Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2015

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2015 [1].

Ernest Lawrence edit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Ernest Lawrence, one of the more famous and controversial scientists of the 20th century. He is still well-known today because the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore Laboratory are named after him. As is a chemical element. Indeed, he could write his name and address in elements: Lr Bk Cf Am. In an era when most top scientists studied in Europe, his education was entirely in America. He was known for his right-wing politics in a time when Academics, particularly at Berkeley, were noted for affiliation with left-wing causes, yet managed to be on good terms with them. He commanded high salaries and was never afraid of asking others to work for little or nothing. Above all, he was a strong believer in the principle of bigger being better, which he applied to everything from laboratory instruments to nuclear weapons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox, for example his doctoral students, are not sourced in the text
    Added something about them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when you include publisher locations
    Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use a consistent date format
    Ran a script over it. [2] Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's by the local historian at Oak Ridge. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Generally seems to meet the standard. Detailed points:

  • Though it seems to be the style we often use for scientists, the list of honours in the infobox seems much too long. That rank of the Legion d'Honneur had over 17,000 holders in 2010.
    True, but how many are mad scientists? Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not finding the science well-explained for a very lay reader.
  • Things like " Molly's sister Elsie married Edwin McMillan in 1941." don't help - it turns out if you follow the link he got the Nobel too, but this is not explained.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having got married at 31, by the time his 6th child was born I suspect we are out of "early life", no? He died at 57; I suspect Susan was still at school.
    Normally in articles on scientists, "Early life" covers everything up to getting their PhD done. Split the paragraph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section "The developments of the cyclotron" - why plural?
    Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you ever going to explain what a cyclotron is/does?
    Added a bit more about this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...which he assigned to the Research Corporation." They need explaining
    Added an explanation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In February 1936, Harvard University's president, James B. Conant, made attractive offers to Lawrence and Oppenheimer.[36] In response, the Radiation Laboratory became an official department of the University of California on July 1, 1936..." I see what's going on, but "attractive offers" and "in response" read rather clumsily.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • At Cockroft's invitation, Lawrence was invited to the 1933 Solvay Conference, to give a presentation on the cyclotron.[40] Lawrence ran into withering skepticism from James Chadwick, who suggested that what Lawrence's team was observing was contamination of their apparatus" Explanatory phrases needed for italicised things.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On his recommendation that the director of the Manhattan Project, Brigadier General Leslie R. Groves, Jr., appointed Oppenheimer as head of the Los Alamos Laboratory." ?? cut "that"?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lawrence proposed to use accelerators instead of nuclear reactors to produce the neutrons needed to create the tritium the bomb required, as well as plutonium, which was more difficult." The plutonium was more difficult? Just anyway, or in accelerators? And so on. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a bit. It is quite straightforward to make plutonium in reactors, but there is the issue of Wigner's disease. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Post-war career and legacy" I'd split to "Post-war career" and "Death and legacy" If you can split the earlier big sections that would be good too.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was known for his right-wing politics" you say above, but nothing about that, beyond promoting having big bombs. Equally nothing on why he was "one of the more famous and controversial scientists of the 20th century."
  • Hmm. Overall, a very dry narrative account, with not enough background for the non-expert, either on scientific detail or personalities. The Alvarez quote makes a nice change - more colour like that would be welcome. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your review! I will address the issues raised over the next few days. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Lawrence does not sound to me like a Norwegian name. Is it known whether it had been 'Americanised'?
    Yes. His grandfather was Ole Hundale Lavrens. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps mention that his younger brother was also a physicist.
    His brother was a physician. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk)
  • "Instead of using it to travel to Europe, he remained at Yale University with Swann as a researcher" This assumes that the reader knows that NRC fellowships are generally used for travel to Europe, but the article on the NRC does not even mention fellowships. I would leave out ref to Europe.
    All the top scientists travelled to Europe at that time. In fact, earning a science degree involved learning German. Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By reducing the emission time by switching the light source on and off rapidly, the spectrum of energy emitted became broader," Awkward repetition of "by" How about "Reducing the emission time, by switching the light source on and off rapidly, broadened the spectrum of energy emitted,"
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lawrence received offers of assistant professorships from the University of Washington in Seattle and the University of California" When?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but because he had never been an instructor" No change needed, but is this what would be called in Britain a lecturer?
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " While sitting in the library one evening, Lawrence glanced over a journal article by Rolf Widerøe" When?
    In 1929. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Lawrence replaced him with M. Stanley Livingston[23] and David H. Sloan, who he set to work on developing Widerøe's accelerator and Edlefsen's cyclotron respectively" This seems to say that Sloan worked on the cyclotron, but below you say his linear accelerator.
    Ooops. Swapped the names around. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and John Lawrence's for production of medical isotopes" I don't think you have mentioned that John was working with Ernest.
    It is mentioned. I have expanded it into a paragraph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unfortunately, University of California's contract to run the Los Alamos laboratory was due to expire on July 1, 1948" I don't think you fully explain this laboratory. I take it that it was created as part of the Manhattan Project to create a nuclear bomb. It ran part of the process for enriching uranium, and it was run by the Univ of California, although you do not say so. Presumably also the AEC wanted Univ Cal to carry on running the laboratory. It would be helpful to spell these points out.
    No, the Radiation Laboratory developed the enrichment process. The Los Alamos Laboratory developed the bombs themselves. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Responsibility for the national laboratories passed to the newly created Atomic Energy Commission on January 1, 1947.[76] In 1947, Lawrence asked for $15 million for his projects, which included a new linear accelerator and a new gigaelectronvolt synchrotron which became known as the bevatron." You do not say whether the request was approved - also the second "1947" could be "In the same year"
    Ooops. Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Lawrence proposed to use accelerators instead of nuclear reactors to produce the neutrons needed to create the tritium the bomb required, as well as plutonium, which was more difficult, as much higher energies would be required.[84] He first proposed the construction of Mark I, a prototype $7 million, 25 MeV linear accelerator, codenamed Materials Test Accelerator (MTA), mainly used to produce polonium for the nuclear weapon program." I lost you here. He proposed Mark I, presumably to make tritium and plutonium, but was a failure for its intended purpose and was instead used to make polonium?
    You got it right. I have re-worded to make it clearer. The real problem the present-day reader has is imagining the government handing over very large sums of money for a project with such a poor prospect of success. But the 1950s were a different time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very good article but I am not sure it is there yet as an FA. Going on what you say, he seems to have been a brilliant scientific inventor and organizer. The ANB article comments that before him science was carried on by individuals, and he was a pioneer of big science carried on by the military-industrial complex, a point you refer to but do not spell out. But was he a scientist of the first rank? How far was his hero status a product of the paranoia of the Cold War period? How is he seen today? The ANB article cites biographical sources "not uniformly flattering to Lawrence", two of which are not in your sources. I think the legacy section needs to cover these questions. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    All the works referred to are here except Nuel Pharr Davis. I didn't use Jungk because it's very old, and my British copy has very different page numbers to the US edition, which caused problems on the Oppenheimer article. What Kauffman really meant was that Childs's book is uniformly flattering to Lawrence. Herken and Heilbron are far more critical. Heilbron is really, really good but his history is unfinished. It only goes up to 1940. Added a bit to spell this out. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have come across 3 articles which you may/may not have seen/find useful. 1. Review of Greene, Eisenhower, Science Advice and the Nuclear Test-Ban Debate, which says that Lawrence was one of the advisers who persuaded Eisenhower not to pursue a test ban treaty in 1954. 2. Carson, comparison of Lawrence and Heisenberg. 3. Chu, Cyclotron and medicine. Email me if you want pdfs of any of these. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just the journal references would be enough. I can add a lot more about the cyclotron and medical research, but it is off-topic because Lawrence didn't do any of it himself. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a bit more about his position on the nuclear test ban. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    [3] [4] [5] Hope these are right. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- sorry but I think that almost six weeks into the review we should be making greater progress towards consensus to promote, so will archive it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:40, 30 June 2015 [6].

Breathe (Kylie Minogue song) edit

Nominator(s): GirlsAlouud (talk · contribs} 06:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the song "Breathe" by Australian recording artist Kylie Minogue. I have been working hard with all the Impossible Princess related articles (remixes, tours, singles, songs, etc.) and I aim to achieve GA and/or FA pass rates for all the articles. I have a lot of research conducted for the articles and I have submitted several articles for GA. However, some had to be removed as there were many reference problems, incorrect grammar, prose, (the list goes on and on). I have edited all the articles and I am trying to get Impossible Princess up to a FA status so I can then handle the songs, remixes and song articles. After a VERY constructive review for the GA, it had passed and I am going to submit this because I want this to be a featured article. I have conducted research, wrote several parts of this article and extended it to its maximum amount. I personally like the entire Impossible Princess era and I strive to get all the articles a pass rate for either GA or FA. Thank you. GirlsAlouud (talk · contribs} 06:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hope you can turn Impossible Princess into a Featured Topic. I have some questions:
  • "Throughout the video, a giant glass orb is seen on the screen and is shone in a mysterious light." Is "shone" the right word here? Or do you mean "shown"?
  • "Minogue sported a pink shirt and long skirt; she sang while being backed by her live band." I'm unsure of the significance of the pink shirt here, and is it necessary to emphasis that her band was alive, as the alternative seems somewhat grisly?
  • "The song was featured on the second segment for the tour for which Minogue wore a black, long-collared shirt and three-quarter pants, similar to the costume off 'Did It Again'." Do you mean "off" or "of" here?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Oops I didn't see these mistakes. They have been fixed. GirlsAlouud (talk · contribs} 04:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! All the best with getting this through FAC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Calvin999

Some basics which need correcting first of all:

  • The Background section isn't really background on the this song.
  • Genres in the info box should be alphabetical (so Dance-pop first). However, Dance-pop is not sourced or mentioned anywhere else in the article, so if you can't source it, then it should be removed.
  • As the writers and producers are the same, for the Producers in the info box just write their surnames, as it's a bit repetitive otherwise.
  • I'd say three small paragraphs looks too drawn out for any article of this size, it would look better as two paragraphs.
  • Digital Spy says it is an Electronica song, so the use of "inspired" can be removed.
  • I'd split the Formats and track listings into two columns
  • It's Official Charts Company, not The Official Charts Company
  • Publisher parameters are no longer required. Just the work parameter.
  • Ref 13: Digital Spy should not be italics
  • Ref 24: Overlinking of Official Charts Company
  • Ref 29: Should be ''[[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]'', not Billboard Magazine
  • Ref 32: YouTube should not be italics
  • Same for 37, and 48.

 — Calvin999 09:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Calvin999: Done. All corrections have been completed. GirlsAlouud (talk · contribs} 06:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However, some critics dismissed the composition. - "dismissed" is not the word for here - a critic would "dismiss as (insert negative adjective)" or criticise/be unimpressed by/etc.
"Breathe" is about withholding emotions - errr, bit short...what's the source...maybe we an word it more engagingly...
"Breathe" is an electronica song that was noted for its sonic comparison with album track, "Say Hey" - does that just mean the two songs sound alike? If so why not just say so plainly...
This also marks Minogue's first song along with "Too Far" that she had co-produced - so then it's the second song?
The last para of Background and composition belongs in Critical reception.
The beginning of the Live performances section sees the word "performed" four times - we can trim a little - I don't think we need to know that Roy and HG and Ronnie Corbett were on the Ben Elton show - take them out and we can slide the first two sentences together easily.

Closing comment -- open six weeks and we still seem quite some way from sufficient support for promotion, so I will archive this now and invite you to renominate after resolving outstanding comments (and the usual two-week break). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2015 [7].

Only Girl (In the World) edit

Nominator(s):  — Calvin999 07:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... one of Rihanna's best selling singles. The song reached either number one or number two in pretty much every country that it was released in. For every country in which it received a sales certification, it was either platinum or multi-platinum. It is the lead single from her career defining Loud album, and it has been a staple of live performances since 2010. It is the first and so far only lead single in U.S. chart history to have reached number one on the Hot 100 after the album's second single reached number one. It also won a Grammy Award for Best Dance Recording.  — Calvin999 07:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Participation Guide
Support
None
Comments/No vote yet
None
Oppose
NapHit, Azealia911

Oppose After reading through the lead, I have noticed a number of issues, which does not bode well for the remainder of the article. Here are a few I noticed:

  • "prior to when the production..." when should be removed
  • "Backed by a hefty bass..." hefty is not encyclopaedic language
    • What do you suggest I use? Thumping, strong, strobing?  — Calvin999 07:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong would be better, though. NapHit (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and it has become the nineteenth..." this should be past tense
    • Why should it be past tense when it is currently the 19th best selling by female?  — Calvin999 07:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first part of the sentence is in past tense, you can't mix separate tenses in the same sentence. Change has become to became to solve the issue. Also change "Selling over a million copies" to with over a million copies sold" to avoid repeating the word selling in close succession
  • "and it reached the top five..."
  • "and at the 38th American Music Awards in the United States, and on The X Factor and on The Graham Norton Show in the United Kingdom." This does not read well at all, do really need to list all these shows in the lead?
  • "its bright and colorful yet simple theme..." what does this even mean? bright and colourful yet simple, it doesn't make much sense at all.

