redbirds for the best record in the AA.[17][20]'
All this needs to say is 'His 117 runs scored also led a Denver club that won its final 11 games to finish 79–61, the best record in the AA.'
'In a Brewer's spring training game in early March, Bates committed two errors against the Chicago Cubs in the top of the 11th inning, as the Cubs scored the winning run without recording a hit, but his 4th-inning single scored two runs.[22]'
A long sentence with multiple facts that would benefit from being divided into at least two shorter sentences. Sandbh (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MLB debut
'Bates began the season with the Zephyrs and in July was named to the Triple-A All-Star Game.[28] On the MLB level, the Brewers suffered multiple injuries to starting players, having 9 athletes on the disabled list (DL) on August 22 and 14 total players on the DL up to that point.[29] In a game against the New York Yankees on August 15, Gantner played at second base as the Brewers tried to hold on to a 1–0 lead. With Marcus Lawton on first base, Yankees batter Wayne Tolleson hit a ground ball to shortstop Bill Spiers for a potential double play. Lawton ran into Gantner, who had trouble fielding a low throw from Spiers; umpire Dave Phillips called both Lawton and Tolleson out due to Lawton's illegal roll-block, but Gantner tore the medial collateral ligament in his left knee and was placed on the DL. Bates was called up as his replacement.[30]'
There are too many words (129) between the first mention of Bates (in the opening sentence) and the second mention, at the end of the paragraph.
'After the injury, Milwaukee's general manager Harry Dalton said that Bates…'
The start of this paragraph is awkward. All of the other paragraphs so far open with a lead sentence and then expand on that. Just reading the lead sentences of each paragraph thus progresses the story. Whereas the start of this paragraph progresses the end of the previous paragraph, which is rather discombobulating.
'Wade Boggs hit a ground ball to Bates, but he committed an error that allowed Boggs to reach…'
To reach what?
'Facing the Red Sox on April 14, Bates hit his only MLB extra base hit, a double, in the 8th inning but committed two errors on defense.[2][38] He later scored the go-ahead run on a Gary Sheffield double in a 9–5 Milwaukee victory. Previously, he stole second base and home plate in the 2nd.[38]'
Which game is the 'previously' referring too? Sandbh (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cincinnati Reds
'When he arrived with the Reds organization, Bates was assigned to the Triple-A Nashville Sounds of the AA.'
As per my antepenultimate comment, the start of this paragraph is awkward---there is no transition from the opening sentence of the previous paragraph, which says: 'In late March, Trebelhorn projected that Bates would be Milwaukee's starting second baseman for the 1990 MLB season...'. Sandbh (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'…hit a double that scored Bates.[47]'
Presumably this is baseball terminology as I don't understand what it means.
'Doran– a second baseman the Reds acquired from the Houston Astros in a "last-minute" deal before the trade deadline– was hospitalized with back pain and spasms on September 29.[52][53] Doctors performed an operation on October 3, which would hold him out of postseason play as Cincinnati won the National League West; the Reds were the first team in National League history to lead a division for an entire 162-game season.[53][54]'
I don't understand what the relevance of this is to Bates' story.
'In Game 1, the Reds defeated the Athletics 7–0 in what Associated Press writer Jim Donaghy called "a stunning combination of power and pitching": Cincinnati scored four runs off of Dave Stewart, who had a six-game winning streak in the playoffs, while pitchers José Rijo, Rob Dibble, and Randy Myers combined for a nine-hit shutout.[15][16] The game ended the Athletics' ten-game postseason win streak.[15] Bates did not play.[16]'
If Bates didn't play what relevance does this have?
'Like Game 1, Cincinnati was the home team for Game 2, where Danny Jackson of the Reds faced Bob Welch of the Athletics.[17] Oakland opened the scoring with a run in the top of the first inning, a ground ball by Jose Canseco that scored Rickey Henderson. The Reds responded for two runs in the bottom of the first. Oakland scored three more runs in the third, and Piniella removed Jackson from the game as the Athletics led the Reds 4–2. Cincinnati added a run in the bottom of the fourth and managed to tie the game in the eighth as Billy Hatcher hit a triple and scored on a groundout. After nine innings, the game remained tied, 4–4.[18] Rob Dibble came into pitch in the ninth and held the Athletics scoreless for the two innings he pitched; Oakland countered with future Hall of Fame inductee Dennis Eckersley for the bottom of the tenth.[18][19] Leading off for the Reds was Davis, who grounded out to shortstop.'
As an introduction to the next mention of Bates, this is too long.
'The Reds won Game 3 after scoring seven runs in the top of the third inning off of Mike Moore. Pitcher Tom Browning earned the win for Cincinnati, as the game ended at a score of 8–3.[23] The Athletics took a lead in Game 4, as Carney Lansford hit a single that scored Willie McGee from second base. In the eighth inning, however, the Reds loaded the bases after singles by Barry Larkin and Herm Winningham, and an error that allowed Paul O'Neill to reach base. Larkin scored on a groundout and Winningham scored on a sacrifice fly to give Cincinnati the lead, 2–1. The lead held, as Myers came in for Rijo after one out in the bottom of the ninth inning, and the Reds became World Series champions.[24] Bates did not play in either game.[23][24]'
If Bates didn't play what relevance does all of this have? Sandbh (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
This concludes my review comments, for now. Sandbh (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- I think that after remaining open a month with no activity for a couple of weeks, even allowing for the holiday period, that this review has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Coming right off of the recent promotion of Sega Genesis, here's a related video game topic. The Sega CD was one of two major add-ons for the aforementioned console that had its own independent game library and very much its own place in the history of video games, though unfortunately more as a warning to other manufacturers than anything else. This article went through a GA review a few months ago, though not one without controversy, as the Sega Genesis WP:LAME naming debates spilled over into this article, but since then it's been nice and stable, and I managed to take some significant time today with some more new sources to really flesh out the article and make it thorough, deep, well presented, and reliably sourced, and I believe it meets the FA criteria at this point. As always, I'll be more than glad to handle any issues that come up during this FAC, and will do what it takes to make this happen. Thanks, Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 22:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The development section has very little on the actual development, it seems to be mostly anecdotes, and all from the American division. I expected to read about the design process and business decisions that lead to their choice of hardware - why JVC for instance? When did development begin?
I've pinged Indrian to help me with this. Tough part here is that Sega of Japan kept a lot of this under wraps during development. Sega of Europe didn't even get off the ground until 1991, so I don't expect there to be any feedback there. Some of the quotes may have to be broken up to help with the flow of this; I'll have to have a look.
I still have to add a couple of sources when I am back with my books, but I have completely rewritten the development section. There are few sources in English discussing the development of the Sega CD, but I think the new version at least hits a few highlights. While there is no source giving the specific reason for partnering with JVC, I did add some info on the company's experience with CD technology prior to development of the Sega CD, which I think at least provides context for why the company would be involved in such a venture. Indrian (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Game library - "Sega CD could only put up 32 colors at a time" Zito may have been correctly quoted, but his statement is incorrect and it should be noted. It also contradicts the history section which claims the Sega CD gives the Genesis a larger colour palette.
I'm not sure how that's incorrect. From my research, the Sega CD does give the Genesis more colors to select from, but it can't put all of them up at once. The palette itself is larger, but it can't utilize more. Do you have evidence that the Sega CD could put up more than 32 colors at once? If so, I'd be glad to correct it.
I can understand the increase in palette size vs colour output. But given that the Mega Drive can put out 64 colors concurrently, I don't know where the 32 comes from. - hahnchen 03:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:SonicCD.PNG - I don't think that's the best example of a gameplay screenshot. Sega finally catches up with Mode 7, but there's very little coverage of that in the article, and those graphics could easily be done on other systems at the time. It's FMV games that define the Mega CD, the reader would be better served with a Night Trap image.
What other consoles could do mode 7 at the time besides the Super NES? In addition to its use of Sega CD's enhanced graphical capabilities, Sonic CD is also the best selling game on the Sega CD, as well as the most critically acclaimed. I disagree that the FMV games define the Sega CD. Certainly they define the negative aspects of the Sega CD library, but I do not think they should be the sole focus of the article. Perhaps another tweak is in order. Or if your idea is to show what the Sega CD was capable of, Silpheed is a good example too, because it combined polygons, instead of sprites with FMV backgrounds and CD quality soundtrack while keeping a very high frame rate. I don't think that route is better than the current one though.--SexyKick 02:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it stands does talk a lot about FMV games, though, because almost every source I've reviewed makes a big deal about Sega CD's FMV game content. I'd love to keep both, but I don't think we have enough fair-use justification for both, even as different as they are. I'll look at switching this to one from either Night Trap for its relevance, or Sewer Shark, as it was the pack-in. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 02:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are two sections in the article about that. We could put a Night Trap shot where the article talks about Night Trap, and the three reasons to include a picture of Sonic CD should suffice for fair use justification. We have two game screenshots in Sega Genesis and Super NES as well.--SexyKick 03:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made the Night Trap comment in light of the weight given to it in the text vs the Mode 7 style elements. - hahnchen 03:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, I did add a sentence about the Mode 7 style elements, but I do still feel that an FMV image might be better due to the weight of the article, and appropriately so - FMV did have a lot of weight with Sega CD. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 02:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the sentence you added. I don't think there's any reason we can't go for two pictures though. Especially when the early paragraph about Night Trap provides a night spot for one there.--SexyKick 03:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reception - I expected more from the 90s. Only the first sentence of the section refers to comments made around the launch.
I think I can get RedPhoenix some comments from EGM to use.--SexyKick 02:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anything around launch time itself ('91-'93) would be helpful, SexyKick. I may have to ask for some help from the procurers of the WP:VG/RL as well for some backup here. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 02:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to SexyKick providing me some more info, I found more feedback from EGM to add in, which is time-relevant. As the launch was just before the Internet really took off, though, it seems to be difficult to find sources that are period-appropriate. If you still feel it's insufficient, I'll seek some help from WP:VG/RL. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 20:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, hahnchen. It's a rough time for me with retail being my line of work, but I'll do what I can to get this addressed in a timely manner and hopefully earn your support. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 02:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Red Phoenix. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- this review has well and truly stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FAC criteria and represents an interesting and notable topic. This is the second nomination for this article - the other failed, in part due to lack of discussion. For those who aren't familiar with the game, this was a college football game between the Michigan Wolverines (members of the upper-tier Division I-FBS) and Appalachian State Mountaineers (members of the second-tier Division I-FCS). Michigan, ranked the fifth-best team in the country, was projected to win big because FCS teams almost always lose to FBS teams, even a team like Appalachian State, who had won two consecutive FCS championships and were favored to win a third. However, Appalachian State stunned everyone by pulling out a 34-32 win, sealed by a last-second blocked field goal; analysts immediately called the game one of the biggest upsets in college football history. A rematch of the game is scheduled to open the 2014 season for both teams ToaNidhiki05 18:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source spot-checks – In response to plagarism concerns at the first FAC, I checked the wording of the article against sources 14, 17, 20, 26, 56, and 57. Mostly, I see a tendency to use keywords from the sources in the articles, with or without quotes. That isn't optimal, but the good news is such instances are not hard to resolve.
The biggest issue I saw involves ref 17; the article says "The Mountaineer defense was led by safety Corey Lynch", while the source says "Appalachian State's defense, led by safety Corey Lynch".
This is fixed, but there's some funky double punctuation here now. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also see the phrase "hold back" in both ref 17 and the article.
Same goes for the phrase "expressed interest", which is in both the article and ref 26.
Ref 56: "And local stores say they've been swamped with requests for gear bearing the Mountaineers' gold and black colors and logo". Article: "Stores near the Ohio State campus in Columbus, Ohio, reported being "swamped" with requests for gear with the Appalachian State logo and colors". Here, one keyword is given quotes, but there are several other words afterwards straight from the source without quotations marks. That is overly close, and the quotation should be extended or the phrase should be reworded.
Ref 57: I see "open the 2014 season" here and in the source. It should be easy to reword that to not have a phrase directly from the source.Giants2008 (Talk) 02:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected all of these issues now. ToaNidhiki05 21:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments - Just looking at sources:
Both sources from FOX Sports Wisconsin (currently 13 & 58) redirect to the site's main page.
The video for reference 41 is unavailable.
These are the only concerns I had in my first look at the sources. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 01:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good catches, each of these have been corrected. ToaNidhiki05 03:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great job on the fixes. Sourcing now looks great. I'm going to hold off on supporting until someone looks at the prose (I'm not too good at that), but to me, the article looks FA ready. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 06:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- With no further reviews during January, this nom has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): JDC808♫ 23:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the 2010 video game, God of War III. I am nominating this for featured article again because I believe it is ready to become an FA. Any issues can be easily addressed. --JDC808♫ 23:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review:
Only two images used here, and both are fair use.
File:God_of_War_III_cover_art.jpg is good. No concerns.
I have some concerns with the fair use rationales for File:GoW3_Kratos_vs_Hercules_QTE.jpg, specifically with why it's not replaceable and minimal use.
The image is not replaceable not just because there is no free equivalent of the game. It is also because the game is copyrighted and all screenshots from the game are copyrighted, so no free image can exist because it is an image from a copyrighted work.
With a slight tweak, I used your wording here if that's okay? --JDC808♫ 02:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saying it's a screenshot doesn't qualify for "minimal use". It needs to be specified that only one screenshot is being used in the article to illustrate the topic in question, and is used only for that purpose (see WP:NFCC#3.)
Done. --JDC808♫ 02:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the length of the article, might there be a free image of a developer or presentation at an event available? This I wouldn't call a requirement, but would be nice for presentation of the article.
I'll work on the rationales. As to the suggestion, I personally find no use for those types of images on any article (except for bios or a cast where an image is of that person[s]). They don't add any significance to the article in my opinion. When I see those in other articles, I ask myself "why is this here? It does not tell or show me anything about the game, which is what I want to know about." I own the collector's edition, so I can take a pic of the contents of it and upload it (been meaning to for awhile). --JDC808♫ 08:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Usually I would agree with you unless the article is sufficiently long and its amount of images seems insufficient. Illustration is more than simply an aesthetic; it increases readability of the article as well in my opinion, and relevance becomes more and more difficult when the subject is a copyrighted work. However, as I would call this a gray area, I wouldn't say this is a deal breaker to me. I'll see if I can give you a source review and prose review in the next day or two. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 15:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on another image here soon. --JDC808♫ 02:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review: - spot-checks not done.
Reference 12: Per WP:VG/S, MobyGames is not a reliable source and cannot be used. Even after GameFly bought the site, it's still user-contributed without editorial oversight.
I've changed the source to the game itself. In past FACs, this has worked. --JDC808♫ 02:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What makes reference 59 (National Console Support, Inc.) a reliable source?
I can't really say for sure. It's the only site I was able to find that listed what the Japanese release included. --JDC808♫ 02:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found the "About Us" button and took a quick survey. Given what it's citing, I think I should be good here.
Otherwise looks good. References are all well formatted and all archived, which is outstanding.
Support - Image and source reviews are good, although I haven't done any spot-checks. I've reviewed the prose and formatting, and I don't see anything major that serves as a deal breaker for me—minor issues I can just do some WP:BOLD copyediting if anything glares at me. Sections and content are good, the subject is covered in-depth and appropriately. Well done. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 15:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: JDC808. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from DWB
I agree with Red Phoenix' assessment above with one caveat, the image in development and the associated caption do not seem to belong there at all, how I am reading the prose around the image, there is no reason for the image to be there and it would be more purposeful under the Gameplay -> Combat section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for a delayed response. I will take care of this today as well as upload another image. --JDC808♫ 10:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor moved the image. I'll still be uploading another image though. --JDC808♫ 09:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's improve the quality of this review. THe Development section now reads like a wall of text, could it be broken into subheadings? Even one? Some of htis reads like design and work that went into the game, other stuff sounds like marketing plus voice acting.
Will work on. Gotta figure out how I wanna split it up. --JDC808♫ 09:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Broke it into "Early development" and "Pre-launch". --JDC808♫ 00:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the References using CheckLink and rectified modified URLs. Have also checked Dablinks and Reflinks. No issues found. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an image of someone involved in the game that could go here or be added elsewhere? A voice actor with a prominent role or someone notable in the staff?
See my response to Red Phoenix above. Also not sure where I can obtain said images because of Wikipedia's policies. --JDC808♫ 09:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 16:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note There is not enough discussion here to establish whether the FA criteria have been met. With one exception, the reviews are shallow and unhelpful. Without more substantive reviews the prospects for this candidate's promotion are not good, despite the three "supports". Graham Colm (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've already given a review, but didn't nitpick the prose because I was satisfied with its quality after reading through. Would nitpicking through it some more for JDC808 to work through help, or will more actual separate reviewers be needed? I'd hate to see this archived a second time after the nominator's first time through with this article was also archived due to lack of feedback. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 19:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just left a message on the WP:VG projects talk page to try and get more reviews. --JDC808♫ 11:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I can't see anything wrong with this article. Refs, phrasing and structure all alright. I'd pass this. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I agree with all above. Great job, and hope it gets passed! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's going on with File:GoW3 UE content.jpeg? It contains copyrighted materials as the subject of the image (shouldn't be on Commons) and doesn't have a fair use rationale. I recommend striking the image or replacing it with a representation that doesn't shade out the contents, if it's even necessary to show the collector's edition. czar♔ 01:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's confusing. I've seen other images of "copyrighted" material on Commons. Just curious as to why copyright is an issue here? --JDC808♫ 09:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm unconvinced this article meets the FA criteria, and in places I found it to be almost incomprehensible, depending as it does on knowledge of the previous games. A few more specific points:
"Kratos (left) battles Hercules (right). The image depicts a QTE sequence: successfully moving the right analog stick in the direction shown by the orange arrow will allow Kratos to continue his attack against Hercules." That seems to me to be far too much detail.
I'm not sure how to make it shorter and understandable. --JDC808♫ 21:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"... the Nemean Cestus are required to break through objects composed of onyx", but we were told a sentence or so before that the Nemean Cestus is a pair of fist gauntlets, and a sentence or two further down we're told that "the Nemean Roar can only be used when the Nemean Cestus is equipped". Why does it switch from singular to plural and back again? And what on Earth does "when the Nemean Cestus is equipped" mean?
Simple copy-edit will fix this. No idea where the confusion is with "equipped". Means exactly what it says. --JDC808♫ 21:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When the Nemean Cestus is equipped with what? EricCorbett 22:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What? It's saying when the player equips them to be used. Again, I don't see where the confusion is. --JDC808♫ 01:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Athena then realizes that when Kratos opened the Box to defeat Ares ..." but " Kratos says the box was empty". So is it "Box" or box"?
Again, simple copy-edit. --JDC808♫ 21:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"God of War III is set in an alternate version of ancient Greece", but "the game is set in Ancient Greece". Which is to be?
