Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2008

November 2008

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:20, 27 November 2008 [1].

Millennium '73

Nominator(s): ·:· Will Beback ·:·

Millennium '73 was a religious festival held at the Astrodome in 1973 that was billed as the "most significant event in human history" and which was attended by as many as 300 reporters. The article has over 400 citations to 90 sources. It is stable, covers the topic comprehesively, complies with WP:MOS, and has passed through a peer review (here). I'd hoped that this could be ready for the 35th anniversary of the event which started November 8, but it's better late than never. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The level of research is impressive, and the organization generally looks solid. I'm a little nervous by the list of items splashed on the big screen. (Although I'm tickled by the juxtaposition of "Realize heaven on earth" with "You will sit in your assigned places, please".) I'm also unclear on why we need the extended back-and-forth from the press conference. I'd be happier seeing it summarized, with two or three of the most important quotes provided. Scartol • Tok 11:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The press conference was, in some respects, the most important part of the event. More than anything else, it shaped the coverage of the event, which in turn had such an important effect on the movement. It was possibly the last press conference the guru ever held. Almost all of the responses listed have been recorded in more than one source, which shows their notability. I've trimmed one that had been recently added which had only one source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reduced and summarized. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Jossi, please stop deleting sourced material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I summarized the interview as suggested. Is that a problem? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, you deleted sourced material and dumped a copy of text from Divine Light Mission.[2] This type of editing doesn't appear intended to improve the article. I'd appreciate it if you could please leave the editing to those who seek to improve the article rather than make it worse. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Scartol: The slogans from the scoreboard add up to 107 words, which doesn't seem excessive for an illustration. At least one reporter said that the scoreboards were the most effective communication tool of the event. The content and tone would be difficult to convey in a summary. I trimmed the press conference by removing the opening statement. With one exception, each of the answers has multiple sources, indicating their importance. The list could be cut further by removing an entry with only one source. That'd bring it down to four exchanges. If bulk is a problem it can be reformatted with "Q:/A:" replacing "Reporter:/Maharaj Ji:". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed the press conference exchanges down to four questions and answers, the four that have the most sources. I also reformatted the text to make it more compact. I think that material, with three or more sources each, is the most reliable and notable and it doesn't interrupt the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

~~The Manavdharam ref is lacking a publisher.~~
~~The Melton Religious Practices ref is lacking a publisher~~

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You may want to submit to WP:GA first, as the article is quite new (fist edit was in September 9, 2008) and there are still ongoing discussions in that article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no ongoing discussions. The last discussion ended over a week ago. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A week ago? That means current in my book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Talk page discussions, even those that are over 11 days old, aren't prohibited by the FAC criteria. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Did I mention "prohibition"? As I have said before during the peer review, the article is rather new and not mature for FAC. It may be a better idea to submit to GA first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        IIRC, you also objected to submitting the article for peer review. Do you have any specific objections to anything in the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I objected to the idea of an FAC nomination for an article written by a single editor in the opacity of a private sandbox. And I continue to object to an FAC nomination on the basis of the article not being mature or stable enough. What is the rush? Submit to GA and then in a few months you can re-submit the FAC process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        September 9 doesn't seem terribly recent to me, given that we're approaching November. Aside from that, I see no reason why an article should be forced to delay its FAC if there are no ongoing discussions/major edits. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        See the talk page and article history. As I have said, the article is not mature in my opinion. It needs time and collaboration. Of course, you are entitled to a different opinion than mine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Jossi, you just deleted a bunch of sourced material with no discussion.[3] You also added a chunk of text copied from another article (without identifying it as such) that duplicated material already in the article.[4] Can you please use the talk page, or this page, to discuss significant edits? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:OWN? I thought you were interested in improving this article. Did you "discussed in talk" 99% of the article you wrote on your own? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Please don't make accusations. Copying a paragraph verbatim from another article, one which duplicates a quotations already in the article, isn't an improvement, and neither is the undiscussed deletion of sourced material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Jossi, I'm curious; what will the article achieve by stagnating for a few months? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I am not asking for "stagnation"., I am asking for allowing collaboration to shape this article, and that requires time and patience. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Time alone doesn't improve an article. What specific changes are necessary to bring the article up to FAC standards? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        First you may attempt to bring it to GA standards. It needs work, and work requires time. In any case, there is no need for a back and forth between you and me. Let others comment. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's already at FAC standards, in my view. If you see any part that needs work please discuss it rather than deleting sourced information or dumping copies of poorly written material from other articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Image:Maharaj_Ji_Holy_Family_photo_cropped.jpg, is still under FUR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. There was a discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Image:Maharaj_Ji_Holy_Family_photo_cropped.jpg, with zero new comments for over a month and a half, and with one third-party independent user weighing in that the blanket copyright tag is being used correctly. Cirt (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have relisted the FUR as concerns have not been addressed and there was a single comment made. Hopefully other editors will weigh in. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. An excellently written article about an interesting piece of history. Will Beback (talk · contribs) is to be commended for the excellent work he has put into this article and also for his extreme patience throughout the editing process in dealing with and addressing concerns of other editors. There are some very minor {{Harvnb}} issues that I will work on fixing. Closer and other ~~voters~~ reviewers may wish to be aware that an objector to this FAC, Jossi (talk · contribs), has a conflict of interest with regard to this article. Cirt (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

< Response moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Millennium '73#Moved; please stay focused on the article here. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC) >[reply]

- FYI, Cirt, in case you did not know: (a) FAC is a discussion, not a !vote; (b) In this discussion Sandy or Raul will look into the merits of the arguments presented: either these arguments are sound or they don't. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Interesting read but the prose is simply not good enough. Here are examples just from the lede and first few paragraphs.

The third paragraph in the lede is of dubious value information-wise but is also clunky. Since the text does not specify who these writers and observers are, the quotes are essentially meaningless. There's no flow in these five short sentences (including one in brackets).

That paragraph was drafted with the intent of demonstrating the notability of the event. I've moved the quotations down to the last section of the article, expanded them to attribute the views, and replaced it in the lede with a shorter summary of the notability.[5] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media reports generally depicted the event as a disappointment. As Tony would say: spot the redundancy.

I fixed this by changing it to "scholars and journalists", which better reflects the content of the article.[6]

Note the absurdity of the sentence "The DLM had promoted it as the dawning of a new age, but it failed to meet those expectations."

I don't understand. The event was hyped as being the dawn of a new age and when it was over it was the same old age. Many sources report on the failure of the event to meet the expectations of miraculous change.

He died six years later, and his youngest son, then just eight years old, succeeded him as spiritual leader and "Perfect Master" but because of his age his mother, Mata Ji, managed the affairs of DLM, with the help of her eldest son, Satpal Rawat. Needs to be broken down.

I copy edited and consolidated the first two paragraphs to reduce redundancy and improve readibility.[7] We should try to keep the background as short as possible, as the material is already in other articles.

He noted that most were young people from the counterculture, and they accepted him as a "Perfect Master" despite his youth. Second half should either be "who accepted..." or "and that they accepted"

Fixed above. That text was copied in recently from another article.

Melton describes his arrival in the West as being met with some ridicule, but agrees that he attracted an extraordinary amount of interest from the young adults open to his message. Who's Melton? The reader won't know before checking the footnote. Moreover, the sentence could easily be understood as Melton describing his own arrival and his own reception. Also, "open to his message" is redundant.

See above, same copied in text.

I think it's way too soon to bring this to FAC. The prose has to be polished significantly. Pichpich (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with these individual issues. Several of these problems came from a flurry of recent edits. I hope editors who seek to improve the article aren't making it worse instead. If there are any other writing problems please let me know so I can fix them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Tony? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony. Pichpich (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

< Conversation continued at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Millennium '73#Moved 2 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC) >[reply]

Comments I am still in the midst of reviewing this article (haven't gotten to sources or images yet), but I thought I would post my first thoughts. Overall, I think that the article needs to be trimmed of excess detail (see some examples listed below) and some areas need to be slightly reorganized for better flow.

~~The Rolling Stone quote in the "Background" section either needs to be deleted or better integrated into the article.~~

I've summarized the main point, which describes the mood of the nation towards the end of 1973, and moved it to the "rumors and expectations" section.[8]

where they had a permit to gather in front of the White House and invited President Richard Nixon to attend the festival and receive Knowledge - Either in the text or in a footnote, we should indicate whether or not Nixon accepted the invitation.

No source mentions any response from Nixon. He certainly didn't attend, being preoccuppied explaining the 18 1/2 minute gap and dealing with a crisis in the Mid-East. That sentence is very long already. It might be better to split it and add a short "did not attend" clause. I've done that and added the rest of the cities in the tour for completeness.[9]
I almost deleted the Nixon bit entirely, but it's too interesting to omit. This was among the dark days of the Nixon Presidency. Meanwhile, the premies were singing on the sidewalk, offering Nixon inner peace through meditation and obedience to a 15-year old guru. It's a part of history that's too priceless to leave out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Promotion" section feels overly detailed to me. For example, do we need all three quotes from the posters and flyers? I would use just the long one. Also, do we need an entire paragraph on Blue Aquarius?

The different quotes include different specific assertions, each of which are remarkable. I've trimmed the two longer ones.[10]

I wonder if you could put the "Expectations and rumours" section in a bit more context? Downton writes that "millenarian beliefs had been germinating in the counterculture long before the arrival of the guru on the American scene, for many hippies were anticipating the "second coming" and the dawning of the Age of Aquarius" - I think explaining this a bit more would help give some historical context to an event that can seem alien to our own time.

I'll double check and see if any of the festival or DLM-related sources talk more about it. Downton appears to be the main source for the millennial beliefs in this context. There are plenty of sources on the Age of Aquarious that don't mention the DLM or this festival, but it'd probably better just to link to those. This section already appears to be quite long.
I agree with the basic problem. Investigating the Age of Aquarius previously, I found that our own article doesn't deal with the common cultural theme sufficiently, instead sticking with the astrological aspects. I even wrote a note on the talk page back in July suggesting that the article cover it better, but there's no response.[11] The millennial issue is complex and requires a lot of fine distinctions. While the Downton quotations are interesting, I wonder if they couldn't be summarized in a smaller space, with some of that space devoted to the Age of Aquarius and similar apocalyptic/millennial issues in the broader society. I'll try to post at least a sentence on the meaning of the "Age of Aquarius". --OK, I found a reasonable reference for the "Age of Aquarius" and have added a two-line paragraph to provide context.[12] It makes some of the Downton quotation redundant, which I'll go back and trim later. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 13:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the entire article needs more background more people unfamiliar with the early 1970s and the counterculture. It is not clear, for example, why there was a counterculture in the first place. Sadly, this fact is not really common knowledge. See, Stonewall riots, for an example of an article that describes a small event in a large historical context. Now, while Millennium '73 didn't have the same impact as Stonewall, we can still set Millennium '73 in a historical context that will help readers. You mentioned above, for example, that it was during Watergate, however, you are relying on the reader to know all of this. I think some broad, historical strokes would really help readers understand the place of Millennium '73 in the culture much better. A paragraph or two would suffice here, in my opinion. Awadewit (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The historical context appears in many of the journalists reports, especially Watergate but also the Mideast crisis. I can add something, but it may require some minor reorganization of existing material. Background on the other events and themes of the era should logically go in the "background" section, rather than the "expectations" section. The Downton material on millennial beliefs within the Mission, and the new Age of Aquarius paragraph, should probably be handled in the same place, leaving "expectations" for expectations specifically about the event. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adding historical context is like adding salt-there's plenty that can be available and a bit improves the flavor but too much makes the dish indigestible. I took the paragraph that I wrote, added a little bit more, and combined it with other text to make a "Millennarian beliefs" section to cover the general mood of the country and the movement.[13][14] Since the article is so long already I hesitate to add more historical context, or even movement context. Is more salt still needed? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is much better. I've added a few links. Awadewit (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Collier later wrote that a minority of members became "Victims of Millennium Fever" and that Bal Bhagwan Ji was the fever's carrier. The majority of the premies repeated his ideas out of astonishment, but some actually believed him - If only a minority of the members believed the items listed in the paragraph, we have to be careful about what we include. I am worried, for example, about listing anything that only one person believed. I would cut the sentence about the astrologer and Ouiji board.

I disagree. Though one source (a member) says that only a minority held these views, those are the views which got the most attention. The astrologer is cited in several sources, and is in the documentary. The Ouija board is in at least a couple of sources too, IIRC. Even if only one person made asserted communications with the Venusians, it was repeated widely.
Further, I should mention that this is not an exhaustive list of the rumors and expectations. These are just the rumors that received the most attention.
Separately, the article may not convey properly the weight of the TVTV documentary as a part of the public's experience of the festival. We only use it as a source once or twice, but it could be used to support assertions by reporters dozens of times. While the reporters may have had readership in the hundreds of thousands or more through syndication, the documentary was aired twice on the PBS network, back when there weren't many choices on television. And it, alone among all of the reporting, won an award. Getting back to the topic, the documentary has an on-air quote from the astrologer. (The New York Times article leads with the predictions from the astrologer.) The documentary shows an organizer suggesting that Comet Kouhoutek's trajectory was related to the event. That video lends considerable weight to the topics it covers.

These sources led with sensationalistic claims to grab readers' attention. That doesn't mean we have to. I note that your response focuses on the way the press reported the event - "these are just the rumors that received the most attention". That is precisely why we have to be so careful in what we include in the article - the reports were not thorough. So, here are some options: 1) Focus the sentences on the press - "The press focused on...."; 2) Move these details to the "Media coverage" section; 3) Remove these details entirely. Awadewit (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked the section for better flow and to emphasize that reporters were focused on the rumors. It now does a better job of separating official predictions from unofficial rumors.[15][16] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is better. Awadewit (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~The "Event" section has some unnecessary details, in my opinion:~~

~~The DLM used its leased IBM System/3 computer to assign jobs to volunteers.~~
~~The Shri Hans Humanitarian Services treated minor injuries~~
~~I'm unconvinced that we need an entire subsection on the Hobby Airport arrival.~~
~~The Holy Family stayed in the Astrodome's six-bedroom "Celestial Suite", normally $2,500 a night but obtained at a discount.~~
~~The following afternoon the Astrodome hosted a football game between the Cleveland Browns and the Houston Oilers that attracted 37,230 fans~~

Though a computer may seem mundane now, it was frequently mentioned in press reports. It was quite expensive, around $44,000 a year (that's over $200,000 in 2007), and it was viewed as remarkable that an Eastern spiritual movement to use one. The exact model is rarely reported, but there were only a few IBM computers back then. For the modern reader giving a link to the model is almost necessary to give the information meaning. (PS: I've hidden the model name to avoid distracting readers.[17] It's still there in the link for anyone who's interested. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 13:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

But the article does not explain any of this to the reader - again, the article is relying on the reader to know far too much. I would suggest either explaining this or removing the detail. Without the explanation, the reader simply won't make these connections. Awadewit (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that, though the journalists made a point of noting the computer, none of them explicitly say, "Unlike in the future, computers in 1973 were rare and expensive." I could dig up sources which say that, but it'd be too much on a minor detail. While many reports on the DLM/Guru Maharaj Ji mention the computer, only one reporter mentioned it in the context of this event. I've deleted it.[18] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove the first aid service, it has no other significance.[19]
Several journalists give the Hobby airport arrival lavish attention. That may be simply because it was the first event of a festival that been hyped like no festival ever before. It may have been because it marked their first sense of disappointment, at being kept waiting (which they refer to again and again), at the unimpressive speech when Maharaj Ji finally arrived, and at the perceived effort to create a media event by staging the arrival. Even so, some of that is inside baseball. I've trimmed the details.[20]

Again, if it is journalists focusing on this event, we should say so in the article. Awadewit (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't just that reporters focused on a minor event. This was the first of only four public appearances by Guru Maharaj Ji at the event and it was consciously staged as a media event. The arrival is covered in a mid-length paragraph, much of it quoting Maharaj Ji. I don't think it's excessive or distracting. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Awadewit (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources dwell on the "Holy Family" staying in the suite, on its features and its cost. The main spokesman is quoted in more than one source on the cosmic significant of the suite's name and even its plumbing fixtures.

I'm not challenging the point about the name and the fixtures (that is clearly important) - I'm asking why we need to know that they stayed there at a discount. Awadewit (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd included that because it softened the expense, but since several reporters mentioned the cost but only one the discount it's a less important detail and I've deleted it.[21] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could move that, but I think that the fact they had to hurry up and leave for a game the following afternoon is relevant to the general schedule. The names of the teams is not important, but the paid attendance figures are relevant and segue into the discussion of attendance at the festival. Removed teams.[22]

That they had to hurry up and leave is fine - the number of fans and whatnot is irrelevant information. It is this kind of excessive detail that bogs down the article and makes it difficult to read. Awadewit (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be opposed to mentioning the football game attendance in the next section, as a contrast to the festival attendance? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed it further and combined the grafs. You're right, it reads better without the game attendance.[23] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The beginning of the "Program" section repeats information regarding the themes of each day found in "Day 1", "Day 2", etc. I would recommend removing that information from the "Program" section and concentrating it in each day's section.

Agree, that's just unnecessary repetition.[24] A complication is that early sources, from the summer before the event, list a set of planned themes. Then the actual schedule includes a "topic" for each day, which are slightly different. We don't know what happened in between, or even if a "theme" is the same as a "topic". So that's why I added both.

You want to be the richest man in the world? I can make you rich. I have the only currency that doesn't go down ... People think I'm a smuggler. You betcha I am. I smuggle peace from one country to another. This currency is really rich. But if you think I'm a smuggler then Jesus Christ was a smuggler and so was Lord Krishna and Mohammed - This is quite the quote! However, it would be better to include a quote that describes the theme of the satsang - does this quote do that? Can you say, using the sources you have, that this quote encapsulates the theme of the satsang? If not, perhaps a different quote - that does encapsulate the theme of the satsang - would be better.
As far as I can tell, there was little connection between the stated topics and the satsangs by Guru Maharaj Ji. I believe the topics may have referred in the most general way to the topics of the other speakers. I should mention that the availability of quotes is quite limited. The journalists say they found them boring and most of them only report short excerpts, lines, or even just phrases. The three satsangs quoted in this article represent the best reporting.

His satsang that night included this story, reported by several journalists - Why did they report it? Did they say anything about it that would explain why they thought it was important?

See above. It's hard to say why they chose one remark over another, though presumably they found some to be more quotable. This allegory is one that he also told in other venues (substituting Batman for Superman). Maybe the intro can be rewritten so it doesn't leave readers with the same question.[25]

Singer-songwriter Loudon Wainwright III visited the festival and later remarked that while the premies inside were looking happy, the ones outside were arguing with Jesus Freaks and Hare Krishnas. Wainwright has said that Maharaj Ji partly inspired the song "I am the Way" - This just seems randomly inserted.

I've split it up. [26] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One mother explained how her son "was pampered, spoiled, left without the ballast a rough life can provide. He was confused, seeking, he started taking marijuana. Then one day he changed. He came home with the Knowledge. I saw heaven within him, he was so happy ... And I received the Knowledge myself. ...Look around. These youngsters are so well-behaved. Why does the press have to take pictures of the kooks? I think Guru Maharaj Ji is doing a wonderful thing." - I'm not sure we need this long quote. It is pretty obvious that some of the parents are going to think their children's involvement was positive and some negative. A shorter sentence to that effect would be fine.

I've summarized it.[27]

Jacques Sandoz, a Swiss filmmaker and follower, also filmed the event with five Panavision cameras for a DLM-sponsored project - I don't know why it is necessary to include this. The reader has no way to understand its importance. What did the DLM do with the video, etc.? If we can add more information on this film, then we can include this fact.

It's not of major importance. Five Panavision cameras and their crews wouldn't have come cheap. Even with volunteers, the rental and film would have cost quite a bit. I haven't found any evidence that the movie was finished. The same in-house production company, Shri Hans Films, had earlier produced a film that was frequently shown by the Mission, but that's the extent of the significance. Since it was an in-house group, it's a poor fit in the "media reception" section anyway. I've removed it.[28]

~~The tiny paragraph at the beginning of "Debt" is awkward - could that be integrated into the larger paragraph that constitutes that section?~~

I've joined them and re-split the paragraph at the mid-point, Now, the first part deals with the cause and amount of the debt, while the second deals with the payments.[29]

The festival had a major impact on the movement. Expectations had been raised so high that they could not be fulfilled. In addition to the disappointing attendance, bad press coverage, and high debt, the event failed to achieve its other goals such as achieving world peace or world transformation - This last bit almost sounds sarcastic. I think a rewording is in order.

The Mission promised a practical plan for world peace and the dawn of a new age. While the debt and bad press were lamentable, the failure to deliver on those grand promises is what caused the most profound disappointment. However we don't need to reiterate the bad press, low attendance, and high debt that have already been described. Here's a re-write. [30] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - That paragraph now reads terribly: The festival had a major impact on the movement. It did not achieve its goals of achieving world peace or world transformation. Expectations had been raised so high that they could not be fulfilled.[178][179] and as said below, we need to attribute opinions rather than asserting them as facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've redrafted it again.[31] Lest anyone think we're presenting a fact, it attributes to journalists the POVs that world peace, the arrival of ETs, or the levitation of the Astrodome did not occur, despite predictions to the contrary. If these facts are in dispute we can attribute the "opinions" with more detail. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Considering that the article presents the predictions of the Astrodome levitating and extraterrestials arriving as "wild rumors half in jest" earlier, I'm not sure that it is fair to say that they failed to do these things. What about this: According to reports at the time, the festival fulfill its promise of establishing peace or world transformation and its failure to meet the high expectations of its attendees, along with the debt and bad press, led to significant changes in the movement. Awadewit (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There is a difference between the rumors and the official predictions. The dawn of a new age and a 1000 years of peace were official predictions. The problem with your suggested text is that the assessment of the event's failure and its impact on the movement were largely made in later scholarly articles, not in reports at the time. It'd be more accurate to say, According to later assessments, the festival did not fulfill its promise of establishing peace or world transformation and its failure to meet the high expectations of its attendees, along with the debt and bad press, led to significant changes in the movement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        As I reread that sentence, I don't see what "According to later assessments" or even "According to reports at the time" add to the meaning. Adding a dated attribution would be necessary if views changed over time, but even the immediate journalistic reports called it a failure and that assessment never changed. Of course, it's only later sources that connect that failure to the changes in the movement that were yet to come. But even it seems implicitly obvious that reports at the time wouldn't predict a future breakup. Is there a real problem with saying
        The festival did not fulfill its promise of establishing peace or world transformation and its failure to meet the high expectations of its attendees, along with the debt and bad press, led to significant changes in the movement
        
        considering how many sources we have with no dissenting opinions? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Your version looks good to me - I'll let you add it, since you will know how to arrange the massive number of footnotes. Awadewit (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will finish looking at the sources and the images later. Awadewit (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Image concerns met. Awadewit (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Image:Millenium73 poster.jpg - Is it possible to get a stable link to the Ebay source?~~

The page disappeared once the auction was completed. I don't know if Internet Archive stores those pages. I'll try to find if there's any trace of it. If I can find the seller they may be able to send their photo directly.
PS: The Internet Archive only keeps high-level Ebay pages, not individual listings. I've contacted two sellers who are currently offering related items, but I'm not optimistic that I can find the original seller. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it at least be possible to identify the original seller? Awadewit (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two sellers I contacted have both responded that they didn't have the poster. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is the best we can do, then. Awadewit (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Maharaj Ji Holy Family photo cropped.jpg - I'm not entirely sure that this non-free image is necessary. Why do we need to see the organizers of the festival? What about their appearance is "significantly increases the reader's understanding" (WP:NFCC #8)?

The "Holy Family" weren't the organizers of the event, they were the stars. The mother and two brothers each gave hour-long satsangs, and the other brother led the band for many hours of performances during the festival. This was the photo of the family printed in the program, and it may have been the last photo of the family together. Not long after the festival the family split apart very publicly and acrimoniously. The mother died a short time later. So the photo itself was part of the festival, the family were the main attractions, and their appearance cannot be shown in any other way. It passed review at WP:FUR#Image:Maharaj Ji Holy Family photo cropped.jpg. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The review was quite thin in participation and did not address the concerns presented. (a) the image is not from the Millenium event; (b) the image is unrelated to the event; (c) The argument that there are no other free images, just because Will BeBack did not find one is baseless; (d) the assumption that it was "the last photo of the family together" is just an assumption. Basically, the article does not need that image. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, you've made your opinion about the image clear from the moment it was uploaded. Twice you sought a review and after the second closing you complained to the closing editor. These issues have indeed been addressed, and this is not the place to rehash the argument. However, just for the sakeof leaving a complete record here, I'll repeat comments made elsewhere. A) The image is from the event, as everybody who attended was given the program containing the picture. B) See A. C) There are virtually no free images of anything related to Maharaj Ji. It is a safe assumption that there are no such images until some collection of them comes to light. D) This is the last known photograph. There could be others, but we have no evidence of it. Given that Prem Rawat's semi-authorized biography contains no photographs of his family from this period, it seems likely he doesn't like seeing pictures form that period. Given Jossi's repeated attempts to get this picture deleted despite the disagreement of uninvolved editors, it appears that Jossi is putting other interests ahead of the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you have made your opinion know also. This is a FAC discussion and "rehashing" is part of that process. All your arguments are based on your personal assumptions which are ungrounded. For free images related to Maharaji visit commons: [32]. There are plenty of free images there. The aims of the project include a pretty clear Fair Use policy, just in case you have forgotten. Are you putting your editorial pride above it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, thank you for the link to the Commons collection of images. However, those are all images of the same person depicted in the poster at the top of the Millennium '73 article, right? I'm not sure how adding another image of the same person would enhance this article. If there are no free images of the other event participators, using a fair use image is acceptable. That they are all in one image is even better, actually, since that means we only have to use one fair use image. I think that Will's strengthened fair use rationale is much better - it clearly explains the relationship between the people in the photo and the event (they were key speakers) and the actual photo and the event (it was published to accompany the event itself). Awadewit (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was not taken at the event (I think it is a photo taken eralier the UK), and the assumpion that there are no free images available is just an assumption. The main speaker at the event was Maharaji, and there are photos in commons that could be used. If the article was about the family, the Fair Use would be obvious, but this is not the case here. The overriding argument should be: does the article suffer from not having this image? I would argue it does not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) The photo was included in a publication published specifically for the event, so it is directly connected to it. 2) No one can prove a negative. 3) The people in the photo spoke at the event are therefore integral to it. I feel that this meets fair use for all of the reasons explained in the rationale. Awadewit (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All other images check out fine. Awadewit (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've also added details to the the fair use rationales for both images on their pages.[33][34] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

~~And It Is Divine. Special Millennium Issue, November 1973 - This bibliographic entry gives very little information, such as the author or press or location.~~

I added the location and publisher.[35] The issue contains many unsigned articles and pages, such as the program itself, so there is no author information for those.

~~"Times have changed for Guru", Greeley Tribune: 15, November 22, 1976 - This is missing the author and the date is listed last, when the other citations list it second.~~

There's a debate over how to cite newspaper articles with no author and only a news service. I checked my archives and found the same article in a different paper with a different title on a different day, which actually lists the reporter. So I've swapped that in and adjusted the citation.[36][37]

He made a variety of predictions about his guru and the event, declaring "the lord is on the planet, with a concrete program to end racism, poverty and war." - I would take this sentence out, since it is sourced to a student newspaper. They are not the most reliable publications. Even if they are Harvard. ;)

The Harvard Crimson is one of the oldest (founded 1873) and best student newspapers in the U.S. It has had numerous members who've gone on to achieve notability. The author of this piece became a partner in a New York law firm.[38] I have another source (which I can't find right now) that covered the same appearance by Rennie Davis, though I don't recall if he quotes the same line. In any case, there are no lack of Davis quotes available so I'll just remove this one and move the reference down to "External links".[39][40] Since there is so little online content that doesn't violate copyrights it'd nice to keep it around for readers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several articles taken from porn magazines. I know that the articles are supposed to be "good", but how good? First, can we really use these as reliable sources? Second, if they do quality as RS, do we want to use them? We have an impeccable reputation to uphold, after all. :) I am serious, though, do we want to be seen getting our info from porn magazines?

Gortner, Marjoe (May 1974), "Who Was Maharaj Ji? The world's most overweight midget. Forget him.", Oui
Kelley, Ken (July 1974), "I See The Light: In which a young journalist pushes a cream pie into the face of His Divine Fatness and gets his skull cracked open by two disciples", Penthouse : 98-100, 137-138, 146, 148, 150-151
Latimer, Dean (January 1974), "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji and why is he saying all these terrible things about God?", Penthouse: 65-66
Scheer, Robert (June 1974), "Death Of The Salesman", Playboy

The first, Marjoe Gortner, has been discussed at WP:RSN. The view of uninvolved editors seems to be that Gortner has a significant point of view and that the magazine is a reliable source for his POV. This article had included one contentioius statment, in which he said the attendees, chanting with arms raised trowards the guru, reminded him if "Sieg Heil". The sense at WP:RSN was that that was the only real problem.

Gortner does have a unique point of view, having been a child evangelist. However, this POV is never made known in the article. Since Gortner is not a journalist, I would suggest treating his work very carefully. If you are going to use material from his article, use it because it is from his POV and always note it as such in the text. Lumping him in with professional journalists does no favors to the reader. Awadewit (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Gortner reporting is of non-controversial matters, such as the attendance, what was posted on the signboard, what the stage looked like, etc. The one contentious statement which was was a true POV, the Sieg Heil comparison, was attributed to him specifically. We've been discussing this at WP:RSN and there seems to be agreement that it is an adequate source and that the material should be included. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Kelley was the journalist who apparently was the most involved in covering the movement during the year prior to the festival. He was writing a book, which was never published, and he wrote articles on the festival for three different publications: Penthouse (magazine), Ramparts Magazine, and Vogue. Penthouse also ran a separate article just on Guru Maharaj Ji.
- Kelley also wrote on DLM and Millennium '73 topics for The New York Review of Books (in tandem with du Plessix Gray) [41] [42] [43] ("...Francine Gray and I collaborated closely on our reporting of the Millennium 73..."), and for The New York Times [44] --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything in the Penthouse article not in these other articles? Can we just use these others? Awadewit (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That Kelley article is used for three assertions. One is the age of the eldest brother. It's probably in another source (or at least from another year requiring us to do math), but it hardly seems contentious. The other is as a third source for an exceptional claim, "According to the media, the choice of the Astrodome for the event may have been inspired by a dream of Guru Maharaj Ji in which all of his followers were in a dome while the outside world was destroyed." For remarkable statements like that I think we should include as many sources as possible, even if some are redundant. The third is the description of the WPC as "brutal", which is quoted and attributed to a journalist. This is one of several similar descriptions, but again they are exceptional so I think that having multiple sources is a benefit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Scheer has gained a reputation as a notable journalist and commentator. At the time he was already a notable figure on the anti-war left, a friend of Rennie Davis, and a regular freelancer for a number of periodicals before a 17-year stint as national correspondent for the Los Angeles Times. His point of view is notable and his reporting is of the highest standards.

But what I'm asking about are the reviewing standards of Playboy - how well did they fact check, for example? Also, why is Scheer not identified as an anti-war leftist in the article? Awadewit (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We quote the Playboy interview with Jimmy Carter conducted by Robert Scheer, and that article would be incomplete without it. Another prominent journalist who published in Playboy was Alex Haley. It's tough to find 3rd-party sources discussing the editorial practices of any periodical. However I have found a discussion of Playboy's editorial policies in a book on Hunter S. Thompson. Douglas Brinkley, editor, says of a rejected Thompson article, "This was too unhinged for Playboy, too honest. In rejecting what literary historians now deem the first pure example of Gonzo journalism... Playboy's editor composed an internal memo denouncing 'Thompson's ugly, stupid arrogance' as 'an insult to everything we stand for'."[45] Later in the book Thompson's letters mention the Playboy editors and their negative review of the article, which makes it clear that they did have strong editorial oversight. Since Oui was owned by Playboy, it is reasonable to assume that it also had standards. As for Scheer's background, it's indirectly referred to in the sentence, "A number of notable journalists attended, some of them acquaintances of Davis from the New Left." Several writers and journalists had interesting backgrounds, but it seems like it would be distracting to get into their biographies. (Ted Morgan, whose name sounds white-bread American, is a fascinating character.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another book that discusses the editorial policies at Playboy, especially in the context of its interviews, and it goes into length about how those are the benchmark for high quality interviews and that they undergo rigorous fact checking.The Magazine Writer's Handbook. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another. The Magazine Article It describes the editing process for a piece of investigative journlaism. While it doens't get into fact-chekcing per se, it does describe the lengths that the editors went to in order to produce a finally crafted article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting the early 1970s were a time when magazines like these were striving for interesting written content. Just three years later Governor Jimmy Carter was interviewed in Playboy during his presidential campaign. We cite the magazine in numerous articles.

These are still pornographic magazines, which carry an editorial control that is not the same as for a mainstream publication. Mixing and matching scholarly material with porno magazine op-eds, and worse, giving them the same weight in the article's narrative, does not bode well for a FA. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to whom did these three magazines in 1973 have editorial control policies different from other publications? Who says that the editors significantly changed the articles submitted by these writers so as to make them unreliable? Please share your evidence. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues here, IMO. 1) What were the editorial controls of porn magazines in the 1970s? I'm unsure and that is why I am asking. It is a legitimate question, since their aim was not to produce quality articles. 2) Even if the articles are reliable, do we, as Wikipedia, want to be seen sourcing articles to porn magazines when we don't need to? (Headline: Wikipedians search Playboy for citations while...) If these articles contain essential, reliable information, we should use them, but let's be sure. Awadewit (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Playboy, at least in the 1970s, was more similar to Esquire than to Hustler. Rather than referring to it as a "porn magazine", contemporary sources lumped it in with "men's magazines". Getting back to the broader context, the DLM drew its members from ex-hippies and other counter-culture groups. These men's magazines were among the most respectable publications carrying articles on counter-culture topics and using appropriate journalists. They covered the DLM and the festival in greater detail than TIME or Newsweek. In the case of Scheer, he was specifically invited to attend the event by organizers. This is the reporting that the DLM sought, though of course they expected a different outcome. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting and helpful. Thanks for taking the time to explain all of this to me and point me to these sources. I really do appreciate it. I withdraw my objection to these sources. Awadewit (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Greenfield, Robert (1975), The Spiritual Supermarket, New York: Saturday Review Press/E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc., ISBN 084150367 - The ISBN is missing numbers, as it doesn't link.~~

I don't know why it didn't work - anyway, I found another ISBN that does.[46] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Levy, Phil, "An Expressway over Bliss Mountain", East West Journal - What is the East-West Journal? (Also, please include a publication date and page numbers.)

The East West Journal was a publication by Michio Kushi. American editors of a certain age may remember its covers at newsstands.[47]. I'm working from a scan of the article that includes the page number (which I've added) but not the publication date. Based on the contents of the piece, it's easy to guess that it was written in mid-to-late 1973. I've sent a note to the webmaster asking if any more information is available. Anyone who searches on the title of the article will find the posted copy.

