Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2006

Gun violence in the United States

This is a self-nom. I have worked on this a great deal in the past couple weeks, with significant help from others. One reason for my involvement on Wikipedia is to work on criminology-related articles. The goal with this article is to rise above politics, providing a general overview of the topic, and summarize what research says. The article is well-referenced, with the highest standards for reliable sources (mainly scholarly peer reviewed sources). I think that NPOV concerns have been resolved, and the article is now stable. It's also gone through extensive copyedits, and peer review. While the article is 68 kb, the large number of references account for much of this. I have copied the article over to my sandbox; With references, headers, TOC, etc. stripped out, the article is ~32 kb in prose size. I'll be around on Wikipedia in the next week(s) to address any concerns. --Aude (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comments Well-researched.
  • I'm not a fan of the multiple sources per sentence that's present throughout this article. Is there a reason why one source per sentence won't suffice in most of the cases? I understand that some of the sentences might necessitate more than one, but why do statements like Most sales to youths and convicted felons take place in the "secondary market". need four citations?
  • First caption needs more context. Ideally, it would read something like: "This (year) drawing by (name) depicts the 1901 assassination of President William McKinley by Leon Czolgosz. Czolgosz shot McKinley with a revolver, and the President died from his wounds eight days later."
  • Gun violence, though, is not a new problem in the United States... The "though" is unnecessary.
  • ...and the Beltway sniper attacks, additionally have helped fuel debate over gun policies. "Additionally" is awkwardly placed there. "...attacks, have also helped fuel..." might be better.
  • ...while Boston's Operation Ceasefire is an example of an effective intervention strategy. Operation Ceasefire isn't wikilinked, and no context is provided, so readers have no idea what that is. In any case, why is a specific example given here?
  • Reference 21 is missing :(.
  • Crime rates section sheds little light on what was going on before the 1980s. All the article states is that it surged afterwards, but surely there is some data on gun violence/homicides prior to the 80s, no?
  • Suicides involving guns section is stubby.
  • Philip J. Cook hypothesizes... As this is where he is introduced in the article, give some context as to who he is here, rather than later.
  • Public policy section jumps right to a what Professor Cook suggests should be done instead of first summarizing (as is done in the next two paragraphs).
  • ...with the remainder taking place in the "secondary market". Define secondary markets.
  • Access to "secondary markets" is generally less convenient and involves greater risks, including such risks as the gun perhaps having been used previously in a homicide. Repetition of word "risks".
  • During the ATF's Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative (YCGII) in 1998... I'm assuming this was a gun buyback program. If so, might want to explain.
  • A short-term evaluation of the ban by Christopher S. Koper and Jeffrey A. Roth... Who are they? Give context whenever you cite names of people conducting studies.
  • ...passage of a CCW law in Texas in 1995. CCW needs to be defined here, where it is first used, not later.
  • John Lott has argued... Again, context.
  • Lott's study has been criticized for not adequately controlling for other factors. Such as?
  • STOP was superceded by STOP 2 in 1998. Just a renaming, or was it something different?
  • With data aggregation, such as the Duggan study which aggregated to the state level,[133] it is difficult to make inferences about individual behavior. Huh? Seems to infer that readers should be familiar with the Duggan study, but I can't find it anywhere else in the article. Gzkn 09:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have gone through and removed extra sources that are not needed. For this topic, no one reference (except maybe the NAS review) is the definitive study or source. For many points, multiple studies have addressed it and repeatedly found/confirmed some particular finding. Collectively looking at these references (and providing them), it's easier to say something with confidence. Gun violence (and related politics) is obviously a controversial topic, so I prefer to err on the side of providing one too many references than the other way around. In a couple instances (#51 and #116), I have tried altering how the "multiple references" are formatted. Is that something you think works okay? --Aude (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• First caption has been copyedited to provide more context, and the introduction has been copyedited per your other points. --Aude (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Ref #21 has been fixed. --Aude (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• We could add more about pre-1980s rates of gun violence; though, two graphs on the right depict this. I've added reference to the graphs. --Aude (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• I have added a little bit more to the suicides section. --Aude (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Copyedits, re: Philip J. Cook, have been done, and clarifications/edits regarding "secondary markets". --Aude (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Clarifications made regarding the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative. It's not a gun buy-back program, but an initiative to increase tracing of firearms used in crimes and recovered by police. Have made this clear in the article, and created a stub article on the program (to be expanded). --Aude (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Made clarifications regarding Jeffrey A. Roth and Christopher S. Koper, and created stub bios for both. They meet WP:PROF and will most likely be cited in other criminology articles. --Aude (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Also created stub articles on Operation Ceasefire, as well as Project Safe Neighborhoods. Operation Ceasefire in Boston can be considered a pilot project, which has been replicated and its strategies incorporated into the national Project Safe Neighborhoods program. --Aude (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• As for the last point, regarding the Duggan study, it is not referenced in the article because of the very flaws of his study that are cited. These issues were pointed out by the NAS. I tried to reword it, but instead just cut the sentence. It's not essential to convey the point. --Aude (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• I have added slight clarification about who John Lott is. He is fairly well-known, and we have a detailed article on him. So I don't think a lot of clarification is needed. Also, have made clarifications on the Black & Nagin study, which re-analyzed Lott's data. I think this addresses all your points, but please let me know if any of these need further clarification, or if you have any other concerns. --Aude (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Fixed the CCW use before being defined issue. Yaf 05:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Fixed the "Gun violence, though, is not a new problem in the United States... The "though" is unnecessary." issue. Yaf 05:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Fixed the Access to "secondary markets" is generally less convenient and involves greater risks, including such risks as the gun perhaps having been used previously in a homicide. Repetition of word "risks". issue. Yaf 13:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support I can't believe this article was started on November 5th and is already one of the best referenced articles I have seen on wiki. I contributed a few edits and a couple thoughts myself at the peer review and it appears there is no reason that this article shouldn't be featured.--MONGO 17:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I just went through the lead and a few sections, and it appears to be well-written and well-referenced. Although there is an excessive use of short sections, I suggest merging these. Oh and a few external links would be nice as well. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I did inquire Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Are_external_links_required.3F about whether or not external links are required. I can think of one or two "official" government links [1] [2] to include if we must, but have concerns about the section becoming too long like Gun politics in the United States#External links. I would appreciate more thoughts on this. --Aude (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend against external links in this case. They always seem to deteriorate into a free-for-all soon enough, as random editors shove more and more stuff in there. Perhaps the current Notes and References section should be renamed Notes, and a separate References section should be created. This would list the most important sources used to create the article and would provide users an easy list of further reading so they won't have to sift through the entire Notes section. See, for example, the bottom of Ahmose I (disregard that external links section...). Gzkn 00:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As for short sections, I'm open to combining them if everyone thinks it's best. My personal opinion is that more headings help improve readability of text on the web. Most people are not going to read the entire article, word for word, but will scan the page to find specific sections that interest them. Headings help facilitate skimming and scanning. [3] But if general consensus disagrees with me, then we can change this. --Aude (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose It is very well referenced yet appears to be trying to advocate a point of view. It's missing at least two major components of gun violence: 1) Urban vs. Rural and 2) it's corollary poverty/race and Gun Violence. Also, most of pro-gun ownership studies are effectively criticized yet anti-gun ownership studies are not criticised. For example, compare the articles treatment of the John Lott studies on CCW vs. the articles treatment of the assault weapons ban studies. Simple question also not answered: How manyguns in the U.S.? How many of those used in crimes? Needs work. --Tbeatty 06:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This last question is answered: "Also, the number of handguns used in crime (approximately 7,500 per year) is very small compared to the approximately 70 million handguns in the United States (i.e., 0.011%)."; this is under the Gun "Buy-Back" section. Also, I have been looking for statistics on rural gun violence, and have failed to find any studies; it doesn't appear to be a major issue. Yaf 13:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we can add something on urban vs. rural, and socio-economic factors. As for treatment of pro-gun ownership studies, these along with the entire body of literature and research, were evaluated by a National Academy of Sciences panel of top experts. They looked at everything with a critical eye, with heavy criticism of an "anti-gun ownership" study by Mark Duggan (More Guns, More Crime) for its methodological problems. Methodological problems are such, that his study is not at all used as a reference here and not mentioned. I had mentioned this study and criticism of it in the "research issues" section at the end, but removed this mention per above suggestion. Lott's study also has methdological issues, as pointed out by the NAS panel. Though, Lott's study has sparked much political debate and needs mention here. It is mentioned in accordance with WP:NPOV#Undue weight, in respect to how Lott's study is viewed by experts. --Aude (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. No mention of accidental shootings (which form a significant portion of total incidents), suicide discussed under "Crime rate" section!, awful sentences like "Gun violence is not new in the United States, with the assassinations of President Abraham Lincoln in 1865, and of Presidents James Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy." (at least it should be something like "...United States, as shown by the..." but what about much earlier political incidents like the Burr-Hamilton duel?) Assassinations and attempted assassinations of U.S. Presidents section doesn't mention that these were all gun-related attacks nor does it mention that non-gun related attacks have occured or the relative number of non-gun related attacks, for comparison. This is also the only section concerning historical crimes, the rest of the article all current events. Surely gun violence in the U.S. was an issue for more than just the last few years. Needs at least minimal discussion of 2nd Amendment. Needs better (and organized) discussion of state laws on backgrounds checks and ID cards. Rmhermen 17:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think a mention of the Burr-Hamilton duel may be worthwhile, but dueling was actually not the same thing as gun violence per se in that this was common in that period as a procedure between "gentlemen" to solve a dispute and definitely wasn't restricted to the U.S., though it may have become more so then elsewhere. Maybe a historical overview section discussing the "wild west" much of it somewhat mythically embellished, the gangster period of the 30's, etc. Perhaps empahsizing all the gun related assassination attempts on U.S. Presidents needs expansion as I think there were almost no non-gun related attempts to kill U.S. Presidents.--MONGO 18:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the suicide section back, out of "crime rates" section. It was originally on its own, as it should be. I have also added data on accidental shooting injuries. Will look for data on deaths from accidental shootings. Given that we have 50 different versions of state laws, as well as local laws, detailed discussion should be (I think) treated in a separate article. Maybe we can summarize some key points better on state laws, though. As for historical crimes, the two charts show the surge in gun violence during the 1980s-1990s, which greatly exceeds anything in the past (at least the 20th century). I may be able to add something on historic homicide trends in New York City or some other place(s) to give better perspective. --Aude (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added a "main article" link to the Gun control in the United States (by state), which I think is the place to discuss state laws in more depth. The second amendment is mentioned in the intro, with "Gun policy in the United States is also highly influenced by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits infringement..." with a link to Gun politics in the United States. --Aude (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: After a relatively quick glance, this looks like a great article. Any external links? --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 02:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have asked at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Are_external_links_required.3F. If links are a must, I can think of one or two "official" government links [4] [5] to include if we must. But, have concerns about the section becoming too long like Gun politics in the United States#External links. I may go ahead and add the links, and see how it goes. --Aude (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I added one link. Will see how it goes. --Aude (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• "Suicides involving firearms" should be incorporated elsewhere in the article: it's just too short for a level 2 section. The research section is almost as bad. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 02:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The suicides section doesn't really fit anywhere else. It had been listed under "crimes", but that was inappropriate. Can try and dig up more material to add. --Aude (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose - I spot checked a few of the references in this article, and found that they either do not state what the article claims they do, or that the article is being selective in terms of which facts from the references it cites. Based upon this spot check, I am very dubious of all of the citations. - O^O 01:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you please provide the references? Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Siege of Malta (1565)

In my opinion this is one of the most important sieges ever to take place in the Mediterreanean history. Were it not for this siege, all of Western Europe would have become Muslim. Unfortunately few know about this event in Medieval History; therefore by nominating it for FA, others will come to appreciate it more and more. It is a pity that many Europeans waste a lot of time on unimportant things, and yet do not know their own history. I am aware of the fact that it might be too short, therefore I would appreciate it if you would edit it and help expand this article.

• NOTE: This article was not created by me, but I have recently made many significant changes to it.Keith Azzopardi 14:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: FAC are not a way to improve an article, you should consider a peer review instead. The text doesn't have a single inline citation; I think a lot of work is needed to get this to FA status. Jaqu 16:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Jaqu's advice. LuciferMorgan 16:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Agree with above advice; suggest citing everything, then peer review, improvements, and then A-Class and FAC.

Buckshot06 19:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: per others, PR it first.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

AC/DC

This is a very well-written article about a very famous band. It has been peer-reviewed by the assessment department of WikiProject Australia and has been given the highest rating currently possible. I'm all for this article becoming featured and I'm sure many of you will agree. Atlantis Hawk 09:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, A well-written article indeed. Numerous credible and tidy sources make it look professional and credible as well. The only concern I would have is the numerous tertiary titles that are present in Bon Scott era and secondary titles in Recent events. Besides that, I find it FA worthy. Good job! -- Reaper X 20:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, however reaper makes a good point :) Otherwise, a fantastic article! Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object. This is close, but I see two issues: 1) there are still unreferenced paragraphs 2) virtually all references are websites, there are many newspapers, webzines and even Answers.com (which itself oftend draws content from Wikipedia). We should be using more reliable sources - there are many books which the editors of this article should consult.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Piotr, there's no reason it can't be better sourced and with better sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object Full agreement with above comments regarding refs. There's some original research sneeking out in a few sections. Also...the External links section is stretching WP:EL a little. There is no need for any fansite links with an ODP link included in the section. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I"m not too sure about there being original research, it's one of those things that you can't really prove. Atlantis Hawk 07:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Object. I think it's very close, definitely GA level. However, I concur with the statements above. The references could be a tad more reliable. I don't see any reason, however, this can't become FA once these minor issues are addressed. Anthony Hit me up... 04:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Good job, but I don't find this to be FA quality. For starters, the intro fail to give a coherent overview of the band's career. Ask yourself this question: If I wanted to know what the band has done but I didn't feel like reading the entire article, would the intro provide me with sufficient info? To me it doesn't. It focusses too much on trivialities: sales figures and the genres to which the members oppose. I find that some articles that give a very good overview of it's subject's careers are Celine Dion, Mariah Carey and Kylie Minogue. I also echo the above reviewers: please, please do not use the Urban dictionary as a source for a potential featured article. Any paper/print sources? And there could also be more comprehensive treatment of music (again, see the above three articles, as well as Phil Collins et al). Also, could we get some audio samples worked into this somewhere, as well as a description of how theses samples represent's the band's sound? Orane (talk • cont.) 19:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support This is well written. There could be some improvements here and there, but pretty minor. Otherwise, this is FA quality to the max. Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?•meow!} 22:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object, primarily due to the use of unreliable sourcing. This topic has plenty of more respectable sources available, and I think they need to be used here. Tuf-Kat 07:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object. This is a good artical, make no mistake, but AC/DC are one of founding stones of rock music as it is today. We shouldn't waste its one day as FA until its a great artical. It needs sources, and the information in the artical itself needs more meat. For instance, the Brian Johnson era section is far to small. Ferdiaob
• Support. It's a good article, it was very well organized and written, but reaper again does make a good point. --- Metal 02:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Homophony

A well-written, comprehensive article that explains the concept rather well (someone who knows very little about music should have a clear understanding of homophony after reading the article), and it definitely has enough sources for an article of its length. It has been listed as a good article for quite some time, and I've reread the article several times, without finding any errors or any content to be missing, so I think it's about time for the article to become a FA. Self nomination. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing nomination - Thanks for the comments everybody. This article is definitely not ready for FA status, so I'll work on it and possibly renominate it in due time, after seeking a peer review. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 17:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object It is a good introduction to the topic but seems very brief. I'd like to see much more historical analysis of compositions showing more details about how homophony was employed and changed over time. The section about non-western music could use quite a bit more. I know a bit about Indonesian music, and found the single mention to be very brief and even somewhat misleading, and I suspect the mentions of other cultures are similar. --Samuel Wantman 02:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Point taken about going into further detail about how it was employed over time, but I'm not sure that going into detail about homophony in each culture would be appropriate. There are countless cultures that have used homophony, so wouldn't the better place to go into detail about that music be in their respective articles? I've wikilinked the Indonesian music article and a few other items, so maybe that would help. As for the statement being misleading, may I ask how? The Grove article went into detail about eastern Indonesian homophonic music ("Two-part homophony, with all or most changes of pitch or text made simultaneously, is uncommon in western Indonesia (Sumatra, Java, Bali and the western and central regions of Kalimantan), but it occurs comparatively often in the eastern half of the country (e.g. among the Toraja of South Sulawesi, and in Flores, East Kalimantan and North Sulawesi)..."), so if this is untrue, please elaborate. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 03:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The quote is much more illuminating. I thought the reference was talking about Balinese music which often has two lines moving together in paralel in a relationship called "empat" (which means four), but is not a fourth in western terms. There are so many different types of music in Indonesia, that a blanket statement is fairly meaningless. "Eastern Indonesia" often refers to anything East of Java which includes Bali. Each island may have a musical tradition that shares very little with a neighboring island, so the blanket statement could be misleading. This is part of the problem -- I don't know if there is much value in mentioning homophony in other cultural contexts without giving details. If each and every culture is not expanded, at least those examples that are mentioned could have enough detail to understand how and where it is used, and the range of variation. -- Samuel Wantman 08:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I've tried to address your comment a little more (diff), but I doubt that would withdraw your objection. Perhaps I can expand the article's history section some more (although I'm not quite sure what to expand...its history in Western music, non-Western music?). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 22:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Both. Every section of the article would benefit if expanded. -- Samuel Wantman 02:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Prose is explanative, but they sound too much like run-one sentences. And the article is too short, and does not cover more in terms of specific examples & history.

• Melody dominated homophony is a type of homophony in which the accompanying instruments or voices provide chordal support for a lead voice or instrument, often the highest in pitch, which provides a melody. Here's an example of what I consider as a really messed up sentence. (Wikimachine 03:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC))

• I've copyedited the article a bit more, but I do not see any obvious awkward phrases in the prose. As for the length, what do you think should be expanded upon? Its history in non-Western music, its history in Western music? In art music or popular music? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 03:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment That first image is rather ginormous on my screen...is there any way it can be reduced in size and placed to the right of the lead instead? I'm also concerned about the red link in Examples of pieces that are homophonic. Gzkn 02:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I actually had it smaller, but another user commented on the talk page that it was too small to read, so I enlarged it. I will make a little smaller, but either way, people with different resolutions will prefer it one way over the other. As for the red link, I've fixed that. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 03:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Woefully inadequate in coverage, problems in what content there is, and the prose needs sprucing up.
  • "Homophony first appeared as the predominant texture in Western music during the Baroque period in the early 17th century, when composers began to compose with vertical harmony in mind, as opposed to the practice of counterpoint, the homophonic basso continuo becoming a definitive feature of the style.[3]" This sentence has a number of serious problems. Does reference 3 cover just the last point, or the whole lot? Was homophony really the predominant texture in Baroque music? Most people would associate counterpoint with that period. Are you sure that pre-Baroque composers composed without regard to "vertical harmony"? The realisation of a figured bass, and forms such as the choral harmonisation, were probably the most homophonic forms of Baroque music, but I'm worried about the sweeping assumptions in the sentence. The sentence is rather long and winding.

You haven't dealt with the problem that "vertical harmony" had been inherent ever since polyphony developed in the 12th/13th centuries. And the non-expert will wonder about the relevance of the "basso continuo" bit in relation to homphony. It probably needs to be dealt with further down, when you can explain it in the necessary detail and even show notated examples of its realisation. You might also provide an example of recitative, a quintessential form of homophony in the Baroque (since the isolated chords are "prolonged" through the single-line recitations). I still don't see the relevance of SATB right here; it complicates matters, since SATB can be polyphonic too. Why introduce it? Again, it hearks back to harmony textbooks, I fear.

• • • I have cleaned up the sentence, but its content is referenced by an authoritative source. Yes, homophony really was the predominant texture in Baroque music. There was a lot of polyphony, but most scholars agree that homophony really was definitive of the era. Check the sources if you disagree. As for the reference, it covers the whole lot. I don't think it's necessary to have the marker twice in the sentece (would you really want a footnote after every single statement in the article?). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The score excerpt at the top is not referred to in the text, so a more explanatory caption would be nice: at least give us the year of composition, and point out the rhythmic unanimity and the melodic quality of the top line. Why not positiont the audio sample immediately below the score?

Same for the Chopin example at the bottom. This needs technical explanation; the punters are going to have a hard time relating the visual complexity/activity of the left-hand figurations with the "purer" example at the top. Quite an involved explanation is required to induct them into the wider definition of homophony—it's not easy. As for the "who" example at the bottom, most of it doesn't look homophonic to me. Confusing example.

• • • The image is just an example of homophony. I added the year of composition, but is there really any reason to go into more detailed analysis of the piece? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "The case was similar during the Renaissance period,"—what case? It's not referred to in the previous text. I find the paragraph about notation, monophony, polyphony and homophony winding and laboured.
    • I reworded the sentence, though it was perfectly clear to me before. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "The standard choral arrangement of four voices (soprano, alto, tenor, and bass) has since become standard for Western music." Standard x 2. I'm not sure that I agree with such a blanket statement. It's certainly a favourite texture for exercises in harmony textbooks, but whether it's a standard in the real world is debatable.
    • Again, check the source. The Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians is recognized both by Wikipedia (see Template:GroveOnline, it's pretty self-evident) and music scholars to be an authoritative source. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Homophony began by appearing in sacred music, replacing polyphony and monophony as the dominant form, but spread to secular music, for which it is the standard form today." The start is an attempt to avoid repeating the start of the paragraph, but now it's clumsy. Pity that another encyclopedia is relied on heavily in the referencing.
    • Since when is it a pity to cite Grove? Do you know of any better sources? Please, tell me, because I've struggled to find other sources. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "17th century" isn't linked, and subsequently it is. But why link centuries in the first place? Links need to provide focused information, relevant to the article.
    • Well, I've seen centuries linked in plenty of FAs, but I de-linked them, as you requested. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Such textural devices as Alberti bass and repeated chords are used without telling the reader that they're homophonic triats, even though rhythmically activated. Not good.
  • "it still has appeared"—clumsy.
  • The treatment of homophony in non-Western music is laughably inadequate. I'm sorry to be harsh, but how can you put this up as a FAC? It's a vast topic, and one paragraph that chucks in a few references to African, Indonesian, Chinese music is way short of the mark. Vasco da Gama gets quite a mention, and we're told that "the concept of harmony as understood by people of that time is not necessarily the same as the concept homophony as understood by modern scholars". Really?
    • As for the last statement, harmony actually was understood differently several hundred years ago than it is now understood. It was often used to describe any music in which there were multiple voices (i.e. polyphonic music). Check the source. I've come across descriptions of music which is described as 'harmonious' several times in my studies, when that music was actually polyphonic or even monophonic, but with multiple voices. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Melody dominated homophony"—hyphen obligatory. It occurs twice. Tony 14:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This page is for talking about the article Homophony and its quality, not about the person who nominated it. Hyacinth 10:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Tony 12:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I gave a "huh?" at that too...I'm pretty sure every point that Tony brought up addressed the quality of the article... Gzkn 12:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The way he phrases a lot of the criticism is very accusatory. For instance, did he really have to say "how can you put this up as a FAC?" Honestly, that is hurtful to me. I've worked a lot on the article, and to say that is basically a terrible is overly harsh. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• To summarise, the nomination fails:
  • 1a (faulty prose);
  • 2a (inadequate lead, which says nothing about one of the major sections);
  • 1c (lacks comprehensiveness in what is a HUGE topic—it's just over a page long and needs to be, IMV, about four times the length in our summary style) and not factually accurate, at least IMV;
  • 2c (substantial table of contents required);
  • 3 (Images required if appropriate to the subject—there are some beautiful examples of early manuscripts on the Commons, I think); and
  • 4 (Not of appropriate length).

• I'm going to pull apart bits of the lead, especially where it makes sweeping statements that are precarious. It doesn't matter that it comes from Groves or anywhere else that has been described here as "authoritative". There is a similar density of problems in the whole text.
  • Opening sentence: "In music, homophony is the texture of two or more instruments or voices moving together in harmony, the relationship between them creating chords." Two or more instruments? Like a keyboard instrument? No, what is intended is musical lines or parts or "voices", if you want to use that in a technical sense. I don't think you can escape doing so in such a topic, and to use "instruments" in this sense at the start may well confuse non-experts, who may first think of the piano. "... the relationship between them creating chords" is not, strictly speaking, grammatical. Try "; the relationship between them creates chords." But the relationship between the parts in polyphony causes chords too. Is this confusing?
  • "monophony, in which all parts move in parallel rhythm and pitch"—This appears to say that monophony requires more than one voice/instrument (in unison and parallel octaves), whereas I'd hazard a guess that most monophony in the world is and has been performed by a single voice/instrument. If not most, a lot of.
  • "A homophonic texture is also homorhythmic[1] or uses a "very similar rhythm"." Here's the ambiguous "or", which can mean =, or "alternatively". Try "i.e.,", or "that is", or parentheses.
  • "However, in melody-dominated homophony, one voice or instrument, often the highest, plays a distinct melody, and the accompanying voices work together to articulate an underlying harmony.[3]"—No, the melodic component is part of the underlying harmony. The wording gives the wrong sense.

This is not ready to be a FA. I'm sorry if I've been trenchant in my criticisms, and I congratulate the contributors on the effort that they've already made. It's a highly technical topic that will be excellent when it allows non-experts to understand the concept in its richness and diversity. At the moment, it's biting off more than it can chew. Better to let it evolve over many months, beefing up or excluding the section on non-Western homophony, which is massive in its scope and involves cultural complexities that I wouldn't want to have to deal with in a NPOV, clear, cogent fashion. Tony 02:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your criticism, Tony, I do appreciate it. I realize that this article is definitely not up to snuff, and I'll try to improve it over the course of the next few months and maybe renominate it then. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 07:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have one last question, though. I disagree with several of your judgements regarding specific statements and their factual accuracy, so is there any way to have this settled by some kind of expert? More specifically, is there a simple way to search Wikipedia for an academic in the field of music who would be willing to review the content of the article? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 07:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite willing to discuss further these "specific statements". I am some kind of expert. Perhaps you are too. Tony 08:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm definitely not some kind of expert. Perhaps we should continue this on the article's talk page, though. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 20:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Anabolic steroid

This is an extremely comprehensive article that meets all of the criteria to be a featured article. This article is well informed and very neutral. This article also has numerous sources as well as many more books and links provided about the subject. This article covers the area of Anabolic Steroids very well and is scientifically accurate.Wikidudeman 18:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. It doesn't say a thing about the biochemistry behind that class of compounds and has too many bulleted lists. Dr Zak 19:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually that's covered on the Steroid article.Wikidudeman 19:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

(Man, steroid is pitiful and could really do with expansion.) No, that article merely states that anabolic steroids act on androgen receptors. We need as least one paragraph or two how anabolic steroids turn women into men and men into hulking supermen with acne and shrunk bollocks. Dr Zak 20:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You're grossly overstating how anabolic steroids work. However I do understand your point and I will formulate a paragraph or two on the biochemical mechanisms.Wikidudeman 20:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I was being sarcastic, thinking about kids in the gym abusing steroids , and about Heidi Krieger as well. Dr Zak 20:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm concerned about the limited number of citations, and about the fact that the article generally seems to be making an argument for the safety/legalization of anabolic steroids. It could stand to have significantly more, for example, on the reasons why the US government has chosen not to legalize. The sections on the effects of anabolic steroids should also be converted from lists to prose. MLilburne 10:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Mlilburne. The article contains just the facts. Opposed to scientifically baseless propaganda that you usually see in articles on anabolic steroids. This article contains only what the scientific concensus states. And you say lack of citations? It has over 50 citations. This is more than most articles on wikipedia.Wikidudeman 16:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Although there are a lot of citations in some sections, there are some sections that lack any. As for "scientifically baseless propaganda," it should certainly be discussed if it's being put out by the US government. MLilburne 17:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. Govt is notorious for demonizing various drugs marijuana being one of them. However an encyclopedia article simply needs to state the facts of the drug itself and not get into topics that might seem very POV. Tell me which areas are lacking citations.Wikidudeman 17:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia needs to deal with what has been said about a subject, whether the author agrees with the sources or not. As for undercited sections, "Administration," "Use and Abuse in Sports" and "Minimizing the Side Effects" seem to be the major offenders. MLilburne 17:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

How about now?Wikidudeman 18:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The citations are getting better, although there are still paragraphs without them, and the one at the end of the "Administration" section is in a different style. My other concerns remain unaddressed. MLilburne 10:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "In a different style"? And tell me what you mean by other concerns? Tell me which 'concerns' you are refering to.Wikidudeman 21:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

By "in a different style" I mean that the citation at the end of the "Administration" section is a hyperlink, whereas all of the rest are footnotes. The lone hyperlink should also be a footnote. As for other concerns, they are the same ones that I mentioned above, namely 1) the listiness of the article and 2) the POV in the treatment of the subject. MLilburne 22:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Lack of citations, please include PMIDs on footnotes, inconsistent style in footnotes (please convert all to one bibliographic style, expand web links and include last access dates), sections headings don't confrom to WP:MOS, very listy (needs to be converted to compelling prose), and in urgent need of a copyedit and prose improvement (sample sentence, "Anabolic steroids were tried by physicians for many purposes from the discovery of synthetic testosterone in the 1930s to the 1950s with varying success.") Sandy (Talk) 15:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sandygeorgia. 1. Please explain to me what you mean by "lack of citations". 2. Explain how to include PMID's. 3. Tell me why you say the footnotes are inconsistent in style. 4.What do you mean by expand weblinks? Please be specific.Wikidudeman 16:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted You may be looking for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atomic theory/Archive2, see Talk:Atomic theory/FAC archive sort

---

Atomic theory

This is the third (?) nomination of this article by me for the main page. Since the last nomination, I've redone the intro, added more references to the quantum physics section (as requested) and tweaked the images.Kurzon 19:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - Insufficient citations. Should have at least one per paragraph, and some don't. Fieari 04:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Fieari, the first three paragraphs in the first section don't have any citations. (Wikimachine 03:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC))
• Comments - this FAC is not listed on the article talk page, the Notes do not contain full, bibliographic information about the sources (for example, last access date and the journals some of the website info was originally published in), and the section headings don't conform to WP:MOS. Sandy (Talk) 15:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've tried to correct the archive of the older FAC, and list the nom on the talk page, but this is the fourth time this article has been nominated here in less than 2 months, and I'm not sure I did the archive correctly. Sandy (Talk) 03:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Atomic theory

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.213.214.238 (talk • contribs) 10:40, November 3, 2006 (UTC) [6]

Comment only: "The atomic theory" refers to the idea that the universe is made of atoms, and we go to Epicurus and others for it. To some degree, Spinoza's theory of monads was a form of atomic theory, as well. This has virtually nothing to do with the actual physical atom and is, instead, the philosophical position of realism. The model of the universe we embrace now is not the atomic theory, as it's not really theoretical now. Atomism is a very important line of thought in the history of philosophy, and I agree that any article on the theory should not be concerned with physics, quite. A headnote disambiguation ought to take care of things, and a proper lead. Geogre 11:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an old FAC, restarted here now for the third time. Needs to be removed. Sandy (Talk) 12:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

POST-CLOSING NOTE: See Talk:Atomic theory/FAC archive sort, this is a dummy FAC created by copying from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atomic theory/Archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Mourning Dove

Self-nom. I feel that this article covers all aspects and angles of this and has lots of pictures, including a gallery. It includes a section on its role in the arts and its being a gamebird. It meets all of the criteria for being a featured article. There was a Peer Review and since I have finally gotten around to adding a range map I am finished with all of the suggestions. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object - suggest a heavier copyediting, check out User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. Just from the first couple of sections,
  • but many individuals migrate south to winter- south for winter
  • Habitats include a range of open and semi-open habitats, including cities. definitely can be reworded, as habitats is used twice
  • The bird is abundant and common, with around 130 million birds. Not particularly sure if this is erronous, but instead of a bird = 130 million birds, I think this species or something similar will be better.
  • Both parents care for the young for a time before often having another clutch. before often sounds wrong somehow.
  • The Mourning Dove has a large range of nearly 11 million square kilometers (6.8 million mi²) I hope doves aren't 7 million square miles large each.
  • around late March through April and ends in May Since April is between March and May, there is no need to explicitly mention April. (plus, it's not done in the next sentence)
  • Those further south are more sedentary, with much shorter migrations. I'm confused at this sentence; if they're flying further south, wouldn't they have longer migrations?
  • The current classification of those three birds, including the Mourning Dove, has them all in the genus Zenaida. Take a look at Tony1's redundancy part of the guide. all is redundant here. Also, not so sure about this, but shouldn't those be these (these is used in the previous sentence)? Overall, I think this sentence is worded a bit awkwardly too.
  • Shouldn't the last paragraph of "Taxonomy and distribution" be in the lead?
  • lighter and pinkish could be shortened to light pink
• Outside of copyediting, "As a symbol and in the arts" needs expansion or merging. Also, there will probably people who will be against the inclusion of the photo gallery at the end. AZ _t 01:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the photo gallery remark. You mean people will object to it being a FA just because they don't like photo galleries? KP Botany 01:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, I have seen people objecting for the inclusion of an image gallery. The only example I can find though is the objection by Savidan on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frog (and Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Frog). Apparently it was based on WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. AZ _t 14:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Nevermind, it is actually written out on WP:IG that gallerys are discouraged. (see Wikipedia:Galleries#Policy and Wikipedia:Galleries#Costs). Common solutions for this problem include to move the gallery off onto its own page, ex. Gallery of Mourning Doves. AZ _t 14:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object and Comment "South to winter" is correct, with "winter" being a verb. See "Winter"'s Wiktionary entry. However, I agree with the rest of AZ's comments - this article is a future featured article, but isn't ready quite yet. An additional thought is that in the "As a symbol and in the arts" section - the section's picture shouldn't take up more space than the section itself - especially in a Featured Article. The section looks like it could use some expansion, but if it can't be expanded further, the picture should at least be re-sized to match the size of the section. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 07:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• • The painting has been taken out and a copyedit has been done. For example, the lead now mentions other names, the sentences about the range have been edited, redundant words mentioned have been taken out. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object with comment. This article has a lot of excellent content, and the bird itself is a fascinating organism that many North Americans routinely see. Someone really thought about what to put in this article, doing a good job. Particularly the content itself of the opening paragraph is well-done, and this area is not always so well-done on Wikipedia.
• However, it needs serious copyedit work, as I don't think it's particularly readable as is, and am surprised it passed peer-review to this point. Others gave some ideas that I agree with. I think it should be removed from FAC for now. Still, it has had enough work and care about content that it deserves the effort to get it up to FAC status, imo. But it's nowhere near ready now.
  • The species is a strong flier. The species doesn't fly, the members of the species do.
  • The Mourning Dove occurs in its large range of nearly 11 million square kilometers (6.8 million mi²). Not well written. "The Mourning dove occurs [sparsely, densely, everywhere below 1500m in elevation, whatever] throughout its range of nearly 11 million square miles."
  • The Mourning Dove inhabits most areas of its range, including urban areas, farms, prairie, grassland, and lightly wooded areas. It avoids thick forest and swamps. Redundant and not particularly well said, since its range is where it lives, one assumes that that is what it inhabits, but maybe you meant something else. How about just the sentence about its range, and then add "Within this range, the mourning dove avoids dense forests and swamps." 'Dense' is probably better, as this is probably what is meant. Does it avoid swamps or just dense swamps?
• KP Botany 01:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• As was suggested, I am withdrawing the nomination. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