Simple copy-edit. --JDC808♫ 21:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"... achieved through the player's main weapon—the Blades of Exile—and secondary weapons acquired later." Later than what?
Later in the game... --JDC808♫ 21:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In addition to its similar gameplay ...". Similar gameplay to what?
The previous games, which it says at the beginning of that paragraph. --JDC808♫ 21:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" Platforming elements require the player to climb walls and ladders, jump across chasms, and swinging on ropes to proceed through sections of the game."
Simple copy-edit. --JDC808♫ 21:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The player finds chests colored green, blue, red, or white, and each chest contains orbs or the corresponding color." Should that be of the corresponding color"? Rather awkwardly written in any event.
Simple copy-edit. --JDC808♫ 21:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"... which subsequently upgrades magic and makes new, more-powerful attacks available". Why is there a hyphen in "more-powerful"?
That may have been from a previous copy-editer, I don't remember. Regardless, a simple copy-edit will fix.
Overall, I don't see why this is oppose worthy when a simple copy-edit can fix these. Will do here soon. --JDC808♫ 21:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the copyediting is so simple, then why hasn't it been done before now? EricCorbett 22:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Typos can be missed by anyone. --JDC808♫ 01:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but so many by everyone? EricCorbett 01:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but I took care of all these points and a couple others I noticed. --JDC808♫ 00:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And why have these points not been noticed by other reviewers? Graham Colm (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no intention of going through and copyediting the whole article, but here are a few more examples of the work that still remains to be done:
"Many familiar combination attacks reappear with new additions, including the combat grapple: a ranged-grab maneuver which, depending on the weapon, can pull Kratos towards foes or force them away (necessary at certain points in the game, with Kratos riding harpies across chasms), and a simple grab-with-bare-hands which allows Kratos to use weak foes as a battering ram." Very strange punctuation.
How about now? --JDC808♫ 17:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The challenge mode requires players to complete a series of specific tasks (e.g. kill all enemies without weapons before the time runs out). Is that enemies not in possession of weapons, or is the player required to kill his enemies without using weapons?
Clarified. --JDC808♫ 17:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Tartarus is the prison of the dead and also the Titan Cronos ..." And also?
Removed "also". --JDC808♫ 17:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Meeting the imprisoned Daedalus, the architect instructs Kratos to unite the Labyrinth. After doing so, he fights his way through the aerial puzzle and rescues Pandora." That's written as if the architect does all that after instructing Kratos.
Clarified. --JDC808♫ 17:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"At the 2011 British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) Video Game Awards, God of War III ... was nominated for "Action" and "Gameplay"." So it was nominated at the award ceremony?
Most people understand what this means, but tried to fix. --JDC808♫ 17:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "most people", and I understand that nominations aren't made at award ceremonies. EricCorbett 17:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point was it's generally understood that it wasn't saying that it was nominated at the award show. --JDC808♫ 20:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suggest that you write what you intend to say, as it very clearly says the nominations happened at the award ceremony. EricCorbett 21:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Generally avoid computer game articles, but this one seems to be in a bit of a hole... Bit of a random scan of issues here, as I'm short on time... Oppose at present:
Why does gameplay come before synopsis? The current order makes expressions such as "the Rage meter for the Rage of Sparta" unintelligible. I think synopsis should be first.
This is the layout developed by the WP:VG project. I'm not sure how that particular expression would become more intelligible with Synopsis before Gameplay since "Rage of Sparta" is not in the Synopsis at all. --JDC808♫ 17:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First sentence "The gameplay of God of War III is similar to that of its predecessors" Tell us what those predecessors are.
There's four games that come before this (albeit one is a little different), you want me to list them all? --JDC808♫ 17:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Although Kratos begins the game with the Blades of Athena and the Blade of Olympus at maximum power, these are lost after an encounter with Zeus (the Blades of Athena are replaced with the Blades of Exile and the Blade of Olympus is recovered)" Too much information.
Removed the parenthetical part. --JDC808♫ 17:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Each weapon has its own magic: the Army of Sparta may only be used when the Blades of Exile is equipped and conversely, the Nemean Roar can only be used when the Nemean Cestus is equipped." Equipped with what? Couldn't understand this sentence.
I explained this to Eric. I do not know what you guys are getting confused about. --JDC808♫ 17:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the Army of Sparta summons a flank of Spartans that cover Kratos in shields while arrows fall from the sky, hitting nearby enemies". Eh? This doesn't appear to be a correct use of the term "flank". And the arrows: are they from the Spartans, or is this a reference to arrows directed by others toward Kratos? Unclear.
Tried to clarity. --JDC808♫ 17:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
per Eric above, there is an issue with singular / plural in resepct of Blades.
I've already dealt with that. Unless you're referring to how the first sentence says "main weapon is the Blades of Exile", as opposed to are. If that's the case, it's because it's "a pair of blades", not "multiple pairs of blades". Already been through this situation in a previous FAC and this is what they told me. --JDC808♫ 17:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Poseidon's Trident, Golden Fleece, and Icarus' Wings" the fleece is linked, but no link to either poseidon or icarus?
They were linked later, but are linked here now. --JDC808♫ 17:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are told about the acquisition / retention of relics, but not what they are or how they (as a group, please don't tell me about each one) are used in combat. What type of gameplay object are they? A weapon? A skill? A spell?
Added some clarification without getting into too much specifics. --JDC808♫ 17:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"to use weak foes as a battering ram". Several foes but singular battering ram?
Clarified. --JDC808♫ 17:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Stig Asmussen had noted that more challenges..." Who is Stig and why do i care what he thinks?
In the infobox, it says he is the Game Director. Added "Game Director" before his name in that sentence. --JDC808♫ 17:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In combat, a quick time event (QTE) feature, also called context sensitive attacks," feature singular but attacks plural?
Yes. A quick time event is not a singular attack, it's multiple attacks or actions during the event. --JDC808♫ 17:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...who appear during the psyche sequence". No idea what this is and there appears to be no explanation in the article.
Next to last paragraph of Plot: "Losing consciousness, he [Kratos] is saved by Pandora during a journey into his own psyche. With the help of his wife Lysandra, Kratos forgives himself for his past sins, regains consciousness,...." --JDC808♫ 17:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...Kratos has a brief conversation with the spirit of Pandora. " WHy tell us of a conversation without telling us why it is relevant to the plot?
"In 2007, God of War Game Director David Jaffe stated that it would be "hell on earth" as gods and the Titans battle each other for domination and "God of War explains, or ultimately will explain, why there are no more Greek myths". Jaffe envisaged a different end to the series,..." The opening to this sentence sounds like a marketing line, not an encyclopedic account of the development. Different end to the series compared to what? Also, a computer game cannot explain why there are no more Greek myths - the way this is written blurs the line between the in-game and the real world.
It's a fictional story (just like Greek myths). The "no more Greek myths" was Jaffe's original idea for the story. I've reworked it a little bit. --JDC808♫ 17:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is correct to tell us who Jaffe is (ie. game director) but fails to tell us who Barlog is.
Done. --JDC808♫ 17:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"engages in "Harpy Riding" (courtesy of the Bow of Apollo), and uses the Blades of Athena and new weapons (the Cestus)." Awful. Why is "Harpy Riding" capitalised, the reference to "courtesy of the Bow of Apollo" is meaningless to the lay reader, and new weapons is plural, but only one is cited, although the Blades of Athena certainly sound like a weapon.
Don't have to be so harsh. Fixed. --JDC808♫ 17:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment This candidate has been here for a long time but I am not convinced that a consensus for promotion has been reached and I will be archiving this in a few minutes. Please note that superficial reviews such as "I can't see anything wrong with this article", "Great work", "I'd pass this" and "I agree with all above" and not helpful and indeed make it more difficult for the closing delegates to decide. We prefer to see critical comments, either here or at a former peer review, and opposes that are resolved by discussion between the nominators and reviewers. Graham Colm (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But there's still two ongoing reviews. Why close in the middle of them? I could understand if comments were not being made for a few days, but there are comments still being made as of today. As to those comments you pointed out, if they see no issues and support on that, why does it make it hard to decide? --JDC808♫ 22:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm sure everyone recognizes the article title. :)
I’m nominating this article for FA because, after spending a couple hundred hours researching this compound with the research tools at my university, and six months editing the article, I’m fairly certain it’s the most comprehensive source of information currently available on amphetamine in humans. Moreover, the article received an extremely rigorous GA review by Sasata to help prepare the article for this FA review, along with constant input from WP-MED and WP-PHARM. Consequently, I feel the article is now prepared to go through this process. I really enjoyed (re-)writing it, so I hope you enjoy reading it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - although it is clear that a great deal of effort has been put into this article, it currently doesn't meet the FA criteria.
Why are there so many citations in the lead? This isn't necessary and makes the text cluttered and more difficult to read. See MOS:LEADCITE.
There are links to common words such as: pharmaceutical, depression, obesity, euphoria, libido, arousal, reaction time. See WP:OVERLINK. In particular the lead is a sea of blue - see WP:LEADLINK
Some of those terms might be considered jargon by some readers. I did not think this article suffers from overlinking personally. Providing an explanation for any potentially confusing terms is more important that the overall amount of links. Lesion (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it necessary to quote great chucks of text in the References? See citations 9, 12, 13 etc.
Why are 3 or 4 citations used for uncontroversial statements? In most cases a single appropriate authoritative review should be sufficient.
The text contains sentences with long lists. This cannot be considered as good English. Examples: "A number of substances have been shown to produce amphetamine as a metabolite, including amphetaminil, benzphetamine, clobenzorex, dimethylamphetamine, ethylamphetamine, famprofazone, fencamine, fenethylline, fenproporex, furfenorex, lisdexamfetamine, mefenorex, mesocarb, methamphetamine, prenylamine, propylamphetamine, and selegiline, among others." and "...these side effects can include abdominal pain, acne, arrhythmias, blurred vision, bruxism, constipation or diarrhea, diaphoresis, dry skin, dry mouth, erectile dysfunction, fever, headache, hypertension or hypotension from a vasovagal response, indigestion, insomnia, loss of appetite, nausea, pallor, palpitations, Raynaud's phenomenon (secondary), reduced seizure threshold, tachycardia, tachypnea, tics, vomiting, and weight loss."
The article appears to have only one sentence on the different pharmacology of the stereoisomers: "As a CNS stimulant,..." - (with a weak PubChem citation). I'm surprised that there is so little - aren't there review articles on this?
Note 5 " The study specified the EMIT II Plus Monoclonal Amphetamine/Metamphetamine assay." is just jargon and is not appropriate in an general article, even in a note.
The first paragraph contains a factual incorrect sentence: "Amphetamine refers to equal parts of the enantiomers, i.e., 50% levoamphetamine and 50% dextroamphetamine." This is not correct. Amphetamine is a general term that can refer to either enantiomer, the racemate, or any mixture of the enantiomers. For example David Nutt's article (Heal et al 2013) contains the sentence "As a molecule with a single chiral centre, amphetamine exists in two optically active forms, i.e. the dextro- (or d-) and levo- (or l-) isomers or enantiomers." Aa77zz (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the strictest sense, amphetamine refers to the racemate,[1][2] and in the loosest sense, it collectively refers (as "amphetamines") to every compound in the amphetamine class (e.g., a collective property reference like "amphetamine abuse"). Unfortunately, a lot of literature loosely uses this terminology in spite of it being an abuse of language (and the linguistic equivalent as well). Examples include ICD-10 and the Cochrane review - PMID19160215 (hosted in the link below) - in the amphetamine psychosis article and the abstract of PMID19042205, which is a paper on meth). For the sake of clarity, I used the FDA's terminology,[2] (page 11) which makes the distinction between amphetamine and dextroamphetamine. They implicitly refer to amphetamine as the racemate and refer to the pure forms and combinations of levoamphetamine and dextroamphetamine as "amphetamines" throughout their medication guides and Rx info sheets. Even though I personally think of amphetamine as any mixture of the enantiomers, due to the lack of uniform definition and the ambiguous (ab)use of terminology in medical literature, I thought it best to use similar precision to that in the FDA's publications. I should probably disambiguate the term more than the contents of note 3 though, so I'll work on it and then update this and ping you when I'm finished. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edit/Add: Almost forgot to mention this: the IUPAC name for amphetamine, (RS)-1-phenylpropan-2-amine, is racemic as well. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aa77zz, I tweaked the statement and added 2 chem refs. Let me know whether or not that suffices when you get a chance. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Aa77zz: I'm assuming you've been busy irl, but I'd really appreciate your feedback when you get a chance. Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seppi333's itemized response (finished with these edits):
Moved the citations from each paragraph into a new note group at the end of the paragraphs. I wanted to retain the citations.
Fixed - I cut the less interesting/useful wikilinks
Removed quotes to non-WP:PAYWALLED (free) sources. The remaining sources aren't free, e.g. sources 12 & 13, so I left the quote since the average reader has no way to access these.
Deleted as many references as possible throughout the page. The remainder with 3+ literally need that many to maintain text-source integrity for WP:V.
Edited - Per Hamiltonstone's suggestion, I grouped a subset and cut relatively insignificant side effects - it's now a list with 12 items. For the drug list, I cut that in half - the list includes only Rx'd drugs now (9 drugs).
The stronger ref, titled "Westfall",can be found here. Edited: I decided to humor you and added a sentence about the difference in pharmacodynamics. I don't find the difference that interesting, since it just arises from variability in agonist potency at TAAR1.
Updated progress at 06:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC) - Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
References
^"Amphetamine (CAS entry)". NIH. NIH MESH. Retrieved 15 December 2013. Annotation: a specific chem: do not confuse with AMPHETAMINES; d-amphetamine = DEXTROAMPHETAMINE; N-methylamphetamine = METHAMPHETAMINE
This looks like an excellent, if rather technical, article. Couple of things.
The article needs to begin by saying what Amph is. I'm not suggesting moving the whole pharmacology section to the top. But we need a first section, even if it is one para, that tells us what the substance/s is/are, and why they have that name.
Edited: When you get a chance, read the first paragraph of the lead and let me know if that addresses your concern. I made a few changes to the lead that should help clarify things.
Well, I wasn't actually looking for an edit in the lead. It is the body text of the article. The lead is supposed to summarise the article text, but at the moment the article text itself does not begin by telling us what an amphetamine is. I have noticed that other drug articles likewise begin with "use" sections. This looks to me to be a departure from what I thought WP's standard style was for articles about "stuff", that begin by defining what the "stuff" is and/or how the "stuff" got its name. See for example first sentence of Iridium or DNA, first section of Jaguar or Enzyme, or (somewhat differently), the opening of Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide. I admit, though, that i expected to find a sentence about this in the MOS, and didn't, so maybe the MOS has changed or I am making stuff up...hamiltonstone (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, drug articles generally follow the layout in PHARMMOS#Medications and MEDMOS#Drugs, medications and devices for consistency. There's some wiggle room though. I imagine those articles are following the MOS for chem, bio, or material science (if those exist). The only other project MOS I'm aware of is MOSMATH. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the long lists, I agree with Aa77zz. They should be culled to include either the most significant or relevant items or, if that is not possible to determine, then a random sample. There is no point saying "including" and then actually including that many things.
I went through and deleted the drugs that aren't in current clinical use for the 2nd list; there's now 9 (were 17) in this list. For side effects, I cut it down to 2 lists, with the longer one containing 12 items. Should I make that shorter? :-) Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better, maybe leave it there for now and see if anyone else has a view. Certainly, using a criteria such as 'current clinical use' to trim the list was exactly the sort of prioritisation I had in mind. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see what other editors have to say about the most technical parts of this article. I would question whether the Pharmacodynamics section is intelligible to anyone other than someone with relevant tertiary education in the area, and I would encourage simplification, as well as explanation in plainer English of what some of the points say and mean. But I know others have expressed a different view when I have discussed this kind of issue on other articles.
I know Boghog understands molecular neuropharmacology, but I'm not sure if he has the time to review it (or if he already has). I'll look through this section to see what I can explain in simpler terms (if possible). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks extremely well researched and generally written with great precision. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :-) It took a while to write. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Under "uses", third para, second sentence, begins "He emphasized..." but i can't see who "he" was? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the section on "uses" we have this: "The current models on the etiology of ADHD involve impaired dopamine neurotransmission in the mesocortical and mesolimbic pathways and norepinephrine neurotransmission in the prefrontal cortex and locus coeruleus." First of all, I'm not entirely sure that the etiology of ADHD should be in the "uses" section of this article. But assuming it should, can we not favour a text that is a little less medically precise, and a little more readable by someone who is not already a student of medicine or pharmacology? What is "norepinephrine neurotransmission"? There isn't even a wikilink, but if there was, I'm not sure it would help a reader, given that this single sentence contains ten specialised medical or pharmacological terms. Why not rewrite it as something like "It is currently believed that ADHD is caused by problems with the operation of some of the brain's neurotransmitters, particularly the two chemicals dopamine and norepinephrine."?
Good point - I replaced it with a slightly modified version of your text and appended the technical description to it in a note. ChangesSeppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of "uses", "contraindications", "side effects" and "overdose" is pretty good. In overdose, though, we need a plain English alternative to "dopaminergic neurotoxicity". I had to guess that it means that it kills those neurons that are dopamine receptors, but I'm not sure, and the wikilink didn't help me solve that problem.
I had to take a pass on the pharmacology section. It needs more qualified reviewers than me who might understand it. Except to say that it needs a copyedit at one point to avoid the clumsy conjunction "...specific. Specifically,..."
I'm not happy with how "physical and chemical properties" starts. But I can't quite work out what the problems are. It begins "Amphetamine is a chiral compound and homologue of phenethylamine". Is it a compound in the singular? The lead says that is is an equal mix of two enantiomers. Are two enantiomers only one compound? I thought they would be two. Then "Physically, at room temperature, the free base of amphetamine is..." We have not been told what a "free base" is, and the term isn't linked anywhere. And specifying it this way implies that amphetimine presumably has different qualities to the free base of amphetamine, but these aren't described. Then we have "The racemic mixture can be divided into its optical isomers: levoamphetamine and dextroamphetamine". I don't think just linking "racemic" is sufficient. The sentence also reads like something from an old fashioned text book. Why are they "optical" isomers? And I didn't think they were isomers of the racemic mixture, as the sentence structure suggests - they are isomers of each other - sorry, that is cumbersome, but I can't say they are isomers of amphetimine, because the lead tells me that amphetamine is actually a name for a mixture of these two isomers. Also, why does not this first para tell us the chemical formula of amphetamine? Perhaps the section should begin along these lines: "Amphetamine is a mixture of the two chiral isomers levoamphetamine and dextroamphetamine, with the chemical formula ABC. It is a homologue (has a similar structure to) phenethylamine [insert fact about phenethylamine so we know why we care that it is a homologue of this thing]. Physically, at room temperature, amphetamine [ie. remove "free base of" unless you can explain to the reader the difference between the substance and the free base of the substance] is a mobile, colorless, and volatile liquid with a characteristically strong amine odor, and acrid, burning taste." hamiltonstone (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The chemistry sections (basically everything in physical and chemical properties) are the only part of this article that I don't know inside and out, since I don't have much background knowledge in that area. Nonetheless, just based upon what I've read in the sources (responding to your questions in order, by group):
The amphetamine compound (by definition of that term) refers to the chemicals with the formula C9H13N and the trivial name "amphetamine", i.e., it refers to the free bases of dextroamphetamine and levoamphetamine. Those two have the same structure - they're just flipped. In comparison, the "term" "amphetamine" (see 3rd row) is typically a reference to a specific chemical - the free base of racemic amphetamine (this is stated in the lead citation that I hid in the source).
