Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/September 2008

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Archived nominations

September 2008 edit

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

The article was not promoted by User:Karanacs 19:52, 30 September 2008 [1].

Tropical Storm Erick (2007) edit

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone


I know it's very short. However, it is equally very comprehensive. I'm trying to set a precedent for FACing less-notable storms, and this is a textbook lesser-notable storm. I'd like to know what your opinions are on this. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing this nomination. I realize that Wikipedia's editors, sometimes rightly so, are opposed to short articles being promoted to featured article status, and thus, even if this is promoted, will probably not demonstrate "Wikipedia's best work". If and when the discussion ends at WT:FAC ends, and pending the addition of a minimum size limit to the criteria, I may renominate this in the future. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything I should do to archive this? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, let's see, if I let you get this one through, then you'll send even more storm FAC's our way, in a craven attempt to boost you and Hink's rankings... that I cannot abide! Image license, author, et al all check out, though I can see from Image:Erick 2007 track.png why this isn't a longer article- that has to be the most boring force of nature I have ever seen. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, there's really not much at all to write about a storm that lasted for about 3 days in the middle of the ocean. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giggy. EC with David.

  • Images fine.
  • Sources fine.
  • "The wave spawned a small low pressure system on July 28 that, despite strong wind shear managed to organize into a tropical depression later that day." - awkward comma use. Probably add another one after shear? Play around with it a bit.
  • Lead needs wikilinkage; tropical depression, remnant, etc. What are these things?
  • "leaving the convection displaced from the low" - ????
  • "closer to the center" - center of what - for extra clarity
  • "Additionally, because of the lack of damage, the name Erick was not retired and is scheduled to be used for the 2013 Pacific hurricane season." - no idea what the first part means - "retired" in this context?
  • I'm not convinced that labelling something this short as featured is a good idea. I'll wait for thoughts from others. The thing is that FA = eventual TFA, and as a reader I'd be a bit cut to get this as my article for the day.