NeXT

I've been working on this one for a few months. Here's a link to the peer review. This article has been classed as a "Good article". Includes 25 footnotes, reliable sources. Has also been copy-edited. If there are any problems that prevent you from supporting this article, please do post a comment and I'll try to fix it. Thanks! — Wackymacs 14:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The article seems complete by probably needs a copyedit by a fresh eye. For example in "Software" the word 'also' is used quite alot. Also, the article seems to have too many 2/3 sentence paragraphs which could easily be combined. - Tutmosis 15:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Also I forgot to mention, sometimes the article assumes the reader has background knowledge of the topic. Example would be, in "Early history" the article assumes the reader has knowledge of who Steve Jobs is and his background with Apple. - Tutmosis 15:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I have fixed the things you mentioned, but it still needs a fresh copy-edit, which I cannot do, but I'm sure someone else can. — Wackymacs 18:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Support All my issues brought up here and on nominator's talk page were dealt with. I think the article now meets the criteria. - Tutmosis 19:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. It really needs a good copyediting and prose check, as the middle in particular reads like a list, which doesn't work well. I also suggest using a non-depreciated public domain tag. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Can you explain further what exactly reads like a list? I went through it and didn't notice anything in particular. Also, what do you mean by "non-depreciated public domain tag". Thanks. — Wackymacs 18:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Essentially, the whole middle section, when I left the comment, read more like a bunch of bullet points rather than an article. "In 1987, this happened." New para: "In 1989, this happened." The prose still needs help, but it's better already. As for the public domain tag, see, for instance, Image:Premier serveur Web.jpeg, which says on the tag "Note: This tag is obsolete! Don't use this generic template - please use instead..." with a list of better tags. The rest of the images look okay, with the exception of Image:NeXTSTEP_desktop.jpg, which I'm somewhat tentative regarding the fair use rationale (you never discuss the appearance of the desktop, which makes me question the fair use need for a picture of it). I could be wrong on the latter, and I'll retract that if someone corrects me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Prose has been improved. Public domain tag on the image has been changed. Fair use rationale added to the NeXTSTEP screenshot. - NeXTSTEP is mentioned in the article several times, technically it does not have a "Desktop" like other OSes (such as Mac OS X or Windows), it's just that whoever uploaded the image named it wrong. — Wackymacs 21:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll retract my oppose. Looks better, I still think it could use another good one-over, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Further changes have been made in relation to the prose and quality of writing.. — Wackymacs 17:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Weak Support: Per Badlydrawnjeff, but not as strong to say that it is a full oppose. Needs in general to be longer. Leave a message on my talk page when you've fixed this and I'll gladly make the weak oppose a Support. Evan^{(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!)} 18:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Badlydrawnjeff has withdrawn his oppose, the things he mentioned have been fixed. Length isn't currently an issue - what more do you think the article should say? I need some more specifics from you to be able to increase the article's length. — Wackymacs 17:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Article slightly expanded. — Wackymacs 17:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure what is wrong with this article. To be vague, I just don't like it. Not in an opinionate POV way, but the prose didn't really stick to me as compelling. Hope this is good enough. Evan^{(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!)} 23:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Uh that doesn't really help me... Any specifics that strike you as needing a change? "I just don't like it" isn't really to do with the FA criteria... Thanks for the Support vote. — Wackymacs 11:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support: I like the length (it wasn't too short or too long), good reference section, good images--Weatherman1126 (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Well written article that holds a user's interest. Plus, the topic has a pretty broad audience. Tomhormby 05:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a lot of background information to the article. Especially on the feature creep. Tomhormby 03:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support I read this article a little while back and it's fantastic. Good work! - Mike | Talk 05:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Please ensure that you comply with WP:FN. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 11:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The article already complies with that. Please clarify, give examples. — Wackymacs 16:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Citation goes straight after the punctuation without any spaces in between. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 19:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Fixed. — Wackymacs 20:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
        • By me. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 03:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• It's pretty well referenced until the last two sections, which contain a total of six unreferenced paragraphs. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 03:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Added references to the last two sections. — Wackymacs 19:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Okay, so the references are in pretty good shape now. We've ticked the boxes, but the article is not brilliant yet:

1. The lede needs work to give a better idea of the way the business and technology worked - was NeXTstep the only OS to run on the NeXT boxes? Which operating systems did it run on when it became a framework? Which hardware platforms did it run on before? It's okay for the lede to be a few sentences longer to give this additional information, and anything else that seems relevant to know early on.
2. The sections entitled "hardware" and "software" need to be rethought. They're non-descriptive and bland. I think "computers" and "operating system" would be progress, but there could be even better headers yet to be found. Make me want to feverishly rush down the page to find out what happened - write some brilliant prose! Thanks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not brilliant prose. From the first paragraph:
  • "In addition to its hardware, NeXT developed the NeXTSTEP operating system, later sold for other computer processors as OPENSTEP, competing against Windows 95." Awkward and hard to understand.
  • "NeXT's software was used as the foundation for Mac OS X,[2] although Apple made significant updates to incorporate modern features from BSD variants, in particular NetBSD and FreeBSD." Is this much detail necessary for the lead?
  • I have fixed other minor problems with the first paragraph, but I shouldn't have to do this for you. --Ideogram 14:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Fixed what you mentioned. — Wackymacs 15:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I would prefer you go through the entire text looking for problems of this kind instead of having me do it for you. --Ideogram 15:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
        • The article has already been copy-edited several times, at least twice by myself. If you point out anything else that strikes you as bad prose, I'll be glad to fix it the best I can. — Wackymacs 17:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I'll do it Tomhormby 17:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "In addition to its hardware, NeXT developed the NeXTSTEP operating system, later retooled as a framework capable of running on several different operating systems, competing against Windows NT and the upcoming Cairo, an object-oriented version of Windows NT." Awkward, hard to read, and too much detail.
  • "NeXT's software was later used as the foundation for Mac OS X,[2] although several updates were made to incorporate modern features." Updates to OS X?
  • "Apple co-founder Steve Jobs' was at the time head of Apple's SuperMicro division, which was responsible for Macintosh and Lisa development, failed to release upgraded versions of the Macintosh and most of the Macintosh Office.[1]" This sentence is grammatically incorrect.

I'm sorry, I can't put this much time into any one FAC. Please get back to me after a better copyedit. --Ideogram 17:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I am bothered by the omission in this article of any discussion of the reason NeXT was an important (although unsuccessful) computer company. It had a reputation of being a innovative & pioneering company that embraced, if it didn't define, state-of-the-art technology, & attracted something of a cult around it. If one reads between the lines, this can be seen: NeXT embraced cutting-edge hardware like the latest CPUs (yes, once upon a time, 486 & 68xxx processors were cutting edge) & developed NuBus technology; NeXTSTEP was an object-oriented opoerating system based on a Mach microkernel. (This omission is even more troubling if one looks at related articles, where NeXT's innovation is often metnioned, e.g. NuBus & Steve Jobs.) While Jobs is well known for his "personal reality-distortion field", & NeXT was clearly buzzword compliant before the phrase was invented, the lack of any mention of this quality (except obliquely in Gates' & MacNeilly's quoted snark), is a fatal flaw to this article. I hope this was just an oversight, & that you meant to include this aspect of NeXT to the article. -- llywrch 05:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll add a section on the corporate culture of NeXT which will include many of those details. Especially the office space and nomenclature. For the record, NeXT adopted NuBus after Apple did. It was developed at MIT and TI. Tomhormby 19:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Material has been added. Next will be Impact which will include Mac OS X and WebObjects after the merger. Tomhormby 04:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
      • My mistake about NuBus: I was too hasty in reading the Wikipedia article. (In my defense, I'll merely say that I had a browser crash while I was writing the above & wasn't as inclined to be as careful as I try to be.) However, I'll take this opportunity to suggest that you should balance the material about its influence on the Mac with its influence on Open/Free Source projects like AfterStep, Window Maker and GnuStep (if for no other reason, evidence of the "Cult of NeXTStep"). I'll review the article once you're satisfied with your changes. -- llywrch 19:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Randall Flagg

Self-Nomination Was rejected before due to improper image licensings, missing citations and some speculative information. That has now been fixed. The article is a lengthy analysis on Randall Flagg, his roles in all the books he has appeared in, the miniseries appearence, and the poem on which he was based.--CyberGhostface 02:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• After a section on "Names, appearance and role" you have the following sentence in "Origins": Flagg had many aliases, almost all of which have the initials "R.F."–Outriggr § 05:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed.--CyberGhostface 17:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Inconsistent tense in Flagg plans to attack and destroy the other emerging civilization in Boulder, Colorado, leaving his civilization as the only survivors. His plans were foiled when the hand of God is turned upon him causing a nuclear bomb to detonate in front of his assembled followers.–Outriggr § 05:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed.--CyberGhostface 17:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• I believe there is still some speculative unreferenced material, such as Prior to The Dark Tower, some fans suggested that the original edition of The Stand and the expanded edition are actually parallel dimension variations of the same story. –Outriggr § 05:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll remove the speculative bit.--CyberGhostface 17:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Minor object: Again, some issues with the Fair Use images. I still believe that the article uses too many; each should be used to illustrate a specific facet of the subject, but at the moment a few seem to be just decorative. The lead image is good, and Jamey Sheridan definitely belongs, but what does Image:Walterodimrevisedgunslinger.jpg show that the others dont? Image:Randallflaggandmordreddt7.jpg doesn't show the character very clearly (though it might still be worth keeping), and I've still no idea which of the two characters in Image:EyesoftheDragonFlagg.jpg is supposed to be Flagg and which is King Peter. Aside from the images, the "Aliases" section in its present form seems more of an extended piece of trivia than anything, especially with most of his important pseudonyms already mentioned within the text of the article. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Walterodimrevisedgunslinger.jpg represents Walter o'Dim, Flagg's only other significant alias (as it says in the beginning, Walter is Flagg's 'real' name and how he considers himself), as he appears in the Dark Tower series. Image:Randallflaggandmordreddt7.jpg shows his death scene. And I'll try to make Image:EyesoftheDragonFlagg.jpg more clearer.--CyberGhostface 22:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Still not sure about the images (thanks for clearing up the Flagg/Peter ambiguity), but not enough so to oppose on those grounds. Could you give some justification for the Aliases list though? I really don't see what it adds to the article beyond a trivia point, which are generally discouraged in FACs. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The aliases are now gone.--CyberGhostface 19:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I've always liked this article.

It seems to me that if the concerns over image licensing are resolved then it would make a good candidate for featured article status. Ruthfulbarbarity 05:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on this entry seems to have kind of died off, with no supports or objects. Anyone at all have an opinion on the article? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Any admins we can ask for opinions?--CyberGhostface 20:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure which users are currently paying attention to FAC, though generally if an entry doesn't receive enough feedback or no decision has been reached, Raul654 will repost it to garner some more responses. Patience is the key thing :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support. The article is listed as having invalid ISBNs. Also may be this and this are worth of mention as a kind of cultural influence? --Brand спойт 10:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Which ISBNs are innaccurate? I would disagree with the cultural influences bit: I usually prefer not to add trivia bits like that as it comes off irrevelant to the character and the article as a whole.--CyberGhostface 17:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object—Not happy with the writing (1a). Let's take the lead, which suggests that the whole article needs a serious copy-edit.

Randall Flagg is a fictional character created by Stephen King. He is considered by many to be King's "supervillain", a recurring archetype of personified evil who appears in a number of King's writings. Flagg made his first appearance in the 1978 novel The Stand as the central antagonist. This was followed by central roles in The Eyes of the Dragon and The Dark Tower.

Randall Flagg is generally described as having an everyday appearance, dressed in casual American-style clothing. His goals typically center around spreading destruction and causing conflict, and he often prefers to work behind the scenes. He goes by many names, from the "Dark Man" to the "Walkin' Dude." He is also a magician, is said to come from the "outside", and has lived for at least 15 centuries, but cannot remember every life he has had.

• • "He is considered"—Coming straight after Stephen King, we momentarily wonder whether that is the referent for "He". Not kind to the reader.
  • "Writings"—why not say "books and plays", if that's the case (no idea, but precision here would be easy).
  • "Central" twice in seven words. "Roles" makes them sound like films.
  • Described by whom? Reword to avoid the need for references.
  • Is it the appearance that is dressed? The grammar of that sentence is not satisfactory.

Tony 14:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected the problems that you mentioned. If you find anymore, tell me, and I'll rewrite them as well.--CyberGhostface 17:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point. I've provided examples of why the whole article needs serious attention, not just the fixing of a few specified glitches. Here are more, taken at random.

• • "Still, even in this case it is possible that"—Not really encyclopedic language.
  • "hints are made to this when a connection between"—hints to?
  • "The two characters are even further connected by"—awkward/unidiomatic/unclear.
  • Winding snake that needs chopping up: "Because Flagg here acts and looks slightly different from how he did in The Stand, (most likely because The Eyes of the Dragon features a medieval setting while The Stand took place in modern times) some have argued that the two are different versions of him from two different dimensions, given the presence of parallel dimensions in the Dark Tower series." And here's another rambler, soon after: "Due to the fact that the story takes place in the same world as The Dark Tower, it could be assumed that, if he did in fact die, then he had reincarnated once again in this same world, much like in the case of the extended version of The Stand."
  • Huge, two-paragraph quote starting ""He had, in fact, come to Delain ...". I think this is a problem.

Really, I think that this is not FA prose. Tony 12:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think its fair that you are listing your complaints without saying what needs to be improved, especially when the majority of it is just minor grammatical errors. The others here managed to list their doubts with the article, which I later fixed appropiately.--CyberGhostface 18:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it. The problem is that the article is full of "minor" glitches. If they were just the ones I've listed here, I wouldn't have bothered. Do you expect me to list every single little error in the whole article? No way. It's your job to find someone else to fix it throughout, if you can't do that yourself. If the deficiencies in the prose fell neatly into one or two categories of deficiency, I'd tell. But they don't; they're more random than that, and require a good copy-editor to fix. Tony 13:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Again...I get what you are trying to say. I just don't agree with your complaints. For example, that whole thing with "He is considered" and people might be confused if thats referring to Flagg or SK, or asking if its the appearence thats being dressed, all of which are minor errors that most people probably don't even catch up on.--CyberGhostface 14:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A "professional" standard of writing, as explicitly required, does not have lots of minor errors. People may not consciously "catch up on" these errors, as you put it; no, it just affects the readability and overall authority of the text. So, in your statement here, some apostrophes are used, but three are missing. That's the kind of thing I mean. FA-standards of writing are achieved by careful, thorough copy-editing, and writers who really do care about micro-errors. I'm tired of arguing about it; I shouldn't have to. Tony 08:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object per Tony. Too many Fair Use images, prose is not compelling or brilliant. Sandy (Talk) 15:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object. There is no citation given for the fans' reaction to Flagg's death. Also, there are just not enough sources beyond King's own works. MLilburne 09:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment What sources are needed if not the works of the writer who wrote all his appearences??? And regarding the citation for Flagg's death...forums, blogs, etc aren't suitable 'sources' but that doesn't change the fact that the fan response for Flagg's death was overwhelmingly negative. You aren't going to find a Boston Globe article talking about it.--CyberGhostface 16:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • As this is an article on literature, you may want to look at other Featured Articles on literary subjects in order to get an idea of the sort of sources that are appropriate to use. Make Way for Ducklings, which was recently promoted, has more references to reviews and literary criticism than this article does, and Make Way for Ducklings is a children's book. As for sources for fan reaction, I understand the difficulty in finding acceptable ones, but it is problematic to have that section completely unsourced. Are you sure there's nothing out there? There's plenty on fan reactions to, say, the cancellation of Firefly, or to the latest Harry Potter book, and so on. Have you looked at book reviews in major newspapers? MLilburne 16:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
      • This site touches upon it briefly, but does not mention Flagg by name as he is trying to avoid spoilers. This site mentions it. Here is another one. And here's one more. Granted, big name sources aren't going to mention really spoilerific material, and I don't know if these are adequate enough.--CyberGhostface 16:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Evan Mecham

Article dealing with one of the more unusual political figures of the 1980s. Has been previously nominated on FAC with a more recent Peer review. Self-nom. --Allen3 ^talk 14:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Support Nobody seemed to be interested, so I let myself be the first one. After a quick read through - informative, interesting, looks thorough. One thing bothers me, though... only one image? --Ouro 15:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The single image is limiting, but unless some free images of Mecham are found there is little that can be done. I have made multiple searches and had a request at Wikipedia:Requested pictures for several months. To date every image located has been under tight copyright restrictions, thus forcing the use of a single fair use image. --Allen3 ^talk 16:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Well, in a situation like this very little can be done. Too bad all your efforts and work brought nothing. --Ouro 17:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting the Arizona State Archives or a similar body and seeing if they have anything? Newyorkbrad 01:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The current fair use image is from the state archives. Arizona law (§ARS 39-121.03) prevents the archives from releasing its images under a GFDL or Creative Commons compatible license so fair use is the best we can do. --Allen3 ^talk 01:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up to my support vote. Apart from the photo the rest is FA-quality if you ask me, only one thing: the first paragraph of After office reads: In 1995 Mecham became chairman of the Constitutionalist Networking Center, a group attempting to create grassroots group called the Constitutionally Unified Republic for Everybody. The purpose of this group was to advocate political candidates supporting a strict interpretation of the United States Constitution. Is it possible to reword this to reduce the amount of groups here? --Ouro 12:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The sentences now read:In 1995 Mecham became chairman of the Constitutionalist Networking Center, a group attempting to create a grassroots organization called the Constitutionally Unified Republic for Everybody (CURE). CURE's purpose was then to advocate political candidates supporting a strict interpretation of the United States Constitution. --Allen3 ^talk 13:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice. Sounds way better. Thanks. --Ouro 13:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Every sentence in the opening paragraph needs fixing.
  • First sentence is a problem: "Evan Mecham (IPA: [ˈmik.ɑm]; born 12 May 1924) is a former American politician and the 19th Governor of Arizona." Tension between "former" and "the 19th". Perhaps insert "was" after "and"?
  • Second sentence: "Mecham worked most of his life as the owner of ..." FOR most of his life?
  • Third sentence: "while becoming a perennial candidate making periodic runs for political office"—This is very strange.
  • "During his time as governor,"—Why not just "While governor"?

Can you get someone to run through the whole text thoroughly? Tony 07:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The lead has been reworked and a new copyedit has been performed on the article. As for your recommendation that I "get someone to run through the whole text thoroughly", multiple peer review requests and requests to the Wikiproject covering the topic have had very limited success in finding editors and reviewers willing to go over the article. Even this FAC nomination has only had limited participation despite the request having been active for 17 days. --Allen3 ^talk 19:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Try researching the edit histories of similar FAs and others. Identify contributors who effectively copy-edited, particularly during the FAC process. Ask them each to spend 20 mins of their time on this one, nominating a particular section, perhaps. Or ask them to do the whole lot. Tony 01:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The FAC instructions require all objections to reference a specific rationale that can be addressed. I have been making period attempts to gather additional feedback on the article, both on and off Wikipedia, for close to a year. Unless you have some evidence that additional contributors willing to assist in a timely manner exist, it is clear that your recommendation in nothing more than an attempt to add further delay and not an actionable objection. If you have any actionable items that have not yet been addressed please provide them, but please do not add any more objections that can not be addressed. --Allen3 ^talk 02:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what part wasn't actionable? Tony 10:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You request that I "get someone to run through the whole text thoroughly". As detailed above, multiple good faith efforts have been made through the available Wikipedia channels. Unless you have some special method to overcome Raul's 3^rd law, such a request is not actionable as there is no way to force some other contributor to perform the requested effort. If you do have an effective method of obtaining additional skilled contributors when needed, please share your method with the community as it would be a boon to all seeking to improve Wikipedia. --Allen3 ^talk 11:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to play this game. I've provided more than enough evidence that the text fails 1a. It's your problem. If you're saying that you can't edit well enought to satisfy the criterion, and can't find anyone else who's interested in doing so, the nomination fails. Simple. Tony 11:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Now, to reinforce my opinion that the whole text fails 1a, let's go through the lead that you say above "has been reworked".
  • There are still problems with the clash of tenses in the first sentence: "Evan Mecham (IPA: [ˈmik.ɑm]; born 12 May 1924) is a former American politician and was the 19th Governor of Arizona." Why not "Evan Mecham (IPA: [ˈmik.ɑm]; born 12 May 1924) was an American politician and the 19th Governor of Arizona." Then all we need to address is the category problem: if he was a state governor, you don't need to tell us that he was an American politician—one is a subset of the other. The opening sentence is still a mess.
  • "As governor, Mecham was plagued by controversy and he became the first U.S. governor to simultaneously face removal from office through impeachment, a scheduled recall election, and felony indictment." It may appear a small point, but I'll say it anyway: remove "he". Should "a" be inserted before "felony"?
  • "His victory during the 1986 election began with a surprise win of his party's nomination followed by a split of the opposition party during the general election." Um ... does "victory" refer to the fact that he won the election? If so, "during" is not the right word ("in"). You refer to "his party" and "the opposition party", but we still don't know whether he was a Democrat or a Republican. You have "during the 1986 election" and "during the general election", raising issues of repetition and lack of cohesion ("general" = the same, 1986 election?)
  • "While governor, Mecham became known for a number of statements and actions that were ..."—You could remove "a number of", which adds nothing at all to the meaning.
  • "causing damage to the state's tourism industry by the cancellation of multiple conventions."—"Damaging" would be better than "causing damage". "Through" rather than "by". What do you mean by "multiple"? Several simultaneous conventions?
  • "A rift between the governor and fellow Republicans in the Arizona Legislature also developed after a series of ..."—Remove "also" as redundant, unless there were other rifts between him and his party colleagues that you're not telling us about.
  • "charges of obstruction of justice and misuse of government funds"—Insert "the" before "obstruction" and before "misuse".
  • "A later criminal trial acquitted Mecham on related charges." I'm pretty sure it should be "of", not "on".
  • "and made his final runs for Governor and to the U.S. Senate"—run to the Senate?

Just about every sentence in this supposedly revamped lead requires fixing. A cursory look through the rest of the text shows many further problems. This is why I contend that the article fails 1a. Tony 10:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Does not conform to WP:LAYOUT, appears to heavily rely on one source (Watkins), raising questions of neutrality, problems with WP:WTA throughout, possible weasle words throughout (example, "While governor, Mecham became known for statements and actions that were widely perceived insensitive to minorities." — does the source use these words?) and prose issues as raised by Tony. Sandy (Talk) 15:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Notes", "References", "Further reading", and "Bibliography" sections have been reordered to comply with WP:LAYOUT. Was there any other section of this MOS overview that you spotted an issue with?

As to your concerns about neutrality, the article's reliance on the Watkins book is based primarily on Watkins providing the most detailed reliable source currently available (a 396 page book vs single chapters available in other book sources). If you look at the actual source of the article you will notice that many of the more inflammatory claims have additional sources commented out. This was done specifically to demonstrate a consistency of heme through all available reliable sources.

For your concerns about the listed example the text of the cited source says:

"Mecham's insensitivity toward minorities, his high-handed political activities, and his inability to recognize his shortcomings often made him a laughingstock. He gave new meaning to the term "gadfly," thank to his mostly unsuccessful forays for political office. His appearance and personality made him the butt of numerous jokes. A slight man at five-foot-six and 138 pounds, he wore an ill-fitting hairpiece. Sam Steiger, who was special assistant to Mecham, said most of the criticism of the governor had to do with his style, "like his toupee, his inappropriate grammar ... the idea that he's overly simplistic ... his unwillingness to compromise.

"Nonetheless, he had a loyal following among the extreme right wing of the Republican Party, senior citizens, and members of the Church o fJesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which he was a member." — Johnson, James W. (2002). Arizona Politicians: The Noble and the Notorious. University of Arizona Press. p. 36. ISBN 0-8165-2204-0.

It should also be noted that the sentence in question is located in the lead and the body of the article provides further details and source citations. If you can suggest a better wording that does not violate WP:BLP or venture into intentional character assassination, please feel free to make appropriate updates. My primary concern was to provide Mecham the benefit of the doubt whenever possible while still being true to the available sources. It should also be noted that it is not just this one source that is strongly worded. Even without seeing the article text, titles such as "When Evan Mecham Talks, Arizona Shudders" (Business Week), "Up in Arms in Arizona" (New York Times), "Inside the Wacky World of Evan Mecham" (U.S. News & World Report), and "Evan Mecham, Please Go Home" (Time) should give you some idea of the public's general view of Mecham. With the exception of self-published books by Mecham and his supporters, the former governor's press is consistently negative. --Allen3 ^talk 18:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Natural selection

Is a GA already. Original contributors have become inactive, but it's close enough that I'll nominate. If you have any small fixes, you may very well have to do them yourselves. Just being honest here. If you don't want to fix things, a yes/no answer is probably appropriate. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 17:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Has this had a peer review yet? That's generally a preferred first step before going straight to FAC. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A peer review will make little difference since the article is not being actively edited by anyone. Regards, Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 21:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If there's no one who's going to edit the article, it's not going to improve. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the nomination? - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 21:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment far too much unreferenced text for my liking. Sandy (Talk) 21:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Object. Per above (refs, PR). In 'Social theory' see alsos in text to social darwinism and sociocolutural evolution are not very good style; I also have a problem with statement that sociocultural evolution discusses evololution of societes as analogoues to evolution of species; while some theories of socev are like this, other explore quite different models (Morgan, Durkheim, White, Marx - their models can hardly be applied to biological evolution, for example).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've just done some fairly substantial text reorganization, with very little change in content. The article was very strangely organized - there were effectively four "introduction" sections, "overview" was the 4th heading, the example came before any other discussion, and there were effectively two history sections. I think the content is fundamentally sound but it badly needs a copyedit (it reads like the original author was not a native English speaker) and there are sentences with an odd essayish tone ('not wanting to be scooped', 'potentially embarrassing situation', etc).

On the matter of citations - I disagree with any objection based on pure citation density rather than identification of specific statements or even paragraphs that need citations. For example, most of the "genetical theory" section is standard textbook material. However, the referencing here is rather uneven (leftovers from prior edit wars?) - of the article's 35 footnoted references, at least 7 are in support of specific terminological usages, which in general the article spends too much time on.

I'm willing to do some work on this article but I can't promise that it'll be quick enough for this FAC. Opabinia regalis 03:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment the lead is too short. --Peta 23:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Object If you don't need to address objections, I don't need to read the article to oppose. Why should I waste my time looking for problems that no one will correct? --Ideogram 14:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Because you're as lazy a bastard as everybody else around here. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

FAC should not be a process for looking for people to do your work. If I don't need to address objections, I may as well nominate a dozen articles at once. This is clearly discouraged. --Ideogram 15:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And this is clearly a special case as you would have understood if you'd read the nomination. I'm not a slave to your whims, and I nominated this article in the faith that the community could do what few things would have been necessary to bring this article up to scratch. As it stands, I see you as pissing on the "graves" of contributors who put a lot of work into this article and left out of exhaustion with the lack of appreciation, whereof you are putting up a perfect display. Nobody forced you to comment. Your words have made it less likely that these sorely missed contributors will return. Come back when you've learnt how to behave yourself! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Nor am I slave to your whims. I am free to vote as I wish. You do not own this process, and you do not have any say over who is allowed to participate. --Ideogram 15:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, you're talking to me about process when you didn't even read the article before you opposed? I think not, Sir. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This debate is entirely pointless. I'm not going to respond further to you, and I'm not going to change my vote. --Ideogram 15:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

:) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

:-x --Ideogram 16:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. And without a logical reason, no one has to accept your !vote either. pschemp | talk 16:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

In the end it is up to Raul. Wikipedia is not a democracy.

But, if you insist, I will give you a reason. Without someone actively sponsoring the article, it will inevitably decay as new editors come along and edit it, even if they have the best of intentions. What is FA today will hit FAR tomorrow, and a lot of effort will have been wasted. --Ideogram 16:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And indeed I was talking about Raul. You seem to be implying that an article needs an owner in order to be an FA, yet that is contrary to WP:OWN.pschemp | talk 19:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Not interested in continuing this argument. --Ideogram 19:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm interested again.

What I look for in a FAC article is not just the article itself, it is someone who is willing to work with me in improving the article. There is no such person here (or was not at time of nomination). --Ideogram 02:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's do it. I need sleep right now, though. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Text is fairly dense. I am not even through the General principles section and have to concentrate to understand. This may be unavoidable in a technical subject, however. --Ideogram 03:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• "Directionality of selection" This subsection is making my eyes glaze over. This is going to be a real problem.

I have to stop here. This article is way too technical for the average reader; you will get a lot of traffic from people trying to understand the Creationism vs. Evolution debate and they will be totally lost here.

Oppose --Ideogram 03:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I have written most of the top halve of the original text. It is an extreme difficult topic to cover well, and the reshuffeling by moving the example down has made it more difficult to understand for most people. The example was with very carefull reasoning placed at the top, precisely because this is a fucking complex topic to cover in a good way. As such, the coverage at current is reasonable, but not featured level. The lead has to be expanded, it is correct for the individual level, but other levels of selection are lacking. Several pieces have been rewritten after I left the project and not for the better, but were used to push certain POV's and resulted in the duplication of the main thing several times, but without actually improving it. I have taken a shot at a better lead, see User:KimvdLinde/Natural selection. If we can create the right context to work at the article and that is based on current understanding of the topic, in good harmony, I am willing to give it another shot to get this article at featured level, but I refuse to continue the discussion whether darwins definition should be used primarily. He bases his idea on differential survival, while modern insights use differential reproduction (And yes, that is a fundamental difference, you can decrease your curvival as long as you increase your reproduction sufficiently to compensate for the loss at he survival side). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Hard to make out what the previous reviewer is on about; please avoid obscene language, even if used in a non-obscene way. I'd lean towards Support, but I agree that the lead is inadequate and that more referencing is required (not every statement, but a smattering of references that point to where readers can verify and/or follow up the general gist of the article). Tony 02:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Rocky

After a long process of getting this to GA standard, following an exellent copyedit, I believe this to be a FA worthy article †he Bread 05:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support A bit short, but a will written summary of a classic American film. - Mike | Talk 05:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object Refs come at the end of punctuation, not in the middle of a sentence. More later. Rlevse 12:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object Not bad overall, but numerous little problems throughout the entire article:

• As Rlevse Refs come directly at the end of punctuation (a comma or a period) which means there is no space. I would not place footnotes in the middle of sentences unless it's absolutely necessary.

• Fixed

• Rocky II is not italicized in the infobox; fixed this myself.

• Thanks

• Lead doesn't flow too well; the second and third sentences run on a bit too long. It could also be expanded at least one more paragraph: for example, there's no mention of any of the cast except Stallone.
• Is the Production section really big enough to have subsections?

• No longer in subsections

• The 4th paragraph of the synopsis feels unneeded, but the 5th paragraph doesn't make sense without it. Fix please.

• Tided now a lead three paragraphs, no. 1 sets the scene, no. 2 details the build up and the characters, and no. 3 is the fight

• Critical reception could definitely be expanded upon. One critic's opinion on each side speaks for both the positive and negative reaction to the film?
• The Awards table and list should be converted into prose.

• Done

Not done. It's now been converted from a table into a bulleted list, which still is not prose.

On second thought, it doesn't bother me that much. Sorry.--Dark Kubrick 00:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about Music and Cultural Influence. They just feel too small to be honest.

• What is there to say about the music? And Cultural Influence could Definately be expanded, it's just hard with an older movie.

If there's not that much to say about the music, then incorporate it into another section. As for cultural influence, wouldn't the movie being old make it easier to expand that section? Since it was made in the 70s, there must be at least a couple of sources that mention its impact.

On a final note, please do not strike out other people's objections on your own, as you did with mine.--Dark Kubrick 00:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry †he Bread 02:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I just saw something in the cast section on how Talia Shire just played in The Godfather Part II and had received an Oscar nomination. Now what's that doing in this article? Numerous little problems like these should be fixed, as others have said.--Dark Kubrick 11:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work so far, but it still needs some improvement before FA.--Dark Kubrick 13:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object The little problems as described above, limit it's status below featured. Hello32020 20:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object too many internal inconsistencies and weasels, such as 'Several Oscars' is actually three, 'rave reviews' becomes 'mostly positive', etc. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 02:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Done it, any more? I couldn't see any †he Bread 02:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. There are several problems, overall this article falls short against other featured articles on films. What is clearly missing is a more detailed description of the cast and characters, the reviews section is too short, the plot is rather brief as well, the release is not discussed in detail, the box office run is only mentioned in the lead, etc. Sloan21 16:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Okay it's obvious I have alot to work on, thank you all for the most thoughrough review could have aksed for, I'll be frequently reffering to this while getting Rocky up to FA standard

Cheers

†he Bread 22:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Gloucester County, Virginia

This article provides a comprehensive and unbiased view of a county that has been an important role in the founding of America, the fight for independence from England, and in the Civil War.

Jordanhmar 01:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am adding this orphaned nomination to WP:FAC now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Ahem... no references, no photos? It's also a bit short... I'd say the article still needs a fair amount of work... --Ouro 11:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong object See the criteria of FAs and recent FAs for what an FA is. Suggest removing per WP:SNOW.Rlevse 12:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Read WP:WIAFA. There are some very good reasons why this has been rated as Start-Class. -- Kicking222 14:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Refer to Peer Review, needs a longer lead, geography is too short etc. -- Selmo ^(talk) 17:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Nomination should be retracted Clearly not ready yet, not enough content, not enough references, not enough wikilins, so-so writing. Honestly, this would not have a snowball's chance in hell to get Good Article status yet. Pascal.Tesson 15:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Democratic peace theory

Original nomination Here

Nomination by --84.113.52.244 16:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC) (German wiki - Tets)

• Pro --84.113.52.244 16:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC) (German wiki - Tets)
• Oppose at first glance. Long list of sources appearing at the end of the article needs to be converted to inline citations. Neil916 (Talk) 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  My english isnt very well, but the sources appearing at the end of the article are inline citations! Take a closer look. Its called havard citation. 84.113.52.244 17:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  You are correct, I did not notice the Harvard citation method. Neil916 (Talk) 19:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Initial glance for the inconsistency of referencing - similar to above. Yes there is harvard referencing, but there's also the wikipedia standard referencing side by side. Pick one style and stick to it -- I would definitely prefer the wikipedia standard with the "ref" style. Further review only after the referencing is consistent. Fieari 17:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Insufficient and inconsistent referencing combined with an essay tone for most of the article make it completely unworthy of being a featured article. I think DPT has been nominated before (at least I've definitely seen the article before), and it was in much better shape then. —Cuiviénen 18:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object -- this reads more as an essay than as an encyclopedic summary of mainstream and significant minority sources. There's an argumentative thread running through what should be an explanation of theory, and we're not given any context for a lot of this material; we go from an unsourced statement about Kant's as being somehow important to a quote from the U.S. President in a couple of paragraphs; without a stronger lead there's nothing to give the reader confidence that this is really giving an informative overview instead of some idiosyncratic description. Image:DP CHART V19.JPG and Image:DP BACKSIDE V 16.JPG need deleting for being higher resolution than necessary, not identifying the copyright holder, and seemingly being used solely to demonstrate that someone that some Wikipedia editor likes has published PDFs. Jkelly 23:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The Great Dictator

This film is nowadays considered as a classic for two main reasons:

• It starrs Charlie Chaplin, a person who brought happiness to the world in a time of war
• It is a satire of one of the most important events in modern history.

Although the film itself might proove difficult to understand at times, its climax is one that you wouldn't forget easily, especially the speech that Charlie Chaplin ends this film with. Keith Azzopardi 13:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The article is full of "citation needed" tags. MLilburne 15:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Insufficient references, music is not even mentioned, no box office results, critical reception is too short, "analyses" is not adequate, for such a film I would expect something like this V_for_Vendetta_(film)#Themes, the DVD release is not mentioned. Jaqu 15:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Send to Good Article candidates. Not near Featured Article quality. Needs much better referencing and more comprehensive information about the film, criticism, releases, etc. Kaldari 01:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object, as above. Polite note to the nominator. It is indeed an article which should be developed to the FA quality. We all agree that this is an important film about which Wikipedia should have as nice an article as possible. However, we push articles to the FA status because they have FA quality, not because we wish they did. I encourage you to send it to peer review instead. Pascal.Tesson 04:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Just because a film is a classic doesn't make it a featured article. If it's such a classic, there should be plenty more citations and references. I'm sure we can come up with info on this to make it FA, but it's not even close to GA as it stands now. Anthony Hit me up... 04:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

MMORPG

It has been about a year since the last nomination and the article has been improved further. Although the article is relatively long, this is becoming an increasingly important subject (with over 15 million worldwide players of MMORPGs, according to industry estimates) that I believe justifies the length. The quality of the prose and content has improved during this time.