Pluralism Project (2008), The Rush of Gurus, http://www.pluralism.org/ocg/CDROM_files/hinduism/rush_of_gurus.php. Retrieved on 22 August 2008 - This is reprinted from a CD-ROM (see bottom of website), so we need to have the original publication information. Awadewit (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent an inquiry to the project email. It's probably written by Diana Eck, as her name is in the copyright statement. In the mean time, I've listed here as the editor and made the citation more formal.[48] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the publication information is available on the website. Is there a template for CD-ROMs reprinted on websites? :) Awadewit (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There oughta be! Anyway, all of the info from the webpage is now included in the citaiton, except for the phone number to order the CD-ROM. Should we include that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! and be accused of advertising?! Awadewit (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Oppose for now~~ - I'm opposing this article until the issues I have outlined are dealt with. However, I see no reason why these cannot be resolved during the article's time at FAC and I look forward to supporting the article once we have resolved these issues. In general, the article is clear and comprehensive. I did not know what the Millennium '73 was until I read this article - now I do. However, I think that we can improve on the presentation of the material a bit. Thanks to everyone for working so hard to bring this article to FAC. Awadewit (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to support this article. Awadewit (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double standards, reflecting a certain underlying bias in the narrative. For example, some sentences are properly attributed such as in: Maharaj Ji appeared to be nonplussed by the turnout according to one reporter, but in other instances, the attribution is missing such as in *"Debt" - The DLM leadership had expected that a huge attendance would be followed by generous donations, if not a complete change in the world., which are actually the opinions of two individuals (Downton the author, and Collier's memoir) that are asserted as facts.

Impact - Expectations had been raised so high that they could not be fulfilled. Unattributed and unsourced.

There are many other such instances, which requires going through the article with the fine-tooth comb on NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment

After re-reading the article in its entirety, and reflecting on the impression it left on me, I come to the following conclusion:

Mixing and matching opinions of eye witnesses with scholarly sources results in a strange mixture that does not serve well an encyclopedic article about an event that took place thirty-five years ago.

Eye witnesses accounts and opinions written at the time of the event, are by definition primary sources, and unless placed in the appropriate historical context in which the event took place, we are not serving our readers well. After all, we would not write an article on the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor, based on the newspaper articles and op-eds written at the time in the US press. In that case, we may mention the coverage in the US media with some care, but rely mostly on secondary sources such as these books, journals and articles that wrote about that event a posteriori. Why? because historians and scholars will be careful in placing the event in the appropriate historical context, analyzing and summarizing the primary sources available to them (newspaper reporting, opinion pieces, witnesses accounts, etc.), and be able to navigate the obvious anti-Japanese sentiment at the time and present the facts in a neutral and factual manner. In our article, the obvious bias of the 1970's press as it pertains to the counter-culture, the war in Vietnam, the misunderstanding and fear of the society at the time for things foreign that challenged the status quo will be missing from newspaper and op-ed reporting at the time, but be well presented and described by scholarly sources that know how to weigh in the context in their reporting.

In summary, this article as currently written, suffers from the unqualified mixing of scholarly reports on the event with witnesses accounts and other primary sources, resulting in a mishmash that does not read well and that is confusing. Coupled with the lack of attribution (or may I say, the attribution of opinions in some cases, and the lack thereof in others) the article lacks the consistency that would make this not only an interesting article, but one that is neutral, well written, and one we can feel proud of. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, you raised the same objections at Peer Review, where it was pointed out that Wikipedia has featured articles entirely sourced to newspaper accounts. You make contradictory arguments here, on the one hand saying that the 1970s press had an obvious bias against counter-culture while at the same time demanding the removal of counter-culture sources. This event was covered by both mainstream media and by new age journalists, by conservatives like Bob Larson and radicals like Robert Scheer. It has been written about or commented on by journalists, a former child preacher, former members, movement leaders, sociologists, political scientists, a psychiatrist, musicians, pundits, historians, policemen, filmmakers, etc. The article makes use of all available reliable sources and fulfills the WP:NPOV requirement of including all significant points of view. That isn't a "mishmash", that's the Wikipedia way. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Will, you are not responding to my arguments in any convincing manner. Go and read Attack on Pearl Harbor, or any other event that took place 30, 40, 50 or 60 years ago and show me the same mishmash you have attempted here. I am not arguing that Millennium was not covered as you say, it was. What I am arguing is about the unecyclopedic manner in which you have mixed sources, and the lack of consistency on your unique reporting and the way you have intermingled scholarly sources, pornographic magazines, witnesses accounts, and press reports. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep this page for actionable suggestions on improving the article. General discussions of the article unrelated to FAC belong on the article talk page. I've never seen a complaint any other article mixing scholarly and journalistic sources. Your edit here makes me wonder how familiar you are with WP:V. Anyway, you've given your view. Please let uninvolved FAC reviewers give theirs. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. That was my "closing argument", my contention being that the article needs considerable work, cleanup, and NPOVng to make it to FA. As for your other comments, you can always add a {{fact}} to mishmash if so you wish. :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, I largely agree with your complaint regarding the mixing of newspaper sources and later, scholarly sources. IMO, it is true that we are doing original research in these articles that are based largely on newspaper and magazine articles from the time. However, that is not how Wikipedia has outlined its reliable sources policy. We are therefore bound by its constraints here at FAC. I tried once to oppose an article based on the kind of argument you are making and my oppose was disregarded. Since newspapers and magazines are accepted here at Wikipedia, I feel the best course of action is to make sure that they are used responsibly. Why don't we try to focus on any individual problems that you may have with particular sources or their use in the article. I'm sure that we can work together to make this a clear and well-researched article. Awadewit (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The implication of the last sentence of your comment, that the article wouldn't be well-researched yet, seems a bit of an overstatement in my very humble eyes (I'm not speaking for myself here). Don't let that stop you from finding more sources & checking those used. Best not to jump to conclusions before you do I suppose. Thanks for your useful comments above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Awadewit. WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy. The policy that WP:RS support is WP:V. But WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR cannot be taken as individual policies, but as a whole. These policies work together to give us the foundation upon which we write Wikipedia articles. Then, we have editorial judgment, which is not expressed in policy. Our editorial judgment is what I am asking we exercise here: do we need to mix and match scholarly and witness accounts in the narrative? Should we be very careful how do we use primary sources? Should we make efforts to provide the necessary historical context in particular when using newspaper accounts of the time? These are questions that cannot be answered by just saying: WP:RS! The research by Will for this article is close to WP:OR and that can only be ameliorated by being very cautious in the use of the material researched. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:V:

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, if you have any specific issues with the article please bring them up here. A discourse on the meaning of WP:V is out of place. Can you point to any assertion in the article that needs verification? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The specific issues with the article are listed above. The discussion about WP:V amnd WP:RS was in response to Awadewit's comment about his agreement with the concerns I raised. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General discussions of WP policies belong elsewhere. Let's keep this discussion focused on actionable issues related to this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are actionable, Will. (a) Reduce the reliance on primary sources to avoid dabbing on original research; (b) provide a sufficient histoical context so that our readers understand what the article says; (c) attribute all opinions and differentiate them from facts; (d) remove the not-so-subliminal bias, sarcasm and other such devices from the narrative; (e) clearly differentiate newspaper reports from the time from scholarly opinions; and (f) evaluate if the porno magazine material is not available in other sources, or if we can do without it if not crucial for the article, just to name a few of the comments made by me and others here. These are actionable items, and I would argue, require patience, work, and strong collaboration for a couple of months, if not more. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A) Momento just added a big chunk of primary source material. Based on your comment here, and on my own comments on the article page, I'll remove it. B) Per Awadewit's request, I'm going to add a paragraph on historical context. C) When two or more sources say the same thing, I think it's not so important to attribute the assertions. D) Already done. E) There's no need. That's not standard practice in any Wikipedia articles. F) This is already discussed and largely settled. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, you need to identify specific spots in the article that are problematic or sources that you feel are unreliable, as I have done. For example, you have asked Will to "attribute all opinions and differentiate them from facts" but this would severely worsen the quality of the prose. We cannot begin every other sentence "According to". I suggest you list the specific opinions in the article that you feel need to be attributed and we can start going through the list together. I find that these meticulous lists are really the only way to discover what the points of contention are in an article. Thanks again! Awadewit (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some of these changes: [49]. Will continue on these in the next day or so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think something needs a source, please tag it or bring it here for discussion rather than just deleting it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. The quality of the writing is diminishing as Jossi removes generalized statements that guide the reader through the article. These generalized statements are clearly supported by the information that follows and I can see no reason to delete them. Awadewit (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I hear you. But despite the good work in responding to the FAC so far, I just spent 30 minutes at the library, and upon checking some of the sources I found certain omissions as if the editor who added the source chose to cherry-pick certain parts of the source and omit others (example I added from the source that was used just to assert that the event was a "dismal failure"). That does not give me a good comfort level and casts a doubt in mind about how other sources have been used. I intend to check other sources in the weeks to come. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi's editing is not helpful, and I wonder whether he's actually read the article. Here he deletes Members reported feelings of disappointment[50], despite numerous sources that describe member's disappointment. Within 24 hours he adds Thimothy Miller describes the expectations of world transformation held by followers, and although there was some disappointment in the fact that the world continued unchanged after the festival, ..."[51] despite the fact that the article already said According to journalists and others, the festival did not live up to expectations of establishing peace or world transformation... Members reported feelings of disappointment. When I trimmed the redundancy he reverted it, restoring several errors including the misspelled name.[52] When I asked on the talk page what this new material added that wasn't already in the text, he refused to answer and simply pasted a link to his edit.[53] Instead he comes here and complains. Improvements to the article are welcome but redundant text and blind reverts are not improvements, and I do not appreciate Jossi's unfounded attack. Again I ask Jossi to leave the FAC reviewing to uninvolved, objective editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked additional sources and found unexplained omissions which you do not address above. See [54] I will now be checking a couple of sources a day, time permitting, to ensure that the sources are well presented and there are no more unexplained omissions that may be to the detriment of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else have feedback on the article? I think we've addressed every specific issue raised here. We've polished the writing, trimmed distracting facts, added context and background, and improved the citations. What's left? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that Will Beback (talk · contribs) has worked hard to address concerns and am pleased that he was able to successfully address the points raised by Awadewit (talk · contribs) and others as well. Cirt (talk) 07:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As requested, discussions about the use of sources, omissions, etc. is currently ongoing at article talk instead of here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify: Do any editors who have't commented already see any issues that need to be fixed to make this article qualify as a Featured Article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like this article; it seems to capture a lot of the spirit of the times, and would make a great FA. I understand that Jossi and others may want to verify the sourcing and the way that sources have been used, and perhaps make improvements here and there, but I cannot imagine that the article as it stands is very far removed from giving an NPOV summary of the available sources. I hope the outstanding issues can be resolved; the research effort that went into this article deserves to be rewarded with an FA star. Jayen 466 16:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is almost there,Jayen, but I would prefer having some more time to check/verify additional sources (see or example, Talk:Millennium_'73#Village_Voice_source) and add some more material related to the historical context in which the event took place. Regardless of the FAC process and its outcome, I will continue the research and submit improvements. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi. please read the comment below. Adding more informaiton to tha article isn't helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I hear you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Jayen's comment. It is very important for the credibility of the FAC process to avoid giving FA status as a reward for commendable hard work. When we say that "exemplifies our very best work", we're not referring to the quality of the work that went into building the article. Pichpich (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you're saying. Jayen 466 16:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is a general reflection on the article. Yes, the prose is not sharp and could certainly be improved throughout in nearly every single paragraph. But mostly, this is from top to bottom just too long for the topic and needs to be trimmed significantly. As it stands, the effect of reading to is to drown in trivia and annoying minutiae. It is good to see the work that has been put it into this, but the editing is too close to the source material and it feels like every single solitary fact that was dug up has somehow got to be introduced into the text. The effect is unremittingly dreary. Summary style my friends, summary style. Eusebeus (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still oppose I agree with Eusebus on both counts. There are many places where the article tries to plug-in every possible quote from anyone who reported on the event. This isn't helpful to readers. There are also instances where anecdotes are of little value. (e.g., the bit about KPFT-FM radio station) I also still believe that the writing is still subpar. Again, I'll list a couple of random examples from various parts of the article.

The lede still contains this absurd sentence "The DLM had promoted it as the dawning of a new age, but the event failed to meet expectations". It's not as if any event billed as the dawning of a new age can deliver on that promise. Surely, the success of the event using this yardstick. For analogy, suppose Muhammad Ali had once said (he did not but it would have been consistent with his persona) "I'll be heavyweight champ for 100 years". Now imagine the lede saying: "Ali promised to be heavyweight champ for 100 years but failed to meet that expectation".
In the first paragraph of the "Media coverage" section. "There were many people who were already antagonistic toward Maharaj Ji and the movement, based mostly on what they had read in newspapers, despite having had no contact with premies". First, flow could be improved by starting with "Many people were". Secondly, the structure of the sentence strongly suggests (though I hope it's not the intention) that these people were wrong. (NPOV alert) Actually, the next sentence is even worse in that respect.
"Admission to Millennium '73 was free, unlike other DLM festivals that charged sizable admission fees." No need to repeat "admission"
Next sentence: "Despite fundraising beforehand, the festival left the DLM in serious debt caused by much lower than expected attendance and partially by the Holy Family's mismanagement, according to sociologist Thomas Pilarzyk." Unclear: is Pilarzyk's assessment only about the mismanagement?
Members reported feelings of disappointment. Should be "Members were disappointed" or something like this. Disappointment is a feeling so no need to use the term "feeling".

The article is just not ready. No shame in that but this still needs work. Pichpich (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut over a thousand words from the article. It's now 7,881 words, down from 8,723. (Though for some reason Jossi wants to make it longer instead.) Many obscure facts are gone. Each of the items listed by Pichpich have been adressed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not exactly true... I am collaborating with you in the reduction, and we will hopefully get there in a few days, as we are still discussing what to remove and what to keep ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're holding up this FAC for you to complete your review, can you try to go a little faster please? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi has paused his review of the article, so I've asked one of the copyediting volunteers to give the article a once over. Now that the article has been shortened, per requests from Pichpich and Eusebeus, once that copyediting is done I hope that meets every objection. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still oppose I'm sorry but prose and conciseness still a problem (see again a short list of specific examples below). I'd like to stress again that it will take more than a few fixes here and there to get to criterion 1a quality. It also seems obvious to me that the article was brought here too early: the modifications made over the course of this FAC are massive, content-wise, prose-wise, source-wise. The FAC process isn't designed to handle this, as the chaotic debate above shows. My suggestion is still to close this FAC, build on the progress of this past month and restart the FAC in a couple of months when the polishing is complete. Here are a few specific issues, pretty representative of the article's current shortcomings:

The paragraph "Rainbow Brigade" has no flow. Most sentences are very short and I believe this is due to a willingness to cite just about every source. But almost all of the info given is of little if any value. The focus should be on the most relevant and most revealing facts. These are hard choices to make but they have to be made for the sake of conciseness and clarity.
The World Peace Corps (WPC) was the DLM's security force at the event. Raja Ji, Maharaj Ji's 19-year-old youngest brother, was its head. Flow can be improved by merging the two sentences.
Paragraph right after that: again, it's ok to quote multiple sources but having a source for each adjective is not helpful. In "ironic, or doublespeak, and compared to the Big Lie", all three sources convey the same idea in different terms and with various degrees of harshness. It's not original research to condense this.

Pichpich (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the listed items. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is Pichpich's third bolded "oppose". There is no reason to keep bolding your duplicate opposes over and over again. Your opinion has already been noted. Cirt (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a pretty sad comment. I'm bolding my oppose because it has repeatedly been claimed that my concerns have been addressed. I feel that this is not the case. I think there are still major flaws with the article and I've tried my best to explain my concerns. I don't think it's a bad article, I just think that it's not up to the high standards of FA. I've been involved in a number of FACs before but I've never seen such thuggish undertones from article's supporters. If you don't want my honest opinion, then don't include the article on the FAC board. I'm done here, I've made my case and I don't need this kind of hostility. But you don't obtain FA status for an article by driving away editors who have concerns. Pichpich (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - - Pichpich, as far as I'm concern you can say "oppose" as many times you like as long as we all keep trying to improve the article. When I said I'd addressed each of the concerns you'd specifcally raised, I didn't mean to imply that every copyediting issue had been solved. As I noted in response to you below, I'have asked a volunteer copyeditor to help out and he said he was going to be able to help eariler in the week, but he must have gotten busy with other matters. If I understand your objections correctly, you're principally concerned with the copyediting. I repsind to your other points below. Let's all assume good faith and keep our eye on the ball. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Pichpich, there have actually been only relatively minor changes to the article during this process, except in repsone to requests from reviewers. (For some reason, an editor made some organizational changes today, but I don't believe there were any content changes). A copyeditor had promised to go over the article this week, but I guess he got busy with other projects. I'll address the specific issues you raise, though I realize that it's not a complete list. Would you be willing to copyedit the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why state in the lead that attendance was between 10,000 and 35,000 then state that the generally agreed attendance is 20,000 in the main body? Either the lead should reflect the body's "about 20,000" interpretation or the "Attendance" section should discuss people's conflicting estimates as the lead suggests. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've flipped them.[55] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Background:

Wikilink and show DLM abbreviation for Divine Light Mission. I know this is done previously in the lead but I think it's usual practice to link and abbreviate in the first use in the body (though correct me if I'm wrong!).

Done.

I think you should settle on either "Bal Bhagwan Ji" or "Satpal Rawat". Mention of alternate names only serves to complicate things at this point in the article and the son's name should follow the examples set by the names of the father and mother (i.e. the Ji name not the Rawat name).

Done. (These folks all have multiple names so there's a tradeoff between confusing readers with too few or too many!)

Fix to "five million members" not "5"

Done.

In this sentence: "Most of the western followers were young people from the counterculture", by counterculture to you mean this or some other kind of counter culture? Either wikilink or, alternately, briefly specify the specific movement.

Done.

"a festival to commemorate the November 9 birthday of Hans Ji Maharaj," I would rephrase this as "a festival to commemorate Hans Ji Maharaj's birthday on November 9,"

Done.

"including thousands from the US and UK flown to India" would flow easier stated as "thousands from the US and UK who had flown to India"

Done.

"The 1973 Hans Jayanti – so Mata Ji and the 22-year-old Bal Bhagwan Ji had decided – would be the first one to be held in the United States rather than India" rephrase as "Mata Ji and the 22-year-old Bal Bhagwan Ji decided that the 1973 Hans Jayanti would be..."

Done.

"the news media": Is this an Americanism? Normally I would call it "the press" or simply "the media". The current phrase jars a bit with me.

Done.

"The movement invested all of its resources in the event". Really? All its resources? I would interpret this to include any property the movement held, if any, and all money received through member contributions. I find this particularly surprising: was this the case? If not I would rephrase this as a "significant amount of it's resources" or something more specific if possible.

That's almost a direct quote from a scholar. ("The event had been scheduled to take place at the Houston Astrodome and all of the group's resources were poured into the event. When the anticipated large crowds failed to materialize, deep debt effectively crippled the group.") Not only was there intense fundraising before the event (see below), but after the event many assets had to be sold to pay the debt. Followers were even asked to contribute their personal possessions to be sold at rummage sales. The cost was estimated at just under $1 million, which is probably less than the total assets of the group, but that's hard to say for sure since the group's assets and the guru's assets were somewhat mingled.

"Members were under pressure to contribute money". I perceive this to mean that the members were told to contribute, perhaps even to their own significant and personal economic detriment. Is this the case? Do not rephrase if the sources state that this is indeed so. Otherwise, a phrase such as "strongly encouraged to contribute" does not have the same sinister overtones. Sillyfolkboy (talk)

There are two sources cited for that, though I could probably find more. The specific citation which would address your question is from the Washington Post. "...most of the costs appear to be supported by the sacrifical giving of the believers. Since the Millennium festival was first announced the premies have been under heavy pressure to give as generously as they could to its support." The second citation is more of an example. A group of premies sharing a household had enough of their own money to buy a house, but were told to send the money to headquarters instead to help pay for the event. An official is quoted as saying, "That's simply the worst idea we've heard yet...Well who do you think is gonna pay for [the festival]? If you've got money like that you should send it to Denver, to National Headquarters. If we all work together as a group we can spread Knowledge. We can bring peace. But when premies are all looking out for their own little trips, in their own little towns, it's not going to work at all. ...Look, don't buy the house. Send the money to Denver ... Remember, this is a national movement." [original emphasis]
Thanks for these helpful suggestions. Any further feedback on these or other issues is welcome. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your reponses allay my concerns about the phrasing. Thanks for taking the time to explain the sources and reason your wording. Given the sources, the article's interpretation appears to be well conveyed. The idea of "all resources" and the mix of Rawat's property and DLM property makes things difficult. However, I think it's fine as it stands. Lack of clarity of asset ownership tends to be a common problem in new religious movements. I'll look to find more problems in other sections shortly. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Oppose - This is an appalling article. It over flows with ridiculous quotes provided by an antagonistic media. As one source noted about an article by the Village Voice's Marilyn Webb that featured her: "The article went on and on as if she were being paid by the word, no matter how trivial or inaccurate, obscuring and misrepresenting my actions and beliefs". This article follows the same course. Complete with weasel words to justify inclusions, such as "may have been inspired by a dream of Guru Maharaj", "may also have been chosen ", "One rumor said" and numerous absurd comments from "one person" or "one source" etc. And then the punch line, the festival was "a dismal failure,[147] a fiasco,[148] a major setback,[16] a disastrous rally,[149] a great disappointment,[150] a "depressing show unnoticed by most". "ruined dreams".[161]. The excitement was over."[162] disenchanted, "faith was brutally dashed to bits" , a "bomb". Yes Will we get your point. I think this article is "a dismal failure,[147] a fiasco,[148] a major setback,[16] a disastrous rally,[149] a great disappointment,[150] a "depressing show unnoticed by most". "ruined dreams".[161]. The excitement was over."[162] disenchanted, "faith was brutally dashed to bits" , a "bomb". Momento (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Momento, as the "[X]s" indicate, those assertions are all sourced. You've been working on the article for two and a half months, so it's as much your article as anyones. The article includes both negative comments and positive, incluing from the mission's leaders. It even includes the comment you quote above. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it's OK if I create a section and list every positive comment? And yes I have removed a lot of the excesses and added some balance but it is still an appalling article because you wrote and structured it without consultation. Perhaps you would allow me the same privilege? One week to restructure and re-write. It will be half the length and considerable better written.Momento (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about. The "Impact" section includes a variety of viewpoints, including positive ones. It certainly doesn't include every negative comment. I've never seen a requirement to consult prior to writing an article. If you want to write an article on your own I'm not going to complain. Even with over 2 million articles there are still many topics waiting to be covered. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. In its current state, it's certainly a nice article, but significantly short of FA standards.

The prose is not "engaging, even brilliant". Many examples have been provided by other reviewers showing the deficiency. I can provide further examples on the article's talk page, upon request. This is not something a phrase-by-phrase fix or a general copyedit will easily correct. A substantial rewriting of the article is needed here.

Yes, please do provide further examples.

The lede has nine citations. One or two for the purpose of citing some general or introductory information would be appropriate. This material should be cited in the body of the text. The current third paragraph of the introduction is the principal culprit.

Removed. I believe everything is cited again later.

The article is riddled with far too many quotations. Quotes should be used sparingly. Leaving aside other concerns on the issue, excessive quotations and brilliant prose are mutually exclusive.

I've substantially reduced the number of quotes and quotation marks.[56] As for t ageneral principle, I checked over all of the guides for better FA writing, and Shrunk & White, and can't find anything about this beyond User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA, which says: "Personally, I like very much quotes and inboxes. But, again, don't overdo it! Huge and repetitive quotes interrupt the article flow. Quotes offer what Cla68 calls the 'human element'." Can you give me more direction on how many quotes are too many, or to a writing manual which says that using quotes is mutually exclusive with brilliant prose?

The article relies far too heavily on contemporary material and primary sources. That is not to say historical sources should not be used! They should be used as a complement to later secondary and tertiary sources. The article should reflect the current state of scholarship. If the general body of secondary and tertiary reliable sources do not feel that certain aspects are important to note, we should not be substituting our own judgment on that score.

There are hardly any primary sources, and those are mostly to support the secondary sources. I believe the article does make good use of the most recent reliable sources, particularly in the final "Impact" section which reviews the longterm effect of the festival on the movement. Are you familiar with the sources? By my count, there are at least 10 sources from within the last 8 years, but most of those don't go into any detail about the festival so it would be hard to use them more than we do already.

The use of several citations for single statements is disruptive and ugly. There is no need for such over-citation. Cite one or two of the most reliable sources.

I'm working on rducing those. While multiple sources are ugly, they help establish the relevance of information and the amount of weight to give to a detail or opinion. They are not a reflection of editorial disputes, but of expected disputes that never happened.

It should be noted that heavy lead citations, extensive primary source reliance, overabundant quotations and excessive citations are generally red flags indicating significant problems with the article and/or deep-rooted editorial disputes. The above is not a comprehensive list of problems, but rather some of the most obvious and vexing problems present in the article. The article is interesting and extensive, but needs considerable work to reach featured article standards. Vassyana (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is welcome, but if you could be more specific about what writing or sourcing improvements you think are need that would help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the positive and cooperative response. In a day or so I will compile a list and post it to the article talk page to avoid cluttering the FAC too much. I will try to be specific, or at the least point out benchmark examples, as much as possible. The article has quite a bit of potential and I'm glad to help you with detailed feedback. Vassyana (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:Dweller

Saw a request at WT:FAC for uninvolved editors to throw in an opinion. I know nothing about this topic, but know a fair bit about FAC. I'll say what I see, below. --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OR concerns

"one of the fastest-growing religious movements in the West" in the Lead. Can't see this repeated in body text and as it's uncited because it's Lead, I have OR concerns. (And PEACOCK) --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need to cite

"the most significant event in human history"- not repeated outside of Lead, so needs citing there or repeat+cite elsewhere, or delete from Lead. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Later writers included it among the major events of 1973 and the 1970s." I can't see this mentioned and cited outside of the Lead, so ditto to previous comment. --Dweller (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV concerns

"The highlight of each day" - says who? Highlight is not a neutral term. If I'd have been there, perhaps I would have considered it the worst part of the day. Perhaps not. But we can't use a term like that. --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity

"One sociologist wrote that it was the most important development in the American movement's history." Similar sentence also appears in lead. It's unclear that you presumably mean the DLM when you call it "the American movement". --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:20, 27 November 2008 [57].

Chiprovtsi

Nominator(s): Todor →Bozhinov

I spent quite a long time researching for this article and actually writing it, it was like my own September drive. Chiprovtsi is a town of about 2,000, but it compensates its lack of size with some compelling history. The article has had a PR and a GA review which all went pretty well. Most importantly, it has had a copyedit by a native speaker because the brilliant prose was one of the main obstacles I was facing. If you're curious, it looked like this until late September; don't laugh, that was my work also :P It's related to the GA Banat Bulgarians, but they'd hardly make a featured topic all alone... Todor →Bozhinov 12:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - very interesting article, nicely written, well sourced and with appropriate images. Good work :-) --Gligan (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not thrilled with the writing. Spot check:

clumsy word order: "and to the south is again Georgi Damyanovo."
Just checking that you're using a minus sign for the temperatures, not an en dash (see MOSNUM).
"national border", not "state border".
"the average monthly temperature is −1 °C (30.2 °F) to 0 °C (32 °F) in January and 20 °C (68 °F) in July"—why not range for July? And please state the range then convert the range.
"The average yearly precipitation is 776–816 millimetres per square kilometre." No, it's not "per" anything.
"No mineral springs are present in the municipality." It's as though they might pop in and pop out. "There are no ...".
"some of which 150–300 years old"—huh?

I'm inclined on this small sample to say that this should be withdrawn and worked on by you and one or two native speakers, then resubmitted. Our reviewer resources have to be rationed, and this is not a free fix-it page. Tony (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As much as I could, I've introduced the changes suggested above. The prose was copyedited by a native speaker during the PR and to be honest, I don't believe the writing issues are that unsolvable to withdraw the nomination. Personally, I'm ready to work on improving the quality of writing and, of course, all copyeditors are welcome, whether free or against payment. I'd like to get some further feedback before withdrawing this nomination: I don't think it should be speedy failed because of a single criterion. Todor →Bozhinov 15:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Tony has indeed identified a problem, but I'm not sure it's what he thinks it is. Why does the average monthly temperature is −1 °C (30.2 °F) to 0 °C (32 °F) in January and 20 °C (68 °F) in July have a range for January? We are discussing an average, which should be a specific figure. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the precipitation, he is quite right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Err, it was given that way because that's what the source says :) There may have been two different measurements in two different years; whatever it is, the source says "the average January temperature is from minus one to zero degrees Celsius…" I changed it to "or" instead of "from … to", if that helps. Precipitation has been fixed if I've determined correctly what the problem with it was. Todor →Bozhinov 12:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

All non-english sources should give their language in the footnote/reference.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I didn't evaluate the non-English sources, which are the majority of the references. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I examined the footnotes again and the language is always specified, although there was one occasion where I had to fix that. If the footnote points to a source cited in the references, the language isn't given because the references section already has that information. As for the reliability of the Bulgarian references, the books are all credible academic publications. The web links are mostly municipal-published (the official website, the municipality's development plan and some online registers), and there are some tourist websites and newspapers cited as well, usually for minor and non-controversial stuff. Although you didn't say that, I'd like to clear it out beforehand: I understand that having most references in a foreign language is not the ideal scenario, but quite frankly I don't think it's possible to write a Chiprovtsi article of that size and detail without using mostly Bulgarian sources. Todor →Bozhinov 21:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Significant image problem - According to Commons:Freedom of Panorama, Bulgaria only allow for pictures of buildings or artwork in public display to be photographed in non-commercial manner, which is counter to the license requirements for free use on Commons. Thus, these pictures (of the buildings and the museum shot, mostly; the creek and the rugs and the ruins likely are ok) need to be removed from commons and and if still wanting to be used in this article, brought to WP and need to be marked non-Free, and thus may require selecting only one or two of them. --MASEM 20:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that, except for the infobox image, all the buildings are really old, so their creators have been dead for over 70 years and thus the images are PD. For the picture of the town centre, it's arguable the buildings there are not the main subject of the picture, and thus that too would be PD. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those facts need to be asserted on the image pages. (ideally, using appropriate PD rationale tags). I'm not sure if Freedom of Panorama considers the intent of the picture's subject as part of it, so the town square should still likely be treated as NFC unless can be shown otherwise. --MASEM 02:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: does the existence of this stupid and never-applied law mean that practically all photos of Bulgaria have to be deleted from Commons and Wikipedia? If so, please bring the issue up over at Commons: this is not a problem that concerns this article only; the law is nation-wide, not Chiprovtsi municipality-wide. My personal opinion is that deleting all the photos would be ridiculous. Legally, yes, the law exists; de facto, it simply doesn't. Todor →Bozhinov 15:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The law is an ass. But I agree - this is one law we should be ignoring. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unfortunately, as a free content encyclopedia, we have to follow the free content guidelines with respect to NFCC. I will place a notice on commons about this, but given the various ages of buildings, it's not a simple sweep of the images. For this FAC, the ones in question need to be moved to non-free to be used. --MASEM 23:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd safely rely on m:Avoid copyright paranoia here, but I wouldn't mind if someone copies those images to Wikipedia and tags them as fair use: as long as we won't have to lose valuable photos because of a law that is never applied in that respect. Todor →Bozhinov 18:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not about copyright, as I noted, the images of buildings can be used for non-commercial purposes so from the legal standpoint, they can be used without any problem on WP. The issue is that they do not meet the goals of WP's free content mission (free as unrestricted distribution rights). They can't be on Commons, period, but they can be used on WP as long as they are given fair rationales. As noted, it looks like only a couple pictures in this article need to be corrected, and I see no problem in keeping these (once moved to WP and given rationales) to help illustrate the article (that is, I will pre-emptively say that once the images are moved and given good rationales, there will be no other image problems with this article). --MASEM 16:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, I uploaded a copy of the square photo to Wikipedia; I tagged it appropriately and now we're using it in the article. However, I won't nominate the Commons file for deletion for the time being, it's just my personal opinion that we have nothing to be afraid of. A short explanation that the law is inapplicable due to the objects being public domain was added to all other photos; they can remain in Commons. Is the image licensing issue sorted out now? Todor →Bozhinov 13:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The article is fine for images now. However, again, it is not a legal issue here with the commons image, it is strictly the policy of Commons that the picture of the square cannot be published there since the FoP for Bulgaria is incompatible with the free content policy of Commons. --MASEM 17:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I am not a native English speaker but the article is very easy to read because it is logically consistent and coherent. It draws from a very large data base as evident by the sources. The information is organised and thoroughly weeded with the aim to present the most important in encyclopedic form and style. I support the critique above for the annual temperature and precipitation. I don't know the exact remedy, maybe the best will be to look for another source for these data. I suggest giving an English translation of the titles of references in order to give an idea to English speakers about their topics. --Lantonov (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Sadly, the prose is below FA standards. There is much redundancy throughout the article and some long, snaking sentences. Here are some examples taken at random:

By the 1630s, the idea of an organized anti-Ottoman revolt had reached the town of Chiprovtsi and in his 1650 account to the senate of the Republic of Venice Petar Parchevich described the long preparations for an armed struggle and the support-seeking visits of his fellow townsmen to the kings of Poland and Austria.

The reach of the uprising cannot be exactly determined, but scholars such as S. Damyanov believe it included not only Chiprovtsi and the neighbourhing Kopilovtsi, Klisura and Zhelezna, but also thousands of Bulgarians from the entire Bulgarian northwest, and although the leaders were mostly Catholics, the bulk of the insurgents were Orthodox.

The municipal administration is divided into a common administration with "Information Services" and "Financial-economical Activities and Handling of Property" departments and a specialized administration with "Planning and Distribution of the Budget" and "Territorial and Village Planning and Building" departments.

The article needs some radical editing to remove wordiness, tired expressions (not only...but also), and over use of the verb "to be" in all its guises, where action verbs could bring life to the prose. It reads like a poor semi-literal translation and does not exemplify Wikipedia's best work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamColm (talk • contribs) 13:17, November 16, 2008

- Thanks for the comment! I have split the long sentences listed and reworded the "not only... but also" part; I found no other uses of that construct throughout the article. I've asked for native-speaker assistance a couple of times, but it's up to me to make the changes most of the time, hence the prose problems. I'm willing to work on improving the prose as soon as any issues are mentioned here, but I find it hard to determine the issues all by myself. Todor →Bozhinov 14:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - thorough, interesting, well-referenced, much-improved (even during FAC) - appears to meet the criteria. -- Biruitorul ^Talk 05:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status? Has an independent copyeditor been located? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asked three volunteers to help, waiting for response and copy edit. Todor →Bozhinov 23:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Please arrange a copyedit before re-nominating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:50, 25 November 2008 [58].