Giggy (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Copyedits done. I understand your concern about the article being short, but the article is comprehensive, so it passes WIAFA. Also, I'm guessing Raul might spare these short articles from the Main Page, so I don't think that's a problem. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will hold off supporting for a bit, still slightly concerned over the last point. Giggy (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a {{fact}} tag. What's more, the "fact" it follows isn't true, according to this. Otherwise, everything looks good. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: Actually, I missed the "Pacific", and it is true if you look at this, but I don't think that's a reliable source. Where did you find this, Julian? Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reference added. It has never (or not commonly) been brought up that the retirement fact, which appears in nearly every hurricane article, needs a cite, but I added one nonetheless. The source I added is that NHC site you listed on your first post, that shows it if you go down to the Pacific names. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you know, if THIS passes, ya'll will be swamped with obscure bishops, right? Mellitus Honorius of Canterbury ... just be warned! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that depends if anybody is good enough to get those articles to FAC. :-) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • SOME of us have to do useful work like check other folks sourcing at FAC. It kinda limits some of our time to ... write articles. (hums) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Heh, well then it's a trade off. I write the quality articles and you review 'em for reliable sources and such! Also, what do you mean about useful work? I bet a storm that lasted for 2 days in the middle of the Ocean that nobody knows of except for the NHC is a core topic. :-) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is nice to see that an article created essentially to spite me is going to make it all the way to FA, because it means that I win. :) Support, although I'd like to see National Hurricane Center linked in the publisher field for at least one reference, and ideally all. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh, yeah, but still, I think this is one of the only FACs that's being considered for merging... anyway, I added the links. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Sloppy work - in a text of less than 500 words there are TWO howling spelling mistakes! This means that over 0.4 per cent of the entire text is misspelt. Proportionately, this is equivalent to more than 40 spelling mistakes in, say, the Samuel Johnson article; imagine what a fuss there would be over that. There is the sense of an in-crowd enjoying an in-joke here, and good luck to them, but this is in fact a carelessly written article about a non-event, flattered by its present C rating. Sorry. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Typos fixed, though I would appreciate if you didn't call two simple grammar mistakes "sloppy work". Also, the C-class rating was put there as a place-holder until the FAC passed/failed. Cheers, and thanks for the comments. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry my comments made you snappy - they were intended mainly in a light-hearted vein, as I imagined was the case with this whole nomination. It appears, however, that you are serious, and actually believe this to be an example of Wikipedia's best work. So I'd better get serious, too. Featured article criteria require that as a primary condition for promotion the prose should engage the reader. What could possibly be less engaging than this article's opening sentence, describing Erick as "a weak tropical cyclone that caused no effects on land or sea"? You might as well just say "This is an article about nothing". Now articles, or TV shows (Seinfeld) about nothing can be very engaging, if sufficient genius is applied, but lacking that, the brief prose which follows this opening statement is merely deadly dull - it's not your fault, but nothing happened to provide any spark to the account. You assert in response to the comment below that "all named storms are notable", which is highly questionable on any proper definition of "notable", but even so that doesn't mean that they are all suitable topics for individual encyclopedia articles. In real-world terms this "event" wasn't so much non-notable as non-noticed, and by your own account the name was promptly re-assigned for future use on a proper storm, which confirms the official view that this was a threat that didn't materialise. OK, it might have done - so write an extended article about the factors which could have arisen, how or why they didn't, how often these circumstances occur, etc. etc., and you might have an informative and engaging article. But on its own - no, no, no. Brianboulton (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was actually serious about nominating this, and I feel somewhat offended that you thought it was a joke. That's besides the point, however, and I would like to know what you think the article needs, as I see your oppose still stands. The article is as comprehensive as it's going to get. The storm lasted for 2 days in the middle of the ocean. No ships encountered the storm. It never affected land. And the storm was a storm, so I don't quite understand what you mean by saying it didn't materialize. All but the most catastrophic storms have their names go on to the next cycle. Since I would still like this to pass, is there anything I could do that could get your support? After all, it was Raul that said that any article that passes AfD can become featured. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that I misconstrued your motives, though I think I'd actually have preferred it to have been a joke. What didn't materialise was the threat and/or consquences that might have arisen from this weather system had it developed differently, but it didn't and thus became a non-event. Whether the article is technically qualified to become featured is, to me, beside the point. I am technically qualified to become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, but don't expect this to happen. As to what you could do to gain my support, please see the end of my previous comment. Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I added quite a bit of information on the storm's statistics and forecasting, and I changed the opening sentence. I can't help, though, that the storm didn't effect land. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fear we won't ever agree on this one, though I recognise that you have tried to expand the meagre content. This hasn't made the prose more engaging - my primary objection to the article - but the subject seems so inconsequential that I suppose nothing can. I don't have any more time to argue about it, however, so I'll strike the oppose. Sorry I can't be more positive, but I am somewhat apprehensive about where the promotion of this article, if it occurs, may lead us in future. Anyway, enough said. Brianboulton (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: To Brianboulton, using your analogy, since you are qualified to become prime minister (just as this topic is notable enough to be an article and hence featured), with enough work you could become PM if you really wanted to and enough people voted for you. That's what is happening here: Julian has put in a lot of work into this article to bring it up FA criteria, and it's up to us to look at the problems with the article, not just the size. Besides, we wouldn't hear of people voting down the perfect candidate for PM just because he/she was too short (that's a hyperbole, but you get my drift)! It's good that this is the biggest issue for this FAC, as opposed to sourcing issues or picture problems that kill so many FACs. Sorry for butting in, but I just wanted to add my two cents. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Weak oppose and I fully expect this to be unactionable, as I'm unable to identify a condition that could really be remedied. I'm primarily concerned that this article relies on one source (National Hurricane Center), a condition for which we even have a cleanup template. The nature of the source's coverage, further, is problematic. The NHC presumably didn't track/record this because it was notable or important, but because it had the potential of becoming notable or important (e.g. making landfall, etc.) - potential it did not fulfill (i.e. a "non-event" per Brianboulton). My impression is that the NHC would track all such weather systems as mere mechanical exercise, not because such a system is particularly meaningful. Secondly, I appreciate brevity and succinctness and recognize fully the distinction between comprehensiveness and length, but I don't think this "exemplifies our very best work". I've deliberately not nominated Pearson's Candy Company, despite it having every major detail that has been published (comprehensive), for the same reason. I subscribe, as not all do, to the idea that some articles just can't become featured; it doesn't mean they aren't fine articles, it just means they aren't the tops. Эlcobbola talk 22:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All named storms are notable, as they have significant coverage in reliable sources—namely the NHC. There is extremely little about the storm, so it is comprehensiveness. Would it help if I added redundant non-NHC sources? I wouldn't find any more information, but at least it would give it a sense of broadness. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, I tried to expand the Impact section with some odds and ends about statistics. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - OpposeComment - Am I being stupid? I don't understand this:

Tropical Storm Erick was the eighth tropical cyclone and fifth named storm of the 2007 Pacific hurricane season. The eighth tropical cyclone and fourth named storm of the season, Erick originated from a tropical wave that emerged off the coast of Africa, traveled westward across the Atlantic, and emerged into the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Was it the fourth or the fifth and why say the same thing twice? In trying to work this out, I didn't get any further into the article. A very poor start. Graham Colm Talk 08:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the same thing. A tropical cyclone can be a tropical depression, but still not have attained tropical storm status, and was thus not named; so there might have been a depression early in the season that adds to the higher number of tropical cyclones than named storms. I tried to clarify it some to make it more clear that a tropical cyclone and a named storm are not always the same. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still find the first two sentences of the Introduction difficult to understand. Perhaps the second sentence needs to start with "when" or "as".
  • In the same sentence:
The eighth tropical cyclone and fourth named storm of the season, Erick originated from a tropical wave that emerged off the coast of Africa, traveled westward across the Atlantic, and emerged into the Eastern Pacific Ocean. - The storm emerges twice it seems.
  • Is ...managed to organize into a tropical depression... just jargon for "formed"?
  • Here, Wind shear prevented development for a few days further development? development of what exactly?
  • Is the low acceptable English or just lazy jargon?
  • Here, convection formed closer to the center of the storm, presumably air convection, I haven't a clue. For such a short article there's no excuse not to explain these terms in full.
  • The transcluded, (why transcluded?) picture of the storm path adds nothing to the article. The legend is particularly poor. I live in the center of England, after looking at the image for about two minutes I recognised the coast of Southern California. It's a very unhelpful image.