The free base and salts have the same pharmacological properties, but different chemical/physical properties (e.g., melting/boiling point, smell, etc). Since the free base of amphetamine is an unstable liquid, almost all licit and illicit amphetamine is produced as a salt (Benzedrine contained the free base though).
I made these changes in an attempt to address these issues, though it probably needs further revision - let me know what you think. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In attempt to remove potential confusion concerning the sentence "Amphetamine is a chiral compound and homologue of phenethylamine" as well as to address the other comments above concerning this paragraph, I have made these edits. Please advise if there are any remaining concerns. Boghog (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Seppi and Boghog, that's looking better. My note to delegates: I'm not buying in as a support or oppose, because I'm not sure what the view / standard is about an acceptable level of technicality in a WP article, which is a query for me on the Pharmacology section. I trust delegates, who see a wide range of articles, will be able to form the most intelligent view on that. In other respects I found the latest version relatively accessible, well-written and referenced.hamiltonstone (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need the notes? There's a Synonyms field in the drugbox (BTW, C9H13N is neither a synonym nor an alternative spelling), enantiomers and Mosher's acid are wikilinked for further information. I do see the point in the enantiomers note, but the chemical name of Mosher's isn't important in this article IMO.
Anypodetos, I appreciate the feedback. In any event, I removed the C9H13N term and the note next to Mosher's acid chloride. I made a note next to the first term in part because it was done by my GA reviewer in Psilocybin (FA) and because the drugbox extends halfway into the uses section in chrome on my laptop. It looks fine on my phone though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
The ref from Molecular Neuropharmacology, ch. 13, contains a rather long quote. This seems to border on a copyvio. In general, do we need the quotes in the references? That's pretty unusual.
I cut that quote down and cut out 2 other quotes entirely, since they weren't really necessary or citing contentious content. I'm open to cutting the remaining quotes if their use seems to be an issue though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
Abbreviations/tooltips: Should the number of {{abbr}} templates be reduced? Some paragraphs contain several tooltips of the same abbreviation, and the dotted lines cause some distraction from the text.
I cut out repeated abbr templates in all but 2 paragraphs and the pharmacodynamics diagram caption, since that's the densest technical part of the article. I can cut the remainder out if you think they're more distracting than helpful though - I don't have a preference on keeping or removing them. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
I deviated from MEDMOS & PHARMMOS's layout slightly for a few reasons. (This is a comparison to MEDMOS, since MEDMOS and PHARMMOS actually differ slightly - e.g., contraindications and the section order :P)
I renamed Mechanism of action to "Pharmacodynamics" because the content included in pharmacodynamics is more general than mechanism of action (e.g., it wouldn't include the parts on SLC22A3, SLC22A5, CYP2A6, (the prior 3 are irrelevant to mechanism of action) and possibly CART as well, since its significance isn't completely understood yet.
I added a "Pharmacology" section and grouped the relevant headings under it so that the TOC limit would apply to the neurotransmitter headings (dopamine, serotonin, norepi, etc). The TOC sort of blows up without it and pharmacodynamics is already pretty long, so I figured it needed the subsections.
I renamed "Adverse effects" to "Side effects" because it includes both positive and negative things, as opposed to just undesirable effects.
I lumped "Dependence, addiction and withdrawal" together and put it in the OD section because those issues appear to occur together for the drug, but only occur at recreational doses (i.e., overdose) (all based upon the Cochrane review and FDA Rx info sheets).
Lastly, I removed interactions from the side effects section because, to me, it doesn't seem like a logical sub-category.
Thanks for your answers! I see you put a lot of thought into this article :-) Maybe I'll remove some more redundant tooltips if you don't mind (only if there are several identical ones within a few lines), but I have no strong feelings about this issue either. I hope I'll have time to read the article thoroughly come weekend. Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Also, thanks for fixing those minor issues yesterday! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Continued...
Contraindications
Several instances of "should" – see WP:NOTHOWTO. In Contraindications sections, I usually try either to say what dangerous things can happen if you take a drug under certain circumstances, or else write something on the lines of "the product information / manufacturer(s) advise against XY because studies are lacking / something bad could happen based on theoretical reasoning / etc." to avoid the impression that WP is advising readers not to take the drug.
"may still be prescribed to pregnant women in some circumstances[vague]" – do the sources say anything about which circumstances these are?
For the first issue, I rewrote the sentences to state that the USFDA was advising this. For the second issue, there wasn't anything concrete in the refs, so I used their wording to state in a nutshell that "it may be prescribed in cases where the potential benefits outweigh the risks." Let me know what you think of the current section - I more or less rewrote the paragraph. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
Physical side effects, 1st paragraph – see WP:LINKSTYLE, last bullet ("Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links"); however, I'm not sure whether "... arrhythmias (irregular heartbeat, usually as tachycardia or fast heartbeat), hypertension (high blood pressure) or hypotension (low blood pressure) etc..." would make the paragraph better or worse.
Interactions, 1st sentence – seems to have a grammatical error. Maybe there's just an "its" too much, but I'd rather leave it to you so I don't change the meaning.
Still not sure how understandable this sentence is, although I get it is talking about pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions. If I can think of a better wording, I'll suggest it. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... I struggled writing the revision, which IMO (ignoring the typo) is only a minor improvement. I don't think I worded it that well either. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
I made another attempt at this. Better than the last version, though there's probably still room for improvement. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
History, society, and culture, 3rd sentence – I assume "amphetamines" means "enantionpure and/or racemic amphetamine" here per the article convention, as opposed to "substituted amphetamines"? Just checking.
Chemical properties – does this really belong in the Pharmacology section? I was looking for a Synthesis section and unexpectedly found it here.
I decided on the sections to add to it using a statement in the lead of pharmacology (specifically, "the field encompasses drug composition and properties, synthesis and drug design, molecular and cellular mechanisms, organ/systems mechanisms, signal transduction/cellular communication, molecular diagnostics, interactions, toxicology, chemical biology, therapy, and medical applications and antipathogenic capabilities."). That said, it's broad enough that I could've added basically every level 2 heading/section except "History, society, and culture" to it, so my choice was somewhat arbitrary. I really don't have a preference on section heading placement, so I wouldn't mind moving chemical properties and synthesis out of pharmacology if you think it seems a bit odd to have them there. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
I think it's somewhat odd that the Pharmacology article mentions synthesis. While WP:MOSMED doesn't mention a Pharmacology section (maybe just because is would encompass practically everything), it's pretty common to have such a section with the subsections Pharmacodynamics and Pharmacokinetics. I've moved the Chemistry section out of and below Pharmacology. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! I think your arrangement of heading and subheadings is a more intuitive/logical categorization than what it was before. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
Note to self: Pharmacology section not reviewed yet.
Sorry for the delay! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A short paragraph on bioavailability, first pass effect (if there is one), and protein binding would be nice. Could do that myself, but not today
Amphetamine has very weird pharmacokinetics (IMO) - basically everything is pH dependent. I've looked a few times for a mention of first pass effects, but haven't found anything specifically on amphetamine in MEDRS refs (including HSDB/toxnet and pubchem). I didn't mention (oral) bioavailability in the article it's far too dependent on pH to give a meaningful figure; I've found very few mentions of the bioavailability of any amphetamine salts or the free base via different routes.
The only ref I've found for oral was a range on oral D-amph bioavailability (pubchem page) that I don't think is correct at acidic pH. Besides the acid/alkaline interactions in the prescribing info for adderall, I've read a few primary sources that indicate the use of high-dose acidic compounds (e.g., vitamin C) immediately following an amphetamine overdose results in markedly reduced absorption from the upper GI tract. In contrast, alkaline solutions, especially oral laxative antacids that don't absorb well throughout the GI tract (magnesium hydroxide), can greatly increase oral bioavailability. I'm not sure whether it's better to expand upon the vague bioavailability statements in the FDA interactions with this or only state the interactions information out of concern for what some readers might do with that information. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
Could you review my addition? Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Amphetamine#Pharmacokinetics. I didn't mention any reasons for high or low GI pH to address your concerns about readers, and also because it's already in the interactions section. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looked good. Made 2 minor text edits and distributed the associated refs. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Almost forgot to add: In the event you noticed this (it looked pretty stupid IMO), I fixed the whitespace after the section - it was coming from the transclusion template. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt very much whether the half-lives given in the prescribing info for different age groups are statistically significantly different. I'd say dex-amph has a half-life of 9 to 11 hrs, and levo-amph has 11 to 14 hours. Anything more precise probably can't be measured anyway.
Detection in body fluids: This section seems a bit unclear about some points.
Are the "chiral-separation techniques" from paragraph 1 the same as Mosher's acid chloride from para 3?
It's used as the separating agent in one of the techniques - I wrote in a note that Aa77zz wanted me to delete that Mosher's acid chloride is (S)-(+)-α-methoxy-α-(trifluoromethyl)phenylacetyl chloride; I used the Mosher's acid wikilink because that chemical name is hideous and long. This is one of the two sections (other being synthesis) that I'm actually completely unfamiliar with the science behind. Granted, I understand this section a little better than I do synthesis - Boghog wrote that section.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how the (two-way) distinction of racemate vs. dextro facilitated by the chiral-separation techniques can distinguish between all those sources mentioned in para 1. Are all the legal sources enantiopure and all illegal ones racemic? Or what?
Based upon what I gathered from reading the abstracts and parts of the papers I could understand a month ago, the enantiomers in amphetamine pharmaceuticals have a predictable ratio with which they break down. Since street substituted amphetamines (usually mostly dextromethamphetamine) usually have a different ratio than amphetamine pharmaceuticals or Vicks Vapoinhaler, the enantiomeric ratio in urine can be compared to that. AFAIK, Benzedrine isn't sold in the US anymore, and since the only product with levoamph is Adderall (25% levoamph 75% dextroamph [or as the FDA puts it: 50% amph 50% D-amph]), the presence of the racemate's urinary enantiomeric ratio without levomethamphetamine would indicate consumption of illicit racemic amphetamine. Again though, I don't know this field/topic particularly well.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Added: I have no clue how they account for the potential presence of legal Desoxyn use. Add again: my best guess as to how this works is they use a panel of drug derivatizing methods to determine enantiomeric ratios and then determine if the ratio of methamphetamine and amphetamine enantiomers (and those of prodrugs any potential prodrugs) falls within the possible range of ratio values that could conceivably come from taking a combination of legal substituted amphetamines. The presence of D-methamphetamine in the absence of a prodrug would probably raise a red flag, because Desoxyn is so rarely prescribed (it's a neurotoxin, after all). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)[reply]
"GC–MS of amphetamine and methamphetamine ... allows for the detection of methamphetamine in urine." Um, doesn't it allow for the detection of amphetamine as well? "... allows for the detection of both substances, but does not distinguish enantiomers"?
From what I gather, the results of GC-MS depend on the derivatizing agent used. The first is a non-chiral agent, so it detects the presence of either enantiomer. With Mosher's acid chloride, it's possible to detect D-meth (something like 10% breaks down into D-Amph, so D-meth implies the presence of D-amph.), which is by far the most common street substituted amphetamine. I wrote that paragraph mostly from the abstract, and partly the body, of this paper.[1] Again, I'm not entirely familiar with this field though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this subsection would fit better in the chemistry section. I'll leave that decision to you.
Transclusion: Not sure, but I think you should move User:Seppi333/AnnotatedImage to Template namespace. Transcluding from User to Article space shouldn't be done AFAIK.
Support with some reservations. A formidable undertaking, generally well-written and sourced. Some places in the article are vague or tangential, they can be shortened. Things to improve:
Remove less important info from the lead: Amphetamine is the parent compound of its own structural class...
I'm not sure how I could reword this without cutting out the whole sentence and note 3 (which is more important than it might seem on the face of it - see #abuse of language) Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
Not needed: The exact etiologies of ADHD are not completely understood...
In the medical uses, some citations are about use in adult ADHD, some in children. This has to be noted
I can only find 1 where I forgot to mention this - the Millichap text - did you notice any others? In any event, I added the text for that ref. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
bupropion, .. increases stamina and endurance... Not sure
It's what the ref says - the review cited 1 or 2 (i forget which) papers where it improved performance wrt controls but the mechanism is dopamine reuptake inhibition, so it's entirely within the realm of that drug's pharmacodynamics. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
USFDA? - FDA is a customary abbreviation
I appended the US term simply because there's currently more than 1 FDA on the page (Thailand Food and Drug Administration). Seemed necessary to disambiguate. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
At normal therapeutic doses, the physical side effects of amphetamine vary widely by age and among individuals. - vague. How is it varied by age
The Rx info didn't really go too much into it, but there seemed to be an upward trend in gastrointestinal symptoms between children, adolescent, and adults. The most obvious difference by age was the children and adolescents are susceptible to temporary effects on their growth (height/weight), whereas this is irrelevant to adults. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
Side effects, in general. Frequent side effects and rare but severe side effects have to be highlighted. Skip (rare AND insignificant) side effects.
The Adderall XR Rx info noted that, due to the heterogeneity in clinical studies, the side effects they listed can't be generalized beyond the sub-populations noted in the side effects tables. The only mention of the word rare in the Rx info pertain to rare complications of possible side effects (independent of amphetamine, like ulceration in Raynaud's, which is a rare complication of Raynaud's) The Westfall ref also noted tolerance to some effects over time, so common vs rare effects aren't time invariant. I wish there was something more useful I could add in comment on this, but beyond acute toxic reactions, there don't seem to be any real rare side effects - they're just inevitable at sufficiently high doses. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
Dangerous physical side effects are quite rare in typical pharmaceutical doses. - Specify which and how rare
The acute toxic reactions mentioned above (occurring at idiosyncratically low doses)- a frequency wasn't provided in any ref, the ones that mentioned this just said it was rare. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
erectile dysfunction, frequent erections, - which are more frequent
This might sound odd, but both may occur to the same person in the same day. In any event, the refs didn't specify a frequency, this was added with the recent December 2013 labeling revision to all amphetamine pharmaceuticals - see this diff's commentSeppi333 (Insert 2¢)
Amphetamine may reduce gastrointestinal motility if intestinal activity is high, or increase motility if the smooth muscle of the tract are relaxed - vague. explain conditions more specifically. what happens more often
The former means it takes longer for contents to move through the intestine - the latter, the opposite. The ref (quote included) [1] doesn't elaborate. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
when respiration is already compromised, it may stimulate respiration. - vague
alertness, concentration, decreased sense of fatigue, self-confidence, and sociability - are not adverse effects
I agree - that's primary why I named the top-level section "effects" instead of "side effects" or (I think JMH649 edited this to "side effects" during one of my feedback requests from him - still, his term for the section also encompasses beneficial effects) "adverse effects" Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
hypotension (low blood pressure) from a vasovagal response - awkward, use Vasovagal syncope
Eh, it doesn't necessarily require passing out for the effect to present itself. I can use a different synonym like vasovagal reaction or vasovagal episode if you'd prefer. I just used vasovagal response because that's the article title. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
Overdose: highlight most frequent and dangerous effects and symptoms.
They're already grouped by danger/severity, although it's indicated as level of OD; everything in the last OD sentence is a medical emergency. Frequency is unknown, like all other case of this =/ Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
An amphetamine overdose is rarely fatal with appropriate care - what is the care? what about strokes?
Cerebral hemorrhage (the most dangerous side effect by far) seems to be mentioned more than stroke in newer toxicity literature I've seen. I'll look into some toxicology texts and flesh out an OD paragraph on treatment in the coming week - need to find a good text for this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
high or low blood pressure - confusing, specify when each of them happens. E.g. low blood pressure when in coma
It's not listed, but I imagine it's the same mechanisms as at normal doses (the opposing effects of various NE/DA receptors in the blood vessels on venous dilation) Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
While addiction is a serious risk with heavy recreational amphetamine use, it is unlikely to arise from typical medical use - how unlikely, what is the number?
about 5–15% of users fail to recover completely - give time frame, within what period they fail to recover - 1 week? 1 year?
I think it meant there were permanent residuals effects. That's all the ref said on that. It's titled "Cochrane" in the above link. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
dopaminergic neurotoxicity with sufficiently high doses of amphetamine - if in the article, provide estimate of how high compare to therapeutic dose
Not in it, though I imagine around or above the level to induce toxic symptoms, since there's no papers I've seen of amphetamine addicts with terminal degradation Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
The primary proposed mechanism... - Delete. No need to explain the effect that is not observed in humans. No need for in vitro data
Removing this might really piss off another editor (Exercisephys) so I need his input before making any changes to this section (it's been a point of contention) Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
Thanks for the heads-up, {Seppi333. I'm fine with the last sentence being removed as its claim is a lot less established than the previous few. However, Seppi333 likely wants it around to maintain the neutrality. As far as the primary proposed mechanism goes, that's very well-established and widely accepted. The primary reason it hasn't been explored in humans is just medical ethics. This was once mentioned in that section but has since been removed. We could restore it if you want. I definitely think that statement should stay, though, as it's a pretty universally accepted and central theory. Exercisephys (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CYP2D6 inhibitors, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) - not all of ssri's, delete that part.
Deleted/replaced with "such as fluoxetine (an SSRI)" since fluoxetine was mentioned as 1 of 2 treatments for abuse/addiction further down the page Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
will prolong the elimination half-life of amphetamine - By how much? What is the clinical significance? With what specific drugs was observed in clinic?
From my understanding, complete inhibition will halt the metabolism along the para-hydroxylation pathways, so it will increase the amount of amphetamine to excrete that would have been lost through that route, which isn't a trivial proportion for people who aren't weak metabolizers on CYP2D6. The effect size depends on metabolic activity on that enzyme between people (strong metabolizers/weak metabolizers will see different results). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
amphetamine also interacts with monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) - MAO-A or MAO-B or both? Are there examples of cases from literature?