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

Nominator(s): User:Limetolime

previous FAC (18:14, 29 April 2008)

After completing a peer review and and working with thedemonhog to improve the quality of the article, we believe that the problems in the article have been fixed. I am submitting the article again for FAC; please leave comments. Limetolime ^{Talk to me} ^• ^{look what I did!} 01:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Image concerns addressed. Awadewit (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Image:Woz-poster001sm.png - This fair use rationale needs to include the name of the copyright holder. (I have expanded it a bit to make it stronger.)~~

Fixed: Added copyright holder. Limetolime ^{Talk to me} ^• ^{look what I did!} 20:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ashanti.jpg - The purpose of this fair use rationale is not strong enough to warrant inclusion of the image - "illustration" is not enough (see WP:NFCC). Since the singer and the Muppets are shown in the poster, I cannot see a reason for this additional image. I suggest removing it.

Removed: I agree. Limetolime ^{Talk to me} ^• ^{look what I did!} 20:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For help on fair use rationales, see this dispatch. Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

~~Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references, such as BBFC, VET, etc.~~

Done: Limetolime ^{Talk to me} ^• ^{look what I did!} 20:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs: check the dabfinder in the toolbox, several fixes needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed: All disambiguation pages have been set up to go the correct page. Limetolime ^{Talk to me} ^• ^{look what I did!} 01:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please let others strike their own comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For a film article, there seem to be several components missing. Also, I would suggest that you find a copyeditor, as there are places in the article that need careful attention.

Considering this is a Muppet movie, I would have expected interesting information about production. The Muppets are puppets - what problems arose during filming, for example? How did the human stars react to working with puppets?

N/A - I have squeezed as much information possible; not even the DVD has information on it. Besides, there is already a bit about in the Production section.Limetolime ^{Talk to me} ^• ^{look what I did!} 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Cast" section is written "in universe". Kermit the Frog is not a real person. :) It seems odd to give him credit for playing a character. Also, I wonder if somehow which Muppet is which Oz character shouldn't be integrated into the "Plot summary" so that it is clear that Miss Piggy is the witches, for example. I realize that there are two layers here - the Muppets "playing" the Oz characters and people voicing the Muppets, but I'm not sure this is the best solution.

OK - This was brought up before; the voice actor's names are already listed. Limetolime ^{Talk to me} ^• ^{look what I did!} 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the voice actors are listed, but the "cast" is still "in-universe", as it were (actually, it is a mix of Muppets and real people). Also, what do you think about including the names of the Muppets in the plot summary? It is not clear to the reader who has not seen the movie which characters are Muppets when reading the plot summary and this distinction should be made, I think. Awadewit (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Release" section is a prose list. I would suggest a chart. It would make this information easier to digest. The lone sentence about the parade is probably better suited for a "Marketing" section.

? - What kind of chart do you mean?Limetolime ^{Talk to me} ^• ^{look what I did!} 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a table. Awadewit (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any information about the marketing of the film or any tie-in products?

Already listed.Limetolime ^{Talk to me} ^• ^{look what I did!} 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any information about the marketing of the film, though? Awadewit (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions the film's allusions to adult films twice, but because these allusions are never really explained, it is hard for the reader to understand these moments in the film. I would suggest adding more material on these parts of the film, perhaps in a section about the development of the script.

Will do - I'll try and look into that.Limetolime ^{Talk to me} ^• ^{look what I did!} 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More could be added on the themes of the film and how they reflect Baum rather than the 1939 movie. Rather than just referring to the ruby slippers, hopefully you can draw on your sources to add more detail on this front. The reviewers seem to have made some statements about the themes, for example.

Done before - I have tried to do this many times beofre, but the end product never turned out good.Limetolime ^{Talk to me} ^• ^{look what I did!} 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, exactly? The reviews linked from the article have statements about the movie's themes. What happened when you tried to make a section using these statements? Awadewit (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Can we add more information about the Ashanti casting decision?~~

Can't - There isn't any. Limetolime ^{Talk to me} ^• ^{look what I did!} 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is there information available about the design and look of the film?~~

No - As I have stated before, I have squeezed out all possible info on the production. Limetolime ^{Talk to me} ^• ^{look what I did!} 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of prose that needs to be cleaned up (this is not an exhaustive list):

The second paragraph of the lead uses the word "dream" three times.
Most critics agreed that the film was too mature for young audiences, and that the cameo scenes and popular culture marks were unnecessary. - "marks" doesn't make sense - "allusions to popular culture"
Dorothy desperately wishes to break away from her home and become a famous singer, but her dreams of becoming one appear impossible. - people do not "break away" from their homes - what is she trying to do exactly?

Fixed - Limetolime ^{Talk to me} ^• ^{look what I did!} 19:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In returning home, a tornado hits her family's area - "While she is returning home, a tornado devastates the area."
Dorothy and Toto discover that they are in Munchkinland, a small town part of the vast Land of Oz. - missing words
After being threatened to be killed by the Wicked Witch of the West, the captured lion calls the Munchkins, who set Dorothy free. - wordy and passive

Well... How about instead of dumping this on me, you try and do some of it? Limetolime ^{Talk to me} ^• ^{look what I did!} 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am stretched much too thin right now to take on a copyediting job. Does the WikiProject Films have some copyeditors that you could ask for help? Awadewit (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:Moni3 18:02, 24 November 2008 [59].

Malawi

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk)

I would like to present this article on a poor, landlocked country in southeastern Africa for consideration for FA status. I've been working on this article on and off for the past several months, and I believe it is ready to become a featured article. Africa is one of the areas where WP is lacking in featured content, and I would like to help this change at least a little bit with this article. Thank you for your time and consideration! Dana boomer (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support—A very interesting and well written article! Sources look good, and all the websites look like they come from reliable/reputable sources. There is a disambiguation needed for European and Sena. The link checker is having problems connecting with [60], and for lists upenn.edu link as a redirect, and redirects to [61]. And, images check out. Good luck! JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support! I have disambiguated the two links (as a note, this turned one of them into a red link). The first website that you listed is the official government site for Malawi, and this had a tendency, in my experience, to go up and down fairly randomly. I would theorize that this is possibly due to a lack of internet reliability in the country, but I don't know for sure. I have corrected the redirect on the second link. Dana boomer (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The article needs more information on the languages of Malawi in order to meet the comprehensiveness requirement. In many African country articles this is broken out into a separate "Languages" section. In this article, however, we only have a single sentence. Kaldari (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more information on the languages in Malawi. As this article is supposed to be in summary style, with most of the information in daughter articles, I don't want to get too deep into any individual point. Please let me know if what I've added will suffice, and I'd love to hear any other comments you may have. Dana boomer (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice improvement. Seeing that English is the official language, however, it would be good to mention it somewhere in the article, i.e. how many people speak English, where it is predominantly used (education, business, government, etc.). Kaldari (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Ghana#Languages for a good example of an African country language section. Kaldari (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think it would be more useful to discuss how the various languages are related to each other, rather than just giving statistics for each one. Right now the section reads rather like a table of statistics than a discussion of the various languages and their importance and relationships. Kaldari (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query "Malawi was first populated during the 10th century" this presumably refers to the earliest agricultural communities, I think you'll find that hunter gatherers had lived in the area long long before that., suggest you review your sources and rephrase - 10th century might be earliest pastoralists, farmers, or iron workers but It won't have been the first population. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 19:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to "settled"; does this work? Dana boomer (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dana, I'm not happy with settled as it implies that no-one was there before, if you don't mind I'll suggest a wording in the article. Can you check your sources re the share of tobacco in exports? Currently the article quotes figures of both 53% and 70%, if these are from different years a small rephrase might be a neat way of showing how vulnerable the economy is to changes in the global tobacco price. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 16:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why "settled" implies that no one was there before, as settler means "person who has migrated to an area and established permanent residence there", as opposed to hunter/gatherer types who just moved through. Could you explain further? And, I'll take a look at the tobacco figures. Dana boomer (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've reworded the tobacco section, and pointed out the large jump from year to year, as well as removing some redundancy. Thanks for pointing this out. Dana boomer (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, neatly fixed. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 15:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, at least for now. The quality of the sourcing strikes me as rather poor. The article is sourced heavily to the cursory BBC country profile of Malawi, as well as the US state dept profile of Malawi, which are both not terribly scholarly. Also, the ethnologue website is generally regarded relatively poorly. Are there no high-quality books written about Malawi? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Africa 2006 and Africa 2008 books strike me as pretty poor references. Have you checked out the publisher's website? I've never heard of this publishing company before and they're barely represented on Amazon. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources: My library has approximately 25 books that mention Malawi in the title alone, so I'm skeptical that the article currently has the best choices for reliable sources. There might be a wealth of knowledge missing! I believe that further research is needed. Here are a few samples that may prove helpful:

Pachai, Bridglal. Malawi: the History of the Nation. London: Longman, 1973. ISBN 0582645530.
Pike, John G. Malawi: a Political and Economic History. New York: F. A. Praeger, 1968.
Rotberg, Robert I. The rise of nationalism in Central Africa; the making of Malawi and Zambia, 1873-1964. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965. ISBN 0674771915.
Williams, T. David. Malawi, the Politics of Despair. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1978. ISBN 0801411491.

Not to mention the works available (at least in part) via GoogleBooks, NetLibrary, journal databases, etc. María (habla conmigo) 20:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you, except that all of the books that you quoted are from the 1960s and 70s, meaning that they are 30 or 40 years out of date. They would probably be fine to source for part of the history section and some of the things that wouldn't change (geography, climate, etc), but other than that, most of the stuff in the article deals with more recent things, such as the economy, language/religion distribution, etc that needs to be sourced to current information. There may be, as you say, as "wealth of information missing", but I'm not really sure what that may be. Please keep in mind that this article is supposed to be in summary style, and so while using the books you recommend to give an in-depth history of Malawi's economy, demographics, etc might be tempting, it's really not the point of a summary article, IMO.

I'm glad to hear that you have such a comprehensive library, but I am not so fortunate. I did do a search at my local library, and tapped out their information on Africa, so please don't think that I've neglected that avenue. I'm sure you have a response to this, and I'm glad to hear it :) Dana boomer (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about Africa, though, it's about Malawi. Africa is a big place, and I for one prefer to see a bibliography that includes works that are specifically dedicated to the subject matter. For example, if Florida consisted of book sources about the United States as a whole, but not Florida and its individual history/culture/etc., I would be similarly concerned. Perhaps I'm alone in thinking this, but a thirty year-old book dedicated to the history of Malawi seems more applicable than two pages from a nearly twenty year-old book about the history of the entirety of Africa. My library is actually very modest in size, so don't count me as lucky. :) But if you have access to an academic library, or even Interlibrary Loan, further research could help a great deal -- you could even perhaps enlist the help of someone who has access to such services. No need to go it alone! The examples I listed came from a quick, cursory search, but there's also a decent bibliography available on everything Malawi from the World Bibliographical Series (Vol. 8; 2nd Ed., Santa Barbara, Calif.: Clio Press, c1995). My point is that although currently verifiable, I am concerned that the article may not represent the best of Wikipedia if it neglects a breadth of available sources. María (habla conmigo) 21:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fortunately have access to a university library. I haven't even gotten through the 2007 and 2006 publications on Malawi and I've already encountered a number of books on politics, government, the justice system, many on the AIDS crisis, several on the Millennium goals, etc. Dana, I would suggest finding the nearest university library to you and going there. If you live in the United States, I would suggest going to a state university library - they are there to help the residents of that state (that is you!) You can ask for help from the reference librarians and they will be more than happy to help you. Awadewit (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem being that the state library is a good 4 hr drive away :( I've checked out the local university library too, and they don't have anything either. However, I'm going to my local public library today and I will see if they can get any inter library loan books that deal specifically with Malawi. I guess I'm just a little bit confused about the fact that no-one seems to have specific concerns about places that are missing information, or references that are unreliable. You seem to be saying that simply because I've used mainly web sources instead of books means that I'm missing information. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, and if there are specific areas that are missing information, please feel free to point this out. However, over the next few days I'll work on getting more book sources into the article, so I'll let you know what I find. Dana boomer (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've been to my local library and now have several Malawi-specific books coming on ILL. The problem is, they won't be here for 7-10 days. What would everyone suggest - should the FAC be kept open during this wait period and I can keep working on other comments as they are brought up, or should I withdraw the nomination and renom in a couple of weeks? Dana boomer (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest withdrawing this FAC. Doing research takes a lot of time. The problem with the sources, as pointed out above, is that they are not Malawi-specific. Since there are hundreds of books published on Malawi itself, there is no reason to rely on books that are much more general. These general books will not have nearly the specificity of information on Malawi. Since FAs are supposed to be the "best of Wikipedia", their research is supposed to be the best, too. Awadewit (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

~~Image:Flag of Malawi.svg - We need a reliable source that verifies this is the actual flag of Malawi (you know, we Wikipedians could draw anything!).~~
- Ok, so the CIA Factbook (see here) says that this is really the flag of Malawi. So, what do I do with this information? Do I link this website to the image page, and if so, where on the page? Also, do I put it on the Commons image page or the WP image page, or both? Dana boomer (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added the link (adding it the commons page adds it to all transcluded pages). Awadewit (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Image:Malawi-Lilongwe.png - We need a reliable source that can serve as the source of this map.~~
- Would this work? Dana boomer (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I couldn't really tell what that site was, so I just added a link to the map at the CIA Factbook. Awadewit (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Malawi-demography.png - Are the author and uploader of this chart the same?
- How would I go about knowing this? Should I post on the uploaders talk page, as it seems she is minimally active? Dana boomer (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's start by at least leaving a message with the uploader asking whether or not they are the author of the map. If we don't hear back from them, we can say something like "Author is presumed to be uploader". Awadewit (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I dropped a note on the Commons talk page of the uploader, so I'll wait and see if I hear back from her. Dana boomer (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These should be quick fixes. Awadewit (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Echoing others' statements above. I know this is Africa, but this article does seem a bit short on an entire country. This book, appropriately titled Malawi, looks like a very good source and I think Decalo has written several journal articles on African subjects (and it was published in 1995!). Also, the one reason I know of Malawi (pre-Wikipedia) is when Madonna adopted that boy. I'm not sure if this deserves a mention, just sayin'. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 16:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a bit in on the foundation that Madonna started there (Raising Malawi, it's in the economy section), after the adoption. However, I wasn't sure the media hoopla around the adoption was appropriate to include, as mentioning that one incident in an article about a whole country seemed like giving it undue weight, IMO.

If people could point out exactly what sections they're looking at when they say the article is "short", it would be helpful. I'm not looking for people to go out there and find information, just give me section headers. Do you want more added to geography? Education? Demographics? A section that you think is missing completely? Please let me know. None of these concerns were even mentioned at GA or PR, so I'm a little startled by the flood here. Some general guidance would be nice. Dana boomer (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just expand in general. I think Cameroon should be a good guide. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 17:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Education" section in particular is fairly skimpy; specific works dedicated to solely to education in Malawi may help flesh it out. I'm also confused that although the article says "In Malawi, primary education is not compulsory", Education in Malawi states in the very first sentence: "Primary education in Malawi is compulsory". Which is it? The latter is sourced, so I'm not sure which to trust. I don't think I see anything about tourism (other than a brief mention of selling goods to tourists), although I can understand there being little to say about that. Another thing that may be of concern is that the "Culture" section is extremely brief; only one paragraph is dedicated to the Malawi people's cultural practices. What about their cuisine? Can more be said about their literary and musical legacy? What about holidays, celebrations? How about traditional dress/clothing? The image in the section says that the man is playing a traditional musical instrument, but what is it? Other examples? How has their culture changed over time? I still have so many questions after having read this section, which I don't believe should be the aim of an FA. María (habla conmigo) 19:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: My primary concern is comprehensiveness. I compared this article with FA India and Austrailia. I found these sections missing:
- Etymology
- One on the states of Malawi, preferably with a map depicting them
- Flora and Fauna
- Sports --Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing Nom - I'm not sure how to go about this, but it looked from what I've seen that I can just put a note here and Sandy will take care of it when she does her archiving runs. If this is not true, please let me know what steps I should take and I will go ahead and take them :) Thank you to all of the reviewers for their comments above, and I will spend time over the next few weeks working on making sure the article is comprehensive and referenced by the best sources available. I hope to have this article reappear on the FAC list at some point in the next couple months, much the better for this (apparently somewhat premature) nomination. Dana boomer (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:11, 22 November 2008 [62].

Indiana in the American Civil War

Nominator(s): Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest}

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... I feel it has covered ever possible ting it could covered, is interesting, is suitably referenced, and one of the best articles on Wikipedia. Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 02:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

http://www.boggstown.com/history.php (ref #31) is a dead-link.
As is http://domainnotfound.optimum.net/cablevassist/dnsassist/main/?domain=www.inct.net (ref #32).
What makes http://civilwarindiana.com/ a reliable source?
Ref #21 needs a page number.
Many of the references are inconsistently formatted.

–Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found a better source for Boggstown. The other dead link was to an SCV official page I found in 2003 when I originally wrote this for a term paper; I'm trying to find a better source. Civilwarindiana.com was done by Craig Dunn, who wrote the book Iron Men, Iron Will: The Nineteenth Indiana Regiment of the Iron Brigade; as a published author, he can be considered reliable. I am working on the references.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 04:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

There are a lot of typos and some inconsistent capitalization (particularly on north/North and south/South). Like Juliancolton, I am concerned about the quality of some of the sources, and there is a whole lot of inconsistent formating of references, some contained within footnotes and some in the references section.

I wonder about the accuracy of some of the text. According to some sources, for example, Indiana was the fifth largest northern state.

This is accurate. see [63] Census of 1860, Indiana was the fourth most population of all the states, not just the north. See page 2. Charles Edward 17:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using the link, Gen'l, I count 4 other Northern states with more population and 1 Southern state. Madman (talk) 04:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As do I. Corrected.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 04:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was changed to: "the fourth-highest population in the Union, fifth-highest of all states". No, it was the fifth-highest in the Union and the sixth-highest of all. Madman (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about now?--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 13:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well! I feel like a fool. You are correct indeed. I should have looked at my own source a little harder. :S Thank you for pointing that out. Charles Edward 13:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am also concerned about the inherent quality of the prose and the article itself. I'll try to pick up some examples in my next read-thru. Madman (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is aside from comments that Julian himself brought up. If North/South referred to the individual combatants, I capitalized North and South; otherwise, they are uncapitalized. (I can fix this if it's a problem). Some of the sources I will have to track down in the next day or two, as I got them back in 2003.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 05:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Which edition of Funk's Hoosiers in the Civil War are you using? Please give publisher information in the references.
Current ref 21 (Gore) needs a page number
Current ref 8 (Funk (1967) needs a page number
Current ref 17 (Baxter) needs a page number
Current ref 20 needs a page number (Weber)
http://www.inct.net/~german/inscv/csind.htm deadlinks
It is p. for a single page, and pp. for more than one page, right now you're occasionally using pp. for one page.
There are unsourced statements of opinion lurking... The first sentence of Conflicts, the last sentence of the second paragraph of Indiana regiments, the last sentence of politics, the last sentence of the first paragraph of republican takeover...
Unrelated to sourcing, but I have some concerns about how particular regiments were selected for inclusion?
- I added most of the section . I picked the regiments rather arbitrarily. The were quite a few listed in my sources, and I choose the ones that seem most notable. Saving the army at Gettysburg was a big deal, the Iron Brigade was a big deal, and it is worth noting the only black regiment. I was looking to have a sampling of the more notable ones.Charles Edward 17:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section feels very skimpy. HOw many regiments in total did they raise? How many were for the south? How many fought in which armies? More in the west or more in the east? Which regiments had the most casulties? How many never saw combat? Lots of information that is left out. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I have a source for that kind of information.. But there were about 175 regiments in total, about 210,000 soldiers, the overall figures are in there. None were for the south, all for the north. That information is listed in an earlier section. I will see what I can dig up, but to cover every regiment would be lengthy and difficult, and probably better as it's own article. Charles Edward 21:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have expanded the section a bit to give more info on the regiments as a whole. I will look for some more info, but is what I added what you had in mind? Charles Edward 23:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All refs save for Funk's is correct, and I plan to get a copy of Funk's book from the Indiana University Southeast's library tonight. The pp vs. p should be corrected now. The deadlink was to a page created by a chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, so the info will have to be resourced, or removed.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 17:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I don't think the subject matter is as accessible as it could be; speaking as an American (born Northerner and a Floridian transplant), even I have no idea what some of these phrases/events/timelines signify. For example, both "Copperhead activity" and "western theater" in the lead need to be contextualized. I'm not sure that "Union" vs. "Confederate" is defined as well as it could be, either, but it's hard to tell because I'm of course familiar with these terms. More broadly speaking, the American Civil War, as well as its causes and effects, are not described fully. Oh, and where is Indiana even located in the US? Perhaps a map showing Indiana in regards to the Union and Confederacy would help? All of these comments are just from the lead -- it becomes more confusing as the article continues. I think perhaps the article should be read by an outsider, as I fear that non-Americans (and perhaps even some Americans) would be completely lost. María (habla conmigo) 12:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a comment to your comment, I don't want to burden this article with matters that are out of scope. For example, anyone interested in (or ignorant of) Copperheads could easily click the link. Similarly, where Indiana is in regards to the United States could be determined by the Indiana link. And "the American Civil War as well as its causes and effects" should not be fully described in this article. The beauty of Wikipedia is that it is internally linked. Madman (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I believe that the beauty (to use your word) of a Featured Article is that it is comprehensive; just as how uncommon terms are defined within articles, certain historical events and even geographical areas must be properly summarized in order to provide context. We should not expect readers to click back and forth between an FA and various supplemental articles when all it takes is a a few words to adequately describe what a "Copperhead" is or where "Indiana" is situated in the US. The article is not too long so as to worry about getting wordy or off topic; in fact, it may be too brief. María (habla conmigo) 15:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the Simplified English Wikipedia either.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 17:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please review both WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS#Images re image layout issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Charles Edward 00:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After removing the deadlink, which I have just done, what else is left to do?--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 07:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments — Could you add a bit more about POW camps in the state? I saw Camp Morton was mentioned, but there were several others, too. I'd also suggest moving the linkbox about states in the Civil War up to the top, next to the Indiana flag graphic. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... doesn't look like the linkbox will fit. If there's a way to create a modified one, that could be the way to go. I'm working on copyediting the article, and once I'm finished, I'd be more than happy to offer support. If I make any changes you disagree with, let me know, and we can work it out. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with your edits. I moved the long linkbox to where it is in most of the series, and moved another pic to a better place. I'm not finding any more ACW POW camps in Indiana; maybe you were thinking of ones in Illinois or Ohio (easy to do). Camp Atterbury was WWII, not ACW.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 05:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was one in Lafayette, Indiana that I know of, but I'm fairly certain that there were more ... can't remember them off the top of my head, though. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lafayette helped. I found something, and will add it as soon as I see you've finishing editting for a while. Its at http://international.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/civilwar/northwar/lafind.html .--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 06:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. I'm continuing to edit, and have dropped in ^{[citation needed]}s in a few different spots. I'd also suggest putting a bit about the construction/idea behind the Soldiers' and Sailors' Memorial in the aftermath section, as well as the rise of the Klan as an outgrowth of the Knights of the Golden Circle. That last part doesn't have to be that detailed, but most histories draw a pretty straight line from the Golden Circle to the Sons of Liberty and all those other "white power" successor groups, leading up to the Klan electing one of their own for governor in the '20s. Once those are taken care of, we should be good to go. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fact tags have been fixed, and the monument was discussed. We just did an Indiana Klan article, but as the Klan seemed to have been spawned in Indiana from the main chapter of Klan, and not particularly the Golden Circle, I simply added a link to the Indiana Klan at the See also section. That should do it.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 08:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support — I'll have to check out that Indiana Klan article. A friend of mine did a doctoral dissertation on that subject, and the way he presented it made it seem so darkly fascinating that I've been interested in that subject since then. Good work! JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I imagine most of the book sources have ISBNs. Please record them. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except for Clarksville in Vintage Postcards, I added an ISBN for every book that had one. The Findling one was small press by a professor from my alma mater, and the rest were too old. The Clarksville one I probably saw at Green Tree Mall and noted the author, title, and pg., but all online sources for ISBN only register the Clarksville in Tennessee, not Indiana's.. Tomorrow I'll try to see if they still have that book.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 03:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarksviulle is taken care of. That should remedy all objections.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 20:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Banime:

All over, there were quite a few red links. That's not a big problem by itself, but it just seems red links don't add much to the article. If you know those articles will be put up shortly then perhaps keep them, but if you have no plans on them at all then perhaps taking them down would improve the article. This one could just be my opinion so think about it carefully and do what you feel is best.

In the Indiana Regiments section: It was the only black regiment formed in Indiana during the war and lost 212 men during the conflict. Is there a citation for this?

In the Southern Influence section: He was the last senator to be expelled from the Senate. Is there a citation for this?

In the Conflict with the Democrats: After that, said Confederate Colonel Basil W. Duke, "The Copperheads and Vallandighammers fought harder (against us) than the others."[34] Is the (against us) added by you? If it was, maybe it should be [against us], I'm not sure if that works in wikipedia.

In the Southern Sympathizers section: The records of the Indianapolis National Guard indicate three men decided to join the Confederacy. Do you have a citation for this? In fact, look at that whole paragraph and make sure it's cited well it seems kind of iffy.

~~The references: there's a lot of inconsistences. Some have spaces after commas, some don't, some have spaces after p. or pp.,some don't. Make them all consistent.~~

That's all of them for now, good job so far in the article. --Banime (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All your concerns have been addressed. Two red links could be decent articles, so I left them.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 19:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support After the many improvements to the article about the concerns above, both from me and other editors, and my final readthrough and copy edit of the article, I support this for featured article class according to the featured article criteria. The prose has improved a lot from the last copyedits. --Banime (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, unspaced emdashes (in the lead), and WP:ACCESS issues on image layout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have fixed the dashes in the intro. The only image that seems to violate WP:ACCESS is the map image, which forces a larger image size. But to remove that parameter would the image much to small to get anything meaningful out of it. Charles Edward 23:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the map cannot be made any smaller and still be useful within the context of the article. Madman (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just shrank the image from 350px to 300px. I've found 300px to not be problematic.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 14:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the WP:ACCESS issues. Named refs are not used for repeat citations (see WP:FN). This FAC doesn't appear to have had an image review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Named refs are fixed per WP:FN.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 01:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image concerns:

Image:Indiana civil war map.jpg - needs a reference. Though you may have created it in a computer program, the information about troop movements came from somewhere. You can place that in the "Source" line in parentheses. Please consider expanding the summary a bit to explain what the map means.
80 Indiana Regiment.jpg - needs a source link. It's highly unlikely you scanned this image from Harper's Weekly directly. Just a link to where it was downloaded from (or the most reliable online source that shows it).
Image:9th Indiana Infantry Co A 05-0348a.gif - the rationale and summary information in this file is messy. Can you use the structure from Image:80 Indiania Regiment.jpg to make it neater, but fill in the proper applicable information for this image?
Image:JesseDBright.jpg has very little summary information. You can use the summary template from Image:Oliver Hazard Perry Morton - Brady-Handy.jpg as a guide, and fill in the applicable information for this image.
The PD info for Image:Soldiers Sailors Mon IN 1898.jpg is confusing. Says it was taken by the National Park Service in 1898, but since the NPS wasn't created until 1916, some fancy temporal distortion antics were abounding. You can change the permissions to {{PD US}} since the image was taken long before 1923. Please make sure the image has a summary template similar to the others in the article.
Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want the source for the map on the image's page, or on the IN ACW page?--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 18:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image page, please. Caption would be fine, too but not as necessary as the image page. --Moni3 (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool; will do after lunch. The other image problems I took care of.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 18:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't want to see this right now, but a search of "Harper's Weekly" and "H. Mosler" calls into question if that image is of the 80th Indiana. This source says its in Perryville, Kentucky and the only Indiana mentioned is the 23rd. The caption for the image itself does not mention 80th Indiana or Indiana at all. Sorry to ruin your afternoon, but I thought you might want to take care of it before it appears on the main page and Civil War buffs load up muskets to point at you for the inaccuracy. --Moni3 (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced it with another image.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 20:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All images either fixed, or replaced with unproblematic images.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 01:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checking back: I struck two more, but Image:9th Indiana Infantry Co A 05-0348a.gif needs a source indicating where it was downloaded from. --Moni3 (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added source.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 23:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week; any more responses?--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 04:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You may want to contact the editor who opposed the article. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did; no response, although he hasn't been on much since then.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 07:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't thing I'm out of line here, but I took a peek at your article and the first sentence made my mouth drop open...

"Indiana, a state in the Midwestern United States, played an important role during the American Civil War. Despite significant anti-war activity in the state and southern Indiana's ancestral ties to the Southern Confederacy, it did not secede from the Union."

Come on. This is written as if Indiana were a slave holding border state and it was seriously considering seceding from the union. Sorry, I couldn't read the rest of the article without stopping and dropping a line. It looks good, and I guess everyone else thinks it good.

BUT I would recast it thusly:

"Indiana, a state in the Midwestern United States, played an important role for the Union during the American Civil War despite significant anti-war activity in the state, and southern Indiana's sympathetic and ancestral ties to the South."

hard to have ancestral ties to something that only existed for 4 years, when "The South" had been around a long time and sympathetic points more toward some reluctance.

Anyway. Good luck. Ismaelbobo (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did modify the intro.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 17:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better. Still got that danged "did not secede from the Union." It's throwaway phraseology. Despite the draft riots in New York in July 1863, it didn't secede from the Union. ;-). Once I get through my first article, you can come and give me heck too. Check my user page to see what I'm working on sometime. Cheers.Ismaelbobo (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove the "secede" comment in order to help non-US readers, who might appreciate that reminder.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 18:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:11, 22 November 2008 [64].

Tropical Storm Kiko (2007)

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk)

I am re-nominating this article, Tropical Storm Kiko (2007), as a Featured Article Candidate. Since the first FAC, the issues addressed by the reviewers have been fixed. All comments are welcome :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support based on the overall prose. I still think a couple hours of research would turn up some more info, albeit in Spanish, but overall, the article looks good. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also noting that sources look good. It would be nice if National Hurricane Center was linked, however. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ok, should it be linked once or for all of the refs? I'll see what other info from Spanish sources I can find tonight. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ideally, all of them. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All of them are linked. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find anything that doesn't lead to repetition in the Spanish sources. Anything else that should be done? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well Written. --Kirk76 ^{1854 Atlantic} ^{Hurricane Season} 00:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just out of curiosity, how much support does an article need to be promoted? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It varies, and generally articles are left up for a number of days before being promoted, usually longer than two. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I thought that, as a project, we agreed tiny articles would go no further that A-class. This was in response to the flood of short Tropical Cyclone articles at FAC at the expense of the most important storms. Plasticup ^T/C 02:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, that was more of a brief IRC "agreement". There may have been some discussion at WT:WPTC, but now that it's here, I see no reason not to let it run its course. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit about the previous uses of the name. I think that's the last thing needed for this article to pass. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Just some small issues with regards to the images:

Image concerns resolved. Awadewit (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Image:Kiko 20 oct 2007 1800Z.jpg - Is there any way to link directly to the source image here? I wasn't totally sure how to find the image when I got to the source.~~

~~Image:Kiko 2007 track.png - Can we link directly to the data for this storm at the NHC or not? Also, we need to list all of the authors on the image description page.~~

~~Image:Kiko 2007 track map.gif - I didn't see this image at the source link. Is it in the graphics archive? If so, we should link to that more specifically.~~

These should be easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first and third ones have been fixed, but I can't do anything with the second one because the image has been locked. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could an administrator edit it? Why has it been locked? Awadewit (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't appear to be locked. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I tried to edit it on Commons, I received a little message saying I could only view the source code, not change it. Awadewit (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird; it seems normal to me on Commons, even while logged out. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I still can't edit Image:Kiko 2007 track.png. Anyone else? Awadewit (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why, but I was getting the same problem when logged out. Maybe it was semi-ed, and the log doesn't show it? In any case, I added Ajm81's name to the template there, which should solve the problem. The link would be [65], but that one is accessible from the clearinghouse page that the template already links to. The clearinghouse link seems to be hard-coded inside the template... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, didn't know it was that complicated. Thanks for fixing it :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, seems the template could be improved! Awadewit (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems a little perverse to talk about future use of the name before past uses? --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd never previously heard of the name "Kiko" and our article (Kiko (name)) has an unreferenced pair of explanations. Any chance it could be explained? --Dweller (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a small explanation of the name with a reference in that article, I'll ad the meaning of the name to the storm article now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ per 1c. The article claims that the name Kiko is of Japanese origin, but there is no source that supports this (other than to a baby name website). The name can also be of Filipino origin, so the sentence appears to be speculation. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there another source that states it as such? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More sources that support the Japanese origin. [66] [67]. I think this is the Japanese kanji for Kiko also: キコ Not sure If that should be included since I don't have a source for it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The script is katakana, not kanji. You also touched on another problem. Unless one reads the original kanji (and I doubt the WMO uses kanji), there is no way to determine the Japanese meaning or intent. And quite often the same name can be either male or female depending on the kanji used. It is pure speculation on what the WMO intended in choosing the name (unless you can find a WMO source that specifically says the name is of Japanese female origin). Just drop the speculation. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. BTW, I didn't speculate the usage of the name, I just put what was in the source. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, giving information about the origin of the name is a bit excessive in the first place. The article is about the tropical cyclone of 2007, not the name "Kiko". –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it should be removed? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Kiko is actually a name in several languages and isn't necessarily female. Kaldari (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll remove it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - it doesn't seem the article was looked closely enough, so I have a few nit-picks.