I'm reluctant to read the rest of the article due to the number of issues present in just three paragraphs. Also concerning is the fact that this is the article's third nomination since March, yet it appears none of the underlying issues has been properly addressed. In particular, the last nomination was only closed two weeks ago and going through the nomination none of the issues raised appear to have been addressed. I suggest withdrawing the nomination and getting it thoroughly copyedited by an impartial editor. NapHit (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't really see how you can say that no issues have been addressed in the previous two nominations. I changed any issues in the previous nomination that I agreed with while the nomination was still open, that's why those issues weren't done after the nomination was archived, because I'd already done them. I'm not going to withdraw; this article follows the same style guide that I used for "S&M", which went through a lot of nominations and ultimately promoted, so I disagree with you wholeheartedly.  — Calvin999 07:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well as you say, you changed the issues YOU agreed with. Reading through the issues they were all pertinent and should have been followed. I think you are too stubborn for your own good, if the article got a thorough copyedit to eliminate these issues then you wouldn't have to keep nominating the article over and over again. Just because a previous article got promoted because you did things a certain way doesn't mean this one will. Standards change over time, they don't remain constant and every article should be considered on its own merit. I'm trying to help you here, but I get the feeling that I am pissing in the wind. You can choose to take my advice or not, it's entirely up to, but if you don't I feel you face this situation consistently until you do. NapHit (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But I didn't agree with some suggestions. FAC is not supposed to be a dictatorship with nominators bowing down to every reviewers request. A lot of the stuff in the previous nomination was purely down to personal preference, because it was fine for my previous FA. I don't see how standards can change that much in just a short amount of time. I am listening to what you're saying though, and I have done everything that you asked of above. I get nominators disagreeing with me in GANs, but I don't fail them automatically just because they disagree. Sometimes a compromise or meeting the middle is required. Nobody ever highlights anything positive in these FACs, either. It's always focusing on the negative in a really negative way. Perhaps that's why I'm slightly stubborn with things.  — Calvin999 21:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see where are you are coming from, but personal preference only goes so far, alot of those suggestions in the previous nom were valid. I do think you jumped the gun here. It would have been better to get a copyedit and then bring it here. What I'm trying to say is, it would be better getting it properly copyedited, without having to renominate 10 times before it gets promoted. That's just making hard work for yourself when you really don't have to. Anyway, I'll go through the rest of the article and have a look. NapHit (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • "Tor Erik Hermansen revealed..." who is this Tor, I assume he is part of Stargate, but that is not made clear. Anyone without a background in music will have no idea about the significance of the random name here
  • "The singer said..." remove it goes without saying that she said the following quote. Put a colon at the end of the previous sentence instead and merge them
  • "Eriksen and Miles Walker..." again who are these two people, they are not introduced previously in the article
    • Added 'of Stargate' for Eriksen but this is the first time I mention Walker hence using his whole name, so no of course he hasn't been previously introduced. I say here and now what he contributed. Bit confused by what you're trying to get across here.  — Calvin999 19:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well you've added "Srgate" so that typo needs to be fixed and you're missing my point above about Miles Walker. Yes I know that is the first time he is mentioned, but why is he mentioned? Who is he? Who does he work for? It's not clear what his role is and therefore, why he is included. NapHit (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not missing the point. Why? He is mentioned because he recorded the music alongside Eriksen and Vee. Who? He is clearly someone who records the music in the studio. Employer? 45th & 3rd Music LLC is written in the booklet, but I don't know if they are his employer, but not even FA articles say who people involved work for and it's information that the reader probably isn't interested in knowing, either. I think you're going in too deep on this point frankly and rather unnecessarily I might add, too.  — Calvin999 09:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the Roc the Mic Studios in New York City and the Westlake Recording Studios in Los Angeles, and by Vee at The Bunker Studios in Paris" no need for The in front of the studio names, also is there any reason why the instrumentals were recorded at three separate studios? Doesn't make much sense to me.
    • 'The Bunker Studios' is the name of the studio, like how 'The Ivy' is the name of a restaurant in London, you wouldn't write 'the Ivy'. I'm just paraphrasing what is in the booklet, there is no comment or explanation as to why they recorded different bits in different studios, and quite frankly, they don't have to. It's extremely rare for a song to have vocals and all music recorded in just one studio, not everyone can be in the same place at the same time. Look at "Thirsty" for example, that was recorded in seven different studios.  — Calvin999 19:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following sentences just list out of people involved in making the song, its not exactly engaging prose. Is there any way to improve it?
    • Well, that's what it is. Who did what, it can't really be written any other way without having exclusive info on the recording processes, which doesn't exist. — Calvin999 19:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it can be written better, so that is engaging to the reader, right now it reads just like a list. This is why you should have got a copyedit beforehand. NapHit (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a melange of genres in its composition"
  • "Only Girl (In the World)" combines a melange of genres in its composition, including dance, electro, Europop, Hi-NRG, pop, rave and R&B.[6][7][8][9] It lasts for a duration of three minutes and 55 seconds." merge these sentences
  • Are there any more critical reviews? There must of been more than one? As it stands this section is not very balanced
    • One? There's seven. I can't help how many reviews there. I've included all those I could find and which are permissible at FAC. This song is nearly 5 years old, webpages get deleted.  — Calvin999 19:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • One critical review, as in negative. Yes, webpages get deleted, but you can use the archive webpage to retrieve them. NapHit (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't archive pages which have already been deleted or articles used years ago before I ever even edited this article.  — Calvin999 09:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The accolades tables needs to meet WP:ACCESS, there are no row or col scopes
    • The Year column is marked up as row. I don't know why it's not shading.  — Calvin999 19:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You need to use an exclamation mark instead of a pipe before the scope part. NapHit (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "album's first single ascended to the peak..." not encyclopaedic language here, just state simply what happened
  • "Only Girl (In the World)" was the fourth of Rihanna's single releases in 2010 to reached number one, meaning that she became the first female, as well the first artist overall since Usher, to chart four number one's in a calendar year." this sentence is very clunky and needs rewriting
  • "It further meant..." again poor prose, just state what happened
  • "this century.." use the actual century, this century is ambiguous
  • "reached the peak..." the charts are not a mountain, just say top of the charts
  • "rose 2-1 in the chart..." what does this mean? its unclear
    • From number two to number one, it's standard language for music articles (on and off Wikipedia)  — Calvin999 19:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 8 is actually The Observer not The Guardian and the dash should be an en dash
    • Why? Kitty Empire writes for The Guardian. That is the newspaper I'm citing, not The Observer.  — Calvin999 19:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Observer is the Sunday edition of The Guardian, that article appeared in the Observer, therefore it is a work of The Observer. NapHit (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are just a number of issues I found after a quick read through. It's painfully obvious the article requires a thorough copyedit before it is near Featured standard. I have nothing more to add I stand by my original position when I initially commented. A further note, I'm trying to help you here, I'd advise you stop coming across as if you have a chip on your shoulder. Remember that I am volunteering to review this for you, I don't have to do this, so please try and understand that I'm trying to help you here. It comes across as if you are annoyed at times when you reply. NapHit (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know you're trying to help, and I know you're volunteering, as it were, on here (we are all volunteering on Wikipedia). I generally find that FAC reviewers are quite negative about absolutely everything. I haven't got a chip on my shoulder, my back just gets put up. As I said above, having someone come in and blast you with solely negative comments when you've spent and dedicated a long time on improving something is a bit of a kick in the face.  — Calvin999 09:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

The comments that refer to the lead should also be corrected in the appropriate section:

  • included on her fifth studio album—from her fifth studio album
  • I think we can lose Crystal Johnson's profession because it's easy to assume he is a songwriter since he wrote the song.
  • the producers Stargate and Sandy Vee—"the" should be dropped because Stargate and Vee weren't the producers during the writing of the song
  • prior to the production of Loud began—"began" is not necessary here
  • Ok, if got it right, Rihanna was not satisfied with the initial tapes of the song, and asked the producers to speed it up?
    • No? Lol. She decided that she knew she wanted it on the album when she heard their composition before she recorded any vocals (because she liked the beat essentially)  — Calvin999 08:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "created" is not the luckiest solution here. Why not use composed or written?
  • ominous themes which were present on her previous album–you can drop the italicized words without losing the meaning
  • why is "after" italicized?
    • Because I'm placing emphasis on the fact that the lead single reached number one after the second single reached number one, which is the first and only time that this has ever happened on the Hot 100.
      • I don't think that's encyclopedical. I've seen that kind of emphasising in personal conversation, but rarely in these kind of articles.
  • "Only Girl (In the World)" was written by Crystal Johnson in collaboration with the song's producers Stargate and Sandy Vee.—chronologically, Stargate and Vee weren't the song's producers when they were writing the song.
    • It's less convoluted than saying "It was written by Crystal Johnson, Sandy Wilhelm, Hermansen and Eriksen of Starage, and produced by Wilhelm under his stage name Sandy Vee and by Stargate" (as an example).  — Calvin999 08:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, your explanation seems reasonable.
  • Rihanna had previously worked with Stargate on past singles, including...—Rihanna had previously worked with Stargate on the singles [song titles]
  • Is it really important to include where the interviews were given? (Vibe, live webchat with her fansite, etc.); by the way, she can chat with the fans, not the fansite.
    • Yeah, because saying "in an interview she said..." would need to have who she was giving the interview too. That's pretty standard.  — Calvin999 08:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can see that from the reference, right? My point was that it makes the prose tedious. Nobody is interested in who conducted the interview, but what was said in the interview. By the way, did you correct my second suggestion from this note?
  • What does "bigger sound" than "Rude Boy" imply? Did she wanted to be louder, more distorted?
    • Listening to both songs, I think she just mean't louder.  — Calvin999 08:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I haven't listened the songs, and I'd like to know what you mean. "Bigger sound" can also apply to emphasized bass, stronger vocal lines, etc.
        • I think that's exactly what she means  — Calvin999 08:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • it lasts for a duration of three minutes and 55 seconds—drop the italicized words
  • About the mixture of genres. Did you make that conclusion by combining the four references? If that's the case, I'm afraid that falls under WP:SYNTHESIS
  • How can the LA Times journalist call the song a "comaback", and then note that it was not a comeback single?
    • You'd have to ask him! Lol. I think he meant that because Rihanna had deviated from pop to hip-hop and dubstep so much on Rated R and it was generally less successful than Good Girl Gone Bad, that this was like a return to form and more like the 'old Rihanna'. That's what I get from it.  — Calvin999 08:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, since it's an excerpt from a review, I guess you can't do much aboout it.
  • Per Wiki's manual style of writing, tables should be placed at the end of the article (check "Accolades")
  • Where is this place 2 hours from Los Angeles? Is it two hours by plane or car?
    • No one knows  — Calvin999 08:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant to name the acctual place, not how far it is from LA.
  • Is JustJared.com a reliable source?
    • Considering it is Rihanna's words, I think it is.  — Calvin999 08:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is the ref accredited to a journalist, and more importantly, is there another source that we can use instead of this one?
        • I'm not actually citing JustJared in the ref, I'm quoting it from two other media outlets who reported on the interview  — Calvin999 08:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My overall perception is that the prose is too verbal at few places. Have you consulted a copyeditor prior to the nomiantion?--Retrohead (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have made the changes.  — Calvin999 08:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see you haven't responded to all of my comments. Have you done them?--Retrohead (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Azealia911

General comments

  • All violations of MOS:DASH need to be fixed.
  • File:Rihanna, LOUD Tour, Oakland 4.jpg located in Live performances and covers needs a WP:ALT.

Credits and personnel

  • Do none of the studios/personnel have independent articles that can be linked?
  • Consider moving "Credits adapted from the liner notes of Loud, Def Jam Recordings, SRP Records.[1]" to the top of the section, I initially thought it was unsourced until closely reading.

Charts

  • All mentions of U.S. → US per MOS:CHARTS
  • I see no issue in linking all instances of (Billboard), especially as when sorted, the linked entries can appear in the nether regions of the chart.
  • Billboard Hot 100 should place first when listing the US charts, per the second example in MOS:CHARTS
    • It should be alphabetical. Same way as we pu UK R&B before UK Singles.  — Calvin999 08:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weather it should be or not isn't my concern, take it up at the talk page for the MOS if you like, but we should follow it until any changes occur. Azealia911 talk 08:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, but MOS does say countries should be in alphabetical order, and they already are. You're talking a chart, not a country.  — Calvin999 08:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Official Charts Company) should be linked.
    • It is, for Scotland.  — Calvin999 08:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd add the record providers (Billboard) (ARIA) (Official Charts Company) etc, to the year-end charts also, and link them.
    • I don't think they need to be included again. And linking them would be WP:OVERLINK. I've seen other FA's which don't include or link in any table.  — Calvin999 08:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For all-time charts, Australia's chart is constantly updated, while the UK's was an article published in June 2013. Considering the UK's place may have changed, consider creating a footnote stating something along the lines of "All-time UK Singles Chart place as of June 2013" or similar.
  • UK Singles Chart needs to be followed by "(Official Charts Company)" in all-time charts

Certifications

  • Switzerland (IFPI Switzerland) → Switzerland (IFPI SWI)
  • When sorting the Certification column, the figures are incorrectly listed, with the singular platinum's listing, then 5×, 3×, and 2× platinum following, needs fixing.
  • Consider creating a Ref. column after Sales/shipments, optional though.