Previous comments are here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/MMORPG/archive1

Tarinth 14:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• object article had 5 citation needed tags in it before the FAC even started. Lacks real inline citations in general... just 4 external links used to cite facts throughout the entire article. See WP:CITE. --W.marsh 15:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object - It isn't long at all... heck with all the markup it's only 35k! However, It's barely referenced, which is a a huge problem. Almost NOTHING is cited. In a moment, I'll go through the article and tag everything that needs a citation. Expect it to be a lot. Fieari 19:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC) -- Actually, I take it back. I won't mark it up, because almost EVERY SENTENCE requires a cite in this article, and NONE OF THEM HAVE ONE. I've used the {{unreferenced}} tag instead to cover the whole article. Also, in looking through it more closely, the prose leaves much to be desired, and though I agree that MMORPGs are an encyclopedic topic, the language used is not encyclopedic. Also: why on earth is there talk about WOW's Korean playerbase in the lead section? Why is this notable enough to be in the lead, as this is not an article about WOW in specific, but MMORPGs in general? Fieari 19:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The comment on the length was in responses to the archived FaC comments that included a complaint about the article being too long.Tarinth 22:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I thought article titles weren't supposed to have abbreviations in them? Rlevse 19:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment MMORPG is the most commonly used form of the concept, few do people refer to a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. Also, there should be some more citations in the MMORPG article... a lot more.

Common only to those who play it. Most people will have no idea what it means.Rlevse 00:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Acronyms and abbreviations are only to be used in situations where the acronym has become a word, such as SCUBA, LASER, or NATO. MMORPG is not that recognizable to the general English speaker. Jay32183 04:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object I agree that lack of referencing is a serious problem. There's also quite a few fair-use screenshots and some aren't even the best quality. While the article covers many aspects, it lacks a strong lead section and over all organization. Shell ^babelfish 06:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I added a couple of references, and rewrote the lead paragraph slightly, but there's not enough here to make a FA yet. Article needs a LOT of work. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 16:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object & comment nomination should be retracted. It's not a bad article but it clearly fails on references alone and it's just not ready. It could be sent to peer review instead. Pascal.Tesson 20:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I nominated it for AID. Clearly not ready. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 20:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object: I object as per User:Shell_Kinney. He has stated just about everything I need to say except that if I created the article, I would look to combine some of the shorter sections, such as "Browser-based MMORPGs" and "Genre challenges". Not that I would combine those two specifically, just to merge those in with another section (possibly).-Hairchrm 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda (series)

I believe that The Legend of Zelda has stood up as a well written and sourced piece of work on Wikipedia as well as providing a comprehensive summation of the various games and which systems they were on in addition to accurate dating and an appropriate length. In addition to this the article as not recieved any major changes for some time and the majority of recent edits have been of little consequence to the article itself.

Overall I believe that the article has all of the necessary feautures to be a featured article and is of excellent quality.BigHairRef | Talk 22:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object: The author(s) of this article ought to go back and look for the NPOV in the first paragraph. Unless there is a quote that specifically states it, the phrase "equally incredible worlds" should be changed to reflect a less biased view. Also, there are multiple "citations needed" in the chronology section that need to be addressed before this article should gain FA status. According to the WP:RS "Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without a source". It is also a little long, but it looks as if it has been split pretty well. The "History" section might be able to be trimmed just a bit. Otherwise, it is a good article. Once this is cleaned up, it should be eligible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hairchrm (talk • contribs) .

I've tried to tidy it up a little. Hopefully it should be better. BigHairRef | Talk 02:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

While you have cleaned this up, all you did was remove the "citation needed" pieces. What really needs to be done is to find evidence of this. There is also much more non-NPOV items in the intro, the example I gave was only one of the problems there. Unfortunately, I still need to give this one an Object.-Hairchrm 02:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object I greatly dislike the lead. It should be a bit longer and considerably less POV. Only 12 references for a 46kb-long article are not enough, and two of the citations are screwed up (and, apparently, were added today). Tons of statements- and, in fact, entire sections- are unsourced, and the article currently has two {{citation needed}} tags. The "Cultural influence" and "References in other games" sections are both lists instead of prose and far too long; in particular, removal of the entire "Cultural influence" section would greatly improve the article. There's not nearly enough exposition on the characters besides Link. WP:MOS problems- names of games should be in italics, not italicized and in quote marks, and not simply capitalized with no mark-up. -- Kicking222 02:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. There seems to be a lot of POV language in the article like "celebrated" and other superlative adjectives. There are multiple fair-use images being used. In addition to information still needing citations, whole sections have been marked as possible original research. The lists have gotten rather long instead of giving a few examples of major importance. I also agree that there seem to be style problems as well, most notably the fact that different styles are used throughout the article itself, i.e. the game titles. Shell ^babelfish 05:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Cititions Needed & Original Research tags do not belong in a featured article. Alexj2002 11:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Indian Navy

This is the request for second review.The first one is is archieved. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indian Navy/archive1 Chanakyathegreat 03:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object refer to Peer Review per above. It could develop into a FA but is not one now. Hello32020 20:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Note: this comment was made here because the original FAC nomination was archived late. Pagrashtak 17:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object - references should be linked to more than just webpages. From the footnotes, no reference books appear to have been used writing this article at all. Suggest Peer Review and much improvement (including to history section) as per other comments. Buckshot06 07:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object: insufficient lead; fair use images have rather weak rationales (some are replaceable); section headers use proper caps, contrary to WP:MOS; footnotes belong after punctuation, not before; stand-alone years should not be linked; references need to be formatted ({{cite web}} makes this easier). I picked a section at random (Weapon Systems) to check the prose. After I found problems in the first five sentences, I stopped: The Indian Navy uses the most latest technology... (most latest?), Some of this systems... (this systems?), Others like the BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles are jointly developed with Russia (missing commas), The Navy has got the Lakshya PTA[34]. (has got? choppy.), There has been reports... (reports has?). Also, this section has "Submarine-based missiles" as an entire paragraph, not sure what happened there. I suggest peer review and trying for GA as your first goal. Pagrashtak 17:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

User Gimmetrow corrected footnotes and puts them after punctuation. Lead section expanded after correction. Section for Books added in reference section(need expansion). corrected the weapon system section. Looking for more errors. Chanakyathegreat 03:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• There is a lot of good content here, but I think the article could benefit from a copy-edit by a third party. In the last FAC someone said "Navy's not Navies" but I don't think this meant the entire article. Generally "Navy's" is a possessive (The Navy's headquarters) and "navies" is a plural (the many navies of the world). I just fixed quite a few similar apostrophe-s constructions where it seemed a plural was intended. Gimmetrow 01:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Please convert to Cite.php. You don't want to think about doing this when your article has over 80 footnotes. Trust me.--Rmky87 23:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Singapore Changi Airport

I've noticed all the hard work by WP:AIRPORTS participants, local editors and those just interested in the airport, with over 1450 edits. It meets all of the criteria at WP:FA?, so far as I can tell:

1. It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
2. It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects
3. It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status.
4. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

I see this article as also having many of the criteria set forth in WP:TPA. We've gone through both a Peer Review and a WikiProject Peer Review without much participation, though the automated review helped the article immensely.

Let the merciless editing and review begin! thadius856_talk 20:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose To start off, the prose is too choppy. There are too many sections that can be combined for succinctness (like Passenger Terminals can be merged into the Terminals section and the transportation sections can be merged into a single subtopic). As of now, the information seems all over the place, not a very good feature of an FA article. Much more work needs to be done to bring it to FA status. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The article as it stands lacks plenty of crucial information one would expect from an airport article, in particular on its architecture and design philosophy. The Airline services section looks undeveloped. And the entire piece looks disjointed in that it appears to be the result of tussling between factions undecided on just what kind of information an airport article should have.--Huaiwei 23:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, article does not have enough information to qualify for FA status. Parts of the article do not meet FA standards and the history section is rather vague, not a detailed history. The airport's architecture and security section is not updated, and there is no mention of the cargo section of the airport. Needs some more improvement, until we can send it for FAC again. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 01:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• CommentThe lists in the article can be put into another article to make it less complicated.AgreeIt should to able to become a FA if the lists are made into another article.Gravity^Talk 16:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Mac OS X

This article is really well writen, comprehensive. Describes the most important things related to Mac OS X. There is also a 'Criticisms' section; the article shorty describes Mac OS X versions (and there are articles about them that have more content related to specific version); it cites it references. It meets all the requirements written on Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, so I proposed it. Of course, I support the nomination. --Emx 22:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm listing this nomination on the main WP:FAC page (this page was not included). — Miles (Talk) 01:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. In the Jaguar section, there's the following statement:

  Some consider version 10.2, or Jaguar, the "first good release" of Mac OS X.

  Who made that statement? Is it relevant? Isn't it a bit too weaselly? Titoxd^(?!?) 01:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Looking deeper at the article, it's only the tip of the iceberg. Let's have a look at the entire article, section by section:
  • Lede: I guess it is ok.
  • History: I found this section to be lacking substance. No release dates of versions, no sales figures, just a lot of discussion about Steve Jobs's role in NeXT and Apple. Which wouldn't be a bad thing if it were written correctly:
    • Mac OS X is based on the Mach kernel and the BSD implementation of Unix, which were incorporated into NEXTSTEP, the object-oriented operating system developed by Steve Jobs's NeXT company after he left Apple in 1985.[1] - rewrite: two sentences mushed into one, loses clarity
    • Jobs was re-hired, and later returned to the leadership of the company, shepherding the transformation of the programmer-friendly OPENSTEP into a system that would be welcomed by Apple's primary market of home users and creative professionals, as a project known as Rhapsody. - same problem here, with the Rhapsody clause. And how about a reference?
    • Mac OS X has evolved through its successive versions - what is that supposed to mean?
  • Description: here's some issues here as well:
    • On top of this core, Apple designed and developed a number of proprietary components including the Aqua themed Quartz Compositor and the Macintosh Finder user interface shell. - grammar, hyphenation problems
    • Wikilink Unix-like operating system (introduced in the lede, I know, but by the time you get here, you have scrolled down two pages).
    • Pre-emptive multitasking and memory protection, for example, improved the ability of the operating system to run multiple applications simultaneously without their interrupting or corrupting each other. - grammar: "their" is wrong here. Also needs a ref.
    • use of soft edges, translucent colors, and pinstripes similar to the hardware of the first iMacs, brought more color and texture to the windows and controls on the Desktop than OS 9's "Platinum" appearance had offered. - comma splice; also, ideally wikilink the "Platinum" user interface.
    • Some, including numerous users of the older versions of the operating system, decried the new look as "cutesy" and lacking in professional polish.[3] Others, however, hailed Aqua as being a bold and innovative step forward in a time when user interfaces were seen as being "dull and boring".[4] - Weasel words
    • Wikilink first occurence of compiler.
    • It supports the ability to target both platforms for which Mac OS X is sold, allowing an application to be built to run only on PowerPC, only on x86, or on both processors as a universal binary. - too technical: for those who don't know that Intel chips run on an x86 architecture, as Windows does, this won't make any sense.
    • The server edition, Mac OS X Server, is architecturally identical to its desktop counterpart but usually runs on Apple's line of Macintosh server hardware. - comma issues here as well. Also, why is this paragraph copied verbatim into the lede? It needs expansion here.
  • Compatibility: more issues here as well:
    • Spell out the first time you use any abbreviation, such as API.
    • However, on July 11, 2005, Apple announced that "features added to Cocoa in Mac OS X versions later than 10.4 will not be added to the Cocoa-Java programming interface."[6] - as my best friend would say: "And why should I care?" What is the relevance, importance or notability of this?
    • Projects such as Fink and DarwinPorts provide precompiled or preformatted packages for many standard packages. Since version 10.3, Mac OS X has included X11.app, the company's version of the X Window System graphical interface for Unix applications, as an optional component during installation.... - {{fact}}
    • Hardware: the entire section needs references here as well.
    • These rumors subsided until late in May 2005, when various media outlets, such as the Wall Street Journal[8] and CNET[9] reported that Apple would unveil Marklar in the coming months. - unclear structure: did the rumors died in 2002 and resurfaced in 2005, or did they persist until 2005?
    • However, Apple encourages Developers to produce Universal Binaries with support for both PowerPC and x86. - {{fact}}
    • Moreover, some PowerPC software, such as kernel extensions and System Preferences plugins, is not supported on Intel Macs. While Intel Macs will run PowerPC binaries as well as x86 and Universal Binaries, PowerPC Macs will only support Universal and PowerPC builds - grammar, missing period at the end of the sentence, and {{fact}} again.
    • Although Apple stated that Mac OS X would not run on Intel-based personal computers aside from its own, a hacked version of the OS developed by the OSx86 community is available illegally through file-sharing networks. However it is no longer up to date with Apple's system updates; using the kernel from a previous update. - copyedit and add references.
  • Prominent features: this entire section is a list. Convert it to prose, and make sure you have references for it.
  • Pricing: {{fact}} again.
  • Naming: more {{fact}}s:
    • The character X is a Roman numeral and is officially pronounced "ten", continuing the numbering of previous Macintosh operating systems such as Mac OS 8 and Mac OS 9. - if it is "officially" pronounced, give a link referencing where Apple states that.
      • Does this qualify? How about this? MFNickster 04:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, now put it in the article... :) Titoxd^(?!?) 04:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Mac OS X versions are named after big cats. Prior to its release, version 10.0 was code named "Cheetah" internally at Apple, and version 10.1 was code named internally as "Puma". After the immense buzz surrounding version 10.2, codenamed "Jaguar", Apple's product marketing began openly using the code name to promote the operating system. 10.3 was similarly marketed as "Panther". Version 10.4 is marketed as "Tiger". "Leopard" has been announced as the name for the next release of the operating system, version 10.5. Apple has also registered "Lynx" and "Cougar" as trademarks. - refs needed here as well, for the codenames, and also for the trademarking of Lynx and Cougar.
  • Timeline: Oh boy. Not a single reference until we get to Leopard. That's just bad.
    • Leopard is unreleased software: that makes the article unstable, so I'm afraid it doesn't pass Criterion 1(e) right there.
  • Criticisms: run a spell check. Also, "demoability" isn't a word.
    • It seems quite surprising to me that there are only two criticisms described here, when you already mentioned several more above.
    • Check the citations here, so they meet WP:FN and the positioning with respect to punctuation, as described there.
• Overall, I wish I could say that this article is close to FA status, but I'm afraid that's not the situation here. As a result, I'm obliged to object, and recommend that it be referred to Wikipedia:Peer review. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Since there's no way I could possibly add anything to the above, I'll just go with oppose per Tito. -- Kicking222 15:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - Needs a lot of work before I can support it. Lacking references and needed information. I'll try to help out the best I can. — Wackymacs 18:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose as per tito and serious lack of references throughout. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 19:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per Tito. Thanks for a lot of work...--HereToHelp 00:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per Tito. Yao Ziyuan 15:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Lead needs to put in actual times, not vague terms like "current" or "now" (Try "As of 2006,..."). Also lead should summarize the whole article but does not (none of the cat name versions are mentioned in the lead, for example). Final point, many of the headers and subheaders contain the name of the article and should not. So "Mac OS X v10.0 (Cheetah)" could be "Version 10.0 (Cheetah)" or "v10.0 (Cheetah)" and "Criticisms of Mac OS X" would just be "Criticisms". I was going to make these comments at WP:PR where the article was listed only 2 weeks ago, but saw it was already up for FAC. Hope these comments help, Ruhrfisch 02:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thaddeus S. C. Lowe

This article is self-nominated. It has undergone Peer Review and has received only the best of comments from other editors including a Barnstar to Magi Media--Magi Media 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In an attempt to align the article with the comments made about the introduction, I have rewritten it with what I hope is better grammatical construct. Thank you everyone for your gracious input.--Magi Media 05:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

---

• Object lead is way too long and has too many details. Should be 3 paras in this case. See WP:Lead. Rlevse 16:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

re: The lead has been pared and reduced to 3 paras.--Magi Media 03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - This is an interesting article that would be a good addition to the featured articles. It is well written with a tone that is in keeping with the subject and period and is well researched. The lead is five paragraphs as opposed to three, but I feel that it fits the intent of the lead as being a good "executive summary" of the article. The article is one that leads me to want to read more about the subject, which I feel is also a sign of a featured article. Nightngle 17:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Thank you--Magi Media 03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object until the leas is fixed per Rlevse and all the paragraphs are properly cited.--Yannismarou 20:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

re: citations for lead paragraphs are well noted in the body which restates in more detail the leads.--Magi Media 03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

All the paragraphs of the article I mean. For instance, in "Mount Lowe Railway" there are two uncited paragraphs. And I think that we do not cite headings. Anyway, I don't want to be unfair. I see the lead is better. So, I turn my vote to neutral until the article is properly referenced.--Yannismarou 09:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Lots of style problems. Here are some of the obvious ones:
  • birthday and date of death should come immediately after name

re: repaired--Magi Media 03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• • birthday and date of death should not include place of birth, place of death, place of interment or "b." abbreviation.

re: all of this info is in the INFOBOX!

• • first sentence is not a sentence and does not have ending punctuation, needs to be fixed

re: fixed!

• • introduction is too long

re: shortened!

• • sentence fragments should not end in periods (see Infobox especially)

re: the dots are removed!

• • there are no metric conversions for distances

re: distances and weights converted.

• • linking directly to an image in the See also section is unorthodoxed. what is the image from the census for? if it's a reference, list it under references (and link to the image description page rather than the image itself). Otherwise I would remove it.

re: That was someone else's idea. It is removed.

Kaldari 01:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for those helpful comments--Magi Media 03:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object, I honestly don't like the intro, very inconsistent.--Seadog ^♪ 02:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Seadog! Thou cutst me to the quick. Are you and Nightngle reading the same article? I have made some revisions.--Magi Media 03:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Your first sentence isn't complete. It should flow grammatically like a normal sentence. Aside from that: put the dates in the intro; even if you think it's redundant with the infobox, it's simply stylistic convention for bio articles. Also, you've got a cite number in one of your section titles; by all means use the ref, but place it in the main text. Everyking 10:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

re:Someone fixed the lead sentence, and I am indebted... I fixed the citation--Magi Media 02:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment leads should summarize the article and if properly written, in many cases won't need a citation in the lead. Rlevse 13:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

re: I agree, but does my rewrite qualify?--Magi Media 02:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There should be no use of ibid in the footnotes. If a new footnote is added then ibid will no longer refer to the right footnote.--Peter Andersen 16:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Ibids are out!--Magi Media 02:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object—Poorly written. Take the opening:

Lowe lived a life that was full of claims-to-fame. Born of pioneer farm boy stock, Lowe showed an initial interest in meteorology with his avid study of the winds and cloud directions. He initially recognized the strong easterly high altitude wind which sparked an interest to fly in it. As an older teenager, Lowe became fascinated with the properties of lighter-than-air gases, in particular, hydrogen. By age 21 he found himself taking up amateur aviation, which at the time was ballooning. As a chemistry lecturer and balloon ride conductor he was able to put enough money together for a formal education thus furthering his studies in chemistry, meteorology, and aviation. By the late 1850's he was well known for his scientific academia and balloon building which included a plan for a transatlantic flight via the high lofting winds (the Jet Stream).

• Why is "claim to fame" in italic and hyphenated? Then we have another triple bunger shortly after.
• "Farmboy"—not sure I like the genetic angle in the first clause; a farmboy's a farmboy. Might raise hackles about African-American boys forced to live on farms, too.
• "Initial" twice.
• "sparked an interest"— "sparked his interest"?
• "he found himself taking up"—bit laboured; why not just "he took up"?
• "1850's"—Only the NY Times persists with this illogical apostrophe.
• "amateur aviation, which at the time was ballooning." "Ballooning" is ambiguous and/or ungrammatical here. Could mean "expanding rapidly", or that amateur aviation centred on ballooning.
• "well-known"
• "his scientific academia"—What does that mean? And the "plan"—does that refer back to both items or just "balloon building".

Muddled. Tony 09:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

KGB

Very concise and encycolpedic in nature. Obeattie

• OPPOSE: Opening section is far too long and there are vry few pictures throughout the article. -Husnock 10:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - references, only four for the entire artcile on a subject so intertwined withworld affairs for 40 years. also not one inline cite. Lead almost constitutes an article by its self, think theres alot more information not included. Daughter articles, organisation structure and history 1 article, external(west) activities another article, internal activities another. This one of those topics that you should have enough information to "go to town with". Have you read the book "Spy catcher" by peter wright? published late 80's theres a lot of information on KGB's agent within Uk government. There not even a mention of "Hollywood" perceptions and type castings. Gnangarra 12:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Lead section is too long, there is a deleted image, no inline citations. Please refer to WP:PR first. — Indon (reply) — 16:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: As per Husnock. Also, does this article need to be so long? I am a firm believer in sticking to brief articles, unless there is a specific reason that it will not fit. This article could be divided into sub sections, and made to flow more easily.-Hairchrm 03:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism

Self-Nomination

• support. great article. --71.194.71.220 06:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Hello I am Seadog.M.S and I've nominated this article for featured status. I am doing this because I and other editors including User:HeBhagawan have worked very, very hard on this article. The article now has the Table of Contents to the left so there is no more huge gap in the article. There are many beautiful pics to the article. There are more wikilinks and alot of referances. Please let me know your opinoions. Please either say Support or Oppose and if possible leave reason why.
  

Seadog.M.S 00:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I think the article is looking good. I support making it a featured article. Judge for yourself. I have been a contributor to the article. HeBhagawan 00:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Suggestion. I took a quick look at it, and was struck by how wide the TOC was, perhaps you can use another level of headings or change the heading for the one long entry, so it fits better. Also there are a few red links, I'm not sure how important they are to understanding the rest of the text, but it might be worth stubifying them, so other people, especially IP users can edit them. Terri G 17:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC). Done. HeBhagawan

• Object—1a. Loosely written, lots of redundancies, uneven tone.
  • "Thus, Hinduism accepts a large number of scriptures, and remains open to any new revelations that may come in the future."(fixed_Seadog.M.S) Are the last three words redundant? ("... that may come in the past"?) I'm having difficulty in accepting such a sweeping assertion—what, Christian revelations too?...Yes from what I have studied from many differnt sources, Hinduism is a very open religion.--Seadog.M.S 14:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Of course" should probably not be used in an encyclopedic register. Chatty. Fixed that one--Seadog.M.S
  • "for many years before they were finally written down." Spot the redundant word.--Fixed that also--Seadog.M.S 14:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Hindus do not focus much on whether the stories found in the scriptures are accurate from a historical perspective"—Spot the redundant word. And at the end of the sentence, why not "are historically accurate"?--Fixed--Seadog.M.S 14:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • ""Heaven" and "Hell" may exist, but heaven is not considered the ultimate goal. This is because heaven and hell are temporary. The only thing that is eternal is divinity, which includes God as well as the ātman (the soul). Therefore the ultimate goal is to experience divinity.[35]" Is this a statement of what Hindus believe, or is WP putting its name to a universal assertion?
  • Please change title case to sentence case in the titles, as per MoS. Tony 13:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Done.--Rmky87 18:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good introduction, well explained, enough references, I do not find it lacking. | AndonicO Talk 12:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Fully Support This page is up to very high standards in both factual accuracy as well as grammar and tone. I feel it is both reliable as well as neutral, and the general tone... makes it one of the greatest articles that I have come across on Wikipedia. I agree with the excellent introduction and the fact that I am not aware of any lacks. Keep up the good work! Bhaveer 00:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Important procedural matters: (1) Allow reviewers to strike their own text, please. Crossing out yourself is not done. (2) HeBhagawan appears numerous times in the edit history. Please observe the rule concerning disclosing the fact that you're a contributor when you support a nomination. Further to my "object", here are more random examples of problems in the writing.
  • The ampersand is inappropriate in most contexts, and certainly in your titles (e.g., "God & the soul"). It's not a business name on a street sign.
  • Why is "Brahman" linked three times in 10 words? '... Brahman. Brahman is the Absolute reality: it is pure existence and knowledge. Brahman ...". And the link keeps appearing again and again. The less blue peppering, the neater the appearance. Why water down the links that you want readers to follow? Once is enough (even twice if you have to, I suppose.) Same with the other links: just the first time, please.
  • Has someone gone through the article to weed out redundancies? Here's just one: "God does not have any such attributes" (any).
  • "Project onto", not "on". (Occurs several times.)
  • So God has no gender? Why use "he" and "his", then?
  • "Hindus worship primarily one or another of these deities"—Spot the two redundant words.
  • "the myriad names and forms of God one finds in Hinduism"—Spot the two redundant words.
  • "Although Hindus may worship deities other than their chosen ideal from time to time as well, depending on the occasion and their personal inclinations, it is not expected that they will worship—or even know about—every form of God." Remove "from time to time as well,"—it adds nothing. As soon as I see "it is expected", I want to know who's doing the expecting. Reword if you can't say.

Needs considerable work thoughout, not just the fixing of these points. Tony 02:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object Too many sub headings. ToC congested. Should try to follow the gist style as far as applicable. Size is too big (even after considering the huge number of citations). Also, per Tony.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC). I think that the size of the article is very reasonable considering the scope and the importance of the subject matter. If you look in an quality book-form encyclopedia, you will also find long articles for major world religions. If it were much shorter, it would probably not be able to explain the religion in a manner that made sense.
• Suggestion I think that some of the terms be spelt consistently throughout, like Ishvara or iśvara and the like. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 19:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't like the way the TOC is placed next to the text. If it's too long, the subsubsubections could be replaced by large fonts text using HTML (Just as World War 2 does). CG 05:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support I spent some time cleaning up several redundant wikilinks and some minor punctuation and grammar mistakes, and came away very impressed with the article. This article does a great job of presenting Hinduism to a broad audience, especially considering the vast scope of Hinduism, and the many strong views held by different branches. I don't think that the article will ever please every Hindu - I had minor quibbles with some points - but that's just the nature of Hinduism. ॐ Priyanath 21:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I am new to this, but I would like to get to be a good editor.

• Comment. The presence of all these stubby sections is a problem. On the other size, this is indeed a very nicely done article.--Yannismarou 19:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Exceptional article. - Mike | Trick or Treat 03:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support I would have loved to see a section on theism but it is already very long. Even without it, it is a very good article. -- P.K.Niyogi 04:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object, per WP:WIAFA, it fails criterion 3 for copyright images:
  • Image:UniversalForm.jpg → fails fair use rationale for this page.
  • Image:Lord_Ram.jpg → has obsolete license and it does not have link to the source.
  • Image:Vivekananda.png → has no source information. The source links to itself.
  • Image:Nataraja.jpg → has invalid fair use rationale, see the image summary as somebody had asked about this there.
  • Image:Tirumala_svtemple.jpg → has no source and no copyright information.
  • Image:DiwaliSwastika.jpg → has no fair use rationale for this image.
  • Image:Om2.jpg → has an obsolete license tag.

— Indon (reply) — 12:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object - The article seems to be classifying some other religions like Buddhism and Jainism as schools of Hindu philosophy. Although their is definite influence, I am sure their will be many who disagree with the statement. You need proper citation for that statement and then also include opposing views. Furthermore, TOC is imposing and so is the length of the article. --Blacksun 19:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Being a Hindu from India and having attempted to edit the article, my experience is, no worthy edits are allowed in the article and the same is tried to be monopolised by a single editor. To me, the article is projecting improper connotation of the subject Hinduism. The references lead to a book source page and is not true reference to the respective text incorporated. The article is victim of sock-puppetry. Incivility is used to discourage other editors. Even if, the layout or the text is otherwise good, the article has to do justice to the subject matter but the article is forced to be devoid of logics of Hinduism doctrines and created to be seen Hinduism doctrines as superstitious which as a Hindu, I object. In principle, the article should be free for worthy edits which under one or other pretext or by sock-puppetry tactics is prevented from. It would be apparent from the talk page of Hinduism that incivility is freely used to discourage other edits. Citations for the matter of general knowledge of Hindus is sought and removed whereas other matters without due citations or supported by improper or false citations incorporated by a single editor or a group stay.

Is this all done to get FAC? then it's wrong.

While feeling honour as a Hindu, if, this article is nominated as FAC, I in principle plead that it should be considered whether right cause is backed by right means? Swadhyayee 07:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Hinduism"

Mr.Tony,

I have seen you applying mind to Hinduism shortcomings. My concern is HeBhagawan do not allow right connotations being incorporated in the article. My feeling is, it is due to the article having been nominated for FAC apart from his personal belief to be most fit to write Hinduism article.

I suffer a great deal of pain when Hinduism is projected dimly. I do not want to improperly glorify Hinduism but I want that right connotations of Hinduism find it's place in the article. Hinduism has capability to provide thinking for human religion, rather is a human religion. The philosophy imbibed in Hindus make them tolerant to contradictory views and contradictory customs. Hindus have a very large population. One may experience isolated incidents or groups intolerant to contradictory views and customs but average Hindu is very tolerant, co-operative and helping.

I am deadly against the psyche of any editor of not allowing others to incorporate facts of general knowledge in the name of citation. Though Hindus are strict vegetarians and believe in idol worship, they are not vengeful against Muslims. There may exist element of dislike but it's due to some other reasons. Christains and Parsis though non-veg. have excellent relationship with Hindus. This I am saying to support my statement that Hinduism is a human religion and I wish Hinduism is properly explained in the Wikipedia article.

To my mis-fortune, enough knowledgable editors are either not available or do not come forward to help. I am pretty sure that HeBhagawan is involved in sock-puppetry.

If you observe, he has to frequently edit his statements and yet you could point out poor language. In spite of this, he has been repeatedly involving in incivil comments against me that my English is not good, is full of grammatical mistakes, give a different meaning, my contributions damage the article and exhibit un-fettered authority by suggesting me to edit other articles or edit in other languages and is being supported by Priyanath to suggest me to write blogs or personal websites.

I have principled objections against Wikipedia articles being deprived of free edits. I believe, howsoever good one editor may be, he has no extra constitutional authority to prevent someone from incorporating additional facts in Wikipedia articles that not known to him. It's still worst to involve in sock-puppetry to make incivil coments to serve the malice purpose.

I do not know whether you have a chair of authority to help me or not but I found you interested in preserving standard for FAC and I wish you also hold views of significance of right means behind a right cause.

With due apology for long comments.

Swadhyayee 04:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tony1"

Object: Mr. HeBhagwan wants to generalize Hinduism, instead of focusing on the many theological differences Hindus have. I accepted his assertion that karma is merely a law of cause and effect even though the Vedanta school rejects it. And Vedanta is the dominant school in Hinduism. The problem with all editors insist on their point of view. For example, Aupmanav, insists on a view of atheism being represented in the article even though it's an insignificant view in Hinduism. And Mr. Hebhagwan even initially objected to the use of "many believe in the role of God in karma," and wanted to use the word, "some,". I do agree that he was civil.

Brahma Sutra 2.1.34: "No partiality and cruelty (can be charged against God) because of (His) taking other factors into consideration."

Sankara's commentary explains that God cannot be charged with partiality or cruelty (i.e. injustice) on account of his taking the factors of virtuous and vicious actions (Karma) performed by an individual in previous lives. If an individual experiences pleasure or pain in this life, it is due to virtuous or vicious action (Karma) done by that individual in a past life.

Many Hindus' view of Hinduism is shaped by Western influences and it may be reflected in the article. And Mr. Bhagwan's sources for karma in Hinduism is mainly derived from such persons, except swami vivekanda: Pratima Bowes, The Hindu Religious Tradition 54-80 (Allied Pub. 1976) ISBN 0-7100-8668; Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol. II, at 217-225 (18th reprint 1995) ISBN 81-85301-75-1; Alex Michaels, Hinduism: Past and Present 154-56 (Princeton 1998) ISBN 0-691-08953-1.

I do agree that Mr. HeBhagwan has been civil.

Raj2004 10:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I believe that this article would be much better if editors kept in mind that Wikipedia is read by a broad audience, and that the Hinduism article is likely read most often by non-Hindus who are using Wikipedia the way it was intended - as an encyclopedia. So, the article needs speak to the general, non-Hindu audience, as well as educating Hindus about Hinduism. I don't believe there is a pressing need to address every single concern of each philosophy, school of thought, and believer. I've kept many of my own beliefs out of the article for this reason. The specifics are more appropriate to other subject articles, like Karma, Tilak, etc. The Hinduism article should be a very broad, general article that introduces people to Hinduism.

Swadhyayee, addressing your concern that people are editing this article for the sole purpose of making it a Featured Article: 1. It's not a bad motive to try and bring an important article up to the highest standards of Wikipedia. 2. To allay your concerns, I for one have recently let go of any illusion that Hinduism will ever make Featured Article status. This doesn't change how I'll be editing it, because I think it's an important article. I will still work on making it meet Wikipedia's standards. For such a long and broad article, that means clarity, brevity when possible, good grammar, and a style that speaks to the broadest possible audience (rather than a discussion between Hindus about their personal and strongly held beliefs on what is Hinduism). ॐ Priyanath 18:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I agree with Priyanath, In my opinion the reason why I nominated the article is because the article in my opinion is fine and not lacking. I know that getting this article featured is a very diffucult task because. 1. There are dissagreements between editors on certain parts of the article, but usually it is disscussed on the talk page and most often than not the problem has been solved. 2. Most of the Editors who edit this article are Hindus. You must keep in mind that being considered a Hindu is very open. The different "denominations" are close in beliefs but have differences. These differnces may cause different veiws on how the article should be written i.e Veiws on God, Karma, Rebirth and etc. The Hindu Denominations have somewhat different views on these subjects. The article won't and can never please every Hindu and every non-hindu but the article in my opinion is up to FA criteria. Yes there are still places here and there in the article that needs a little touch-up, but instead of dragging on them and complaining about them why not Fix Them. If you see a run on sentance devide it up, if you see too much blue links take some out. If you came here to drag on why the article is lacking in a few places feel free to fix them. We need as much help as we can get. Also in my opinion HeBhagawan has been very, very civil. When I made a mistake he told me what he felt should be changed and we have worked it out. Swadhyayee has also been a good editor and is learning the right things. In the past he created some problems but is still learning from his mistakes. Remember this is about the Hinduism article not about the editors.-_Seadog 19:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object — Should include a "Criticism of hinduism" summary section, rather than just a link. This will bring it in line with the Christianity and Islam articles. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

When studying article on Hinduism, one word caught my attention, "brahman". The meaning given in wikipedia for "brahman" is true for "bramh" or "bramha" meaning absolute power. The word "brahman" means the people from priestly cast or brahman caste.

Thanks for commenting, actully the caste and the Hindu term are very close in spelling and in pronounciaton, however the caste name is Bramin and the Hindu term is Brahman. I hope this helps.__Seadog ^♪ 14:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak object for now. The first few sections are excellent and extremely well-written. However, the last couple of sections don't live up to this standard. A little more work on them and I will change my vote to strong support. Congrats to all those who contributed to this article! It's not an easy topic given its diverse nature and I found the article to be very comprehensive. Cribananda 07:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Pornography in the United States

Self-nom. After the old test nomination I've fixed several proposals and checked out the article's perspectives. Several applicable suggetsions have been fixed after an automated peer review. I've made a further expanding and severe editing trying to give a detailed and in-depth (as far as it possible) coverage. Recent copyedit was done by Eastlaw. Thanks, --Brand спойт 12:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Firstly, needs a copyedit; eg in line 3 "The case, despite of demonstrating that" and "The upcoming censorship of pornographic materials in the United States, among the First and partially Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to Constitution, became based on the so-called harm principle, as well as in Canada and the United Kingdom." Secondly, the article seems very law-based; obviously, what SCOTUS and the other courts have said is important, but is it more than half of the total article? Also, the lead is inadequate; it only summarises the legal side of the article. Batmanand | Talk 14:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've splitted both sentences. --Brand спойт 12:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support. Well written article and anything about pornography is inherently good as far as I'm concerned. I love itPolicratus 19:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Troll. Bishonen | talk 02:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC).