Moreso MAO-B than MAO-A since: amphetamine is a weak-moderate MAO-B inhibitor and most catecholamines and notable/relevant trace aminergic phenethylamines are either preferential or fully selective substrates of MAO-B. Ya, it's pretty dangerous to combine them, though the explanation as to why will require a paragraph (related to phenethylamine).Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
While there is no significant effect on consuming amphetamine with food in general, the pH of gastrointestinal content and urine affects the absorption and excretion of amphetamine, respectively.[73] Specifically, acidic substances will reduce the absorption of amphetamine and increase urinary excretion, while alkaline substances do the opposite.[73] Due to the effect pH has on absorption, amphetamine also interacts with gastric acid reducers such as proton pump inhibitors and H2 antihistamines, which decrease gastrointestinal pH. - vague. with what acidic substances? clinical significance and literature on interaction with antacids (my guess it is low)
There's a very significant pH effects on both absorption and excretion w.r.t. alkaliniy/acidity. If the diet is very acidic, neutralization of pH in the upper GI will have a very large effect on absorption there. Excretion is mentioned in pharmacokinetics (doubles to triples elimination half-life for alkaline). Absorption I didn't mention for concerns about information use (mentioned in Anypodetos' section above) Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
Section on pharmacodynamics contains a lot of general tangential information. Example: "The most widely studied neurotransmitter with regard to amphetamine action in the central nervous system is dopamine".
At high doses, amphetamine inhibits monoamine oxidase - which? are these doses clinically relevant?
MAO-B. Just above therapeutic range, so probably not. Specified MAO-B. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
This likely contributes to the nootropic effects of amphetamine - nootropic effects are speculative
I wasn't the author of the piece of text, but I decided to keep it simply because I had addressed improvements in working memory (as a result of improved cortical network efficiency - reference) on individuals from the general population in the first paragraph of the amphetamine#performance-enhancing section. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
consequently, when the pH is basic, more of the drug is in its lipid soluble free base form, and more is absorbed through the lipid-rich cell membranes of the gut epithelium.[3][73] Conversely, an acidic pH means the drug is predominantly in its water soluble cationic form, and less is absorbed.[3][73] - what is the clinical significance? what are examples of acidic and alkaline diet? what are overall effects of acidic/alkaline diet from the point of overall action of amphetamine
More Alkaline= higher bioavailability (I don't want to explicitly state this) and markedly lower excretion. More acidic= the opposite. Food examples is waaaaay too general/broad for inclusion IMO. Edit: In a nutshell, this means it's a higher/lower effective dose at all ranges of time values for alkaline/acid respectively, but I don't want to state that for the same reason as bioavailability. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
Apparent half-life and duration of effect increase with repeated use and accumulation of the drug.[93] - when does it reach equilibrium?
No clue - haven't seen a ref assert that. I imagine there's some pretty weird dynamics with enzymatic metabolism as doses become really high. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
What are major metabolites (including inactive). Note on the scheme which is the main metabolic pathway
This probably varies between strong/weak metabolizers of CYP2D6/FMO, but in general it's the phenylacetone branch. I'll add this to the diagram when I have some time this week. I've added all this information to the caption, though not the material on the variability from strong/weak metabolizers differences (e.g., CYP2D6#Genetic basis of variability). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
Synthesis - which one is used in manufacture? Remove R-s in Knoevenagel scheme since they = H. In the second dcheme, the formula for hydroxylamine, should be NH2OH not NH3.
I'll need to have Boghog answer this, because I'm clueless when it comes to chem. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) Edited: Actually, I don't think Boghog would know the legal method (I have no clue either) - this very like different between manufacturers and certainly between pharmaceutical type (e.g. pure dextro, adderall, vyvanse). The primary illicit method, the Leuckart method, is indicated for illicit amph. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References 3, 10 and 19 are the same
Page numbers differ - they're short cites. I think there's between 5-10 cites to the Adderall XR info with different page numbers Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
General note: prescribing information is the property of the manufacturer. FDA can only suggest corrections to it. A compromise version of prescribing information between FDA and the manufacturer is usually approved by FDA. Therefore you should not write " According to the United States Food and Drug Administration..." and then refer to the prescribing information. The best is to say according to the prescribing information or according to the manufacturer's label (you can add approved by FDA, if you wish).
I've attempted to address this with a revision to the first sentence and a note following the revised text in amphetamine#Contraindications. I couldn't think of a better way to state this since there's at least 5 different amphetamine pharmaceuticals I can think of at the moment available in the US, most of which have multiple generic manufacturers. Let me know if you think this could use further revision. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! I'll try to work through this list promptly. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References
^From Westfall: "The GI effects of amphetamine are unpredictable. If enteric activity is pronounced, amphetamine may cause relaxation and delay the movement of intestinal contents; if the gut already is relaxed, the opposite effect may occur."
From the lead section, last paragraph: "Amphetamine is the parent compound of its own structural class... which includes... methamphetamine. It is chemically related to methamphetamine." Isn't the second statement obvious from the first statement? Axl¤[Talk] 00:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think so. I only used it as a lead-in clause for the comparison that was made in that sentence. I wouldn't mind rewording it if you can think of a more fluid/less redundant way of expressing that (assuming I don't come up with something today). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
I have changed the text. Axl¤[Talk] 01:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From "Uses", subsection "Medical", paragraph 2: "others noted reductions to dopamine-associated structures and metabolites." Perhaps mention the structures (substantia nigra? basal ganglia?). Axl¤[Talk] 03:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because these are animal studies, I didn't really want to expound on its adverse effects on non-human primate neuroplasticity since it's not relevant to humans - an opposite effect in humans is covered in the next sentence. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
"Uses", subsection "Medical", paragraph 3 contains two quotes from Millichap. Is this really a controversial subject where a direct quote would be superior to paraphrasing? Axl¤[Talk] 10:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was a contentious issue (w/ other editors) at the time I added that content. That said, I could paraphrase it if you think it'd be more reasonable and/or flow better in doing so.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
Edit: I rewrote one of these sentences since I thought it would flow better without a quote. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From "Uses", subsection "Medical", quote from the Cochrane Collaboration: "Amphetamines were associated with higher attrition due to adverse events." I presume that "attrition" in this context refers to discontinuation of treatment. Compared to which group is there higher attrition? (I presume that the other group is placebo, because that is usually what Cochrane looks for as the control.) The preceding statement is: "[Adderall] also increased retention in treatment." Does this mean that the attrition rate with Adderall is lower than the rate in the control group? Superficially, this seems to contradict the other statement. Or is there a higher attrition rate in the control group for reasons other than adverse events? Overall, this out-of-context quote is unhelpful. Axl¤[Talk] 12:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, other ADHD treatments, not placebo. Thanks. Axl¤[Talk] 13:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From "Uses", subsection "Medical", last paragraph: "A Cochrane Collaboration review on the treatment of ADHD in children with comorbid tic disorders indicated that stimulants in general do not exacerbate tics, but high-dose dextroamphetamine use in such individuals should be avoided." This implies that high-dose dextroamphetamine in ADHD without tic disorders is acceptable. Is that correct? Axl¤[Talk] 12:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming I understood the issues, I think I addressed these points in this edit. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment This candidate has been here a long time but there is no indication that a consensus for promotion will be achieved on this occasion and I will be archiving this in a few minutes. I urge the nominator to resolve remaining issues on the article's talk page and return this to FAC later. This can be done after two weeks from when the closing bot runs. Graham Colm (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about the song made by Psy. This song has hit very high population numbers in Youtube. This is the first time this article has been nominated for a featured article. It already is a good article. Order of the sword (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments/Oppose
This is way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way too detailed. 60,000 characters for a song? No. Period.
You have very few edits to the article, if any. Have you contacted the main contributors (A1candidate, Sp33dyphil, et al.) to see if they think the article is ready? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, an experienced editor like yourself should not oppose an article due to 60k characters size. It's hardly too long; it is the most famous cultural product of a major nation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, my comment above was lazy. It's the fact that the nominator has not edited the article and is unlikely to be able to respond to comments adequately that concerns me, rather than its length Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, read WP:SPLIT again. At 60k, splitting is strongly suggested. That sub-articles were backmerged here is just a blunder that's come back to bite us. This needs serious pruning. "Amazing Grace", with a much longer pedigree and greater societal influence, is only 37k characters in length. William Shakespeare, probably the most-written about author in history, is at 38k characters. Both are FA. This is clearly not. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Order of the sword. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I recognise that we should expect this article to be relatively long for an article on an individual song, in recognition of its extensive cultural impact through things like large numbers of parodies, and its adoption in many campaigns (far more than for many other songs). I also recognise that it is appropriate that the article talk about the song's impact on interest in Korean wave and Korean music. I still agree with Crisco, though, that it is too long. This reflects the lack of filtering applied to the article, separating the important from the unimportant, and the fact that the article tends to try and list everything in a category (every instance of a parody or cover) rather than only listing major examples, or seeking secondary sources that have themselves summarised the significance of the work. There is needless duplication, for example having a section on 'reception' but a separate section on 'year-end media picks'. Why is there a section on review of the music video, and then later a para on year-end picks for the video? The 'see also' list is miles too long and appears to duplicate a large number of links in the various tables in the article. It can probably all be deleted. On the subject of filtering material - why do we have this massive list of weekly charts? Do I care that it charted at 42 in Romania? All of the subsections of text on charting information are absurdly detailed and can be reduced to a single short paragraph for each region. On the plus side, most of what is needed will already be here, and there's no shortage of references! (But on that subject: four citations for the fact that Obama might do it for Michelle? In fact, please remove that trivia altogether). hamiltonstone (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. 1) Just one comment: please incorporate the term remix culture into the article. 2) The first three paragraphs for "Cultural impact" section need their own subsection heading 3) there's at least one clarification needed tag 4) copyright issues are discussed in several places: at the end of "Production", and at the end of "Background and release". Please merge. I'd also like to see more, if possible, on the industry reaction to the spread of technically illegal parodies. Consider the following sources for expansion: [10], [11]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In a way, this article does very well to reflect its subject—I got the same sense of "WTF!" reading it that I did when I first saw the music video. More seriously, the version that was awarded GA in Nov 2012 is much tighter and more concise. Since then, going by the top of the article talk page, several daughter articles have been merged wholesale into this parent article as the result of several AfDs. Subsequently, the current clusterfuck has risen.
To fix this article, I reckon the the GA-approved version would be a good starting point. Unless that is done, this doesn't even deserve to be a GA.—indopug (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note Yes, i'm aware this is a very long article. However, note that the korean pop songs have been going on for a long time. This allows this for a GA nomination, along with many citations. Plus, Open Gangnam Style IS a popular song, after all, and many people that like it likely had a lot to say about this. Order of the sword (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Order of the sword[reply]
Yes, but a good encyclopedia article doesn't report all of it in the way this article does. The article could make use of good secondary sources that summarise and filter the information to present what is most important. Or editors need to filter it. But this article does not sufficiently 'summary style'. That's my view anyway. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the nominator read WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and see how it can be better applied here. That this song is a year and a half old, which in no way makes it "have been going on for a long time". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is connected with other Korean songs for some time, and as I saw, there were a couple of mergers to it. All are valid resources to it.Order of the sword (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Order of the sword[reply]
"It is connected with other Korean songs for some time," - If you are saying that this inspired other music... that's kinda what famous songs do. It's not unique to Gangnam Style. Again, read WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article has gone through two FACs, both of which were archived because of not enough feedback. Trying again, as an FAC coordinator said this may be exempt from the two-week wait ([13]). Dan56 (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources and images: I checked these out at the previous FAC, at which a few issues were resolved. All is well. Brianboulton (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here I'm concentrating mostly on the prose (criterion 1a) of the article. I think some sentences in the article need some minor adjustments because they don't flow well, or I had to pause and think about what the sentence meant, or perhaps the wrong choice of word is used. Below are some of the sentences I think need improving:
"He wanted to teach his young sidemen a new improvisational and ensemble direction based on their individual tendencies and prevent them from being diminished by conventional styles." I think "approach" is a better word than "direction", and what or who "prevent them from being diminished by conventional styles"? ("Prevent" seems like the wrong word here, or it needs to be worded differently.)
Replaced w/"approach". Coleman wanted to "prevent them..."; added commas and "also" to avoid confusion, if it helps? Dan56 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"He had been fired by jazz organist Charles Earland for how much attention his playing received from audiences," Does "how much" mean too much or too little? That is, was he fired for hogging the limelight, or not attracting enough attention? It also could mean he wasn't fitting well with other musicians, so is this sentence a POV?
Clarified; changed to "the excessive amount of attention..." Dan56 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It was ultimately rejected because of mechanical problems with the recording apparatus." What does "it" mean? The recording session or the recording? If the mechanical problem that was apparent during recording, then I would say the recording session was abandoned, if the problem only became apparent later, then it's the recording (and I would phrase it differently).
The "recording", revised. Dan56 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Although the players made no attempt to harmonize their radically different parts, the album's mix was generally in the middle frequency range and had compressed dynamics, which resulted in neither extremely loud nor extremely soft passages." A rather awkward sentence - recording with compressed dynamics would produced "neither extremely loud nor extremely soft passages" but that would have nothing to do with players not harmonizing. The two parts of sentence are not linked properly.
Separated the two. Dan56 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...did not conform to the simpler, romantic image of jazz that many of the genre's fans admire." I would use "prefer" instead of "admire", and I don't see "simpler" in the reference, that would presumeably your interpretation?
"cornpone romantic..." Dan56 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Of Human Feelings was acclaimed by contemporary music critics." I would assume "most" critics given there are some dissenting opinions?
The source says it that way, and that sentence doesn't necessarily mean by all critics. Dan56 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"from New York's sceneless yet vital jazz" could be replaced with "of New York's jazz".
Johnson described it as such. I think it adds context and is relevant enough since its his "canonical" list, but if you still feel otherwise... Dan56 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These sentences just need to be a bit clearer as to what they mean. It is by no means an exhaustive list, a few other sentences could also be improved with additions of words or punctuation, or the elimination of unnecessary words. Hzh (talk)
Instead of replying to each point separately, this is more of a general comment but refers to the some of the edits above. I do think you should be more careful about what is an opinion and what is a fact. The wording of "sceneless yet vital jazz" is more of an opinion, unless you put it in quote, it would read like you are presenting it as a fact. Similarly what you wrote on how Tacuma was fired; this is presented as a fact, but is that also the view of Charles Earland the one who did the firing? He might have thought that Tacuma wasn't playing as part of a group. We should avoid being unfair to Charles Earland unless he had also confirmed it to be true. When it is possibly an opinion, then it should be presented as as such (using words like "according to XYZ" etc. or use quotation marks) This also applies to "prevent them from being diminished by conventional styles" which would presumably be Coleman's opinion. Being "diminished" is possibly a POV, I would phrased it as something like "free from some of the normal constraints of..." (or whatever you think works better). Also when the source states an opinion like "cornpone romantic" style, either put it quotes or if you are rephrasing, make sure it actually means the same thing. I don't read "cornpone" as necessarily meaning simpler, more folksy (you may think folksy means simpler, but you are introducing you own interpretation).
A second point is that the prose should read well. The change to "The players made no attempt to harmonize their radically different parts" as a single sentence made it seem isolated from the previous and following sentences, which can be remedied by simply inserting "however" in the sentence or slight rephrasing. Short sentences can work well, but you should be careful how to word them. Hzh (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changes. I understand the critics' characterizations and wording those better ("corny" is synonymous with cornpone, so replaced that), but what reason is there to doubt that's the reason Earland fired Tacuma? Wouldn't prefacing it with an "according to" just open a Pandora's box for having to do it in most every other sentence? Do we need every party mentioned to confirm each sentence they're mentioned in? And what is the difference between "diminished" and "normal constraints" as far as POV is concerned? The source citing it uses "...their potential ... warped in order to fill conventional molds", so wouldn't "diminished" be more faithful to "warped"? Dan56 (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In general, an opinion should be presented only as opinion, not as fact, particularly when it might be perceived as negative and involves another person. I tried to look for sources for Tacuma's firing, apart from the source you quoted (which appears to be based on interview with Tacuma, therefore likely to be Tacuma's own spin on the event), another source I can find says "Tacuma suspects that it was his spotlight-stealing stage presence that got him fired" (I highlighted "suspects"). You see the problem here? It is apparently one person's opinion and suspicion putting a positive spin on his own dismissal, but somehow it is presented as fact here, a clear violation of wiki guidelines. Unless there are more sources from other people's account that can support this assertion, it should not be be presented as a fact.
There is also the general problem with the use of words. "Normal constraints" is close enough to suggest the "conventional molds" in the source quote, but becoming "diminished" is a subjective judgment you interpreted from "warped". Please don't think that I'm saying that my wordings are the most suitable ones, if anything you should find your own way of saying it, I'm simply saying that it can be improved on. As to some of your revisions, I would say that if in doubt (for example, with words like cornpone that may be interpreted as pejorative), put the possibly objectionable wordings into quotation marks which is a simple way of sidestepping the issue. Hzh (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Revision, replaced "diminished" with "influenced by" (more neutral), and qualified Tacuma sentence. Dan56 (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Background section gives us enough background, or perhaps not the right background. We don't ever really get an idea who Ornette Coleman even is. Obviously, much of that's going to be contained in his article, but jumping in with both feet here is tough for an outside reader to the topic.
The background was taken from sources that dealt with the article's topic, i.e. Of Human Feelings, following the principle expressed in WP:STICKTOSOURCE: "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic...". Coleman is not the topic to such a degree (who Ornette Coleman even is would be relevant at his article), at least as far as the sources were concerned. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A survey of other FA album titles reveals that background sections arrayed more or less like this are the rule. I'm not thrilled with it personally, but that's how consensus works. I still think the first sentence is weak, though. You may want to try wording it with "in" instead of "by", and by using more active verb constructions. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded with "in". Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The gloss of harmolodics comes two sentences after its use, and makes the passage somewhat more confusing than ideal.
What do you mean by "the gloss of harmolodics"? The complexity? It is a background on the album, and every source that deals with this topic glaringly brings it up. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because "harmolodics" is likely to be an unfamiliar term to the reader, and it is one central to the article, you need to include a gloss, a brief explanation of the term. You do that, but the way the paragraph is ordered, the reader encounters the term, then reads through content that doesn't provide a definition before getting a concise explanation, which isn't ideal. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rearranged to have the line starting "according to his theory" ahead. Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prime Time have sufficient independent notability to warrant at least a redlink?
I didn't think FA articles would have those. Still, I'd think an appropriate link for "Prime Time" would be a redirect to Ornette Coleman since its his ensemble, but then again "Ornette Coleman" is already linked multiple times in the article. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I misinterpreted the text. Does Prime Time exist independent of Coleman ("...Prime Time, an electric quartet whom he introduced..." made me think that it did)? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Only credited for his work ([14]). Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"They comprised guitarists..." In American English usage, which should be controlling here, bands are singular entities even if they're composite nouns. R.E.M. is... U2 is... Prime Time should be referred to as "it" here, I think.
The level of detail on Tacuma in particular feels like it belongs in a different article than this one (one on Prime Time, perhaps, or even his). I have a hard time seeing how it serves as background to this album or the later text.