Radio and digital release history

  • The Netherlands → The Netherlands
  • Consider creating a Ref. column after label, optional though.
  • Digital download for Germany and United States can be rowspanned.
  • rhythmic radio → rhythmic radio

See also

  • Seems somewhat overcrowded, possibly consider removing some, optional though. Should you decide to keep them all, they at least need sorting, preferably alphabetically, with the Grammy link coming first.

Weak oppose at present moment in time. I do however, fully sympathize with your reply to the previous oppose about FLC's being borderline insulting at times, and I'll of course switch to support if my comments are addressed, which I don't imagine you'll have much trouble doing. Also feel free to refuse to change something you don't think needs changing, if you have reason. From what I've seen, FLC's tend to result in sometimes unhelpful changes to an article simply in order to gain support from a reviewer. Good article (both literally and objectively) so far, just needs tweaks. Azealia911 talk 06:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Errors have been introduced in an attempt to fix the issues with the dashes. See WP:HYPHEN and WP:DASH. Graham Beards (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Singora (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC) There are errors everywhere -- it would be silly to list them all. To be honest, I think it's pointless trying to give articles like this an academic flavor.[reply]

  • Thanks, but I don't think you're personal preference is particularly needed or wanted.  — Calvin999 17:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious this nomination has no chance what-so-ever of getting promoted or being turned around so it might as well be closed to be honest.  — Calvin999 17:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2015 [8].

Hastings Line edit

Nominator(s): Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a secondary railway line in the United Kingdom. It was built across difficult terrain requiring many tunnels. Lax supervision of the construction of the tunnels meant that a following rectification of the defects discovered, a restricted loading gauge was required for 140 years. During a modernisation scheme in the 1980s, measures were taken to remove the loading gauge restriction. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport

I know little about the railways, other than using them, so please view my comments in the light of that ignorance:

  • Lead
    • "a secondary railway line…" – we could do with either a link or an explanation for this far from self-explanatory term
      • Drawing a blank here. I could add a series of notes, but the would come across the problem of needing to reference them. Would the term "secondary main line" convey the meaning better? Mjroots (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd leave it as it is, I think. The general drift is clear enough. I thought it might be a precise technical term, but as it isn't one I think it is fine.
    • "the South eastern Railway" – the capitalisation looks odd, and I see it doesn't tally with the WP article or your own capitalisation in the main text of this article.
    • "Supervision of the construction … the construction" in the same sentence.
    • "the line … when the line" another repetition
      • Lede rewritten to avoid the repetition 18:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Background
    • I'm not making a big point of this, but I'm not sure the dogged listing of the various parliamentary stages is all that relevant. Unless there was any controversy during the passage of the bill I'd be inclined to say that it was introduced in the Commons on x, passed by both Houses by y and given the Royal Assent on z.
  • Hyphenation
    • "Bo-peep" (four times) or "Bopeep" (9 times) Junction? Consistency wanted.
      • I've gone with the modern spelling of "Bopeep", but note that the pub is spelled as "Bo Peep". Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duplicate blue-links
    • Ashford
    • Bexhill West Branch Line
    • branch line
    • British Rail Class 201
    • British Rail Class 202
      • Not done, sufficiently far apart and needed for context and consistency Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • British Rail Class 203
      • Not done, sufficiently far apart and needed for context and consistency Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • British Railways
  • Only one link found Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • chains
    • Obscure unit, linked through conversion template Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • London, Chatham and Dover Railway
    • Cudworth
  • not done, linked in full on first occurrence and by surname on second. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Superfluous blue-links
    • mile
      • Mile has to be linked as it is linked from the conversion of distances from miles and chains to kilometres. chain (unit) is a relatively obscure unit of measurement nowadays, which is why in needs to be linked. Can't have one without the other. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • London
      • London is within context, and thus linkable. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • References
    • Why give the location for The Times in brackets at each mention but not do the same for The Morning Chronicle, The Morning Post, etc?
    • Similarly, why give the day of the week – "Monday, 10 March" etc – for The Times but not for the others?
    • Ref 52: newspaper title should be italicised
    • Ref 55: hyphen should be en-dash
    • Ref 83: The Morning Chronicle has lost its definite article, which it had at the three earlier mentions
    • Ref 84: something awry with the capitalisation, I think
    • Ref 127: as for ref 52
  • Sources
    • ISBNs/OCLCs missing for Carr, Garrett, Kidner (1963), Neve, Nock (both), Rose.
      • Neve (1933), Nock (1961) and Kidner (1963) were published before the introduction of ISBNs. Catt (Carr?), Garrett and Rose do not have ISBNs. Mjroots (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Redrose64: can you help with OCLCs please? Mjroots (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Catt (1970) should have either an ISBN or a SBN, it's old enough (a SBN is merely an ISBN which lacks the initial 0); however, it's Oakwood Press, and they didn't start using visible ISBNs until quite late - about 1980 I think; so there might not be one for this book, unless it was reprinted later on. However, Oakwood Press didn't often do straight reprints - they usually had the book revised and enlarged at the same time, so searching for an ISBN online might well turn up that of a later edition - not a good idea. If there is a visible ISBN, it may be inside the book, at the top or bottom of the of the first page of text. For books in their "Locomotion Papers" series, there may be a number on the front cover, just below the photograph, at the left-hand side - and in extremely small type. All my examples have "ISSN: 0305-5493" in this position, but that's obviously not unique to the book.
    Garrett (1987) should have an ISBN somewhere. My copy is the 3rd edition (1999), ISBN 0-85361-516-0 but as I noted above, that should not be used as the ISBN for an earlier edition.
    Bit puzzled here. There is no Kidner (1963): there is Dendy Marshall & Kidner (1963); Kidner (1977) and Kidner (1985). Which of these is in error?
    My copy of Nock (1961) is the 1971 paperback edition, marked "SBN 7110-0268-1" which directly converts to ISBN 0-7110-0268-1. I don't know if it was revised or not, but it's not likely - Ian Allan tended to put out a book with part of the content unaltered from the original, but a different title to give the impression that it was new. I've been ripped off like that before.
    Nock (1987) is a book club edition. These almost never had an ISBN, but were identical in all important respects to the original editions, in this case one from Patrick Stephens Ltd. so its ISBN should begin 1-85260-
    ISBN 0-85059-735-8, OCLC 14128551 --Redrose64 (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Rose (1984) may be a private publication. If they were not sold through a commercial distributor, they probably didn't need an ISBN. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)he[reply]
    I am so sorry! I ought to have pointed you in the direction of WorldCat, from which the ref numbers are immediately available: e.g. Garrett is ISBN 0853611009 or 9780853611004 (the 13 digit version is preferred by the MoS, but what the hell). For older books the OCLC numbers are there for the copying. Tim riley talk 20:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If a book has no ISBN stated, it's because there isn't one printed in the book. All OCLC numbers that I could find have now been added. Mjroots (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to blather on about this, but where you cite ISBNs it is not customary to add OCLCs as well. One or the other, usually. Just mentioning it, as it will probably come up in the source review. Tim riley talk 15:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh well, now they're there they might as well stay. Gives people another search option if they are interested. Mjroots (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OPC usually gave their main titles in all-caps, both on the cover and title page. We normally reformat titles of books, articles etc. to Title Case - see MOS:ALLCAPS. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Authors' initials: need for consistency: Garret has no full stops; Bradley, Butt, Nock (once) et al have full stops but no space between the initials; Judge, Kidner, Nock (once) et al have full stops and a space between initials.
    • Hyphens should be en-dashes in the first two Yonge entries.

I hope these few comments are of help. I enjoyed this article, and I look forward to supporting it. – Tim riley talk 06:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I now do, with pleasure. Tim riley talk 15:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the Doctor edit

Will review this tomorrow morning first thing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • " Although primarily carrying passengers now, there is still freight from a gypsum mine served by the railway." -not too positive about the tense used here, I'd reword it as "Although it primarily carries passengers, it continues to transport freight from a gypsum mine" or something like that.
  • "Passenger trains on the line are operated by Southeastern." seems a bit out of place to add it at the end of the lede after what was said, perhaps move it up and merge into where you mention the railway carrying passengers?
Background
  • "A temporary station was built at Tunbridge Wells as the 823 yards (753 m) Wells Tunnel was still under construction. It was 4 miles 7 chains (6.58 km) from Tunbridge. This subsequently became a goods station." - some short sentences here could be rewritten and merged in part to improve flow.
    • I tweaked the wording a bit, but it's saying what I want it to say without getting out of chronological order. Mjroots (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delink £5,700 as it's misleading.
Construction
  • "t gradients of between 1 in 47[Note 2] and 1 in 300 to a summit south of Tunbridge Wells, the line undulated as far as Wadhurst at gradients between 1 in 80 and 1 in 155 before descending into the Rother Valley, which it follows as far as Robertsbridge at gradients between 1 in 48 and 1 in 485. The line then climbs at gradients between 1 in 86 and 1 in 170 before a dip where it crosses the River Brede. This is followed by a climb to Battle with gradients between 1 in 100 and 1 in 227 before the line falls to Hastings at gradients " -can you find a few to say "gradients" less often here, it's a tad repetitive.
    • I think it needs to stay as is, removing "gradients" means that the sentences don't look right, or read correctly. Further input from other editors on this issue is welcome, and suggestions will be considered. Mjroots (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Messrs. H -is the plain H intentional here?
    • Punctuation was missing, now added. Mjroots (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tunnels
  • Can you find a way to vary "is located"/ I'm not sure you even need to say it. I know Eric Corbett doesn't like saying "located" or "situated"!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed all occurrences of "located", also fixed a previously unnoticed typo. Mjroots (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Openings
  • Again, repetitive with "station opened on"
  • There's a lot of short sub sections here, I can't help but think it would read better in one and simply link the station instead of the "main article" repeating..
    • Do you mean the "Stations" section? Yes, it may be a tad repetitive but facts are facts. I've tried to keep to essential details only, which is why you won't find details of former freight facilities, closure of goods yards and signal boxes etc., which belong in the articles on the stations themslves. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you can avoid repetition with some partial rewording in places.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, as all station from Frant to Robertsbridge opened on the same dat, I've put that fact into a sentence in the introduction to that section. Other openings are mentioned under individual entries. Mjroots (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accidents and incidents

I always think it's best to avoid bullet points.

This is an accepted method for such sections. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does SandyGeorgia know what the MoS guidelines say on the matter? I can see in some cases it might be OK, but I always try to avoid bullet points as much as possible.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for SandyGeorgia, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#"Children" (i.e., Indentation) seems to indicated bulleted lists are accpetable as "children" of a preceding paragraph, so maybe some form of introduction to the section should be included.  — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 15:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an introductory sentence to that section. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2015 [9].