- Quick question. What does the Port of Captaincy redlink mean?
  - It's a port, I really don't get what's been so confusing about this. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The confusing part is that Google only has 2 hits for the term, each to this article. Surely there would be more than that if it were an actual port. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh...no wonder...It was a mistranslation. It really should say "captain of the port" I'll fix it soon, class time Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yea, I realized that when I first checked the source. That is my primary concern for the article, that not enough time and care has been put into it. It doesn't seem like an outstanding amount of work was put into the article. Don't get me wrong, it is a good article, but I don't support it becoming a featured article with all of these problems this late in the game. For an article to be featured, I like to think of it as being good enough for people to get their proverbial money's worth if they look at it. IMO, that is the crucial difference between GA and FA. Is this the best the article can be? I doubt it. As Juliancolton suggested above and as I still believe, I think there is more information out there. Surely some other resource available mentions some more of the effects on land. Mexico is very mountainous, and in most storms I've researched, heavy rainfall in Mexico usually leads to mudslides, damaged houses, flooding, or some other form of impact, yet the article doesn't mention any of the sort. Then there are the fishing deaths, which is conspicuously missing any more information... anywhere. I find it odd the NHC didn't mention it in the TCR, and apparently there are no other sources mentioning up to 24 people dying in a single capsized ship. In 2000, when Hurricane Carlotta caused 18 deaths from a capsized ship, it was well-publicized. I dunno. SandyGeorgia, if you consider this inactionable, I respect your decision, but as it stands I can't support this becoming a featured article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Has anyone asked Titoxd to search for Spanish-language sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Dang it, you're not supposed to tell them that... :P Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the first paragraph, you say the "wave quickly developed, spawning Tropical Storm Melissa", but then the next sentence says part of the wave continued westward away from the developing depression. I see two things wrong with that. First, you say TS Melissa, and then you say the developing depression. Second, you say the wave quickly developed. Personally, I hate that wording. Tropical waves are troughs of low pressure - they don't develop into tropical cyclones, instead they spawn tropical cyclones. Some people might not know the difference, and it doesn't help that tropical wave wasn't explained. Likewise, you don't explain or even link "strong upper-level winds", which I presume means wind shear. An FA should not have any guesswork.
- Is there any information in the tropical weather outlooks about the precursor history to the storm? I see no links, and usually the TWO's provide some good info. It doesn't help that most of the first paragraph was a re-written version of the tropical cyclone report.
  - The TCR provides the important information, and while the TWOs provide little bits of detail, the met. history should be kept as concise as possible. Thus, I don't think this is really a problem. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree entirely. If there's relevant, important information found in the TWO that's not in the TCR (which is usually the case), then it should be used. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You link Acapulco, Mexico, but that is a redirect. You should check whether it is proper to do Acapulco, Mexico, or Acapulco, Guerrero, or even just Acapulco. You might want to ask around, but is the link even needed?
  - Fixed link. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You say where/when the precursor low became better organized, but you don't do the same for when it actually became a tropical cyclone. Why is that?
  - I had it like that because the location at which it was declared a depression wasn't included in the TCR. I removed that and added where it became a TD. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the first sentence of the second paragraph, there is no context for "for the next 30 hours". Try re-writing, so that if someone (like me) started from the second paragraph, there'd be no confusion.
  - I replaced "it" with Fifteen-E, just seeing if that works, if not I'll re-write. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For locations, you should use "about" or "around" XX miles, since the current wording would imply it was exactly 275 miles on the dot.
  - Fixed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly caused Kiko to take its unusual east-southeast track?
- Try not to use the word "Kiko" so much, or at least realize how often you use it. It got annoying to read it once per sentence in the third paragraph
- It seems rather sudden the storm going from peak intensity to TD status. Was it really that sudden, or did the convection gradually diminish?
- The last four sentences of the met. history seem to drag on a bit. Is there any way you can make it more concise?
- Link TS warning. BTW, was a TS watch issued prior to the TS warning? If so, that needs to be mentioned.
  - Linked. The watch and warning were issued at the same time. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Starting a paragraph with "however" isn't a great idea. Try again in the second paragraph of impact.
- Any rainfall totals? You just say heavy rainfall affected Mexico for two days. You don't even use the official post-season report by the Mexican equivalence of the NWS [68] - was there not anything useful there?
  - Not that I could see, nothing on rainfall in that report. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With 15 people killed and possibly 9 more, surely there would be more information on the boat capsizing, especially beyond two news links while the storm was active.
  - The boat that capsized contained illegal immigrants, so it wasn't a big thing, despite being deadly, but I'll check again. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - 15 deaths is a pretty big thing, but yea, I would imagine there would be more information written after the storm on it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Couldn't find anything else, looked in both english and spanish sources.Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to bring back the naming stuff, but I don't get what this means - "The name Kiko was submitted by the World Meteorological Organization in 1979 after the list of names was changed to include male names, despite this name being female." Source for Kiko being female?
  - It was the same source that I had for the meaning of the name. Although, I'm not sure about this, but the use may be for a male name since the WHO alternates male/female in the list, might just be mixing that up with the start of the list. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem is that the source you linked it to says nothing about whether Kiko was male or female. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Removed the gender part but kept the rest of the sentence. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any shelters opened in Mexico?
  - Yes, found a source and added it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For an article about to be labeled as our best work, I feel a lot has to be done. There are too many writing/comprehensiveness concerns. Sorry. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice I am withdrawing this nomination to allow for more productive edits and to reduce the amount of errors that could be made while trying to correct the points noted (see above). Thanks :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will archive this the next time I go through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was withdrawn by Giano 15:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC) [69].[reply]

Winter Palace

Nominator(s): Giano (talk)

It's a while since I wrote an FA, and this is a long page so it may well fail. It's hard to keep the momentum of interest going in long pages. The reason it's a long page is that it's a big subject, and I have already carved 17 other pages off it, so I don't want to shorten it any more. The idea is that in 1917 it ceased to be the Winter Palace and became the Hermitage (another huge subject) so I terminated the page at that date in order to let the Hermitage take over. This page took ages to write and I had a lot of help and advice. I'd like it to be an FA to give all the pages on Russian history and architectural pages some publicity (there are 1000s of them languishing) in order to get them expanded. Anyway, here it is what do you think? (The clicky map is quite good). Giano (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn the nimination Giano (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support--very detail,although it's not many "blue words"--JackyCheung (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per boring nomination. Please rewrite, add name-check to Britney Spears. Also consider more cowbell. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Overall, it is almost great, but...

Style

I don't particularly like what is called "peacock terms" in Wikipedia, and they abound in the article (most splendid and so on). Let's readers decide what is splendid. Furthermore, language such as It seems that Peter soon tired of the first palace is particularly inappropriate. How do we know? it was said only cabbages and turnips would grow there, pretended to enjoy life in the new city, It was against such a backdrop of magnificence and extravagance that... and the crowned Russian eagle serves as a reminder of the palace's Imperial history also don't strike me as an example of good encyclopedic style. The article often strays off topic. In particular, I don't see how the short excursion to Versailles in the second paragraph of the second section can be justified. And I feel that the article gives too much weight to the life of the Romanovs outside the palace rather than to the palace itself.

Referencing

Many statements that are not common knowledge and can be quite unexpected to a casual reader are not referenced. And the sources are not particularly good by themselves. They are often just tangentially relevant popular writing. By the way, I cannot find a scholarly review of Cowles (1971), Budberg (1969), Kurth (1995), which are extensively used as sources.

Inaccuracies

who designed the Imperial Academy of Arts across the Neva River from the Winter Palace – It is located across the Neva and a couple of kilometers down the river. It is not anywhere near the Winter Palace, so it is sort of stupid to describe its position in such a way. Yury Velten to build a second and larger extension to the palace, which became known as the New Hermitage -- Velten designed the Old (a.k.a. Large) Hermitage. The New Hermitage was built in the middle of the 19th century, almost a century later.

Storming of the Winter Palace

With the palace completely surrounded and sealed, the Aurora began her bombardment of the great Neva façade as the Government refused an ultimatum to surrender – It seems to me that it is not sufficiently clear from this that the Aurora's shot was most likely blank. And I am sorry to repeat it here, but as long as there is no single account of the alleged storming of the Winter Palace, it is totally wrong to pick up a single version if the events and try to present it as if there were no other accounts. The sourcing of the controversial section "The Seat of the Provisional Government (1917)" is also particularly poor (two sources only – this and this), although scholarly accounts of those particular events abound. In the ensuing battle... – it is hotly disputed whether there was any battle at all. Leaving a trail of destruction and the like is an unnecessary level of detail as long as we don't even know for sure much more general things. Colchicum (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't read the article, but I see that the refs/citations need quite a bit of work in order to be consistently formatted: "Maylunas, p.226." vs "Maylunas, p 227", "hermitage Site. Catherine II." vs "Hermitage Site. Catherine II.", "State Hermitage Museum" vs. "The State hermitage Museum" AND "The State Hermitage Museum.", etc. This is very confusing. I also see quite a few duplicated cites that can be fixed with <ref name="">. The References section is a mishmash of formatting styles, and shouldn't cites from online sources refer to the author in addition to the article/page's title (in quotation marks)? María (habla conmigo) 14:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:02, 17 November 2008 [70].

Ron Paul

Nominator(s): User:manchurian candidate

previous FAC (24 January 2008)

need to get this article FA class.As the elections are over i see no bias.The reason why i call for FA class is that the congressman is totally different than the rest of the senators,congressman.His credentials are undebatable bizarrely clean for a politician but the most important reason why i nominate this article as FA class is his economic warning which are coming true.this article is also very well written and has lots of citations and is factually correct. manchurian candidate 16:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

:The article is well-written with an exceptionally well-done layout. It is also extremely well reasearched and and supported by vast and credible sources. Well deserving of FA class.--JayJasper (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article is definably FA material. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 04:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nominator meant to nominate this to be a feature article candidate or to start a peer review. Ron Paul is currently not a FA. There have been two FACs (1, 2) but the article did not pass either time. Eóin (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from FAR to FAC. DrKiernan (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The section on the 2008 presidential campaign is too long, especially considering that there is a daughter article giving details. This section should be reduced in length, updated, and copy-edited for verb tense.
Please check for dead links (by clicking on "external links" in the box above) and either cull or correct them. DrKiernan (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm not sure how serious this is – the nom has made few if any edits to the article. But the 2008 presidential campaign section has a maintenance flag on it, and deservedly so. It still contains language that was written during the campaign, such as "Though projections of 2008 Republican delegate counts have varied widely" – we don't need projections anymore, we know what happened! Or "The congressman had reportedly invited presidential candidates ... to the press conference, leading some to speculate ..." We don't need to speculate, again just describe what happened. On a larger level, the entire article still carries the pro-Paul skewing that it's had since day one. Just look at the lead: "While Paul was a leading 2008 presidential candidate in some Republican straw polls, he saw substantially less support in landline opinion polls and in the actual primaries." This formulation dates back to 2007, when Paul supporters were convinced there was much more support for him than polls were showing. Well, we know what happened now. We know how many votes he got in each of the primaries and caucuses. And when you're running for president, that's what counts. Straw polls are unscientific and irrelevant, certainly for the lead; and the absence of polling of cellphone-only voters (another obsession of Paul supporters) didn't make a big difference either, and thus also doesn't belong in the lead. Per this source, during the course of the primary season, Paul got 1,210,022 votes for 5.7% of the Republican popular vote total. That's what the article needs to state. Also how many delegates he won, and what percentage it was of that total. The article needs to make clear that Paul was never in the top tier of Republican candidates and never a serious contender for the nomination, although he did end up getting more votes than one-time top-tier candidates Thompson and Giuliani, both of whom performed badly in the primaries. The article needs to include the total amount of money that he raised for his campaign, which was large; if that figure is in here, I can't see it for all the minor details. I read at the time that for all the money that was raised, some of his supporters were disappointed that the electoral results weren't better, especially in libertarian-sympathetic states like New Hampshire; that perspective needs to be included in this article. There are other parts of the article that are too slanted towards Paul as well, but the 2008 presidential campaign material is the worst offender. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs. I reiterate Wasted Time R's comments above. I am also concerned at the level of sourcing in this article.

Nothing should be sourced to Youtube.
There are several dead links in the references
Not all of the references are formatted consistently
I'm concerned that much of the description of his policy positions are taken from primary sources (the Congressional Record, Paul's websites). There are sure to be discussed in independent, reliable sources (like newspapers/magazines), which are preferable to primary sources (at the very least try The Facts (www.thefacts.com), the Lake Jackson paper)
What makes http://voteview.com/default.htm a reliable source?
What makes Ballot Access News a reliable source?
This source is a blog http://reason.com/blog/show/124339.html; blogs are generally not reliable sources
What makes http://www.lewrockwell.com/ a reliable source?
~~About.com is not a reliable source~~
~~What makes http://www.wargs.com/political/paul.html a reliable source?~~

Karanacs (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with Reitwiesner (wargs.com) because he published the book on the American ancestors of Diana, Princess of Wales [71]. I think he's an acceptable source for genealogical information, such as here. DrKiernan (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on the dead links and consistency of the refs. Lew Rockwell was Ron Paul's congressional chief of staff, so it seems as if he would be a pretty reliable source. I'm not sure about the other ones, I can work on them over the course of the next few days. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About.com removed. "Vote view" is operated by a Professor of Political Science: http://voteview.com/bio.htm DrKiernan (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per Wasted Time R and Karanacs. My earlier remarks in favor of the nomination are now withdrawn. The above comments have convinced me there is considerable work to be done before the article can be given serious consideration of FA Status.--JayJasper (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Image concerns resolved. Awadewit (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Image:Randpaul.jpg - This image does not have an author or source. Awadewit (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

It is User:Allison Stillwell. DrKiernan (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I searched Allison Stillwells Flickr account and found the photo. It looks as if she is the author of the photo. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we accept that license - it has a "no-derivative works" clause. Did she upload it to wiki with the PD release? Awadewit (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an account named "Allison Stillwell" uploaded it to Wikipedia and selected {{PD-self}}, so yes. --Carnildo (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

What makes the following reliable sources:
- http://www.wargs.com/political/paul.html. Note that it's using as a reference a rootsweb family posting here: http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=AHN&db=herge&id=I107. It's a self-published website, and says "The following material on the immediate ancestry of Ron Paul should not be considered either exhaustive or definitive, but rather as a first draft." there at the top of the page.
What makes the following reliable sources?
- http://www.crossandcrescent.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-presidential-bid/
- http://www.usagold.com/
- YouTube vidoes are not generally considered reliable.
- http://www.libertydollar.org/news-stories/pdfs/1185851080.pdf
- http://mises.org/story/145
- http://www.lewrockwell.com
- http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822
- http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php
- http://www.worldnetdaily.com
- http://www.theadvocates.org/liberator/vol-09-num-10.htm
- http://www.techpresident.com/youtube/old
- http://www.ballot-access.org/
- http://www.reason.com/convention2008/show/128638.html
- http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2008/09/ron-paul-to-make-major-announcement.html
- http://voteview.com/Is_John_Kerry_A_Liberal.htm
- http://www.atr.org/content/html/2007/april/042407pr-ronpaul_pledge.html
- http://web.archive.org/web/20070705203920/http://www.antiwarpresident.com/ronpaul/Ron-Paul-less-government-abolish-IRS.html
- http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=916
- http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Education.htm
Current ref 31 (Berlau..) is lacking a publisher
Current ref 62 (Miller...) is lacking a publisher. This is a book, correct? It should be formatted as such. I'm assuming that the whole book has been consulted, rather than just googlebooks snippets?
The two Allan refs (66 and 67) are lacking last access dates
Make sure your newspapers are in italics
Current ref 84 (Paul, ron...) is lacking a publisher
http://www.educationalpolicy.org/newsletter/EEMar99.htm deadlinks
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/ronpaulreigns.html deadlinks
http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/mar04_135_race4.htm deadlinks
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/memberprofile.php?cid=N00005906&Cycle=2006&CollapseAll=TRUE deadlinks
http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/ron-pauls.html deadlinks
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5488507.html deadlinks
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gj4x1Ijw4MDlWEadWey5y9c0GlhgD933TVRG7 deadlinks
Current ref 141 (Ballot access news) is lacking a publisher and last access date
Current ref 145 (Reason online) is lacking a publisher, and a last access date. Author should be listed first also.
Current ref 148 (Gamboa..) has a bare link inthe url, it should have a formatted title
Current ref 149 (The situation room...) author should be listed first, link title shouldn't be a bare link, should be formatted with a title, and should conform to the rest of your references
Current ref 168 (ron Paul's ...) is lacking a publisher and last access date
Overall, there is a heavy reliance on statements from various Ron Paul sites. These should probably be carefully evaluated because they are primary sources.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{FAC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:02, 17 November 2008 [72].

New York State Route 73

Nominator(s): Mitch32^(UP)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because the article is ready, and in terms of articles for Essex County, New York, this is one of the more stable ones. (If you want an idea where this is going: Look at New York State Route 22, New York State Route 28N, and New York State Route 373). Again, I'm open to comments, and that we (US Roads) wish to listen to comments, and discuss our feelings on them. Anyway, this article, after a debate on IRC, has been solved and should be ready for Featured Article.Mitch32^(UP) 01:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is from the lead alone.

New York State Route 73 (also referred by the New York State Department of Transportation as NY 73) - "Also referred by" → "also referred to by".

Done' - Mitch32^(UP) 15:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It heads through some of the mountains in the Adirondack Region, crossing the bases of some of the tallest mountains in the state, including Porter and Lower Wolfjaw Mountains. - First, remove "some" in both uses. Second, "heads" is a very poor word to use. Third, the part about some of the highest mountains in New York is vague. A mountain is either the tallest in the state, or not the tallest in the state.

Done' - Mitch32^(UP) 15:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original highways in the area were in poor condition in the area which eventually became known as Keene, New York. - "In the area were ... in the area."

Done' - Mitch32^(UP) 15:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these highways highways were mainly unbalanced and in some areas close to impassible. - Doubled word.

Done' - Mitch32^(UP) 15:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually, people settled in the area, helping the area grow into Keene. - "Eventually" is a vague word, yet it's used three times in this paragraph of the lead. Also, something about "helping the area grow" reads poorly.

Done' - Mitch32^(UP) 15:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keene eventually opened a privately-maintained road to AuSable Lake, helping generate funds for the growing area in the Adirondack Park. - "AuSable" is, to my knowledge and according to a related article, correctly spelled as either "Ausable" or "Au Sabel".

Done' - Mitch32^(UP) 15:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The area continued to prosper over time, until the state-wide takeover of roads in 1909. - Not sure what it is, but this sentence seems to stop before it's finished.

Done' - Mitch32^(UP) 15:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The route that paralleled to the north after Schroon was known as New York State Route 86A, with the rest designated as New York State Route 427. - Not sure exactly what this is trying to say. Also, remove the bolding, as it's not part of the article title.

~~Good luck, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

All comments are resolved.Mitch32^(UP) 15:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments
The highway heads towards the southwest, passing local homes as Sentinel Road. - I'm using this sentence as an example for a couple things. First, I still would like to see "heads" replaced with a better word throughout the article. Also, nearly every mile on the highway is bound to contain at least a few homes, so there's really no need to mention them. If you do decide to keep it, I have a question. Is a local home any different than a regular home?
The surroundings of the highway remain the same as they leave Lake Placid via Cascade Road. - Eh, not really comfortable saying that the land moves.
There, Essex County Route 35 merges in from the northwest, providing a bypass around the village of Lake Placid to NY 86. - Remove "in".
Cascade Road makes several turns in direction, passing south of the Craig Wood Golf Course. - No need for "in direction".
Just after the golf course, Route 73 climbs in elevation again, this time up to 2,000 feet (610 m). - Remove "just", "again", and "this time up".
Route 73 begins to descend in elevation, while County Route 51 splits off and Route 73 soon heads into Keene. - Remove "soon".
Just after Norton Cemetery, Route 9N splits off to the east and Route 73 continues southward. - Remove "just".
Lower Wolfjaw Mountain, which averages the same height as Porter, is passed to the east by Route 73 and the Ausable River branch. - "Is passed to the east" is poorly worded.
There are a few more ponds and mountains before NY 73 merges into U.S. Route 9. - Change "merges in" to a more precise phrase. "Ends, "terminates", "comes to an end", would suffice.
The town of Keene was created from annexing parts of Jay and Elizabethtown on March 19, 1808. - "By" → "from".
A nearby highway was extended to Keene Center via Lewis and Jay, but the highway was hardly passable due to the structure of the highway. - Avoid using the same word three times in the same sentence.
However, exporting the items made by these industries were hard, because there was a lack of transportation in the area. - "Exporting were hard"?
The area continued to grow, and in 1882, when the Adirondack Park was created as a protected area in the state, a privately tolled and maintained road to lower AuSable Lake was constructed. - Again, fix the spelling of Ausable.
The new road helped the economy of what became known as Keene Valley. - If this road is what would eventually become NY 73, please clarify that.
By 1961, NY 73 was also extended eastward through Ticonderoga to the ferry dock on Lake Champlain, connecting to Vermont Route 74 (via the Fort Ticonderoga-Larrabees Point Ferry) and replacing NY 347. - Remove "also", and change the hyphen to an endash.
In the early 1970s, NY 73 was truncated to its current eastern terminus in Underwood, eliminating the lengthy overlap with US 9, while its former routing from Schroon to Lake Champlain was renumbered to NY 74. - "Lengthy" is POV.

These are just examples of things that I find particularly "wrong". The entire article needs significant work, and I suggest you find a copyeditor to help you along. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All comments, are yet, resolved.Mitch32^(UP) 16:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments — Alright, now that my specific concerns about prose have been addressed, I see a few instances of original research.
Lower Wolfjaw Mountain, which averages the same height as Porter, is visible from Route 73 and the Ausable River branch. - I highly doubt Goole Maps says that the mountain is visible; assuming that it is would be original research.
After the golf course, Route 73 climbs in elevation, up to 2,000 feet (610 m). - As far as I can tell, Google Maps doesn't show the route reaching 2,000 ft in elevation. If this is indeed the case, please remove this, and the other mention of elevation.
The riverbed region of Keene soon hosted the first community, and the town began to grow, with Keene Flats being a full-fledged community by 1840. - The source doesn't say anything about Keene being "full-fledged".
The new road, now part of NY 73, helped the economy of what became known as Keene Valley. - The source doesn't say the road helped the economy.

–Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, yet again.Mitch32^(UP) 16:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]

Oppose — Although all of my specific concerns have been addressed, the prose still needs substantial work. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Image:New York Route 73 map.png - This map needs to include the sources on which it was based.

All other images have descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm afraid I just lost a more detailed critique than this will be to service provider problems. The prose is still poor - I now see many of the things that hit me were the "fixes" to Julian's issues above - in several cases the cure is worse than the disease. "unbalanced soil"??? Or just "unstable"? Look at the 2nd New York in the article - what is that doing there? It'll be a long & winding road I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, what does "Anyway, this article, after a debate on IRC, has been solved and should be ready for Featured Article" mean? Johnbod (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a minor debate regarding the inclusion of traffic count data. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - sounded more sinister ;) Johnbod (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per 1b and 1c. The article has essentially three sections of prose. 1) The "Route description" section is simply a written description of what can be seen off of Google Maps. The information is not taken from a solid secondary source. 2) The "Keene's highways" section is just a history of the area, not of the road itself. 3) The "Designation" section appears to be a history of how the road numbering changed, but the "history" is not from a source describing the history. The "history" is created by cherry-picking old maps and seeing how the numbering changes. This is effectively original research. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a current discussion at WT:NOR about the classification of maps. I wouldn't base an oppose off of an opposition to the use of maps as a source yet. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The article seems to be pretty well written, but I'm concerned about the complete lack of references in the first section, especially the second paragraph of that section. Nearly every statement in that paragraph needs a ref, and there are none. That's not to say that the article isn't good; it is better than most road articles on Wikipedia. But it needs a good bit of work (and sourcing) before it will be FA status. Just my two cents. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- References in the lead are optional, per WP:LEAD. All of the information is already cited in the body of the article. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll strike my oppose. I can't go so far as to support though. The article just doesn't a whole lot of information and other more experienced editors have some legitimate concerns. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has the nominator made any effort to address the concerns raised? (Rhetorical question, but seriously, where are you?) –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, waiting on my hired copyeditor to actually copyedit the article.Mitch32^(UP) 20:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I compare this with other road articles that have been granted FA status (see U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Keyser's Ridge – Cumberland, Maryland)as a good example) and this article comes up very short of the mark. It needs a lot more work to become Featured. Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but this oppose is rather vague. What kind of work does it need? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it can be sourced, I would like to see more on the history of the road itself (as opposed to the history of the towns it runs through)... When was it hacked out of the wilderness?... I know that there is a landmark called "Stagecoach Rock" near Cascade Lake... which seems to indicate that the route might have used as a stage coach line at one point... if this can be verified, it would be a nice addition to mention it. What about including something on how the road was widended for the 1980 Winter Olympics... or the fact that the section from Keene to Lake Placid was all but closed while the Olympics occured... did that have any impact on local economy? In other words... to be featured, the article needs something that tells the reader why this road is special and different from the hundreds of other NY State roads.Blueboar (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{FAC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:02, 17 November 2008 [73].

Davenport, Iowa

Nominator(s): CTJF83Talk

I worked really hard to get the article to GA status, and then completed the Peer Review. I have worked hard to get it up to FA status and feel it is ready to be an FA. CTJF83Talk 23:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I can see that a lot of work has gone into this. I will try, a little later, to read it through more carefully. Meanwhile here are a few points:-

Davenport is mentioned rather too often in the lead, at least eleven times. Each of the three lead paragraphs start with "Davenport". A little careful rewriting should reduce this repetition and give the prose a livelier feel
~~Bix Beiderbecke and Rock Island are both linked twice in the lead.~~
The two sketch maps in the infobox need more explanation. I worked out that the right-hand one is of Iowa, with Scott County indicated in red, and the left-hand one is Scott County, with Davonport indicated in red. This should be made plainer.

Brianboulton (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Ok, you have a good point about the number of times "Davenport" is in the lead. I got it down to 5 (note that the 6th time is the name of George Davenport), from the original 12, I can reduce more, if necessary. I fixed the map caption and removed the two duplicate links you mentioned. CTJF83Talk 02:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

What makes the following reliable sources?
- ~~http://www.essentialiowa.com/Essentialiowa.html~~
The following deadlinked
I note that every source is an online source except for one history book. While there is nothing wrong with online sources, I point this out for other reviewers to consider.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - All of the dead links, besides the Figge have been fixed. I couldn't find anything about the Figge being flood proof in a Google search, or their newly remodeled website. I know it is flood proof, because of how high up it sits, but I'm sure I'll have to delete it, without an actual reference. The Essential Iowa link has been changed to a source from the Quad City Times. CTJF83Talk 02:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On my screen the first image in the history section collides with the infobox, causing a 3-4 line whitespace between the main page link and the actual start of the text in the section. I also notice that you have a lot of pictures aligned on the same side of the page. Please fix the issue I described (I tried to myself, but failed miserably) and try to put more life in the article by changing alignment of images. Usually an alternation model helps: left-right-left-right etc. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, also, there are a few too many images. It might be worth considering, say, the eight best, and then aligning them as suggested above. The infobox problem doesn't occur on my screen but I'll see if I can fix it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've realigned the Treaty House image to the left - does that solve the infobox clash problem? Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that did it. No other objections yet, but I won't support until I read it all. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I alternated the pictures, as you suggested, Brianboulton, ~~but I'm not sure if I agree (yet) of too many pictures.~~ I think a good amount of pictures add to the quality of the article. If other reviewers think there are too many, I'll remove some of the less notable ones. CTJF83Talk 07:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed, less than notable pictures, image:Iowa American Water Company in Davenport, Iowa.jpg and Image:Figge Art Museum.jpg. If necessary, I can part with another picture or two. CTJF83Talk 07:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - more of a historical perspective would be useful.
- What sorts of crimes took place in Davenport in 1836-2002? This need not be exhaustive, but maybe a few famous cases?
- Has manufacturing always been the city's biggest industry?
- Has the current form of city government always been used?
- When was the public school system established? Horace Mann visited Iowa as a consultant, so this might be interesting.
- When were the highways built (at least what decade)?
- When was the city electrified? What was medical care like years ago?
Books, rather than websites, may be required to answer many of these questions. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any progress on these? The Davenport Public Library may also be able to help you out: [74], [75]. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, I'm headed to the library today and tomorrow to finish up with your concerns. CTJF83Talk 18:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Great, thank you - I'll check back in; do let us know how it goes. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS#Images regarding placement of images within sections, not above them, but no left-aligned images under third-level headings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Ctjf83 is new to FAC and needs a little guidance on images. I have removed the forcing of image sizes after the lead. I have realigned some images to get them within their sections. There are no left-aligned images below third-level headings that I can see. There are still a few problems on placement, which would be helped if some of the overlong captions were shortened, but it is definitely looking better. Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, this is my first FAC, and I thank you very much for your assistance! CTJF83Talk 16:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments — Some comments from the Climate section:

The summers are marked by hot, humid days. - "Marked" isn't a very good word choice.

Winter has cold temperatures, and often high winds. - This is vague, as most locations can expected high winds at some point during the winter. What cause the winds?

The entire section is filled with rather short, choppy sentences, which leads me to believe the whole article might need to be smoothed out.

The wettest month is on average June, followed closely by May. - It's already noted in the beginning of the section that these statistics are on average, so remove that wording from this sentence.

While situated squarely in the path of Tornado Alley, Davenport is believed to be protected by a blessing from a mass mound.[19] The Mass Mound is a sort of an alter, to protect the city from tornadoes. - Why is "Mass Mound" capitalized in one use, but not the other?

The reason for no tornadoes may be due to the fact that the Mississippi River and Rock River come together close to the city. - "Come together" → "merge". Also, "the reason for no tornadoes" → "the lack of tornadoes".

Davenport was located on the longest stretch of the Mississippi river with rapids. At this point, the river also runs east to west. - This isn't really related to climate.

The last paragraph of the Climate section comprises mostly of info about that mound. One or two sentences about it would suffice.

I would really like to see the Climate section expanded with general information, rather than hard statistics. Have any tropical cyclones affected the region? What kinds of storms are most common? What are the primary effects from frontal boundaries? Does the city receive severe weather?

Are the little images in the averages box really needed? I know they're cute, but they're not really encyclopedic.

Overall, I can tell that quite a bit of work has gone into the article, but I shouldn't be able to find this many concerns from one short section. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is a decent article, and a great first attempt at writing an FAC. Overall, it seems comprehensive and the sections flow pretty well together. (caveat, I stopped reading at the Sports section.) I have two primary concerns. The first is sourcing - some sentences are not sourced when they should be, and the sources used may not be the best. Secondly, I would recommend a good copyedit. The writing is good, but not quite at the professional level of the FA criteria. I've listed below some examples of what ought to be fixed. Good luck, and I hope we see many more of your articles at FAC!

I think this sentence in the lead might need to be rewritten "The city was founded on May 14, 1836 by Antoine LeClaire and named after his friend Colonel George Davenport following the signing of a peace treaty ending the Black Hawk War." - it made me think that Col George Davenport must have had something to do with the peace treaty, and then when I read the body that wasn't the case
Prose issues
- Make sure the focus is always on the article topic. For example, the 2nd paragraph of hte lead starts out with "Palmer College of Chiropractic, which is the birthplace of chiropractic medicine and wellness technique and Saint Ambrose University are the two main universities in the city". This could easily be reworded to: "The city has two main universities, Saint Ambrose University and Palmer College of Chiropractic, which is the birthplace of chiropractic medicine and wellness technique." (The next sentence has a similar problem.)
- Watch for passive voice. Whenever possible, sentences should be in active voice - that usually reads better and flows better.
- Watch for comma usage. There are a lot of unnecessary commas in the article. There are also a few cases where commas are needed and not used. For example "Forcible sex abuse is the only crime with an increase of 17.4% to 142." - makes it sound like this is the only crime with an increase of 17.4% (meaning other crimes increased by different percentages).
This is an awkward sentence that doesn't make a lot of sense to me: "Colonel Davenport arrived in 1816 with the establishment of Fort Armstrong" - did he establish Fort Amstrong? Where is fort Armstrong? Why are we jumping back in time from 1830s to 1816 and then up to 1845 and back to 1837?
Why does the history section go into depth on Davenport's death? Is that really one of the most important facts about the history of the city? The article never actually says that he lived in the city.
"After three elections, Davenport finally officially won." - why did it take three elections? Had they "unofficially" won before?
were there any military companies recruited from Davenport in the Civil War? If so, that would be an interesting detail to add to the Civil War paragraph. Can you expand on the military headquarters or the camps at all?
" Palmer College of Chiropractic was also built in 1897" - why "also"? The sentence before was talking about 1895.
Can you put in a specific citation for the Census Bureau data on the size of the town (2nd sentence Geography section)? That is the kind of data that sneaky vandals like to change and that doesn't get noticed if there isn't a specific citation to check.
Can you put in a citation for "The Mississippi River runs from east to west along Davenport's banks, as opposed to the north to south direction the river flows the rest of the way."
I'm confused about the Mass mound stuff...could that be explained a bit better?
For the tornado part, I think I'd put the scientific information first, then explain what the city residents believe. (appropriate weight)
"The Hamburg neighborhood contains the most architecturally significant residents " - is this supposed to be "Residences"? What makes them architecturally significant?
There is a lot of duplicated linking. In general, terms should be linked once in the lead and once in the article body.
In the neighborhoods sectiopn, there is a lot of opinion that is essentially presented as fact. It would be best to clarify who thinks some of this - for example "contain some of the most expensive and elegant houses in Davenport"
There probably ought to be a citation for this "The north and west end neighborhoods also contained many working class Germans and was plotted in the 1850s with extensive development occurring in the 1870s"
"Vander Veer Park is a large park with large houses surrounding it" - this is not a great description, and makes me wonder why the park is even listed here. This paragraph likely needs to be reworked so that it contains a more elegant description.
These two sentences need citations "The houses were built between 1895 and 1915 and are Queen Anne and Tudor Revival style. Development of the Vander Veer Park was the first major beautification effort outside two small spaces in downtown"
In the first paragraph of demographics, the citation should likely be at the end of the paragraph, not at the beginning.
The second and third paragraphs of demographics also need citations, even if that means duplicating a cite in multiple paragraphs.
"Other notable local business include Whitey's Ice Cream, a popular ice cream store, Hungry Hobo, a sandwich shop, and Happy Joe's and Harris Pizza, both local pizza restaurants." - what makes them notable? "popular" also needs a citation.
"Several Davenport cultural and educational institutions figure prominently in the history of the United States, particularly west of the Mississippi river" - this paragraph then mentions 4 different institutions, but only explains how 2 of them "figure prominently in " US history
This needs a citation: "The first chiropractic school in the world,"
This needs a citation: "The annual Bix 7 road race, started in 1975, has often been run by over 20,000 people."
"the Wells Fargo Street Fest features live music, food, and vendors until 12 a.m" - this seems awfully detailed (do we really need to know how late it is open?)
(I stopped reading at sports - sorry, but I'm running out of wiki time this afternoon).
In your sources, newspaper names should be in italics.
I also have a few concerns about the sources. It seems that much of the article is sourced to primary sources - either the city websites or individual websites about a business or an area of the city. I do understand that in an article about a city, you have to have some primary sources. However, you should strive to have as much of the article as possible sourced to secondary sources - newspaper, books, magazines. For example, the article should cover festivals that newspapers think are important - by sourcing that section primarily to the festival websites, you are essentially doing original research and cherrypicking which ones you think are important.

Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have hopefully fixed all comma issues. Your other points are being worked on now. CTJF83Talk 20:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - All images have descriptions and licenses can be verified. Awadewit (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Some things from Sports and recreation:

Don't understand the second half of this sentence: "Bands for the Bix Fest play in the park each July, and celebrations for Red, White and Boom, the fourth of July events take place in the park." Perhaps put a comma after events?
~~Remove commas after Vander Veer Botanical Park and Duck Creek Pathway. Do the same for Riverfront Parkway. These two comments are indicative of the comma issues that Karanacs mentioned above.~~
~~Hyphens for "river related" and "three meal"?~~
- ~~I think you might have used en dashes instead. Hyphens would be better for these.~~ Giants2008 (17-14) 01:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That I did...they are hyphens now. CTJF83Talk 03:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Tense correction needed: "to an all day (another hyphen here?), three meal cruises up to Dubuque, Iowa.~~
~~From a brief glance at History: Spell out the state in Rock Island, IL (fourth paragraph of section).~~ Giants2008 (17-14) 22:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All your concerns are fixed. There are a lot of comma issues, I'll go back and look it over CTJF83Talk 19:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

~~You should use the convert template for the miles.~~
~~Check comma usage throughout:~~
- "In 1832, Sauk Indian tribe chief Keokuk, and United States Army General Winfield Scott signed a treaty to end the Black Hawk War." the second comma there acts almost like an opening parenthesis, and so a second comma should be used after "Winfield Scott"
- ~~"In 1837, shortly after Scott County was formed Davenport, and rival neighbor Rockingham" misplaced comma should be after "formed"~~
- ~~"The city with the most votes at the February 1838 election, would become the county seat." comma not necessary~~
~~The paragraph about the railroad bridge seems to have too many short, choppy sentences~~
~~What makes $100,000 "meager"? Comma not needed again~~

~~Overall it looks good, and is a nice, easy read. Just the punctuation needs looking at. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

I corrected all your concerns CTJF83Talk 19:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. Have the rest of Karanac's comments been addressed? Although I am close to supporting, I can't commit unless I know they've been taken care of. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a few inquires on her page, but I guess she is busy in real life. Hopefully she responds soon, before the FAC fails. :( CTJF83Talk 08:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the questions on my talk page until I saw this comment. I've responded on Ctjf83's talk page. The quick answer is - the sourcing needs a complete overhaul. There are too many primary sources and too many unreliable sources used. Karanacs (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

~~Capitalization question: "class A" in lead - should it be "Class A"?~~
I did an earlier review of the article here. Those issues/problems appear to be resolved.
~~I'd like to see a citation for the first sentence of the "Economy" section where it asserts that John Deere provides the "vast majority" of jobs. Particularly for the "vast" part of that assertion.~~
I've fixed a few minor errors in the article as well.
Overall, Support. Quite a good article - let's show it off. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Excellent article! I know Ctjf83 has worked really hard on this one and he's done a great job. --TheLeft orium 14:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{FAC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Please work on addressing Karanacs' concerns before resubmitting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 18:18, 15 November 2008 [76].