Same response, the sources dictated it for the most part. After all, he was the one quoted in the Mandel book rather than the other players. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The caption for the Jamaaladeen Tacuma pic needs to be reworded; this isn't NPOV, and "challenged and enthused" sounds peacocky to my ear besides.
Those words are attributed to a source, and do plainly summarize what's verified, basically reiterating what's cited (Mandel book, p. 162) and stated (using the same two words) in the last paragraph of the "background" section. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But as the caption, those words are out of the context of the cited passage. That entirely aside, I'm not sure that this caption adequately contextualizes the picture nor meets the succinctness requirement of WP:CAP. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But wouldn't it fulfill WP:CAP#Some criteria for a good caption points 3, 4, and 5, particularly since the relevance of Tacuma in the section where the image is placed is his take on harmolodics? Like in the example image at the aforementioned link, neither "popularized" nor "first billboard campaign" are evident in the image, but the context given with those details establishes the relevance and IMHO draws readers to it. Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...brisk and unflashy music..." And right here, if nothing else, is why I have to oppose. I know there's an art to rephrasing source material to avoid close paraphrasing and to avoid just piling on direct quote after quote. But Mandel didn't use either of those words. He calls the album "snappy" and "unpretentious" but I'm not comfortable with that sort of thesaurus-wrangling with an attributed opinion, especially in an arts context. I have not spotchecked otherwise.
You're opposing because I replaced two words that basically mean the same thing? I don't see why you just don't recommend I quote his actual words instead, or offer a better revision like the above reviewer had. I'd like to hear something from Hzh about this line. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am. In part because I'm not convinced they do mean the same thing, especially in the context of musical critique and analysis, particularly the "snappy"/"brisk" pairing. I understand that this article previously caught a lot of heat at FAC for close paraphrasing. I understand that you worked to avoid the use of similar phrase choices, rightly, in response to that, and that's its probably frustrating to then have a reviewer turn around and object to the revision. But I still do think it's a problem. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll use the actual words in quotes then? Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trio Records deserve at least a redlink?
I never encountered requests for redlinks LOL. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It happens. The linking goal for FA is generally to have links to all the articles which would be valuable to serve as links, whether those articles exist yet or not. Ideally, of course, there's at least a stub at all those targets, but especially as you get into articles further and further outside the most popular topics, sometimes they're red. I was asked to redlink boletocrocin at my first FA (instead, I made a stub to turn the link blue). Back on topic, there are a lot of false positives for Trio Records, so I'm having some trouble determining if they're notable enough for an article, but, if so, they should probably be redlinked. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
according to Discogs, its a label under the Trio Corporation, which in turn was renamed Kenwood Corporation, so I guess a piped link there would be appropriate. Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To someone not immediately familiar with US chart complexities, it's odd to say that it had no commercial success, then turn around and say it was 15 on a relevant-sounding chart on which it stayed for 26 weeks.
A jazz chart? During the '80s? Even if, it's still not a hit parade. Just a genre/component chart. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our hit parade article is a mess, and is perhaps destined for a slow merge to record chart, which isn't much better. I understand what you mean here, but a reader not familiar with the charting system might not be (and sure isn't getting any help from those other articles). Perhaps make explicit that, despite its genre performance, it failed to place on the mainstream chart? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Made a piped link, [[hit parade|pop charts]], since "hit parade" is what the source uses, but "pop charts" offers more clarity. Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does White need to be capitalized here? I don't think so, but someone else may want to double-check me on this one.
I just saw it as an adjective capitalized at White American; it'd make sense this way tho rather than lower case when it's not referring to race/ethnicity, I think? Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even that article doesn't seem internally consistent. I honestly don't know what the "right" answer is here, and can't seem to ferret any guidance out of the manual of style. I wouldn't consider this actionable, but it would be nice to confirm one way or the other. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The line about the album going out of print seems out of place in the paragraph about his live performances. Any idea when it went out of print? Was it ever re-issued? The structure of the article implies it was out of print by sometime in the 1980s, which would make its presence on a 1998 list of albums for novice jazz listeners (not that that might not be the case, to be sure...).
Just one line, not exclusively about live performances. Not exactly a reliable source, but no reissue listed at Discogs. A music critic wouldn't necessarily be aware of whether its in print or not. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the line interrupts the logical order of the paragraph. I'm not sure where to move it to, because I don't have a good sense of when the album went out of print (nor does the article, other than the relative "later"). And, actually, I think this album's release history may be more complicated that the article covers. Allmusic lists a 1990 Mango Records LP that seems distinct from the 1982 Antilles Records LP/CD/cassette release (not certain whether the original release formats are worth noting, but if that "1982" CD in WorldCat really was a 1982 CD, it's one of the "Big Bang" of early CD releases). Also, while it's hardly a reliable source, Amazon lists a 1998 PolyGram "import" CD, about which I really have no other information. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't trust ALlmusic on that; this search showed that catalogue #/edition only at their site, when you would normally find catalogs like Schwann Catalog or rare vinyl sites verify them. I search the ASIN from Amazon.com's listing, and got back this import from 1995, so nothing seems consistent. I moved the "out of print" line forward. Does it flow better that way? Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did the songs from this album get played on the international tour with Prime Time? It's not clear whether they played this material or unrelated music.
What international tour with Prime Time? Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Coleman did not record another album for six years and instead performed internationally with Prime Time." Is that not what this means? Or were they literally just playing privately elsewhere in the world? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not specified by the source, which says "...Prime Time was working regularly on both sides of the Atlantic" before going into a lengthy commentary on how Coleman abandoned his previous dress and appearance for flashier suits or something. Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...slick style..." Not NPOV.
Removed "slick". Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...intricate, vacillating compositions..." Too much an opinion without direct attribution.
I could see how "intricate" would be an opinion, but alternating or fluctuating seems concrete enough. Removed the former. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really what vacillating means though. I mean, yes, it has "fluctuate, oscillate" as a meaning, but the dictionary I have at hand gives its most common meaning as "alternate or waver between different opinions or actions; be indecisive". Like with my earlier complaint about the adjectives attributed to Mandel, you just cannot safely hit musical descriptions with a thesaurus. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source's exact words that I tried to paraphrase were "complex vertical structures". Would it be a copyvio issue if I just use those, since it's an actual phrase in music theory? (Merriam). Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You cite publisher locations for some periodicals, but not for the book sources. That should probably be one way or the other.
I only included the location for periodicals without the city/location in the title per Template:Citation (as opposed to something like New York Times). Never had the issue brought up for books before. added locations for publishers w/out location in name. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The goal's really consistency. Publication locations are optional, but once you're a Jet, you're a Jet all the way. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ISBNs should probably be updated to properly-formatted ISBN13s; luckily, the converter makes that 30 seconds worth of work.
Oppose: Structure, NPOV (including treatment of sources), and a handful of minor issues. Hzh's prose concerns are also applicable; I tried to avoid duplication. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The recently archived FAC is still open on the article's talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this has been dealt with (tks Maralia). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a few weeks since my last response (as I mentioned at your talk page here). Does your oppose stand? If so, why? Any response? Dan56 (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Squeamish Orange hasn't responded back here after I commented at his talk page on the 16th. Hasn't edited since the 13th ([15]), so they may be busy outside of Wikipedia. Dan56 (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: shame that "Sleep Talk" audio clip is only 21 seconds. (If it was me, of course, I'd probably have linked to the full album on YT tut tut.) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support a great balance of information on all aspects of the album. The sourcing is immaculate. Great work! —JennKR | ☎ 13:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Statements of support without explicitly saying why the article satisfies the FA criteria are of little value in judging whether a consensus for promotion has been achieved. Graham Colm (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least they're getting back to me. The only editor opposing hasnt returned since my changes in response to their issues raised, which I think I addressed. Should I ask message of those who supported to elaborate on their support? Dan56 (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just seen this, I'll elaborate on my two points. The article is comprehensive and achieves a balance through all its sections, tricky to do with album articles as they can have a tendency to place too much weight on a particular area. From what I can see the sourcing is brilliant and the lead is summarised as to reflect the content of the whole article (again often a problematic area with such album entries). I take criterias 3 (media) and 4 (length) as already established as satisfactory. —JennKR | ☎ 02:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having read through the article a few times, I say it clearly fulfills the FAC criteria. It's well written, concentrated with information yet concise, focused, neutral and really well sourced. Always enjoy reading through your articles Dan. Et3rnal 18:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is well written and sourced. A good read as well. TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am concerned that canvassing might become a problem here. This has posted on at least three user pages by the nominator: "Hi. Would you be interested in voicing your support (or oppose/comment) at the FAC page for the article Of Human Feelings? I've gotten supports, but an FAC delegate noted that comments should include mentions as to how the article fits FAC criteria. If you're not interested, feel free to ignore this message and happy holidays!" Graham Colm (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're making this type difficult. First there isn't enough consensus because of one editor's claim that the article may be compromised by inappropriate paraphrasing, which is said by another reviewer in the second FAC to not be an issue. Then not enough time is given for potential reviewers to respond upon a holiday break, so that FAC is closed. Here, I tried soliciting reviewers even more to avoid that issue; you said the supports weren't elaborate enough so I revised my invitation to this nomination, and now you're questioning the neutrality of the messages? Could you elaborate on your comment? How is that canvassing? Dan56 (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its a borderline canvass because you explicitly ask for them to mention how the article meets the FAC criteria, which is leading at best. You also intimate that despite some support !votes, the delegate is making it difficult for you because the only person who has actually reviewed the article opposed. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 00:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are making it difficult. ANd you're suggesting those who supported didn't review anything because they didn't point any issues out. Gee wonder why they'd support an article and not cite any issues here? I've since asked for more comments, since I'm scared to death of a little inactivity once again spoiling this process ([16], [17], [18], [19]) Dan56 (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Dan, are you suggesting that the article is beyond reproach? Would you like me to provide a detailed review? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 01:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where in my last comment did I say anything remotely close to "the article is beyond reproach"? Dan56 (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although I would appreciate you pointing out something I could fix or improve upon. Otherwise, what's the point of this process. There's been nothing to do here for atleast a week. Dan56 (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"According to him, Of Human Feelings was the first digitally recorded album in the United States."
Why are we using his personal opinion for this bold claim in the first paragraph of the lead, and why didn't any "reviewers" catch this clunker? Further, if this is true then it should be easy to verifiy with secondary sources, and if its not true then why include the bit anyway?
Well, it received coverage from multiple sources who thought it was notable enough to mention. I'm assuming the qualifier is there because it'd be hard to prove, which doesn't make it a "clunker". If you don't think it's notable enough, I'll remove it. Dan56 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda like, "According to Coleman, the day before Thanksgiving is the busiest shopping day of the year in the US." If its at all true and notable, then you should be able to source it without using Coleman as a source. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 03:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not using Coleman as the source (citing an interview or his own words), those third party sources (the authors) are. It's one of the first things they say when they start discussing the album. MOS:LEAD says importance is based on sources. Would revising it to "Coleman claimed it was..." be more acceptable? Dan56 (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not understand that you should not be making bold claims about the album's legacy that are directly attributed to Coleman, then you don't seem to know the difference between primary and secondary sources. This is far too bold a claim to come directly from him, especially in the lead. If its true then just state the fact, if its dubious then get it out of the lead. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 03:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The album explores jazz-funk music and continues Coleman's harmolodic approach to improvisation with Prime Time, whom he first introduced on his 1975 album Dancing in Your Head."(emphasis added)
This is a new paragraph, so it needs a new noun.
You mean replace "the album"? Why? Dan56 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you begin a new paragraph, you should use the proper noun again, and not use pronouns across paragraphs. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 03:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Jazz critics suggested that Coleman applied free jazz principles from his music during the 1960s to elements of funk."
This is awkward, IMO. I think you are trying to say that he combined elements of 1960s funk with free jazz. I also don't see any reason to qualify this as the opinion of Jazz critics. You could just state it as fact, since I assume its not contentious.
Cool, but don't be surprised if I change it back if and when the next reviewer nitpicks it. Dan56 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not if the prose is excellent they won't. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 03:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"After he changed his management, Coleman signed with Island Records, and Of Human Feelings was released in 1982 by its subsidiary label Antilles Records."
"After he changed his management" sounds like a transitional sentence, but it comes out of nowhere, which is jarring. Consider: "Following a change in management", or similar.
"It was well received by critics, who found the music expressive and praised Coleman's harmolodic approach."
That's a terribly awkward misuse of a coordinating conjunction. Consider: "It was well received by critics, who praised the album's expressive music and Coleman's harmolodic approach", or similar. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 01:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Coleman's dispute with his managers over its royalties led him to enlist his son Denardo as manager, which inspired Coleman to perform live again in public during the 1980s."
1) The first its is awkward, IMO. Why not the album's, or similar? 2) You use his, its, him, and his within 13 words; there must be a smoother way to phrase that.
Didn't want it to be redundant with the "album" in the previous sentence. Done. 2) Revised as "After a dispute with his managers over the album's [[royalties]], Coleman enlist his son Denardo as manager, which inspired him to perform live again in public during the 1980s." Dan56 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why did firing his manager "inspire him to play live again"? Its confusing; I suggest re-writing that one from scratch. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 03:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He enlisted his son to manage him and was inspired. How is it confusing? Dan56 (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what was inspirational about hiring his son? The two parts do not connect well, and I see this issue throughout the article. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 19:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - At a glance, it seems this writer does not understand how to avoid close paraphrasing. Many of the passages in this article are dangerously close to copyvios. I suggest that an extensive sourcing review be conducted on this article.
From the source: "He wanted to encourage them to create a group direction based on their own individual proclivities before their potential was warped in order to fill conventional molds."
From the article: "He wanted to teach his young sidemen a new improvisational and ensemble approach, based on their individual tendencies, and also prevent them from being influenced by conventional styles."
The "Sleep Talk" file fails NFCC#8. The file is not at all discussed in the accompanying text. I wonder how this was missed by the "reviewers", because its been made very clear to me that if we aren't engaging in serious critical commentary about a sound file then it should not be included. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 19:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further sources comment: When I did the sources review at the previous FAC, because close paraphrasing had been a major issue at the article's first FAC I paid specific attention to this aspect and carried out various spotchecks. I didn't find anything I considered untoward – but of course spotchecking is by its nature not exhaustive, and opinions differ as to what is acceptable. Nevertheless, I would be surprised if this remains a major issue with the article, and I do believe that the nominator has done his best to deal with this problem. On another point raised by GabeMc, I got the impression when source-reviewing other music articles that Christgau websites were accepted as reliable sources – is this not the case? Brianboulton (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That may well be Brian, but that site looks to me like a self-published blog. I wouldn't use it in an FA. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 17:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton, I'm curious. Many of the possible copyvio/close paraphrases are from 30-year-old magazines. Did you really dig these up to make sure Dan isn't plagiarizing large chunks of text? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 18:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Gary Giddins hailed it as another landmark album from Coleman and his fullest realization of harmolodics, with compositions that are clearly expressed and occasionally timeless. Giddins said that its discordant keys radically transmute conventional polyphony and may be the most challenging for listeners," This bit is cited to a 32-year-old edition of Esquire. Was this sourced checked for plagiarism, because this passage does not sound like Dan's voice to me. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 19:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Kofi Natambu of the Detroit Metro Times said that Coleman's synergetic approach displays expressive immediacy rather than superficial technical flair". That sounds like another close paraphrase, but the source is a 32-year-old newspaper. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 19:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close paraphrase. - From the article: "offers listeners enough release from tension to confound the duality of the mind and body."
From the source: "the way this music confounds mind-body dualism should provide all the release from tension" ~ Christgau
Brianboulton, the difference between the original and Dan's version is minimal, and this would not get passed a High School teacher, IMO. There are 15 words in the original text-string, and Dan used 7 of them. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 19:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've said my piece, there is no need to draw further cases to my attention. I am not Dan's advocate. I did not read the whole article, I did not check every reference, nor did I ever imply that I had. You are digging deeper, and finding other examples that you find questionable – fair enough, bring them forward, let Dan answer them. Brianboulton (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"dualism" is a different word than "duality", but I placed quotation marks around "release from tension" and changed "confounds" to "surprise". I hope you don't expect me to find another phrase/word for "mind-body dualism". Dan56 (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
a) He's one of the pioneers of rock criticism and one of the most important music critics around. Everything from Christgau's website is simply an archive of past published articles/reviews that can be traced back to either one of two types of sources--a newspaper or magazine (The Village Voice, Rolling Stone, Creem, etc.) he wrote for and was published in, or one of his Consumer Guide series of books (all of which were published by a legitimate company like Macmillan or Da Capo Press). I've never heard of his site being questioned as a reliable source by anyone before. b) I can dig up whatever source you need me to ASAP. They weren't that hard to find to begin with, since this is a pretty obscure jazz album, and typing "Of Human Feelings" w/"Ornette" in GoogleBooks doesn't lead to an overwhelming amount of relevant results. Dan56 (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The file was approved of in the second FAC. And why is the age of the newspaper article relevant? "It sounds like"? Dan56 (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whoever approved the audio file did not do so correctly. You cannot use non-free files to dress-up an article, it must be the subject of serious critical commentary. My point about the 32 year old sources is that there are hard to locate for spot checks, so that you could in theory copy-paste large chunks of text (I'm not saying that you did that) without anyone ever knowing. No offense, but "his approach displays expressive immediacy rather than superficial technical flair'", does not sound like your voice, like at all. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 19:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brian approved it here. I drew up the text at my talk pagehere for the entire Detroit Metro Times review. Let me know if anything should be fixed for this particular case. Dan56 (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless things have changes significantly, Brian made a mistake. Is there any critical commentary in the article specifically regarding "Sleep Talk"? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 20:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make a mistake: I relied on WP:SAMPLE, which allows for short clips of longer musical works to be used for illustrative purposes. There is, of course, the question of relevance; the clip is from a different Coleman song. The argument in the fair use rationale is: "Illustrates Ornette Coleman's alto saxophone phrasing and one of the songs' melodies, two main points of appraisal for music critics in their reception of the album. The particular passage sampled from the song also highlights Jamaaladeen Tacuma's bass playing, which is mentioned in the section." This is pretty marginal, but I thought just about allowable. I don't think the article would suffer if the file was withdrawn. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, Brian, and I apologize for my poor choice of words. I guess in four yeas at FAC I can honestly say that not once have anyone taken that approach with any of my non-free files, but that's Wikipedia sometimes. As I've always been taught, the non-free sample needed to be adjacent to critical commentary specifically describing in prose what was in the sample. Take a look at the thrashing I took at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pink Floyd/archive2 FAC over non-free samples. Granted, I wanted to use images not sound files, but the principle is the same. Well, it will be nice to have this to reference, and maybe I'll call on you next time people are really picky about my non-free samples. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The principle is not quite the same, as you can't present small fractions of visual images as "samples", so be careful how you use this provision. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the image's were of a reduced non-commercial size, so I assume its nearly the same principle. After all, the point is to use a version that does not compete with the copyright holder, and there is no potential to enlarge a reduced image to a size that could possibly compete with a professional quality image, but I hear you. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 17:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There are enough close-paraphrases for me to oppose this promotion. Dan not only has an issue with close-paraphrasing, he also has a problem with putting strong opinions in the voice of Wikipedia. There are far too many problems with this nom to justify any more effort on my part. Many passages cited to old magazines strike me as plagiarism, but since these sources are difficult to spot-check I'm not sure they will all get fixed. The non-free file fails NFCC#8; no attempt is made to critically analyze the sound sample. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 20:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I just offered you one of those sources in its entirety, which you didn't address. I seriously doubt you checked enough sources to come to that conclusion. Perhaps you should excuse yourself if you're going to sabotage this nomination because you're not getting your way in on-going conflicts between you and I at Are You Experienced. Dan56 (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll strike my oppose since we are in another unrelated dispute (unwatching). GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate that. I'm truly trying to get this article up to snuff, and I'm willing to go through whatever source is desired. Dan56 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jazz journalist Todd S. Jenkins felt that it was more successful than Body Meta, even though Coleman's simple, repetitive compositions were less accessible - Surely 'simple, repetitive' music is more accesable? Ceoil (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the "discordant keys radically transmute conventional polyphony" possibly being plagiarized, the original has "The clashing keys require the biggest leap in faith, as they give strange dimensions to old-fashioned polyphony." I don't see how "keys" or "polyphony" could be changed, or any need to do so.