• Oppose. per batmanand and the referenceing is inconsistent, full of external jumps. Sumoeagle179 23:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've decreased the jumps number. --Brand спойт 12:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Why the hell does the article have the Supreme Court infobox? This article certainly has a lot of content related to the Supreme Court, but not so much as to need the infobox. -- Kicking222 03:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Already removed. --Brand спойт 12:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Pictures of any publications or something? Doesn't have to be something explicit and hardcore, but a frontpage shot of Playboy wouldn't hurt.UberCryxic 22:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There were some pics, but Patstuart removed all, that according to him failed the copyright criteria for covers. --Brand спойт 04:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Still. Completely. The prose ain't near close. Very obvious problems with the first sentence haven't been corrected since the first FAC. Don't go looking for pics Brand--find someone to edit this, and have some patience doing so. Contact me on talk and I'll try to go over it. Give Tony (who gets a lot of requests) a month or so, without pestering him. It can be improved, but as it stands this article is not near FA quality and should be delisted. Marskell 22:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. No matter how good this article is, I don't think its content is suitable for the homepage of Wikipedia which is viewed by so many people of different ages, societies, etc. Flymeoutofhere 13:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there any rule that states that an FA MUST eventually appear on the Main Page? I don't think this is the case, but of course, I'm not sure that it's not the case (though I'm far more likely to believe the former than the latter). -- Kicking222 17:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No, there's definitely no such rule. As it says at the top of the Today's featured article page, the featured article director even maintains an unofficial list of articles unsuitable for front page placement. I don't see why an article that simply discusses porn in a nonexplicit way would be on that list, but in any case it's irrelevant to whether the article deserves FA. —Celithemis 03:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I know that, Flymeoutofhere, but have a look at WP:PORN, Wikipedia:Profanity and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. In my opinion if such kind of article is a NPOV, reliable and doesn't contain any hardcore, it may be featured some day, like Prostitution in China. A free knowledge is the essence. --Brand спойт 18:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The non-idiomatic English alone is enough to keep this from FA, but I won't belabor that point since it's already been mentioned. It's only part of the reason for my opposition, though. Disorganized paragraphs and sections are also a problem throughout, and would make the article difficult to read even if the sentences were polished up. For example, the two paragraphs under the Internet section header are a jumble of information; the raw ingredients for a discussion of Internet porn may be there, but they haven't been put together into a coherent whole yet.

Inadequately explained points: in what way does the CAN-SPAM Act address internet porn? And what does it mean exactly that "Lesbian sites are considered not to fit securely into anti-pornography or 'pro-sex' feminist ideas"?

The section on the anti-porn movement has major NPOV and sourcing problems. First it quotes an argument against anti-porn feminists' views at length before actually explaining what those views are, which slights their side of the debate, and is also confusing. Later it briefly mentions that anti-porn activists claim a connection between pornography and rape, then, without discussing their arguments, goes straight into a refutation based entirely on one recent paper -- which appears at first to be a book, since the title is italicized in the text; it should be in quotation marks. The paper doesn't appear to have been accepted by a peer-reviewed publication yet -- it's part of a working paper series -- and the article doesn't even cite the paper itself, just a web columnist's opinion piece based on the paper. That's the *only* source cited on the subject. Earlier on, the source for anti-censorship feminists' views is an introductory textbook on popular film. This research is far too sketchy, especially for such a contentious issue.

The section also does not give a coherent explanation of how the Minneapolis and Indianapolis ordinances differed from previous anti-pornography legislation. The fact that they created civil causes of action, rather than criminal penalties, is not even mentioned.

The history of pornography in the U.S. before 1950 is barely touched. Even though there is a link to the "history of erotic depictions" article, some discussion of dirty postcards, mutoscope reels, and so on seems in order. Also, what about the Comstock Laws?

Limited perspective: the "HIV encounter" section indicates that the U.S. porn industry does not use condoms, but I believe that the gay male porn industry does.

"The market is very diverse and range from the mainstream heterosexual content to the rarefied S/M, BDSM, interracial sex, ethnic, etc. through enduringly popular gay porn." Setting aside the problems with this sentence that even a superficial copyedit by a native speaker will catch, S/M is a subcategory of BDSM, and the "range" presented -- with "ethnic" porn somehow in between gay and straight -- makes no sense.

The sentence about New York v. Ferber says laws against child pornography were "successfully challenged" when it apparently means they were successfully defended. The section on the Anti-Pornography Movement says "subversive" when it means "submissive."

It's obvious that a lot of work has gone into this, but it's simply not anywhere near FA quality. I have to agree with those who said last time that it should not be GA either. —Celithemis 04:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey State Constitution

The article's been Peer Review-ed, GA, and I've worked on it for a long time. Peer Review didn't really give me much to work with, so I'm nominating it. Evan^{(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!)} 11:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose There's a {{citation needed}} tag in the lead, there's a section tagged as needing copyediting, and only two references don't come from the state constitution itself. The "Criticisms" paragraph is a mess. -- Kicking222 14:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per above. Rlevse 15:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - In addition to the issues pointed out by kicking, I'm concerned with consistency throughout the article. A couple of the articles are summarized in a few sentences, while others go on for paragraphs. I understand that the articles vary in their complexity, but I still think some need to be beefed up a bit. For example, Article I does not detail all the unalienable rights, and Article III does not mention what the 3 branches are. Not to put too much on the table, but the entire article could use a very mild edit to remove passive voice when possible. Nice job on the article to this point, and good luck with the final push! →Bobby← 20:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I wouldn't even approve this as GA, it seems to have degraded since it got GA rating.Rlevse 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Amtrak

After reviewing this article, and noticed its several awards for good presentation, i place article up for nomination on the Featured Articles. It deserves the spotlight thanks to all it's contributors. --Drumlineramos 20:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. 4 citation neededs in the first section. This alone tells me the article needs a lot of work. I suggest withdrawing, dredging up some sources, and a peer review. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• object while it is good, my first thought is that there are far too few references for an article of this length and with this large a quantity of numeric/technical data, and those that are listed are shown in at least four different formats that I can see. The list data that is included from the start of the "Amtrak routes and services" section through to the end needs better formatting and more and better prose to explain the data that is there (for example, the two external links listed in the "Gaps in service" subsection are very poorly formatted). I'd rather see this article go through a massive collaboration in WikiProject Trains to improve it (like was done with TGV before its FAC nomination) before coming back here. Slambo (Speak) 20:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are a lot of things needed to be done for this article to get FA standards. I will list some of it here:
  • Per WP:EL, please do not put external links that are unecessary, such as forums, third-party commercial sites, groups, anonymous sites, etc.
  • There are still a lot of red links. Create 1-2 paragraphs of stub or just remove the wikilink.
  • I see there are a lot of citations needed tags. Please supply those. I agree that the list of references is so thin for the size of this article. Consider also to use 3rd party peer-reviewed reliable sources. Avoid too many citations from the subject itself, as it may give too strong POV.
  • Per WP:NOT, do not put too many lists, as the article does not serve as a list of routes, tracks, stations, etc.
  • One stubby section for Labor dispute. Why is that so little? I think this section should be expanded more, as most of government coorperation suffers from workers disputes. I've put the expand section tag there.
  • The history section suffers unreferenced statements. Please provide more inline citations there.

For the editors, please do not try to speedy fix the above issues. The article takes time to shape itself into FA quality one. After some improvements, please try WP:PR first, or ask somebody - a good copyeditor - who does not familiar with the subject to improve the prose. — Indon (reply) — 17:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: if WikiProject Trains decided to collaborate on this, I would help. --NE2 09:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose-Even though is a well-written article, there is just lack of citations and references! Booksworm Talk to me! 15:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust

If the necessary improvements are made, could the objects become supports?

support good article, well written Ahadland 22:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: If this article is a good one, nominate it here. Only if the article is relatively excellent can it be an FA. Also: the lead is a bit long. This may or may not be good; I can't tell, for I have no time to look over it. --Gracenotes ^T § 23:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I have read this article before, and I think it is very good (and it is already a GA). However, it does need more citations than it now has. One example: The mass killing was at its worst in Central and Eastern Europe, which had more than 7 million Jews in 1939; about 5 million Jews were killed there, including 3 million in occupied Poland and over 1 million in the Soviet Union. Hundreds of thousands also died in the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Yugoslavia, and Greece. Without sources to support this paragraph (which I believe completely), I can see Holocaust deniers getting into an edit war to lower the figures or delete the paragraph. I noticed that several parqagraphs had no citations at all, and that there were citation tags in the text. I will read the article in more depth tomorrow (almost 1 am now) and see if I can offer any more suggestions. I'm also happy to help with copy editing and referencing, if the editors of this article would like. I certainly *want* to support this FAC. Jeffpw 23:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much, the Holocaust was an important historical event which seems to have faded into little more than 1 or two history lessons in school. I think featuring it will help highlight the historical lessons that can be learned.Ahadland 00:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object: Not ready for FA. I wouldn't even approve it as GA because it has a merge tag, inconsistent ref formatting, external jumps, and citation needed tags. I didn't get to reading it. It is also 110K long. Suggest consider splitting some off into sub articles. Lead is too long, it should summarize the article without going into lots of details. Rlevse 01:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Very reluctant Object: As per Rlevse. Because this article is so very long, it would be difficult to address all of the problems that need correcting while it is being discussed as a FAC. It is my understanding that at least one citation is needed per paragraph, and citations are mandatory for any assertion of fact that might be challenged. There are multiple paragraphs that are unsourced, and some of the prose needs copy editing badly (that paragraph about the baby springs immediately to mind. The subject is so powerful already that (IMO) a dispassionate tone is necessary so as not to appear overwrought.

I have no objections as to the length. This subject is so large in scale that a complete overview must by necessity be equally large. I repeat what I said yesterday. If you or other editors want my help, I am glad to give you a hand. Jeffpw 07:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have posted your suggestions on the articles talk page, and have requested that the contributor's to the article will help to improve it so as to allow the article FA status. I'm going to request that a checklist be compiled, i.e. a list of tasks, which can be crossed after their completion. We will then ask you to re-assess the article and give us your thoughts then. Thank you, Ahadland 12:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Size itself isn't exactly the issue, it's merely a symptom of the problem that the article needs to be written to more closely conform to Summary Style. Note that the text alone of this article is 89kb. I'm not saying remove information from wikipedia, I'm just asking that the article be reorganized so that more of the text is located within sub-articles linked to from the main article, which should then summarize the information split off. The "Perpetrators and collaborators" section wuld be a prime candidate for a sub article, as would "Historical and philosophical interpretations". If these two sections alone were split off and summarized, I think it would do a lot for the article. Of course, as above, there are also referencing issues to be considered before this can be featured. As a further issue, the "Holocaust denial" section probably shouldn't be listed under the "Why did people participate in, authorize, or tacitly accept the killing?" section. Fieari 04:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object: While this article is well written, it is just too long. This article needs to be split into sub-articles in order for the information to be more organized. No one wants to read through 89kb of text to hear about the Halocaust. The WP:SIZE article specifically states that pages over 50kb should "Probably be divided". There are numerous reasons for this, they can all be found in the WP:SS page. Other than the very long size, I would say it is a great article.-Hairchrm 05:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • In fairness, the holocaust is a very long subject, with a broad history, which dates back to the roots of anti semitism, through to nineteen forty five, so given that, id say the article is reasonably sized —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk • contribs)

But no one is arguing that we should cut down on our content related to the holocaust. The point people are trying to make here is that the main article should be fairly concise and should rely on sub-articles for extended discussions of various aspects. Pascal.Tesson 15:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object on length considerations. The article is very nice in many many respects but the length issue also outlines the main problem: organization. Let me humbly suggest a few things that would help

1. spin off the list of collaborationist countries to another article. That's just too long an exposition and the article loses focus at that point. It would be much better to have an extended paragraph explaining that many countries collaborated to various degrees and with various degrees of awareness. Interested readers can be redirected to the specific article. This would cut 10-15 kb I think.
2. The functionalism vs intentionalism section could also be cut down in the same way, with a more concise discussion. However, this probably requires an update of Functionalism versus intentionalism which is not as good as the section in the main article.
3. I feel that the Jehovah's witness section gives undue weight to their persecution. Now before people start accusing me of being a heartless bastard, let me say that I in no way wish to minimize their plight, but they really were not that significant a group of victims. And the subsection seems to be out of place as it speaks of their persecution while the section is about resistance. My advice: remove the paragraph entirely, create (if it does not exist yet) a specific article for JW's persecution by the Nazis and link to it in the section Victims. (oh, nevermind, it is already!)
4. When subarticles exist, the content in the main article should be minimal so that the flow is not interrupted. For instance, the discussion of Mengele's experiments is too long and there is a lot of redundancy with that subsection and the first paragraph of the Cruelty section. In fact that whole section needs reorganizing as the first three paragraphs are redundant with what follows.
5. I'm surprised to see little or no mention of resistance besides that of the Jewish resistance. Did it really not exist? (It might, I'm just asking)
6. While I understand that Schindler's List and Life is Beautiful were very popular and had a lot of impact, wouldn't it be more appropriate to cite documentaries like Shoah (film)? To a certain extent it's weird to consider Lanzmann's work or for that matter the work of Primo Levi or even Maus as in the same category as fiction movies with the Holocaust as a background. Perhaps there should be two distinct subsections (or paragraphs) for fiction work inspired by and litterature and art that attempts to document the Holocaust.
7. I'm really not a big fan of section titles phrased as questions. It feels vaguely children's-book.
8. And finally, at the risk of sounding picky, I'd like to point out that the second half of the article could use a couple of pictures. I know we don't want such an article to look like a page of Wired magazine but still... Maybe a picture of Primo Levi or Antelme? Of (shudder...) Ernst Zündel or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Pascal.Tesson 15:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Coldplay

This article has a fair number of photos of the band, the discography is comprehensive, the text is in chronological order and flows nicely and is well-referenced.--OOODDD 01:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: I am listing this apparently orphaned FAC page on WP:FAC; seems it has drawn some support over the months... —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly agree - I think this is a particularly good article, well and comprehensively laid out with a near perfect length, great photos and comprehensive info on early years and current albums.-- Sebrat 21:23, 20 August 2006
• Comment - I don't think it's ready for FA. It's a very good article but it's still missing something. There are very few references for the article's size (the 2007 section does not have any, the following has one). Maybe the websites section can be reduced, two or three websites out. However, it definitely deserves GA status.--Fluence 01:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• For - --AAA!
• Agree - There are enough pictures, references and a detailed discography. Even if it doesn't become an FA, I agree with Fluence, it should at least be a GA. ~ EmeZxX ` 14:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object - The number of references start out okay, but then tail off. Whole sections are without citations. Also, towards the end, the citations switch from footnote style to just outside links. Gzkn 03:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Gzkn. MLilburne 11:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Gzkn. Also, the ref on Q magazine needs to be in standard format, many refs appear in the middle of the sentence, but they should appear after punctuation. Rlevse 12:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Gzkn. Also, I can find no reference of the licence for the pictures on the sites that they came from... For example, Image:073.jpg says it came from http://www.easytoplease.net/images/ but on that site there is no mention of a Creative Commons Licence, instead mentioning "© 2001-2006; Elizabeth Baker". Martin Hinks 17:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Also this image from http://pub.tv2.no/multimedia/na/archive/00177/Coldplay_177057m.jpg. Its from a commercial TV network site(TV2 Norway). I doubt they have many creative commons licenses on their material - nothing I can find at least. Abel29a 02:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Object: Per Gzkn, reference need to be cleaned up. Also, please ensure that only one version of English (AmEx, BrEx) is consistantly used throughout the article (Eg. "Coldplay is.." vs. "Coldplay are.."). There appears to no information on any criticism of the band's work. There's also no information on the band's major musical influences and no information on how Coldplay has influenced popular music in England and North America. Refer to Genesis to see how you can cover off on these sections. AreJay 21:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong object See the article's talk page for why I have failed it in its candidacy to become a Good Article. -- Kicking222 23:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It really deserved GA. Better luck for the next time :(--Fluence 02:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but no, it didn't. Like I said, check out the talk page. There's absolutely no reason why it couldn't be a GA (or FA) someday, but that day is not today, and not until a lot of work is done. -- Kicking222 22:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree This article contains all the info a fan (o anyone else interested in this band) would like to find. The artice is ell divided and contains a considerable number of pictures. Keith Azzopardi 11:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Insufficiently referenced and not up to GA standard. See e.g. The Orb or Paul McCartney which aren't even GA yet (and are better), or The KLF or Pixies for examples of recent band articles which hit FA. --kingboyk 14:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object Not up to GA standard due to lack of references etc. so definately not a FA. Suggest the article is improved using above comments and then becomes a GA before retrying for FA status. Also just to point out it's not good enough to contain all the 'info a fan' would like to find, it must make sense to those who may not have heard of Coldplay before. Alexj2002 11:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object Fails criterion 1. c (which asks for inline cites). LuciferMorgan 15:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Vaikom Muhammad Basheer

Nomination seemed to be incomplete, so I let myself finish it. --Ouro 15:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Looking at the article, I am wondering if it is FA ready/if the nomination was in good faith or just for kicks. No references, prose problems and only one photo. --Ouro 15:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Should be referred to peer review. Sloan21 15:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object Clearly not ready yet. Would probably fail even the good article criteria right now. Still, good potential with some extra weeks of work. Pascal.Tesson 18:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above, not even one ref, lead too short, etc. Rm per WP:SNOW. Rlevse 16:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo

I nominated this article for this is definitely alright and it seems that corrections have been already made earlier. --- Kevin Ray 11:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose has external jumps and citation needed tags. Refs are not formatted properly. Rlevse 12:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose — too early. The article was submitted to FAC and PR at the same time. Wait for PR first, then improve the article and then submit here. — Indon (reply) — 16:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Shouldn't be on peer review and fac at the same time. After improving the article through peer review, then it could possibly be submitted to fac. Hello32020 20:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per above. Let the peer review finish first. --- Tito Pao 13:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose In a historical situation where it is very difficult to judge what is the truth the article mostly ignores the suppressed opinions. An example: For journalists the Philippine became the most dangerous country in the world besides the Irak. Killing of members of Human Right Watch organisation were incredibly growing. Believing The Manila Times freedom of demonstration etc. is less than under Marcos dictatorship. Regarding a lot of messages in 2006 its possible that the Edsa II was a well prepared putch against an elected president (see the DVD about the live of Estrada), and that the real winner of the elections 2004 was Poe . friendship 05 February 2007 (UTC)

• Er...okay, I get your point. But this page is not the place to talk about the controversies about GMA, however I agree with you. To put it more correctly, Wikipedia is not a soapbox where you can rant (or, for that matter, rave) about anything under the sun. We're here to discuss articles based on its merits, not on the subject of the article itself. Save that for later, however you and I want her to get kicked out of Malacanang for good. Just so that you may know, I'm strongly opposed to this article as a featured article nominee not because I don't like the prospects of seeing her face on the Main Page, but because the article, on its own, badly needs clean-ups and proper sources. --- Tito Pao 01:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This should be closed already... --Howard the Duck 13:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Pharaoh and Cleopatra

Nominated for Featured Article Status based upon a recent expansion where the article was tripeled in detail and a large amount of information and pictures added. I might have missed something, but the article appears to meet the criteria for an FAC and is so nominated. -Husnock 10:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose too many bullets and tables, no inline cites. Rlevse 12:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I can possibly do something about adding inline citations but I am at a loss at how to address "too many bullets and tables" since they contain information pertianing to the topic. What is your suggested course of correction to mkae this actionable? -Husnock 13:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • See the FA Final Fantasy VII on how to make a game a FA. FAs should contain brilliant prose, not a bunch of tables and lists. Rlevse 13:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, I'd say there isn't any reliable sources provided at all, and fair use images are not accounted for with rationale. - Mailer Diablo 15:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose — heavy lists. Refer to WP:PR first. — Indon (reply) — 16:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Husnock, why did you move the article? Unless there's another possible article with that title, you don't need the modifier in brackets behind the title. Pharaoh and Cleopatra is the better title compared to Pharaoh and Cleopatra (computer game) according to the naming conventions. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ryan Leaf

Self-Nom I been working in the article since June. It is a WP:GA and it been though a peer review in August. I would try to fix any concerns you guys have. One last comment, I can't find a free image for Leaf, so I have to use a fair use image. I would avoid placing the article in the front page until a free image can be found if promoted. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Object. I think it's a fairly good article, but I have a few concerns:
  • "College career" says that his 33 touchdowns was a "record." Was it a school, conference, season, NCAA or some other kind of record?

Fixed, from same sitation as #6 Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• • The third paragraph under College career needs some citations.

I deleted the whole paragraph as PoV in a way Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• • First paragraph, second and third sentences of "1998 Draft" need citations.

Added sitation for the third sentence, same citation can be used for the second, it was a trade with the Cardinals. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Last sentence of the first paragraph in the "NFL Career-San Diego Chargers" section needs a citation.

Removed sentence as irrelvant, and not much info found, I was planning to find out if the Manning article on wikipedia has the info and a valid ciation for it but it didn't which was strange. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• • A lot of use of the word "get" as a verb (When Harbaugh got injured...).

Partically fixed, not strong copyeditor. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• • "Subsequent career and retirement", first paragraph, needs a citation and the last sentence in the second paragraph of the same section needs a citation.

done for both. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• • "Personal life and legacy", first paragraph, last sentence, needs a citation.

Done, I used an example where it is used, there are over 1,000 more in google. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Cla68 01:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object - per Cla68 above. Also:
  • However, despite his athleticism, his time as a pro was short and marked by injuries and failure, which according to critics was largely due to his immaturity, arrogance, and poor work ethic. Leaf is widely considered one of the biggest busts in NFL history.[3] Ouch! Might want use some more sources that are cited later in the article in Personal life and legacy if you're going to use the phrase "widely considered". Also, where are the references for those critics?

That one is hard, it probaly makes me use multiple of those refs at once, Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Those stats in the first paragraph of the college career section needs some citations.

Will add from the six ref. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Also in that same paragraph, two sentences in a row start with "He also".

Fixed Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• • ...the clock literally ran out on Washington State. That would make for a real interesting game! Let's avoid misusing the word "literally".

Fixed Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• • the Heisman Trophy, which is given annually to the best college football player. Could use some qualification there on what the Heisman is, as I'm sure there's usually a lot of contention over whether or not a recipient really is the "best" college football player. :) That, or just delete the last part of that sentence.

Explained by User:Stilgar135 Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Spotty and inconsistent prose, the worst of which is far from meeting criteria 1a. And remember, the passive tense is avoided by good writers. :)

Gzkn 03:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • Changed to Support after the CE by Cla68. Still would like to see a different source for Leaf is widely considered one of the biggest busts in NFL history such as the ESPN one.
• Will fix the citation parts, I fixed some, I had the same problem with the Selena FAC which I don't know how it passed, can't copyedit for my life and can't find copyeditors. I disagree with the Heisman Trophy part though, it's the best award a player can get in college football. The detail someone can find in the regular article. Also I'll likely delete the critics part, as it's many different refs put into one, can't find the exact ref that describe all three. The bust part can be found in most refs. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• I placed a copyedit tag on the top of the page, the tag is mostly useless though as it takes months at times to find one. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't give up, it's almost there. Add the citations that we mentioned, find someone to copyedit it for you, and that might do it. Cla68 13:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Jaranda, I'd do it if I weren;t so bad at it, but there are a couple people who volunteered at WP:1FAPQ to do copyediting stuff, if you left a note on their talk pages, you might have some luck. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object per the following two concerns: See additional comments below.

• "The sports network ESPN listed Leaf first on their list of the 25 Biggest Sports Flops between 1979-2004". There is a citation listed after this statement in the "personal life and legacy" section, but the citation is a link to Pro Football Weekly that doesn't mention anything about ESPN or Ryan Leaf being one of the 25 biggest sports flops.

• It had the ESPN ref, but with ref name was the same as another one, so fixed. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• "Leaf is widely considered one of the biggest busts in NFL history" in the introductory paragraph. This is a pretty strong statement to make about a living person, so I'd definitely like to see a better citation on that claim than a link to a staff reporter's column in the Cincinnati Post which mentions Ryan Leaf only in a couple of the paragraphs.Neil916 (Talk) 10:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• In British English we don't use the word "bust" in this context (at least not that I'm aware of). I understand it from the context but didn't have a clue what you were talking about. A "bust" is a pair of breasts or being arrested! I appreciate that you're quoting a source directly, otherwise I'd ask for an alternate word to be used. --kingboyk 18:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Every ref has Leaf has a bust, no way I'm placing a million refs on that one sentence, the ESPN one above can be used as a ref. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• I can't find a better ref, so I added the ESPN one, whoever reaches number one in that list must be a all-time bust, as ESPN one of the most reliable sources of sports there is. There is also over 171,000 google hits on Leaf and bust. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• The citation doesn't support the claim. It would be like citing a claim like "Rasheed Wallace is widely considered to be the biggest time-bomb in the NBA" based upon this citation [7]. Either find an unbiased source supporting the claim (I doubt you'll find one) or tone it down quite a bit. The same issue goes for the previous sentence in that same paragraph: "However, despite his athleticism, his time as a pro was short and marked by injuries and failure, which according to critics was largely due to his immaturity, arrogance, and poor work ethic.". The critics' claim isn't supported with a citation, nor is it addressed later in the article. As a whole, the article still seems too POV for me, too much of a Leaf-bashing article. Why, for example, in the last paragraph of the San Diego Chargers history, is "wins" in quotation marks? What's the difference between a win and a "win"? I'm no fan of Ryan Leaf, and I'm sorry to object so strenuously given the amount of effort you've obviously put in, but Wikipedia articles, especially featured articles, need to remain factual and unbiased, and this article needs more work to reach that point. This will be a difficult task, since Leaf made few friends and many enemies in the media, so finding unbiased sources is definitely going to take more than a google search.Neil916 (Talk) 18:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know how win got in quotes so I fixed it. The immaturity, arrogance, and poor work ethic takes a few refs, mostly the same refs used in the article, will reword, but the main problem with Leaf is that he is only known for being a bust, espcially being the second pick in 98 draft, I personally doubt the refs are biaed though. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• I went ahead and removed both sentences. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• We're getting closer. Sorry to drag my feet about this, but the article as it reads still comes across as very anti-Leaf. The article doesn't need to nominate him for sainthood, but it needs to stick to the facts and trim out the judgmental verbage. Undoubtedly, many of those opinions were found in the original sources you use, but you need to be neutral, whereas a sports columnist can just pile on the judgement. Some examples, (a non-exhaustive list due to a short time window I have for WP at the moment): (bolded words and phrases are examples of where POV is coming through)

• However, despite his athleticism, his time as a pro was short and marked by injuries and failure.
• Since that time, Manning has become a star player and a possible Hall of Famer for the Colts, while Leaf's short career was spotted with poor game play and off-field antics.
• San Diego's high hopes for Leaf were soon dashed, as his rookie season was marked by bad performances
• But, in the third game of the season, he completed only one of fifteen passes for a mere four yards and fumbled three times in a loss against the Kansas City Chiefs.

• Fixed Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Leaf started the first two games of the 2000 season, completing less than half of his pass attempts and throwing for five interceptions and only one touchdown.

• Fixed Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• When backup Moses Moreno went down with a strained knee ligament, the Chargers were forced to play Leaf more.

• Fixed Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Following more poor performances and injury problems, he was released by the Chargers following the season, with a record of only four wins as a starter in three seasons.

• Will try to rephase Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• After mediocre performances in the Buccanneers's four preseason games, the club asked Leaf to accept a lower salary
• Leaf's career quarterback rating was 50.00, a very low number—the league average between 2000 and 2003 was 78.9.

• I don't see a NPOV problem there, it's compares his quarterback rating Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Leaf is considered one of the biggest disappointments in sports history.

• Only reason why he is known for. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Basically, there's a big difference between calling someone a failure and stating that his success on the field did not meet the expectations of sports analysts and the fans.

• Also, consider the following paragraph:

• In February 2001, Leaf married one of the Chargers cheerleaders, Nicole. They separated two years later and divorced soon after.[27] As of February 2005, Leaf was enrolled in a sports management class called Media Relations at Washington State.[28] He graduated with a bachelor's degree in arts and humanities in May 2005.[29] His brother, Brady Leaf is currently a junior quarterback for the University of Oregon.[30]

  You have essentially four unrelated ideas put into one sentence. It doesn't flow and just reads like a mish-mash of random facts that didn't fit anywhere else. Also, it implies that he got a bachelor's degree just for taking one class in media relations. Neil916 (Talk) 00:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Will try to fix that paragraph, the only problem is that Leaf is only known for being one of the well known failures in National Football League history, nothing else. I personally think it's as much as it gets to NPOV, neutral, and factual as possible, if all criticism is removed on Leaf, the article would be a stub then. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• I know he was a failure. But you can't say that he was a failure, you need to stick to the facts only. Calling him a failure is expressing your opinion. Here's an example (numbers made up, of course): "In his first year as a pro, Leaf had a passing rating of 32. Between 1985 and 2005, the average passer rating for first year quarterbacks in the NFL was 72, with 90% of rookies exceeding a rating of 50. Only one quarterback, Joe Schmoe, a tenth-round draft pick from Squashed Armadillo University, had a lower rating during that period." or, "Coach Rogers commented after the game that he didn't really want to continue playing Leaf at quarterback, but the injury situation left him no choice." Nothing but facts, but the reader gets to make up his own mind, and conclude, of course, that he was a failure. Show me, don't tell me. My opinion is that the article still has quite a ways to go, and that it's not the best it could be. But, judging by the lack of agreement from other reviewers, I'm the only one who feels that way, so take it for what it's worth. Neil916 (Talk) 06:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support well written, well referenced. - Mike | Talk 05:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak object well-referenced, concise and well-organized. But I don't think it's really brilliant prose. I have done a bit of copyediting but it still needs improvements in terms of flow. Too many short sentences, too many "Leaf did this. Then Leaf did that". But should make it eventually. Pascal.Tesson 19:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object—not the required "professional" standard of prose. For example:
  • "After having led his high school,..."—Spot the redundant word.
  • "67 year Rose Bowl drought"—I think American editors would insist on a hyphen after "67".
  • " He finished third in voting, behind winner Charles Woodson of Michigan, and fellow quarterback Peyton Manning of Tennessee"—Remove comma after "Michigan". Yet there's a shortage of commas overall.
  • "He also was selected as"—awkward syntax.
  • "But, in the third game of the season, he completed one of fifteen passes"—No, start with "However,". It would be nice to see all numbers of two or more digits numericalised.
  • Ellision dots need spaces either side unless begun by a real stop in the quote: "Don't...talk to me".
  • "After news of Leaf's retirement in 2002, Harrison was quoted as saying,"—"After hearing news of"?

Please find someone who's fresh to the topic to copy-edit it. Locate copy-editors by researching the edit history pages of similar articles, esp. FAs. Tony 12:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw, been too busy lately that I been ignoring the FAC, likely won't work on the article til chrismas break, if lucky Thanks anyways Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Empires: Dawn of the Modern World

Self Nomination. I've been working on this article for three months now, and I think it is finally ready to be a Featured Article. It has already gone through one peer review and is wrapping up another one, and has received the advice from some of the finest editors in their field. I think it is an excellent example of a video game article, and deserves featured status.--Clyde Miller 00:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, I like it and although I'm not a big fan of the game I find this article is well-expressed, has references and good images. Congratulations for your effort!--Gustavo86 03:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Footnotes go at the end of sentence after the full stop, not after commas. Dev920 (Tory?) 08:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of, but it looks a little weird in compound sentences where each half of the sentence had it's own citation. Should I move them back or keep as is?--Clyde Miller 14:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My personal preference would be to have some footnotes after commas where it amkes sense. I don't think that there is any rule which states that they never should be after commas. It is just that in most cases it is better to have them after the end of the sentence. Jeltz talk 17:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. The only place I was really looking at was the reception, where two different critics are quoted in the same sentence at different parts. Should both of these citations be at the end of the sentence? I'm not sure.--Clyde Miller 17:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think if two critics are quoted in the same sentence the citation for each should come after the end of that quote (after a comma preferably). Footnotes should preferably be at the end of the sentences but not always. --kingboyk 12:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay I moved some of the citations back to the commas. Is this okay?--Clyde Miller 14:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks, okay to me. Jeltz talk 19:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I read through the article again to make sure it was up to standards, and sure enough, it was. While there are still a few minor issues, the overall article is well-written, well-sourced and comprehensive (though short, due to the lack of information about the subject matter). Great work. JimmyBlackwing 10:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I don't like the first image you've chosen of many villagers surrounding a couple of trees. It's extremely unclear and I think it is unnecessary to the article. The fact resources deplete does not need a screenshot. I'd prefer a more "normal" screenshot of some standard gameplay - perhaps a battle within a town. I'd also prefer at least one of the screenshots to be viewing the game from the "normal" overhead RTS view, rather than zoomed and pitched in, as it can give the reader a very inaccurate idea of the game.—Abraham Lure 11:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll start working on getting a good battle pic from normal zoom. Did you want something like this?--Clyde Miller 14:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. :) It gives a much more realistic impression of the game.—Abraham Lure 18:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. What do you think now?--Clyde Miller 19:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Generally looks great. I think the Gameplay section concentrates too much on Victory Conditions. Perhaps you could mention that you build a variety of military units, each with specific strengths and weaknesses which give units advantages and disadvantages against other military units. Here you could use an example, saying, for example, that archers are particularly effective against longswordsmen (I don't know if that's true, it's been too long since I've played). Also mention the existence of land, air as well as sea units. I believe there are also two modes of play - "Empire Builder" and another which I've forgotten. These and their differences should be mentioned. Essentially, I think it would be better if you went into more depth about the gameplay and how the game is played - are maps randomly generated? how exactly do the resources work? You're quite vague there - you should mention that resources are stockpiled and then are then used to construct buildings, train units and advance an epoch. "Each is used in a variety of ways, and must be totally utilized to achieve victory" is simply too vague. Others might disagree and think it's "manual material", but I think it's possible to write it so that's not the case.—Abraham Lure 23:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay I'll add the game modes, more about resources, that there's three different types of units, and the more about the ups and downs of units. However, I already did this once, took it too far, made it a different article, had a no consensus AFD, had someone redirect the whole artice, then moved it onto strategy wiki. So you'll forgive me if I air on the side of caution with adding more about gameplay.--Clyde Miller 14:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm done adding more to the gameplay section. Thoughts?--Clyde Miller 22:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for going into more depth. There are still a few problems. It should be mentioned that the gameplay is typical to the RTS genre, for instance. This sentence needs fixing: "Each unit uniquely attacks other units, necessitating the creation of a variety of units." - I think you are trying to say units have advantages and disadvantages against certain other units in rock-paper-scissors type way, but what you've actually said is odd and irrelevant - that units can attack[fullstop]. Also, if I were being picky, the prose is a little substandard with a lot of choppy sentences and abrupt changes of subject without paragraphing. I'm not too experienced in these matters though, so I'll let others critique or wave through your work.—Abraham Lure 01:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As to your first suggestion, I'll do my best to fix the vagueness (is that a word?) of the Rock Papaer scissors section ASAP. As to your second suggestion, I am not an expert either, so I don't really know where to look for choppy sentences. I'll look for flow problems anyway as soon as I get a chance.--Clyde Miller 02:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

On an interesting note, I had included the rock paper scissors idea in the article until August 4 under ages. I guess I'll add it back in.--Clyde Miller 18:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I added a bit more to clarify the variety of units and rock papaer scissors part, and I thought I'd mention that the sentence in question is explaining that a variety of units should be used in the game, not that it is in a rock paper scissors format. Anyway, what do you think?--Clyde Miller 18:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Much better now. Thanks for making the alterations. I have no problem with the article anymore.—Abraham Lure 23:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I like what I read, and Clyde has done a good job with a relatively obscure game. Although I think the 2 in-game screenshots are a bit big and need to be reduced for fair use criteria. Thunderbrand 20:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I made both of the images smaller so neither excedes 500 px in either direction. Is this Okay?--Clyde Miller 22:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that is fine. Thunderbrand 02:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

AnonEMouse comments

• Oppose, needs work. Changed to support per extensive work below. (Also conditional on fixing my remaining two points, but they should be easy enough considering how much has been done already.) I hear you're not getting enough opinions here - OK, then - don't forget you asked for this! :-).
  • "The game features seven different nations: England, Franks, Korea and China, which are playable from the Medieval Age up to the Imperial Age, and the United States, Russia, Germany, France and the United Kingdom," ... you really need to say something about the seeming duplication here. What are the relationships between England and UK, Franks and France? Can they exist at the same time, and fight each other? Does one become the other? Why so confusing? Surely some source somewhere wrote about this.
    • I found this in the form of an instruction manual thing that was included with the game. I added onto the gameplay section, and covered several problems including this one. Any way to further improve it?
      • Much better, I go into specific comments in the below section.
  • "Admiral Yi's campaign takes place in the 1590s, and chronicles Korea's battles with Manchurians and the Japanese." But there is no Japanese nation, how is that?
    • Done. What do you think?
      • Good, you explained it. By the way, the article doesn't actually explain what the differences between nations are, presumably there are some? Do the Japanese, like playable nations, get special units that other nations don't?
        • Unfortunately I'm unable to see the stats and special abilities (if they exist) of the Japanese. This is simply becuase you can't play as them. Furthermore, because they are not a playable civilization, no source has anything about them in the civilization section.
  • "Although General Patton is the main leader in the campaign, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Franklin Delano Roosevelt also appear in it." In what sense? Roosevelt in his wheelchair storms the beaches of Normandy? Same for the other leaders - what do they do, what good are they? Individual combat units on the map, or a nebulous presence, +5 to some ability, and a cool screenshot?
    • Done. What do you think?
      • Well explained, good.
  • You give extensive critical reaction, but how well did the whole thing sell? Commercial success, failure? How did it compare to similar games?
    • I'm kinda dead here. I'll talk to some people and keep looking though.
      • This isn't a really popular game, so there isn't anything about number of units sold. I looked everywhere and asked some people. There just isn't anything on it. Sorry.
        • All right, I'll accept that.
  • "The final complaint of critics was" - surely not, critics are never done complaining! :-)
    • Fixed. What do you think?
  • Is is still played? Again, compare to Age of Empires, and others.
    • The game is still played, but I can't compare it to any other historical game because I don't own any other historical game. What should I do?
      • I wasn't actually asking you to go and play the games yourself and compare, that would be original research. Instead, can you look for a magazine review or two that compares DotMW with AoE or some of the other games (you've got a big list of similar games right in the infoboxes at the end of the article!), and add a couple of sentences on what those reviews say? Does one cost more, does one have a smarter AI, does one have larger maps, worse voices, fewer scenarios, faster play, more interesting unit options, take more disk space, have more bugs? That sort of thing. Again, don't decide this yourself, but do report what reviewers say - there are probably some comparative reviews like that out there.
        • This is sort of the same problem I have with the units sold thing. Empires isn't really popular game, but I'm still looking through reviews.
          • Here, I found some comparative reviews for you, though I won't do all the work. :-). Some compare it with Rise of Nations: [8] [9] and others that compare it to its predecessor, Empire Earth, [10] [11] [12] [13], and a bit of everything [14]
            • Well the long awaited paragragh is in place. Should it get its own ==section== or ===section=== or should I leave it, and does there still need improvement?
              • Yes, I'm afraid it does still need improvement - mostly minor, but a lot of it for a short paragraph.