Gelou edit

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a legendary Vlach ruler of Transylvania whose existence is subject to scholarly debates. Gelou is often mentioned as one of the first Romanian rulers in Romanian historiography. Borsoka (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Since Romania does not have freedom of panorama, File:GilauCJ2013_(3).JPG needs to identify the copyright status of the original work as well as the photo
  • File:Gesta_hungarorum_map.jpg needs a US PD tag, as does File:Magyarok-Bejovetele-ChroniconPictum.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your remark. I noticed the creator of the first picture. Fakirbakir, could you help in connection with the two other pictures. I do not even understand the problem. Thank you in advance. Borsoka (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Problems fixed. The two pictures are obviously PD-Art,PD-100. Nikkimaria is right, the photo of Gelou's sculpture has to be removed.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fakirbakir, thank you for your assistance (again). Borsoka (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Nergaal, thank you for your suggestions. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Gesta describes" I think you need to add documents/chronicles after Gesta. Gesta itself is a title not a descriptor.
Sorry, I do not understand your remark. The Gesta itself is the chronicle which describes Gelou's Transylvania. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • not mentioned => that are not mentioned
I preferred "who are not mentioned". Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the difference between Gesta and Gesta Hungarorum? I am not sure if it is technically correct to strip the second word from the title
The Gesta is the abbreviated title of the Gesta Hungarorum as per WP:summary style. The article explicitly says that the only source of Gelou's life is the Gesta Hungarorum. Therefore, I think it is clear that the Gesta refers to that specific chronicle. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For example, if one would say "Harry Potter books describes x, y, z" you cannot replace that with "Hary describes x, y, z". Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intro doesn't really describe what territories did Gelou oversee (basically only says some lands in Transylvania)
Sorry, I do not understand your remark. Gelou was the ruler of Transylvania (not "some lands in Transylvania"), according to the Gesta Hungarorum and the intro says that he was "the Vlach ruler of Transylvania", according to that chronicle. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the problem is that very little is know about Gelou, therefore there isn't that much stuff to put about him in this article. Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunatelly, historians dedicated many pages to Gelou and we can use their books when writing the article. Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " refers to a dozen people" how many are there really? I wouldn't mind having a footnote listing them
I preferred to write "local rulers" (many of them are mentioned in the article). Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "imaginary figure" => fictional figure
I would prefer the present expression: it is in line with the cited sources (Engel, Macartney). The article was copy edited by native speakers of English who did not change it. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Harry Potter are not imaginary literature, but fictional literature. Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think we should not change an expression used by reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "What is known " => everything known
I would prefer the present expression: the article was copy edited by native speakers of English who did not change it. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, consider changing it. Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a native English speaker so I ask Dank to comment your proposal. Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to share my own preferences this time. For the future, if a writer is running up against pushback in the review processes, it's a good idea for them to enlist co-writers who have a good track record of not attracting pushback. On the current question: "What is known" seems fine. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "now known as Anonymus" => presently referred by historians as Anonymus
I would prefer the present expression as per above. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer you to reconsider. Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I ask Dank to comment your proposal, as per above. Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine the way it is; the unspoken "by historians" is common in history articles. "presently referred by historians" is ungrammatical (referred needs a to), and it's a good idea to avoid the word presently; see for instance AHD. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Carpathian Basin" add from around 900 to 1000
Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Add it after "It describes the Magyar conquest of the Carpathian Basin". Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, modified. Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the second image should mention that pink is Gelou's kingdom; I think this image can/should be moved in the intro
Thank you, modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a more relevant picture for intro that the first page of Gesta. Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Transylvania on the eve of the Hungarian conquest" => Transylvania before the Hungarian conquest
I would prefer the present expression: the article was copy edited by native speakers of English who did not change the title. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the eve is an unnecessary pompous way to say before. Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I ask Dank to comment your proposal, as per above. "Before" would not be a precise expression: it would also include Iron Age Transylvania and the Roman conquest of Dacia. Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Borsoka's point that "before" might be ambiguous. Agreed with Nergaal's point that it's difficult to get the register (tone) right in history articles. I don't think getting a perfectly consistent tone is a requirement at FAC, though it's nice when it happens. - Dank (push to talk)
  • " Avar Khaganate" add "in the Pannonian Basin"?
Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The Avar Khaganate disintegrated" add some for of descriptor for the Khaganate. While it is linked, most readers won't know what was is or where was it located. Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the section makes it clear that the Khaganate was not located in Central Asia or North America, but in the Carpathian Basin. :) Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ciumbrud group???
Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vlad Georgescu, Ioan-Aurel Pop and other historians" I think that it would be fair to say other Romanian historians. Also, you provide 3 sources for this; it this generally accepted? if not, perhaps say "Romanian historians x, y, and z" instead
Thank you. Modified (I think that the "Romanian" adjective is not important). Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but Bóna and Kristó " add Hungarian historians
I preferred not to change because the article mentiones them as historians at least twice. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point I am trying to make is that the current character is relevant to a Romanian-Hungarian dispute regarding history, therefore, for the save of CoI it would be appropriate to make more clear when either a Romanian or a Hungarian historian defends one side. Ideally a third party historian would be the ideal person to reference, but since that is not really available, try to make it more clear that this is still a dispute along partisan lines. Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And what about Carlile Aylmer Macartney and Dennis Deletant: they are not Hungarian (or Romanian) historians. Stating that there are a "Hungarian" POV and a contrasting "Romanian" theory would be misleading. Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would mention their nationalities to clarify that they are a third-party. Nergaal (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think that the reference to each historian's nationality would be boring, and I think it is not a relevant information. Borsoka (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "early-12th-century" at least the first dash is unnecessary
I preferred not to change because a copyeditor suggested this version. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A copyeditor does NOT catch all the errors. Check WP:DASH. Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I ask Dank to comment your proposal, as per above.
It's never going to happen that everyone hyphenates exactly the same way. I see "early 12th-century" more than "early-12th-century", but "early-12th-century" isn't wrong and many Wikipedian reviewers and copyeditors prefer to use a hyphen when there's any possibility of ambiguity. - Dank (push to talk) 10:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carpathians the Volokhs seized their territory." comma before the
Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transylvania => "is the beyond the woods" translation attributed because of the Hungarian arrival?
Sorry, I do not understand you above remark. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nvm, it was somethign beyond the scope of the article. Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However, in the source it is emphasized. Borsoka (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are a few instances where the text is not very clear that Gelu is used by one side (i.e. usually Romanian historians) to defend the Daco-Romanian continuity, while the other side (Hungarian historians) as a fictional work. I think at least the intro should make it a little more clear that Gelu is a character mostly relevant to the Origin of the Romanians.
The article makes it clear that Gelou is described as a Romanian ruler in Romanian historiography and an anchor is added. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't mind more images, but if none are really available perhaps have a map where the location of Gilau is shown
Thank you. I try to find more relevant pictures. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2015 [10].

Ontario Highway 404 edit

Nominator(s): Floydian τ ¢ 21:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the northern extension of the Don Valley Parkway, an existing Featured Article, above Highway 401, a second FA. After an extended break by myself, this article was just promoted to A-class by WP:HWY. I feel it is worthy of the star and figured you might agree! Floydian τ ¢ 21:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I reviewed this article at the ACR and believe it meets the criteria. I also did a source review at ACR (spotchecks not done). - Evad37 [talk] 23:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I also reviewed this article at the ACR and feel it meets the FA criteria. I also conducted an image review at the ACR. Dough4872 13:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  • "mostly of the Parclo A4 configuration"
Jargon is bad, especially jargon that requires one to click through to understand the meaning. There's no reason not to call this "partial cloverleaf" or, most accurately and easiest to understand in this example, "half cloverleaf".
Half cloverleaf would be an inaccurate term. I've switched it to partial cloverleaf, which is correct terminology and not jargon. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Exit numbers on the freeway " ... "there are no exit numbers posted on the parkway"
This needs fixing.
Parkway = Don Valley Parkway. Made this more apparent. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "form a separate carriageway with no access to Sheppard"
Worth mentioning that this is done with k-rails and the roadway is not separated.
Ontario Tall Walls nowadays, hasn't been a beam since the 90s. It is a single stretch of pavement, but I believe that detail is a little minute; the physical separation makes them, in all essence, separate carriageways. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To the west and north of Sheppard Avenue is Fairview Mall, which has its own connection with the southbound lanes"
No, the entrance is part of the southbound Sheppard cloverleaf.
It meant more that one doesn't have to get on to Sheppard to get on the 404, but I've mentioned this now. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The freeway passes west of Buttonville Airport and encounters an interchange with 16th Avenue"
Encounters? Perhaps just "and then..."?
But then it reads as if it passes by the interchange, rather than it being a connection. I just switched it to "and then interchanges with" - Floydian τ ¢ 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The third contract called for a four lane extension from Davis Drive to Green Lane and the reconstruction of Green Lane into a four-laned arterial road between Leslie Street and Woodbine Avenue"
OK, here's my real problem. This section basically fails to relate the long history that the arrival of the 404 at Davis had on the area. Davis became completely snarled with traffic, as did Leslie. Green Lane became a major route in spite of it being one lane (and initially gravel!) and ending at the "infinite light". The elimination of the Bogartown Curve didn't help matters. As someone that had to drive this every day for about a year, the disaster that was eastern Newmarket traffic from 1989 to 2002 simply not being mentioned seems like a serious oversight. Instead, the article implies the opposite...
I actually never came across this when I was researching. It certainly wasn't as big a press issue as snarls created by the 407 ending at McCowan/Markham Rds (and now at Harmony Rd) from what I found. This I will look into, but give me a couple of days to dig it up and write it in. If sources directly connect traffic issues to resident concerns and to the 404, it certainly merits inclusion here. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I call this "the internet black hole". Its a topic that's too old to be well covered on the internet, but too new to be "history" worth writing about.
I agree, but I also make use of my Toronto library card to access Toronto Star and Globe and Mail papers from those years. Highways in general don't get much reliable coverage, but I can generally see the patterns for controversies when they show up in newspapers. Thing is, there still isn't much on this issue. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"This was completed on October 24, 1989. Since then, the route has been expanded in width and extended"
Which to me implies this was a continuous process.
Without having specific dates, how would you word that so as not to imply a continual construction project? - Floydian τ ¢ 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"...has undergone a periodic series of smaller extensions and widening in the years since." Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And then we come to the issue of the Bradford Bypass. Unlike the Davis snarl, the Bradford Bypass is new enough to trivially find many articles on, and the aftermath of its cancellation. The extensions of Green to the west are also not mentioned. All of this is to get the traffic out of the Newmarket area.
I don't believe the history of the Bradford Bypass or Newmarket traffic in general relates to this article. A Transport in Newmarket, Ontario article would be the best place for this information. It's still not even officially cancelled, just postponed indefinitely at this time. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I can't consider this to be FA quality with these issues of major import missing from the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that I've tried to contact the nominator since I suspect they may not have seen the objections above. --Rschen7754 04:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Maury Markowitz: I've addressed everything and just finished adding a significant paragraph on the Newmarket issues, though nothing made mention of the Bogarttown Curve in relation to it. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Bradford Bypass was designed in 1979 specifically to relieve traffic caused by the arrival of the 404 in Newmarket. It was a common topic in my home, because the route passed through a family friend's back yard. It became "the" official solution to the expected problems caused by the 404 in 1984, only to be cancelled by Davis.
After its cancellation, the problem of traffic in Newmarket became a serious concern - previously it was expected this would be a short term issue until the bypass opened. But then the 404 arrived with no Bypass. I recall trips across Davis from the 404 to Young that took 25 to 35 minutes, a trip that now takes maybe 10 minutes. Drivers began using Green Lane in spite of it being a gravel road with a single-lane bridge that ended short of the highway. It was at that point that the town first really started pushing for Green Lane as a solution. The rest is covered.
Moving on, the article now fails to mention the the Newmarket Bypass. There are mentions of the Green Lane extension and widening, but not the more recent connection west of Davis from Green Lane to Highway 9, or that it now forms a continuous route with its own name. I also added text that describes what Highway 9 "is", which was lacking. I also suggest sub-sectionizing more recent expansions out, as they were carried out separately. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Floydian and Maury Markowitz: there is now a broken reference in the article. But reading the dialogue above, I'm concerned that the disagreement based on personal opinion on what should be in the article rather than anything objective; Floydian, I assume that newspaper databases were consulted as part of research? --Rschen7754 13:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ref fixed. I did consult my historical newspaper database for the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail. While there are a few articles discussing the traffic issues, none of them go beyond saying there's a lot of traffic, and the Green Lane bypass is needed to relieve it. While the upgrades to Green Lane, from gravel road to 4 lane bypass, near the 404 warrant mention (as I have), and perhaps the upgrade to Highway 9 "from Highway 400 to Bathurst Street" (as I have), I have not found sources that document the anecdotal experience of Maury Markowitz, nor do I feel so much of it pertains to the 404 itself. Perhaps in the Bradford Bypass article, or the Highway 9 article, or as I mentioned, a transportation in Newmarket, Ontario article... maybe even a Newmarket Bypass article. After all, the greater issue of traffic in Newmarket goes back to its existence as a bedroom community, Yonge Street, Highway 400, etc. The 404 plays a part in this, but only one part of a bigger picture. Heck, the blame could go back as far as Augustus Jones and the roman grid of roads laid out in 1794! - Floydian τ ¢ 19:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was my gut feeling as well, though I wanted to give Floydian a chance to respond; it seems like false correlation, and borderline original research. --Rschen7754 01:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: sorry to keep pinging you, but I wanted to see what your thoughts are since you're only on for a few minutes most days. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The link above clearly mentions that the Bradford Bypass was always intended to link the 404 to the 401, and that it was designed to do so long before the 404 arrived in Newmarket. The second link, well what exactly more do we need here? That it is now referred to as the Newmarket Bypass is established, and that it extends beyond Yonge is trivially demonstrable, no? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is certainly a noteworthy topic... so much so that I can use the sources I have to make Bradford Bypass a good article now with some work. However, I simply disagree as to the importance towards the 404 article... Bigger picture if ya know what I mean? It's an important topic, but I think the picture is bigger beyond the 404. I've mentioned what needs to be mentioned, in absence of that other completed article. However, I feel I've covered what is required for the 404 itself, with consideration to the fact that other articles are needed to fill the gap. - Floydian τ ¢ 23:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The link above clearly mentions that the Bradford Bypass was always intended to link the 404 to the 401, and that it was designed to do so long before the 404 arrived in Newmarket" - yes, but why does that need to be mentioned in the 404 article? Plenty of other roads connect the 404 to various other roads, should they each have a paragraph explaining their purpose in the article?
"That it is now referred to as the Newmarket Bypass is established, and that it extends beyond Yonge is trivially demonstrable, no?" - ditto. If I was writing this article and I came across that source, I would not even mention it in this article, and move it to the appropriate folder on my hard drive. --Rschen7754 04:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Bradford Bypass was designed specifically to address the traffic problems caused by 404 travellers who's ultimate destination was not Newmarket. It wasn't built, and that traffic was dumped into the town. How could you possibly suggest this isn't germane to this article? And that the Newmarket Bypass is being continually extended towards the 400 to provide this missing link between the 404 and 400 is not germane either? I'm sorry, but I disagree, and frankly I'm a bit baffled that you'd even suggest that. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The Bradford Bypass was designed specifically..." - where's your source?
"And that the Newmarket Bypass..." So you expect the history of every route that was ever extended to meet the 404 to be included too? Also, you haven't answered my points above. --Rschen7754 13:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Plus the Bradford Bypass has an article to discuss this. The 404 article shouldn't cover a bunch of information about traffic in Newmarket or another freeway that is proposed. At this point I'm going to ask the coordinators to consider this oppose carefully, as there is a disagreement as to what the scope of this article should be. And, now that I double check, the link you provided does not say any of that. It merely states that the idea of a highway connecting the 400 and 404 first popped up in 1979 (actually earlier with the one time Highway 89 extension over the Holland Marsh). - Floydian τ ¢ 16:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you really believe this is out of the scope of this article Floydian, you'll have to explain why you made exactly such an edit to the 407 article, in the lede no less. I really don't understand your hesitancy to expand this section, because if you don't, I will. I just got off the phone with an extremely helpful person at the Newmarket Library and she's sending me a list of materials from the 70s and 80s covering this topic, mostly from The Era. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 407 article covers the extension, which the north-south links are part of. It wasn't until a few months ago that those links became Highway 412 and 418. If you can find relevant info, go for it (though like I said, it seems more in place in a transportation in Newmarket article or the Bradford Bypass article). I've made mention of the Newmarket bypass in this article, including covering its history lightly, I'm not sure how much coverage of other roads you feel belongs in the article on this road. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well here are some of the fruits of that labor... the article currently starts mentioning some initial planning in 1959, and then basically jumps forward to design work in 1973. The plan was contentious through this period. The alignment was in what was then the wilderness of gravel roads far from the small strip of towns along Highway 11. Aurora was worried that the 404 would lead industry to ignore their town, and when the plans began to solidify in the late 1960s, it was suggested that a second alignment be built to the west, closer to town. This led to serious consideration of a major expansion of Bathurst because they felt any further west would cause drivers to skip it and use 11. This quickly led to nimby issues, with some ridculing it as duplicating the purpose of the 404, and became an election issue in 1971. The issue came up again in 1973, and continues to appear in the paper over the next decade. This alignment, by the way, is the current Newmarket Bypass. The Bypass comes up, not under that name, in 1977. At that time it was part of a proposed Highway 89 extension that would cross Cook's Bay and connect to the 404 where it turned eastward - right where it ends today. 89 runs by my parent's house, it was the topic of much discussion as it would make our commutes to Toronto much easier. Unfortunately that's as much as I can get online from The Era, which doesn't have the 1980s online, the rest will require me to go to Newmarket and copy out the microfiche. The Toronto Star also turned up a few useful hits. The earliest I can find is this plan which basically suggests the Bypass was the first planned extension (after Green lane), that is, that the Bypass was considered part of the 404. This refers to the new routing further south at Queensville, specifically as a link from the 404 to the 400. And why did they do this? Because they were afraid that Davis would suffer major traffic delays as a result of the 404's arrival and it was only a year later that they suggested extending to Green Lane as a fix to that problem, while going further north to the east would mean that drivers going further north would no longer go through Newmarket to get to the 400. Sadly, it took years and years before it finally opened all the way, removing 20,000 cars off Davis. Ahh, and the librarian just got back to me with a list from the print index with lots of articles on the argument over the 404's arrival in Newmarket. The articles are on the "traffic mayhem" in Feb 1992, and "traffic snarls" the next month. The articles call on the government to fulfill their promise to build the 400/404 link to fix the problems caused by the 404 in Newmarket. I'll see if I can order reprints. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, much of that is fairly typical of any freeway project. Some towns want it here, other there. Some fear it'll take business away (see 400 @ Nobel), other fear it'll dump too much traffic in. Some question safety, others question the need. Invariably, the government takes longer than promised (often making an election issue out of it) to complete the route, and people along the route complain that it should have been done already.
Much of the rest is still mostly applicable to the Bradford Bypass, which was never the planned northern end of the 404 (back in the late 50s the 404 was originally planned to go around Lake Simcoe via Beaverton and end at 11 near Severn). I think you're making an issue that has personal connections to you appear much larger than it is. You should make a Newmarket Bypass article with all these sources really, and then I can summary style that information in the 404 article and link to it. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we can short circuit this by considering this. The changes are: added para in lede about all expansions, collected all the stuff about Newmarket from the three sections into one. Added single para about Bathurst Route. Added a single statement about why Newmarket is a bottleneck while other offramps weren't. Adding single para describing the Bypass. Added new ref on completion date of Newmarket Bypass. Added information and ref on the northern extension. Still need to re-find the ref that states the current end is likely to be the end for all time (saw it in several places, can no longer find it). Need a ref on "The MTO proposed". Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. COpy it over and I'll make adjustments as necessary. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think a compromise solution may be the right way to go to resolve the dispute (and I hope the delegates can leave this open so this can be resolved). I was hoping to take a more thorough look at what has been proposed, or actually review the article in its entirety myself, but unfortunately that time has not materialized and will not for a while. --Rschen7754 17:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: --Rschen7754 17:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2015 [11].