What seems to be needed (this is the third time this article has been listed here in a short period of time, and the only real objectors appear to have dropped out of the process), is for someone to go through all of the comments – vague and specific – and list those that have not yet been addressed. EddieHugh (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EddieHugh, the real issue here is that none of the editors who supported the article's promotion actually provided a review. The only two reviews this time around did not yield supports. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 16:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the article: "focus on Coleman's playing"
From the source: "focus on Coleman's alto". GabeMc(talk|contribs) 19:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must oppose the promotion of this article due to concerns about plagiarism. Reading through the previous comments and Dan56's responses, I get the impression that he simply lacks a suitable understanding of how to avoid plagiarism. It's a common problem, the solution to which is not simple word substitution and reordering items. The very first two sources I checked have problems:
Ref 13 source text: "... Of Human Feelings which explored "funk‐jazz", a development dating from about 1970 features of which incl. a repetitive bass line, a hint of Latin rhythms, and complex rhythmic relationships.
Article text: "Of Human Feelings explores jazz-funk, a musical development that originated in 1970 and is characterized by intricate rhythmic patterns, a recurrent bass line, and Latin rhythmic elements.
Ref 14 source text: "who isn't thought of as a fusion artist, but whose 'Of Human Feelings' (1979) also fits that bill with its blend of funk and free jazz."
Article text: "was not thought of as a jazz fusion artist, the album can be described as such because of its combination of funk and free jazz.
I must presume the whole article is rife with such problems since even ones as simple as these escaped the previous sweeps. I do accept that opinions on what constitutes close paraphrasing differ, but I don't believe these would pass muster even in a high school composition class. --Laser brain(talk) 17:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Laser_brain. The examples you pointed out have such limited ways of rewriting them, how do you expect me to rewrite them? How the hell do I reinterpret "complex rhythmic relationships"? Reviewers in the past FACs agreed these kind of remarks about music are too unique for me to rewrite them differently without straying from what they mean. You and others are bringing up examples that I've had to rewrite multiple times b/c they were brought up in the past and that my copy-edit sufficed for those reviewers. This is really getting subjective. Dan56 (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't agree. The best thing to do for you might be to read a source, take notes about its meaning, and then write something about it a few hours or days later. That way, you know what the source was conveying but you don't remember the sentence structure and verbiage. Some people can adequately paraphrase while looking at a source, but I don't think you have that skill set. In both of the examples I posted above (and many others I've seen mentioned by Quadell, GabeMc, etc.), you seem to get wrapped up in using the same sentence structure as the author but doing word substitution ("jazz-funk" into "funk-jazz", "repetitive jazz line" into "recurrent jazz line") to paraphrase. That's not how you paraphrase. But, this isn't a writing seminar, it's FAC. Of course it's subjective as you say—unless someone is pointing out plain spelling or grammar errors, everything said at FAC is subjective. --Laser brain(talk) 12:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well then I risk misrepresenting what the source actually said, like I've seen GabeMc do at Are You Experienced. Quadell believed my attempt to revised the examples he pointed out sufficed, but that he couldn't be sure elsewhere because of accessibility to other sources. Of course, my changes there were less drastic than what you'd like me to do, which I get, but what no reviewers before this article have brought to my attention, so I'm still not sure this isn't a matter of subjectivity. Even in the aforementioned article GabeMc tried to air as dirty laundry below, a change in word choice sufficed for the editor offering a third opinion. Dan56 (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I freely admit this is subjective. Other editors may look at the examples I pointed out and think they're no big deal. The one for which you obtained a third opinion looks fine to me, but that doesn't mean GabeMc's opinion is invalid. It just means people have differing thresholds for what they consider plagiarism. I personally could not strike my opposition until someone helps you check a large cross-section or even all of the sources for plagiarism, because you have not demonstrated to me that you understand the problem sufficiently to fix it on your own. --Laser brain(talk) 15:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While the numerous instances of close-paraphrasing in this article are bothersome, a larger concern I have is that Dan does not seem to think any of these are problems that need fixing. He has downplayed the importance of proper paraphrasing, and has even suggested that its fine for him to introduce them, and that others should fix them if they are concerned. Indeed, he has left them all until someone else pointed them out, which leads me to believe that all of his writing is rife with similar issues. In fact, he added several close-paraphrases to another article just this weekend. Dan currently has six FAs to his credit, so that this type of rookie mistake is being made by him in the last few days does not bode well for the content of his other FAs, IMO. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 17:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the source: "is more aligned with progressive metal than thrash"
Dan's version: "is more progressive metal than thrash" GabeMc(talk|contribs) 18:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're being a jerk. Those were two sentences in a three-paragraph section you removed entirely because I got in the way of you're crusade to remove "acid rock" from that article's infobox as well as every other infobox on Wikipedia (how's that going BTW?). As for your last comment, I see genre warriors stick together. You've clearly downplayed the importance of sticking to sources and due weight for points of view, other than your own. Dan56 (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) Please stop dragging my name through the mud here. If you continue to attack me in this, a decidedly inappropriate forum, then I will reconsider my redacted oppose. 2) I am not on a "crusade" for anything. I personally feel that acid rock is a) a type of psychedelic rock, and b) a derogatory precursor term for heavy metal. Regardless, starting a merge proposal is not a crusade. If I'm wrong then I'm sure the community will do the right thing and oppose the merge; its not the big deal that you seem to think it is, or that you want to make it out to be. 3) I didn't misrepresent anything at Are You Experienced. "Remember" is an R&B song, and even if the source I used didn't explicitly say that multiple others do; I've since added them. Sometimes when an editor is sifting through dozens of sources one gets mixed-up; to cry foul on me for an uncontentious and verifiable claim is beyond absurd when you have revealed yourself to be a prolific serial plagiarist. 4) I strongly recommend that you take some of the time you've been using to genre war to revisit your six FAs. In about one hour, I found 20 instances of close-paraphrasing in your FA Aaliyah (album). See my sandbox. A few particularly bad examples:
From the source: "explores the stages of love, from giddy infatuation to late-stage dysfunction to heartbreak"[20]
From the article: "explores ... stages of love such as frivolous infatuation, late-stage dysfunction, and heartbreak"
From the source: "Mostly coquettish snake-charmer, sometimes scorned lover"[21]
From the article: "Aaliyah sings from perspectives of a coquettish charmer or a scorned lover"
From the source: "'I Care 4 U,' 'Never No More' and the piano-driven 'I Refuse.' All have a deep, bluesy, jazzy undertow that pulls Aaliyah into soulful performances showcasing a bruised knowingness."[22]
From the article: "Ballads such as "I Care 4 U", "Never No More", and "I Refuse" are sung soulfully, and express bluesy, jazzy undertows and a knowingness derived from emotional hurt"
From the source: "The track is doused with subtle Neptunian electronica and aquatic sounds that gurgle beneath Aaliyah's distinct velvet harmonies."[23]
From the article: "It features subtle Neptunes-styled electronica, aquatic sounds, and velvety harmonies by Aaliyah"
From the source: "While Aaliyah had always used her soothing voice to soften edgy musical accompaniment, she hadn’t done it before with such clear confidence of vision, stellar execution, and diversity of material."[24]
From the article: "[Aaliyah] had never used her voice to complement her music's edgy production before with as much confidence, execution, and diversity"
You do not seem to understand what any of us mean when we express concern about your close-paraphrasing, which makes me wonder if all of your FAs need a WP:FAR. Can you give us any indication of whether or not you are getting the point, or do you plan to continue as you were? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 16:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Laser_brain's last comment. As for you, I think you should try to be a little less pedantic and a little more polite. I've had other editors who used an FA nomination of mine as a way of getting back at me for a previous conflict at another article (like this one). Dan56 (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, you are taking that minor acid rock disagreement way too far. I've completely let it go; you should too. This is not about that anymore, but when I crossed paths with you at AYE it became clear to me that you are having some major issues identifying close-paraphrasing, which is what this is about. To be honest, I considered helping you by looking over the article so that you could have a support from someone who actually reviewed the piece, but I can see now that literally every sentence needs to be checked for plagiarism, and that is just far too much work. Since you referenced the Confusion (album) FA, I decided to take a quick look for close-paraphrasing. Here is what I found in less than 20 minutes:
From the source: "'Confusion' is a comment on the general condition of urban Nigeria (Lagos, in particular) ... post-colonial confusion of a Nigeria lacking in infrastructure and proper leadership."[25]
From the article: "The album is a commentary on the confused state of post-colonial, urban Nigeria, particularly Lagos, and its lack of infrastructure and proper leadership at the time."
From the source: "Fela would decry ... what he saw as the "colonial" mind-set of some Africans"[26]
From the article: "His lyrics decry what he viewed as the colonial mindset of some Africans"
From the source: "keyboard fantasia gradually opening into languid, expansive band interplay"[27]
From the article: "The introduction's keyboard fantasia gradually opens the band's languid, expansive interplay." GabeMc(talk|contribs) 22:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This has been open six weeks and I don't see the possibility of consensus to promote being reached anytime soon in light of the concerns about close paraphrasing raised by both Laserbrain and GabeMc. Each FAC should be treated on its own merits, and the issues raised by Gabe re. other articles do not have a direct bearing here, though I realise he's trying to illustrate a pattern in the face of what he sees as Dan's resistance, and these examples may well indicate FAR needs to be considered for the pages in question (I note that several of Dan's earlier FACs were spotchecked with reasonably clean bills of health, but by its nature such checks may not find evidence of an underlying problem). I can understand the frustration Dan expresses when it comes to finding new ways to convey the essence of a source without losing meaning, but that's the challenge we all face as editors, and I can only echo Laserbrain's advice on one way to attempt it; the alternative is to simply quote and attribute what you can't satisfactorily paraphrase, which as Hzh pointed out may well be a better way of presenting opinions anyway, but it needs to be done judiciously. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Alex (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This one is close to heart for me, Marie is truly the queen of the people here in Romania. I've spent nearly a month on this article and I believe it is now ready for FAC. I'm looking forward to suggestions for improvement. Cheers, Alex (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Queen_Mary_of_Romania_2.jpg is tagged as lacking author info
File:SemnaturaMaria.jpg needs a US PD tag, as do File:Millais,_Princess_Marie_of_Edinburgh.jpg, File:Marie_of_Romania_1893.jpg, File:Duckyandsisters.jpg, File:Philip_Alexius_de_Laszlo-Queen_Marie_of_Romania,_nee_Princess_Marie_of_Edinburgh.jpg, File:Elena_Popea_-_Regina_Maria.jpg
Added to all except to Lazslo's painting, which already had one.
File:Marie,_Crown_Princess_of_Romania.jpg: when/where was this first published/displayed? What steps have been taken to seek the author's identity? What is the licensing status in the US?
The author is unknown, as it is probably the work of a photographic workshop. As far as I am aware, it was not published until Marie's autobiography, so I've added the PD-US-unpublished tag, let me know if this is alright.
File:1893_-_Ferdinand_şi_Maria_ca_Principe_şiPprincipesă_de_Coroană.PNG: there is no way an 1893 image is the uploader's own work; same with File:1917_-_Regina_Maria_pe_timpul_vizitei_într-un_spital_în_anul_1917.jpg
Fixed.
File:Constantin_Pascali_-_Regina_Maria.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
Added tag, can't seem to find painting anywhere else though.
File:Coronation_of_Ferdinand_and_Marie.jpg is sourced to completely different images and has a licensing tag that cannot be correct
I was unable to find a source for the image, so I've removed it and left only the other image.
File:BisericaEpiscopalaCurteaDeArges_(12).JPG: as Romania does not have freedom of panorama, what is the copyright status of this work? Same with File:Bustul_reginei_Maria_din_Arcul_de_triumf.jpg
Romania does have freedom of panorama, as long as the pictures are not used for commercial purposes, which is certainly not the case here.
File:Medal_-_Marie_of_Romania.jpg: what is the copyright status of the medal itself?
Since Marie is dressed as a nurse on the medal, it is likely from during the war, so it is in the public domain.
What is the copyright status of coats of arms in Romania? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do coats of arms require copyrights? Alex (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Minor Note: I see a few citation errors coming up (as of this version) -- refs 16, 50, & 51 currently are not pointing anywhere. Ruby2010/2013 00:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruby2010: Sorry about that, just some errors which have been fixed now. Alex (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The main text of the article is a mixture of British and American spellings. For instance we have both "honour" and "honor" and inconsistent –ise/ize endings. I imagine the intention is to use British English, and I will be happy to go through and make it consistent if that would be of help. – Tim riley (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- Aside from this attracting little in the way of commentary, it doesn't look like Alex has been around since mid-December, which even allowing for the silly season is too long a break for FAC, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I'm really sorry, I've been crazy busy lately. This really has attracted little commentary, so I'll probably nominate it for GA instead. --Alex (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Another boring article about long-out-of-print comics by the ever-boring Curly Turkey, destined to spend two months worming its way to the bottom of the list before somebody finally feels guilted into giving it a peek. Luckily, you won't find its contents in the least enticing, otherwise it would tantalize you to learn that it has been 29 years since this material was last in print—and in incomplete form, at that.
Maybe you'd find it a little more interesting to learn this character had a cartoon sex change in 1962—and became the buxom, always-naked Little Annie Fanny for Playboy magazine, which Harvey Kurtzman wasted the last quarter-century of his life writing. But at least we have this out-of-print Goodman Beaver material to remind us how good he actually was! Or at least I do ... Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image use jumps out at me here. I think I know why you've placed images in this large, central format (to highlight detail), but I am having a hard time reconciling that with MOS:IMAGES. I'm also not sure what the Marlon Brando pic adds; the comparison is one of attitude, not appearance, yes?
Image Size: The one in "Reception and legacy" was entirely gratuitous, and gets its point across at standard size, so I've unbiggened it. I recall reading or being told that if you're going to override the default size, it's best to centre the image. I do think it's important to have those images large. It would be nice if the software could handle this—by floating the image on large screens, and centring it on smaller ones. With a large image, text can be squeezed into small columns if it's floated, which normally can be dealt with in user settings, but setting an image size overrides the user settings, as well (is that a bug in itself?). I'm open to other ideas how to handle this. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brando: I suppose it's gratuitous, and wouldn't oppose its removal. For the record (though the sources don't mention it), Goodman does make Brando faces throughout the story. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overview: The transition back to Kurtzman from Bruegel seems abrupt (it's not immediately evident that "the stories" aren't more information associated with Bruegel). Is there a better way to word this passage?
I've moved the final sentence earlier inthe paragraph. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anything available from the sources about the production or art style for "The Organization Man in the Gray Flannel Executive Suit", considering that it wasn't inked by Elder?
Yep. I think there's going to be a certain amount of overlap here, between the article on the book and the article on the character. I think if there's something we can say about the art style differences and so forth, we have to have it here ... even if we have some of it there, too. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've added a paragraph. Tell me what you think. Tell me, I tell you! Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"'Goodman Meets T*rz*n'": I think one of these slipped past me earlier (which means it's either tolerable in the previous section, or I'm a bad copyeditor), but there are a couple of WP:PLUSING issues here that really jump out.
I don't think I lke the new wording, but, anyways, Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"'Goodman Goes Playboy'": "He has Goodman changed into a toga...." Did Goodman change his own clothes, or did someone redress him? This wording implies the latter, which might be correct. Regardless, this sentence might need rethought, as it stands out on cursory reading.
Reworded. Archer asks Goodman to change into a toga, and Goodman does. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The last three story sections don't mention when they first appeared. These sections are also a little light on ... well, I'm not sure "plot summary" is the right phrase here, but we'll run with that. I'm not actually sure what "Goodman, Underwater" depicts from its description here, or what manner of corruption S*perm*n retreats from, or what the consequences are when Goodman returns to being unarmed.
Squeamish Ossifrage: sorry, somehow I overlooked this comment. My OCD didn't want me to fill these in without refs, but I don't think there's anyway around it, so ...they're now expanded, and I've included info about thier first appearances. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Publication history:
"The book sold poorly, but was a favorite among Kurtzman fans." Not sure the tense is right here. Was the book a favorite among fans on release? Was it a favorite previously, but is no longer? Perhaps something like "has since become" would be better, although I'm not just thrilled about that construction, either.
"has been" I think is the solution. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what I think about the structure in general. What determines whether you discuss a topic in the Stories section versus here? Some of the story sections discuss art elements, but we don't hear about the redrawn version of Goodman until here.
I figured the redrawn versions were part of the publiction history. I've moved them—tell me what you think. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Playboy ran a lot of cartoons, but a comic strip was something new." Perhaps it's just my ear, but that sounds rather informal.
Reworded to "Playboy printed many cartoons, but not a comic strip until then." Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reception and legacy:
That first sentence is long, and covers a lot of ground.
I've split it into two sentences. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Some consider this ironic...." Can this be made more specific?