Ubuntu Eee

Nominator(s): Jon Blund (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article Jon Blund (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - If this was an RfA, I'd say NOTNOW. But, article needs a lot of work before FA is even considered. D.M.N. (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Perhaps this user neglected to read the featured article criteria? (Note: His username is the same as the developer's last name.) Awadewit (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this is a timewaster. 280 words, nominator has 0 edits on en-Wikpedia. There are better uses for FAC time.Brianboulton (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Procedural close. This article is nowhere close to being comprehensive or well-written. - 131.211.151.245 (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above anon comment is mine. I forgot to log in. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - It would appear nominator does not understand the high quality of featured articles. Ravmi, please read up on WP:FA?, WP:RS, and put some long, hard work into this article before nominating again. X clamation point 01:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Object stub. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The above users who commented are right. This article consists of a few stubby paragraphs. It's not even good enough for a Start-Class article... Lady★Galaxy 04:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Please read the criteria--JackyCheung (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 18:18, 15 November 2008 [77].

Augie March

Nominator(s): Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)}, Giggy

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. A recent peer review has been archived here. Also, a special pre-emptive thanks to Mr Giggy who has done a lot of the tedious legwork on this article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) Giggy (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

What makes the following reliable sources?
- ~~http://www.undercover.com.au/Default.aspx~~
  - Undercover is a well known Australian publisher of music-related content. It's used as a source by "undercover.com.au"+site:news.com.au news.com.au (news.com.au), smh.com.au (The Sydney Morning Herald) (who also ranked it fifth on their list of 15 most amazing music sites on the web), and theage.com.au (The Age). Andrew Tijs, author of the work cited, has written for other Australian music magazines such as Beat, Rave (reprint of article), as well as Undercover. Giggy (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Current ref 13 (Anthony williams) is lacking a publisher~~
- I removed it and the sentence it cited; it was a scan of an article but I couldn't determine the publisher. Giggy (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~http://www.imposemagazine.com/index.php/feature-augie-march-3282.html deadlinks (also what makes this a reliable source?)~~
- I fixed the link. Impose Magazine has been cited as a source by a few notable publications, such as Billboard and MTV. That's from Google News—I'm not sure where I can find places more likely to talk about an independent street magazine. (Any ideas, anyone?) Giggy (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

Media concerns met. Awadewit (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images check out, but the sound files should have a more specific reason for inclusion - "informative and educational purposes" is not sufficient. Explain why the specific clip is necessary to the article. Awadewit (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more specific details to the fair use rationales. Giggy (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AugieMarch-OneCrowdedHour-25s.ogg - I don't think "damn good" chorus is quite strong enough. This is just one person's view, after all. Are the other two clips sufficient? Awadewit (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit more to the description page. I lean towards keeping this particular sample as it's their biggest hit, the song that most people know them for, etc.. Giggy (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is much better reason for inclusion! I'm satisfied with that. Awadewit (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now This article just needs a bit of polishing. I suggest that the nominator find a copyeditor. I have identified a few problematic sentences below, but the entire article needs a little touching up from someone unfamiliar with it.

"positive reviews" - The reviews of this band are almost always described as "positive" in this article. Could we find some other words to use?

The event had a significant impact on the band and would play on the back of Richards' mind constantly as he wrote their next album. However, the resultant work was not brimming with despair - "play on the back of Richards' mind" is colloquial; "resultant work" is awkward; "brimming with despair" is cheesy
- I changed the first sentence to "The event had a significant impact on the band and had a substantial effect on Richards as he wrote their next album. However, the resulting work was not brimming with despair; Richards described it as optimistic and humorous." The 'brimming with despair' bit is proving a bit of a tough nut to crack though, although I agree with your point. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  - I've reworded it further [78]. Giggy (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tweaked a bit myself. Awadewit (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moo, You Bloody Choir would see the band move from solely critical acclaim to mainstream success - awkward; Aren't they moving from "critical acclaim to both mainstream success and critical acclaim?
- changed to "Moo, You Bloody Choir would see the band move from receiving only critical acclaim to achieving mainstream success as well." There are a few other ways this could only be put, like "MybC would see the band moving from receiving critical acclaim for albums that sold poorly, to achieving mainstream success as well as acclaim from music critics", but I feel that this might be a touch too un-professional. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Augie March's musical qualities were certified when they became the winner of the second annual Australian Music Prize for "the most outstanding and creative Australian album released in the past year". - awkward diction - "musical qualities were certified" - This is not the meatpacking industry. :)
- The Australian music industry could certainly be described as like the meatpacking industry sometimes! Nonetheless, I have tweaked this to "Augie March's musical abilities were confirmed when they became the winner..." Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Since the lyrics are supposed to be so poetic, could we quote some of them?~~
- Sure, but the problem I find with quoting lyrics is that things that sound profound when set to music look a bit daggy on paper. How about the chorus to "One Crowded Hour", probably their biggest hit in terms of units shifted:

And for one crowded hour, you were the only one in the room

And I sailed around all those bumps in the night to your beacon in the gloom

I thought I had found my golden September in the middle of that purple June

But one crowded hour would lead to my wreck and ruin

- Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that would probably be the best to use as an example; there's also an audio sample of it so they tie in together nicely. Giggy (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looks good to me. Awadewit (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Had a go at this: [79]. Thoughts? Giggy (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's pretty good, but I feel it drops a bit suddenly from the lyrics into the section on WMD. Perhaps a visual cue around the lyrics to break up the wall of text? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are we doing finding a copyeditor? Awadewit (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a particular person in mind (he is perhaps even more familiar with the band than I am), and I'm currently waiting on a response from him. He's not a Wikipedian, which basically makes him the ultimate outsider for our purposes (he is, however, a professional copyeditor on an Australian music website). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 18:18, 15 November 2008 [80].

Cloud Gate

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger, Torsodog

Nothing actionable remains from prior FACs. This may be the best article in the Millennium Park WP:GT.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Image:Cloud Gate (The Bean) from east'.jpg and Image:Cloud Gate (The Bean) from west'.jpg marked as free and nonfree? Giggy (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See previous FACs. The photos are derivative works meaning that there is more than one person's copyright to take into account. —Jeremy (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Cloud_gate_construction.jpg and Image:Tented_cloud_gate.jpg have permission for Wikipedia use only, which is not enough per the first paragraph of WP:NFC. See here. These will need non free fair use rationales if no permission is obtained. Giggy (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I obtained written consent from the author through email which I then forwarded to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org". Permission was obtained. --Torsodog^Talk 13:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)'[reply]
- I looked over the conversation at the commons, and quite honestly I don't know what you want me to do. If you could just lay out where I need to send the permission emails, I would gratefully send them. I am getting seriously burned out trying to get these new licenses at every new FAC and have very little expertise in the area to begin with. --Torsodog^Talk 13:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Essentially we need a permission that says it's not just for Wikipedia use for but free use in general (see WP:Requesting copyright permissions). You've sent it to the right place, it's just that the emails you've forwarded have not contained the information required. Sorry =\ Giggy (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is there some sort of license that I can apply to simply make them OK only for Wikipedia use? Or do I need to contact the author again? --Torsodog^Talk 14:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Information about images in content review processes can be found at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, there isn't; all of our free content licenses (W:ICT/FL) are for free use everywhere, not just on Wikipedia. If the image is not licensed for free use everywhere then it's, for our purposes, non free. (See also the Commons [Wikimedia free image repository] policy on this.) Giggy (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok. With all your help, I think I have finally gotten what is needed to publish these images freely on Wikipedia. I got written consent from the author that the images can be published here under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license, and I forwarded the conversation to permissions. Let me know if there is anything else I need to/can do to help this along! --Torsodog^Talk 13:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My comments are confined to prose and general issues, since I don't know enough about image rules to contribute to that aspect. At present my remarks don't extend much beyond the lead, but as time permits I will add more.

Lead image It's a bit off-putting to be immediately faced by an image with a caption that clearly violates WP:CAP#succinctness. My advice would be to increase the image size, and reduce the caption to the briefest description of the artefact. Let the text do the rest. I would also get rid of the faux "infobox", which gives nothing that isn't in the text immediately adjoining it, and merely gives readers an excuse not to read the article.
- The caption has be discussed before. The reason it is so long is to resolve non-free image problems, apparently. Personally I agree with you and have attempted to edit it in the past only to have it reverted because of the license problem. I disagree with you, however, on the infobox. It provides such a minimal amount of information about sculpture that it hardly discourages readers from reading the article. --Torsodog^Talk 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
- "between 2004 to 2006" is ugly - "to" should be "and"
  - done. --Torsodog^Talk 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "sometimes jointly referred to as" would read better as "sometimes referred to jointly as..."
  - O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The reason I removed it (as mentioned below) was because quite honestly no one refers to Cloud Gate as "Cloud Gate on the AT&T Plaza" except the official Millennium Park site. I hardly think it is notable enough to put in the lead, let alone BOLD the title, as if it is as notable as "Cloud Gate" or "The Bean". The only reason you added this in the first place was when there we we having trouble with the AT&T Plaza article. I really think the article would be much better off without the sentence. Also, can you comment on the "most popular" remarks in the lead? There have been numerous complaints about it not having a suitable citation. --Torsodog^Talk 17:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why boldface the (distinctly uncatchy) alternative name?
  - I removed this sentence altogether since it is essentially pointless. It is rarely referred to by this name and hardly deserves a mention in the lead, let alone a bolding of the name. --Torsodog^Talk 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - As an alternate name I have readded it with references from use by the City of Chicago, NASCAR and Air Canada.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you joking? Did you seriously just add ANOTHER bolded name? Neither of these names deserve bolding at all. Cloud Gate is the name of the sculpture. Period. Per the sculptor himself. The article is about Cloud Gate, not Cloud Gate AND the AT&T Plaza. These names should NOT be bolded. --Torsodog^Talk 06:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I am certainly willing to unbold if the community feels that is correct. The sentence belongs in the lead, IMO, but I am not sure about bolding. I added the alternate joint name based on the results of usage.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Considering the article is simply about the sculpture now and not the sculpture and the plaza, I don't think bolding these names is appropriate anymore. In regards to keeping them in the article, I would be more inclined to do so if I could find a citation for the fact that the obvious reason they are sometimes jointly named is because of the AT&T sponsorship. I haven't been able to find a reliable source that talks about it yet, however. --Torsodog^Talk 13:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The names are what they are. Causation is not so relevant, IMO. The point is that it is common for the two subjects to be jointly described. I await third party commentary on the bolding, but kind of see your point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Bolding is not an issue settled by community consensus, its a MOS matter. The reason for bolding the alternative name is so that it stands out, i.e. is emphasised. WP:MOSBOLD is clear that bolding is inappropriate for this purpose. Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "...one of the most popular sculptures in the United States". This assertion is not borne out in the text, which merely says that it is extremely popular. The claim that it is one of the "most popular in the US" should be specifically cited.
  - This has also been brought up before. It is a sentence included by Tony, so hopefully he can shed more light on this citation problem? --Torsodog^Talk 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The second "and" in the second sentence of paragraph 2 conjoins unrelated clauses.
  - fixed. --Torsodog^Talk 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The word "ongoing" in the final paragraph is redundant.
  - gone. --Torsodog^Talk 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article structure: I don't think the History section is adequately structured, with a long preamble and a single subsection. At the very least the preamble should become a subsection, headed (perhaps) "Background". You may wish to reallocate material between the subsections - some of the stuff in the preamble seems to relate to construction issues.

I will try and come back with more comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Brion's concern. Has any effort been made to address this? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About which concern, exactly? The one about the structure of the "History" section? If yes, then I haven't played with it yet. I can try to mess around with it tonight after work and see if I can resolve these issues. --Torsodog^Talk 18:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the one. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments Most of my concerns have been addressed, though I still see boldface in the lead. I find I am warming to the article, which engages my interest and is on the whole well presented. I do have some further concerns, however:-

Prose issues: Some of the prose is a bit overblown and non-encyclopaedic. For example, "Gehry reveled in making a bridge that flaunts its seams". While the mental image of Gehry noisily celebrating while "making" a bridge is intriguing, "reveled" seems highly POV; neither it, nor the other colourful word "flaunts" occurs in the source. Also, wasn't he designing rather than making?
- haha I agree. I changed the sentence to: "The two Gehry-designed structures, Jay Pritzker Pavilion and BP Pedestrian Bridge, display their seams prominently." I think this corrects the problems you had with the sentence. Let me know what you think. And I will address the next two more major problems later tonight when I have more time. Thanks again for your input! --Torsodog^Talk 17:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arty stuff A bit too much of this for the ordinary reader, I suspect, in the "Artistic themes" section. Sample sentence: "Kapoor creates a tension between masculine and feminine within his art by having concave points of focus that invite the entry of visitors and multiplies their image when they are positioned correctly". Eh? Sorry, I can't make any sense of this piece of art-crit. I think this section might generally benefit by the removal of some of the more obsure statements. And incidentally, knowing Tony's penchant for linking, why isn't omphalos linked?
- Because nobody knows what it is?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Controversy" There's a couple of quite dull paragraphs dealing with the municipality's policies for granting photographic rights, and for the hiring out of its parks for corporate events, which are described as controversies. These bits of municipal bureaucracy may annoy some people but they are hardly controversies, nor closely related to the subject of the sculpture, nor very interesting. I recommend dropping both paras.
- While you might find both paragraphs a bit boring, these events did happen and have had an impact on the sculpture. The photography portion especially. I trimmed the closure paragraph a bit and would be more open to cutting it completely, however, if people feel strongly about it. I do think that a small paragraph about a very popular public sculpture being closed to the public because of corporate events is worth mentioning though. --Torsodog^Talk 21:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm moving towards support, but I'd like some comments on the above. Brianboulton (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Further comment: I think, if you were interested in having my support, you'd have made more effort to answer my points of five days ago, even if you disagreed with my comments. It rather seems as though you've lost interest in your own article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't that I have lost interest. It is that a lot of comments came in at once, and I haven't had time to sit down and really address them yet. I will attempt to finish addressing your suggestions tonight. --Torsodog^Talk 21:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Needs a thorough copyedit throughout. Here's what I found in the lead, alone:
It is the centerpiece of the AT&T Plaza in Millennium Park within the Loop community area of Chicago, Illinois, and is located above Park Grill and adjacent to the Chase Promenade. - Why is Chicago not linked? Also, what does "above" mean? Is it literally higher in altitude than Park Grill?
- I linked Chicago. Not sure why that wasn't linked. Also, it is located on the "roof" of the Park Grill. I use quotes though because the roof is a plaza and is on the same plane as the adjacent land. It is a bit hard to explain fully without being excessive, especially for the lead. Would you rather that little bit be removed and then introduced and explained fully in the History section? --Torsodog^Talk 15:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, when I read that, I wasn't sure if "above" meant to the north of Park Grill, or on top of it. What about changing it to "located on top of Park Grill", or something similar? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, I see. I changed it to "oh top of". Hopefully that clears up any confusion. --Torsodog^Talk 17:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sculpture was constructed between 2004 and 2006, with a temporary unveiling in the summer of 2004. - "With" is a poor connecting word.
- Changed. --Torsodog^Talk 15:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cloud Gate is one of the most popular sculptures in the United States. - This isn't in the main article, so it needs to be cited. Seems very POV-ish to me.
- Any word on this, Tony? --Torsodog^Talk 15:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - For starters, the public radio audio reference (#36) describes it as Wildly popular and among the greatest sculptures in the world.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have reworded because "Cloud Gate" and popular does not result in many search results.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Visitors are encouraged to walk around and under Cloud Gate's arch, which is 12 feet (3.7 m) high. - "Visitors are encouraged" sounds like a travel guide.
- Changed to "able". --Torsodog^Talk 15:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sculpture was the result of a design competition. - What kind of competition? Another sentence in the lead to explain this would be great.
- The article says " Millennium Park officials and a group of art collectors, curators and architects reviewed sculpture proposals from 30 different artists". I imagine they submitted proposed designs and were judged. What else do you think is mandatory for inclusion in an FA quality article? I don't recall seeing extensive descriptions of such competitions in other FA commissioned art work articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once chosen, its implementation caused numerous technological concerns regarding its construction and assembly, as well as concerns regarding its upkeep and maintenance. - "Promoted" would be a better word choice than "caused".
- Changed. --Torsodog^Talk 15:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually, a feasible method was found, but the sculpture fell behind schedule and was unveiled in an incomplete form during the Millennium Park grand opening celebration before being concealed for completion. - Needs a comma or two.
- Broke into two sentences. Thanks for some ce help. If you are up for it, I would greatly appreciate any ce you would be willing to do on the rest of the article! --Torsodog^Talk 15:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, I'll try to help with some copyediting when I get a chance. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

–Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from the rest of the history section.
Instead, the piece was assembled on-site by MTH Industries. - Needs a source.
- Done. --Torsodog^Talk 03:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These supporting structural components were designed and constructed to make sure no specific point was overloaded and to avoid producing unwanted indentations on the exterior shell. - "Make sure" → "assure". Also, add a comma after "overloaded".
- Done. --Torsodog^Talk 03:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In June 2004, when construction of the shell began, a large tent was erected around the piece in order to shield it from public view. - Remove "in order".
- Done. --Torsodog^Talk 03:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Construction first began with the omphalos, where plates were attached to the supporting internal steel structure. - Remove "first".
- Done. --Torsodog^Talk 03:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sculpture was fully erected for the grand opening of Millennium Park on July 15, 2004, although it was unpolished and unfinished because its assembly had fallen behind schedule. - "Fully erected" → "completed".
- Actually, I specifically used the term erected instead of complete because the sculpture was not actually complete. It still needed to be polished fully. It was, however, completely erected, as in all of the pieces were in place. --Torsodog^Talk 03:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sculpture was finally completed on August 28, 2005, and dedicated on May 15, 2006. - Dedicated as what?
- Hmmm, I'm not actually sure...? But I changed it to "officially unveiled" as stated in the source. --Torsodog^Talk 03:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No public funds were involved, as all funding came from individual and corporate private donations. - "As" → "because".
- Done. --Torsodog^Talk 03:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cloud Gate is wiped down twice a day by hand and is cleaned twice a year with 40 U.S. gallons (33 imp gal/150 L) of liquid detergent. - You might want to add that only the lower 6 ft are cleaned everyday.
- Done. Thanks again! --Torsodog^Talk 03:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

–Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments
The sculpture contributed to Millennium Park being named among the 10 best architectural achievements of 2004 in Time. - Poorly worded.
- Reworded to "As one of Millennium Park's major attractions, Cloud Gate helped the park to be named one the ten best architectural achievements of 2004 by Time." Let me know what you think. --Torsodog^Talk 19:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sculpture is tremendously popular, - Already mentioned in the previous paragraph. No need to state its tremendous popularity more than once, or it sounds like an advert.
- Gone. --Torsodog^Talk 19:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On May 24, 2005, the policy was changed so that permits were only required for "large-scale" film, video and photography requiring ten-man crews and equipment. - Remove "that".
- Gone. --Torsodog^Talk 19:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Praise and controversy section could easily be named to Reception or Reaction or such.
- I agree. "Reception" is a better title. --Torsodog^Talk 19:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the here–the beyond - Space the endash.
- Done. --Torsodog^Talk 19:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is 27 feet (8.2 m) high and, as a part of the concave underside, it invites visitors to walk under and through its arch to the other side so that they view the entire structure. - The structure itself literally invites people to walk inside of it?
- "Invites" changed to "allows" --Torsodog^Talk 19:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I noticed is the lack of dimensions info in the article itself. For example, the infobox and the lead say it's 33 feet high, but the main article contains nothing of the sort.
The reflections from the sculpture distort the entire skyline of the city. - Could you reword this better? To me, it implies that the reflection literally distorts the city's skyline.
- For some reason I had problems rewriting this sentence, but I worked on it for a few minutes. I also messed with the sentence before it to make the entire thing flow a bit better, IMO. Take a look and let me know what you think. --Torsodog^Talk 20:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

–Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]

Oppose for now This article seems to be comprehensive, but I think that its prose and organization need to be improved.

I have changed the disputed caption to a quote from the sculptor that explains his intention. Hopefully this is better. However, I couldn't make the infobox accept a footnote. Does anyone know how to do this?

Prose, part 1 - The article needs a good copyeditor. There are odd diction choices and awkward phrases sprinkled throughout the article. Some careful work by an uninvolved copyeditor would easily bring the article up to snuff in this regard. Here are some examples (note, this is not an exhaustive list of the prose problems in the article):

The sculpture builds upon many of Kapoor's artistic themes, although many tourists simply view the sculpture and its unique reflective properties as a photo-taking opportunity. - The "although" doesn't make sense - why are these two ideas connected? Also, what themes? Include a brief description of the themes.

Although is chosen to describe the contrast between a point of view that the work is a sophisticated artwork with serious thematic concerns and the point of view that it is a tourist photo opportunity. There is a whole section in the article on artistic themes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once chosen, its implementation promoted numerous technological concerns regarding its construction and assembly, as well as concerns regarding its upkeep and maintenance. Various experts were consulted, some of whom believed the design could not be implemented. - "promoted" is incorrect; "implement" is repeated

rephrased. --Torsodog^Talk 22:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Performance Structures, Inc. (PSI) was chosen to fabricate the sculpture because of their ability to produce nearly invisible welds - "fabricate" has negative connotations, as in "made up"; I would suggest using a different word

"fabricate" is indeed the correct word. I linked it to fabrication (metal) to avoid confusion. --Torsodog^Talk 22:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These supporting structural components were designed and constructed to assure that no specific point was overloaded and to avoid producing unwanted indentations on the exterior shell. - "ensure" rather than "assure"

fixed. --Torsodog^Talk 22:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a result, the two large rings supporting the sculpture move independently of one another and the shell is allowed movement independent of the rings. - awkward phrasing

rephrased. --Torsodog^Talk 22:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has had tremendous drawing power, attracting locals, tourists and art aficionados alike. - "drawing power" is awkward

Why is "drawing power" awkward? It is a legitimate phrase used correctly. --Torsodog^Talk 02:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prose, part 2 - Like Brianboulton above, I am a bit worried about the overblown prose. Refining the claims made in these sentences will help explain just how popular the sculpture is:

Cloud Gate has become an icon of the city of Chicago - An icon? Really? When I think of icon, I think of the Empire State Building. I'm not sure Cloud Gate has reached that status.

I've re-structured a lot of this section. This sentence is changed. --Torsodog^Talk 02:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since its construction, Cloud Gate has become a tremendously popular piece of public art - What does "tremendously popular" mean? Can we quantify that in any way?

removed the word "tremendously" --Torsodog^Talk 02:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is one of the most photographed attractions in the city - By whom? Tourists? How do we know that?

Gone. --Torsodog^Talk 02:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSLINK#Overlinking and underlinking - Obvious words such as "architect" and "skyscraper" are linked. Some terms, such as "Chicago", are linked too many times. Please search the entire article and remove the overlinking from the article.

The artist often questions and plays with such dualities as solidity–emptiness or reality–reflection, which in turn allude to such paired opposites as flesh–spirit, the here – the beyond, east–west, sky–earth, etc. that create the conflict between internal and external, superficial and subterranean, and conscious and unconscious - Please explain more clearly how the sculpture does this. Also, never use "etc"! We are here to explain the meanings of the sculpture to the reader - we can't expect the reader to know them already! :)

The paragraph on the omphalos in the "Artistic themes" section seems ill-placed in comparison to the rest of the material. It details sculpture specifications and reception. I would move this material to other parts of the article.
- I split the paragraph in two and created a features section early in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Artistic themes" section could use a reorganization and a rewrite. I would suggest starting with the general information about Kapoor and then moving into the specifics about Cloud Gate. Also, the section repeats some ideas twice, for example, the notion of the disembodied viewer appears twice.
- I reorganized it. Not quite sure about the disembodied viewer part.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 06:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With some careful attention to the writing, this article can be dramatically improved. I look forward to supporting it at that time. Awadewit (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:Karanacs 18:35, 14 November 2008 [81].

Mark Speight

Nominator(s): User:How do you turn this on

Failed FAC about 3 weeks ago. Had a peer review, where I got some more advice. ~~Still no free picture, though I am waiting for one from the Speight Foundation.~~Now has a free picture. Thanks for your comments. – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Much improved article. Kudos to HDYTTO for sticking with it and getting it to such a high quality. Best of all, has avoided hagiography. --Dweller (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images I am assuming that a different image than Image:SeeitSawitBBC.jpg will be used for free use, or is this the same image that you are waiting on permission for? If so then you can remove the nonfree image. What's the status on the Speight Foundation? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the article. I'm now waiting for permissions-otrs to confirm. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it checks out so far... I have no idea how long it takes to verify permissions on OTRS, but just note here when it goes through and I can check it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know someone who has access that can verify this? – How do you turn this on (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have OTRS permissions access. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Can you see if you can find the image. My email should be quite obvious. – How do you turn this on (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um... it might help if you gave me the URL... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Mark_Speight.jpg – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, found the ticket and verified. Images check out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record. Giggy (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sources were good at the last FAC, and still look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Speight regularly toured with Speight of the Art, a series of art workshops he ran for children. He was involved in charity work; he became President of the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign's Young Pavement Artists Competition, originally a one-off year-long project that lasted eight years, and a spokesperson for ChildLine;[2][10] for Comic Relief in 2007, he hosted the Müller Big Art Project in Trafalgar Square." The second line here, is extremely long and has several comma splices and misused [;]-signs. Also the first sentence seems disjointed from the rest, if those workshops were charity, I would start with the first part of the second sentence, if not, I would put the info about the workshops in another paragraph. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better? – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still had too many commas trying to run too many subjects together in one sentences. How about my rewrite? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"He was a spokesperson for ChildLine; and for Comic Relief in 2007 and he hosted the Müller Big Art Project in Trafalgar Square." That doesn't make sense now. – How do you turn this on (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? He presented Comic Relief? With the way you worded it previously I had no idea that is what you meant. Still, I can't find which of your references backs that up. Which one is it? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any better? – How do you turn this on (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It took a while, but I think we finally got it right. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for prose. Examples:

Opening sentence is clumsy with its use of "among other programmes" - would it be better to cut that and just say "best known for presenting etc"?
"Growing up in Tettenhall, Wolverhampton, he left school at the age of 16 to become a cartoonist" - why the strange tense in the first half? "the age of" is redundant.
"He subsequently gained a degree" - "subsequently" is unnecessary, he obviously didn't do it beforehand. "gained a degree" sounds odd to me.
Last sentence of paragraphs uses "presenters" and "presented" next to each other - bit jarring.
Not prose, but is the pantomime notable enough to be in the lead (don't know enough about him to judge)?
"he was initially arrested" - "initially" is redundant
"from a stroke allegedly" - "allegedly" is a weasel word - who is alleging this?

Trebor (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed these points. ~~I couldn't think of a better way to reword the last sentence of the first paragraph though. It sounds fine to me though.~~ The allegedly was claimed by the family of Speight, if I recall that's what the reference says. If you have any other points, please bring them up. Thanks. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

support - Lovely prose. I'll tune it up as best I can, even further. — Ceran → (Talk) (email) 22:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I don't agree with Trebor on all points. Sometimes readability is more important than cutting as many words as possible. In particular: "In January 2008, Speight found the body of his fiancée in the bath of their London flat and he was arrested on suspicion of her murder. Ultimately he was not charged with any offence." These lines are disjointed and by removing the word 'initially' we have no idea when he was arrested or after how much investigation. On the other hand, is there another way to charge someone? I think we could possibly drop "with any offence", but I'm not sure about that. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion "In January 2008, Speight found the body of his fiancée in the bath of their London flat. Initially, he was arrested on suspicion of her murder, but ultimately he was not charged (with any offence)." - Mgm|^(talk) 22:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Sometimes readability is more important than cutting as many words as possible" - it's rare that cutting out redundant words will not improve readability. "with any offence" is debatable - if you don't put it in, you are explicitly saying only that he wasn't charged with murder (but he still may have been charged with something else), however it's probably still quite implicit. With use of "initially", what is the difference in meaning between the following sentences?

"Speight found the body of his fiancée in the bath of their London flat and was initially arrested on suspicion of her murder"
"Speight found the body of his fiancée in the bath of their London flat and was arrested on suspicion of her murder"

The use of "initially" doesn't give any further idea of when he was arrested or after how much investigation. "Initially" just means first (before something else) but the only thing that happened after was his not being charged, and that clearly couldn't have happened before. Unrelatedly, does anyone know if "Collins's" should be changed to "Collins'" (I'm not sure)? Trebor (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed that sentence, at least the "he" to "was", but as for the rest of the sentence I don't think it really matters whether initially is in there, but I'd prefer it not. — Ceran → (Talk) (email) 12:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's Collins's - this was discussed on the peer review. – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the new version better? – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellant work by HDYTTO. My only gripe is that "Speight" should probably be used less often. I think it should be replaced by "the presenter" or something along those lines. It may not be perfect, but it is certainly among our best work. Congrats ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 02:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Variation is a good thing, but "the presenter" is even more clunky. A few well-placed 'he's would work even better. - 131.211.151.245 (talk) 09:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - much improved from previous FAC. Cheers, RockManQ ^(talk) 01:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thought I'd already done this. The three red links should probably be removed though, I don't see much chance of them being notable enough for a page. Gran² 13:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Müller Big Art Project can probably expanded upon in the relevant Comic Relief article, but I don't see why the other two couldn't have a page. Whoever wrote it was clearly selective about the programs to link, so History Busters is probably viable. As for MacMillan House; I linked that. I doubt it would be explicitly named in the sources if it wasn't notable for something else. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well I suppose, but then perhaps, if they are notable, articles should be created for them. Gran² 17:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll consider creating blue links for them. I only linked to History Busters because it was an award-winning show, so should be notable enough. – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per previous FAC. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 20:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per 2b. Does not have "a system of hierarchical headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents". I'm gonna expand on the FAC Talk page. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I feel this article fails both criteria 1b for comprehensiveness and criteria 4 for lack of sufficient summary style. If the subject is actually well known for the show mentioned in the header, there should be far more information on his role in that show, but all we have is one small paragraph. The rest of his career is relegated to another short paragraph. Furthermore, there are no secondary sources (contemporary newspaper articles are primary sources) referenced in this article. As a result, there is not enough material to sustain a featured article, which I believe requires a great deal more engagement with the subject. As for criteria 4, when we come to his death, we have the exact opposite situation. A blow-by-blow account of his last day alive is excessive detail for an individual whose final moments do not actually appear to carry any signifigance in the world at large. If the career section cannot be expanded with relevent information and the last two sections are not combined and greatly shortened, then I do not see this as a worthy FA. Indrian (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 1b. The last five months of his life is the majority of the article. The rather small career section (where he was a public television figure), covers thirteen years of his life. And unfortunately, it is basically a list of what shows he appeared in. I also agree with Indrian that substantial secondary sources should be used. The sources of most of his life are from obituaries. There should be sources on the subject not just on the defining event. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs. Overall, I felt that the article did not give a very good idea of who Speight was or why he was important. There is not enough information about what he actually did in his career (I don't follow British TV at all, and what was in the article did not have enough context for me to figure out why he was important). There is also too much detail on later events in his life. I think the prose is okay - a little room for improvement, but it's satisfactory.

Every sentence of the second paragraph of the lead begins with "Speight" or "He". Perhaps this could be changed up a bit so it will flow a bit better?
There doesn't need to be a "Biography" heading since that is pretty much all that is in the article; just move the four subheadings up to the higher heading level.
Each sentence that has a quotation needs to have a citation at the end of the sentence, even if that means the same cite is used in subsequent sentences.
We need a bit more context in the career section. I've never heard of SMart, and since that was his first television role it would be good to explain more about what it is. (same with the other shows mentioned)
If there any information about why he chose not to become a cartoonist?
Which particular BAFTAs was the Scratchy and Co show nominated for? Did any of them reflect his involvement?
Did any critics speak of his work on television? We have no idea from the text whether he did a good job or a bad job or if no one really noticed him
The paragraph in career section that begins "Speight worked on numerous other shows" sounds like a list that has just been dragged into prose format. Also, the info about Collins seems tacked on; perhaps that should be its own paragraph
Was Collins a regular on See It Saw It or just guesting? What was her role?
"In 2004, Speight participated in Rolf Harris's Rolf on Art," - how did he participate? What did he do?
Same with the next sentence - what exactly did he do in 2005 in the Hans Holbein thing?
I think we need more information on what exactly Speight of the Art was. How much was he involved with the planning, etc? More details about what he actually did.
how did his "one-off year-long project .. end...up lasting eight years"?
Do we need all the details of Collins' death? That seems not to belong in this article. Perhaps stop after the second sentence of that paragraph.
"Speight missed an appointment with a counsellor, but this was because of confusion over dates" - whose confusion? And is this really an important fact for this article? Seems like trivia to me.
Where did the police officers talk to him?
Do we really need all the details about his funeral? That seems a bit trivia-y to me.

Karanacs (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Per 2a and 2b. Also, I agree with Ling.Nut's comments and the examples presented by Karanacs. This article should be entitled "Death of Mark Speight" as that seems the main focus of the article. What is a "presenter"? Is Speight important enough that we need to know so much about his death? In many articles on people, such a death would be dealt with in a few sentences.

Statements in the lead are not substantially elaborated upon in the article body. Example, in the lead: "Speight was also a presenter on See It Saw It, where he met his future fiancée Natasha Collins." The body of the article does not elaborate on his involvement with See It Saw It other than to say, "Speight also played the king on children's programme See It Saw It, where he met Natasha Collins."
The article has one main heading, "Biography". The subheadings are all equal heading 2s. I do not interpret this as "hierarchical" for the purposes of FAC.
Organization seems poor. Under "Early life, it is mentioned that "Jacqueline died on 5 September 2008, aged 62, from a stroke allegedly brought on by the stress of her son's death." Why is this sentence not down with the rest of the discussion of events surrounding his death? And "allegedly" is rather weaselly.
The girlfriend's death and Speight's subsequent suicide seem rather ordinary as crimes go. The article seems to be comprised mostly of mundane speculation by the press. We do not get a sense of Speight's personality. It is not clear what the reader is left with after a recitation of these events. Are we to think he killed himself because he was "distraught" or in addition, did he supply the girlfriend with the drugs and felt responsible for her death? Does it matter?