61 Cygni edit

Nominator(s): -The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a visual binary system in the constellation Cygnus. The last nomination failed die to lack of any attention from commentators and this try should make it go. Thanks..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This one is right up my alley, so here goes...

  • all the images check out.
Done..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are a number of duplicate links that should be unlnked. There's a great tool for finding these, here.
Done..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the lead has lots of cites. Generally I would suggest moving these out of the lead where possible, and placing them on the first mention in the body. I find that makes the lead easier to read and less distracting.
Done..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure of the correctness of the statement, but "till date" made my head swim. Is this a wrong-side-of-the-pond issue?
Rewrote..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thus it not only has no proper name, it has no Greek letter name either." This statement is doubly confusing. The first part of the statement suggests that it has no proper name because it has a flamsreed designation, which I don't think is correct? Moreover, the lead suggests it does have a proper name (assuming "proper" means what I think it does in this context). The second part definitely needs some explanation, as I don't think most readers will be familiar with the constellation naming conventions. And if the names in the lead are common, it would seem they should be discussed here - how did it get these names, and why aren't they proper?
Done..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Observation history" starts in 1804, which seems unlikely as it is naked eye visible. Is there really no record of it on any charts or maps prior to this time?
None could be found..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "313.6 mas" is not converted.
Converted to light years..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Groombridge 1830" this whole section is oddly worded, IMHO, perhaps "Only a few years after Bessel's measurement, Groombridge 1830 was discovered to have a larger proper motion and became the second highest known. It was later moved further down the list by Kapteyn's Star and Barnard's Star. 61 Cygni currently has the seventh highest proper motion of all stellar systems listed in the modern Hipparcos Catalogue, but retains the title of highest proper motion among visible stars."
Rewrote..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest "By 1911, further observations had improved on Bessel's parallax measurement of 313.6 mas to 310.0 mas. This corresponds to a motion transverse to our line of sight of 79 km/s. Observations at Yerkes Observatory measured its radial velocity as 62 km/s[29]. Using the two measurements together yielded a space velocity of about 100 km/s, moving towards a point about 12 degrees west of Orion's belt."
Done..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "member of a comoving group of stars" what is the difference between "comoving group of stars" and a binary? Is this referring to a much larger group of stars with 26 members, or 26 other examples of the same type of group? In their case it would seem that some explanation here would be helpful.
Piped..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An observer using"... shouldn't this be in the next section where it talks about "although it appears to be a single star"?
Properties exclusively deal with the physical properties and IMO, have nothing to do with a guideline for an observer. Please correct me of I am wrong...-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cygni A has served as a stable K5 V "anchor point" of the MK classification system" I think this needs some expansion. There's a lot of unexplained jargon there - what is MK, and why is 61 the anchor? And what does "stable" mean in the context of it being a variable?
Its linked to their own respective articles and a further explanation will do no good (IMO)..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Component A has about 11% more mass than component B" If we're talking about 61 Cygni A and B, why the sudden change to use the term "Component"? It seems some of this para should be part of the previous and vice versa?
Done..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that a third body must"... definitely mention that this first estimate was 16 jupiter masses. That explains the next statement, which is...
Done..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reports of this third body served as inspiration for Hal Clement's 1953 science fiction novel Mission of Gravity." On of sci fi's great novels, but I think we need a cite on that.
Done..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest a para break at "in 1977" or alternately "in 1978"
Done..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the mention of the habitable zone be here, or in the Properties?
Properties throw a light on that but this section can better explain it...-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Measurements of this system"... this comes immediately after talking about the SIM, but appears to be unrelated? If so, a para break would be useful.
Done..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not to be confused with 16 Cygni" - really don't need this. if anyone is confused about transposing digits, this note isn't going to help them!
Done..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some additional minor GR edits and one re-arrangement. But as I somewhat suspected, it was not difficult to find documentation on earlier observational history. I'm back to Bradly in 1753 so far, which suggests that they were aware it was a binary and had high proper motion well into the 16th century. Given the use of Flamsteed, I suspect that the history doesn't go back more than another 40 years, but it's a start. Here is a good article with some of the history. I'm willing to take a stab at this myself if you'd like, but I leave it to your decision. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please....-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 11:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have made some pretty significant edits to the article. I have attempted to address the issue of the naming, but it remains unclear because I cannot find a suitable online reference, only the mention of a mention. I would also like to clarify exactly what von Struve was saying, because it is clear other observers knew it was a binary decades earlier and the various references stating he was the first to suggest it are obviously wrong. Others phrase it to be that he was the first to strongly argue for it, but laking any original sources I can't really say what it's about. I think both of these issues deserve more work before continuing. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When its almost improbable that you will get a source, can you suggest some way to get it out..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I'm really uncomfortable with is the von Struve issue about the binary. I suspect this is simply a confusion of words - it appears he was making the argument that it really was a gravitational binary, as opposed to an optical one, but no one really says that. Removing that would have no effect on quality, IMHO, while removing the mention of Flamsteed's naming would. So let me work on Flamsteed for a day or two? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:::Please, if you could..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Looks like its a trifle and if superfluous, I shall remove it. -The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 08:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comment I've gone though part of it. There are a number of usage errors that concern me. None of us are perfect, but the frequency of odd or incorrect usages is concerning.
Lede
  • "Bessel's Star or Piazzi's Flying Star" do these names have any currency? Ghits for Piazzi are just over 3,000 (for 61 Cygni it's over 120,000).
  • " reported detections of a massive planet " possibly "evidence" for "detections"
  • "Despite of many such claims". I wouldn't bother correcting the error, I'd just delete the whole phrase. The rest of the sentence stands fine on its own and concludes the lede well.
  • "till date" to date
Name
  • "61 Cygni is relatively dim and does not appear on ancient star maps and has not been associated with a traditional name in western[16] or Chinese systems,[17] although a full accounting of the over 3000 stars in the later system has not yet been completed." Several issues. The multiple and, the lenghty part of the sentence that follows the second and. "full accounting" is not a phrase I necessarily associate with astronomy. "later system" should be "latter system". If you mean not all of the stars mapped by Chinese astronomers have been identified, but there's work to be done, come out and say it.
  • "assigned for stars." Maybe "assigned to stars"
  • "Right Ascension" why the caps?
  • "not using Greek letters" this feels too abrupt to me.
  • The final sentence of this is trying to do way too much.
Observational history
  • "when he noticed it being a double." Huh?
I'll come back to this as time permits.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done but all..-Thè Heralð • the joy of the LORDmy strength 16:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I have a PR promised but I'll come back when that's done. It should be by the weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Observational history
  • "The first well recorded observation of the star " The star? Not the system?>
  • "when he noticed it as a double star" should "as" be "was"?
  • After the build up, what were the results of Herschel's observations?
  • "this date". More likely "that date"
  • "Piazzi's repeated measurements led to a definitive value of its motion which he published in 1804.[23][24] who christened it the "Flying Star" There is a significant grammar problem in this sentence.
  • "primary target " perhaps "prime candidate", then later on, when you speak of the other two stars, change "likely candidates" to "possiblitities"
  • "Attempts include François Arago and Claude-Louis Mathieu in 1812 at 500 mas" this is likely to puzzle the reader.
  • It's a bit obscure why Peters felt the need for another value. That's all a bit muddled there.
  • I think "von", beginning a sentence, should probably be capitalised
  • "all of these numbers are more accurate than the equipment being used could possibly measure" This seems a bit difficult as well. What you are basically saying is that they took the value to more significant digits than the data would justify. I'm not sure how you phrase that scientifically but I'm sure you can work something up.
Amateur observation
  • "61 Cyg's" Is this perhaps a nickname?
Properties
  • Why is binary system linked, in particular, here? You've been using the term, on and off, thoughout the article. I'm not saying it's a bad place to have a link, I'm just trying to figure out the rationale. This section seems so introductory it is a surprise to find it so late in the article.
  • Gyr should probably be linked inline, it may be well to just explain it in a parens.
That's really all I have. I'll make another run through the prose once you've one these. Not ready to take a position on support or opposing, I want someone with more knowledge in the field than I. Once you get into specialized science, all I can really do is look at prose and MOS.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Done all and rewrote. -The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 07:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm watching the review, in general I look favorably on it. I'd like to see it looked at by someone more knowledgeable than me on astronomy. Once it has, I'll give it another read-through.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Simon Burchell