1. CNET is normally capitalized, not lowercase ("cnet Reviews")

   taken care of

2. "not ed"?

   taken care of

3. "the difference between Empire Earth" - maybe from?

   taken care of

4. What was that difference, again? Just the tighter focus, or something else?

   Well I thought reduced gameplay and tighter focus was the differences, but you elude that I'm missing something. Did you want me to mention that there are less civilizations and less ages?

   Good enough.

5. "the gameplay Empires was" - maybe "gameplay in" ?

   taken care of

   Nope, still seems to be there.

   done.

6. What is a "more reduced game style"?

   more reduced playing sytle means that Empire Earth was tons of ages and tons of civilizations but Empires was only a few ages and nine civilizations.

   OK, now I understand, but you need to write that in the article, so other readers do as well. One sentence should do, but please be careful with the grammar and spelling of the new sentence!

   fixed up. Good?

   Better, but now self-referential and redundant. Here are the three sentences: "Many were surprised by the difference from Empire Earth, but agreed that the gameplay in Empires was more focused, as well as the ages and campaigns.[33][34] The result was a more reduced game style that was more focused on specific time periods. The reduced game style was referring to Empire Earth having several more civilizations and many more ages then Empires." You introduce the words "reduced game style" that you then have to explain. How about just using the explanation? Something like: "Many were surprised by the difference from the greater scope of Empire Earth, but agreed that the gameplay in Empires was more focused on specific time periods by having fewer ages and civilizations.[33][34]" I think that says the same information in only one sentence.

   fixed.

7. "Many of aspects" - "the aspects"?

   I can't find this sentence, so I guess it was deleted. taken care of (I think)

8. When you write "The game was compared unfavorably to Rise of Nations" the next sentence doesn't need to start "Many of aspects of Empires were also compared to Rise of Nations" - that's redundant.

   taken care of

9. "Stratos Group said that" - probably want "wrote".

   taken care of

10. "They also compared age progression of the two" - "...the age progression..."

    taken care of

    "comapared" shouldn't have that many as.

    Fixed

11. Last Stratos quote is missing a closing quotation mark.

    taken care of

• • "The multiplayer is powered by GameSpy" - presumably you mean "multiplayer version" or something
    • Done. What do you think?
  • Last paragraph of "Gameplay" section has no coherent flow or theme - the mention of clans goes directly into the mention of civilization "break down"
    • Done. What do you think?
      • Still seems like cramming a bunch of unrelated ideas into one paragraph, sorry.
        • I split this into another paragrapgh and added quite a bit. Is the flow still poor? I'll keep working on it of course.
          • Much better, thanks.
  • It's a computer game. For what computers? Windows only? Which Windows? Any ports to other systems - Mac, Unix, Linux? Why or why not? This is sort of mentioned in a word in the info box, but a sentence could be worthwhile.
    • I didn't add a sentence, but I added more about the Windows it is available on in the infobox. Thoughts?
      • Good enough, I guess. Don't any of the articles or reviews ask "why isn't this available for Mac or Linux"? But if not, no big deal.
  • "Most reviews gave it about eight out of ten." This sentence can be deleted without loss of useful information. What is "most"? Surely not all reviews grade 1-10, and even those that do, some give mostly 5s while others give mostly 8s, so an 8 out of context doesn't mean anything.
    • Removed.
      • Err - it's still in the lead, actually: "most scoring the game an eight-out-of-ten".
        • My bad. Okey-e-doke that one is gone too. Any ideas how to make my word choice replacement suck less would be apprciated.
          • Good enough.
  • "Other critics, such as PC Gamer, cited below average voice acting and careless pathfinding, saying "The unit formations are crummy and pathfinding is just as tenuous as in most RTS games ... and the missions are somewhat undercut by ... terrible voice-acting."[28] Write either the paraphrase or the quote, not both, please. There are several redundancies like this. "Jane Doe said XYZ, in the following quote where she said 'XYZ'".
    • Taken Care of.
      • Good.
  • "we need to do a better job answering the question, 'What do gamers want?'" So, what did gamers want?
    • Uh....Isn't that question answered with the part of the civilization tree? I'm sorry if I sound stupid, but I don't really know where to find a source about "what gamers want" regarding Empires
      • That's a quote you wrote from a designer interview. From reading that quote, my immediate reaction was wanting to know what exactly the games asked the designer for, and what he gave them. I imagine other readers will want to know the same thing, so you probably want to either tell them, or not pique their interest this way. Do you know the joke about "How do you keep a moron in suspense?" Someone promised to tell me the answer a long time ago, but never did... :-)
        • Um I added a sentence to answer this as best I could, but in the interview Rick Goodman says "What do Gamers Want?" then moved on to other stuff. However, he somewhat answered the question, and I stuck that in. Good?
          • Good enough.
  • "a chart showing every civilization from every time period" Really? Australopithecines? Bushmen?
    • Clarified. Thoughts?
      • OK.
  • "The game was developed on an upgraded version the "Titan" engine" - missing "of" or something
    • Fixed.
  • "which is during the epochs World War I and World War II." What's an epoch? What good is it?
    • I didn't think it was necessary to talk about epochs since it has a link, but I'll add something if you think it will clarify the article.
      • I'm not asking what World War I was, the link will answer that -- I'm asking what effect it has on the game. Presumably you get access to new and more powerful units - write that. Probably don't want to list them all, but may want to give a few definitive examples. Do you also lose access to older ones? Do all or some units suddenly get upgraded during play, do you merely get the opportunity to buy new ones, or do changes of epoch only happen between scenarios? Does an epoch happen for all sides at the same time, or is it possible for one player to "advance to another epoch" before the others, that way gaining an advantage? Do epochs come automatically, without you doing anything, or do you have to spend resources or build specific things to advance into them? Etc.
        • Added a paragrapgh that covered many problems including this one. Further improvements?
          • Good.
  • Compared to other games, how much autonomy do the units have? If you, the player, are busy in the northwest, while your southeast gets attacked, do the there units fight back intelligently, defend themselves, run away, just stand there and get slaughtered? Do you give orders to individual units, groups you draw with the mouse each time, or formal formations that you set up once that then stick together?
    • Good enough, I guess.
  • Do the scenarios reflect real world geography, or all on abstract maps?
    • I don't understand the question. Some of the maps (like campaign ones) are realistic, but all multiplayer maps are randomly generated. Is that what you wanted me to add?
      • This is part of the scale question - with one soldier per unit, you probably don't get to where the map represents a country, or even a province, more like a township, I guess. The question would mean more if the forces on each side were armies of tens of thousands, rathr than a few tens or hundreds. By the way, you probably do want to add one sentence about that somewhere, about how many units the game lets you control at the same time 10? 50? 100? 500? more?
        • Well the maps can get pretty large, considering the pop cap for the game is 80,000 divided up between each player (I.E. 8 players each get 10,000 units). I got rid of the representation part because nowhere in the game or in any source does it say that one unit is one soilder. However, I added the part you were asking about. Is this what you were looking for?
          • Sorry, I don't see where you added that. A sentence with numbers like that would be very good, please put it in. I noticed several reviews said the maps were large, even though I was just skimming casually, it must be important.
            • Wow I must really be spacey. I think that's added now. Better?
              • Good ... except "poplulation" doesn't have that many ls. :-)
  • How large is the scale - is one unit representing one person, one squad, one company, one division? Does this have an effect on movement speeds, weapon ranges?
    • Clarified.
      • "soilder". Also, I imagine that means that ranges aren't realistic - or can artillery units after WWI or so basically hit anything on the map?
        • This is impossible to do since there is no reference saying the scale, so I removed it. I have no idea about scales, and I don't think anyone else knows either, critic or otherwise.
        • Yeah sorry about that my spelling pretty much totally sucks. I'll work on the ranges, although I don't know real artillary ranges, but I'll look it up.
          • Wait the game doesn't go any farther than WWII. Plus, there's nothing on ranges. Is this okay?
            • OK, OK.
  • What was wrong with Empire Earth that they needed to put out this new game?
    • I suppose cite an Empire Earth game review of what they did bad?
      • Look through and cite some articles from the comparative reviews list I gave, above.
        • See above comment in comparing paragragh section.

AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn. (bad use of word)

I've copied the suggestions to my sandbox and I'll start working on it as soon as possible.--Clyde Miller 00:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I may have overdone it a bit. Don't take it hard, and don't feel you have to answer every one of these points. I will still change to support if you fix the obvious things, and give a good shot at answering most of the more vague points. I can understand if you don't want to answer all of them, for fear of turning the article into a game guide, and can similarly understand if you won't be able to find answers for a few. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 02:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's cool. I was saying more like wow then dang it with my opening "interjection". I'm not sure how you read that. I'll really try to fix these points though because if you don't bring them up, someone inveitably will. The game guide thingy is a thin line I've walked before, so I'll drop a reply regarding all of them when I'm finished.--Clyde Miller 03:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply: This is my first round of replies and questions to the problems. See above. If there is something without a response, it means I'm still working on it.--Clyde Miller 19:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Round 3 is it now? see above.--Clyde Miller 03:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Round 3

OK, you've addressed most of the issues there, yet others have cropped up, I'm afraid. However there are fewer of them, if you're looking for something positive.

• "Although units change over the ages, the pathfinding does not." This seems to be the first time you're using the term pathfinding, without explanation of what it is. Does this have something to do with the "When moving from point A to point B" sentence? If so, maybe you should place them close together?
  • Same sentence.
    • Better, see blob together, below.
• "aggresive" needs another s.
  • Fixed
• "Unit formations are also possible to help eliminate the crowding problem, but can be dissolved at any time." What crowding problem? Unless I missed it, again this seems to be the first time you're mentioning this.
  • Oh I had already mentioned that in the form of "blob together." Do you want me to clarify that or something?
    • It's not obvious that "blob together" means the same thing as "crowding problem". (In fact, it's not really that clear what "blob together" means at all.) If the first sentence had said something like "tend to blob together, forming an unorganized tightly packed crowd" it would be more clear. If you can find a source, it may also be useful to write a sentence on what exactly is wrong with being a blob... perhaps "which is not good at engaging more dispersed units and more vulnerable to area effect weapons?"
      • I kinda fixed the sentence, but I haven't had time to see if what you wanted source wise exists. I'll look as soon as I get time.
        • I found the source and added to it. Is this what you wanted?
          • Good, but a bit of redundancy in these sentences: "Unit formations can be used to eliminate the crowding problem, but can be dissolved at any time. Formations can also be helpful, and are important in battle ..." How about: "Unit formations can be used to eliminate the crowding problem, and are important in battle ..." then a short "Formations can be dissolved at any time." as a separate sentence?
            • I went by your suggestion. Is this what you were looking for?
              • Good enough.
• "The resources of Empires break down into food, wood, gold, stone." In other words they start out as something else then decompose into food and gold? Or "There are four kinds of resources in Empires:..."
  • Fixed
    • In my experience, lists in sentence forms are typically written as "are W,X,Y and Z" not just "are W,X,Y,Z". But I guess it's not strictly forbidden.
      • I reworded it. Better?
        • Better.
• "Each is used in a variety of ways, and must be totally utilized to achieve victory" Totally utilized meaning completely used up? In other words, you can't win if you have any wood left? Or is this supposed to be "you really should know how to use your wood if you want to win"? If the latter, we can probably do without this sentence - of course, the more you know about using all aspects of the game, the easier it is to win, but surely the same holds true about using the map, unit formations, deciding what units to build, where to attack, etc.
  • Fixed.
    • "Each ... play". Quantity mismatch there. I suggest just merging with the previous sentence, something like "... and stone, each of which plays an important role..."
      • I tried to fix that up a bit. Up to standards or more work?
        • Eh. I really want to say yes, but now it's two sentences stuck together. I'd recommend either a period or at least a semicolon after stone to separate them. It's not a big deal, I'm not going to oppose over it.
          • Eh I fixed it anyway.
• "On the same principle, the concept of any two civilizations fighting each other, even if they are from two different time periods, is possible. Since each civilization is limited to becoming certain civilizations once it reaches the World War I age,[14] the idea that every civilization can fight every other civilization is highly unlikely." You seem to be advancing an idea in the first sentence then immediately shooting it down in the next. Rephrase, please - maybe something like "Though in principle any combination of civs can coexist and compete, in practice, since each is limited ..." .
  • I fixed it up a bit. Is this what you were looking for?
    • Ouch. I can't read that sentence at all, sorry. "Though in principle any combination of civilizations can coexist and compete, in practice, since each is limited to only certain civilizations available in the World War I age,[14], it is unlikely." Can you rewrite? Also, you want ",ref" or ".ref" not ",ref," .
      • Sorry I was tired when I wrote that. I tried to reword it, but not dumb it down, cause I think that's against policy somewhere. Is this what you were looking for?
        • May I suggest shortening? Rather than: "On the same principle, the concept of any two civilizations fighting each other, even if they are from two different time periods, is possible. Though in principle any combination of civilizations can coexist and compete, in practice, this is unlikely since only certain new civilizations are available to early civilizations" change to "This way, in principle, any two civilizations can fight each other, even if they are from two different time periods. In practice, this is unlikely. Only certain new civs..." Seems to say the same thing in fewer words.
          • I used your idea and rewrote it. Good?
            • Good.
• New issue: "Civilizations in Empires break down into nine groups." They're not really "groups" are they? How about: "There are nine civilizations in Empires."?
  • Fixed.
    • Yes.
• "All new upgrades cost different combinations of resources, and can do anything from improving fishing rate to upgrading a spearmen to more modern technology.[7] Once this change occurs, old spearmen can no longer be created." Probably want "older unit types" or something, unless it's only spearmen.
  • Fixed.
• "Medieval Age" linked twice in opening paras.
  • Fixed.

AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Empire Earth has italics some places and doesn't other places. I suggest using everywhere. Same for a few Empires:DotMW titles in the References.
  • Fixed
    • No, not fixed. Here are just some of the places where it isn't fixed: "the company's previous title, Empire Earth"; "every time period used in Empire Earth"; "graphically Empires DOMW is a gem" "first Empires game"... Do a thorough search, please, you can just use the search box in your web browser.
      • Sorry I thought you only meant in the reference section. They are all italicized now except if it is Empires Aeon or Empires Heaven, which I left. Should those be capatilized too?
        • No (assuming you mean italicized), just the titles of games. This is from Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Titles, where the game is a work of literature or art. (To stretch a point! :-) ) I think web sites are more like company names, which aren't italicized. Looks like you got them all this time.
• Another issue: "In multiplayer, there are two playable game types. The first is the shorter battle-oriented action mode, and the second is the longer Empire Builder Mode" - if you write that, you really should explain the difference, or at least describe EBM with a few adjectives like you did with action mode. Also, if EBM is capitalized, shouldn't Action Mode also be?
  • I cleaned it up a bit. Better?
    • Better, but I don't know what "better defended" means. Units get a bonus to their defense? The company defended the mode from criticism by reviewers? It may be worth while to invest a full sentence to explain.
      • Apprently it wasn't. It's been fixed.
        • Good enough.
• New point: "guidence" is usually spelled "guidance".
  • fixed

It's all taken care of now, but most of it was taken care of by the time I started working (thanks Jimmy). Anyway, I finished up the other ones. Thoughts?--Clyde Miller 02:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's looking better and better, I think the end is in sight. Don't forget, you didn't quite get to all the issues in the earlier section; I'm especially interested in a few sentences on or from the reviews comparing with Empire Earth and Rise of Nations. If we can't write sales figures, we should at least write that. By "we", I of course mean "you".  :-) AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I did some more work. I know there's more left, but I'm kinda busy right now, and doing my best. I also started writing that comparisions paragrapgh.--Clyde Miller 03:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't wait! AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have the comparisions and the refs in my sandbox, so now I just have to finish up the paragrapgh part. I also responded to a couple more things.--Clyde Miller 20:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I think all issues have been addressed, so I wait to see for final imporvements.--Clyde Miller 04:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor issues left, but a fair number of them. I'm sorry if it seems to be painful and taking a long time, but a featured article is really supposed to be the best the Wikipedia has, "brilliant prose". Can't support yet. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's alright. I want Empires to be the best it can, and I can't thank you for how much you improved it. I fixed some of the issues, so let me know what you have to say. By the way, congrats on your adminship. I would have voted, but you didn't need any more pile-on supports, and it would have looked like I'm trying to gain your favor to by voting. Anyway, considering how much time you've helped me, I know you'll make a great sysop.--Clyde Miller 23:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's all right, I'll take what praise I can get. :-) (Here's what I wrote about a somewhat more extreme case of pile-on support: [15]). AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh sorry. I thought voting would be a little too political given the circumstances. Anyway, I fixed the problems.--Clyde Miller 23:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Almost all done. I'm going to strike my opposition and change to support, trusting that you will fix my two or so remaining points. Meanwhile, I've noticed others have started commenting as well. Carry on! AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I took care of the last few problems you found. Unfortunatly, this FAC was closed and Empires failed, but we plan on re-entering it in a week or so after some copyediting is done (for the prose), so I hope to see you there. A big thanks to all your help and suggestions.--Clyde Miller 23:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Section Break

• Support, as I think it looks excellent, and covers the topic well. Tuf-Kat 02:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object, prose is still flawed. "To be victorious, players must raise balanced and organized armies, utilizing micromanagement by breaking armies into groups." This is a really awkward sentence that makes an original assertion without a cite to back it up. Also, the game isn't actually isometric, so there's something iffy about calling it such. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Are you objecting because of that sentence, or because the prose overall is flawed, and you are using that as an example? Also, while I haven't played the game myself, I have never seen anything suggest that the game does not take place in an isometric perspective. Would you mind clarifying what you meant by that? JimmyBlackwing 16:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That's just one example of many weak, choppy or redundant sentences. It just feels really weak, because I can get well into the gameplay section without any mention of how this game is any different from any other RTS, since all it's done so far is restate the conventions of the genre. isometric is defined as all objects being the same size regards of the distance from the camera. The images used to illustrate clearly show objects receding into the distance and becoming smaller the further away they are. The angle onto the playing field seems reminiscent of old isometric games, but it'd be more accurate to describe it as 3/4 or whatever the actual term is rather than isometric. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
      • As for prose, it is not excatly my strong point, as I'm relatively a new editor. Ergo, I'm not sure where to find "weak, choppy, redundant sentences," but I'll look anyway. As to the isometric perspective, I'm sorry who added that, but it wasn't me and went unnoticed. The game is 3D, so I fixed that. Any spots that sound weak to you I'll work on, starting with the sentence you mentoned.--Clyde Miller 22:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
      • but uh first I think it might be helpful if I knew why that sentence was weak, other than maybe citing it.--Clyde Miller 23:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I found a ref for the micromanagement part, and the sentence was reworded because of it. Is it okay now? Also, any other ideas to further improve Empires?--Clyde Miller 23:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The writing is very messy. Here are examples just at the top. The density of problems indicates that the whole text is problematic.
  • "un-official"—Last time I looked, this was one word.
    • fixed
  • "The game features seven different nations:"—Spot the redundant word.
    • fixed.
  • "The game was subject to a positive critical reaction."—Isn't there a better way of wording this? For one thing, "subject" is more usual for negative critical reactions.
    • How about "The game was the focus of positive critical reaction". Still a bit laboured; "The game attracted positive critical reaction"? Tony 01:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I added your sentence.
  • "As a real-time strategy game, Empires consists of commanding units from a complete 3D perspective, and combatting opponents to achieve victory." No, the game doesn't consist of these, actions; the game requires players to command ...
    • fixed.
  • The US is a "civilization"? Hardly. No, seriously, folks, it's an unusual usage of the word; above, it's "nations". And when you say "some" civilizations, if there are only seven nations, why not specify the number? Then we have "ages" vs "epochs"—are these the same? If so, please use the same term.
    • I tried to clean up a little and made all the terms ages and civilizations. Although an odd use, the U.S. is a civilization in the game, and I removed all nation uses. What do you think? Better.
      • Um Deckiller changed up the wording so it's not all civilizations. Is this better or should I change it back to what I had before?
  • Overhanging full-stop under Gameplay. Is there an errant space before it? Locate with finder." Tony 07:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry to sound stupid, but what's an overhanging full stop? (I know stop means ".")
      • I think I found it.

I added some responses and did my best to fix the prose. I'm looking into finding some help from someone who is good at prose, and will try to look it over myself. In the meantime, I'll do my best to fix anything else you find. Thanks for the help.--Clyde Miller 01:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I worked on the problems you said, and have contacted some people to help me with prose. Any more help?--Clyde Miller 01:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral as of now until the prose is further enhanced. — Deckiller 02:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Aloysius Schmitt

There is good information in this article not found elsewhere, and it matches all the qualities as far as I could see. Laleena 23:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose it's a little more than a stub. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Object If there is such a thing. Not sourced at all and stubby. Gzkn 00:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Nat91 01:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Read WP:WIAFA. There's a good reason this article has already been assessed as a Start. -- Kicking222 02:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Opppose, unreferenced, a stub, perhaps list it at peer review for ideas on how to expand and polish, and then apply for good article, which is for shorter articles. Sandy (Talk) 15:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Opppose, too short Armanalp 16:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Unreferenced, too short to be a featured article. Hello32020 23:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Nominator's comment I myself could work on an anouncement on my page (a link on the page would be the place, probably Laleena's Files) announcing to all Aloysius Schmitt fans what to work on, and maybe give a couple of guidelines.Laleena 23:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Per all above LuciferMorgan 00:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Fabergé egg

This article provides wonderful text concerning the history of the Russian Czars. As it is stated in the article, "the eggs are among the masterpieces of the jeweller's art." --LizRice 22:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• No. The article is 50% list, and far too short for consideration. Nice images though. Harro5 22:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's far more to say on this subject. The article is not sufficiently comprehensive. Pinkville 23:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose The lead needs to be 2 or 3 paragraphs and summarise the article. The prose is clunky. I am sure there is more factual information and great stories behind these thingies. Also, a whole paragraph of Simpsons trivia doesn't quite fit the article. Still it is a great topic to choose and see how you go...Cas Liber 09:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Information to add may include summaries of how much they are valued at now, a little detail on some notable eggs etc. cheers. Cas Liber 09:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Almost no article, a list and trivia, not comprehensive. Sandy (Talk) 14:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Their has to be more to say on this.... Pigottsm 19:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose because it is mostly a list, needs a lot of expanding and it has no ru: interwiki link! Try again later, there is no ru:Яйцо Фаберже article yet. DVD+ R/W 19:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose the lead is short and says "made by Peter Carl Fabergé" yet the articles on individual eggs say made under the instruction or supervision of Peter Faberge. theres so many red links no history as to why they were made. nothing on the developments to the style over time. limited mention on the materials nothing on how long from concept to production. If you want linked articles on each egg then create basic stubs for them with a general description of them and when made where they, or were last known to be. Gnangarra 12:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Too much of a list, needs a large amount of expanding to be a featured article. Hello32020 02:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Need for Speed

Support. This article is good. Ken20008 03:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. One particular concern is that the article is not properly sourced. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 13:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC) ╫

Comment "...pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates." Alexj2002 13:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Noted. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 14:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC) ╫

• Peer review might be helpful, after all the cite tags are dealt with, and a readthrough of WP:WIAFA, WP:LEAD and WP:MOS. Sandy (Talk) 13:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object While some of the games are well described, some games on the opening list barely have one sentance while some have several paragraphs so try evening this out. Understandably some games will be more significant than others, but it is too lopsided at the moment. Also some more information on the development of the series as a whole would be nice as the two paragraphs following the lead really leave something to be desired. Perhaps take some information out of the headers for the individual games and put them in their own heading. Also some critical reaction to the game series as a whole would be nice, rather than just for the individual games, and perhaps some information about the how Need for Speed has influencd (or failed to influence) the driving simualtion genre videogame. Also i second all of the objections mentioned above. A few hours good work and research on some sources and this'll be ready. Thethinredline 14:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Object - just not ready. Look at some of the game articles in WP:FA. First of all, the lead is really not long enough (WP:LEAD). Secondly, many more references are needed and 'citation needed' tags are present! Also, some of the images lack sufficient fair use rationale and some have none. Refer to peer review first. CloudNine 15:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The issue of image rationales has been addressed. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 11:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC) ╫
• Strong Object - there are multipe citation and verification tags on it. Plus per above. Rlevse 17:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object per citation issues raised above.UberCryxic 22:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Karachi

(fixing fac nom for submitter.) Rlevse 19:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object Has citation needed tags, external jumps, and inconsistent ref formats. Rlevse 19:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object (for now) per above and overall it feels very undercited. Some sections missing footnotes whats so ever while some statements definetely require a citation like "Karachi has the highest literacy rate in Pakistan". - Tutmosis 20:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object (for now) The biggest problem is the lack of citations. It is a very interesting article, and quite enjoyable to read, but I'm not sure it has quite reached featured article quality yet. Even though it needs some work, it is much better now than it was before. Good job to those who have been working on it. HeBhagawan 21:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Something I miss is maps. It would be nice if we could see where the city is located on a map and preferably also some of the basic layout of the city in another map. 22:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Some of the fields documented in the lead template are not supported by the template itself, which is why footnote 1a doesn't appear and doesn't go anywhere. Gimmetrow 15:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Template is somewhat fixed. Gimmetrow 16:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Object: Needs in-line citations and references. Yes, there are a few, but WAY not enough for such a big article. A "Further Reading" section would be more than appropriate for such an article. Evan^{(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!)} 19:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Philippines

It's high time for our Wikipedia article to be featured! I believe it is a great article. Aeron Valderrama 09:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The article is still in bad shape. Try peer review first. --Howard the Duck 10:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. There are many passages that still need citation. -- Tito Pao 10:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object for the obvious reason that there were a dozen "citation needed" tags before the article was nominated for FA status. -- Kicking222 19:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object I agree, try a peer review. It could potentially become one, but not in the condition at the moment. Hello32020 03:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object There are missing citations. Alexj2002 15:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Still lacks some informations and of course, Some still needs citations -- Insanedriver

Manchester United F.C.

Support The article is very detailed, has many cited sources, and provides a great wealth of information about the football club.Ken20008 10:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object for a vast number of reasons, the most significant of which are:
  • Too few references - what referencing there is is too sporadic.
  • There are many bold claims that need referencing and statistics to back up: e.g. "a then-unheard of approach", "with an average age of only 22", "This style was unpopular with supporters", "was reportedly on the verge of being sacked", "Following the Munich air disaster in 1958, more people began to support United and many started to go to matches", and many more.
  • Only one free image in such a long article, and it's not a particularly good one at that.
  • History section far too recentist and littered with trivia - shorten this so that it gives a more balanced coverage. For example, sixty years elapsed between the club's foundation and the start of World War II, but only one sentence of the "History" section covers events during that time. The worst example is how the team's winning of an FA Cup, two league titles and a European Cup in the period 1963-68 gets one sentence, while the period 2004-06 when the team just won the League Cup gets a whole paragraph.
  • Coverage of Busby's time at the club is mistakenly included in the pre-1945 section as well as 1945-69.
  • Colours and sponsorship should be in a section of their own, not under History.
  • Reserve players should not be in the main club article.
  • No criteria given for inclusion in list of notable former players.
  • Player and club records should be divided off into a separate article (e.g. as Arsenal F.C. records has done) and just summarised here.
  • The endless listing of every physio, masseur, under-9's coach is not necessary and should be excised.
  • There really should be more, preferably a whole section, on the club's home stadiums - not just Old Trafford but its predecessors.

Basically, this article needs a lot of work - there are many more minor issues I have not listed here. Start by reading existing FAs such as IFK Goteborg, Arsenal and Manchester City and see how they've done it right. I note this article has not yet been submitted for peer review - I would strongly recommend doing so. It might even be worth submitting to WP:GAC as an intermediate step before resubmitting for FAC. It is definitely not featured-quality as it stands. Qwghlm 11:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Firstly references need to amass to around 30 at least for an article of that size. The structure of the article is also rather weak. Look at the Arsenal FC page and make changes to this one accordingly. For me that is the perfect example of a sporting team featured article. Get those right and you'll be laughing. --mdmanser 11:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Qwghlm. HornetMike 11:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object there are much better articles out there. к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 14:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Weymouth

I have nominated this article because I believe that it fulfills the criteria needed for Featured Article status. There may be a need for some minor exact wording changes, but other than that, the article covers everything one would need to know about Weymouth. The statements are stable and well sourced, and there are useful links to other websites.

There seems to be a consensus amongst a few people on the talk page that this article is well written. The article contains many links to subsequent articles and hundreds of articles link to it, so the article is clearly quite important.

The article recently became a Good Article, yet after this award, continued to be improved with more sources, links and detail. Rossenglish 14:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Good article? Certainly. Featured Article? I don't think so- at least, not at this point. Some unsourced POV statements; for example, from the lead: "As it is situated on the South Coast, the borough of Weymouth and Portland has a reputation of being one of the sunniest places in Britain, rivalling other south coast resorts such as Eastbourne for the title." Really? According to whom? Far too many one- and two-sentence paragraphs, and a few too many parenthetical phrases. Barely anything exists in the section devoted to culture and sport- there's only one sentence that doesn't refer to a single soccer/football team. No mention of who the elected officials of Weymouth are. One great aspect of the article (among others) that I should mention, though, is the wealth of excellent photos that truly illustrate the town. -- Kicking222 15:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per Kicking222, the article is getting there but stubby sections and missing information is prevalent, + the prose problems. Maybe a peer review would be better at this point? You can also check out this guide to cities/towns written by WikiProject UK geography. - Tutmosis 21:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support now after a a series of major improvements to the article by the nominator. - Tutmosis 15:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Kicking222, your comments have been duly noted and the article is now subject to minor changes as requested. Please feel free to reword and/or change the article yourselves. =)Rossenglish 18:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

'Weymouth Harbour' seems stubby and I personally don't see how it merits its own section. Can it be merged with 'Tourism and other industries'? - Tutmosis 01:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Also there is already a wonderful infobox, it can replace the current article-exclusive table. - Tutmosis 01:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion Tutmosis =) The harbour section has now moved! However, I would like someone else's help on changing the current article-exclusive table, I'm not that good at scripts like that! Rossenglish 10:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively there is Infobox England place. Pick which one you prefer, and mention it at Talk:Weymouth. I am sure several of us would be glad to help. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I put in the infobox above mentioned by Hrothulf. Can someone check out that all the information I put in is right? - Tutmosis 16:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I know Weymouth fairly well, I lived there for a few years, so I will check your info Tutmosis ;) Rossenglish 18:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• After a series of comments by several helpful Wikipedians, the article has improved quite substantially, however there must be room for improvement still, so additional improvements and suggestions would be very helpful =) Rossenglish 21:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Depeche Mode

Support Great details, information is well spread out through the article. Surely worth FA status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken20008 (talk • contribs)

• Object No in-line citations. --Allen3 ^talk 13:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object, zero citations and four references. The prose could use some work as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object, per Badlydrawnjeff. CloudNine 15:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment How was this possibly assessed as an A-Class article? -- Kicking222 15:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Kicking222. There is no way this is A-class, just based on refs. And a question-why is this part of WP Bio? This is a group, not a person. Rlevse 16:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • WikiProject Musicians merged with WP:WPBIO, and share our template. Thus, the Biography WikiProject has extended it's scope to include biographical articles of musical ensembles via the child project. --kingboyk 18:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above and there seems to be a lot of unfree images being used only to show what the group looks like. Jay32183 19:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object "Known instruments and samples" section serves no purpose other than cruft, while the article needs inline cites (1. a.). LuciferMorgan 14:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

F-22 Raptor

I have nominated this article for Featured Article status because it has plenty of -and accurate- information, is completley unbiased and is not too long, or a stub. It has excellent pictures, none that are bad quality, or small, and it has pictures in moderation, not everywhere in the article. I ask that this article is the Featured Article for the 19^th of November, as this was it's maiden flight. dan_1024 12:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object Most of the article lacks inline citations. Gzkn 13:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The citations present seem to be quality, but there are many assertions that need citations. Even if it seems "common knowledge" that the 43rd has the first operational F-22As, this should be cited, as should the statements attributed to USAF, the Pentagon, and Lockheed in "Procurement". Then in "Comparisons", "claimed by many sources" should be replaced or perhaps given as a summary after the flight exercise references. The short sections in the "Development" section could be combined for better flow. Gimmetrow 16:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The Simpsons

• Comment: nominated againBuc 20:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment properly restarting nom. Joelito (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Three images had no fair use rationales, to which I provided to the infobox and Games montage. I removed the cast poster as redundant. It'd be better if we had one of these spoofs. Wiki-newbie 21:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the image of Dan Castellaneta, because the license said it was PD and no source was given. Given the uploader's history with deleted images and the fact that an image of Homer's head can't be PD, it was safe to remove it. The uploader has been notified. --Maitch 22:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Article is chock full of original research. Some of the OR is clearly incorrect too. Some examples:

"The Democratic party receives little, if any, screen time, though it seems that they are generally portrayed as underqualified." (OR plus recurring politician character Mayor Quimby is Democratic, and is portrayed as Kennedyesque and corrupt, not underqualified. Quimby means portrayal of Democratic politicans on Simpsons likely to outweigh screentime for portrayal of Republican politicians);

"The Simpsons go several years into the Internet age before acquiring a computer, perhaps reflecting the reluctance to modernize the show's floating timeline." (OR plus acquiring an internet-connected computer has been the crutch crux of a couple of episodes, but has not become part of the standard house setting; also an early Season 1 episode had Homer playing with Bart on a video game console at home);

"Recurring jokes were more prominent in the early seasons of the show" (OR without proof plus it could be argued that recurring jokes have become much more important in later seasons *cough*);

"Since the debut of the show, the term "Smithers" has become a common eponym for a spineless underling." (OR/unsourced plus really?);

"Nevertheless, their rich body of experiences has formed significant character growth." (OR/unsourced plus really?);

"Many [secondary characters] have developed a vast cult following of their own and serve to represent facets of the American society that the show scathingly critiques." (OR/unsourced plus really? "vast cult followings" for who? Milhouse? Principal Skinner? Apu? who? Krusty, Ned and Burns are probably the best known secondary characters but where's the "cult"? and really, many? plus plus "scathingly critiques"???)