I've likely missed some wording and structure concerns, because prose editing is not my strong suit. Reference formatting seems okay. A quick review suggests the cited literature is a comprehensive survey of modern material; is there anything worth going back to 1960s sources for, or do the recent works summarize period reactions sufficiently? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say with certainty, but anything written about it in the 1960s was likely in fanzines, which I doubt would pass the RS test—though I can imagine maybe reviews of the book collection (haven't found anything in Google News archives). If an RS from the time popped up I'd be thrilled to see it—I seriously doubt it would be in-depth analysis, though. Comics "scholarship" is a recent phenomenon. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'd view period fanzines (especially those that have been historically well-regarded) as RS regarding period fan reactions, if not necessarily for a wider context. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Google's not being very friendly with me in this regard. I'm not greatly familiar with the fanzines of the period; I thought Squa Tront (an EC fanzine) might have something, but a blog listing the contents of each issue didn't turn up anything (I don't have access to any issues of Squa Tront itself to make sure). If anyone were able to point out something like this to me, it'd be great, but I'm not going to hold my breath. 06:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I know nothing about comics, and my comments about prose are from a BE perspective, so may not be applicable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kurtzman did solo—I associate "solo" with performing arts, rather than drawing
Goodman Goes Playboy—You have italicised Playboy once only. I don't know whether it's correct to italicise or not in a title,but inconsistent as it stands
I've removed the one case of italics. I have no idea which is best. I guess italcs would be logical, but it doesn't seem like the sources do that. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ire of the Archie's publisher, which threatened a lawsuit. —should "the" be there? Also, I think who threatened...
Help! publisher Jim Warren received a letter on 6 December 1961 accusing Help! of copyright infringement and demanding removal of the offending issue from newsstands. — I thought parodies were exempt from copyright ? (I'm no lawyer, so just ignore if you wish)
I think I've clarified this—Warren's lawyer believed the case could be won, but the legal costs would be prohibitive. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dates in refs—your dates in journals are a bit of a stylistic mix, eg 2004-05-05/September 1987. You don't need retrieval dates fro RL publications like magazines.
The "September" one is a cover date, which is not necessarily the publication date. Access date removed. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm happy with the changes, and now supporting. For the orgy, "in progress" is better, but I think anything here is redundant. An orgy by definition is ongoing, I can't begin to visualise something that can be called an orgy, but isn't in progress. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merci bien, my friend—I've dropped the "in progress", and have also reworded the sentence; I just realized I had the orgy/toga sequence backwards. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT Regarding the FA criteria--Curly Turkey has presented an informative and interesting article that is sufficiently neutral, well-written, comprehensive, focused, and well researched. The article's history appears stable. The lede is comprehensive, the structure is logical and covers the relevant scope of the subject, and the article employs an acceptable and consistent method of citations.
Image Review
Images seem to be sufficiently labeled for relevant free use or permissible use, with comprehensive explanations regarding public domain status.
Just a few comments to be addressed:--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"degeneration"...clarify whether you mean social or moral (or another type). There are several types of degeneration and while I know we're not dealing with electronic, someone might think it might be the evolutionary decline of a function in an organism (and I'm sure this isn't Vonnegut's Galapagos).
I think it's both social and moral—people are corrupt and greedy, and society is falling apart. Should I go with "social and moral degeneration"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kurtzman says the character was inspired by Voltaire's Candide...how? That's a rather broad unspecific statement. While I can vaguely see some connexion, particularly in the naivete, a few more details about what in particular the character draws from Voltaire would be interesting.
The sources don't go into depth here, and I suspect it's because there really isn't any depth—it's been an awful long time since I've read Candide, but I don't find any parallels between the Goodman Beaver stories and characters and the ones in Candide. I think Kurtzman just found inspiration in the archetype of the Candide character as naïvely optimisitic in the face of situations that would normally leave one jaded—an basic archetype Kurtzman plays for laffs and social commentary. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- Sorry Curly but with no activity for three weeks, despite some notices at WT:FAC that might've generated further interest, this review isn't progressing so I'll be archiving it shortly. As you've done your best to resolve comments, I don't need you to wait the usual 14 days before renominating but I'd still prefer you leave it at least a week to give more people a chance to return from hols and hopefully review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about Major League Baseball's current consecutive scoreless innings record streak by Orel Hershiser. This is a new type of article at FAC so I hope a lot of sports fans will take the time to shape it correctly as a model for future articles on records.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this nom would be more appropriate for featured list. Beerest 2talk 02:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I believe this article is a solid start, but the FAC criteria require a subject to be placed in context. Nowhere does this article discuss why the streak is important or how the streak was covered by the press at the time. Without that info, this is not quite ready to be featured. Indrian (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand. I am aware that this is a noteworthy streak because I am a baseball fan and baseball history enthusiast. I am not saying the topic is not worthy. However, the article needs to articulate this importance by pulling from reliable sources that explain its significance. Without that, this is a list of dates and game summaries with no larger context, and criteria 1b specifically requires context. One sentence saying that this feat is a "record" does not explain to the layman why he should care. Indrian (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you are asking for. Reference 1 is ESPN's celebration of the 25-year anniversary of the streak. Does this have the elements in it that you are inquiring about. I presume that if ESPN celebrates the 25-year anniversary of an event, that event is important.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have no press coverage of the streak, you have information on individual games pulled from contemporaneous sources. Placing this streak in context requires coverage of the feat itself.
When did people start to believe Hershiser might set a new record?
How much attention did the media focus on him?
Did the extra pressure have any effect on his performance?
Did the fact that a very popular former Dodger held the record at the time play a role in people's perception of the streak?
Did Lasorda manage differently when Hershiser pitched as the streak progressed?
How did the division race affect things?
What kind of celebrations and/or festivities were held when the record was broken?
Not all of the questions I have posed may be relevant or answerable, but some of this narrative needs to be developed to have a comprehensive article. All you have is dates and games. Indrian (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You can't assume everyone is a baseball expert. The lead didn't help me at all, so I didn't read further. I'm baffled by unexplained jargon like 7-time All-Star... baseball Hall of Famer... relievers... born an asterisk...— I can't even visualise how you can give birth to an asterisk, irrespective of any jargon meaning Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They were just examples. Scoreless innings isn't defined, I assumed initially it was a bad thing like a duck in cricket or a team not scoring in football. Is it inning or innings? Both occur in the opening sentence. Also prose issues; "Greatest" twice in second sentence, low numbers should be spelt out etc. I think that this may well be a potential FA, but we are being asked to do a lot of work here, that should have been addressed before it's nominated. I suggest withdrawing, making it intelligible to a non-baseball fan and getting the copyediting issues sorted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As the reviewer of the GA nominee. It just became a GA: take some time to expand, reference, and clarify. Jimfbleak is right. Although I do happen to know about baseball, nor everyone does. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 17:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your oppose is almost inactionable. Time since GA is not a consideration at WP:FAC, which is based on WP:WIAFA. Saying take some time and make some more edits is not a valid oppose. Please review WIAFA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let me go by WP:WIAFA: it fails #1a. It likely fails other criterion (including partially 1b). Tony, you completely missed the point of my statement above. It just passed a GA: go make some improvements first. Unless an article is quick passed (I'd bet that's a rarity), it will likely not pass as a FA immediately. I said exactly what I meant: add references, make it easier to understand for a group other than sports fanatics. Trust me, if the GA reviewer hadn't been a sports fanatic like myself, it would not have been as easy of a pass. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 15:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per WP:SNOW. This just became a GA, rushing through the FA process is misguided. There is no deadline. This article was not engaging to me. I am only casually interested in baseball, and the article was dull. its basically Baseball Reference in proseform. Heck, the term scoreless inning is not even explained in the lead. I dont know about baseball terms, does this mean when he pitched the other team never scored? With articles like these, its most important to make sure you are writing for people who DONT know the sport. Beerest 2talk 20:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have never been asked to define a term in the WP:LEAD before. Is this the correct place to define a scoreless inning?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and suggest withdrawal per above. " It is considered to be among the greatest individual streaks in sports history and among the greatest records in baseball history." is very weaselly, and the technical language is still thick throughout the lede. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. How is the average reader, assuming a limited understanding of the intricacies of baseball, supposed to understand the tables scattered across the article? I mean, I understand them because I am a baseball nut, but there is nothing here to explain what the abbreviations in the column headers are, nor is there an explanation of why those particular innings are visualized by tables. I'm sure if I read the article further, I would find several more examples of the article being impenetrable to the average reader. I believe this nomination was premature. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. These particular innings are the ones that the secondary sources discuss. WP is suppose to summarize the secondary sources. So I have included those innings covered in the press.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point, though, is why does the reader care about these innings? How are they supposed to know that they are significant? There needs to be some kind of explanation, e.g. these were close calls where the streak could have ended. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 02:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about the character Tintin, the eponymous hero of the series The Adventures of Tintin. I have been editing the Tintin articles since 2007 and recently rewrote this article. My respectful plan is to work with other editors to raise the quality of all Tintin articles. Thank-you for your time. Prhartcom (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Here are some suggestions to help improve this article:
I agree with all of the following suggestions. Prhartcom (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead seems to have a lot of puffery and editorializing. For example: "tremendous spirit", "Millions have done so, both adults and children, readers from more countries than Tintin himself ever travelled", "outpouring of public grief not seen in the comics world", "ageless hero lives on", and "an inspiration in the 21st century, a beacon of excellence for the future". These phrases need a more neutral tone.
Agreed. Done (rewritten). Prhartcom (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"During these younger days, Hergé had plenty of time to observe his five-years-younger brother Paul" --> "During his youth, Hergé had observed his younger brother Paul"
"Amid the experience of working in a busy newspaper, reading the exploits of the famous, often roguish reporter Albert Londres further influenced Hergé. As well, the news of Palle Huld, the 15-year-old Danish Boy Scout world traveller would not have escaped Hergé's notice" --> "Hergé's writing was inspired by the stories of adventurous individuals that were printed Le Vingtième Siècle. Albert Londres, a famous, often roguish reporter, and Palle Huld, a 15-year-old Danish Boy Scout travelling the world, were particularly influential in the creation of the character of Tintin"
Agreed (although this is passive voice). Done. Prhartcom (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The short subsections under "Characterisation" and "Reception" look a little odd. Several should probably merged and/or expanded.
Agreed. Done (merged two and expanded another). Prhartcom (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope these suggestions were helpful. Best of luck, --1ST7 (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to provide your helpful expertise; I have applied all of your suggestions. I hope you can return to give your support for FA. Prhartcom (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and thanks for making the suggested modifications. I'd like to do a more thorough review before voting to support or oppose this nomination, which will probably be posted in the next 1-2 days. Until then, --1ST7 (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. (Thank you for asking)
As a rule reduce the use of quotes, I suggest they are only used in footnotes. Don't mention de Gaulle in lead, it is too small a detail.
Origin section contains OR and POV, roughly I would suggest:
Years before Tintin first appeared on the pages of the children's newspaper Le Petit Vingtième on 10 January 1929,[1]Hergé was drawing pictures in the margins of his school workbooks of an unnamed young man battling les Boches (slang for the Germans) whilst German armies marched through the streets of Belgium during World War I.[2] Later Herge drew a Boy Scout character for the national magazine Le Boy Scout Belge. This young man, whom he named Totor, travelled the globe and righted wrongs.[3] Tintin appeared after Hergé got his first job working at the Catholic newspaper Le Vingtième Siècle, where his director challenged him to create a new serialised comic for its Thursday supplement for young readers.[4] Totor had been very much in Hergé’s mind; its new comics character would be, Hergé himself later said, "the little brother of Totor ... keeping the spirit of a Boy Scout."[5] As inspiration for Tintin Herge also mentions his younger brother whose physical appearance included a round face and a quiff hairstyle.[6][note] As well, Hergé may have been inspired by the stories of two adventurous individuals printed in the pages of Le Vingtième Siècle. Albert Londres, a famous, often roguish reporter,[7] and Palle Huld, a 15-year-old Danish Boy Scout travelling the world as a reporter.[8]
[Note] Paul's army life included the endurance of jeers from his fellow officers when the source of Hergé's visual inspiration became obvious.[9] Hergé later said, "People say that ... Tintin looks like my younger brother. That's possible ... All I can say is that during my childhood ... I observed him a lot. He amused and fascinated me. And that, no doubt, is the explanation why Tintin borrowed his character, his gestures and attitudes."[10]
Thank-you Soerfm for your comments. If it is all right, I will wait to see if others agree with your suggestions. I can tell you there is no OR in this article. Thanks again. Prhartcom (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way...nice attempt! Soerfm (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments/suggestions for the lead:
"the comics series by Belgian cartoonist Hergé" — maybe "a comic series" instead.
No, that could be construed as "the comedic series". For instance, one does not normally expect a "comic novel" to have many illustrations. Comics terminology is exasperating. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Tintin lives on" could be replaced with something less metaphorical, like "Tintin remains a popular literary figure".
"Tintin has been reviled by some for his more controversial depictions of race and other factors" --> "Tintin has been criticized for his more controversial depictions of race and other factors".
Please mention Charles de Gaulle's nationality.
More later. --1ST7 (talk) 08:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that all of these are an improvement and I am grateful, 1ST7, for your help ... with only one exception: It's "comics" (this has been pointed out to me by the comics community of Wikipedia; I understand "comics" is the singular, as well as plural, term; see for yourself at Comics.) Thanks again for taking the time to help improve this article for FA; see you back here again soon. Prhartcom (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on the origin section:
Overall I think Soerfm's suggested revision flows better and is more NPOV. I disagree with the part about the quotes, though, and believe they are fine in the article so long as they are not overused.
As a side note, I think this review would be simpler (and more likely to result in a pass) if the article were submitted to the WP:GOCE for a copyedit and then resubmitted as an FA candidate, as Kailash suggested. The sourcing appears to be well organized with every fact having a reference, but the text has too many phrases that don't sound encyclopedic (ex: "a vibrant testimony to the deep and everlasting importance of Tintin", "If he had perhaps too much of the goody-goody about him, at least he was not priggish", and "both Hergé and his readers feel they know Tintin well"). --1ST7 (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you; see my reply below. Prhartcom (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: The article is not even a good article, and one needs great courage to take it to FA status without making it a GA. But I say first get it well edited with help from the GOCE, then continue work here. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you for your comments, if not your strong support, Kailash29792. I agree with you, it does take great courage to take this article, that I believe is good, to FA status with everyone's help. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what 1ST7, Kailash29792, and Soerfm are saying and I understand exactly what you mean. Thank-you for clearly stating this, also for acknowledging the sourcing, which I worked hard to achieve. I see that GOCE has a fairly stiff backlog. Please allow me to immediately attempt to make the kind of improvements to the prose to achieve the NPOV encyclopedic tone that is required and return here to let you know when that is done. Prhartcom (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: FAC coordinators, please assist me by withdrawing this nomination at this time, for the following reasons:
At least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn, at least temporarily
An editor whom I respect has begun editing it, which brings down the level of confidence for comprehensiveness
I will address both of these until their resolution is completely satisfactory, then re-submit in approximately one month. Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I created this article in response to a request at my featured topic nomination of Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899. This article covers the Supreme Court case that settled said election, which was very contentious and resulted in the only assassination of a U.S. governor in history. The article was promoted to GA shortly after its creation, has been peer reviewed, and is part of the aforementioned featured topic. I'm not a legal expert, so a review from someone who is would be great. I'll try to respond to comments promptly, but no promises with a fairly new baby at home. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 15:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I fully reviewed this article during the peer review phase and any concerns I had were addressed. --Laser brain(talk) 12:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Images are all fine, captions are good. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Coemgenus
In "History", I'd replace "pursuant to" with "under". My fellow attorneys and I often overuse that phrase where a simpler word would do just as well.
The militia in Louisville: something is unclear here. Were they seen as helping the Republicans? Why was this so, given that the rest of the state government seemed dominated by Democrats? Was Louisville a Republican city? Was the militia commander connected with that party?
In trying to do a quick review of the source material (it's been a while since I looked at it in-depth), Tapp notes that both sides thought Louisville would be critical to their candidate's election, so it is doubtful that it leaned heavily one way or the other. Tapp also notes that Taylor won by over 3,000 votes in Louisville, which is why the Democrats wanted the vote there thrown out. While I can't source this right now, I suspect the issue was this – the sitting governor was Republican William O'Connell Bradley, the first Republican ever to hold the office. As governor, he was commander-in-chief of the state militia and had broad appointment powers under the state constitution that included naming the state's adjutant general, the next in line over the militia. He was pretty free in his use of the militia during his term, trying to quell racial violence, and even to restore the peace in another contentious election, the 1896 senatorial election that finally chose William Deboe to succeed incumbent J. C. S. Blackburn. For several years after this, Democrats charged that Republican governors were too quick to utilize the state militia. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 18:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that makes sense. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In "Lower court decisions," you use "opined" twice in the second paragraph. Some other synonym would stand out less.
Hehe. Not the first time my fondness for "opined" has shown up. Thanks for pointing this out. Fixed. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 19:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In "Arguments", maybe it's a pet peeve of mine, but the one-sentence paragraph looks bad. I'd combine it with the previous paragraph, but if you think this is out of line, feel free to disregard -- it won't make a difference in whether I support.
I am also generally averse to one-sentence paragraphs, so I feel certain another editor made this change at some point, and I either missed it or didn't care enough to change it back. Merged with the previous paragraph. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 19:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In "Opinion, concurrences and dissent," I think there should be a comma after "1910 book".
Not sure about the rule, but changed anyway. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 19:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same section: is there any evidence in the sources that Harlan's connection to Kentucky influenced his decision? Not to imply anything improper (Harlan is one of my favorite justices,) I just wondered if there was anything said about it. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't see any implication that his heritage swayed his opinion, although he was unquestionably one of the best-known Republican leaders in Kentucky prior to his appointment to the bench. He made a couple of unsuccessful runs for governor, and if I remember correctly, was an associate of both Governor Bradley and Augustus Willson, counsel for Taylor and future Republican Kentucky governor. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 19:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. I am happy to support this excellent article. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fascinating bit of history, and as a native Kentuckian, I'm surprised I hadn't heard of it before. The article's prose is excellent, as is the sourcing. I have just a few comments and suggestions.
The "Subsequent developments" section is quite short. Are there any cases that cite this as precedent? Has it been notably cited by commentators regarding the nature of property or political offices, or in relation to other times when the Supreme Court has had to weigh in on the outcome of an election? How did Republicans and Democrats react in the immediate aftermath? Would a (very) brief summary of Taylor's or Beckham's subsequent career be warranted as a "subsequent development"?
I'm not a lawyer, and this article is a bit out of my usual area of interest, so I can't say with any degree of certainty that it hasn't been cited as precedent. Another editor, who seemed to have legal experience, added this section in response to a similar query on the article's talk page. I did try to search for citations as best I could given the sources I have access to and my meager understanding of jurisprudence, but I didn't find anything. As for how everyone immediately reacted, folks were surprisingly civil given the tense situation prior to the decision. Taylor fled to Indiana and never held political office again. Beckham served out Goebel's term, then was elected to one of his own, did one term in the U.S. Senate, and went on to be a factional leader within the state Democratic Party. Neither is especially relevant to the case at hand, in my opinion, but I could expand along these lines if you think it appropriate. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 22:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it would be good to have a sentence or two about how the various parties fared in the immediate aftermath. And given the high level of tension before the ruling (armed men filling the capitol, blocking legislatures from convening), I think it's notable that nothing much happened. I have asked GregJackP if he has any more advice about what belongs in this section. – Quadell(talk) 17:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a minor inconsistency of capitalization for "governor". C.f. "legally the governor of Kentucky" and "former governor John Y. Brown" vs. "ex-Governor Bradley". I've found it difficult to nail down exactly when "governor" should be capitalized, but there should be a consistently-applied rationale.