  • In the lead However, no habitable planets... - the "however" is redundant, since the two statements in the para do not directly relate to each other. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Name - has not been associated with a traditional name in western or Chinese systems - do the western and Chinese systems have articles that could be linked? Simon Burchell (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still under Name, I don't believe that Right ascension should be capitalised. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Name - which was published against his wishes due to some known errors, this needs to be rephrased, at the moment it reads like it was published because of the known errors. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parallax measurement

  • all of these numbers are more accurate than the range of the instrument used - this needs clarification. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Binary observations

  • I know that in surnames "von" isn't usually capitalised, but here it is at the beginning of a sentence, and I think it should be a capital in this case. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • by 1917 refined measured parallax differences demonstrated that - this phrase is clumsy, and could do with rewording, perhaps as "refined measurements of parallax differences". Simon Burchell (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General

  • When referring to our sun, you have both capitalised "Sun" (for example, in the Binary observations section), and uncapitalised "sun" (for example, in the Parallax measurement section). Choose one and stick with it; I believe that the astronomy MOS prefers capitalised when referring to our sun. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- This nom is kind of living on borrowed time without any declarations of support after a month, but I'm loathe to archive it when the commentary is continuing. I note Wehwalt's last comment, and wonder if Cas would mind lending a hand here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason no-one has supported is that there is a pervasive clunkiness about the prose that is going to require extensive massaging. I really am happy there are keen editors like The Herald (talk · contribs), but astronomy articles can be tricky with the balance between jargon/exactness and accessibility quite a challenge to achieve at times. I have been intermittently busy and was (sort of) waiting till the dust had settled with previous reviewers. Part of me wants to copyedit but part of me in inwardly groaning that the amount I'd have to do would mean double-checking the sources etc. Just a question of whether we close this or I try to copyedit and everyone take another look afterwards. TIme is a bit patchy and I might have to drop things suddenly, but I will see what I can do in the next 36 hours. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 61 Cygni is relatively dim and does not appear on ancient star maps and hence has not been associated with a traditional name in western[16] or Chinese systems.[17] Nonetheless, a full accounting of the over 3000 stars in the Chinese system has not yet been completed. - this para can be deleted. It'd be unusual if 61 Cyg had a proper name in either chinese or western systems.
  • It has also been called "Bessel's Star" or "Piazzi's Flying Star". - needs a citation. Also, there should be a source that states these are old names and when they were used.
I'm not talking about deleting the second para, that is ok. I think adding the ages of the alternate star names would be good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 61 Cygni A is a typical BY Draconis variable star designated as V1803 Cyg while 61 Cygni B is a flare type variable star named HD 201092 with their magnitudes varying 5.21 V and 6.03 respectively - badly written - no need to abbreviate V1803 Cyg if other "Cygni"s are unabbreviated. The catalogue number HD 201092 has nothing whatsoever to do with whther a star is variable or not and should be placed in the names section. Finally, find refs and put magnitude ranges in. The 'V' there is an annotation for a catalogue and has no place in prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attempts include François Arago and Claude-Louis Mathieu.... - the people aren't the attempts here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • While we're here, who attempted this in 1812: Arago or Mathieu, or both, jointly or separately? • Arch♦Reader 01:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm clueless, mind you, but I found this: "Thus, parallaxes are hard to measure (not seen until 1838 by F.W. Bessel, who determined the parallax of 61 Cygni at 0.29 arcsec -- final proof of heliocentric solar system)" on this page. I did CTRL-F for "heliocentric" on this Wikipedia article and found nothing, so 1) is this fact significant, and 2) is it mentioned? • Arch♦Reader 01:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is (1) yes, and (2) no. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • D Eridani is mentioned but with no link. I cannot find any evidence of "D Eridani" but there seems to be a "d Eridani". This should be linked anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • There seems to be almost nothing mentioned on the spectrum, or mentions in culture (books, games, films). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, back: Support: Sorry for my disappearing act, busy elsewhere. I think we've addressed all the concerns I saw. However, I am a bit worried that I was able to find them so easily. I don't really know much about astronomy, but I was able to see big holes in the text. That said, they have been addressed, and there's no reason additional information can't be added in the future. As it stands now, it appears to cover everything I can find - with the exception of the 81 Cygni naming issue which I'd prefer a better cite for - so I'm good to go on this. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reference improvements

  • The statement "No habitable planets have been confirmed in this stellar system to date" appears to be contradicted by it reference, which looks very unreliable to me, so a new reference will be needed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have simply removed this reference. The issue is well covered in the body and doesn't need a ref here, especially this one.
  • The reference "Stars-astro-illinois" is missing some info such as date and author ( Jim Kaler 8/07/09), the work is Stars and the page is called "61 Cygni" so the name which seems derived from the website needs changing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • The reference "news.sky.org" is actually internally titled 61 Cyg (Piazzi's Flying Star), so title needs updating, and also the publisher. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, but what do you think about simply removing this cite?
  • Reference Michael A. Covington. Celestial Objects for Modern Telescopes: Practical Amateur Astronomy is missing info such as ISBN, publisher and date. (Cambridge University Press, 26 Sep 2002) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Didn't bother with the ISBN.
  • Reference Hopkins, Mary Murray (November 1916). "The Parallax of 61 Cygni" is missing bibcode=1916JRASC..10..498H Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not adding.
Url added, how to translate inline?
  • Also an authorlink is good for the famous authors. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference Staff (May 4, 2007). date "High Proper Motion Stars: Interesting Areas to View" is a deadlink and looks like it has a mangled title. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed this, it was trivial. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference Espenak, Fred (July 25, 1996). "Twelve Year Planetary Ephemeris: 1995–2006" is a deadlink. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • Reference "SAT.com" is missing info and has a wrong title, should be title=More Pretty Double Stars author=-Alan Adler date=July 26, 2006 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • Reference 48 "Simbad" is not up to the standard of the earlier Simbad references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • Who wrote "SIM Planet Search Tier 1 Target Stars" is it Chris McCarthy? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting on this, I contacted Chris.
  • External link for Kaler, James B. "61 Cygni" is now dead. It is probably the same as reference "Stars-astro-illinois", and thus could be merged (archive link works) but archive version is not identical. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This works fine for me. Temporary?
  • Reference page numbering styles should be consistent, we have "359–375" which I prefer, but there is also "313–39" with abbreviated last page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there more than one instance of this? I found/fixed that one.
  • inconsistent ISBN-13's 978-1-62050-961-6 or 9789004107373. which format should we use? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I changed them all to the later, which searches better. Not that anyone uses these, but...

other issues

  • ± This character seems to be used in many different styles: X±Y X ±Y X ± Y, we should use one style, but which one is desirable in the MOS? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I used the format I used in uni.
  • ″ - in the same paragraph "″" is used as well as arc-seconds spelled out—should we stick to one form? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I only saw this in the note area, so I expanded the mention. Is there another one swhere I;m missing?

Coordinator note - Unfortunately, it looks like The Herald has gone on an extended wikibreak. I will have to archive this nomination unless anyone is willing to step up and take it over. Maury Markowitz, you said this was within your area, but do you have enough knowledge/access to sources that you could adopt the article and address feedback given here? --Laser brain (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think I can nurse this one along, Graeme's list looks fairly tame so let me try to get some time on this this week? Can you give me until Saturday to at least take a serious stab at it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, we'll leave it open. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just in time the author of the SIM page got back to me and confirmed he wrote it in 2005. He also noted, sadly, that the SIM project was killed. In any event, I think that covers everything in the list above. But I should point out that when I first came here I noticed some obvious problems with the article. These have been addressed, but its unclear to me, as a non-astronomer, whether there are others that are simply not so obvious. I'd like to hear your opinions on how to proceed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed two more page ranges, and tried to add translated titles. But I am not confident to translate the Latin title about positions of fixed stars.
  • There is still one deadlink titled "High Proper Motion Stars: Interesting Areas to View" where the URL appears to be mangled. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it, see if it works for you now. It seems there are multiple paths to the same page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That works fine. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley Miles

  • "No habitable planets have been confirmed in this stellar system to date." Why habitable? According to text below no planets have been observed. Also "to date" is recentism. Maybe "Up to June 2015, no planets had been confirmed in this stellar system."
  • "The star does not appear under that name in Flamsteed's Historia Coelestis Britannica,[20] although it has been stated by him that 61 Cygni actually corresponds to what he referred to as 85 Cygni in the 1712 edition." This is clumsy and unclear. Did Flamsteed actually use the term 61 Cygni as well as 85 Cygni? If not I suggest something like "The star is shown as 85 Cygni in the 1712 edition of Flamsteed's Historia Coelestis Britannica."
  • "he calculated it to be 470 ±510 mas" I would take this to mean between -40 and 980 mas!
  • Peters calculated a figure for distance based on Von Lindenau's measurement but Von Lindenau had seen no parallax?
  • " all of these numbers are more accurate than the accuracy of the instrument used." Perhaps "all these numbers are within the margin of error of the instruments used."
  • "a member of a comoving group of stars" What does this mean? The link suggests that comoving is something to do with the expansion of the universe.
  • "It has an activity cycle that is much more pronounced than the solar sunspot cycle." Does this refer to Cygnus A or B?
  • "There is some disagreement over the evolutionary age of this system." I do not understand this paragraph. It appears to say that the age of the system is between 10 and 0.44 billion years. Is that correct?
  • An interesting article but still needs copy editing. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry editors, but I think we have to close this now unless someone else is willing to pick up the baton. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2015 [12].

Emily Ratajkowski edit

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about,Emily Ratajkowski who is an elite bikini model (has appeared in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue for the last two years) and who is best known as the model from the video for "Blurred Lines", which was the number one song of the year 2013 in several countries. The page was viewed 3.2 million times in 2013 and 1.5 million times in 2014. Ratajkowski has parlayed her model buzz into sex symbol status and some movie roles, including a role in Gone Girl. I am hoping for a WP:TFA for her 25th birthday in about 13 months from now. After making progress on this article in 2014 (An October WP:GAN, a November WP:PR and a December WP:GOCE), I think this article is moving in the proper direction for a WP:FAC nomination. During and since the first FAC, I feel progress was made toward various concerns.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bollyjeff edit

I don't know if I will have time for a full review, but here are some things that I noticed immediately:

I wasn't asking if they are reliable, although since they have been questioned multiple times it would be wise to find an additional/alternate source. I did not see those reviewers saying it was okay after your replies. What I was really talking about though was similar to my comment above. Changing unlinked Stylecaster.com to linked SheKnows Media can help those that question the reliability of those sources. BollyJeff | talk 21:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the support for some of the sources is lacking from the reviewers, but no one is pointing to any specifically as not being WP:RS. I would swap out any if I could.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please try harder on this. Here is another one: www.fashionmodeldirectory.com -> Fashion Model Directory BollyJeff | talk 02:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you suggest I do with Styleite?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That link is okay. Its better than nothing. BollyJeff | talk 23:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., I have double checked all of them now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No sources for Andrew's Alteration and A Year and a Day other than IMDB?? Not reliable enough.
    • Is there another industry source for a filmography. I believe that even the most notable actors have filmographies with questionable sourcing like this. I believe that in the case of a filmography this is almost considered a reliable source for this purpose.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any sources to prove that the website and Twitter accounts cited are indeed her official accounts?
Seems like she is known more for instagram than twitter. I would still look for a reliable source that makes a direct reference to her social media account(s) if I were you. BollyJeff | talk 02:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you base this IG notoriety on? Have there been problems with Twitter verified accounts in the past?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. this seems to verify the @emrata twitter handle.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It says Instagram though doesn't it? Must be the same handle for both. But that is the kind of source I was talking about, yes. BTW, how does the "Twitter verified account" thing work? BollyJeff | talk 23:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a bunch of even better sources that are also all really referring to her IG account: Allure, MTV and USA Today. What do you want me to do with this sourcing?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A verified account is something that a notable person can attain by following a process that I am unfamiliar with. I have never heard of any issues with a verified account.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems like if she is so big on Twitter and Instagram, then there should be some mention of both of them in the article. I see the verified check mark on both now, thanks. BollyJeff | talk 03:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too much info on "Blurred Lines" in the lead, including three mentions by name. This article is about Emily, not a song.
  • 'Rise to fame' section: Begins with "The video". What video? Previous section was titled 'Music video performances', plural. You should add at least one source that actually calls her a sex symbol after the first sentence.
I googled "Emily Ratajkowski sex symbol" and the very first response was this from 2013. Wont this work? BollyJeff | talk 02:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for digging this one up.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this would be a better source for the Hot 100 list than the two you current have, no?
    • I have swapped the one you suggested for the second one. However, since these were from primary sources, I have retained the secondary source to confirm that the list has notability beyond the primary source.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