—Mattisse (Talk) 17:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I disagree with some of the comments on the talk page. FACs are on prose, not the table of contents. The clause was introduced not to take it literally, but to make sure balanced sectioning was adequately carried out. I'm going to evaluate on each of the featured article criteria:

1a: Negative: per Karnacs

1b: Neutral Strongly disagree that length (lack of it) is always a cause for oppose. The nominator has to justify that A> Additional reliable secondary sources are unavailable B> Primary sources are not available. Primary sources (such as personal details) can be considered reliable on biographies on topics such as early education, date of birth and so on depending on the context.

1c: Neutral: As the person worked with BBC, I would like to see more neutral sources.

1d: Passes though is related to 1c.

1e: Passes

2a: Passes

2b: Passes

2c: Passes

3 : Passes

4 : Passes

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing. This hasn't got a chance now that Ling.nut has posted links to this in prominent places, basically saying how rubbish it is. I think I'll focus my efforts elsewhere from now on. – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Karanacs (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:Karanacs 16:31, 12 November 2008 [82].

History of Pittsburgh

Nominator(s): Grsz11 (talk)

previous FAC (16:58, 22 May 2007)

I'm disappointed the two previous editors invoved with this article, User:Tomcool and User:PadreNuestro are no longer active, but I would like to nominate this article on their behalf. I do not feel there was enough discussion around the last nomination, and I believe the few issues raised were addressed since then. I will be available for editing as this process occurs. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 04:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -

What makes the following reliable sources?
- http://pghbridges.com/index.htm
- http://www.demographia.com/
http://www.wqed.org/erc/pghist/units/WPAhist/keyevents.html deadlinked
http://www.wqed.org/erc/pghist/units/WPAhist/wpa6.shtml deadlinked
Current ref 3 (Pitz, Marylynne...) is lacking a publisher
Current ref 4 (The Indian Wars...) is this a book? If so, should be in italics. Also if it's a book, it needs a page number. And if it was originally published in 1831, might there not be something a bit more .. recent available that will better reflect current scholarship on the issue?
Current ref 5 (Cook, Noble David...) is lacking a page number
Current ref 6 (Agnew, Daniel...) is this a book? If so.. title in italics, and again, surely we have something more current than 1894?
Current ref 7, i'm unclear why the external link is there. If this is a book, title in italics. Author should be listed first to conform with the rest of the references.
Current ref 8 (Course of study...) Title in italics, the publisher (Board of Education) isn't in italics.
Current ref 9 has a formatting issue.
Current ref 10 (Lorant, Stefan) needs page numbers. ISBN would be nice also.
Current ref 11 (Crumrine...) title should be in italics. Also, it's from 1882, surely there is something more recent?
Current ref 12 (Albert, George...) nees a page number.
Current ref 13 (Jackson, Donald...) needs more information in order to locate the information. Publisher and page numbers at the very least.
Current ref 14 (Standard History...) needs a publisher and surely there is something more recent than 1898?
Current ref 16 (Anderson, Fred..) needs a page number
Current ref 17 (Unwritten history..) title in italics, needs page number, surely something more recent than 1917 is available?
Current ref 18 (Encyclopedia Britanica 11th edition).. surely something more recent? And there are online versions of this that could be linked.
Current ref 19 (Keeping house..) author listed first, is this a book or a journal article? Needs page numbers.
Current ref 20 (The Story of Grant's Hill..) is this a book? Needs italics, and page number
Current ref 21 (Through 150 years...) title in italics, author first, page numbers. Also, publisher.
Current ref 22 (Monogahela...) I can't decipher this ref. What's the publisher (Wiley�? Or Richard Taylor? Or Ziegler Company?) What's the title? Is it a book? Needs page numbers
Current ref 24 (History of Allegheny..) who is the author and who is the publisher? Author goes before title. Title in italics, surely there is more recent scholarship than 1889?
Current ref 25 (Ballou's Pictoral) what's the name of the article? Journal title should be in italics.
Current ref 26 (Darby's Emigrant's Guide) ... need more information in order to verify this source per WP:V
Current ref 28 (A Century and a half...) who is the author and who is the publisher? Title in titalics, needs page number, surely something more recent than 1908?
Current ref 29 (History of the Allegheny Fire...) title in italics, page number, surely we have more recent information than 1894?
Current ref 31 (Otto Krebs..) need more inforamtion in order to verify this source per WP:V
Current ref 32 (History of Pittsburgh...) authors need to go first, title in italics, is this actually published?
Current ref 33 (Kenneth A Heineman...) author should be last name first, needs page numbers
Current ref 34 (Allegheny County's ..) who's the publisher? Who is the author? Author lists first, title in italics, needs page number, surely there is something more recent than 1888?
Current ref 35 (Westinghouse..) needs publisher
Current ref 36 (Harper's Weekly...) needs the title of the article, the journal title goes in italics, and surely we have a more current source than 1877?
Current ref 37 (The Gospel of Wealth...) Title in italics, author lists first, needs publisher and page numbers.
Current ref 40 (The 2002 Pittsburgh...) is this an acutally published study? If so, we need more information in order to locate it for verifiablity.
Current ref 43 (And the Wolf ...) title should be in italics, author listed first, needs page numbers
Current ref 47 links to a wikipedia article, which is not a reliable source.
Current ref 49, needs more information so that the source can be verified.
Per the MOS, curly quotes shouldn't be used.
I note unreferenced statements and paragraphs in the article (Fifth, sixth & eighth paragraphs of Gateway, sentences in Iron City, a number of sentences in Steel City, fourth and fifth paragraphs of Reniassance, scattered sentences throughout.)
I find the overreliance on older references enough to oppose, not to mention the disorganized nature of the references and the lack of referencing for a number of paragraphs. Pittsburgh's a big city, there is no need to rely on 19th century historical works for this article.

Otherwise, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ealdgyth. I think I've addressed most of the sourcing issues. As far as page numbers, there's really nothing I can do. If that's enough for it to fail, I guess that's that. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 17:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images meet criteria, although you might want to jigger the layout- it looks a bit right-aligned and cluttered. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, this is not the case. Please see list below. Awadewit (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
The images in this article are poorly laid out in the article, often smooshed together. I suggest that some of them be removed. See WP:MOS#Images for suggestions on image layout.

Image:Forts at Forks of Ohio.png - This image needs to list its source documents in more detail than just "19th-century histories". Also, we need to know who created this map so that we know who is releasing the copyright.

Removed.

Image:NativeTowns Pittsburgh.png - It would be best to list all of the sources that this map was based on and ~~to include a direct link to the background map.~~

~~Image:French Forts 1754.png - It would be best to include a direct link to the background map.~~

Image:French British Forts 1753 1758.png - It would be best to list all of the sources that this map was based on and ~~to include a direct link to the background map.~~

Image:Fort Pitt 1795 large.jpg - To claim "life of author plus 70 years", it is best to include at least a death date for the author. If you can't establish the death date of the author, it might be best to switch this to a "published before 1923" license.

Changed.

~~Image:Pittsburgh 1790.jpg - Neither of the source links works for this image.~~

Removed.

~~Image:Pittsburgh 1874 Otto Krebs.jpg - This image has no source.~~

Removed.

~~Image:Allegheny City.jpg - This image has no description, no source, and no author information that would allow us to verify the license claim.~~

Removed.

Image:Pittsburgh Fowler 1902.png - Can you show me where at the Palmer Museum this image or collection has been released under a CC license?

I believe I did what you asked, but I'm not positive. Let me know.

No - the new link says nothing about CC license on it. Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pittsburgh1920.jpg - The source link for this image does not take us directly to the image. The description is missing author and date information. There is no way to verify the license.

Fixed link.

Link is still broken - still cannot verify government license. Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might take some time to find this information, but I am confident that these image issues can be resolved. Awadewit (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if I fixed those problems correcty. I'm not sure about the drawn maps, it seems like a product that would had to have been purchased by the original uploader, is a link to nemis.nl sufficient? Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 15:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. If it has to be purchased, we cannot link to it. Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed those two to pre-1923 permissions. I'm not sure if it works for the Fowler image. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 04:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions/Comments Under external links, why are coordinates listed for history of Pittsburgh? Is the history a location too? Also, I have to note that the article doesn't discuss the etymology of the name Pittsburgh vs. Pittsburg. It seems to be an important part of the story. Also, I think the couple bulleted lists in the text look a little silly; I would recommend converting into prose. I should note, however, that it's great to see work put on this article. Great work done by all involved! --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple noms: I'm sorry that I missed this and that no other reviewer has mentioned it. You have two nominations running, both needing significant work still. Please see the instructions at WP:FAC regarding one nom at a time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm sorry about that. I suppose I withdraw this one then. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 20:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Well, now I don't have two. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 22:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs, primarily on sourcing and prose issues. Please note that the prose examples below are examples only - there are similar issues throughout the article. I only read in depth through the Early colonization section, so this list is not comprehensive.

I would link the river names in the first sentence of the article body (otherwise people who don't read the lead might be confused as to whether those are rivers or something else, since the word river is never mentioned)
Early in the article, I'm already seeing issues with awkward wording, especially where an idea is fragmented in multiple sentences when it would make more sense to present it in one.
- Example 1 - "Paleo-Indians conducted a hunter-gatherer lifestyle in the region perhaps as early as 19,000 years ago. Meadowcroft Rockshelter, an archaeological site west of Pittsburgh, provides evidence that these first Americans lived in the region from that date" Perhaps could be "Archealogical evidence suggests that Paleo-Indians inhabited the region as early as 19,000 years ago."
- Example 2 - "During the Adena culture that followed, Mound Builders erected a large Indian Mound at the future site of McKees Rocks, about three miles (5 km) from the head of the Ohio. The Indian Mound, a burial site, was augmented in later years by members of the Hopewell culture" could be "The subsequent Adena culture (1000 to 200 BC) were mound builders. One of their burial sites, now known as Indian Mound, is located at the current site of McKees Rocks, about .... This was also used by members of the Hopewell culture."
Watch for repetition in your phrasing: "migrated up" - just "migrated"
How could the tribes have been devastated by european diseases prior to the arrival of European explorers?
I don't understand why the last paragraph in the first section (in 1749, when Conrad Weiser...) is there. Chronologically, that belongs in the next section. Otherwise, we are being told what happened after Pittsburgh exists before we learn that the city was established.
Lots of "first..." in the first paragraph of Early colonization (4 in the first 3 sentences). Can this be reworded somewhow?
If traders started settlements in 1717, how could Europeans first begin to settle the region in 1748?
Per WP:MOSQUOTE, don't use callout quotes. Quotations of under 4 lines should also not be offset, but should be part of the paragraph
Is there any information about the "settlement between the rivers"? The section talked about the various forts, but not any settlements
I am disturbed at the sources that were chosen. There are a few books listed, but they are references a small number of times compared to the other sources. This makes me wonder whether only free pages from Google Books were used rather than actually consulting the whole book. Books, especially academic books, are considered Wikipedia's most reliable sources, and especially in a history article those should be the ones most often consulted. Otherwise, how do we know that the article is comprehensive and appropriately balancing. Choosing X article on Y topic and Z article on topic A could miss huge topic B just because it wasn't as easy to find. Also, many of the books that are consulted are very old - they may miss some information or interpret things differently than a more modern work would. The sources are also not formatted consistently.
Some of the sources used are also not appropriate
- heinzfamily.org is not a reliable source
- When at all possible, we should not rely on tertiary sources, like the Encyclopedia Britannica
- We need page numbers for the books that are listed; otherwise it is very difficult to verify
- FortPittmuseum.com should not be used unless this was written by a historian. Same with anything from the national park service that is discussing history rather than the parrk
- Is city-data.com a reliable source?

Karanacs (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nomination per reasons addressed. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 23:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{FAC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:58, 8 November 2008 [83].

Hurricane Hernan (2008)

Nominator(s): User:Cyclonebiskit

previous FAC (22:20, 18 October 2008)

I am re-nominating this article for Featured status because I believe it has met the recommendations given by reviewers in the previous FAC. There is one thing which would (I think) normally quick-fail an article, an edit war. There was a brief edit war earlier today in which I reverted six edits made by Yellow Evan. This little quarrel was quickly fixed and the article has been unprotected since it was a misunderstanding on both our parts (mainly mine). Both of our intents were the same, to re-nominate this article for FAC. Please understand that the small edit war was a once only thing, and has not happened on a regular basis with this article. Hopefully this explanation will prevent this article from quick-failing. All thoughts and comments are welcome :) thanks. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think someone needs to work at copyediting the article. I found three copyedit errors in just a quick glance at it, so I think that there might be wise to see if there's more, Metros (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I supported the failed FAC of this article, and the issues have been addressed. Hernan is definitely ready for FA now. (In fact, see this; I was planning on nominating this in the near future!) --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 22:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, criteria 1E. Sorry, but I can't support an article whose stability is significantly compromised by way of an edit war. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC) withdrawn oppose per discussion with SandyGeorgia –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can't support even though the edit war was basically just a misunderstanding? Regardless, any thoughts on the article? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I'm afraid that even if the edit war is considered a misunderstanding, it was still an edit war that forced a brief protection, which brings up the question about future stability. If there is definite evidence that such misunderstandings and ultimately edit wars will not occur in the future, I'll reconsider. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just found some information regarding Hernan's remnant moisture affecting Hawaii, so you might want to make sure my addition conforms to your writing style. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've already gone over how Yellow Evan and I should deal with this type of thing in the future, since he's still learning how to correctly edit articles, I've asked that he contact me before he makes an edit to this article, thus avoiding any unnecessary edits leading to an edit war. This is also my first incident with excessive reverts and hopefully my last. If Evan doesn't contact me before making an edit I'll contact him of such and see how to get around multiple reverts. This should prevent edit wars on our part. Also, he just wanted to get this article to FA, so I think when/if it passes, he'll be less intent on adding to the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That means hernan is not a fishspinner after all. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 01:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I think this article fails the FA criterion due to #4 - length, which is defined as "[staying] focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail." I personally think the meteorological history is far too long, as some of the sentences just provide needless details. I see several instances of redundancies - for example "Later in the morning, the center of Hernan was determined to be located underneath the eye and was determined to have become a hurricane, the fifth of the season, at 8 a.m. (PST) on August 8." The inclusion of the post-analysis data should be more seamlessly incorporated. I also have an issue with the inclusion of the Accumulated Cyclone Energy, particularly by citing the TCR which does not mention ACE once. The WPTC has more or less agreed not to have individual values for ACE (see WT:WPTC#Accumulated Cyclone Energy and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 14#Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE)); if you disagree with that, then maybe another discussion is in order, since the last two never got a great consensus. Little comment: the Infobox should reflect the storm affecting Hawaii (it currently reads "no land areas"). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, It is the same size as Hurricane Ioke. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 04:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ioke was a Category 5 hurricane, set numerous records, and lasted much longer than this storm. Plus, I thought you were on break ;) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm....The MH is basically the heart of this article, to shorten it, I would have to sandbox it for a few days to rewrite the entire thing because it is based off of the advisories. However, since I based it off the advisories, I did make changes where necessary per the TCR. For the ACE, there is a source for the operational ACE, an NCDC page which gives the basic statistics for the season including the ACE based public advisories. The only downside is that they do not update it when the Best Track data is released, thus forcing us to resort to minor OR. I'm not really sure what else to say about the length though, caught me off guard to say the least. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize such a major change would be needed. It is my own opinion, and it's up to you to decide whether or not to ignore it. However, I feel strongly that there are places of redundancies/too much detail. Imagine a laymen reading it - would they be able to read through the entire article, or would they stop with the massive amount of information? Regarding the ACE, you didn't answer my comment that the WPTC has agreed in general to not have the ACE at all. I'm not sure if I have a bigger problem with the minor OR by sourcing the TCR, or the fact it is there in the first place. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ioke has less info than Hernan and true I am on break I am just returning for a short while. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 04:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the ACE, I'm actually not sure myself. I did think it over for a bit, and I think that unless there is a reliable source which has the ACE from the best track, it should be removed per WPTC. I do see what you mean about the amount of information regarding this storm, but I had a big interest in tropical cyclones and it's hard for me to weed out information (it's hard for me in general, I can't highlight assignments for my life sadly). In an article of greater importance, a shorter MH is probably necessary, but this is a very minor storm in which most people who read it either just stumble across it, or have an interest in the storm. The amount of detail gives them a full history of the storm, leaving no gaps in wanting information since by definition a "Low-importance" article is usually created out of personal interest. Not quite sure if that sentence makes complete sense but I don't know how to word it otherwise. I'll try my best to pick out the highly unnecessary information to attempt to shorten it, but if it doesn't need to be rewritten to be acceptable I'd much rather not go through writing this article all over again, since last time it took way too much time, and now Quarterly exams are approaching and I have less time to devote to expanding/updating articles. I hope that clarifies things a bit better. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let the ACE issue slide for the moment, since it appears the project might agree to get rid of it in general. However, I stand by the article being too long. As far as I know, there is not another featured tropical cyclone article with as long of a meteorological history as this one. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I've read the article over and I agree with Hurricanehink; the meteorological history is exceedingly long. But if there's any way I can help assure this article will be featured, please drop a note on my talk page. --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 10:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's two oppose who say the MH is exceedingly long and one who's undecided. I guess I'll probably have to sandbox this eventually. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, we will move are current MH to [[Meteorological history of hurriane Hernan. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 13:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that that is necessary. MH subpages are kept for storms which are long lived or cause a great deal of impact and the MH section in the main article needs to be shortened. With Hernan, it doesn't meet either of those qualifications and the subpage shouldn't be made. The section just needs to be shortened. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, while Hurricanehink does bring up a fair argument, I'm not too concerned about the MH being too long. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True but the purpose of the criteria is too make shore that it is not the size is not like Tropical Storm Erick (2007) . it did not pass because it is so short. Delete the part about Norbert Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 14:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the part about Norbert need to be removed? It's rather important concerning the intensity of the storm. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The is say about Rita being stronger than Katrina in Hurricane Katrina. No. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 15:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't really compare storm article to storm article. Especially since each person has their own writing style. Also, it is included,

"The pressure measurement made Katrina the fourth most intense Atlantic hurricane on record at the time, only to be surpassed by Hurricanes Rita and Wilma later in the season; it was also the strongest hurricane ever recorded in the Gulf of Mexico at the time (a record also later broken by Rita)."

It's near the end of the MH section on the main article page. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:58, 8 November 2008 [84].

2007–08 Pittsburgh Penguins season

Nominator(s): Grsz ^Review!

This article recently passed as a good article, and feeling that any issues then have been addressed, I am nominating it for featured article. This article has expanding and developed greatly over the course of the last year in real time, and I feel it sufficiently meets all of the featured article criteria. Grsz ^Review! 19:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/draft2007/index/ (ref #85) is a deadlink.

Ref #10 needs publisher info.

Same with ref #14.

In ref #28, should "PittsburghPenguins" be two words?

In refs #40–#55, Associated Press is the author, and the Pittsburgh Penguins is the publisher.

Refs #70 and #71 need publisher info.

Otherwise, sources seem to be fine.

~~–Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment - all done. Grsz ^Review! 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Looks good, just one more comment. Ref #85 needs a last accessdate. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Ah yes, those cursed accessdates. Done. Grsz ^Review! 22:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Penguins also participated in the AMP Energy NHL Winter Classic—the outdoor game set the NHL single-game attendance record." The dash is an interrupter, but here we need a closer grammatical integration of the clauses. Why not "The Penguins also participated in the outdoor AMP Energy NHL Winter Classic, which set the NHL single-game attendance record." or some such. Do you need to add "at the time"?
En dash for scores (12–2); please see MOSDASH. I haven't read further than the lead; the prose looks passable thus far. Tony (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, unless one hid. Grsz ^Review! 13:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

~~Current ref 6 (Crosby out ..) needs a publisher~~
~~Current ref 68 (Penguins recall...) needs a publisher~~
As a note, large numbers of the sources are from the club itself, so other reviewers should be aware of this when reviewing, in order to watch for unintentional bias creeping in.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I realize a lot of the sources are from the team, however, I feel you'll find the prose fair and balanced. Grsz ^Review! 13:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I'm interested in this article for personal reasons, as a season article would be a likely candidate for me to do if I wanted to bring something to FA in the future (that'll be the day). In any case, allow me to suggest some modifications.

I see that the use of primary sources is at issue already. Most of these are game reports or AP news stories, so they will be avaliable on numerous independent websites. If you want me to, I can find some outside sources to replace the ones from the Penguins' website. I may not be able to write an FA, but I can definitely find sources for one.
"The 2007-08 Pittsburgh Penguins season was the Pittsburgh Penguins 40th season in the National Hockey League." First, I don't like the repetition of Pittsburgh Penguins. I've created some season stubs for featured list purposes, and always used "was the xxth season for the club...". "club's (or team's) 40th season" would be fine for getting rid of that repetition. If this isn't changed, an apostrophe is needed after the second use of Penguins, While here, define NHL by placing it in parentheses after National Hockey League.
"The regular season began on October 5, 2007, against the Carolina Hurricanes and concluded on April 6, 2008, against the rival Philadelphia Flyers." Was October 5 opening night for the entire NHL? If not, make sure the readers know that this means Pittsburgh's season. That would also be a good place to put a team link if you make the above change.
Would you mind linking Sidney Crosby in the lead? For that matter, why is there no picture of him anywhere? He's only the biggest star in the NHL.
"The team was defeated in the Stanley Cup Final by the Detroit Red Wings in Game Six." Change the last part to "six games" to make it clearer.
"Season events: "The Penguins offseason activities... Add apostrophe after Penguins.
En dash for 2008-09 season.
"going 2-6-1" En dashes again. Try to check throughout for this.
Remove the second goaltender link in the section.
Link the Atlanta Thrashers.

I'm going to run through this myself for some basic fixes before posting any more comments. These, however, should give you enough to work on for now. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed all but the sources for now. Grsz ^Review! 00:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before I review this further, I want to see if anyone has a problem with these result templates in the middle of the text. I know that Sandy has discouraged these hidden tables in the past, but I don't know where these would fit in well. Perhaps at the bottom of the page? Giants2008 (17-14) 02:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean, if you could clarify? Grsz ^Review! 02:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the tables with results from all the regular season and playoff games. I recommend asking Sandy if this is a problem, and what to do if it is. She mentioned the templates in one of her edits to the article. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, just wanted to be certain what you meant. Grsz ^Review! 20:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm still waiting for opinions on the templates (paging Sandy), I might as well offer more prose comments since this hasn't been touched for a week. I did go through this earlier, removing overlinking and adding a couple en dashes.

External links go after references.
Season events: "Commencing with a pivotal Thanksgiving Day shootout victory against the Ottawa Senators..." Pivotal sounds like POV to me. Why was this win more significant than any number of other wins during the regular season?
Spell out the American Hockey League (AHL).
"Before Fleury's eventual return as a starter on March 2, Conklin recorded a record of 17-6-5..." Recorded and record are repetitive when they are this close. I recommend changing one of them.
Winter Classic: A reference is needed for the fact that the game set the NHL attendance record.
Fan support: "The March 27 game against the Islanders received a TV rating of 10.7, the second highest rating all-time for a Penguins game." TV rating→television rating. Again, it's better to spell this out....
"A rally scheduled by Allegheny County executive Dan Onorato and Mayor Luke Ravenstahl took place in front of the Allegheny County Courthouse prior to Game 2 of their first-round series on April 11." Who is "their" supposed to be in this sentence? Surely you don't mean the politicians. Also, the tense is incorrect when combined with the prior sentence.
I see "second highest" and "third-highest" in this section. Please check for consistent hyphenation.
"Fans who visited the Igloo to watch the three games played in Detroit..." The use of Igloo here is a great example of jargon. Non-hockey fans won't recognize that this refers to the Penguins' home arena.

Considering that I haven't gotten to the playoff recaps yet, I'm going to oppose after seeing this many issues. Try finding other editors to give you a hand with copy-editing this. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Giants, I addressed those issues. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 02:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Ultimate Standings: Fan Satisfaction Rankings," Comma outside the quotation mark, I believe.
Plans for the future: Remove comma after October 2.
Eastern Conference Quarterfinals: "Two days later, the Penguins managed to eliminate the Senators in four games, the only team to do so in the first round." Confusing sentence. It sounds like this is the first time Ottawa got swept in round one, but I believe it is referring to this postseason. If so, it needs to be rewritten.
Eastern Conference Semifinals :-( "and Sykora took the lead twenty seconds later." Should be "and Sykora gave the Penguins the lead 20 seconds later.
Similar to the last comment: "Staal scored a powerplay goal to take a 1-0 lead." Again, it sounds as if he took the lead, not Pittsburgh. There are other occurances later, and I don't like them either.
"The Penguins entered Game Three at Madison Square Gardens..." Garden is singular.
Any reason why Game 1 and Game Three are both used? The number usage, or non-usage, should be made consistent throughout.
"With the win the Penguins became the first team since the 1983 Edmonton Oilers to start the playoffs 11-1." Hyphen should be an en dash. I changed a bunch of hyphens to en dashes before, but must have missed this one. My apologies.

Overall, I'm still not comfortable enough to strike my opposition. Keep working on it, and I'll give you another batch when these are done. That's assuming this isn't archived, which it might be soon if more attention from other reviewers isn't forthcoming. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:58, 8 November 2008 [85].

Byzantine navy

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

I'm nominating this article for featured article. It became a WPMILHIST A-class article in May, and since then I've worked on and off trying to improve the prose, add some images and minor details, as well as information in some areas I felt to be somewhat deficient, such as the early navy, tactics and the ships. In terms of content, I feel it is now quite complete and comprehensive, and I believe satisfies the FA criteria. Constantine ✍ 13:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Great work. I don't have the time to review it in detail, but I'm looking forward to reading it in more detail later. What I'm missing to support right now is some mentioning of the various Rus'–Byzantine Wars, many of which had a naval component. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Rus'-Byzantine clashes were very much an infrequent sideshow, which is why I didn't put them in a separate section, but they're still there: their first appearance in the section "Renewed Muslim ascendancy" and the more serious wars of the mid-10th century in the section "The recovery of Crete and the Levant". Hope that's enough. Constantine ✍ 14:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- Page ranges in the references need en dashes (–).
- Otherwise, sources look good.

–Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Constantine ✍ 15:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the quote from the Muqaddimah and Alexiad need sources... as in, which translation and which page from that translation with proper bibliographic detail. The Strategikon quote has "Kekaumenos, Strategikon, Ch. 87" listed but it needs more publisher data too. Image:Justinien 527-565.svg and Image:ByzantineEmpire717+extrainfo+themes.PNG needs sources to justify its accuracy. We have no idea if these self-made maps are accurate without outside references. gren グレン 18:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the Strategikon, it is divided into chapters, it is irrelevant which edition you choose, the quote is right at the beginning of Ch. 87. The same goes for the Muqaddimah (III.32) and the Alexiad (XI.10). I have preferred this citing system over pages exactly because it is the only constant across the various editions. In my experience, this is the quoting system for ancient/medieval sources that is most widely used, for the same reasons. You can find the Muqaddimah quote online here and the Alexiad here. As for Kekaumenos, I have his book in a Greek version, and the quote comes from an online translated version, which I can't find right now (however it is a verbatim translation). As for the maps, I obviously didn't make them myself. However the maps are accurate, and similar ones can be found in many books on Byzantine history with only minor differences. Just as a sample, on the 717 map, here (I think this was the actual inspiration for the article's map) and the 565 map here and here. Constantine ✍ 19:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's fine that you also mark it that way... but you need to provide a reliable source from where you got the quote. There might be / probably are multiple translations of these things. I understand why it's important to use the sections within the book... but that doesn't replace a bibliographic citation. Those websites might work... but a paper, reliable source is preferable, I think. As for the maps... those sources if they provide reliable references for all of the facts represented in the maps should be cited. Sources should be given on Wikipedia. gren グレン 23:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see what good it is (I did provide the website links just as a means of quick reference), but I'll find the relevant bibliographic sources anyway. On the maps, I have contacted the editors who uploaded them. PS. I have used the same citing format on Leo VI's Tactica. Do you expect page numbers here as well? Constantine ✍ 05:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, bibliography for the quotes done, 717 map done. Awaiting 565 map. Constantine ✍ 06:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that putting specific edition information is standard practice especially for old work with various translations. But, what you did for the Muqaddimah is good. Thanks. gren グレン 14:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As no response was forthcoming, I replaced the 565 map with one from W. Shepherd's atlas. Constantine ✍ 13:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

~~Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the footnotes and references, such as JRAS, etc.~~
~~Current ref 117 ... the first link (Under Instanbul...) needs a publisher and a last access date~~

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Constantine ✍ 14:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, that's a pretty impressive work! I'm not the greatest fan of small sub-sections, but it's a matter of style, I guess :) Also, I'd like to see a few more sentences about the seven centuries of Byzantine–Bulgarian Wars, as Bulgaria was Byzantium's most invariable opponent and the Danubian and Black Sea fleet were pretty often in use during Byzantium's Bulgarian campaigns. More notable than the episodic and remote enemy that the Rus' was, I believe :) Todor →Bozhinov 12:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! As for the Bulgarian wars, the problem is that most sources (understandably) focus on the conflicts with the Arabs in the Mediterranean. I do not think that, outside a transport role, the navy was that important in the wars with Bulgaria, as the latter had no navy of its own. The conflicts with the Rus' were more sporadic, true, but they had a heavy naval component, and were more spectacular (Greek fire!). I'll try to find something more, though. If you have some specific incident in mind that ought to be included, please add it or contact me about it. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 13:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, indeed we didn't have a full-time navy, but it's not like we were scared of water :D But it's true the Byzantine navy mainly served a transport purpose in those conflicts. What I have in mind in particular is (because I've researched that topic) the role it played in the Byzantine-Bulgarian wars during Simeon I: ferrying Magyar invaders despite parts of the Danube were closed off with chains and unsuccessfully transporting troops to the Battle of Anchialus. There are some other episodes when the navy was used to invade Bulgaria from the Black Sea rather than by foot from Thrace, have to check up on the specific dates :) True, it was not a decisive role, but it did offer strategic variety to the Byzantine campaigns. Todor →Bozhinov 15:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the Battle of Anchialus is included, but I only dimly remember that the navy was used to ferry Magyars across the Danube, and nothing on the obstacles. Thanks, that will be added. Constantine ✍ 16:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Magyar ferrying added. Constantine ✍ 10:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this image of a Byzantine ship is labeled as being from the 10th century, but on its talk page, there's someone who claims it may have been from between 14th and 16th century. I think someone should check that. bogdan (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, he makes some good points. Especially the single rudder, which appeared in the Med in the 12th century... Damn, I should have known better... I am removing the picture, but I'll try to find another one, possibly a schematic from a book, under fair use. Thanks for bringing this up, I had not seen that there had been comments on the talk page. Mea culpa. Constantine ✍ 13:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, new picture uploaded & placed in article. Constantine ✍ 16:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: did the Byzantines had any particular flags they used for their ships? The picture above appears to have a flag with white and red stripes. bogdan (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very little is (sadly) known about what flags the Byzantines used. There are illustrations, e.g. in the Skylitzes manuscript (examples 1 and 2), of banners, and we know that a different shape or number of tails signified a different unit and its size, but nothing concrete. The flammoulon or bandon of the ship mentioned in the Tactica would look like these. There exists a conjectural "navy" flag, but there is no source to even remotely back it up. It's just the Palaiologan tetragrammatic cross in white and blue, inspired (since it's a Greek reconstruction) most likely by the modern Greek flag. As for the picture above, if it dates to the 14th-16th centuries, as is likely, it could be inspired by a Latin or (more likely) an Ottoman ship. While it could very well represent a type of galleys the Byzantines too used in the twilight of the Empire, I would hesitate to draw too many conclusions from it. Constantine ✍ 13:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very good work. One very small nit to pick. In the history section, 4th to 5th centuries, technically that's the history of the Roman Empire (I know this could be discussion, but the Roman Empire still existed). I'm not sure what could be the right word, but maybe "Roman predecessor" or something like that. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not supportive of this for a number of reasons. First and foremost, there is no clear line of transition between "Roman" and "Byzantine" empires or their military systems, nor indeed do many people and scholars see the need to actually draw any dividing line. In order to avoid the debates attached to this issue, and for reasons of comprehensiveness, I've selected the earliest proposed date for the "establishment" of the Byz. Empire, 330 AD. The fact that the East Roman fleets coexisted with the West Roman fleets, and, until 395, were a single fleet, is secondary, since we're dealing with a transitional period from the "classic" Roman navy to the later "classic" Byz. navy. If you check the article on the Roman Navy, you'll see that these sections overlap significantly for the exact same reason. There is no possibility to draw a clear line - should we take the (uncertain) removal of the praetorian fleets to Constantinople (i.e. the transfer of the center of power eastwards), the division of the Empire in 395, or the re-establishment of a permanently maintained central fleet by Anastasius? - so I've decided to include it all. I do have included a reference to the "imperial Roman predecessor" right at the beginning of the article to differentiate between the two, because the nature of the Byz. fleet was indeed quite different from the Augustan-era classis. Constantine ✍ 12:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this fairuse image: Image:Byzantine dromon reconstruction.png can be redrawn (while respecting the features of the dromon presented in the image), so it doesn't fit the "irreplaceable" criterion required for non-free images. bogdan (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, OK, perhaps replaceable, but by whom and how? If one did not alter it significantly, would it not be a derivative work, again governed by copyright? If you can find someone who can make it both correct and not a mere copy, please tell me so that I can contact him/her. Either way, if you are suggesting that it does not satisfy fair use criteria (do you?) this is the best (and likely most accurate) image of a dromon there is (Pryor is perhaps the expert on ancient galleys), at least until someone publishes the finds from the Yenikapi harbour. It is absolutely essential to both articles it is included in. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, any further suggestions or comments on this? Is the image OK or not? Constantine ✍ 13:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Generally impressive, but some of the prose is unidiomatic or worse - it really needs a run-through by a good copy-editor. Some links appear to be missing - I don't Venice has one for example. I did wonder if it would make more sense to move at least the "Ships" and "tactics and weapons" sections up to the top, as really you need to read these before the "History". Reading between the lines, it would seem the Byzantines did not use slaves or prisoners as rowers, but it might be as well to clarify this. Were rowers volunteers or conscripts? Johnbod (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out some instances of prose and missing links? Venice was linked in the infobox, for some reason I forgot to link it in the main text, however. On the arrangement of sections, I am actually of the opposite view :P. The history section is quite distinct, and a knowledge of ships and tactics is not required since the article does not go into too much detail over individual battles, where this would have mattered (not that we know much about most of them, either way). The two sections "history" and "tactics etc" are quite distinct and practically independent of each other, but I put history first since we are dealing with a historical article, and the most common practice in such articles is to provide the historical context and evolution first. As a side note, I hope to eventually flesh out the dromon article in order to provide some more detailed information on it. On the rowers, the Byzantines, like the Romans and the Greeks before them, never used slaves, but free men, who were paid salaries and/or supported by estates. You are right, that ought to haven been more clearly stated, as the "galley slave" is a common misconception. Constantine ✍ 12:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will see some prose things I edited, but to be honest the whole thing needs a check-over by a good native-speaking copyeditor. I'd see if you can recruit one. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:58, 8 November 2008 [86].