Sorry, but OR problems in article mean that I don't think even the article's current "good article" status is justifiable Bwithh 02:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, not OR or another issue but just a sidenote comment....:"Writers on the DVD commentaries have indicated that they often spent more time trying to come up with these sign gags than anything else in the episodes." I think the writers are kidding here guys... unless they're admitting about how they just about gave up trying to make recent season episodes funny... Bwithh 02:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed all of those OR including the sign gag thing, which I think in any case is to trivial to mention. --Maitch 22:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Image:Simpsons_Hollywood_Walk_of_Fame.jpg is listed as both free use and fair use. That's not possible. Jay32183 05:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Noting that the renomination was done by User:Bole2 who did not provide a reason for the article's nomination. Hoping that he/she comments on why it was renominated. Gzkn 06:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object. This nomation is troublesome to me. The first citation in the article is for the statement "The Simpsons has also had a significant influence on post-Cold War popular culture" and apparently references Planet Simpson: How a Cartoon Masterpiece Documented an Era and Defined a Generation. However, the associated link for that reference points to an announcement of the book's author giving a lecture at a college. Apparently, the book itself was not used as a reference. There are, however, a number of questionable references to self published websites, and fluffy news articles about renewals and such. Reference 27, to Mercator.net, is largely about the the fact that the Simpsons are a subject of academic study; it mentions many books and academic papers by name which also aren't being used as references here. You see where I'm going with this. This article is a good start, but even there were no original research problems, it's still not going to come close to comprehensiveness without looking into the some of the more serious criticism that's been written on the Simpsons. -- Bailey^(talk) 16:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "significant influence on post-Cold War popular culture" is troublesome. I tried to remove it once, but it was put right back in there. I can't however agree with on ref 27 (Mercator.net). The article is not largely about the fact that the Simpsons are a subject of academic study. It is only mentioned in one paragraph in a very long article and isn't the main theme of the article. The rest of the refs consist of news article and interviews, which I still believe to be valid references on Wikipedia. --Maitch 12:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that that's a terrible line - it has a single weak source of little reliability (basically puff copy from an advertisement for a single author talk promoting the author's over-the-top book on the simpsons (the copy even use a google count to assess simpsons cultural impact!!) yet makes an enormous claim which is vague. Even if we accept the sourcing (which we shouldn't), the line is badly put together, and begs several questions. Are we talking about world pop culture, US pop culture or Canadian pop culture or what pop cultures here? What is meant by "significant influence"? The fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of South African apartheid can legitimately said to have had "significant influences" on "post Cold War pop culture" too. Is the Simpsons being compared to those events? The grandiose use of "post-Cold War" makes it sound like this. This is not a good article Bwithh 16:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose The Simpsons has a good chance to achieve FA status, but the fancruft needs to be cut out. Also, the lead does not flow very well. I'd recommend a rewrite or substantial revision. - Mike | Talk 22:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It is possible for you to mention what specific "fancruft" you see as a problem? --Maitch 11:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Some examples can be found in the first oppose vote above. I would like to see this become an FA someday, but I don't think it's ready yet. And if you look at the talk page of the article, you'll see that this is a premature nom. - Mike | Talk 17:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

All of those mentioned in that vote was removed two days before you voted oppose. I know the nomination is premature, but people still has to explain why the article is not FA stadards. I can't fix something I don't know what is. --Maitch 21:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Main problem is the lead then. It doesn't flow well at all, and I think it could use a rewrite. Drop a message at my talk page, and I'll help if you like. - Mike | Talk 05:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Cyprus

• Support Finally this article is becoming worthy of praise and accuracy. I am a minor contributor.(UNFanatic 21:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC))
• Object unfortunately fails 1c off the bat with only 3 footnotes. - Tutmosis 15:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object Note 3 is not in any standard format and the external jumps need fixed. Rlevse 17:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Needs inline citations. Neil916 (Talk) 19:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object The articles must have inline citations, and more footnotes. Hello32020 22:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object. I'm sorry I have to object. Per all above. If you bring the article for peer-review, I'll be eager to help.--Yannismarou 08:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object The article currently has sections which are strongly biased, and does not fulfill the NPOV criteria.--MrNancy 11:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Betrayal at Krondor

It's a good article, no? Chris 17:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I loved this game, but the article has one reference, and nothing reliable. The prose could use some work as well, and I'm concerned about comprehensiveness. I suggest a peer review first. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review has been requested. Chris 18:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

My suggesiton is to polish the peer review first, perhaps show it to a few folks at the video game WikiProject, then take it back here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Virtually no references or inline citations. Only reference is to a forum posting, not a verifiable source. Phrases such as "Betrayal at Krondor is one of the most widely-played, critically-acclaimed, and commerically-successful RPGs from the early 1990s." are not backed up, and prose in some areas is relatively poor. It can't just be a "good article", it has to be an outstanding article in order to qualify as a featured article. CloudNine 18:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Backed up you say? It's plain fact that Krondor was, is and probably always will be, massively successful. Heck, Sierra made it freeware back in 1998. If that doesn't make it popular, I give up.Chris 18:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way: I say that citations are pointless, and detract from an article. I challenge badlydrawnjeff and CloudNine to provide counter-arguments. Cheers. Chris

If by citations you mean references, then yes, these are vital. How else can we verify the information presented in the article? CloudNine 21:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, why is it important to have citations and/or references? I don't think they're at all vital. The very fact that a Wikipedia article remains in its present condition shows that it's reached a level of consensus, i.e. verification. I think the only way that you could argue otherwise is to say that not many people visit a given Wikipedian site. Do you suppose that few people have checked out our Betrayal at Krondor page? If so, I will shut up. Chris 21:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it only means the article has not received enough attention.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - I strongly suggest that the nominator reads WP:REF and check out some existing Featured Articles. If you don't think references/citations are vital, you'll never get this up to a B article, not to mention Featured. Wickethewok 22:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm sorry that you feel that citations are ugly- but they're the only way to prove that the article isn't all lies. If I wanted to say that BaK was a mediocre game that got little attention in the gaming world, frankly my opinion (as obviously wrong as it would be) is just as correct as yours, that it's a great, well-received game. Without citations, all of the information, right or wrong, is just some editor's opinion. It has to be proven that it's a fact, whether that means little numbers strewn throughout the article or not. (Disclaimer- I never played the game, and the fake opinion up there is not my own) --PresN 22:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well stated. Also, I didn't mean to be overly harsh in my above "oppose", its just that cites/refs are something quite necessary to building a non-expert reviewed encyclopedia. Wickethewok 00:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Peer review is here. Gzkn 01:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. And no, it's not even a good article yet, and without inline citations will not be.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The nominator has been blocked indefinitely for vandalism and disruption. Gzkn 06:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone here ever read Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four? Just because 'facts' are attributed and repeated in numerous sources, it doesn't mean they are any less prone to error, lies, misinterpretation, simply being wrong etc etc etc.

Also, a quote from Old Ben Kenobi: "You'll find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on a certain point of view." :) Vangran

If you want to never trust anything or anyone, go right ahead. Wikipedia prefers to trust established sources over semi-anonymous editors. If you don't think that 'facts' exist, why are you editing an encyclopledia? --PresN 17:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A fair query! However, as I detect a strong undercurrent of Christian nihilism in your answer, I am quite certain that I would be unable to give you a satisfactory answer. Suffice to say, I believe more in consensus that elitism. Have you ever heard the term ivory tower? It is my experience that a lot of Wiki's adminstrators have a great respect for everything to come out of ivory towers, whether or not such knowledge is to the greater benefit of humanity. Have you read much Nietzsche ever? If not, I very much doubt we could even begin to agree on what 'truth' or 'benefit to humanity' means. Cheers -- Vangran

This discussion is out of place here, so we should take it to talk pages if you want to continue (though, no, I haven't read Nietzsche), but I feel that Wikipedia is a reservior for facts that are true, not for 'facts' that are of benefit to mankind. To say that you can determine what is of the greatest benefit to mankind is far more elitist than saying we can determine what is true. --PresN 22:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

To relate it to the subject at hand, however, I don't see how not citing sources makes the article more beneficial, though it certainly leaves it open to being less true. --PresN 22:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Dallas, Texas

Well referenced, excellent History subpage (though that isn't what's being considered), well referenced, good images. Isn't overbearingly long, following Summary Style with several subpages (and sub-subpages). drumguy8800 C T 22:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support. Very informative article with lots of great pictures. --Longhornsg 22:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Mild object. Refs go after punctuation, not before it and not in the middle of a sentence. Rlevse 16:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • All fixed. drumguy8800 C T 10:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Better, but see the Peer Review I left on the talk page--several of them are actionable. I fixed several items for you in the article. Sorry I didn't notice this before, but the refs are not in meta cite.php format, which is preferred. Also, a 2-para lead is too short for a 77K article, it should be at least 3 paras. Rlevse 12:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I started writing this for a third paragraph:

Dallas in a larger context is seen as right-wing politically, with a heavy cultural emphasis placed on Protestant Christianity and close historical and cultural ties to both the rugged American West and agricultural South. The popular television series Dallas bolstered this view epitomizing the city with wealthy oil barrons, big hair and cowboy hats. Dallas however lies roughly at the center of the political spectrum,

And I became lost on how to finish it. I was going to start talking about the Hispanic population in the city (about 1/3 the population) and mexican/tex-mex & barbecue or something.. and maybe incorporate the DCVB's motto "Dallas: Live large, thing big." thing to tie it back to.. the beginning of the paragraph. I don't know, I looked to other cities on what to add to the lead. Any ideas? drumguy8800 C T 07:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The first paragraphs of the "History" section are under-citated.--Yannismarou 18:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Transfered corresponding references from the History of Dallas, Texas article. drumguy8800 C T 19:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Support.--Yannismarou 19:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Extremely undercited. I started tagging facts and tourist-bureau sounding promo statements that needed citation, but stopped after finding quite a few. The fancruft, touristy stuff sounds like original research, and needs to be removed or cited; there is a lot that needs to be cited - I tagged only some. Sandy (Talk) 20:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I added 17 19 29 references to the article and removed the annoying unverifiable bits (especially about Dallas Cowboys); they covered the things you selected and some more bits around Culture. I'll add some more tonight to other lacking areas of the article.. You tagging them was good incentive to get it cleaned up though thanks. drumguy8800 C T 03:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. "It was a fairly insignificant place" is in my opinion poorly worded, and I don't think "insignificant" requires a Wiktionary link. Also, does the cityscape section follow general Wikipedia style? It seems a bit choppy. Other than that, it seems a well-referenced and thorough article, written with a very good prose style. Seegoon 15:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixed. drumguy8800 C T 17:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Support. Seegoon 17:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object Support...

1. Comprehensiveness:
   1. "Native Americans inhabited the Dallas area before it was claimed". What Native Americans? The History subarticle doesn't mention anything either. See the Early history section of History of Nashville, Tennessee for example.
   2. If you're going to make me read trivia about how many times Dallasites eat out an how many restaurants the city has, you should at least make it interesting by telling me what they eat. What signature foods is Dallas known for? Otherwise, I would remove the paragraph entirely.
2. Awkward writing (i.e. not "brilliant prose"):
   1. "The Republic of Texas broke off from Mexico in 1836 (and remained an independent country for nearly 10 years); and this is when Dallas's development began."
   2. "oil industry companies" is redundant.
   3. "The city itself has historically been white".
   4. "Some areas known especially for the local art and culture include: The Arts District of downtown is home...". Bad grammar.
3. Focus:
   1. We don't need to know about Robert Noyce independently inventing the integrated circuit in California to understand the history of Dallas. Leave that for the integrated curcuit article.

Kaldari 22:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Resolved. drumguy8800 C T 02:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object—1a. Poorly written.
  • "The area was very close to French territory, but the boundary of the Spanish-speaking territory was moved upward a bit in 1819 with the Adams-Onís Treaty." "Very" is weak (undefinable amplifier—adds nothing). "A bit" is in the same class, and is too informal for this register.
  • "the nation's exitance"—Nice one.
  • "miles" ... what are they?
  • "annexed into"—I think it should be "by" (am I correct?)
  • "It is speculated that it (and the city)"—clumsy repetition; what does the second "it" refer to? (Could be one of two back-referents.) Tony 02:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

PS Don't just fix these points; the whole text needs a serious copy-edit by an editor who's unfamiliar with it (fresh eyes). Tony 02:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object per Tony. The prose looks and reads quite fragmented. I also suggest reducing the number of pictures (leave that job to Commons), shortening the contents box and reducing the number of schools, parks, universities that you list - "summarize" information with cohesive writing. Also, I suggest defering more information to suitable forks. Rama's arrow 19:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I also think the number of pictures is a bit excessive. No section should have more than 2 pictures at the most. Kaldari 02:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Refer to Peer review.

  While it's nice there are a lot of photos, most of them are of poor quality and not necessary for illustrating the article.

  THe Dallas Morning News cover also needs a fair use rationale.

  Furthermore, the See Also lines should be at the top of a section, not at the end, to follow WP:GTL.

  Why is the budget of the city given at 10 significant figures for each individual year since 2002?

  Too many lists masquerading as prose, e.g.- companies headquarted in Dallas in Economy; sports teams in Sports; most of Health and Medicine, Transportation, Television Stations; a lot more. For example - "Notable venues include...(list of 5 items)" This tells me nothing about either the city of Dallas nor about the venue mentioned in the list.

  Is that big chart with the state and federal representatives really necessary?

  "Dallas is home to several significant events throughout the year." This sentence is filler. The section is titled "Events", so I'm already expecting to be told about significant events in Dallas.

  Prose is not "brilliant"

--DaveOinSF 01:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Heraldry

This article was recently updated, trimmed, and cited by Boven. I think that he went a long way to making this a featured article. It covers a broad topic, but does so pretty well. It also is well referenced now.--Forlornandshorn 14:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support as nominator.--Forlornandshorn 14:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The big bits of white space in the text are extremely off-putting, perhaps you can fiddle with the layout a bit to stop it happening. 149.155.96.5 16:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support I had hoped that the article would get a bit more of a review by its regular contributors, but I think that it is much better than it was. A couple of points have been raised on the talk page, and the white space is a problem. The problem seems to lie in two tall, narrow image. If someone with competence in computers could merge those into one image, that might solve the problem.--dave-- 18:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment White space fixed, at least on my screen. —Celithemis 20:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• SupportGood looking article.Reddyrov
• Looks really good, but one of the paragraphs needs cleaning up:

(quote) Crests are often not displayed at all in French and Mediterranean heraldry, but are very important in Germany. A shield with three or more crested helms is usually German. Certain types of crests, too, are typically German, such as a pair of horns or a tall hat in the tinctures of the shield."(unquote)

1) First problem is that this sentence generally identifies the latter features as "German". The system of multiple crests might might very well have originated in Germany (I have no information about this), but multiple crests it is also very much present in Danish heraldry, and I would expect also in Sweden and Norway. E.g. the arms of the Counts of Danneskiold-Løwendal had five crests, and so did the Counts Reventlow and many others. Examples exist at least back to the 1600s (e.g. the arms of Baron Juel of Rysensteen.) In the Danish case, this was most often the result of marriages, but some arms used multiple crests from the beginning, e.g. both the arms of Count Tromp of Sølvisborg (1676), Count Rantzau (1671), Count Griffenfeld (1679) and Count Struensee (1771) were granted featuring three crests. In some examples this seems to have been used in order to reuse a similar but not identical arms previously granted to another branch of the same family, e.g. if the main line of a family had died out and a junior branch (or perhaps a person married into the family) desired to carry the same arms.

2) A crest consisting of two horns is extemely common in Danish heraldry, and dates back at least to the 1300s (e.g. the arms of Tå from Tjørnelunde (1382), Gås in Jutland (1259) and the Danish arms in Wappenboek Gelre, see Image:55verso Dannebrog 1370.jpg). In Danish such horns are known as vesselhorn (both singular and plural). In some cases both horns carried three "eyes" from the feathers of a peacock, or - later - three peacock feathers each, but I don't know if this is typically Danish or not. Anyway, these trends were not only German. On the other hand, I would very much like to see some information about coat of arms using borders, e.g. as in Portuguese and Spanish heraldry. This tradition is almost completely non-existant in Scandinavia. I just noticed that in Danish heraldry from the 1700s, a number of noble families somehow included either one or more Danish flag(s) or a lion holding such a flag, e.g. Moltke, Luckner, Løvendal, Rysensteen, Roepstorff, Fuchs, Jarlsberg, von Barner, and Reichswein. Most often as (part of) the crest. My source for these examples is Sven Tito Achen (1973), Danske adelsvåbener. En heraldisk nøgle, Copenhagen:Politikens Forlag, ISBN 87-567-1777-6

3) A few references for the "National styles" section would be nice.

4) Colours should be written consistently, in one paragraph they are capitalized, in the next they are not.

5) Should we update the image tag of the arms of Baroness Thatcher, stating that it is (also) fair use in this article?

It also would be nice if "fur" wasn't a redlink, but all of these are minor points and the content generally looks solid, so I'll happily Support. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object; the lead needs to follow WP:LEAD (2-3 developed paragraphs that summarize the content of the entire article), and there aren't enough citations—the last two sections are entirely unreferenced. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 00:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object, for the beginning and the end. Needs a proper lead, and ends with unsourced weasel-worded statements like "Many more people see heraldry as a part of their national, and even personal, heritage, as well as a manifestation of civic and national pride." Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object - Intro is too short. A good FA intro can take a long time to develop, but it needs to start by summarizing all the sections in a manner that recapitulates the logic behind the organization of the article. Hard to describe, but the current two sentences are most definitely not this. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Object. Poor lead+the last section of the article and some other paragraphs on other sections are uncitated.--Yannismarou 10:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• comment. The recent rewrite is a big improvement, but would like to see some refs in the "National styles" and "Modern heraldry" sections. Gimmetrow 01:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object: the section on 'Origins and history' is disappointingly brief for an entry on what is essentially a historical subject; there's not enough on the meaning and function of heraldry ie. its role in defining nobility, usage in battle, and as a way of showing status; I'd also like to see more on the restriction of the usage of heraldry over time: did it become more widely used, and less tied to notions of dynastic nobility, with social change?. S 22:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Conclusion?:I think it's pretty safe to assume that this article has not yet reached the stage of FA. Perhaps an admin can close this FAC and we can begin implementing the suggestions to make it better.--dave-- 15:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

CM Punk

Self-nomination. Since May, 2006 I have been working on this article about a somewhat unknown professional wrestler (after I started the article he debuted on television and is now much better known in the mainstream), in the process having it listed for two seperate (admittedly very low participation) peer reviews, had it pass the good article criteria and I think it has reached a point where it can no longer be improved upon. It is, near as I can tell, well written, well referenced, and comprehensive to the farthest point this particular wrestler could achieve currently.

If this passes it will be the first professional wrestling article on wikipedia to reach FA status, and it would be affirmation for the large amount of effort I had to put in to get it to this point along with the aid of many other users, most notably Calaschysm (talk · contribs) who recently helped with a lot of references. If you object or have comments please respond and I will try my best to address the concerns or reply with an explanation as to why something is the way it is. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support Very, very good. Great use of pictures, good lead, plenty of references. SergeantBolt (t,c) 13:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Quick Comment: "Tattoos" section seems trivial, is it really needed? - Tutmosis 14:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Reply. I've thought about that section being considered trivia but a large part of his gimmick are his tattoos and how they represent his beliefs, as well as their symbolism and iconography that goes with their impact on the gimmick and his real life persona. The pepsi tattoo lead to the naming of two different signature moves as well as being the image he is most closely identified with to the point where for a long time in the indies he wore the symbol on his pants (although the angle is bad for it in Image:Punkcabana.jpg on Punk's left hand side pants you can see the sides of three pepsi logos) as well as being the image featured most prominently in his WWE titantron (available here). Other examples of the importance and prominence of the tattoos was that the first WWE magazine article feature on him was a focus on his tattoos, and the first selection of T-shirts for Punk that were made by WWE merchandise featured the tagline "Luck is for losers" which Punk had never actually spoken in WWE yet but was a part of his tattoo piece. The straight edge and drug free tattoos are also both instantly recognised as Punk symbols, to the point where he referred to his stomach tattoo as his identity and having it removed would lose a part of himself. If I had to remove some of it, i'd have to remove all of it, and it's really such a core part of himself in real life and in the character I felt I couldn't remove it with good faith without actually harming the information included. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• What a long response for a short comment. Well thanks for taking the time and I guess I see your point. But I would like to see that section be converted into prose(paragraph form) since a section composed enterily of bullet points isn't good. - Tutmosis 15:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Agree, could you add more about how the tattoos are used in the wrestling persona? That would make the relevance of the section clearer. The "Pepsi plunge" doesn't seem to be mentioned in signature moves. Also, I've fixed the footnotes to follow punctuation per the guidance at WP:FN. Gimmetrow 15:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Pepsi plunge is under finishing moves, and I'll try to add prose of the tattoo section however I can not think of a way I can convert the entire section into prose. 15:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Reply. I added a paragraph at the opening of the paragraph as well as expanded some of the segments underneathe, but could not combine the whole thing into a line of prose without it losing a lot of information nd reading terribly. –– Lid^(Talk) 16:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Support since it meets the criteria. It was a very good read about a subject (wresling) that doesn't have a wide wikipedian base to improve. The "tattoos" section still doesn't feel right to me but due to your explanation and it not interfering with any FA criteria I'm going to let it go. Good luck with your next article venture. - Tutmosis 17:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, somehow I didn't see the "plunge" listed. Anyway, the new intro text to the tattoo section needs work: "An integral part of Punk's gimmick is that of the numerous tattoos that adorn his body that have come to represent different aspects of his personality, trademark symbols and mantras that have been integrated into his wrestling gimmick." I'm not sure what this is intending to say, beyond: his tattoos are part of his wrestling persona. Gimmetrow 01:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Support. This is probably one of the best wrestling-related Wikis I've ever read, and it should be categorized as such. PunkCabana 21:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, or perhaps SUPERport. Holy crap, that's easily the best wrestling article I've ever seen on WP. In fact, it's easily one of the best articles- in general- that I've ever read. I've definitely never heard of this guy (I just watched WWE at 3 in the morning today for the first time in at least a couple of years), but now I feel like I've been at every stage of his life, or at least of his wrestling career. Bravo, Lid! -- Kicking222 22:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Object. Lots of problems here:

• 1a) Well-written, compelling, brilliant. Here's a sentence in the lead, "The most widely-believed theory to what it original stood for is "Chick Magnet" due to that Punk was in a tag team early in his backyard wrestling years called the Chick Magnets in which he was CM Punk and his tag team partner was CM Venom.[7]" Going to the middle of the article for a sample of the prose, we find, "Punk joined Ring of Honor initially as a babyface but was soon turned heel. At the same time Punk joined the wrestling promotion NWA:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, where he was soon paired with Julio Dinero as sidekicks for Raven as part of The Gathering." Scanning down in the same section, we find, "Punk started climbing the ranks of ROH with notable achievements including coming second in a one night tournament at the Second Anniversary to crown the first ROH Pure Champion, losing to A.J. Styles in the finals,[19] and winning the ROH Tag Team Championship twice with Colt Cabana, both times defeating The Briscoe Brothers to win the championship.[20][21]" Here's a sentence towards the end: "Punk has two younger sisters[10] and a brother who is also a professional wrestler who uses the ring name Mike Broox,[6][7] however Punk and Mike had a falling out several years ago after Mike embezzled several thousand dollars from the Lunatic Wrestling Federation.[65]" These are not just a few things to fix: the entire article needs polishing. At the bottom of the WP:WIAFA page, you can find some exercises and guidelines for helping to polish your prose and reduce redundancies.
• 1b) Comprehensive. This is a biography: Personal life is three stubby paragraphs, which tell us almost nothing about him.

• Expanded and made into prose. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• 1c) Factually accurate: while the article appears absurdly cited (with too many citations given to source simple facts - why do we need 3 cites that he was hired as a trainer?), the quality of the sources used do not rise to the level required for an FA. Many of the sources are to websites which don't appear to rise to satisfy WP:RS.

• I was going to address this in the nomination but the nomination ended up becoming extremely long so I removed all but the first and last paragraphs: the problem with finding sources on professional wrestlers is that apart from a very very few number they don't really hit the mainstream. When I began the article, as stated above, he hadn't even appeared on television and even now he hasn't appeared in any outside of wrestling sources. The reason for the large number of website notes is because there are simply no other sources from that time in his career that weren't online, in fact they are none as far as I know of. With the indy wrestling scene most of the information is spread by websites and the main wrestling publications are by most other standards tiny, considering how large the business is. The reason I used website sources from OWW rather than the DVDs in question is because the website lists the detail of what happened while the DVDs do not. I was playing with the idea of converting all the OWW ROH links to the DVDs in which they occurred but wasn't sure if that would benefit or remove content from the wikipedia. This isn't even going to mention the rather secretive nature of professional wrestling to begin with and what you end up with is an article that really is the best sourced it could possibly be, and still can not find greater sources. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• 2a) Lead. The lead is not a compelling and concise summary of the article. It doesn't summarize the article, and includes detail that is not covered in the article (example, "Chick magnet").

Reply fixed. –– Lid^(Talk) 09:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• 3a) Fair Use doesn't appear to be in the clear; someone more knowledgeable should check. Sandy 23:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've had a second look: I do not see compelling, brilliant, or even improved prose, I don't see the sources rising to the level required for verifiability, and I don't see a comprehensive bio in this article. Sandy 01:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose per 1a and 1c. Getting through the second paragraph was torture. It doesn't meet prose quality and it doesn't meet the MoS because the intro is it's own little diversion (about straight edge), rather than a description of the article.

Would it be better if the paragragh in question was moved to the "Personal Life" section? Shot and Botched 23:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply Combined with tattoo section to create gimmick section which should no longer be simple trivia. –– Lid^(Talk) 09:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The effort has been made to format and provide cites—but I cannot view them as reliable, even in a limited context. Ohio Valley Wrestling...OK, this is a part of his career, but their site can not be termed reliable when viewed by itself. Ditto "Obsessed with wrestling".

This just isn't our best quality. Marskell 23:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• OVW is the WWE's primary developmental territory and it's their official website. Is it possible to be more reliable than the source itself? Calaschysm 01:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Many of the citations are match results, but sometimes they don't seem to support the "key" claim of the sentence. For instance: "ROH ended up arranging a Clockwork Orange House of Fun match, which was the first steel cage match in the promotions history, to replace the hair versus hair match.[16]" The key claim seems to be this being first cage match in the franchise, but I couldn't find that on the page referenced by note16. (A few of the other matches cited seem possibly more like minor plot twists than significant events in his career, but some amount of such detail is OK.) Finally, enough editors object to two columns for references. Please, don't use three columns. Gimmetrow 15:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • In reply to Cala (and having been part of a long recent discussion on FAC talk re this) I feel the references have to be reliable in-themselves not just in this context. Would I trust the website "Obsessed with Wrestling" for any quote, any time? I would say no and Gimme's suspicions help confirm this. Marskell 15:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Support Very good article that meets criteria GShton 18:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Object I know this is a problem that a lot of pop culture articles face, but could you do something about the trivia? Quite a bit of the information there isn't really important, and this is obscuring the essential and interesting parts of the article. I'm looking at the tattoos section in particular- while they are an important part of his persona, there really isn't a need to list out and describe so many in so much detail. Borisblue 05:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply I removed the random band tattoos and other random tattoos on his body, but left in the ones that are integral to the character, personality, mantras etc. This is the best I can come up with to address the tattoos issue, which as I previously mentioned have tried really hard to think of ways to integrate. –– Lid^(Talk) 07:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed some more tattoos- I really don't see why the reference to the Simpsons' Binky the fish is relevant to his wrestling persona, for instance. Borisblue 18:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You can remove tattoos if you want, but don't remove the "Straight Edge" tattoo. That's probably the most important tattoo of his.Shot and Botched 00:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I re-added the DRUG FREE knuckles as Punk frequently uses them as both a taunt and has been parodied by opponents with them. –– Lid^(Talk) 09:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose—1a and 2a. Simply not written to the required "professional" standard. The lead provides examples of why the whole article needs to be carefully copy-edited, preferably by someone who's unfamiliar with it, but interested in the topic. Do you know where to find such people?

"Phillip (Phil) Brooks[1] (born 26 October 1978), known professionally by his ring name CM Punk, is an American professional wrestler currently working for World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) in its Extreme Championship Wrestling (ECW) brand. Prior to debuting in ECW he was best known for his role on the independent circuit, especially as a member of the Ring of Honor (ROH) roster where he was a former ROH World Champion, head trainer of the wrestling school, and was considered to be one of the three icons of ROH (along with Samoa Joe and Homicide).[2] His professional wrestling gimmick is that of a follower of the straight edge subculture, a culture he follows in real life[3] which preaches abstinence from alcohol, tobacco and any recreational drug use, with different characteristics of his personality and the culture employed at different times depending on alignment."

• • The long, complicated sentences are a problem, making for an unnecessarily hard read. Why not split some of them?
  • "Currently working" slightly more comfortable as "who currently works" here.
  • "Prior to" is an ugly Latinism that's creeping into WP. Just "Before", please.
  • Commas are often a matter of personal choice, but you might consider using more for readability and clarity.
  • Even US editors, who are careful about hyphenating, would insist on "straight-edge". (Explained by nominator—Tony1) I wonder whether "straight-edge subculture" should be in quotes. Is there a link? Again, this sentence is very long, and would benefit from being split ("which" is the fulcrum).
  • "subculture, a culture"—Can it be reworded to avoid the close repetition?
  • Remove "any" as redundant.