. BollyJeff | talk 15:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Rise to fame' section looks like a bullet list: On x date she did y, on z date she did q, over and over. Then there is "The newly single model", with no prior reference to her not being single. Every time I read a little more, I find more issues. It just doesn't strike me as one of the highest quality articles on Wikipedia, which is needs to be to pass FAC, so for now I have to oppose. BollyJeff | talk 18:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images edit

Could Nikkimaria or Elcobbola please look at the Fair Use rationale at this image? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the stated purpose, combined with the text given in the article, is sufficient to overcome the tag's proviso not to use such images in the articles of the people they picture. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, The intent of the text is to explain that this is the image that made her a star, essentially. Is there something about the FUR that is wrong or is it the text of the article?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that it's wrong, just that it's insufficient - it's not clear why we need to see the cover to understand the text. Do any of the sources expand on what it was about the cover that was important, or was it just the fact of being on the cover and getting exposure through that? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I look at the image, it is apparent to me why this particular image could propel a woman to some form of notoriety, which makes it obvious to me why just talking about such an image is not sufficient. If you told me of an image that was the reason for her success, I would want to understand in words or by presentation why such an image could propel a person to stardom. The picture is stunning in the revelation of brooding eyes, lean physique (visible rib cage), yet bodacious physical presence. In addition the placement of the hands, heel and toes add class. The use of shadow in key places are all things that can be observed. I am unable to find a critique of the picture. But the article includes multiple anecdotal summary statements about the memorable overall experience of viewing the image by some of the leading men of the entertainment world. Beyond the summary statements by these people and the picture itself there is not much else to go on. However, I don't think it is truly necessary to have a critical review of the image. You say "it's insufficient". Then you talk about needing more of something. Would you like a more developed FUR or more developed text?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both - you give a great explanation here but it does not come through in what is currently present. However, you might not be able to source it. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Until Elcobbola shows up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nikkimaria. Certain of the explanation above reads to me like the conflation of significance to the subject with significance to the reader's understanding (see “Relationships” in the “8. Significance” section of the non-free dispatch). That Ratajkowski’s appearance on a magazine was the catalyst for her discovery by Thicke is readily understood through prose. Now, if it was indeed the unique visual characteristics mentioned (“stunning in the revelation [...] the placement [...] (t)he use of shadow in key places”) that inspired and persuaded Thicke, there might very well be a case. However, as Nikkimaria noted, that is currently merely OR. Without a sourced discussion, we cannot presume to know the mind of Thicke. Alternatively stated, there's a distinction to be made between the artistry of the cover image and the mere woman on the cover. Was the cover actually necessary, or would he have chosen her even if he'd happened by her on the street? Right now, the only evidence is that the cover was a means of acquaintance; that its unique visual style had a meaningful role is unsupported supposition. Эlcobbola talk 15:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that we have had two WP:RFCs involving this image at Talk:Treats! where I have previously presented my arguments regarding use of this image. The second one put more attention on this image. Note that in that RFC, Masem, who I believe continues to review here said "on Emily's page, if this shot was critically discussed (as it seems to be) and noted as the career-launching photo for the model, it clearly is fine on the model's page."--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Masem's comment reminds me to consider what constitutes critical review. Photographic techniques need not be discussed. Comments like those I made above about use of shadow and body positioning need not be discussed either. I think two statements that this image stood out from the pantheon of model imagery availed to the leading male sex symbols of our day is a significant critical commentary. Do they need to say why it stood out to make it critical commentary. We all know how many models are trying to get into videos of artists who produce #1 songs. Isn't the fact that this picture stood out to two such individuals significant critical commentary. Saying it stood out to both is encylopedic. Once we have two such encyclopedic thoughts, then we need to summarize that and present it to the reader in a way that helps them understand. I have spent enough time with WP:WPVA subjects here (dozens of FAs and GAs in that project, including many sculpture and painting FAs and a few individual photo GAs as well as some artist GAs) to take a look at a photo and conceive the reasons for its significance. My photo GAs for More Demi Moore and Demi's Birthday Suit mostly say stuff about a bunch of people thinking an image was significant and not stuff about photographic techniques and such. I think what we need to see is clearly shown. People think this image stands out. The reader can not see why without seeing the image in truth and if we had prose explaining why then maybe we might not need to see the images. Without prose explaining in a detailed manner why the image stands out we should let the image speak for itself. The image is a very strong artistic presentation. Despite my own feelings about the subject of the photo, I think the artistic merits of the image are apparent. This is not just a "gorgeous girl who was featured naked on covers" as Sandy discussed below.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image doesn't need discussion of the photographic nature, etc. but it does need more than what amounts to a single comment that "this image launched her career". Your other examples provide the type of commentary that doesn't necessary need to be critically about the image but show why the image is important (and in these cases, important enough for their own articles). In this case, we're still at the idea this launched her career, and that's just not enough alone. You don't have many sources to say why this image stands out to any great degree, particularly in comparison to those other images were are much more iconic in nature. I'm not saying these sources might not exist but the article's current content lacks them to readily include the image yet. There's a possibility you can get it there, but it does need much more commentary whether critically about the image, or more about the legacy/iconic nature of the image. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, Elcobbola and SandyGeorgia, Does this suffice for NFCC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's fair enough, discussion specifically on the photo. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Not great, but fair. Эlcobbola talk 22:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikki and EC; the prose here is plodding throughout, quite deficient, and so far off the 1a mark, that I don't see any utility in entering an oppose and then having to follow up on it, but I hope the use of that image in two articles can be dealt with while we're here. (As a prose example, without even going beyond the lead, one finds: "Her acting career began with youth acting roles in the San Diego area before gaining a recurring role on iCarly and later roles in major films." Her acting career got a role in a film, cool. As another example of the trivia-laden prose, "She also was invited to the 18th annual May 15, 2014 Condé Nast Traveler Hot List Party.". How surprising that a gorgeous girl who was featured naked on covers would be invited to such an event!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, your comments as "plodding throughout, quite deficient, and so far off the 1a mark" seem a bit harsh for an article that has had a recent (less than 6 months ago) WP:GOCE review by Baffle gab1978 that resulted in these changes. I will request another GOCE review after this FAC, if it does not generate enough commentary to help me improve the prose.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Second, as you know, almost all of my WP:FACs that succeed do so with a lot of copyediting by others. I am a good encyclopedic researcher but not a good writer. I hope you do not discourage the commentary that this fully researched subject needs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Third, I'll respond above regarding the image momentarily.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are not alone Tony; I know how you feel. GOCE does not always get the job done sufficiently for FA. I wish there was a better way than begging known good writers to go over it. But honestly, this article still has technical issues as well, as noted in my comments above. I would not support it even with better writing. BollyJeff | talk 12:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bollyjeff, I seem to have missed some of your responses above. This no doubt has to do with my Ubering schedule, which is usually Fri-Mon and your Friday responses above. Now, I know what the editors who work full time go through. Your responses above are appreciated. I will review them and try to address them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I realize your response was really from late Thursday in Chicago, but by that time I am doing my semiweekly review to changes to my watchlist.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2015 [13].

Bill Cosby in advertising edit

Nominator(s): Zanimum (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout the 1980s in particular, Bill Cosby was one of the most desired advertising pitchmen, representing an intriguing range of products. A few years ago, I noticed this part of his career wasn't mentioned in his main article at all. What I thought would be a large stub turned into a major article.

Article milestones include the promotion to good article status in June 2013, and a substantial cleanup by GOCE Hall of Famer Baffle gab1978. Submissions to peer review have not attracted comment, even before the extensive allegations against Cosby. Given that his career is now pretty much over, it's not a stretch to consider the article complete in coverage.

Thoughts? Where does the article stand? Is it close to featured quality? -- Zanimum (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - I'll take a look now and make straightforward tweaks as I go and jot queries below:
    • My apologies for the delay. I was predisposed to expecting no comments on this article, and stopped checking Wikipedia. Once I discovered that you had kindly volunteered to review, @Casliber:, my only opportunities connected to the interview were on a mobile device or at work. I'm at a desktop now, so I'm giving it a go.
In para 2 of Personality section, I'd switch the two observations around - professional first then negative working with bit second
Fixed. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NB: try and avoid 1-2 sentence paras (lots of these - either combine or retrieve some more material)
Well, there's less than when you reviewed, but multiple still remain. Generally, they're either a milestone that influences the topic (Cosby Show), or an outlying but non-trivial fact about the career (he did a PSA, he did Coke spots before the main bulk of his Coke work). Usually these small paragraphs are landlocked by larger ones that have little relation topically, so it's hard to merge. Where do you stand of the remaining examples. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the end of the 1970s segment is choppy - try and make it flow with more info (preferable) or just combine the paras
I've moved all commendations in that decade to the end of the section, and combined the two paragraphs about Jello products. I'm not sure I can really find more information on the Jello spots in the 1970s, I've largely exhausted reliable sources. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In 1981, an article in Black Enterprise, about African Americans who were hired as advertising spokespeople, said there were "very few blacks who can command the fees being paid at the top end of the scale", Cosby being one of them is ungainly. It can be de-quoted and trimmed, something like "In 1981, an article in Black Enterprise reported that Cosby was one of only a very few African Americans who could command the among the highest fees paid for advertising spokespeople."
I've done similar, but also revamped the next sentence. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cosby's role as an advertising spokesperson was also addressed; - I wouldn't have said "addressed" as the verb here. maybe something like "Recalling Cosby's status in advertising,..."
I've done a larger reformat in this area, how's it read? -- Zanimum (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found it engaging and a nice little article overall. Needs some (but not an insurmountable amount of) work....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC) I think we are closer now. I find that once I've read these through a few times, I tend to miss things. My position now is possible support on comprehensiveness and prose, but will be firmer if another prose-reader comes and take a look. I'll try and ping one or more...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has been on the FAC 'urgents' list for a week now -- I'm always loathe to archive repeat noms for lack of interest but unless other reviewers show up soon it may come to that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nortonius edit

I'm seeing quite a lot of problems with the prose, e.g. these examples just from the lead:

  • As of 2002, Cosby held the record for being the longest-serving celebrity spokesperson for a product, Jell-O. I'd re-word that as something like "... for a product through his work with Jell-O."
Changed. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great.Nortonius (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cosby was one of the first black people to appear in the United States as a spokesperson; ... At this stage in the article I really think this and a subsequent instance of "spokesperson" needs qualifying, e.g. as "advertising spokesperson".
That's fair, changed. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Nortonius (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the mid-century 20th century What is intended here? Reading the article, I get the feeling that "in the second half of the 20th century" might be better.
Changed. I have no idea when century got doubled up like that, but the mid-century was initially meant to refer to when he started, the point at which white viewers were least willing to accept black pitchmen. The rest of the sentence, as it is now, does need "second half" instead. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Nortonius (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In spite of contradicting soft drink pitches and endorsing a disgraced financial company, he was considered very believable. Presumably Cosby wasn't "contradicting soft drink pitches" since he was making them. I'd re-write this as "In spite of making contradictory soft drink pitches and endorsing a disgraced financial company, he continued to be considered very believable", although I'm not at all sure that "very believable" fits here – would something like "highly effective" be an improvement?
Good catch re contradicting/contradictory. I've gone half-way with effective/believable, just simply because believability has been mentioned in many sources, as his key trait. Thoughts? -- Zanimum (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Understood about "believable", that looks fine to me now. Nortonius (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • financially wealthy Just "wealthy".
Fixed. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Nortonius (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... public opinion polling places him near the bottom of a list of 3,000 personalities, when rated on trust and effectiveness. When is this? Should it say "as of 2014 public opinion placed him ..." as the article appears to indicate?
I've moved the wording to past tense, but changed the rest differently, to avoid repeating the year. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's better. Nortonius (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather support a nomination than just give reasons why I think it should fail, so I could have a go at combing the prose if those suggestions look sensible. I don't know how quick I'd be, though, and I haven't yet looked at the article closely enough to spot problems of different kinds. Nortonius (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help in reviewing, @Nortonius:. I've fixed most of what you've indicated, and appreciate your through review. I wish this article has received attention in earlier processes, but I'm very grateful for input from two contributors here. Many thanks. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you found that helpful, the lead does look much better to me now. I'll try to look at the rest of the article in the same way over the next day or two. Nortonius (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some more:

  • In the mid-1980s, Cosby's Q Score deemed him the "most familiar" and "most persuasive" endorser.[4] At the peak of his career, Cosby had a Q Score of 70, which meant 70 percent of 1,000 surveyed United States respondents said they thought highly of him.[5] I see several problems here, e.g. "Cosby's Q Score ... Cosby had a Q Score" seems repetitive, and "At the peak of his career" in what? Which career? And, by the way, did the survey have exactly 1,000 respondents? I'm a little surprised by that round figure, but then I haven't seen the source. Anyway I'd suggest running these two sentences together as something like "At the peak of his advertising career in the mid-1980s, Cosby had a Q Score of 70, meaning that 70 percent of those responding to a survey of 1,000 United States residents thought highly of him, thus deeming him the most familiar and persuasive endorser.[put both sources in the same ref here]" If the survey didn't have exactly 1,000 respondents, give the precise figure if you can or just drop "1,000". Nortonius (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ↑ Did you miss this one, or...? Nortonius (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just was crunched for time. Yes, it was exactly 1000, according to the source. Changed.
I haven't merged references, as I was considering eliminating "Works cited", and instead pointing to individual pages with >{{rp|6}} (which renders as : 6 .) Thoughts? -- Zanimum (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise; that bit looks fine to me now. My own feeling is that, while separate, multiple refs look untidy and give the reader two or more times the work to view the citations, {{rp}} just adds another level of complexity, and further interruption to the flow, when reading an article. Since you ask, I would change the whole ref system to use {{sfn}} when giving a single ref, or <ref>{{harvnb|Smith|2015|p=N}}; {{harvnb|Jones|2015|p=N}}.</ref> when there's more than one citation in a ref. Then I'd change "Works cited" to "Bibliography", move it beneath "References", and change {{cite book}} to {{citation}}. Have a look at e.g. St Mary's Church, Reculver, for how I've set up refs there: hovering the mouse pointer over the ref brings up a live link to the relevant item in the bibliograpy or to whatever online source is being cited. Very easy on the reader, and pretty easy to do, too. Nortonius (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Industry publication Advertising Age said Cosby remained the most-trusted celebrity for 14 years and that the "only person" to surpass him during that period was the Pope.[6] When was this said about Cosby? The source speaks of Cosby topping a "public approval index", rather than saying he was "most trusted celebrity". And, as I understand it (though after a quick look I haven't seen where this might be specified), quotations need to be followed immediately by a citation, e.g. "the 'only person'[ref] to surpass him". In this instance though I would again suggest a re-write, something like this: "In 2003, industry publication Advertising Age said that "during [Cosby's] 14-year reign over the ad industry's public approval index [he had only been surpassed by] the Pope."[ref]"
I suppose that Ad Age didn't actually say it was the Q Score, I just extrapolated given the Q Score's prominence and endurance. Changed. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good. Nortonius (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actor Tom Hanks was the Q Score leader in 2014, with a score of 39.[5] I would consider putting this in a footnote, although I can see that it illustrates Cosby's score in the mid-1980s. If you want to keep it, then I think it looks a little out of place here, and would suggest tacking it onto the end of the earlier sentence concerning Cosby's mid-1980s score, so that you would have something like (per my earlier suggestion): "... the most familiar and persuasive endorser[refs] – by comparison, in 2014 the actor Tom Hanks led the Q Score with a score of 39.[ref]"
Changed. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I notice that you now have a reference in that footnote to Bialik that doesn't "group" with the seven existing ones, and it can't be made to group with <ref></ref> tags because of how the footnotes are formatted – it produces an error. That can be fixed with Template:Refn, and, as you only have a handful of footnotes, I've gone ahead and done it. I also fixed a ref in the process. Nortonius (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • second-most trusted I believe that should be "second most-trusted".
I'll go with it. Googling, the same news story on India in different sources listed it as the "second most trusted", "second-most trusted", and "second most-trusted" country. So really I have no idea what's the best way, so I'll trust you.
Feel free! Once upon a time I wouldn't have put a hyphen in there at all, but on WP it'll be expected. Nortonius (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll come back with some more in a bit, again assuming you find that helpful! Nortonius (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that, in a few hours, it'll be a week since the nominator has done anything on WP. When I first wrote of "combing the prose" I was offering to "fix" it as best I could myself. I'm still up for having a go at that if it helps. I suppose this FAC shall be closed imminently if nothing happens. Nortonius (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good that you're back Zanimum. Did you miss my comment above, beginning "In the mid-1980s ..."? Also, "|location=" isn't required in citations and invites trouble: I note some inconsistency with that in the article and recommend removing it. I'll do that myself unless you either beat me to it or wish to object. Nortonius (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented above, it was a time issue at the time I was doing the other edits. Do you think we might be better to continue in peer review, as opposed to prolonging FAC this long? Or is it okay to continue this process as-is? (I haven't done the whole FAC thing since the last decade.) The FAC nomination partially was just an attempt to be noticed, something that wasn't happening at lower processes.
I haven't removed locations yet; no locations would be preferable to me going in and adding locations for those that are currently locationless?
Thanks for the refn| coding, I didn't know that option was available.
Thanks for your continued help. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Understood about the time issue; but that is an issue here, in an FAC. It'll be up to the FAC co-ordinators whether this FAC is prolonged, and I'm sorry this article didn't get any attention when you went for peer review. I've only had one stab at an FAC, which stalled when there was a difference of opinion about sourcing and too few reviewers commenting to form a clear consensus.[14] But I'm fine with looking at this article now that I've started, and as long as you're finding it helpful, whether or not it goes back to peer review. If that happened, though, and with your agreement, I think I'd be more inclined to edit the article myself and then see if you liked what I'd done – at the present rate it could be weeks before we're done. About locations, "adding [them] for those that are currently locationless" is one of the problems that can arise when giving locations – sometimes it can be a headache deciding which location to give, or even finding one at all. Just get rid of them IMHO. Hope that helps. Nortonius (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think this meets the criteria. There must be some deeper analysis of the cultural significance around, one would think, but this seems to give a good factual account of the subject. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time. I commend you on tackling this article - it's a difficult topic, especially right now. I think this is an excellent start, but I feel there is more room for improvement. I am seeing some prose issues as well. Just as examples in the lead:

    • There is some awkward wording: "through to"
    • Almost every sentence in the 2nd paragraph of the lead has a semicolon to link two thoughts together. This is fine occasionally, but that is being very overused.
  • " In 2014, one commenter said" -> can we be more specific? Is this a fan? An industry person?
  • I question whether personality should go first, or whether career in advertising should be first. Why did you choose the former?
  • I think that starting with the Nat King Cole quote is a good idea. Is there a date when the show ran/was cancelled? That will help put it a little more in perspective.
  • Is there a date/year when Cosby got the job with White Owl Cigars?
  • Direct quotes need to have a citation at the end of the quote (not at the end of the next sentence).
  • the criticism section is almost entire quotations.
  • I think the information on the scandal might out to go in Criticism.

Karanacs (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: I commend the people involved in this article, and I know Wikipedia isn't censored, but I just don't want to see an article on the advertising career of an unrepentant serial rapist on the front page of Wikipedia. I realize this article was created and virtually completed long before the crap hit the fan, and that could not have been predicted ... at the same time, I personally don't think we can simply ignore the facts (yes, they are alluded to in the article, but I don't think it's appropriate to promote this article to the main page). Also, the article is fairly fork-y (I don't know how much that matters, but I like to see main articles rather than their forks on the main page [again, I know this is not wiki policy]). Softlavender (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not an article is displayed on the main page is a separate issue to FA status. There are a number of FAs that have been felt not to be prudent to put on the main page, and there'd be a good reason for not having this one either - but that is a separate issue. FA is about the quality of the article itself and whether there remains anything else to do to improve it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2015 [15].

Wonder Mountain's Guardian edit

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Wonder Mountain's Guardian dark ride/roller coaster at the Canada's Wonderland amusement park located in Canada. It was reviewed for GA-status by The Rambling Man and later copy-edited by Baffle gab1978.--Dom497 (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as incomplete. It is a good start, but I see some fundamental issues that need tackling:

  • The article is not particularly well-written. In some places (like para 3 of History), sentences are choppy with little variety. The Ride experience section is awkwardly written and needs quite a bit of rewriting. It should flow well and be entertaining to read since it is describing a roller-coaster.
  • The History section is imbalanced toward planning/speculation and too light on actual development. It seems to me that a roller coaster article should have an entire section on the process of designing and building such a major attraction. You have one short paragraph entirely sourced to social media. I think you will need to spend more time researching here, doing library searches and looking into popular journals, trade publications, etc. What were the design challenges? Setbacks? Who designed the physical ride? Using what process and tools? You have Art Engineering in the infobox and lead as the manufacturer, but then they are not even mentioned in the building process.
  • Similarly, you mention Triotech in the infobox and lead, but they are barely mentioned in the article. Who designed the multimedia aspects, how, and using what software and process? What were the challenges and setbacks? The entire narrative is missing.
  • You devote a section in Ride experience to Zombies 4D but there are only two sentences covering it in History (both citing primary sources). How was it designed and developed, and by whom?
  • The Reception sections seems light. More research is needed. What did major coaster groups think of the ride? Reviews? The third para is implying causation between the coaster and attendance, but do the sources actually support that?

I recommend you withdraw the nomination to work on it. --Laser brain (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2015 [16].

4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) edit

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

During the lightning-quick Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, the 4th Army earned the dubious distinction of having virtually fallen apart due to fifth column actions and Croat desertions even before the Germans crossed the Drava. A whole regiment rebelled and took over a largish town. After the 14th Panzer Division drove 160 km and captured Zagreb on 10 April (along with 15,000 soldiers and 22 generals) in a single day, the Germans facilitated the proclamation of the notorious fascist puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia. The mostly Serb remnants of the 4th Army continued to withdraw into the Bosnian interior until the capture of Sarajevo on 15 April. The article passed Milhist A-class review in January this year, and I believe it is comprehensive and meets or is close to meeting all the FA criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I think you have a good base for an article, but I don't think it's there yet. World War II is not my area of expertise, and I'm really bad at geography. I was lost by this article. Note that I didn't read through the Operations sections because I think there was enough in the rest that needed to be fixed.

  • It would be nice to have a map that shows Yugoslavia in relation to the rest of Europe.
  • I think you are going to need a section on background. This should have, at minimum:
    • A paragraph or two on what was going on in Europe at this time that made Yugoslavia think that it was going to be invaded. Specifically talk about WWII.
    • More detail on what the 4th Army District was. The background is missing - all I know is that it hgad three divisional districts that were further subdivided. I don't know where it is or why it was in place.
    • How many troops were in the existing 4th Army District, and how did that compare to the population in general or the army size overall?
    • Tensions between Serbs and Croats?
    • Why were these locations chosen for defense over others?
  • I think you need to Anglicize the titles of the generals. I assume Bridgadri deneral is a Brigadier general. I'm not sure what Armijski translates to.
  • Was there a reason why barbed-war or anti-tank ditches hadn't been developed?
  • Are there numbers on the size of the 4th Army, and what the exact percentage of Croats vs Serbs was?
  • The composition and deployment plan sections and even the mobilisation section are primarily lists. They really ought to be in text.
  • Are Dr. Nierhorster's websites considered reliable sources? Why use those over books or papers?

I look forward to reading it again when you've had a chance to make some changes. Karanacs (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skepticism. I don't know enough to oppose ... all I can say is that, especially starting with the second section, the data gets in the way of the storyline. One thing you might try is to break this article in two ... turn as much as possible into a list, and then let's see if what's left becomes more readable. Another approach would be to stick with one article, but move a lot of material into tables or endsections. Also see the A-class review for more discussion on the point. - Dank (push to talk) 14:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to withdraw this nomination, I get the impression these Yugoslav army articles will not fit the FL or FA criteria regardless of how I design them. I believe they are structured well and provide all the information someone who wants to know about the 4th Army would expect. I note that there are very few Army-level articles at MILHIST A-Class, let alone FA, and I probably should have taken the obvious message from that fact. I think I'll just stick to MILHIST A-Class. Thanks for the feedback, I will continue to improve it, but I don't think I'll bring this back here. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose could you do the honours? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, will do. I had been on the verge of archiving it (and one or two others in the list) for lack of commentary last week but we've at least had some feedback now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2015 [17].

Jama Masjid, Delhi edit

Nominator(s): RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque which was built by Shah Jahan, the builder of Taj Mahal. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • For "the largest mosque in India", and one with such a long history, the article's surprisingly short. Is this really all the information you could get on it? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Welcome to FAC, Royroydeb. While you have a great start on this article, it looks quite deficient in terms of depth of information and quality of sources. A quick library search reveals numerous high-quality journal articles and news sources covering this mosque. Tourism books and web sites such as Delhi: 14 Historic Walks and Cultural India should be used lightly, if at all. I recommend this be withdrawn. --Laser brain (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose As others have said, this just doesn't have the depth of an FA (I have visited the building btw). The section on the architecture is very inadequate. Frankly I think it was a bit lucky to get GA. A pity, as Islamic architecture is under-represented generally, and has no FAs at all, and this is a major building. I hope you will develop it further, but I'd suggest taking it to Peer Review first next time. Of the 5 External links, only the one to a Flickr search worked when I tried! Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Clearly fails criteria 1 (a), (b) and (c). Suggest the nominator to withdraw the candidate. —Vensatry (ping) 17:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/June_2015&oldid=669314074"