Burger King legal issues

Nominator: Jerem43 (talk)

This is a renomination of the article. I have addressed the issues that were raised in the previous FAC and the subsequent Peer Review and now believe that is of sufficient quality to become a FA. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 02:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think starting off with "As with other multi-national corporations," adds value. This article is about Burger King's legal issues, not about those of other corps. Giggy (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

http://sanders.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=298434 the source for Image:Ciw-bk.jpg timed out, note to self to check it again at some point.

Other than that images check out fine (though they don't look too healthy). Giggy (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the as with... statement, the link worked OK for me. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 04:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do the three cases commented out above See also impact 1b, comprehensive? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are three major cases that affect the governance of franchise relations, all of which have set major, national precedents in the United States; one reached the US Supreme Court. I am working it on my talk pages at User:Jerem43/BKli. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 23:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're still commented out of the article. Is the article comprehensive without them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

What makes the following reliable sources?
- http://www.hoovers.com/burger-king/--ID__54531--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml
- http://zenobank.com/index.php?symbol=BKC&page=quotesearch (current ref 2) It's also lacking a publisher
- http://www.allbusiness.com
- http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/_burger_king_recalls_sacrilegious_desserts/
- http://www.zarcolawfirm.com/CM/News/news26.asp
- http://www.aar.com.au/pubs/comp/trpjun0100.htm
- ~~http://www.burgerking.co.uk/pdfs/nutrition_allergen.pdf deadlinks~~

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out withe link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to your concerns:

Hoovers is an investment research company, please see the AllBusiness reference below for a fuller explanation.
I have no idea as that is not a citation I added, and it is actually part of the info box and not the article itself. However the site says that all information was provided by Morningstar, Inc., a respect investing information company and publisher. I have updated the citation to reflect the actual source of the data as opposed to the reprinted form found at zenobank. This will affect all pages with the {{Infobox Burger King}} template on them.
AllBusiness, and its commercial sibling Hoovers, is an online business informational publisher owned and operated by Dun & Bradstreet, one of the largest and most respected financial information clearing houses in the world.
Outside the Beltway is an example of how critics responded to the Islamic uproar over the ice cream label, it is an op-ed piece that confirms the existence of negative criticism.
ZESB is a major, international law firm based in Florida; this is a reprint of an article published in the Miami Daily Business Review. I tweaked the citation to include the original publisher to clarify it a little.
Allens Arthur Robinson is a major, international law firm based in Australia; this is a professional analysis of the case detailing how the decision may affect contract law in that country.
~~I will have to research and recreate the link.~~ The page moved, I recreated the link.

I will notify you once I have corrected the last point. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on lead -

Shouldn't Burger King or something in the first sentence be bolded per WP:MOS#First sentences?
The second paragraph in the lead is two really long sentences. Would it be possible/practical to split them up? Just a suggestion...
In the third paragraph of the lead, can "Occupied Territories" be wikilinked? I don't know where that is or I'd do it for you. :)
Third sentence, third paragraph of the lead: which countries does "the revocation of Burger King's business licenses in these Islamic countries" refer to?
Fourth sentence, third paragraph of lead: I don't think "whose" can be used to refer to the results of a lawsuit...

I'll get to the rest ASAP. Here's a copyedit I did. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to you concerns:

I had it bolded it, but another contributor took it out; I reinstated it.
~~It is pair of very complex sentences, I will look into copy editing them a little.~~ I copy edited the second paragraph so that it is not a pair of huge run-on sentences.
Wikilink goodness added...
Those countries listed in the linked article, Arab League, in the first half of the sentence. I reworded it to make the subject a bit clearer.
I changed out the whose, it really only applies to sentient beings.

Thanks for the catches. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC), updated 04:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The style of this article is quite turgid, and the article provides little insight. Take for instance this sentence from the lead: "Controversies and disputes with groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) over the welfare of animals, governmental and social agencies over health issues and compliance with nutritional labeling laws, and unions and trade groups over labor relations and laws, have touched on concepts of animal rights, corporate responsibility and ethics, as well as social justice." It mixes a bunch of issues in an unintelligible statement. The article is also full of peacock terms, e.g. "The opening of a Burger King location in the Israeli-occupied territories lead to a breach of contract dispute between Burger King and its Israeli franchise; the dispute eventually erupted into a geopolitical conflagration involving Muslim and Jewish groups on multiple continents over the application of and adherence to international law." Geopolitical conflagration? Really? What international law is this referring to? VG ☎ 11:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to your comments, I believe that there are no peacock statements in this article; the use of complex wording does not equate to peacock statements. Just as you state turgid instead of stiff in your criticism, my use of the term geopolitical conflagration just means that the was an international political dispute in which tempers flared and heated words were exchanged and is no different. Also, you are confusing the lead with the article as a whole, if you read the section the lead refers to you will discover the full history behind the dispute and what I am referring to. The article does not need to go into the specifics about the history of the Israeli-occupied territories, the six day war, the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, or the list of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel; that is covered and explained through the Wikilinks that are in both the lead and body of the article.

As I stated previously, I will look into editing down the second paragraph so that it is a structured little less complexly. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 14:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Nutrition section -

The first sentence of 2nd paragraph of Animal welfare: What is Burger King Holding, from "PETA went before Burger King Holding's board"??
Second sentence, same paragraph: What is tack? Is it a form of "tactic" that I'm unfamiliar with?
Third sentence, same paragraph: you say PETA presented its case in 2006, then you say that the protest was in 2007. Was there a separate protest, or is it supposed to mean that BK responded in 2007? Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your comments

That is a typo, the parent company of BK is Burger King Holdings and the apostrophe should be after the 's', not before it. I corrected it.
Tack is a synonym for tactic, the definition is An approach, especially one of a series of changing approaches.
The sentence is unclear, I reworded it so that it says BK responded in 2007 to the protest.

Good catch, thanks... --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd really like this article to moved from such an informal title. Perhaps something like "Legal issues involving Burger King". --Golbez (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -

I believe that the current naming is in line with the WP:Naming policy, however it consensus prefers your proposal over the current name I would have no issue with the change. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Rudzewicz, I'm not sure what the appropriate depth of coverage is. This doesn't seem like a very important lawsuit for a major company, except for the fact that it reached the US Supreme Court and then became an important precedent. Why not just limit this article to that point?--chaser - t 08:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I do not quite understand the point you are making, so I will respond to what I believe you are asking; If I am wrong please feel free to correct me.

The three included cases are all precedent setting in their nature, the two in the US and the one in Australia. SCOTUS cases are important because of their impact on the US legal system as a whole. The MacShara decision established legal precedents for franchise contracts that all US-based franchisors and franchisees must adhere to, regardless of industry. I personally believe this major case does merit inclusion because of that, that is why I included it in the article. The Hoots decision is equally important because it prevents major companies from harassing smaller or independent operators with an established business. In my hometown there is a sub shop called the Subway that has been in business since 1963; the Hoots decision prevents Doctor's Associates from suing the owners of this small sub shack for trademark infringement over the name Subway. The Hungry Jacks decision is important because it introduced a foreign legal concept to the Australian legal system where it did not exist before, basically a game changer for the Aussie law system. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"game changer" I believe that we call the concept and actualisation of the precedent set by a Court (overseas or otherwise) case law in Australian Courts. But, the point is not lost. Petedavo ^talk^{contributions} 16:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, section "Labor", paragraph five: "Besides the trolling incident, several terse, stridently worded e-mails were sent from a possibly fictitious employee at the BK global headquarters in Miami to supporters and media groups". Should readers be expected to be familiar with Internet terms such as "trolling"? --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 15:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your concerns -

I Wikilinked the term earlier in the paragraph, I believe that is all that is required to help inform readers of the term. If I am incorrect please feel free to correct the passage or tell me what needs to be done to correct the issue. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't notice that you had wikilinked it earlier. I slightly dislike having to read a seperate article to understand a concept which is pivotal to understand in order to get any sense out of a section of text. However, it should be sufficient. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 18:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you appear to have a dead link, Ref 30: http://www.burgerking.co.uk/pdfs/nutrition_allergen.pdf —Mattisse (Talk) 00:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the broken link, thanks for pointing it out. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the broken link! —Mattisse (Talk) 02:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand why the section on animal welfare is in an article on legal issues. It reports embarrassments and board meetings and agreements. These don't seem to be legal issues. If there have been any, they need more visibility. In the section on nutrition, paragraphs discuss arguments, scorn and agreements; these again are not themselves legal issues. If the focus of the article is to be clearly on legal issues (the subject announced by the title), the material should be removed or its relevance clarified.
- Separately, the section on nutrition has a sentence "Since its purchase in 2002, the company has . . ." However, it's not clear what the company purchased in 2002 that's relevant to this paragraph. Fg2 (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to your concerns -

The subject of this article is about legal issues that the company has come up against over the course of its history. Now, legal issues are not just lawsuits, they cover a gamut of legal topics including:

Contracts - a legally binding agreement between parties
Animal rights - the legal standing of animals in our society and what rights they have as living creatures
How the company complies with laws in the various regions it does business

Each of the points you raised concerns one or more of the three areas I just listed, which are all legal issues; this is stated in the lead of the article.

The Animal welfare section is about PETA and its quest to broaden animal rights and address animal cruelty in the livestock industry by targeting the companies who purchase products from the livestock producers. The PETA tactics include protests as well as going before the companies board as a stock holder and requesting changes to company policies. It also involves contract law because BK changed entered into a signed, binding agreement with PETA to address the issue. The agreement had the company change the wording and requirements of the contracts it enters into with the livestock dealers and producers.

The nutrition section deals with legal compliance to nutrition laws, as well as the law suits against the company over the health issues concerning its products. The section includes coverage of the CSPI lawsuit against the company over trans-fats, how the company worked in partnership with the mayor's office to create compliance laws in New York City over the publication of nutritional information, and how the company came into conflict with the government of Spain over portion sizes and nutritional content and the possible legal implications and sanctions that the Spaniards threatened the company with.

Regarding the Since its purchase... comment, that was a left over from when the article was split off from the main Burger King article. It referred to a section in the original article's history section covering the sale of the company in 2002, I clarified the sentence to show who was the purchaser and who was the seller. Than you for pointing that out.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Thanks for fixing the broken link above. All the links appear to work except this one: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: With Selected Statutes Perhaps it can be redirected or something. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link, it was unnecessary and I deleted it; the ISBN link works. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This article seems to focus on a lot of controversy unrelated to legal issues. This could be a simple matter of poor article naming, but it appears as though two distinct topics are merged in a single article. Controversies with little to no relation to legal issues are present in the article. Similarly, though not of a concern in relation to the article topic, legal issues with little to no relation to controversies are present in the article. A featured article should focus nigh exclusively on the article topic. Controversial issues should only be raised in an article about "legal issues" when reliable sources clearly and explicitly relate to the matters to that topic. Similarly, an article about "controversies" should only raise legal issues when reliable sources clearly and explicitly relate the matter as a controversy or directly linked to recognized controversies. As it stands, this is an article about two distinct topics that lacks focus as an article about either one. Vassyana (talk) 09:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found the article very interesting and clearly written, but I see Vassyana's point and have been thinking about naming alternatives. Burger King disputes? According to one dictionary, a "controversy" is "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion". Perhaps changing the term "controversies" in the article to something else like "Legal compliance issues"? The article is not that long, but I suppose it could be divided into a separate "Burger King legal issues" and "Burger King controversies". —Mattisse (Talk) 20:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The prose in this article does not meet the FA criteria. I have left a few examples below, but this needs a full copyedit to tighten the prose as much as possible.

The prose is unnecessarily wordy- "Situations involving these many legal topics have affected almost every aspect of the company's operations. " could be "These legal issues have affected almost every aspect of the compan'y operations". Example 2: " Using a different tactic, one that went beyond stating that the procedure is more humane," could be "Rather than employ their usual tactic of emphasizing humane treatment, PETA..."
- Make sure that every word is actually needed in the sentence. The entire article is just way too wordy, which makes it harder to read and makes it not flow very well.
The lead seems too long. You could probably trim the wording without losing any of the facts that are being presented.
"On June 28, 2001, Burger King agreed with the group and" - is that factually true? Did they actually "agree" with the group or did they just give in to the group's demands - those are two very different concepts
"that its suppliers were conforming to agreed-upon standards of animal welfare" - who were the parties to the "Agreed-upon" standard setting? Just PETA and BK?
This sentence is either too long, too detailed, or worded in a bad way (I haven't been able to make up my mind): "In 2006, PETA went before corporate parent Burger King Holdings' board during its annual board meeting to request that the company ensured its suppliers switched to a more humane method of slaughter, called controlled atmosphere killing (CAK), in the preparation of its poultry products. "
"Responding in March 2007 to this new protest - was that actually a protest? I question the word choice
There are misspellings in the article (verb tenses, it rather than its, etc) - those are harder to catch, I know
I echo the concerns above that the article content is not focused towards its title. Either the title needs to be changed, or some of the content needs to go in a different article.
Watch for pronoun agreement- "A 1985 agreement with the New York city public health commissioner's office, over publication of nutritional data regarding the food it sells" - the logical antecedent of "it" is "the New York city public health commissioner's office)
The nutrition section needs a little better organization. It discusses Spanish concerns of the BK XXL, then it goes back to 1985 agreement about how to display nutritional information, then it returns to the BK XXL in Spain.
"the Spanish Health Ministry publicly claimed that the company had violated a voluntary agreement between the company and the Spanish Federation of Hoteliers and Restaurateurs, a group to which Burger King belongs' - I'm totally confused to who were the parties to the agreement....this is an awkward sentence
"The Minister of Health, Elena Salgado, claimed that the new promotion" - this is the first time the promotion is mentioned - perhaps it should be introduced at some point earlier? (introduction of sandwich != promotion of sandwich)
need a quote directly at end of sentence with quotes (like "illegally failing to comply with a contract") even if that means duplicating a cite in subsequent sentences
~~Two~~Three different parent companies are named - Burger King Holdins and Burger King Brands and Burger King Corporation. If the name is changing, perhaps it would be best to just refer to "the parent company" rather than a specific name?
"As of August 1, 2008, Burger King has introduced the product line in the United States, but not the broiled Chicken Tenders product available in the United Kingdom and Ireland" - this is awkwardly worded. The assumption from the previous text in this paragraph was that the broiled chicken tenders were part of the product line.
There is little to no cohesion between sections in this article. Each section seems very self-contained and there is nothing to bring it together with the other sections.
The first dispute in the Islam section is part of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, it not about Islam per se. I would split that out into a different section, and name the rest "religious issues/religion" so that the article is not singling out a particular religion.
"and its relevance to Shariah" - what relevance to Shariah?
This sentence is so complicated I had to read it multiple times to figure out what it was trying to say "This event, Akhtar's reaction and other similar issues with companies such as Nike and Unilever have been used by conservative political critics, such as James Joyner, claiming that western nations and organizations are kowtowing too easily to Muslims' claims or threats and by commentators, including author Daniel C. Dennett, highlighting how factions of the Islamic faith gravitate towards iconoclasm.["
I am concerned that three particular legal cases are covered (as "cases of note"). Why pick these three out of all the cases they've probably been involved in? Instead of highlighting just a few, why not provide a broader view of the types of cases they've been involved in and how that has, as a whole, impacted the company?
"As a result, Burger King provided the Australian franchisee, Jack Cowin, with a list of possible alternative names " - this seems awfully arbitrary and makes it sound like they just ordered the guy to change his company's name. Perhaps that could be better worded?
I am confused as to whether the Australian stores were opened under the Burger King or Hungry Jack's name. Could that be made more clear?
Way too much detail in some sections: as an example: "After MacShara attended four months of training courses at the regional Burger King training facilities in Michigan and in the Florida headquarters on how to operate and administer a Burger King franchise" - that whole clause could go away and the reader would have the same understanding of what was happening.

Karanacs (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Roman Catholic Church

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive5

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:31, 8 November 2008 [87].

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

Nominator(s): David Fuchs

Did you know? That the first entirely CGI sequence in movie history was in 1981's The Wrath of Khan? That the film is credited as resurrecting the Star Trek franchise? That it helped launch the nascent VHS format's adoption in homes? If you didn't, then you didn't read this article. Thanks goes to Alientraveller and Protonk for fixes and reviews as well as Ruhr for providing helpful comments as always at peer review. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images all check out: the 2 non-frees are appropriate and rationaled, Roddenberry's is free with appropriate notification of such. --MASEM 18:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I won't have time for a more in depth review until the weekend, but for now have a quick look through for overlinked terms. Do we really need to know what a television series is? :) Steve ^{T • C} 19:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I ran through everything besides the lead. I did another run-through and removed a few more linkies. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
quick comment also - groovy read. I'm glad to see a variation in references (not just one good source and some simple other links). Readability off the toollink is maybe a touch high, but I don't think worth fussing. If individual sentences and paragraphs are evaluated for clear prose that will likely adjust those numbers.--Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How are you determining what's a good result on the readability tool? Feel free to take to my talk if you think it not relevant for this page. Steve ^{T • C} 19:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was just thinking that a gradelevel readability of mid-US highschool is a bit high, general readability newspapers and magazines aim for about 7th/8th grade level. Makes it more accessible to a broader spectrum of readers. Not something that should be taken as an oppose to FAC for the article though. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That's a terrible picture of Gene Roddenberry, or rather the back of someone's head. In this particular case I would prefer to see a fair use image or no image at all, rather than such a poor quality photo. Kaldari (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would find it hard to defend a fair use image when free alternatives do exist. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you crop out the someone-else's-head? Giggy (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the source image was of high-enough resolution, I would probably have photoshopped out that stuff, but as it is that's infeasible given the position. I'm trying to get a free picture of Nicholas Meyer, but no one has responded back to me yet (If I did get it, I would probably replace the gene shot.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comments

~~What makes http://trekmovie.com/ a reliable source?~~
~~http://www.tvguide.com/News-Views/Columnists/Ask-FlickChick/?posting=%7B4833BDB0-FD07-4671-BAA4-9D7103467119%7D deadlinks~~

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the refs. The deadlink unfortunately isn't archived (yet). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I have some concerns about there being sufficient context for the unfamiliar reader. Now, I for one have seen this film many times, and am familiar with the Star Trek franchise, as I assume the primary editors of this article are as well. But it's important to make sure you aren't assuming too much of the readers. For example, the year of release wasn't even mentioned in the lead; I had to add it. There's other problems in the lead. Who's Kirk? Is he the protagonist? The lead makes it seem like Khan is the main character, when he isn't. Who plays Kirk? The character and death of Spock is mentioned an entire paragraph before the actor who played him is. Try and find someone who's unfamiliar with the topic and ask them to go through the article and give you feedback on its accessability. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; I think the prose could do with another pass to eliminate redundancies and ambiguities. Examples and other issues follow; none are unfixable during the lifetime of this FAC. Please take any seemingly-snarky comments as being firmly tongue-in-cheek:
- Infobox:
  - ~~Nicholas Meyer is linked twice, as are Harve Bennett and Jack B. Sowards. Infobox linking shouldn't be done for purely aesthetic reasons.~~
  - ~~"See table"; that's not a table it's linking to.~~
    - Strike both. Steve ^{T • C} 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Lead" section:
  - ~~Missing information that's included in most, if not all, film articles: in which year was the film made and released? Who stars?~~
    - Almost done. The new wording ("based on the Star Trek science fiction television series, released in 1982 by Paramount Pictures") makes it sound as if the series was released in 1982. An "and was" after the comma might do the trick. Steve ^{T • C} 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "The film is a sequel to the original series episode "Space Seed", in which Ricardo Montalbán reprises his role as the genetically-engineered tyrant Khan Noonien Singh." This makes it sound as if Montalbán reprised his role in "Space Seed", not Wrath of Khan.
    - Done. Steve ^{T • C} 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mix of in-universe and out-of-universe wording: "The film concludes with the death of Spock, beginning a story arc that continues to Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home in 1986." While technically correct (they do go back in time to 1986, after all), I don't think this is quite what you meant. Or is it? Either way, clarify.
    - Strike. Steve ^{T • C} 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Use of "movie" and "film". I recommend picking one (my choice would be the latter) and sticking with it throughout.~~
    - Explanation accepted. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Nicholas Meyer was made director after writing a final script for the film in twelve days, without accepting a writing credit;" He was made director because he wrote the script in twelve days, or simply after? The article body doesn't make this clear either. Indeed, it doesn't really say how Meyer came to be involved at all. Also, there's no need for a semi-colon there; a new sentence would be better.
    - Much more understandable, ta. Steve ^{T • C} 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Some redundant wording: "for the film"/"of the film", "Upon release", etc.~~
    - Done. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Production used various cost-cutting techniques to keep under budget, including utilizing old miniatures from past movies." One film, the original series, and other TV projects, so no plural, or switch "past movies" to "previous Star Trek projects" or similar.
    - Another. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~"The film is considered one of the best films of the franchise..." By whom? Also, "films" is redundant.~~
    - Gone. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~It might be confusing to some to have two piped "Star Trek" links that go to different articles.~~
    - Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Plot" section:
  - ~~There's no particular need to cite the plot summary; the film itself acts as a primary source. But it’s your choice either way, just thought I'd let you know.~~
    - Your choice, not an oppose issue. Steve ^{T • C} 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~A couple of instances where "which" should be replaced with "that".~~
    - Done. Steve ^{T • C} 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some redundant wording throughout: "itself", "externally", "in order to" (to), "The film opens with a female Vulcan in command of the USS Enterprise..." Why not mention Saavik's name here, instead of wasting words at the end of the paragraph?
    - Strike. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Project Genesis" is not the device itself, but the project/process. Suggest piping with "Genesis Device" or recasting the sentence to make clearer. Keep capitalisation (or not) of "Genesis Device" consistent throughout the article.
    - Strike, though I do recommend retaining the link to Project Genesis. Steve ^{T • C} 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It always seemed to me that for a genetically advanced superman, Khan was pretty stupid to fall for Kirk and Spock's blatantly transparent code transmission. Nothing to do with the article, I just wanted to get that out there. :)
    - What was I thinking? Steve ^{T • C} 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Cast" section:
  - ~~The first line of each entry is a fragment. It really doesn't work when you follow it with properly-constructed prose.~~
    - Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some redundancies: "the two actors'..." Might work better simply as "their". "...stated in promotional interviews for the film that..." Why not replace this whole bit with "said" or equivalent? "...Meyer's desire to direct him in scenes." As opposed to at the supermarket?
    - Gone. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Khan's anger at the death of his wife justifies his pursuit of Kirk." Is this still Montalbán's opinion? It reads like that of a third party. "According to Nimoy, he reasoned..." "Nimoy reasoned"? Several uses of "...in the film" or similar. Only use where necessary to disambiguate. "...as per the script" isn't needed; the scene is in the film, isn't it?
    - Strike. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Meyer made it clear in film commentary that..." Again, there's no particular reason to say where he said this. That information is in the citation, and naming the source in the text should only be done if it's contradicting another reliable source or is controversial in some way. Check for other instances throughout.
    - Gone. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~"...which the costume department took into consideration in designing Khan's outfit." Feels tacked-on to an already long sentence. Consider separating.~~
    - Removed rather than rewritten? Fair enough. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~"...would crack up the audience..." A little familiar, perhaps?~~
    - Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~"Shatner called the actor on the phone and persuaded him to return." Why not "Shatner persuaded Takei to return"? Is it relevant that it was on the phone?~~
    - Another. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Meyer was looking for an actor who looked beautiful enough that it was plausible a wandering womanizer such as Kirk would fall for her, yet could also project a sense of intelligence." Suggest removing "wandering" as irrelevant, and adding a "who" after "yet" to disambiguate.
    - Struck.
  - ~~"Kirk's son, who has grown up to be a scientist like his mother." A similar kind of scientist to his mother, or "a scientist, like his mother"?~~
    - Done. Steve ^{T • C} 09:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~"Meyer said that what he physically liked about Butrick" Meyer's body reacted with a liking for Butrick? Um.~~
    - Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Protégé, protege, or protégée? The latter is used in the plot section, the second in this section.~~
    - Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~"Alley was so fond of her Vulcan ears that she would take them home with her after filming." As in during the shoot at the end of the day, or as a souvenir at the end of filming?~~
    - Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Saavik tears up and cries." Redundant "tears up".
    - Done. Steve ^{T • C} 12:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Production" section, "Development" subsection:
  - ~~How are you choosing whether to use The Motion Picture or Star Trek: The Motion Picture throughout? It might be better to choose one and stick with it.~~
    - Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~More redundant "to the film"s, "movie's" and the like. "Its" might be more appropriate in a couple of places.~~
    - Strike. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Why is omega linked?~~
    - Strike. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~"As preproduction of the film began in earnest..." Unnecessarily verbose. "As preproduction began..."~~
    - Done. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Meyer just... appears. What brought him on board?~~
    - Done. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~"...in twelve days which he described as "'Hornblower' in outer space" He described the twelve days as "Hornblower in outer space"? :)~~
    - Much clearer. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "~~naval texture or Khan's Captain Ahab undertones" and, rather than "or".~~
    - Done. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Production" section, "Design" subsection:
  - ~~Instead of "fall", use the date if available. 1) "Fall" is a US-centric term; 2) Autumn in the US is Spring in Australia.~~
    - Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Instead of "production began", to resolve the potential ambiguity ("production" can also encompass pre-production), it might be better to use "principal photography".~~
    - Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be honest, I think the whole of this section could do with another pass. Examples include: "Meyer said that he did everything within budget to change the look of Star Trek in order to create a nautical atmosphere". There are two ways in which that can be read. "The original ship miniatures were used when possible, or else modified to stand in as a new construction." Plural suddenly switches to singular.
    - Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~More redundant "for the film", "the film's", "in order to"s, etc.~~
    - Another. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Costume designer Robert Fletcher decided to use the dark red due to the strong contrast it provided with the background to create The Wrath of Khan's naval-inspired uniforms, which would be used in the films until 1996's Star Trek: First Contact." A little tortuous, consider splitting and reordering the statements.
    - Done. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~"...Fletcher think it been stolen."~~
    - Another. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~"specially designed" How about just "designed"?~~
    - Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Production" section, "Filming" subsection:
  - ~~What does TV production schedule mean here, exactly? Most TV shows are shot in a week; the shoot for Wrath of Khan presumably lasted longer than this. Is there anything on how long the shoot lasted?~~
    - Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Redundant words throughout: "$46 million cost", "of the film", etc.~~
  - Unnecessarily verbose throughout. Example: "Scott plays "Amazing Grace" on the bagpipes during the scene, which was James Doohan's idea" could be pared down to "Scott's playing "Amazing Grace" during the scene was James Doohan's idea." Even that "during the scene" might be unnecessary.
    - Gone. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "soft-landed" --> "soft-landing". Lose the semi-colon and start a new sentence. "Meyer objected to the changes, but did not stand in the way of the modifications." Either "to the changes" or "of the modifications" is redundant; I'd go with removal of the former.
    - Another. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Production" section, "Effects" subsection:
  - ~~Link to Constitution class starship?~~
    - Done. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~"the effects team sought to simplify the complicated effects of The Motion Picture." Not of that film, but of similar effects in this one.~~
    - Another. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~"the Ceti eel shots..." Ceti is capitalised here, but not earlier in the article.~~
    - To clarify, Ceti Alpha is capitalised, so this should be too, as well as the other instance. Fixed. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Special Effects Supervisor shouldn't be capitalised.~~
    - Strike. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~"Ralston... used a string tied to the eel in order to inch the model across the actors' faces before entering the ear canal." Before Ralston entered the ear canal? ;)~~
    - Done. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~"The team spent a significant amount of time and detail on the sixty-second sequence;" "spent a significant amount of... detail" doesn't really mean anything.~~
    - Gone. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Themes" section:
  - ~~"...compounded by McCoy's present of reading glasses for Kirk's eyes." As opposed to those for his feet?~~
    - Done, and sorry for how snarky this one sounded. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Our old, redundant friends "for the film" and "of the film" crop up again.~~
    - Gone! Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~"unbeknownst" is such an ugly word; have you got anything better?~~
    - Much. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Release and reception" section, "Critical response" subsection:
  - ~~"what was seen" --> "what were seen".~~
    - Gone. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~"While many publications felt that Spock's death was dramatic and well-handled..." Weasel wording; citing "many" to just two reviews is problematic.~~
    - Struck, but are there any good cites that reflect properly on the film's critical reception? Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Negative reviews of the film also focused on the acting of the aged stars." Were the actors' ages a factor in the criticism of their acting? If not, remove the word. If so, clarify so it's less an implication.
    - Done. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Release and reception" section, "Home video" subsection:
  - ~~"In a speech, Meyer..." Doesn't matter that it was in a speech, in an article or elsewhere.~~
    - Done. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~"The four hours of bonus content and expanded director's cut of the movie were favourably received." Cited to just two reviews, I don't think that's enough to make that sweeping statement.~~
    - Gone. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Cast" section:
  - I'm not entirely sure the layout conforms to Manual of Style guidance, but I can't find anything specific other than this, which is just a recommendation really. Generally speaking in film articles that feature cast sections as prose entries, the text isn't on a separate line to the "[actor] as [character]" entry. Examples include Changeling (film)#Casting or Iron Man (film)#Cast. If you keep it as is, there's no real reason to bold the names if they're on separate lines, it's more to make them stand out in text-heavy entries such as those. Again, this is your choice as far as I'm concerned, but be aware that someone else might come along armed with a better MOS link. Steve ^{T • C}
    - To keep the out of universe tone, the actors' names should go first. And "Shatner and his film nemesis Khan..." mixes OOU and IU tones disconcertingly. Use either "Kirk and Khan" or "Shatner and Montalbán". Steve ^{T • C} 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 15:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Release and reception" section, "Critical response" subsection:
  - Rotten Tomatoes is not a reliable source for the statement "Critical response to The Wrath of Khan was positive." The site is only really reliable for judging the critical consensus of films released after about 2000; for films before then, they're pretty selective (for example, Fight Club, which split critics right down the middle in 1999, has a very high score on the site too). If you note the dates of the reviews on the page, they range from this year all the way back through the 00s. Only two pre-date 2000.
    - Newer wording places less emphasis on it as a retrospective statement. Steve ^{T • C} 15:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Check for appropriate use of the non-breaking space throughout (e.g. "$97 million").~~
  - KHAAAAN! Sorry, I mean 'struck'. Steve ^{T • C} 15:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

}}

I'll give it another pass once you've either resolved (or successfully ignored!) these, as they may be obscuring other issues. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 12:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review (I seem to be particularly blind to which/that grammar issues...) I've reformatted the cast section. It's still in the bullet form but there's not longer a separate line for each actor and I've removed the sentence fragments. I also believe I've done everything in Cast up to the Lead so far. On 'movie' and 'film', however, I used the two words to reduce redundant-sounding prose, and since they're basically interchangeable I'd rather leave that be. I'll leave you a note when I've gotten to all your concerns. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've gotten to most of your remaining issues. About the cast, I think it's somewhat awkward to have the actors first, as it doesn't provide context to the story. As for Rotten Tomatoes, it's not used to say it was well-received on release; it's used to provide a snapshot of aggregate reviews and point out its the highest-rated movie in the series. Finally, I've gone through and removed many of the 'of the films', etc., but I'm loath to remove all of them as I feel it makes some parts a bit unclear otherwise. Finally, about Meyer, I added a bit of an introductory language for him, so see how that works. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an out-of-universe perspective. The actors are more important than the characters. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the nonbreaking spaces and reformatted the cast section. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what's going on with the inconsistent italicisation of Star Trek? Italics for when referring to TOS, no italics when referring to the franchise, right? Steve ^{T • C} 22:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aye. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okey-dokey. Can you have another look at the lead, the last line in the plot section and Koenig's entry in the cast section? I think the "Star Trek" mentions here are italicised where they shouldn't be. The one in the lead, for example, is actually saying "the television series of the Star Trek franchise". But I may be wrong, which is why I haven't just gone ahead and changed it. Steve ^{T • C} 22:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I changed all of them besides the last line in plot; the speech is originally from Star Trek the series (and hadn't been adapted to other series yet) so I kept it like it is. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry I didn't get back to you yet. Other than a couple of other bits of wording that can be tweaked on the fly, the only thing that's really standing in the way of a support vote right now is whether it's comprehensive enough. Several sections seem a little light on what I might expect to see (especially the filming section). This is highly likely to be down to the fact that the film is 26 years old, but I just wanted to be sure, so I'm planning of checking a few places tomorrow to see what else can be found. I'll let you know one way or the other by the close of play Monday. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 20:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks again. If you find any sources, be sure to pass them on :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Hi. Unfortunately, and trust me I do feel like a complete tool for this, my oppose will have to stand for now on comprehensiveness grounds. It seems there are a lot of articles, some from peer-reviewed journals, available that would definitely flesh out certain sections if even a few of them were used. To prevent this page getting too long, I'll post them to the talk page of this FAC shortly. Obviously, nowhere near all of them need to be used; there's going to be a lot of redundancy between them, and probably between them and what you already have in the article, and some of them probably only mention the film in passing. But it just gives an idea as to the wealth of information out there, and you should definitely take a look at the list to see what you can get hold of. Again, you have my sincere apologies for making you jump through all those prose hoops and then dumping this on you; it really wasn't my intention. You've done a bang up job of this article so far. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 23:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←I've begun crawling through the sources. Some are already in the article (a few); I added one or two more to reception. As for the rest I can't find them on any online database, on their websites, or in my library. I've put some requests in for Interlibrary Loan, but it remains to be seen if they can find them. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment—Fairly decent so far, but I think it needs more work before I'll support it.

I know the Plot section has been edited down to tighten the prose, but to me it has become very dry and unappealing. It reads like a technical writing exercise and lacks a certain engaging element. I'm not real happy with it.
"Khan takes control of Chekov and Terrell and hijacks the Reliant." I don't much care for this sentence. It needs to be clarified in this sentence that Khan uses his control of Chekov and Terrell to perform the hijack, rather than performing the hijack himself. I tried to fix it but another editor re-introduced the issue.
The "Cast" section needs a lead-in saying something to the effect that much of the cast reprised the roles they had played in the original 1960s Star Trek television series. (The lead is intended as a summary of the article, but this fact is not mentioned after the lead.) You could also mention that Majel Barrett, the then wife of Roddenberry, was not part of the cast (after appearing in the first film). Any chance you could find out why? Is it related to Roddenberry's reassignment?
~~"...larger than it really was using forced perspective...",~~ "...utilized camera and set tricks to..." and ~~"...closing monologue were added to positive response...".~~ These seem somewhat ambiguous, at least to me. Perhaps 'camera-and-set tricks'.