Tony 03:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited the article according to your suggestions. But, since the Wikipedia article on straight edge is not hyphenated, we should go by that.Shot and Botched 03:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The prose is good, in my opinion, if you copy it to VIM (or Notepad, or something like that, or anything that doesn't support formatting). But all of the references and links, though superb, provides quite an example of holism: the article not as good as the sum of its great parts. The references and links ultimately get distracting. However, wrestling is a specific topic, and if one is not involved in its culture, most of the references in the article would be too jargon-filled. So, to resolve this somewhat, I would suggest smaller paragraphs. However, the content is good. Gracenotes ^T § 22:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Pilot (House)

Restarting the nomination (Old nom) The old nominations made a number of referneces to a medical glossary (which rightly appears to have been deleted). Raul654 18:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It's okay, but I don't think that the featured article should be on a single episode of House. Possibly the actual show, but not this. Plus, this is almost as short as a stub.~Happyfacesrock
  • As it's been stated before, featured articles are not chosen by topic. In a perfect world, every article on Wikipedia would be a featured article. Length is also not an issue, there is no maximum or minimum for a featured article. The article is broad in coverage, that is what is important. The Filmaker 05:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per my original nom. The Filmaker 21:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support I supported before and now the article has improved. Jay32183 22:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• object you may not accept my objection, but at least my consciense doesn't feel guilt for doing nothing. I would support it for it to be deleted though. Plus, it is a bit more than a stub and no behing the scenes pictures. --Pedro 00:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, yes, your objection is inactionable and therefore Raul will disregard it. But the article is too big to be worked into an episode guide, hence why it should not be deleted as it's information is relevent. And, for the record, a behind the scenes photo would only be pushed down to the synopsis section by the infobox. The Filmaker 00:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but please change the name from Featured Articles to Featured Trivia. I did my share, so that's not my problem anymore. The article is too long?!?! No it isn't; it lacks a lot of useless behind-the-scenes "stuff". The article's style looks fine though, so many useful articles at stub-level, people loose time with this. --Pedro 14:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I did not say that the article was too long, I said it was too long to be merged with the episode guide. I'm starting to lose sight of exactly what your objecting to. Your first sentence sounds as if you're calling the article trivial. Than you make a sarcastic (I hope) claim that there needs to be more useless "stuff". And I haven't a clue what you're getting at with your last sentence. Apparently, you've done your share. So why do you keep coming back? The Filmaker 19:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support I also supported before and I concur--the article has improved. As before, it is well-written, concise, and is formatted with excellence. --Cliff smith 05:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Much of the creation and critical reception section seem to be just as applicable to the series as a while instead of just this episode; I don't see any pressing need to structure this information in this way. That's not really an actionable objection, though, and this is well-written, comprehensive, and well-sourced. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object no character or cast list. Too short and hence not enough depth. On a project scale, I'd only rate this B-class. Rlevse 14:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Even though there isn't a list for this particular episode, there is information about the cast and characters of the series at the bottom of the article. --Cliff smith 16:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A cast list would be redundant with the House (TV series) article, Robin Tunney is the only notable guest star and is mentioned in the lead and in the infobox. Your objection of it being "too short" is inactionable. The Filmaker 18:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support I was not sure a few weeks ago, but I am now. My support is leaning towards weakish due to the concerns of AMIBlack (bet you've never seen that abbreviation before!), but either way, this is, in most regards, an exemplary article. -- Kicking222 16:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support comprehensive and well-written. Cardinals57 22:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support best espisote article I seen in wikipedia. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object. This just doesn't represent our best work. The prose isn't captivating. Only 11 citations. The article isn't even correctly named (it should be Pilot (House episode) surely?) --kingboyk 09:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • While I can't argue your opinion about the prose or citations without knowing specifics, I can say that the title is correct. The naming guidelines at the television project say "Where an article is created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses if there are other articles by the same name, e.g. Bart the Genius, but The Sting (Futurama). For Star Trek episodes, always add the series name." So it is correct not to say Pilot (House episode). Jay32183 17:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. The guidelines are wrong then ;) It looks like an article about a House called Pilot to me :) --kingboyk 19:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Jay for explaining the title. As for the rest of your objections, I'm not paticularly able to satisfy your objection to the prose not being captivating as I'm unsure how the prose is not captivating. As of right now, an objection like that is just as inactionable as only saying that the article is not wikipedia's best work (mind you, I know that's not all your saying). The article may only have 11 citations, but the article is relatively short, therefore it is not in-need of anymore. Everything is cited, that's what is important. Not how many citations there are. The Filmaker 21:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • FAC has two components: are there actionable objections, and is there consensus that this is one of Wikipedia's best articles. I feel that whilst there are no actionable objections I can make, that this article isn't FA standard. Note that Rlevse and Pedro said pretty much the same thing. --kingboyk 12:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support good prose and follows the same structure as the relevant Wikiproject outlines, in fact, does it better
• object first edit is a copyvio from this site. user:Dr. Zaius alledit is copyvio. see User talk:Dr. Zaius--Zyaudi 13:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A version of the page is a copyvio, not the verison that's nominated for featuring. Jay32183 16:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, and your objection is inactionable. The Filmaker 23:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Not to mention the fact that it's obvious that the website in question got it from Wikipedia.--Rmky87 03:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support rather weakly; I really wish it was longer, but perhaps it is adequate for a TV show episode, and there may be nothing else to say. Could there be any potential for expansion in the plot synopsis section? Everyking 09:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • To expand the synopsis section, merely to make the article longer would be uncomprehensive. The Filmaker 14:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't follow. Everyking 14:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The writing on Wikipedia is meant to be as short yet understandable as possible. To expand the section merely to make the article longer would result in unneeded fluff, going against the featured article criteria. The Filmaker 15:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Also, if the synopsis is too detailed then it may serve a s a replacement for watching the episode, which is a big "no-no". Jay32183 17:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
          • This is an incorrect philosophy, so if the writing of the article was based on it I must assume the article is seriously flawed. Therefore I change my vote to Oppose. Everyking 20:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Please note that the objection is currently not actionableand is direct contradiction with Wikipedia's standards. Jay32183 20:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
              • How so? Everyking 20:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Wikipedia calls for clear concise articles, trivial detail is always frowned upon. Because of copyright concerns, we can never do anything that serves as a replacement for copyrighted media. That means the plot synopsis cannot be more detailed than it already is. Length in itself is not a concern of featured artciles; comprehensiveness is. If you feel a major topic has been left out, that would be actionable, but saying "everything is there but the article is still too short" is not actionable. Jay32183 21:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, per Jay above. Your first downfall is that you are "assuming" that the writing is flawed, your vote should not be merely based on assumption. For my "incorrect philosophy" I will point you towards the featured article criteria as well as WP:TPA. I would most likely be able to find other policy pages that state this "incorrect philosophy". Your objection isn't so much inactionable (as I could expand the synopsis section) it is actually irrationale, as it goes against the featured article criteria. Therefore it will most likely be disregarded by Raul654. Unless he happens to say otherwise. The Filmaker 21:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • He might disregard my objection, but the protests from you two are absurd. I object to featuring an article when its authors acknowledge that they have written the article from a deletionist standpoint, because that tells me the article must be fundamentally inadequate and non-comprehensive. That's based on an assumption, but it's about as reliable an assumption as they come. Everyking 22:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I am certainly no deletionist, nor an author of this article. However, there is a general consensus on Wikipedia not to include trivia, because trivia is trivial rather than encyclopedic. It is not absurd to refuse to make this a fan guide rather than an encyclopedia article. Again I must say, that adding further detail to the synopsis risks serving as a replacement for the episode, which creates a legal issue we don't want to deal with. Detail should only be added for the necessity of understanding, not for the sake of length. If you look at the featured article criteria you will notice no minimum length requirement. If there is an important, non-trivial detail that you feel is missing, then mention it. Jay32183 22:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
      • So you're attributing viewpoints to me that I don't hold, great. A) I did not request the inclusion of "trivia". B) I do not want the article to be a "fan guide" as opposed to an encyclopedia article. C) Your purported legal concerns sound preposterous, and I cannot see how, even if I accepted the basic validity of that argument, a meaningful distinction can be made in that regard between the article as it is now and the article with one or two additional paragraphs. D) "Length" is being used as shorthand for comprehensiveness concerns; the brevity of an article is typically a good indicator of its comprehensiveness. Note that in my original support, I specifically said "...perhaps [the length] is adequate for a TV show episode, and there may be nothing else to say." It was only when I started hearing defensive and strange comments about "unneeded fluff" that I got alarmed. Everyking 23:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
        • The article cannot get any longer without adding trivia. You are asking for a longer article. Therefore you are asking for trivia. Not only is that argument valid, it is sound because both premises are true. You cannot judge the comprehensiveness of an article by its length, you must actually read the article and decide whether or not it seems something is missing. That's why I've been asking you to spell out exactly what you think is missing, otherwise your objection isn't actionable. Basically, if you say what you want added rather than saying the article seems short, we are likely to handle your request. Jay32183 00:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
          • If there is nothing more to add, then that is, as I said at the beginning, fine with me. Contrary to your continual claims, I never did anything more than ask if there was any potential for expansion. You two jumped into an overreaction, as if I was flatly asserting the need for greater length unconditionally, and started ridiculing "useless fluff", "trivia", and giving me some bizarre, turned-on-its-head definition of comprehensiveness. Now there's been so much deletionism exposed that I can't trust that the article is comprehensive at this point. Everyking 01:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
            • I think that you guys have lost the issue at hand. Here's the long and short of it. Everyking asked if there was any room for expansion in the synopsis section. The answer is no if we are going to follow Wikipedia's guidelines for quality articles. Plot synopsis sections are written to be a short and yet understandable as possible. Certain elements of the episode are not mentioned in detail because they are not essential to the plot for the reader to comprehend it. To add these small trivial elements in would go against many policies that Wikipedia has set in place. This is not deletionist stand point, my own userpage I call myself an inclusionist. As WP:AVTRIV puts it, trivia is classified as "interesting but not important". The characters discussing their criminal records does not have a large baring on the plot, therefore it is not included in the article because it is trivial. If I expand the synopsis section, than the information added would only be trivial moments such as this (or "fluff") in order to make the synopsis section bigger. The Filmaker 03:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop. The report that this is a copyvio is, I'm afraid, correct. The early edits are clear copies from earlier-dated revisions on an incompatibly licensed wiki, certain passages are preserved intact into the present revision; much of the rest, due to the incremental development of the article, would probably be considered a derivative work of an incompatibly licensed source. I have refrained from deleting this outright at the moment, but large parts of this will probably have to go, and the whole thing may have to be restarted. Please bring any discussion/insights to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Other. --Robth^Talk 05:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I took advantage of the "temporary subpage creation" feature of the copyvio template today. Fortunately, the sections we had in common, "Plot" and "Behind the scenes", had been extensively edited until there were only a few stray phrases taken word for word. "Behind the scenes" only had two stray phrases left—"House counters that she cannot fire him"—the rest of the information was never mentioned on the version just before the September 1 update of TV I.V. "Reception", "References" and "External links" are most definitely not plagiarized from TV I.V.

I just wish I knew how to rephrase, "in the initial casting session for the role of House."--Rmky87 00:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"In the preliminary casting phase for an actor to play house," perhaps. --Zeality 04:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.--Rmky87 20:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

All parallel sentences I found are listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Other. You might want to fix those in the temporary subpage. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Reeve

Self Nomination. Sourced, accurate, and complete. Gunkyboy 06:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Support - while it is a good article, the section titles should not be capitalised for each word - for instance, Films, Family and Political Involvement should be changed to Films, family and political involvement. Other than that, you've got my vote! SergeantBolt (t,c) 10:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I fixed them myself. SergeantBolt (t,c) 11:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool. The article as a whole I feel is complete. If there are little things that need tweaking, please point them out. Gunkyboy 13:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Support, overall very good, I'm still unsure of Superman being the infobox pic, but nonetheless very good job, and verifiable. Wiki-newbie 13:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that ideally the infobox picture would be of Reeve outside of the costume, but with all of the fair-use restrictions, I felt that this was the best choice. The only other option would be to use the Time Magazine cover. What do you think about that? I feel like it wouldn't look quite as good, but if there is agreement then we can certainly change it. Gunkyboy 15:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that picture of him in a wheelchair is in the Public Domain, even if it doesn't really fully encaspulate his whole life. Wiki-newbie 20:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The first sentence of the section called "Rehabilitation": "On June 28, 1995, Reeve was taken to Kessler." Based on this single sentence, I could probably oppose. Nowhere in the article does it state what Kessler is (a series of rehab centers) nor where Kessler is (Reeve was taken to the Kessler in my hometown of West Orange, NJ), and the interwiki link of Kessler goes to a British television series of the same name. Not only does no article on the Kessler in question exist, but the Reeve article does not even give its full name, which is the Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation. I've barely read any of the rest of the article, but when so many things are wrong with a single sentence, who knows what else could be messed up? -- Kicking222 17:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose It's official. More than 45 citations come from Reeve's autobiography; there are less than ten total sources referenced. In addition, some paragraphs and/or statements are unreferenced (random examples: how much the Christopher Reeve Foundation has given; Reeve's quote about running for Congress; ). In addition, the paragraph "On June 7, 1992, Will Reeve was born to Dana and Christopher. In October, Reeve was offered the part of Lewis in The Remains of the Day. The script was one of the best he had read. The film was deemed an instant classic and nominated for eight Academy Awards." is completely disjointed. Finally, the article as a whole is a bit too POV (i.e. too congratulatory toward Reeve). -- Kicking222 17:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:Haven't read it fully to oppose, but I have the same problems as Kicking222. Also, several images are just unnecessary:
• Why do we need a picture of Cornell in Reeve's article when we can just go to the Cornell article itself?
• There are two images of Superman in the article, and I suggest replacing the one in the infobox.
• What is the picture comparing Clark Kent and Superman? It's just the same image of Reeves except one has glasses.

Also, the lead should probably be expanded.--Dark Kubrick 21:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the entire article in the span of a few days a few weeks ago, so there are bound to be a few tweaks that can be made. And if you find any, by all means do the honors and make the necessary tweaks. This is not my article, this article belongs to all of us. Here's the thing: it seems like when an article is a Featured Article Candidate, people will find any excuse to tear it down. Let's get some perspective here. Ideally, every article on wikipedia should be featured. This is an article that is damn close to being of that quality. So why can't we work together to push it over the hill, then give it a rest and move onto the next article? I think that's how wikipedia should work.67.161.26.190 02:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone else believes that "this is an article that is damn close to being of featured quality". We're not trying to "tear the article down", we're offering suggestions on how to improve it so it can conform to the featured criteria. Personally, I don't like implementing my own suggestions (unless they're insignificant things, like fixing a comma or something) because the nominator might come up with a reasonable counterargument, or because they know more about the topic than me and are better suited to correct the problem.--Dark Kubrick 00:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that simply because the article mostly references Reeve's autobiography it should be failed. It means it simply is verifiable enough: to be frank I feel many overestimate the importance of that. Oh, and I like the double picture of Superman: shows Reeve's range as both Clark Kent and Kal-El. Wiki-newbie 11:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Reeve's autobiography is certainly a necessary and reliable reference, but to have so few secondary sources does not help the article's verifiabilty. And if you're referring to the picture of Clark Kent and Kal-El juxtaposed in one image, I still don't see much difference between the two besides the glasses. A picture of Clark Kent and Superman together would be great, though.--Dark Kubrick 17:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I know they're all the same guy.--Dark Kubrick 19:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. As per Kicking222. Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 11:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The picture of Clark with and without the glasses won't make sense if you haven't seen the film. In the scene, he is in Lois' apartment and is slouched over as Clark. She goes to the bathroom, and he takes off his glasses, stands 3 inches taller, deepens his voice, and almost reveals his identity to her. It's a famous scene from the movie. I could add a one-sentence explanation to the article if necessary. The other complaint seems to be that it is biased towards Reeve. I don't know about that. Give me an example from the article if you can. Maybe you're getting that impression because the article lists all of the accomplishments of the man, and they are all admirable. The third thing I'm getting is that there aren't many sources outside of his autobiography. Well, the problem is that there aren't a ton of biographies about him since he only died 2 years ago. That's the only hard reference you'll find. No other reference will be as complete as the book, and no other reference will be as reliable. Still, there are more than 10 different references now, I believe. If you are unsure of the article's verifiability, don't be. I thought I did a pretty complete job of referencing. If there are some paragraphs without a reference to them, that's because the info from that paragraph came from a previous source. I'll note that in the article. Gunkyboy 07:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Your first sentence is part of my point. How are people who have never read or seen anything related to Superman or Reeves going to know what that picture represents? They will wonder what the hell the difference is besides his glasses, as I did. As for your claim that the article is unbiased, take a look at this sentence from the lead (which still needs to be expanded, by the way):

"He did more to promote research of spinal cord injury and other neurological disorders than anyone in history.[1]"

If you insert the words "Many believe..." at the beginning, the sentence is fine, but as it is it sounds like that statement is fact. I'm also confused by "Well, the problem is that there aren't a ton of biographies about him since he only died 2 years ago." What difference does it make when he died? And I'm convinced there are many more reliable sources, if not in books, then in magazines and online.--Dark Kubrick 02:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I modified the intro. BTW, if this article was not about Chris Reeve, a guy who went under the same ridiculous criticism that Michael J Fox is going through, I doubt you'd have a problem with bias. It's no more biased than any other biographical article out there. Also, I was under the impression that the very best sources are actual books, not websites, which is why I went out and bought his autobiography so I could accurately write this article. If it needs more websites as sources, I'll add some. This article IS verifiable, but in order to verify it would require you to get off your ass and go to the library. :-) Gunkyboy 07:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The article should mention the 'controversy' regarding Reeve, his wife and the episode Terms of Endearment of Drawn Together. More generally, I think there should be a section of 'references in the media on Christopher Reeve'--BMF81 19:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think a mention in Drawn Together is significant enough to be put into an encyclopedic article. Reeve has been mentioned countless times in the media. BTW, someone added cquotes for all of the quotes in the article. What do you think of this? I'm undecided...I feel it might make the article easier to read by emphasizing the most important parts of each section, but some might find it awkward looking. 70.132.31.115 08:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the cquotes always look dreadful, and in this case are not necessary. From what I read in the wiki style thingie, they are recommended only if the quote is 4 lines or more. Some of these quotes are less than one full line.

• • I got rid of the cquotes and the unlicensed images. People are going to have to learn not to edit this article so much. 70.132.22.226 00:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly Fond of Each Other

See: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly Fond of Each Other/archive1

2nd nomination. I believe the article now possesses all atrributes required by criteria 1 (it now being (e) stable). It also now possesses those of criteria 2 (now having a lead section (a) and headings (b)). Weasel words have been removed, and sales figures have been added, as wells as release date and specific chart. Hyacinth 01:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Rmky87 14:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object I'm finding a lot of little problems. In the lead alone, there's a missing comma ("...musician Ned Sublette[,] whose music..."), there's an out-of-place phrase in parenthesis ("(a reference to western wear and leather subculture)") which is thrown onto the end of a sentence instead of being converted into proper prose, another oddly parenthetical phrase referring to Willie Nelson releasing the song on iTunes, and as far as the albums on which the song has been released... well, some of them have the record label that released the albums (either all should or none should, not some), and the catalog numbers of the albums are not needed whatsoever- this is an encyclopedia, not a buyer's guide. Also, if the folk duo Rick & Andy don't have a WP article, they shouldn't be mentioned- every song ever has been covered a thousand times by a thousand non-notable artists, so unless their version is in some way important are unique (and I doubt it is, since it's never mentioned in the article again), it shouldn't be included. I would also like to see a much wider variety of sources- only nine different references is a bit low, though all nine of the references are from high-quality sources. The link to the Boondocks comic strip also brings up today's strip, and not any of those which reference the song. There's also more on Nelson's version than on the original song- if his was the third or fourth notable version released, why is the majority of the article about this particular recording? I understand that Sublette wrote it with Nelson in mind, but where's the info on his own release of the song? Did it sell any copies, or get any reaction from the country music scene, or make any sort of impact? The mentions of other gay-themed songs at the end of the article is wholly unnecessary; this gives background on the other songs, but absolutely no comparison (or other relation) to "Cowboys Are Frequently...", so why do we need the background on the other songs? Hell, the last sentence of the article notes that the comparison taking place is a tenuous one- and there isn't even a comparison taking place. I know this is a very long "object", and perhaps it would've been better to use bulletpoints instead of one huge paragraph, so for that I apologize. However, while this deserves its Good Article status, it has to be said that if this becomes featured, we're really lowering the bar on Featured Articles. -- Kicking222 02:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The site appears to only keep the strips for three or four months. I'm not sure how to find a new link to the image, if possible. What sorts of sources are lacking? How many and what kind of sources are needed? Comma has been added to intro, Rick and Andy removed, as well as parentheses, From the end of the reception section I removed Dolly Parton's song and made a comparison between the success of this song and negative reaction to Brooks' song. Hyacinth 05:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • As far as sources, there's only one source directly related to the homosexual community, and there are none related to the country music community. The sources present are great (with the possible exception of All Music Guide- I'm not sure a one-sentence review is a particularly good reference point), but I'd like to see more specific sources. What does CMT have to say? How about Out Magazine? (I'm just throwing out random sources, here; it's not as if CMT specifically must be referenced.) As far as other issues, the lead looks much better, though the sentence starting with "For example" is technically a fragment. The comparison (!) to Garth Brooks is much better than it was before, especially without the Dolly Parton info. However, I've noticed some more minor problems, mostly with comma usage, and mostly coming from the fact that every quote needs a comma directly before it (i.e., in the "Composition" section: "He explains[,] 'Gay life in 1981...'" and "Ann Northrop of Gay USA describes as[,] 'the language...'"). In fact, the latter sentence (the one including Northrop's quote) is a little unclear. Also, sticking with the comma problem, song lyrics broken up by a slash don't need one; the slash to indicate a new lyric inherently places a pause in a phrase. In the "Nelson's version" section, the sentence "The song's coming out was encouraged by the coming out of his friend" is awkward. Though Nelson says that it's the right time for the song to "come out", this pun does not need to be repeated; "The song's release..." works far better. The sentence in "Reception" beginning with "Sublette, as expected..." is a run-on and does not make much sense. Finally (for now), there aren't any pictures besides the cover of Nelson's single; this is not really a criticism, as I'm not sure what other pictures could be in the article (an article about a song doesn't lead to many photo ops), but take a look at Featured Articles Real Love (Beatles song), Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me), and Cool (song) for some examples. In fact, just check out all of the song FAs at WP:FA#Music- I only saw one that had no pictures aside from a single album cover, and only a few that just had multiple album covers. But don't really worry about the picture content, as that's not actually a problem at all, but rather a nitpick by someone who always scrutinizes FACs. "Cowboys..." truly is an excellent article, and you've done great work on it. Most of its problems are easily fixable. -- Kicking222 13:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The second paragraph of "Composition" re gay-friendly strikes me as original research. Sources needed. Marskell 11:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. What are the asterisks in the references section about? Seegoon 17:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object per Marskell (and in addition to the OR, there are unreferenced quotes). Also, why is the infobox down so far? I realize that it's not the original songwriter's CD, but if it's the only CD cover we've got, might as well put it at the top. Convert the boondocks link to {{cite web}}. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 16:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The infobox should be placed at the top of the page. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 22:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object, agree with Marskell and Spangineer. Sandy (Talk) 15:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wirefly X Prize Cup

With the 2006 Wirefly X Prize Cup currently underway, I'd like to nominate this page for "featured article" status. The information here is thorough and timely, and could be featured on the home page while the event is ongoing.

Spacerace 15:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• No references. Nothing else needs to be said. Please read the featured article criteria. That needed to be said. -- Kicking222 21:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong object No refs. Has a stray tag and a current event tag (which means it probably can't meet the stability requirement). Is it PRIZE or Prize?-article is inconsistent and this is why I had to fix your FAC submission link. Is full of lists that need to be prose. I didn't even get to the image tags or reading the article. Rlevse 12:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong object. no references, and tags, needs to go to peer review for a tune up before FAC. Sandy (Talk) 21:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Garfield

Nom & Support - Very good article, well written, and I'm a big fan of Garfield. I'd like to see it on the main page. And I'm suprised it hasn't been on there before. --AAA! 05:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment First, expand the lead to summarize the article and convert the trivia section into prose or merge it with the other sections as prose. Rlevse 12:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object Poor lead; no talk of how or why Jim Davis started the strip; far too listy; dozens upon dozens upon dozens of redlinks; when you remove garfield.com, there are only about ten references, and huge chunks of the article are unsourced. -- Kicking222 14:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure you need so much detail on the supporting characters when List of Garfield characters exists. Jay32183 18:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Refer to Peer-review. Short lead, stubby sections, other are listy. Many problems. Not ready for FAC.--Yannismarou 18:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review per above. This is not ready for featured article status. Never Mystic (tc) 13:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object Has the potential to be a FA, but needs more work. The lead should be expanded and more information added regarding the concept and creation. The list of characters should be pruned too (stick 'em back in List of Garfield characters). The critism section should go or at least be fixed up, its mainly focused on some critics whining about the films and television show, with virtually nothing about the comic strip. Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 12:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd lean heavily towards the fix up criticism section. Change it to critical response and include both the good and the bad, while focusing mainly on the comics as that was the original form. Jay32183 17:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. - Mike | Trick or Treat 23:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Nine Inch Nails

The article is well written, comprehensive, and highly watched. Not to mention, NIИ is one of the most popular bands in the public eye at the moment. --NeoVampTrunks 14:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Several points:
  • Lead is too short (for an article of this length, two or three paragraphs should do).
  • The article tells me a lot about the discography, but not much about the history of the band. Try integrating the two, as is done in Pink Floyd and other band FAs. How did they form? Why does the band change so much in terms of members?
  • Inline citations instead of inline HTML links look better as well, but I'm not about what the consensus is on that.
  • Insufficient references. For an idea of the amount of references needed, see Pixies. 101 notes and references there - most of those I found and cited. Are there any books on NIN?
  • Convert web references to the Template:cite web format.

My top hint is to look at other FAs that are close to the subject of the article, such as Marilyn Manson (band). CloudNine 15:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object - insufficient lead, external links should be converted to inline citations, insufficient references. Pagrashtak 15:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Object Not even a ref section and they're jumps. Has cite needed tags too. Rlevse 15:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That has been fixed. BotleySmith 04:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The lead could be better, and references are a problem. Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 04:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Has no one else looked at the article since the initial nomination? It's a lot better now. BotleySmith 15:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Elvis Presley

Very good article, should be featured. Arniep 19:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object - On a skim through, I noticed that the "Elvis Cult" section consists of one single MASSIVE and practically unreadable paragraph. Unacceptable. Fieari 19:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, since I'm the idiot that suggested this article should be nominated, I might as well try to get some work done. I'll start with this point. Just so everyone knows so not >=2 persons try to fix this point (yes, I am a newb...) PureRumble 11:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This point has now kindly been taken care of Onefortyone. Fieari, please remove your objection and state a new one (if you have any ;-) PureRumble 11:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's been met. On the other hand, the general quality of the prose in specific isn't featured quality yet throughout the article. While the one big mega-paragraph was split up, many of the remaining paragraphs are still a little too dense. It also could benefit from summary style, being a bit on the long side. The information seems to have no real organization, jumping from section to section with seemingly no concern for where to place those sections within the article. I'm also concerned that the phrase "Elvis Cult" may be POV, or at least, needs a source for calling it that. Fieari 02:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object - 1) Multiple unsourced claims tagged in the article (look for {{fact}} or {{citation needed}} templates) need proper citations. 2) Embedded HTML links need to be converted into full citations as per WP:CITE. 3) The long trivia section needs its contents referenced and properly incorporated into the article prose. --Allen3 ^talk 20:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: No, the great majority of the [acknowledged] trivia needs to be deleted. A considerable amount of unacknowledged trivia needs to be deleted too. However, trivia about Presley has vociferous defenders among editors of this sorry article. -- Hoary 03:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - ummm..it's got a big 'cleanup' tag in the middle...Cas Liber 20:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It was added because of Fiearis "objection".81.170.138.232 21:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object per above. Rlevse 21:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object This is the kind of article that lessens Wiki's credibility. I've been comparing it to other articles about entertainers such as John Lennon and this article doesn't just pale in the comparison, it runs and hides. Lochdale 22:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - However, well-sourced parts of the article are frequently deleted by User:Lochdale, simply because they are not in line with Lochdale's personal view. See his contribution history from the beginning. Onefortyone 01:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's one way of looking at it. Another interpretation is that parts of the article whose sources have been cherry-picked from various bios have been introduced in order to support one obsession (this and this are informative), and that Lochdale has been attempting to prune the article of them because they're worthless. -- Hoary 04:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Lochdale's contribution history clearly shows that he is not improving the article. He has not yet contributed a single paragraph of some significance, although he is claiming to have read lots of books on Elvis. His primary aim seems to be to delete well-sourced paragraphs I have written on different topics. Onefortyone 12:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object Not even close IMO. This is one of the most poorly written and biased articles I've ever seen. And the apparent focus on the details of his sex-life is distrubing to say the least. Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 01:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It is very interesting that this newly created sockpuppet has contributed both to the Laurens Johannes Griessel-Landau case and this page in order to support the view of User:Lochdale. .... added in these two edits by User:Onefortyone, who didn't sign
    • Please assume good faith. I am no sockpuppet, and a cheackuser will clearly prove this if your paranoia takes you that far. Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 03:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
      • So as a new user you exactly know what "checkuser" is? You must have much experience with Wikipedia procedures, that's for sure. ... contributed by User:Onefortyone
        • Oh for Heaven's sake. For all you knnow, 4JS could have been editing for years as an anonymous IP address. Even if he/she is a new user, knowledge of Wiki policies is to be lauded, not reviled. Please remember to Assume good faith, as doing anything else won't help the FAC process in any way at all. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Contains masses of trivia, both labeled as such and (laboriously cherry-picked/documented) presented within the main text. -- Hoary 03:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above and the fact it is 112kb - much too long. If the information is worth keeping it should be put in its own article and linked to. Trebor 15:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've deleted the useless Trivia section. A bit shorter now.UberCryxic 20:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Evansville Tornado of November 2005

Self-nomination. Considerable work has been done to the article to get the aftermath and the history intact and all the citations into the article. I think it is ready for FAC. The number of sources was somewhat limited (much of it comes from Evansville-based news sources) but considerable information was found in them. It was the most significant tornado event of 2005 and the deadliest single tornado so far in the 21st century with 25 deaths. Currently a GA. CrazyC83 02:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The title should probably be renamed to something like "Midwest United States Tornado Outbreak of November 2005", or something shorter. As it is, the title makes me think it will only be about the Evansville tornado. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Such would not disambiguate it well from the November 15 and November 27 outbreaks, and to a lesser extent the November 12 outbreak. It was hardly an outbreak as well; it would not have had an article if it weren't for that one tornado which alone warrants it. Such also has precedent in other articles, such as 1998 Nashville tornado outbreak and Andover, Kansas Tornado Outbreak. CrazyC83 02:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Well, in that case, the infobox should be changed then. It clearly says Evansville Tornado Outbreak. The article needs more lede, as well. You should probably reiterate that the death table in the Evansville tornado area section is actually a death table by county. Right now, it is rather ambiguous. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed those. CrazyC83 14:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• You're kidding, right? WP:MOS regarding citations - no spaces between punctuation/words and <ref>; no cite webbing? Is also relatively short... Oppose. – Chacor 15:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ref punctuation fixed, Sandy (Talk) 16:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:CIVIL, "You're kidding, right?" is hardly constructive. --Holderca1 15:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Why don't you CIV yourself? Making comments like that is hardly constructive either. IMO this was/is far from FA. I have the right to express that I don't think this is FA, and Crazy should know better too. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane David, for example. – Chacor 15:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I repeat my previous comment. What comment are you referring to? All I said was your comment was not constructive. You do have the right to express whether you think it is a FA or not, but snide comments are unnecessary. This article has been through a GA and a peer review, if the feedback given during those that the article doesn't need much improvement, then the next logical step is here. Again, lets be constructive. --Holderca1 15:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not even going to bother participating in this ridiculous petty nonsense. My striking out of the oppose does not mean I no longer oppose this article becoming an FA. In fact, I still do. But this ridiculous argument started over me voicing my concerns about the judgment of the nominator in bringing this to RFA, by someone else who has worked on the article, is simple that - ridiculous. I shall have no part of this. – Chacor 15:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Again, I have no problems with your concerns about the article or your comments on what needs to be fixed. My problem is with you belittling other contributors. Whether I have contributed to this article is irrelevant. I personnaly oppose this as a featured article anyway. Isn't the point of FA to write better articles. Won't this article be a better article following this nomination whether it passes or fails? --Holderca1 15:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Strongly Oppose In all fairness to parties involved, and while I'd love to see us at meteorology get our first FA, this still needs a lot of work. I personally don't even think it's A-class (though it is close).

1. {{Cite web}} would look a lot neater, I personally will get on that.
2. Lots of grammar/clarity problems.
3. Shouldn't this be titled Evansville tornado outbreak or something to that effect...the article is clearly about the outbreak and not the individual tornado. -Runningonbrains 18:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Refs 4-8, 10, 17, 18, 21 and 22 are either broken links or link to a generic page which no longer lists the information that was (may have been?) there. Strengthens my opposition...this article just isn't ready. -Runningonbrains 08:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree largely with Runningonbrains, though I'm not sure of the suggested article move. If this article is about a significant tornado, it needs to be only about the tornado. Otherwise, it needs to be about the whole outbreak. The article seems to me to have trouble with knowing what exactly it is - it's a good article, but at the moment it's not quite what the title suggests. Sorry guys :( Crimsone 15:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, too short and too listy. And I'm sorry, but I find the first paragraph of "Aftermath" more trivial than the Trivia section (which is about the number of deaths! How's that trivia?) Who is the unintroduced "Gair" in "Aftermath"? Neither his being "taken aback" nor the things he's quoted as saying are encyclopedic, IMO. And please lose the trivia section as a matter of urgency. The facts in it are suitable for merging into the article proper. Bishonen | talk 01:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC).

Newshounds

This is a self-nomination, and also the second re-nomination for this article. For the past nominations, see archive 1 and archive 2. This article has also had a peer review. This article is very stable, has been given a clean up, has had more details on its controversy, and I have also included some information about it being possibly nominated for an award this year. Review of this comic however are hard to find. ISD 12:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object: Unfortunately, I think this article needs some significant cleanup before it's ready for the FAC process. For example:
  • The lead is currently composed of 14 sentences arranged in 7 paragraphs making it very difficult to even read; the same is true of the Scenario section. This makes it seem more like a list of facts than coherent prose.
  • The Stories and Controversy sections are quite sparse, and [again] lists. I would try to really incorporate these as text and expand on each one. If they cannot be expanded, you may want to question if it's important enough to include. (Also, the statements in your lists are not sentences, so they should not have a period after each entry.)
  • The books section: How about adding some information like how many were printed, how well they sold, etc.
  • External links: Just one link to newshounds.com is sufficient, you don't need to link up their individual pages.
  • Out of 32 references, 26 come from newshounds.com. There needs to be a lot more independent references for an FAC. If there are no quality reviews/discussions about Newshounds, I have a hard time seeing it as an Featured Article in an encyclopedia.--Will.i.am 22:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object, per 1a, which asks for compelling prose. One or two sentence paragraphs should be combined into larger ones, and lists should be rewritten as prose. I also agree with William about sources. You mention in the article that Newshounds is included in a book called "The New Subversive Online Cartoonists", but I notice you haven't used that as a source; that sounds like a place to start. Also, the note about the cub scouts strip causing anger is sourced to a forum where one guy says he was offended. That's not encyclopedic, so there's no point in mentioning it. -- Bailey^(talk) 02:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong object A grand total of five references don't come from the comic's web site, and three of those five are the same interview. ISD, you've nominated this for Featured Article status three times in the past four months- I certainly appreciate the eagerness and the commitment to improving the article, but perhaps you should take some time off from self-nominating Newshounds. -- Kicking222 21:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, ISD, you have the most userboxes of anyone in the history of mankind. This is certainly unrelated to Newshounds (and also certainly not a criticism of you), but just something I felt like mentioning. I mean, has anyone (including yourself) even read through them all? -- Kicking222 21:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong object Very few references, for an article of this length, that are not from Newshounds (this point has been brought up before on both previous nominations!). Are you sure you addressed everything from previous nominations? CloudNine 17:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther King, Jr.

This article seems pretty good, with a lot of citations and related pages. It was only rated B-class for Wikiproject USA, though. —Captain538[talk] 23:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Referencing looks weak. The article has several sections without inline citations along with an {{unreferenced}} and multiple {{fact}} templates. --Allen3 ^talk 00:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong object per above plus the lead does not summarize the article. Needs work. Having said that, I'd love to see a knowledgeable person make this FA worthy. Rlevse 12:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object. It needs much more work. Short lead. Not properly referenced, with some listy sections, other sections are tagged etc.--Yannismarou 17:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object - As above, also, the sections seem unorganized to me. Needs better strucutre. Fieari 02:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object - not ready, per above, perhaps a stint at peer review will help. Sandy (Talk) 15:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: found a factual problem, MLK is the only american with a federal holiday in honor, as washington's birthday is now Presidents day and columbus is italian. the article says that he is one of three with a holiday in honor.
• Object. This article needs serious work. Controversial claims are unreferenced, some sections do not include references at all. Lead needs expansion. Article has too much trivia. King in popular culture section needs to be deleted entirely. Other sections need to be rewritten so that they flow better and form a coherant narrative. Kaldari 22:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Amanda Dowler

The Reason i am nominating this article is for the following reasons. The article was one of the most high profile child abduction murder cases in English history. the case was also one of the largest carried out by surey police force (excluding terroism).The article is allready a good article and is very stable with no edits on the page taking place since September 18th and has had no revert wars about its content. The article is also very high on refrences and these are complimented with inlince citations in apropriate places. Finally the article is concise and well written with a neutral point of view and apropriate sections.--Lucy-marie 08:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• As a local, I find it hard to be objective or vote, but it is a good article. Hiding Talk 08:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Despite the fact that I wrote most of it, oppose. It's too short, and there isn't enough information available to expand it as long as the murder remains unsolved. If the murderer is ever caught, then it's conceivable that the ensuing court case and the clearing up of what actually happened that day that might give enough detail, but given that it's already been 4 years I'm not holding my breath. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • But it is currently comprehensive. I know what you're saying, but we don't do that in other articles. For instance, and this is an awful analogy, but were an option taken out on a novel, we wouldn't oppose because the film hadn't been made yet. It's whether the article covers the facts as they are, that's how we should discuss it. Hiding Talk 12:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• A diversity of sources might be helpful, as the vast majority is from the BBC. No recommendation yet, but I'm not sure if it fits the subjective "brilliant prose" standard currently. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not sure this article is comprehensive at the moment. There's no mention of that DNA link discovered in wearside [16], the british killer[17] or the serial rapist [18] that were suspected at one point, no details of the red car that detectives appealed for [19]. I think there's plenty of more information available to significantly expand this article both in length and depth.  YDAM TALK 19:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not going to officially put oppose; however, even if this article was as comprehensive as possible I couldn't possibly offer my support simply because the article is so ludicrously short. I know that that's some pretty pitiful criteria, but I can't bring myself to say, "These eight paragraphs constitute one of the 1,000 best articles on WP." With that said, aside from the concerns raised by Ydam, the article is certainly quite, quite good. -- Kicking222 21:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: The article is too short in content, not length. The article is not about the girl, but about her murder, and it's far too light on reasons for its being a significant national or international event. There have been, no doubt, national crisis murders (Lindbergh baby, inter al.), but this is, at present, a case that has caught the horrified attention of a nation but not, at least yet, done anything more beside revolt and frighten people. If there were national legal changes, new technologies, new school requirements, etc., then there would be something more than an awful murder to report. Geogre 14:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Geogre. Sandy (Talk) 15:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The Dark Side of the Moon

Self-nomination. It's simple really, in my opinion, this is the greatest album of all time. It meets the criteria required, is well written and factual. It should be a featured article. Anyone reading this has almost definitly heard this album, and im sure, therefore, agrees with me.

Gdkh 00:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Object: The "Miscellanea" section is too huge. It should be integrated with the rest of the article, and most if not all statements should have sources indicated. That will make the prose more "brilliant". The "Concept" section has no inline cites. The notes given should be done in any way other than just displaying the url; giving them titles so they look nicer. The lengthy quote in the "Quotes" section should be cited because otherwise it is too hard to tell if it is true. There is a proposal to merge it with Dark Side of the Rainbow. Any article with a merger proposal is unstable. The charts are a but sparse. While the album was important in North America it would be better to have album charts from elsewhere as well. In the "Voices" section there is a {{fact}} tag.