I've also had difficulty finding a consistent rule. I try to capitalize it only when it is a title applied to a name (e.g. Governor Beckham or Governor Taylor) and not when it is in reference to the office (e.g. office of governor, elected governor, or became governor). Two instances from this article are potentially problematic under that rationale – former governor John Y. Brown and future governor Augustus E. Willson. In this case, I'm note sure whether it is more properly a title or and office. I would appreciate your thoughts. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 22:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This same issue came up at a different FAC. In my view, "Governor" should be capitalized when it's attached as a title to a name (e.g. "Governor Beckham") or when giving the full, official name of the title (e.g. "Governor of Kentucky"), but should be lowercase when used as a simple noun (e.g. "Kentucky's governor, Augustus E. Willson"). I'm pretty sure "ex-Governor So-and-so", "former Governor Such-and-such", and "future Governor Whatsisname" should all be treated the same, but whether they should be capitalized or not, I don't know. In the absence of something definitive, I'd say anything consistent would be fine. – Quadell(talk) 17:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to your responses. – Quadell(talk) 17:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, but you know how the holidays can be. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 22:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. – Quadell(talk) 17:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.
Opinion of the Court section needs to be retitled as Supreme Court or the Arguments subsection needs to be moved into the Background section, see WP:SCOTUS/SG.
OK, I think I changed this after someone gave me some feedback that said the "Opinion of the Court" heading was standard, but I have no problem changing it. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 22:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the section is retitled per above, the Opinions, concurrences and dissent subsection needs to be broken down into separate subsections. One subsection for the Opinion of the Court, no Concurrence subsection is needed, and one for each of the two dissents, identified by justice, i.e., Dissent of Justice Harlan.
Done, except as noted about dissents below. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 22:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article has only one thin paragraph on the majority opinion. This needs to be expanded. Fuller explains his decision and distinguished why the Court did not have jurisdiction in this case when it had exercised jurisdiction in earlier cases that appeared similar. Remember, in a legal article, the primary source (the opinion) can be used as a reference, see MOS:LAW#Citations and referencing. There can also be more information on why the offices are not "property" and therefore not subject to judicial review under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also mentioned that it considered the issue of guaranteeing a republican form of government to be a political question, not suitable for judicial review. It held that the discussion belonged in other forums, not at the Court. None of this is in the article.
This is not something I'll be able to do soon, but I will take that into account. I do usually avoid primary sources, and as this kind of article is out of my bailiwick, I wasn't aware that I should be using them here.
The article misidentifies Justice Brewer's dissent as a concurrence. "Mr. Justice Brewer dissenting: I am unable to concur in all that is said by the Chief Justice in the opinion just announced, and will state briefly wherein I dissent." Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548, 581 (1900).
Tapp specifically says Harlan was the only dissent. Hughes also implies that it was a concurrence, but for a different reason. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 22:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and changed it, since the primary source (the opinion) specifically said that it was a dissent. It's not the first time that a secondary source has done this on a SCOTUS or legal matter, which is why primary sources have primacy when dealing with factual accuracy. GregJackPBoomer! 00:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Subsequent development section is way too thin for an article on a SCOTUS case. Some of what is listed in the opinion section does not deal with the opinion, but with later analysis and commentary on the opinion, such as the paragraph on Willoughby's book. This more properly belongs in the Subsequent development section. Additionally, there are plenty of book that refer to the decision and give analysis, and plenty of scholarly articles, such as Equity Jurisdiction over Issues Involving Title to Office, 17 Va. L. Rev. 814 (1931), etc. This also needs to address the justicability issue that guided the Court until the decision in Baker v. Carr in 1962, where the Court departed from the Taylor line in cases of redistricting.
Yep, this is totally out of my depth. I'll have to do some real study to even see if I can get my head around it. Thanks for giving me a place to start, though. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 22:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the present, I have to oppose as the article is not comprehensive (1.b.) nor well-researched (1.c.). GregJackPBoomer! 18:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, this is the review I've been expecting for some time. To expect that someone with no formal legal training and only a passing knowledge of jurisprudence in general could write a featured article on a Supreme Court case was a bit far-fetched. I listed it as much to find the holes as because I thought it could be promoted as-is. Thanks for the feedback, GregJackP. Any chance you'd be interested in working with me to get this up to snuff after the holiday nuttiness has settled down? Acdixon(talk·contribs) 22:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- The nominator hasn't been editing for some days. Given it's the silly season I'll leave this open a few more days to give him a chance to respond to Greg's concerns, otherwise we may have to archive it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we can leave this open a little longer than normal, I would appreciate it. The nominator did a very good job on the history part, it's just the legal part that needs some work. And, like you noted, this is the holiday season, when a number of people do not get on as much. I think we should give him every opportunity to fix it. GregJackPBoomer! 15:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the leeway, folks. It was my youngest daughter's first Christmas, and a big one for my three-year-old as well. It's fine to archive this, as it will take some serious study and work to address GregJackP's comments properly. Hopefully, this won't be the end of the line for this article. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 22:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- Based on AC's response I think we'd best archive the nom at this point so that he, perhaps with assistance from Greg, can improve it at leisure and then renominate. Thanks all for your input. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I completed a near-total rewrite of this article on November 20th. It then passed GA review on November 24th, and I have spent considerable time after the successful GA pass to address additional comments from the GA reviewer. Some of these changes were to the substance of the article, but the majority addressed formatting concerns – I have tried to consistently apply the Chicago Manual of Style.
The number of featured articles related to philosophy is depressingly small, so it is difficult for me to assess the worthiness of the current entry for the FA distinction, but it seems to me to meet all the criteria.
I must make one note on my availability. In case this nomination lasts longer than twelve days, reviewers should know that I will be away for the holiday break from the night of December 21st to the 27th. I may still be able to address some concerns during this period, but I will be away from my books, and so will likely be unable to check most citation-related problems. However, I will certainly respond quickly and thoroughly to all concerns upon my return.Joseph Petek (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Some of the Influenced entries are not sourced or explained in the article. (See also discussions at Template talk:Infobox person about the use of these parameters in the more general template)
I will consider what to do about this tomorrow. The box was there when I began editing the article and I have not changed it. Either I'll delete it or find references for all the people mentioned, then leave another note here. Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have now sourced every name in the "Influenced" and "Influenced by" infobox. I also alphabetized both lists, because they were getting a little out of hand. I subtracted a few names for which I could not immediately find a reference (I'm sure they're out there, but I could spend forever on this), but I actually added many more. Joseph Petek (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"At the time George Boole's algebra of logic made a strong counterpoint to ordinary number algebra, so the term "universal" served to calm strained sensibilities" - source?
I deleted this statement because I could not find a source for it (not written by me). I did source a few other statements in this section while I was looking at it. Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"education should be the exact opposite of the multidisciplinary, value-free school model" - source?
Unless some source has noted things like "ironically", they should be excluded
Here I disagree. "Ironically" only appears once, and it seems to me to be an entirely appropriate use. I had just quoted Whitehead saying that he was hugely ignorant of metaphysics. The fact that he ended up being one of the 20th century's foremost metaphysicians is the very definition of irony, and I don't think it stylistically inappropriate to say so (or maybe some other more innocuous word, like "surprisingly"? idk). But if it's really important to you, I can still remove it. Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Whitehead regarded metaphysical investigations as essential to both good science and good philosophy" - source?
Stopping that part of the check there: please look for other places where sources may be needed. Also, I find myself rather uncomfortable with the way in which "we" is used in some places - do go through to make sure the tone remains encyclopedic throughout, before another reviewer takes a look
I have removed all instances of "we" and "our." As for other statements that may need references, I can take another pass at it, but I believe it's well-sourced as it stands. I did delete that once sentence from the Universal Algebra section that you mentioned, and that was my bad for not double-checking a statement that someone else had written. But for all other sections below this one I was the primary writer, and in my estimation, if any sentence is not referenced it is because it is repeating information that has already been cited (for instance, I do quite a bit of repetition in the philosophy section to help further explain concepts), or will be sourced with a quote in the sentence following, or is very unlikely to be challenged. Other editors will have differing opinions on which statements need references. I am happy to provide references for any statement which any other editor calls to my attention. Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LAYOUT, Further reading and External links should appear after References, and there should be no duplication between these sections
Sections have been re-arranged and I have removed all but two instances of repetition between the lists, both of which are negotiable. I left the Schilpp volume in "Further reading," simply because it is a citation for the full volume rather than a specific article. I also left the external link to the Center for Process Studies. Even though it had been cited already and mentioned in the article, this is the single largest resource on the web for Whitehead-related research, so my feeling is that it should stay in. Again, both of these are negotiable. Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Check that books consistently include publisher location; FN3, for example, does not
Done. I caught a few others in addition to the one mentioned here.
In some cases it will be necessary to include state or country to disambiguate locations, for example for the two Cambridges (UK and US)
Hmm. There were only three instances where "Cambridge" was the US one. In those three instances I inserted "Massachusetts" after "Cambridge." I have left the others alone. Is this satisfactory? I don't normally see countries or states listed in Chicago Style citation, possibly because the name of the publisher tends to disambiguate (e.g., a Google search for "Cambridge University Press" will tell you that it is in England). Say the word, though, and I'll do it. Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some works are missing their ISBNs - why?
By "some" you mean "most"! I have not been routinely listing ISBNs as part of my referencing. I have been following Chicago Style, in which they are not required. Are they really necessary in every instance? I'm not sure why they would be. And are you talking about all cited books, or just the primary bibliography and further reading sections? Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FN66: why not just include both sets of page numbers in the first citation, rather than making a new full citation to the same work in the same footnote?
Actually, you misread here. The references were from two different books ;-) (they are now FN55 and FN68 FN96 and FN108). However, I did take the opportunity to split all but one citation that listed multiple sources (the one I left alone had a short note that applied to both, and neither source was used again). Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Publication names like the Vancouver Sun should be italicized
Done... I think. Question: Should I be italicizing organizations that are not really publishers? For instance: Center for Process Studies, Institute for the Postmodern Development of China, Center for Environmental Philosophy, etc.? And how about websites, like Sunypress.edu (currently FN123 FN158)? Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stopping this part of the check here.
Oppose for now pending nominator response and edits to the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- I'm afraid that with no new comments for three weeks, even allowing for the distractions of the festive season, this review appears to have stalled. I'll therefore be archiving it shortly, and it can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period per FAC instructions. Looking briefly over the prose, however, I'd suggest that it be copyedited and go through Peer Review before returning here, as some of the phrasing seems more appropriate to an essay than an encyclopedic article, e.g. "This is not to say that", "Indeed, it may not be inappropriate", "To put it another way", "It must be emphasized, however", etc. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about the pre-dreadnought battleship Iowa. I believe it should be featured because of the concise nature of the article, its comformity to established writing style, and the extensive but not overwhelming detail about the ship's history. Magus732 (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Was the editor who wrote this article consulted before you nominated it for FAC?
The "Superior design" section header needs to be changed.
The first paragraph of that section needs to go.
Spell out uncommon units at the first use - indicated horsepower and nautical miles for instance. We don't make readers click links to find out what something is.
Much of the article is overly wordy and should be cut down. For example:
"The Congress of the United States authorized a 9,000 long tons (9,100 t) warship on 19 July 1892. Specifically, it was for a 'seagoing coastline battleship', to fill the Navy's desire for a ship that could sail and fight effectively in open waters; the preceding Indiana class— authorized by Congress as 'coast-defense battleships'— had many problems with endurance and speed" - it would be much better to simply state something along the lines of "On 19 July 1892, Congress authorized a 9,000-long ton (9,100 t) battleship, the design of which should improve upon the speed and endurance of the preceding Indiana class." The rest is needless padding.
"One unexpected circumstance was that an Austrian battleship also named Infanta Maria Theresa was in the vicinity wanting to enter Santiago harbor, but upon outbreak of hostilities, waited for orders from the Americans after seeing the conflict; her presence caused mild confusion at some points but there is no evidence of the Austrian vessel being fired on." - Two things: how is this relevant? Also, the Austrian vessel was named Kaiserin und Königin Maria Theresia, not Infanta Maria Theresa, and she was an armored cruiser, not a battleship.
For a unique design, the technical description is severely lacking. Please review the current FAs of unique warships to see how much detail should be included.
In addition, the technical description is all mixed up. The armament is discussed in parts of two different paragraphs, for example. Please arrange the information in coherent paragraphs.
Iowa was never called BB-4. That was the hull number assigned to the ship.
Why are the "Competing claims" and "Analysis" sections in this article? They would be better suited in the article about the battle, and neither seems particularly focused on Iowa.
The long list of ship names in the first paragraph of the service history section - what types of ships are these?
The prose has significant issues, such as:
"a surface-going torpedo boat - as opposed to...?
"A dangerous fire in Iowa's lower decks happened" - fires don't "happen", they break out, or something ignited something else.
Why does the ship's launching deserve its own subheader but not the Battle of Santiago?
Need a citation for the one note on the later Iowa.
"by the well known radio engineer," - we don't need to be told that he was "well known"
"(Incidentally, Mississippi later endured a deadly on-board explosion accident which took the lives of 48 crew members.)" - This article is about Iowa, not random incidents on other warships.
MOS issues, including but not limited to:
"30 14 in" - one of those numbers needs to be spelled out
"a salvo of 14 in (360 mm)" - don't convert measurements after the first instance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parsecboy (talk • contribs)
Oppose and recommend early closure I agree with Parsecboy's comments about the article being under-developed at present. It is currently probably not of GA standard, and falls well short of FA quality. In addition to Parsecboy's comments, I'd add the following:
Sourcing is not satisfactory: the article is heavily dependent on DANFS (a non-independent and at best semi-reliable source given that its authors routinely excluded unattractive elements of ships' histories and made errors of fact in relation to campaigns and the like), and little use has been made of the various standard reference books on USN battleships. There seems to be no reason for such heavy use to have been placed on old stories from the NY Times (which are best though of as primary sources given their age).
The article's structure is a bid odd, with one paragraph sections on minor aspects of the ship's history
The lead is clearly inadequate
All in all, I'd suggest developing this article through building it to GA and then A-class standards before returning for another FAC. The friendly editors at WP:OMT can provide advice and assistance with this. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comments -- I'll be archiving this nomination shortly so that improvements can be made outside the pressure of the FAC process. Pls take onboard the valuable comments above, particularly to discuss with the article's main editor(s) and to progress through GAN and MilHist ACR before returning to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The Brazil article exemplifies one of the best country articles on Wikipedia and deserves to be featured. If you are unsure, you are welcome to check other featured country articles, such as China, India, Australia, South Africa, and United States, and maybe Singapore to get an idea of how the Brazil article compares. If you object, please state explicitly why you object (no bias or personal opinions, like mentioning the article should be expanded or reduced, which not everyone agrees. Personal opinions also include reorganizing the sections or anything related. These should be put into the discussion page instead). Thank you. VitorAzBine (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The nominator's statement is not very encouraging. There are a lot of tags indicating the article has issues, such as missing citations, dead links, etc. --Rschen7754 15:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even at first glance, there are basic issues, such as the unresolved tags and dead links mentioned above, and an incorrectly capitalised heading. These may well be fixable, but the defensive tone of the nomination is likely to deter editors from engaging with this article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One should fix tags, and double check the sources (i.e. dead links) before coming to FAC. The article has some merits, but have to agree with other comments that the nominations tone is combative. FAC aims at improving articles with that last-stage polishing of already great material, it is not an arena for mortal combat. Check the tags, check the attitude, then come back. Not now.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, more or less per ColonelHenry. I should also add that the number of one-sentence paragraphs do not make for good reading. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many, many facts lacking citations. I know this article has a lot of references, but it needs more.
Some of the references are incomplete, such as footnotes 322, 326, and there is a host of footnote formatting issues (eg. is "page" going to be capitalised or not, abbreviated or not, when are cited sources going to be cited using Harvard and then listed in the bibliography, inconsistent formats of retrieval dates etc etc)
Environment: source quality and neutrality issues. Greenpeace are not high quality or reliable source for claims in an FA on a major nation state that "mines have scarred and polluted the landscape".
System of government: the article does not say how many representatives are elected to Congress, nor how often elections are held.
The section on the economy needs serious work. The subsection on tourism is ridiculously long, and it is odd that there is a subsection of "economy" regarding tourism, yet no subsection on other parts of the economy that are more important. Where is the subsection on mining? On manufacturing?
The education section is particularly weak. Reading it, I cannot tell any basic details such as: what is the structure of schooling as regards age of children; how many years of schooling are undertaken; to what age is it compulsory, if at all; what proportion of students are educated in publicly-run schools; is there a technical or vocational post-school education system at all; etc. The final paragraph is ungrammatical, unreferenced, and lacking in useful information.
The section on music mentions no individuals. I know these things are hard to weigh up, but i would have thought a few would warrant mention because of their international reputations and significance - the two that come to my mind are Heitor Villa-Lobos and João Gilberto.
Why are "sports" a subheading of the National holidays section?
Many sections of the article are in need of an intensive copyedit, with many sentences using broken English or unusual expressions (eg. "For most of its democratic history, Brazil has had a multi-party system, proportional representation".
Not ready for FAC I would have thought. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comments -- Per above, I'll be archiving this nomination shortly. Pls take the comments on board and note that, per FAC instructions, there's a two-week minimum waiting period between an article being archived and the nominator bringing another (or the same one) here. Remember also that a little humility at FAC never goes astray. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
^Farr 2001, p. 8. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFarr2001 (help)
^Farr 2007, p. 11. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFarr2007 (help)
^Thompson 1991, pp. 25–26. sfn error: no target: CITEREFThompson1991 (help)
^Thompson 1991, pp. 17, 27–29. sfn error: no target: CITEREFThompson1991 (help)
^Farr 2007, p. 13 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFFarr2007 (help); Sadoul 1975 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFSadoul1975 (help).
Facepalm - my bad, I screwed that up in an edit I made yesterday. Changes (includes the next bullet) Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
In any event, I removed the C9H13N term and the note next to Mosher's acid chloride. I made a note next to the first term in part because it was done by my GA reviewer in Psilocybin (FA) and because the drugbox extends halfway into the uses section in chrome on my laptop. It looks fine on my phone though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
_Fall_of_the_Musician.jpg){kind=link}