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I (and other) editors have fixed most of the above. To the Majel Barrett part, I didn't find anything in my research about her absence. It makes sense if Roddenberry was moved up he wasn't in a position to place her anywhere, but that's just speculation. As to the prose, is there anything in specific you find unappealing? Better to be direct than cloud up the prose with "Meanwhiles" and redundancies. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I reflected on what I bothered me about the plot section, and I think it is the fact that too many sentences begin with a character's name. I.e. "Khan does this; Khan does that; Kirk does something; Spock does something, Khan does something else, etc." It just seems a little on the stilted side.—RJH (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've tried to reword and reorganize some parts, or else use personal pronouns where it won't be too confusing... I can't do too much without compromising the clarity. Take a look now? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Much improved now. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Star Trek! Whoo! (Tamping down my own excitement - why aren't there more Trek FACs?) The article as it stands is generally well-written and organized (exceptions outlined below). However, like Steve, I have some concerns about comprehensiveness:

Spock's death was intended to be irrevocable, the only reason Leonard Nimoy reprised his role. Negative test audience reaction to the character's death led to significant revisions of the ending without Meyer's consent. - These sentences don't flow with the second paragraph of the lead, which discusses the nitty-gritty of making the movie. What about recasting them as part of the writing of the film?

The significance of the first paragraph of the plot is entirely unclear to someone unfamiliar with Star Trek and the movie. I'm not even sure if we need to explain the training mission in such detail. Perhps one sentence or two?

Nichols noted that she advocated on Gene Roddenberry's behalf to the producers over elements of the film, including the naval references and militaristic uniforms. - It is not entirely clear what this means.

Meyer attempted to change the look of Star Trek to match the nautical atmosphere - The "nautical atmosphere" of what? Since this is the beginning of a new subsection, we have to be especially clear.

The last paragraph of the "Filming" section is disorganized. Rather than a clear presentation of information about Spock's death, it is a random collection of facts. I would suggest reorganizing both the second and third paragraphs.

We learn, for example, that test audiences reacted badly to the scene twice.
It is unclear to a reader unfamiliar with the film what the "remember" sequence is.
The tone of the ending was changed from dark and final to what exactly?

The "Filming" section is thin, as it focuses almost exclusively on the death of Spock. Also, the "Music" section could do with an expansion. I checked the MLA database for articles on the "Wrath of Khan" - here are three that looked helpful. From Steve's list on the article talk page, it looks like there are many more sources from which to cull information.

Goldsmith, Jeff. "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan". Creative Screenwriting, 2007 May-June; 14 (3): 14.

Jenkins, Henry. "'If I Could Speak with Your Sound': Fan Music, Textual Proximity, and Liminal Identification". Camera Obscura: A Journal of Feminism, Culture, and Media Studies. 1990 May; 23: 149-175.

Byers, Thomas B.; "Commodity Futures: Corporate State and Personal Style in Three Recent Science-Fiction Movies". Science-Fiction Studies, 1987 Nov.; 14 (3) (43): 326-339.

After a few more weeks spent researching and adding information, I think this article can easily become featured. If you need help obtaining any of the sources listed by myself or Steve, let me know. My university subscribes to many databases. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. [88] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 16:04, 4 November 2008 [89].

Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette

Nominator(s): Lazulilasher (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria. I began working this article after the spotlight alerted WP:France that it would be the weekly collaboration. Lafayette's story always fascinated me, so I worked on expanding the content. I feel the article is ready after 2 months of work, an in-depth GA review, a peer review and a MILHIST A-class review.

The marquis de Lafayette was a fascinating character in the Age of Revolution. I hope you find the article worthy, and I await your comments. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead states nothing about his life after his imprisonment in Austria. I got the impression that he died in prison, or died shortly after being released, from the lead. I had to read the article to discover otherwise. 204.193.198.179 (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, good point. I expanded the lead to include his activites after imprisonment: Chamber of Deputies, July Revolution, visit to the USA, and death. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

What makes the following reliable sources?
- ~~http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/served/lafayette.html~~
- ~~http://www.nndb.com/~~
- ~~http://www.friendsoflafayette.org/data/timeline.html (current ref 34 ... it is lacking a publisher also)~~
- ~~http://www.lafayette.edu/press/magazine/Jan07/slavery.html~~
- ~~http://www.crookedlakereview.com/articles/101_135/129fall2003/129minor.html~~
~~The Crawford ref is lacking a publication date. (It's originally published in 1907, so that's the date you'd use)~~

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out withe link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, source listed above 1-3 were removed and resourced to more reliable works. The 4th was written by Lafayette College archivist and published in their alumni magazine. I would consider it reliable, but if not I can go dig up something better; it may take a day, though. The Crooked Lake was removed and re-cited to Cloquet. The Crawford ref was fixed. Thanks Ealgdyth, Lazulilasher (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the archivist, I'd really prefer to see something done by a historian at least, and it'd be better to have it by a historian in a historical journal. What we have now is someone writing outside their field and in an alumni magazine which isn't exactly a place you expect to see serious history being presented. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Ok, rectified. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
- The treatment of the French Revolution is a mass of POV. In a page on the events of 1791-2, the words Legislative Assembly are never mentioned; we are left with the impression that Lafayette's arrest and that of his wife are the acts of a street mob, not of the elected legislature during a coup - or, perhaps, a civil war. (The solitary use of Assembly is calculated to confuse the reader; this is not the National Constituent Assembly of 1789-91.)
  - Furthermore, as mentioned below, the wrong party within the Assembly is mentioned.
  - The fundamental problem here is likely to be that one recent concise history of the French Revolution has been consulted, instead of the standard sources. It may well have been checked hastily; what editors do not understand, they cannot explain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A review of Lafayette's family which omits Madame de La Fayette is hardly comprehensive.
- 25,000 livres ($30,000 in the 18th century). The date is 1770, two decades before the existence of United States currency; what is this supposed to mean, the piece of eight? More importantly, what is the conversion supposed to convey to the reader? In terms of purchasing power, this would be closer to $500,000 (2008).
- Collating with ANB reveals that the problem with Lafayette's commission is that Deane's authority had been challenged; we should mention and explain this.
- His return foiled Gates' plan to assume control of the army. His return to Albany, or to Pennsylvania from Albany? And in either case, how did the appearance of a single aide foil Gates' plan?
- So what, if anything, did Lafayette do at Monmouth? If the answer is "not much", why spend a paragraph getting him there?
- He initially viewed slaves as property and, after meeting with American spy James Armistead, urged their use as soldiers during the revolution. A misunderstanding; all proposals to arm slaves included their eventual emancipation, if only from military necessity.
  - Lafayette's promotion in 1783 to major-general in the French army is omitted.
- In 1784 Lafayette returned to America, visited 11 states, ANB says ten. Maryland's grant of citizenship is omitted.
- In 1789, Lafayette was elected to the Estates-General. In preparation, he worked with Thomas Jefferson on a document called the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen". He prepared a draft, one of several, of that Declaration; he consulted with Jefferson in the process. These do not add up to the assertion made here that Jefferson was the author of the Declaration.
- The Estates General convened on 5 May 1789 and Lafayette was a member of the noble Second Estate. When King Louis XVI encountered difficulty with the Estates General, he closed the meeting room of the Third Estate, the vast majority of the people who were neither clergy nor aristocracy This confuses the Third Estate, which was the vast majority, with its deputies, some 600 men.
- The next day in response to the dismissal of Finance Minister Jacques Necker, Camille Desmoulins organized an armed mob. In response, the Assembly authorized a National Guard, appointing Lafayette as commander and electing him vice-president of the Assembly. No mention of the royal army, under Victor-François, 2nd duc de Broglie, outside Paris. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On October 6, 1789, Lafayette intruded into the National Assembly in uniform, but alone; the resulting view of him as an ineffective Cromwell contributed non-trivially to his eventual fall. We should not, of course, adopt this as our PoV, but the occurence and consequences should be mentioned.
- The Jacobins offered a reward for his capture or death....On September 1792 soldiers led by Jacobins arrested Lafayette's wife, Adrienne, but later released her. This is most unlikely. Jacobin does not equal revolutionary, and on August 19 and September 10, 1792, the Girondins were still in power; see Vergniaud. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As chaos grew in France, Adrienne was again arrested by the Jacobins. Many negative descriptions of the Great Terror of the summer of 1794 are reasonable, but chaos and tyranny are clean different things. We are not entitled to any POV, least of all Burke's.
- On 22 January 1795 Adrienne was released. The fall of Robespierre seems to be missing.
- Adrienne lived in his cell with him and finally, in September 1797, after five years' imprisonment, Napoleon released the family. From their captivity at the hands of the Austrian government, which is not here stated. Try liberated. And while the status of the Treaty of Campo Formio is somewhat unusual, This was at the request of the Directory and as a result of the Treaty of Campo Formio drafted in 1797. does not describe it well.
  - And it was signed October 17, 1797 - according to our article; what is drafted doing in this sentence? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lafayette's effort to improve his estates when he was in internal exile under Napoleon is omitted.
- In 1804, Napoleon crowned himself Emperor after a plebiscite in which Lafayette did not participate. So? Was this a risk, or not?
- Lafayette's politics in 1834 should be explained.

- Badly written:
  - In 1790, Lafayette renounced his claim to the nobility title. Not idiom.
  - Lafayette created a control point allowing a more orderly retreat. Jargon.
  - His return foiled Gates' plan to assume control of the army. Melodrama; where's "Curses" and "again"
  - The flank scattered, and Lafayette organised a retreat while the British remained indecisive. Armies are not indecisive; they may be stationary.
  - In 1784 Lafayette returned to America, visited 11 states, and provided the Congress with news of trade negotiations. Indiscriminate collection of information; this is two sentences rammed together.
  - In 1804, Napoleon crowned himself Emperor after a plebiscite in which Lafayette did not participate. Lafayette is the subject of this life: Lafayette did not participate in the plebiscite of 1804 approving Napoleon's coronation as Emperor.

More follows. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a minor annoyance, the article has been through a style war. It was originally in American English, with the American format for dates; both appropriate for an American major-general. The spelling was switched to British English, for no particular reason, and the dates to the international format. The spelling has been reverted, properly; Lafayette has strong national ties to the United States. Can we also switch the dates back to the format customary to the nationality most likely to be assigned reading about Lafayette? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, do whatever you want with the dates and spelling. I am a hobbyist, not an expert. I didn't know the sources I was using were so horribly POV. So, whatever...I was trying to summarize his involvement in the French Revolution, that's all. The goal was: provide a concise summary of Lafayette in the Revolution. I'll look these over, and see what I can do; it will be a few days, as I am without reliable internet access. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A public library may be more helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One other suggestion, with which a public library will be particularly helpful: It is very useful to consult the lives of contemporaries of the subject. The scattered references to Lafayette in a life of Washington or Robespierre will tend to concentrate on the more notable incidents, and they will tend to present Lafayette as a human being, with a concrete political program, rather than as a hero (with a list of Plutarchian virtues) or a villain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support (i did provide some editorial comment, to Lazu's work)
- i applaud the work to improve to this point
- compares favorably with Daniel Boone, Stephen Trigg, and George Washington, Battle of Trenton. we have 12 GA-FA articles in American Revolutionary War - (actually Trenton should be a FA also)
  - For what it's worth, I tend to agree. The treatment of Washington's presidency is appalling, and Daniel Boone comes close to copying out a single modern source. This is also better than Daniel Webster; but all this is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- the POV is much improved (there is a pro-anti war out there)
- i would like to see more in legacy, by way of conclusion. Pohick2 (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - True enough. Where's Pershing? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - lol, it wasn't an existence discussion, but a benchmarking discussion, how do i know what a FA is but by comparing to another FA. hey Lazu, don't let the snarky nerds get you down. we have a lot of work to to in this stub field. btw, in re foiled, the Conway Cabal letters were sent to Lafayette, who turned them in to Washington (the joke was on them). Pohick2 (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, I'm back. Sorry I was away for so long; my um computer was stolen. I'll try to address everything that's possible, within the time frame. Although, we may not have enough time to get these things done before the deadline. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Renomination is always possible; although I would think there is a substantial job of reading before they can be addressed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What about those tags on the article? They are rather worrying. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They're mine; see the comments above. To which I would add that I deplore the absence of Jean Sylvain Bailly, revolutionary mayor of Paris - and Lafayette's coworker. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't add Bailly because I was concerned about detail. He might be mentioned earlier. Regardless, I'll put him back. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I only read through the American Revolution sections, and I do not believe that the prose is quite ready for FA status. I've listed some examples below of issues with the prose, but that is not a comprehensive list.

A small MOS fix: In page ranges, often the last number is not abbreviated properly (for example 392 until 394 should be 392–4).
Do sources ever tell the full name of Madame de Chavaniac?
"on 24 April his grandfather died" - which grandfather?
May need to make it more clear in the article that Lafayette was part of his title, not his surname. The way it is presented in the lead confused me a bit and it is never addressed in the body of the article.
The prose in the Education and marriage section needs lots of work
- "Through an arranged marriage he had his way with " - huh? This obviously doesn't mean what it sounds like to me...so what does it mean?
- "their educations." - education is the plural - no s
- What education was Marie Adrienne getting? Women didn't usually go to school in this time period
- In what year were they "accidentally" introduced?
- It is confusing that her father is first introduced at the duc de Noailles and then her mother later as the duchesse d'Ayen. I see from the article on the duke that he inherited the de Noailles title later, but readers shouldn't have to click the links to understand what is going on. Either this should be reworded, or a footnote added.
Is there any information on whether Lafayette was very interested in the military before his marriage, or did he join because he was expected to?
Was it unusual for a Marquis to take an active role in the military?
More issues with ambiguous prose:
- " De Broglie invited the young Lafayette to join the Freemasons, for whom the American Revolutionary War had become an issue. When " - this doesn't say what "issue" the Freemasons took (could be interpreted as either for the colonists, for the British, or against any war at all), and implies that he was invited to join because the Freemasons did not like the war.
- next sentence: "When the Duke of Gloucester, King George III's brother and colonial policy critic, travelled through the region, he was invited to dinner with de Broglie and his men" - he who? King George II, Duke of Gloucester and de Broglie and Lafayette are all potential antecedents when you first read "he" (although de Broglie is quickly eliminated)
- "and colonial policy critic," - not sure what this means - did Gloucester disapprove of the British handling of the Americas or did he support the Americans in the revolution?
Is there any information on what experience Lafayette gained while in the French military before he joined the American cause?
All quotations need to be cited directly, even if that means that subsequent sentences have the same citation. For example the "friend and father" quote is not cited directly.
There are some comma issues in the article (too many or not enough depending on the sentence).
"created a control point" - I am not sure what this means
There is a lot of passive voice that would be changed to active voice. Active voice generally provides better prose. One of the most glaring to me was ""and was recommended for the command of a division in a letter to Congress on 1 November"
"General Howe led a further 6,000 soldiers" - can we get a full name and wikilink for Howe, please?
There are a lot of awkward prose constructions - (as an example) "Louis XVI, pleased with the soldier after Lafayette proposed schemes for attacking the British"
When he first went to America, he left a pregnant wife (1777). What happened to that baby? The first child to be mentioned was born in 1779
The return to France section seems a bit off. Lafayette went to France, then "received news" his wife had given birth to a son (but wasn't he in France already), then in March 1780 he "left Adrienne"....
Make sure verb tenses are consistent - in "After the revolution" skips from "visited' to "would address" and back to "visited"
I am confused about how he "formed views in the US that he later applied in France". It says that he viewed slaves as property but suddently apparently had an epiphany where he didn't think so anymore. Are there any details on how his time in American changed his views?
I wouldn't consider the Moland House website to be a reliable source. It is essentially self-published.
I also question the use of Valley Forge National Historical Park and Mountvernon.org. Surely that information is in one of the books?

Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Ok, thanks for the good review Karanacs. I am going to attempt more of these tommorow. I don't know if I have enough time; regardless, all of this feeback will be good for improvement for the article. Thanks much. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:Maralia 13:48, 4 November 2008 [90].

London

Nominator(s): User:Thehelpfulone

previous FAC (05:06, 10 June 2008)

Self Nomination: London's back again! The last FAC failed with sourcing issues, that of which I have now fixed. I put it through another peer review, and now hope it meets the FAC criteria. I will of course be happy to make any changes to it if you don't think it meets the criteria! The Helpful One ^Review 16:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: Too many opposes, I've got some work to do! The Helpful One ^Review 21:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - there are issues to address.

Images
- The architecture gallery is unnecessary. I don't think it makes the article better.

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 17:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Is Image:Westminster-abbey.jpg the best quality image available for Westminster Abbey? It seems a bit dark, and it's low resolution.

Replaced with Image:Westminster abbey west.jpg. The Helpful One ^Review 18:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- There should be more variation on aligning images to the right, and a few to the left. (though not directly under section headings) The history, economics, and education section appear suitable for a left-aligned image.

Done. The Helpful One ^Review 18:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources
- What makes http://www.demographia.com/dm-lonarea.htm a reliable source? What's "Southest England"? and it's not clear where they get their numbers from.

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- What makes world-gazetteer.com a reliable site? I have no idea who runs the site? and not thrilled with the pop-up ads that get past my pop-up blocker.

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Is ontarioarchitecture.com (Canada?) really a good source for describing architectural styles of London, when there are thousands of books [91] that cover the topic?

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- On the topic of architecture in London, the Wikipedia article mainly cites two websites - http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/London:+architecture and londonarchitecture.co.uk While these sites might possibly be reliable, I think there must be higher quality, more reliable sources to draw upon for this section.

Removed the first one, looking for an alternative to the second one. The Helpful One ^Review 19:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about some of these sources were raised at the last FAC, and don't seem addressed yet. I have not been through the rest of the article with detailed checking of sources, but again it appears that a lot of web-based sources are being used, when surely a huge amount has been written about London in more reputable or scholarly sources. I would like to see better sources for this important topic. --Aude (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.history.ac.uk/cmh/lpol/ - this appears useful for finding quality sources about London, among other places to look. --Aude (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - because a number of the sourcing issues from before still remain, as well as a few new ones.

What makes the following reliable sources?
- http://world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?men=home&lng=en&des=wg&srt=pnan&col=adhoq&msz=1500&geo=0 (note this was raised at the last FAC)

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- http://www.demographia.com/ (note this was raised at the last FAC)

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- http://www.citymayors.com/index.html (note this was raised at the last FAC)

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/index.html (this was raised at the last FAC)

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- http://web.archive.org/web/20070123080157/http://www.y-axis.com/verybritish/VisitOverseas.htm (this was raised at the last FAC)

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- http://www.chr.org.uk/legends.htm

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- http://www.london.diplo.de/Vertretung/london/en/02/An__Embassy__in__Belgrave__Square/Churches__in__London__Seite.html

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- http://londonarchitecture.co.uk/
- http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/london/thames.htm

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/ (this was raised at the last FAC)

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- http://www.londononline.co.uk/

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- http://www.euromonitor.com/

Why it's it reliable? It's the website link for the information regarding the study. The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/London:+architecture (this was raised at the last FAC)

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- http://www.travellondon.com/templates/attractions/index.html

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- http://www.spoonfed.co.uk/london/

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- http://www.infoplease.com/

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- http://www.allstates-flag.com/fotw/flags/cwn-beg.html (this would be reliable for the flag, but it's not necessarily reliable for the information being sourced to it, that London hosted a games in 1934) Also the title of the link is incorrect here, it's not the British Empire Games Website but "British Empire Games". Adding the "Website" there implies that it's an official site, which it's not, its from Flags of the World.

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- http://www.thetravelinsider.info/britain/londonundergroundtravelinfo.htm (this is being used to reference the number of riders on the Underground, which really would be better sourced to an official site, not a tourist site)

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- http://geography.about.com/od/urbaneconomicgeography/a/busiestairports.htm

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current ref 4 (World Gazetteer) has an incorrect publisher and link title. I make the titles as "World Metropolitan areas" and the publisher as World Gazetteer.

Removed the reference. The Helpful One ^Review 19:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that a publisher of a website isn't the url of it, but a name. So instead of current ref 3's publisher being www.statistics.gov.uk, it should be Office for National Statistics. the WORK would be www.statistics.gov.uk. You'll need to check all your references for this, as a number of them have this issue.
Current ref 7 has an incorrect publisher listed. Should be Office for National Statistics.
The following sources need page numbers:
- Current ref 11 (Mills, David...)
- Current ref 17 (Sassen, Saskia...)
- Current ref 41 (Pepys, Samuel..)
- Current ref 71 (Collins English Dictionary...)
- Current ref 72 (Oxford English Dictionary...)
- Current ref 120 (Sassen, Saskia...)
- Current ref 169 (Colin Larkin...) Note that the author should be listed last name first for this reference also.
Current refs 18 and 19 refer to wikipedia articles? Or are you referring to the study? If so, you need more information than given, including publishers, and page numbers.
Please spell out lesser known abbreviations such as CILT, used in the references.
I find the history section being sourced to The Museum of London and the BBC websites to be a bit ... underwhelming as far as sourcing. There are plenty of printed works on the history of London, they should at least be consulted for differing scholarly views on the history.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jX8ZAAAAIAAJ&q=rebuilding+of+london&dq=rebuilding+of+london&pgis=1 is a google search snippet, which don't allow the full context of the work to be understood. It's always best to consult the printed source and read it to get the full context of the author's meaning.
Current ref 78 (LondonA History) is a book. it should be formatted as such, with an author, publisher, and page numbers. Hopefully the whole work was consulted rather than just the google books search that's presented.
Is it UK Met Office or Met Office? Current ref 82 (Greenwich 1971-2000 averages) gives UK Met Office, but current ref 85 (Met Office the Great Smog of 1952) gives Met Office.
There is no need to run publisher names into the link titles. Examples include (but this isn't exahustive) current ref 81 (BBC News..) Current ref 85 (Met Office..) 58 (BBC...) etc.
Current ref 91 (Guardian Unlimi8ted Money) is lacking a publication date. Also, the title is incorrect, it should be "Super Rich".
Decide if you're going to use BBC or British Broadcasting Authority, and be consistent.

Done. The Helpful One ^Review 19:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current ref 104 links to a web page summary of an article. Are you referencing the article itself? If so, you need to format it like an article, not a web page. If you are just referencing the summary/abstract, what makes this a reliable source?
Current ref 137 (London: architeture) is lacking a publisher.
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/living_environment/open_spaces/ deadlinks
Current ref 171 (London Event Listings) is lacking publisher and last access date at the very least.
Current ref 215 has the incorrect publisher listed. It's not "London External" but rather the University of London.

Done The Helpful One ^Review 19:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A number of your last access dates are in ISO format, and should be made consistent with the rest of the article.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I read the page in entirety and made some very minor comments on the article talk page. I agree with Ealdgyth's comments on sources which also seem to be minor and easily corrected. If these corrections are made, I have no problem Supporting. I thought it was a great article, very interesting, in good format and included helpful information that one might use if considering a vacation there. I liked the prose and I felt it met FAC criteria. NancyHeise ^talk 18:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Thehelpfulone, are you going to find reliable sources to replace the numerous {{fact}} tags that now exist? Cheers, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm going to look for some sources now - I left out 2 of the unreliable sources still in there, because they are used quite a bit, and will do those once the others are completed. The Helpful One ^Review 19:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The sourcing remains unimpressive. The "History" section, for which there are hundreds of books available, is almost entirely sourced to websites, even if reliable ones. The architecture section is even worse. No mention, or link, is made to Squares in London, when the garden square is London's unique contribution to archiecture; there is next to nothing on housing in general. There should be a picture of a square too, now the gallery has been removed. The reference for the statement "Most buildings in London date from the Edwardian or Victorian periods" is subscription-only, & looks far from authoritative. A look at both public/office buildings, and housing in most of London shows that the statement as made is highly unlikely to be true. The "average" building in London is probably a 1930s semi. The section jumps from the Great Fire to Battersea Power Station. No mention of Wren churches, Hawksmoor, or the significant late 17th or 18th century areas that remain largely intact - Soho, St James, Bloomsbury, never mind Regency or Victorian areas. With arguably the best museums in the world, but schools & universities few would make such claims for, the museums should not be tucked away under "education" right at the end. Equally there is only a passing mention that there is a "theatre district", when London theatre is one of the things that make it distinctive among the world's large cities. Without going overboard, pulling together a section on "visitor attractions", with statistics etc, would seem sensible, since the article will inevitably mostly irritate more than inform actual Londoners, & is likely to be used mostly by visitors. The prose remains unexciting & sometimes unacceptable - "Later important depictions of London from the 19th and early 20th centuries are the afore-mentioned Dickens novels, and Arthur Conan Doyle's illustrious Sherlock Holmes stories." Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:14, 1 November 2008 [92].

House's Head

Nominator(s): --Music26/11

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria. I just got it up to Good Article status, so most of the minor problems are fixed. The lenght of the production section seemed a bit short, but I noticed Greatest Hits (Lost) which has a shorter production section. --Music26/11 14:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the following sources reliable:
- ~~[93]~~ (deleted) ~~[94]~~ (is the blog of the writer of an actual newspaper, see next link)~~[95]~~ (is the online editon of an actual newspaper, per here and here) and ~~[96]~~ (deleted)? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Add http://tvdramas.about.com/od/tvshowsaz/a/foxmaysweep08.htm to that, as well. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About.com articles are written, or at least checked by subject experts. At least, they were, last time I checked. - Mgm|^(talk) 04:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Huffington Post.2C_Gawker_and_About.com discusses this. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting SandyGeorgia: "Anyone can write for about.com and there is no fact checking or editorial oversight". –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have these issues been addressed? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above issues have been addressed, I'm still working on the issues below.--Music26/11 16:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

~~Why is Academy of Television Arts & Sciences italicised in one ref (9) but not in the preceding one?~~ check.--Music26/11 16:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes the followin reliable sources?
- ~~http://www.tvsquad.com/2008/05/13/house-houses-head/~~ has been deleted.
- ~~http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/show/house/houses_head.php~~ reliable source, per here
- http://goldderbyforums.latimes.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1106078764/m/340102161
- ~~http://tvdramas.about.com/od/tvshowsaz/a/foxmaysweep08.htm~~ has been replaced.
~~Please spell out lesser known abbreviations (such as BBM) in the references~~

~~Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.~~ check.--Music26/11 16:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Ealdgyth - Talk 11:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to show where they are used outside of Wikipedia, not that they are used in Wikipedia articles. Quite frankly, GAs are not often checked for reliable sources, and older FAs weren't either. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for my late reply, I've been busy with school, anyhow, I think I took care of most of your comments. I've added some reliable sources that prove the references used in the article, I'm still looking for sources for the LA times forum and TV Squad, I would like to hear your comments on my work so far.--Music26/11 16:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I've deleted or replaced most sources you found unreliable, I think a few of them are reliable per the statements listed below:

[97] (AllTV (the star-ledger)) is used in the GAs Eggtown (Lost), There's No Place Like Home, Miles Straume, Goodbye, Toby, Succession (30 Rock), Subway Hero and Cabin Fever (Lost).
[98] (Sepinwall blogspot) is a website hosted by the the writer of The Star-Ledger (the link listed above), who, in my opinion, is a professional recapist.
[99] (The Envelope Forum) is used in the GAs One of Us (Lost) and Flashes Before Your Eyes and the FA Greatest Hits (Lost)
[100] (TV without Pity), is reffered to in the FAs Through the Looking Glass (Lost), Greatest Hits (Lost), The Beginning of the End (Lost), Nikki and Paulo and Soprano Home Movies and the GAs The Constant and Two for the Road (Lost).
[101] (TV Squad). I've seen this links in so many GAs and FAs, I hardly can't understand why you doubt it's reliability. But here's a list. GAs: Ana Lucia Cortez, House (TV series), Cabin Fever (Lost), Rosemary's Baby (30 Rock), The Other Woman, The Rural Juror. FAs: Martin Keamy and The Shape of Things to Come (Lost).

Note: I'm referring to the websites, not the links themselves.

All the other minor errors are fixed.--Music26/11 22:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is why I hate TV Squad and BuddyTV when they are used in articles, because those reviews typically have nothing to say that is encyclopedic and editors are using them to bloat reception sections. See--" Jay Black of TV Squad quoted "I know that I spent the whole hour with the same goofy look on my face that Christopher Walken had when he saw heaven in the movie Brainstorm".^[1] He also said that House is funnier then Two and a Half Men.^[1]"--The first part tells us absolutely nothing about the episode, and the second part doesn't even seem to be directed at this episode but a general statement about the series. Critical reviews should be analytical, with context provided for explaination. If Critic A says Omar Epps's acting sucked in this episode, we need context as to why it sucked. Simply stating it doesn't provide any real value for the article. If the reviewer doesn't say why, then the review itself probably isn't useable. Please go through your critical reception information and make sure that it doesn't read like a promotional piece for the episode, or simply provide one-line statements that vaguely identify the reason why a critic might appreciate or not appreciate the episode. This goes all the way to LA Times and the other more professional news organization sources in the article. Even their critics can leave simple one liners to describe their feelings. It should not be the point of editors to find a single sentence that describes the critics opinion (because those are usually vague), but be able to paraphrase their thoughts. There is too much direct quoting going on. Quote as little as possible and paraphrase as much as possible. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I took care of most of them (in the "Reception" section), I left a few though, because they're pretty clear. I'd appreciate it if you'd took another look.--Music26/11 20:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for 1a at least - prose needs proofreading ("check for a the bus driver") and a lot of work to improve the fluency. Lead needs to be shorter and more focused: for instance, you don't need to explain the plot in that level of detail when the plot section is directly underneath, or mention to whom an award was lost. It should be an overview with minimal minor details. Trebor (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on that during the weekend.--Music26/11 16:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Check out Pilot, if you haven't already, which is currently still a FAC, but I believe it is FA worthy. Anyway, look for key points like it's prose etc.

Sunsetsunrise (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images - Infobox image needs a stronger rationale to be there (and I wonder if that's the best one - I'm thinking it might be better to use one of the shots near the end of this episode where House has all the other docs with picture badges to try to recreate the scene before the critical flashback). Two free images are fine. --MASEM 20:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - 1a. concerned that there are serious issues with prose. All the content is there, I believe, but there are some glaringly bad sentences in there, i.e. "she either slapped a hand over her mouth. Or possibly screamed her my TV." --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:14, 1 November 2008 [102].

Economy of Ohio

Nominator(s): Jd027^talk

I am nominating Economy of Ohio for featured article status because I believe it meets the requirements to do so. Significant improvements have been made to the article since its last FAC, and Economy of Ohio is now a "Good Article." The sources are varied, and there is a reliable, governmental source that is constant throughout the article. The article is not overly verbose, while at the same time gets the point across. Comments? Jd027^talk 22:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
Ref #7 is a barelink; needs to be formatted correctly.
What makes http://autos.aol.com/cars-Honda-Accord-2007/expert-review (ref #7) a reliable source?
What makes http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/ohio/housing.html (ref #24) a reliable source?
Again with http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_statetaxrate_OH.html (ref #25).

–Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- All fixed. Jd027^talk 23:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now.
It would be nice if the lead could be fleshed out.
The economy of Ohio includes many historically strong industries, such as motor vehicle manufacturing, more traditional industries, such as agriculture, and new and developing sectors such as the information industry and food processing. - Awkwardly worded. Might be better if the comma after "industries" was removed.
Some of the largest food processing plants in the world are also located in Ohio: the world's largest yogurt processing plant is operated by Dannon in Auglaize County, Campbell's operates the world's largest soup processing plant in Napoleon, Heinz operates the world's single largest ketchup processing plant in Fremont, and General Mills operates the world's largest frozen pizza processing plant in Wellston. - If I were speaking this aloud, I'd run out of breath!
Wal-Mart is by far the largest single employer in Ohio,[2] with approximately 52,000 Ohio employees. - Remove "by far".
The largest Ohio employer with headquarters in Ohio is Kroger, with approximately 36,500 employees, and headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio. - "The largest Ohio employer ... in Ohio". Also, as we know we're talking about Ohio, no need to specify that in city names.
If Ohio were to be its own country, it would rank between Turkey and the Netherlands in its nominal gross domestic product. - Relevance?
The last paragraph of the General statistics section is very choppy.
Don't force image sizes.
Ohio ranks 1st in the production of Swiss cheese out of all 50 states,[1] 2nd in eggs,[1] 3rd in tomatoes,[1] 6th in soybeans,[1] and 6th in corn for grain.[1] - As long as it's the same ref, you only have to cite it once at the end of the sentence. This happens a lot in the article.
The frozen food industry is the largest sub-industry,[1] surpassing even the state of California by $700 million in frozen food shipments,[1] in which Ohio ships $2.4 billion dollars of frozen food shipments annually. - Removee "even".
Ohio also ranks 1st out of every state in the United States in frozen food shipments and Ohio's frozen food industry accounts for 20.7% of the United States' frozen food processing. - Remove "out of every state".
I see quite a bit of overlinking. For example, you have three of the same links in some sentences: Major food processing companies in Ohio include Chiquita Brands International (Cincinnati), Kroger (Cincinnati), T. Marzetti Company (Columbus), The J.M. Smucker Co. (Orrville), and The Iams Company (Cincinnati).
Ohio Casualty, a subsidiary of Liberty Mutual, Fairfield, Ohio. - Why is "Ohio Casualty" bolded?

I'll provide some more later. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS#Images regarding the placement of images within sections (not above), no left-aligned images under third-level headings, and the order of items within sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Query Thanks that's an interesting read, a few questions did occur to me and I wonder if you have sources that cover any of them:

I don't know Ohio but I would have thought a geography section would be useful, whether it said that the economic activity was evenly spread across the state or more likely that historically towns x, y and z had most of the economic activity but since the 30s the economy has moved to areas a, b or c, whilst d,e and f parts of the state remain agricultural.
Ohio isn't an island, so there will be commuters crossing the state boundary. If the numbers balance this is a minor point, but if Ohio is a net importer or net exporter of commuters then this would be a significant part of the economy. Also unemployment is relevant here especially if there are particular structural concentrations.
Most of the article concentrates on the Private sector - though a particular airbase appears in the list of major employers. I would assume that the Public sector would be an important part of the economy, this would be worth covering especially if the state has markedly more or less than its fair share of Federal spending.
Most references to market share are US specific and ranked by state but US states are not of uniform size - though this might not matter much if Ohio is an average size state. But I would find the comparators more meaningful if they were in terms of x% of the Ohio economy is financial services compared to y% of the US on average and z% of OECD economies.
Trade. I didn't see a reference to how national or international the Ohio economy is. For example X% of Ohio goods and services are sold within Ohio y% in the rest of the US and Z% internationally, whilst a% of Ohios imports come from the US and B% internationally with (hypothetical example) with China, Canada the US states of Illinois and New York as the main trading partners.
Skills. There is mention of some white collar and IT businesses but an indication of how skilled the Ohio workforce is in terms of graduates, apprenticeships or literacy vis a vis US or international standards would be relevant as it is the main driver of much of the "new economy" Ϣere Spiel Chequers 13:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this might be an interesting source re Cleveland and Cincinnati and structural economic decline. Ϣere Spiel Chequers

Comment, is the constant repetition of the same citations truly necessary? See the Information section, for example, where the same reference ([8]) is repeated fifteen times in a row. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 15:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — it doesn't appear that the nominator has made any effort to resolve the issues raised. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for a simple reason: Ohio has existed as a state for 205 years and this article covers at best 10 of those years (not coincidentally, the last 10). Put some serious effort into an economic history section, and I may well revise my opinion. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference TVS was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[TVS-1] Cite error: The named reference TVS was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]