This article is much better than those of some other albums, but it is not quite there yet. By closing this nomination and sending this to peer review you will be able to improve it further. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object The article has very few inline citations considering its length. I also see a rather large number of album covers, all of which without a fair use rationale. While the main album cover is necessary, without discussion about the covers directly, the alternate covers are not adding anything to the article and therefore don't meet the fair use criteria, but I could be wrong. Jay32183 00:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object Unfortunately the article is not ready. A section dedicated to a quote(s) belongs in Wikiquotes. Some redundacy: ex. "Perhaps". WP:AVTRIV. Insufficient references. Rename "Sucess" to "Reception", more neutral. - Tutmosis 01:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object Good article, but not ready for FA yet. Though obvously comprehensive, it still needs some finishing up to take it over the line:

• The lead gives little context and assumes the reader is already familar with the subject. There's no mention of the cultural significance of the album, beyond it's Billboard placing. Perhalps some of the 'Reception' section could be relocated. Also it might be worth mentioning where the Floyd were in their career at that point, and give a brief note on the inter band tensions that surrounded the album's recording, maybe even in a seperate 'Context' section. Also, this is a significant 'drug' album ?
• 'explores the nature of the human experience' is too bold, as least should be rephrased along the lines of 'explores aspects'. We humans have been through a lot, after all.
• The album is referred to as 'it' five times in the lead - best solution is to refer to it as 'Dark Side' / 'it' in every second instance.
• There are a number of redundancies - 'that also incorporate', 'Another novelty', 'also perfected' etc. 'However' in the second para is unnecessary, the following sentence is not logically connected to the preceeding.
• Some of the phrasing could do with polish, eg:

- the encroachment of old age and death (should be: 'old age, death', - these are two diff things, (& drop 'encroachment'))

- 'not just delivered with words' 'not just' sounds like a plead.

• Some original research, eg:

- 'flippantly endorse greed for ironic effect'

- 'the insanity of warfare', etc

• 'Miscellanea' should be intergrated per Miss Madeline.

Sorry Gdkh if I'm coming down too hard - I did enjoy reading the article, but articles often improve sharply during FAC, and I think with a little copy editing and tweaking, this could be a strong candidate. - Coil00 01:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object and refer to peer review. Few inline citations; prose in concept section reads like a high school paper and then the Miscellanea section includes things like this: Dark Side of the Moon was the first Pink Floyd album to have a custom picture label depicting a blue prism with black background with the credits in grey lettering but the US edition's lettering was in white.. Far too much in Miscellanea that could be included elsewhere in the article. Daniel Case 04:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

All That

Self-nomination: This article has been edited to death, and I think we finally have a coherent, in-depth, well-written article in its current revision. After everything that the All That article has gone through, I feel it is time for it to become a featured article. I feel it has been cleaned up enough to meet all criteria. PF4Eva 23:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, at least until the eight citation needed tags are taken care of. Rewired 23:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The trivia section also needs to be incorporated into the article. Rewired 00:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment its very list heavy, can't some of it be converted to prose? - Tutmosis 23:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Also I would like to add that the article definetely doesnt follow structure guideline previously defined by the community. WikiProject Television has a wonderful example of how a television article structure should look like. - Tutmosis 23:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. List heavy, and not adequately sourced. Besides the 'citation needed' tags, this article cites information to forums, which is not acceptable per WP:RS and WP:V. The discussion about fans finding the earlier seasons better is original research unless a reliable source (like a professional reviewer in an entertainment magazine) makes these claims. I notice this is also the second FA nomination for this article; I recommend removing unsourced statements and trying to get this article up to Good Article status before nominating it again. -- Bailey^(talk) 17:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Fox McCloud

I have suggested this article because I notice that every now and then, a random video game-related featured article pops up. I think this one would be fitting for one of them. I have checked the article over, and it seems to meet the requirements for nomination.YamahaFreak 05:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• As much as I would love to see any StarFox characters featured, this article is completely devoid of references. Object. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object - no references. Martin Hinks 08:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Should be referred to peer review first. No refs, lots of cruft, etc. Thunderbrand 15:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object does not establish real world significance. Should discuss development and impact of the character. Jay32183 21:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object I suggest that, if the nominator feels this meets the requirements to become a Featured Article, he read Wikipedia:What is a featured article? There is so much wrong with this article (as far as being FA-quality is concerned), I wouldn't even know where to begin. -- Kicking222 21:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object No references. Hello32020 01:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object References, and also treating fiction as fact. I've tagged it as such. Fieari 04:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Cathedral architecture of Western Europe

I am nominating this article which I have (almost entirely) written.

Note:- There was a previous article at this address, now moved to its own page, that focussed entirely on the development and differences between the Eastern Ends of Cathedrals- Cathedral Architecture - Development of the Eastern End in England and France. I considered the material that it contained to be far too specific to answer to the title Cathedral architecture of Western Europe.

My aims have been-

• to make the majestic giants of a previous age approachable and intelligible to those who do not know them
• to excite people to visit their local cathedrals and abbeys and enjoy them
• to provide an historical background for understanding and vocabulary for reading these buildings
• to provide the serious student with sufficient clues to look at architecture in greater depth and elaborate upon the generalised regional summmaries given here, formulating their own descriptions of specific buildings.

The subject is a very wide one, requiring several volumes to do it justice. However, I have attempted to introduce the reader to Cathedral Architecture from a purely visual point of view. ie. what one might see when visiting a Cathedral-

• why it might be so very large
• how it developed from ancient models and from usage to be the form it is
• how it looks externally
• how it looks internally
• what the function and purpose of its various visible features are
• how the architectural style has evolved between the 4th and 21st centuries
• those buildings particularly representative of each architectural style
• the local stylistic characteristics that are found in the cathedrals of five large Western European countries- Italy, France, England, Germany, Spain.
• picture gallery of cathedrals from 12 other Western European countries

There was no room in this article to discuss the designers, builders, craftspeople, planning, financing, construction, structural engineering, building materials, deterioration, conservation or other matters not otherwise dealt with in Wikipedia articles.

Nonetheless, the amount of material covered and the large number of pictures make the article somewhat longer than is usual. The bulk of the pictures are within galleries and can be visited if wished. The illustrations that are directly pertinent to the text are kept large in order that the reader may be able to see clearly those things which the words describe. This is an essentially visual subject in which word and picture are integrated.

I have relied heavily upon both the methods and the material contained in the tome of the renowned architectural historian Sir Banister Fletcher, and have included in the References the names of most of the other books which I consulted in writing the article.

There is also a list of external websites of significant Western European cathedrals so that readers may take "virtual tours".

The article has been fairly thoroughly editted both by me and others for all the usual silly errors. It has also been vandalised, as many as 15 times in a day.

--Amandajm 02:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment you only need a brief reason why you nom'd it, not an essay. Rlevse 13:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object way under referenced. A 54K article whould have way more than 8 inline cites (5 of which are from the same source). Rlevse 13:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Reply No, the article isn't lacking in references; It is extremely well referenced. But the references that are cited are not documents on paper. They are large buildings. A description like "The building has projecting transepts and arcading" hasn't come from a book. It comes from the building itself which is photographically reproduced beside the description. It is the method of analysis which is referenced, and the method comes from a single cited source- Banister Fletcher. Where quotations are included they are all sourced. --Amandajm 14:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply, Yes, you do lack enough refs. Inline cites are the standard and you have entire sections without them. You also need to convert those bulleted lists into prose. Rlevse 15:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Way, way underreferenced. This is not a subject with a dearth of coverage, so there's no need to be resorting to personal observation of the subject itself. Cheese could have been written based on buying a bunch of cheese and examining it, but thank Eris it's not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Origins and development of the cathedral building" has no refs whatsoever. "Parts of a cathedral" has no refs whatsoever. "Conveying the Word" has no refs whatsoever. "Architectural style in cathedral buildings in Western Europe" has no refs whatsoever. Whole blocks of this article come from no acknowledged source. Older FA standards didn't require inline refs, but articles that were passed on that older standard are slowly being brought to WP:FAR and either fixed or defeatured. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Reply- just took a look at the Cheese article. Unfortunately something has gone wrong there and although it seems to have lots of inline references, none of them are working and there are only a couple of source books listed in the reference section. Something has gone wrong!

With regards to inline referencing- when one makes a direct quotation, or provides material that is questionable, arguable, provacitive, recent research etc, it must be inline referenced.

eg "Pregnant women may face an additional risk from cheese; the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has warned pregnant women against eating soft-ripened cheeses and blue-veined cheeses, due to the listeria risk to the unborn baby.[21]"

But in the case of this article, whole blocks of information come from the same acknowledged source and therefore one reference serves an entire passage.

For example, a description of five buildings which states at its introduction "The method of comparison used here is based upon that of Banister Fletcher.[3]" requires no further reference because every bit of information that follows is based on the "Bible" of architectural study. None of it is contentious material or recent reseach. None of it is POV, except other writers' POV in the brief quotations which introduce each of the five buildings and which are all inline referenced, because they are direct quotations. In addition, there is a list of 9 architectural reference books.

I must point out to you that the very excellent featured article on Diego Velazquez has no inline references whatsoever. It does have a list of its source books at the end.

Have you people looked at the content of the current article at all? --Amandajm 22:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Arguing with valid objections will get you not only nowhere, but reverse progress and OF COURSE we've looked at the article. Oh BTW, I'd vote against the Cheese article in its current form too. It'll likely get FARC'd soon. Rlevse 00:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The references tag was broken in Cheese. It has been fixed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object per Rlevse. Suggest a peer review first. Sandy (Talk) 15:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have not read this completely and will not judge it until I do so. From just a quick review, I would follow the above advice of more inline citations, there is almost no such thing as too many. I would also significantly scale back on the pictures, as they tend to overcrowd the already large amount of info. It might also be good to try and transform some of those bulleted lists into more flowing paragraphs, as that would make reading easier as well. The lead should also cover most aspects of the article, and the current one touches on very few. Good luck, I will read it through soon. Joshdboz 21:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object for now. It looks like it will eventually be a lovely article. But there are tons and tons of bulleted lists, especially in the section about architecture in different places. It the size of the article is a concern, perhaps this could be split off into a sub-article? But I don't think a featured article should have so much that is note-like in form. I am quite willing to turn some of them into paragraphs, if that will help? But there is currently a "please don't edit" note on the thing, so I don't think I should do that at the moment! Telsa (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Telsa, thank you for offering to write sentences for me. You will find, that in between the lists, I have demonstrated that I can write prose quite efficiently.

It was never my intention to suggest you had not. I'm sorry if you thought I did. I offered because I thought you might be a bit weary of expanding things on your own, that's all. Telsa (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Style manual doesn't actually ban lists. I can't help wondering why you people are not reading the sentence inserted at the top of every one of the five lists of regional characterics.

It says- Note- This list presents a brief analysis of regional characteristics found in the particular building.[64] For a complete description follow the link to the web page.

I did read it. What I actually find most un-wiki-like, when I think about it, is not the lists. It's the links to another website in the middle of the article. I think I would expect to see links from the middle of the article to references at the bottom, and then the other websites down in the references or "External links" sections. (I realise that is cumbersome to mark up, yes...) Telsa (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The lists have a purpose. They are for comparison of the characteristics of the five countries. Write it as prose and you merely have a description of the building. Not a very adequate description because it only describes those features that are being compared. They are the features that are regionally significant. There is no room here to write about the dragons round the door, the swinging lamp, the acoustics and the ancient tiles etc. They belong on the cathedral's home page.

The purpose of this article is to be the best most effective article that I can make it. Turning effective lists into ineffective sentences will not make it a better article. (DEleted som redundant stuff here.)

--Amandajm 11:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Guidelines

Here is a quotation from Wikipedia

"This page is a style guide, describing how to create citations in articles.

The ability to provide sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. Attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged."

These requirements seem fairly clear to me. The citing of inline references for every statement that is purely descriptive and not likely to be challenged is unnecessary. See my comments above. --Amandajm 00:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OK... We'll turn the five descriptive lists into indented paragraphs and see if it works. The short lists that are summaries of info elsewhere described more fully need to stay in point form, because they are not sentences or parts thereof..

--Amandajm 00:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Tried several different methods to achieve an effective solution to making points without making points.

• Tried running them into paragraphs. Lose the sense of comparison between the five.
• Tried different arrangements of indenting and spacing. Not effective.
• Tried a heading for each of the 9-11 separate little paragraphs. Overkill.

Conclusion- The points are best lleft as bullet points.

Well, if you have tried them, that's fair enough, and I will remove my objection. Telsa (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Question- How do I remove the article from the list of Featured article candidates? As I said before, I would rather the article communicated the subject adequately than was a featured article.

--Amandajm 09:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, sorry. I am not a FAC regular. Telsa (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

South Australian legislative election, 2006

• Nominating this article I have worked on for months (self-nomination with help from others), significance of article due to the largest Australian Labor Party win in South Australian history, have ensured article is NPOV, neutral and well cited/referenced, hopefully with others approval it can be the first Australian election article to make Featured Article status :-) Timeshift 17:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

object (for now). Just looking at the first screenful, this is not FA material:

• In all election articles, the electoral system (or election system) used are of paramount importance. The article doesn't even get around to saying what that is. (I assume it's first-past-the-post? How many seats? Who determined the districts? US-style gerrymandering or UK-style traditional seats?)
• inappropriate to include changes of seats or votes before giving the actual numbers.
• No explanation is given for "South Australia" (a state, not a vague geographical term — remember this is an international encyclopedia, and SA is a very small entity population-wise)
• No explanation for "House of Assembly" (lower house, I assume?)
• No explanation for "Legislative Council" (upper house?)
• is there a governor? should south australia be described as bicameral and parliamentary or presidential?
• how long will the terms run? That's quite basic information that should be more prominent.
• I'm also not sure it's appropriate to give the "leaders" (is that an official term? What makes them leaders? Are those people south australian politicians or federal australian politicians?) of the two major parties so much attention. Were they even on the ballot?
• scale is important. How many seats, how many voters, turnout, ...

Ultimately, as a personal opinion, the main thing to write about in an election article is the result. Numbers. Those should be clearly visible, and they do appear a bit hidden in this article. The lead section definitely is not up to standards now, though.

RandomP 17:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the Electoral procedures section. It makes many of your qualms obsolete because it explains the:

• voting systems;
• two houses;
• role of the Governor;
• and, the political system in general.

In addition, you must have ignored the parts where it details the voters, seats, turnout, etc. If you're going to critique the article, you might as well read it through before doing so. michael ^talk 10:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object. 1a and 1d. Tony 00:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

7:00AM-8:00AM (24 Season 5)

Have done alot of work on this article. I'm seeing if this is FA or GA level. --Twlighter 03:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object maybe GA material, but isn't FA material, the article is fairly short, and becomes a bit listy near the end, the lead is fairly poor as well, better than almost all episote articles though Pilot (House) is the best one that I could think of, use that as a example. Thanks. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I was really looking for a guideline, so I had to make something up .--Twlighter 03:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding episode reviews: While I can't access one of the sources linked there, the other two (NYT and Boston Globe) don't appear to give any numerical value to their reviews, even though the article claims that. Did you get these numbers off Metacritic? They are probably just rough attempts to assign a numerical value to the basic judgment of the review. Everyking 09:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I got those off Metacritic, but it is reliable? --Twlighter 03:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Like I said, I think Metacritic is making its own rough estimate in numerical terms of what the review is saying. I don't think you should use the numbers in that case because they aren't from the actual sources. The sources didn't actually give those numbers; some other source interpreted the reviews and assigned a number. Everyking 04:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Regarding the references, it's usually better to give the number of the "chapter and verse " rather than quoting them in full. Just give the name of the DVD/VHS the episode appeared on, and if you want to be really precise follow up with the time into the episode at which the comment was made. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)/
• Comment: suggest rm from here, act on suggestions, and submit at WP:GAC.Rlevse 17:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment doesn't contain a section detailing the production of the episode, and the headings don't conform to WP:MOS Jay32183 22:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I was going to do this, but there were virtually no sources, which is bad for a article. --Twlighter 03:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That's the typical problem with these kinds of articles. DVD commentary makes it easier, but this can be really hard. Unfortunately, this information is needed to make the comprehensiveness requirement. Jay32183 03:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'll be closing this down, becase it's apparaent the futherist this article can go is GA. Thanks for the suggestions. --Twlighter 22:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

El Greco

Meets the criteria for nomination. Technically this is a self-nominatinon but I've only done a couple of edits for typos. Someone has done a LOT of work on this taking into account peer review recommendations Tom 18:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC).

Oppose Why is it categorized under, "Articles with unsourced statements", even though it has gobs of footnotes and even lists the numerous references separately?--Rmky87 18:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know what is gong to happen with this nomination (see my reservations below), but, in any case, I referenced everything in the article.--Yannismarou 13:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Yannismarou is working on this at the moment to get it up to FA standard, so unless he wants this to be nominated now I'd suggest you withdraw it (otherwise there will be a lot of objects for things he is already fixing - such as missing citations). Yomangani^talk 18:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's categorised under unsourced statements because there are 3 citations marked as needed; that's not bad for a 6000 word article! It looks from the peer review page that Yannismarou has dealt with all the objections apart from just 3 citations, surely that's not enough to hold such an article from getting FAC status? Tom 18:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• There are other issues he is working on, and seeing as he hasn't put it up for FA yet I guess he thought it wasn't ready yet either. Yomangani^talk 18:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• You don't need to wait until its perfect! I can assure you this article is a lot better than several articles I've seen that have featured status. Even if that were not the case, it would deserve featured status against the criteria. Tom 19:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, but it would be good etiquette to let Yannismarou nominate it when he feels it's ready. Gzkn 01:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Yomangani and Gzkn. That was the first thing I thought when I saw this nomination. We know Yannismarou has been working on it. Nat91 06:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"Nominators are expected to make an effort to address objections." per Wikipedia:Featured article candidates introduction. If Yannismarou going to do all the work on fixing the article to FA, he might as well nominate it. - Tutmosis 23:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment-reservations. I'm sorry to have reservations for this nomination! It really hurts! I thank Tom for his intiative and his contributions in the article (and I thank him even more for his very nice words for the article), but he should have advised me first, and he should have noticed that the article is still reviewed. I've asked Yomangani to offer me a peer-review. He did it and I'm grateful to him. Until I address all his concerns and until I go once again through the article and correct the currest minor deficiencies (tags of , red links, one-two sub-article I've in mind to create etc.), I cannot support this nomination. My effort is still incomplete. I thank once again Tom, but I repeat that some kind of discussion should have taken place before the article is submitted here. And I also think that the principle is to give the chance to a person who works on an article and improves it to (have the "honor" to) nominate an article. Really sorry!--Yannismarou 13:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm concerned by some of the comments above; as I stated in the nomination, someone has done a lot of work on the article. I was flabbergasted when I read it and noticed it was assessed as 'start' quality rather than FA. As can be seen above, I made it clear the article has been peer-reviewed and editor Yannismarou agrees with this. Yannismarou has made substantial edits but it is any user's right to nominate an article and to suggest otherwise is significant and worrying. No matter how much someone works on an article, it in no way belongs to any of the editors and it is simply wrong to suggest that we cannot nominate it until one editor feels it's ready or until they've deemed their effort to be complete. It's often easier to get FA if it's not a self-nomination and surely we should be more concerned about getting the article to a wider audience than getting precious about the process of who nominates it. The article is easily, already at featured quality, if you someone does not think the article is FA say so, opposing the nomination with reason(s) like Rmky87! An article can never be 'finished' no matter how much we may want to make it perfect - I and others will nominate articles if they are clearly at the right standard. I would be grateful if people could find time to go and look at the article to see for themselves and stop the delay in bringing it to a wider audience, there is no honour in that. Tom 18:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Response to Tom's comments. Tom, I've explained how I feel about your initiative. I tried to be honest and straightforward. You ask me to say if the article is FA or not?! I'll be again sincere: I'm too involved in this article to be objective. And I honestly tell you: I do not know! I'm too subjective to know! I've dedicated hours and hours of work in this article, and I cannot jugde my own "child". I know that articles do not belong to their editors and I respect this rule, but I still regard the articles I've rewritten as my "children"; I can't do otherwise! But this does not mean that I claim their ownership! No! The articles I write or rewrite belong to anybody; I know that, I respect that. My bind with these articles is sentimental, and has nothing to do with "ownership claims". Who doesn't feel connected with the products of his own hard work?

If you, the reviewers, maybe Raul and everybody here want to know whether I demand the withdrawal of the nomination or not, I'll be again sincere and straightforward: This is something I cannot do. I cannot bury my own efforts. When I wrote my first comments about this nomination, I put a title which demanded the withdrawal of the nomination (check the history of the page). But a few minutes laer, I realised I couldn't do that! But, at the same time, I cannot support this nomination, until I'm sure that this article is as perfect as I want it. Tom, I'm a perfectionist! I don't know if this is a virtue or a vice, but I am, and I've shown that as a reviewer as well. And I'm even more perfectionist with my own works! I respect your opinion about "perfection". But this is what you believe. As far as I am concerned, I do not nominate an article, when I feel that it fulfils FA criteria, but only if I'm sure that it is "there". And "there" for me is somewhere near perfection. These are two different perspectives. I respect yours; please, respect mine as well. For you minor deficiencies do not matter; for me they do matter, because I want everything I do to be flawless.

And of course it is your right to nominate any article you want. What I told you can be summarised with a simple question: why didn't you discuss your intentions with me? Didn't you see in the talk page that an independent review initiated by me and executed by Yongamani was in its way? Didn't you see in the talk page again that I am one of the main editors (honestly? the only main editor!) of this article? Don't I have the right to be informed about your initiatives before they take place and not afterwards? Didn't you think to ask me whether I had the intention or not to nominate myself this article? Don't you recognize that the main editor of an article should have the right to nominate himself an article he is working on (self-nomination)? If the main editor does not have such an intention, then OK; do as you wish. But did you ask me if and when I had the intention to nominate the article? If you had asked me, you would have learned that, indeed, I had the intention to nominate this article for FAC, but in about a month from now; not today.

What is done is done! I cannot fight this nomination. But I don't feel bound by its timelines. I'll keep working on this article, until it gets "there". I took a decision not to fight this nomination, but do not ask me for a plain support. If I get the article "there" before the nomination is closed, I'll give my support. Until then, I'll let it go its own way. I keep my pace, and the nomination keeps hers. Let's see if we'll meet each other in our courses!--Yannismarou 19:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I'll respond to a lot of the questions on Yannismarou's talkpage as many aren't related to whether the article should be featured or not. Yannismarou has resolved the one 'oppose' statement so far concerning unsourced statements, all the statements are now sourced. Tom 20:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I feel for Yannis: he has been working on the article for a long time, and if he feels it's not ready, I hope the nominator will withdraw the FAC so that Yannis can present it when it is ready. It's a shame for an article he's worked on not to have a clean and helpful FAC, when Yannis knows what it takes, and I feel badly that he should be on someone else's timeline, when that person isn't a main contributor to the article. When someone else is the main editor, the courteous thing to do is to ask on the talk page if it's ready before nomming. I won't Support, because if Yannis says it's not ready, I know it's not ready, and he should have the pleasure of submitting it when it is ready. (By my count, that is about six of us now who asked Tom to withdraw the nom.) Sandy (Talk) 14:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Withdraw nomination. I did not intend to do that, but some edits Tom did in the template of El Greco without knowing my plans and my intentions about the sub-articles I intend to create within the next few days, made me feel really bad. Again no consultation. I'm sorry, but please withdraw the nomination.--Yannismarou 15:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I haven't been previously involved with the article, but I, too, really feel that the nomination should be withdrawn. MLilburne 15:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The article is featured quality. I read the criteria for FA status and diligently followed the rules on nomination. It has been claimed there are unwritten codes of etiquette where the main editors of articles should be allowed to 'have the pleasure of submitting it when it is ready', I have personally been told by several people that I should withdraw my nomination on this basis and stand accused of being discourteous in not getting permission from other editors before nominating. A culture of insider, unwritten rules is completely against the Wikipedian ethos of openess and transparency and discourages outsiders participating in the community. Wikipedia should and will not become like this. I will only withdraw the nomination if editors can be Wikipedian enough to give specific rationales, that can be addressed, on why the article is not FA quality rather than resorting to making-up non-transparent rules that attempt to exclude people from participating in projects. Yannis, after correcting a lot of your typos, I'm a bit disappointed you stated in the edit summary that I 'edit without knowing what you're [Tom] editing, I'm aftraid [sic]!' after I made a typo myself, you're a bigger editor than that. In regard of the timeline I corrected typos on that and just find it completely bizarre that some don't think I should edit the typos or that I should consult with certain people first. Again, unwritten rules and insinuations of ownership; people are welcome to go and see the edits on the article, template and timeline for themselves. Yannis if you want to revert the template edits please do so, but I wouldn't recommend you revert the timeline edits as several spellings were incorrect. Tom 16:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object I won't bother with the stuff above (except to say that self-nominating an article for FA is always a bit presumptuous)and instead comment on the article at hand. My problems are various.

1. Length - too long and prolix. Needs to summarise better.

• I had to answer this! An article of 79 kbs is not long, when articles of more than 100 kbs get now FAs. And what percentage of this 79 kbs is prose? The half I think! An article of about 40-45 kbs prose is long? Of course, not!--Yannismarou 21:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

1. The bibliography - too long. Is this the bibliography for an art history student's MA thesis? No. It should limit bibliographical citations to the most important and seminal texts. How is someone who is unfamiliar with the subject supposed to wade through that thicket of books and know what scholars consider to the starting point for further enquiry?

• More answers. All this bibliography is important. And it is not bibliography; it is references! There is a huge difference. These are not sources I recommend; these are sources I used - and all the respectable biographies of El Greco I read have long lists of references like these. All these scholars are prominent! Yes, Davies, Lamraki-Plaka, Foundoulaki, Hadjinikolaou, Lopera, Marias, Wethey, Tazartes; all these are the greatest researchers of El Greco's art. Do you want me to make a selection? But why not to give the chance to the reader to have access to all these sources and material, which is valuable and excellent. If this material is valuable for me, wouldn't it be valuable for someone who wants to "to wade through that thicket of books". A thorough and in-depth reserch is not a minus for an article (any article), but a huge plus. I've used such long lists of references in Pericles, Alcibiades, Aspasia, and Demosthenes, and everybody regarded as an advantages; not as a problem!--Yannismarou 21:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Most importantly, however, the tone of this article, the way it is written, prevents it from becoming an FA. The various and disparate views of scholars and curators poke up far far too often in the text. A few judicious quotations are always a good idea. But here, they drown the text. The reader is asked to follow a bewildering array of different assessments. Byzantine affinities: We have Procopiou, Byron, Cossío, Cyril Mango and Elizabeth Jeffreys, David Davies, José Álvarez Lopera, Lambraki-Plaka cited in the space of 4 paragraphs. Ugh. In fact, one is left with a confused morass of opinion and counter-opinion that fail to provide a cogent overview of the important questions concerning byzantine influences in El Greco's oeuvre. I have this complaint about the article generally. Much greater effort needs to be made to find strong, lapidary prose to discuss the main themes. As it is, the article is encumbered with so much quotation, citation and research, the larger picture is lost. Eusebeus 19:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that some rephrasing is needed, and Yomangani pointed this out. But I disagree with your overall argument. If I donot mention these scholars, I'll have to use weasel words! But this is against FA criteria. And when some things are disputed (such as the "byzantinism" of El Greco), the mentioning of scholars is inevitable! This is the nature of the section! If we donot mention what prominent scholars believe, then how are we going to understand what is the problem here? If we do not know when El Greco exactly went to Venice, I have to say that! And I have to say what is the background of this disagreement; and why this disagreement exist. And I do have to say what different scholars believe. Sometimes, it is not the editor who makes an article obscure, but the article itself: El Greco's life was and still remains obscure; this is a fact (one of the few facts about his life!) and this obscurity becomes necessarily an inherent part of the article; but this is not a problem for me - it is just the correct reflection of an obscure life. And when almost everything concerning his art (style, catalogue of works, influences) arises disputes, shooldn't we mention that? And shouldn't we analyse the nature of these disputes? How can we do that without mentioning the scholars, namely those who initiated all these theoritical disputes?--Yannismarou 21:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually on rereading that paragraph I mention, I like it more. You can certainly cite specific scholars, although I think excessive quotation is unnecessary - paraphrasing of key arguments is not a problem. But I don't think that you would have to resort to indeterminate language in order to convey the main points of contention in the debate. Anyway, since this looks like it won't pass FA, I'll reserve further comment until it is a more viable candidate or comment on the talk page. Eusebeus 00:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Further comment. I once again urge Tom to withdraw the nomination. The article is not yet in the way I had it in mind, when I started rewriting it. There are a few things left and, especially, the independent review of Yomangani, the sub-articles and the red links (which will soon be stubs). I'm sorry if I was unfair towrds Tom, but the main problem remains: The article is not yet as I want it, in order to defend it in this nomination and give answers to arguments like those of Eusebius (whom I thank for his feedback!). I'm willing to co-operate with Tom (and my problem, Tom, were not the typos [I honestly thank you for fixing them], but one particular deletion in the template, which I regarded as unnecessary and rushy [concerning the typo in the lead I was unfair towards you and I apologize]). I do not have "ownership demands", but let's bring the article, when it will be really ready. My problem is not the "nomination". I have no problem to "co-nominate" the article with Tom. But not right now! Please, give me some more time to work on it (and co-work with Tom, if he wants it)! Thanks!--Yannismarou 20:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose this charade and really sorry for the complete lack of wikiquette by the nominator. This page is full of unrelated comments to the scope of the article. Too hasty, too inappropriate, too pointy. NikoSilver 23:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Complete lack of wikiquette? I'd hoped I'd left behind the patronising hypocrisy, where people talk about politeness rather than actually practising it. How naive? 'This page is full of unrelated comments to the scope of the article', what, like, 'This page is full of unrelated comments to the scope of the article'? Pointy? I just saw a good article, followed the rules and nominated it. Yannis, I can see nominating the article is really important to you. Comments like those from Eusebeus are a good thing, I agree with them and it doesn't matter if you don't get everything perfect before you nominate it. After reading Yannis comments above, I decided I should withdraw the nomination, I then read his comments on my talk page - incorrectly accusing me of various things including not reading the article's talk page - and thought this is someone who can't let go of the article, thinks it's his and will always think he's a 'main' editor of it. There are no 'main' editors of articles in Wikipedia, yes I am making a point, that wasn't what I set out to do. Everyone above who had a go at me for nominating, should think if they really want to have some kind of club where some rules are stated but some imaginary ones are only known by insiders. Yannis, mate, I don't care about who nominates it, just that it gets to FA and more people read it, that was my intention when I nominated it. I'll try and do some copyediting on the later sections so it sounds less scholarly and more accessible. The simplest way I can think of withdrawing the nomination is simply to delete this whole section. Tom 02:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I'll be frank. When half a dozen esteemed editors above (Yomangani, Gzkn, Nat91, Tutmosis, SandyGeorgia, MLilburne and me), including the main contributor, all tell you from the beginning that you must withdraw nomination and Yanni should nominate it when done, then you are wrong. When you keep hanging to it until just now, it is WP:POINTy. Now I am glad that you have decided to do the right thing, even so late. NikoSilver 20:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Domestic violence

This article is really great. Very sourced and comprehensive. Prose mind blowingly good. Plus Domestic violence is just a cool and fun topic. Policratus 19:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object; come back after you've taken care of all those little boxes at the top of the article. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 19:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too soon, given the issues that need to be resolved. Isn't this the guy who nominated the rapper yesterday? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose looks like another bad faith nomination. I don't know why anyone would nominate an article with cleanup tags in good faith. - Tutmosis 20:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Bad faith nomination: This article was listed for speedy delete (see recent thread on WP:AN), and now FAC. If there is no one who disagrees, I will unlist the nomination in a few hours, and we may need to discuss the nominator on AN or AN/I. Geogre 20:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • To clarify: I hope that this works, as I'm lousy with diffs, but the prior discussion should be here [20]. New accounts galore, old time evil clown trollery with regard to this article. Geogre 21:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The AfD listing had been done by user:Hizzizle or something like that [[21]]. Geogre 21:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment if men are 35% of the victims, why is so little space devoted to it? Rlevse 22:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose

I am a domestic violence educator so this topic is important to me and I want this article to be as perfect as it can be. I think the article needs a heck of a lot of work, maybe even major surgery. Meaning no disrespect to the editors who have put lots of work into the artcle. Domestic violence is a complex and controversial subject--that makes this a difficult article to write and edit. Give it time.Cyclopiano 00:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)cyclopiano

• Oppose

This article looks like it has been murdered, call the CSI., Flubeca 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Delist. The cool and fun topic rationale is reason enough. --Ouro 10:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Follow up: The article got sudden interest from a dial up unstable IP editor on 10/29, and all of this fun 'n games seems related to it. Not worth a checkuser at this point, but definitely de-list. Geogre 11:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yep, the tone of the nomination text at the top verges on the offensive. I'd resort to WP:SNOW to get rid of this. Tony 14:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose

This article needs some major worked to do. There are two templates that indicate that the neutrality is disputed and it dosen't site any refrences or sources. Come back later when these templates are gone.--PrestonH 17:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The Diarrhea Song

It's stable. It's comprehensive: extremely thorough (lots of lyrics). It's well-written, Factually accurate, and Neutral. It has a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic. It has a proper system of hierarchical headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. The only downside is no pictures. What I think is good about it is that it found all the long lost lyrics I never knew the full verses to from my childhood. Anomo 18:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm going assume this is serious - no sources, little to no information, and there's a fairly good chance that the whole thing is one huge copyvio if we could ever trace the origins of the song back. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Very little to the article other than song lyrics, and those are likely a copyvio. ergot 19:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how folk lyrics can by copyrighted. Some kids made lyrics up and passed them around for a hundred years until somebody wrote them down. Anomo 19:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even convinced they're really folk lyrics, to be honest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delist Raul, can you kill this garbage? Anomo, you seem to be a rather established editor, but I'd ask to remind you to not disrupt WP for whatever reason you're choosing to do so. -- Kicking222 20:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• I have delisted the nomination per WP:SNOW. Please note that it's not necessary to call for Raul in a case like this— any experienced good-faith contributor can remove this type of nomination. Please compare my recent comment here. Bishonen | talk 21:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC).
• Comment for reference I am a n00b at the featured articles. Anomo 02:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. That was WP:SNOW I invoked (please take a look at it), it was by no means WP:TROLL. Bishonen | talk 02:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC).

EastEnders

It failed it's former FAC nomination, but all the reasons it failed have been fixed now, and it's been much improved. Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 18:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It could do with a general copyedit and reordering : I shall try to do that myself at some point. However, apart from this, the content seems far too myopic and focused on events of the 2000s : the 1990s are barely mentioned at all. Morwen - Talk 22:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In Popular Culture could use changes. You have only referenced Eastenders references on other various television programs, though Eastenders is throughout all British culture. It also seems a little silly that nearly every single program you mention just happens to be a BBC production, as Eastenders is, and so gives little indication of "Eastenders in popular culture". Some references and more depth is required there. However, the paragraph about Derek Martin being on Little Britain goes into far too much depth and feels gratuitous.—Abraham Lure 23:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object Certain parts still need inline citations. Also, there's a 'Trivia section' - either put the info elsewhere in the article or rid. LuciferMorgan 01:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object Poorly referenced, doesn't conform to WP:LAYOUT, has a Trivia section. Sandy (Talk) 15:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comments/Questions: How can you say it's poorly referenced?! And maybe you'd like to say how it doesn't conform to WP:LAYOUT? (And I've removed the trivia section - which was an aim of our project, and now I've found a sitable place to put the information...) Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 20:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)