I found this article dull. I might be because in England we only get boring weather, but I found the prose to be lazy. Our weather forecasts are written and presented better than this. FAs are supposed to exemplify Wikipedia's best work. Graham Colm Talk 15:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done with everything, except the image. It's WP:WPTC standard to include such a track map in every tropical cyclone article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I maintain my opposition, because I cannot support this article's FA candidature; it's little more than stub about a transient atmospheric phenomenon. And one from which we have nothing to learn. My critical comments were not addressed in full; the legend for the image of the route of the storm, for example, still gives no geographical context, and the prose is still dull. I don't think this article satisfies the FA criteria with regard to engaging prose. Given that some FAs take months and years to perfect, to promote this would lower the standard of Wikipedia's exemplary work. The FA process, as I see see it is about raising the required standard; should this become an FA, the standard will be lowered. Sorry to be so blunt and, please don't shoot the messenger, but I think the motivation driving this nomination is more about collecting FA trophies than building a great encyclopaedia. Graham Colm Talk 21:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must disagree. There is very little to write about this storm, and thus an oppose based upon length is not actionable. However, I will continue to polish the prose, and I hope you will in time feel comfortable supporting. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I expanded the track map caption. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm withdrawing my opposition and changing to neutral. There is little on this page that has caused me to change my mind but discussions on the FAC Talk page have clearly revealled that the FA criteria do not support the main issue I had with this article, and it is the criteria that should be adressed. Perhaps something like this should be added, "Short, but otherwise FA standard articles will not be promoted until all possibilities for merger with related articles have been explored." Graham Colm Talk 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Comprehensive, reminds me in a way of 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake. Maybe Julian might have an FA right after he becomes an admin. Yay! :) lolz —Sunday | Speak 20:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'll have to agree with LS. (Bou'in Zahra rules!) Nice work. Your friend Eddy O. D. Wiki[citation needed] 01:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think the fact it passed south of Hawaii on August 5 should be mentioned - per here. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Forgive me, but why not just make this a GA? –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could. But then inevitably I would send it to FAC again, as this is clearly the most comprehensive account of the storm anywhere, and is deserving of featured article status. As I indicated above, length isn't and shouldn't be a factor in deciding what can be considered Wikipedia's best work. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, forgive me if I'm missing something, but was there something wrong with the TOC that required it be removed (or not-allowed, whatever you want to call it)? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nothing requires the TOC to be removed, but it only automatically appears if there are three sections or more. The "see also" is hardly a section (two lines) and if I can see all the readable prose on one screen, I see no purpose for the TOC. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I encourage compact but complete and clearly written articles on an interesting topic that I am able to read without loosing my eyesight, although the FAC elite may disapprove. I find the prose compelling. It is refreshing to see a nomination that is not filled with arcane accusations of MoS breaches. (To User:GrahamColm: I find many FAC articles on English literary topics do not maintain my interest, even though I have an undergraduate degree in English literature from a prestigious university. Those articles also seem biased frequently. I do not oppose them because to me they are boring and POV. Let the FAC elite editors have their articles. Let others have articles also. Please allow for the weather interests of other countries.) —Mattisse (Talk) 15:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even though I've supported above, I have to question removing the TOC. Again, why was that done? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think, according to Wikipedia:Section#Table_of_contents_.28TOC.29, the TOC is only automatically generated if there are more than three headings. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is. I removed the NOTOC. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support you have received a lot of flack for this article, and I see nothing wrong with it. Keep up the good work. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—For such a short nomination to be promoted, the prose would need to be very good, and every possible niche of the topic exposed and detailed. It's not the FA Criteria as much as the instruction in the lead that comes into play here: "A featured article exemplifies our very best work". Would an outside visitor find it odd that we claim this for such a short article? Even for a more generous treatment of such a topic, the prose needs cleansing. The lead, just a slender paragraph, brought up these concerns, and casting my eyes further down I saw other glitches, too.

  • I had to read the opening sentence twice—it's barely grammatical, and unkind to the readers: "Tropical Storm Erick was the eighth tropical cyclone and fifth to attain tropical storm status of the 2007 Pacific hurricane season." Why not: "Tropical Storm Erick was the eighth tropical cyclone of the 2007 Pacific hurricane season and the fifth to attain tropical storm status."?
  • "The wave spawned a small low pressure system on July 28 that, despite strong wind shear, formed into a tropical depression later that day." Eeuuw; not a nice sentence structure. Again, the solution is easy by just rearranging the dominoes: "The wave spawned a small low pressure system on July 28 that formed into a tropical depression later that day, despite strong wind shear." And "low pressure system"—you might bend just a little for non-experts who will be eased through the prose by the use of the odd hyphen for double adjectives. Scientific American would use a hyphen; so would many good US writers. There are more instances further down.
  • "The next day, the depression was upgraded to Tropical Storm Erick, and while the storm moved westward, the shear quickly tore the storm apart. The storm weakened to a tropical depression on August 2 and degenerated into a remnant low later that day. Because the storm never neared land, no effects were reported in association with Erick." Oh dear. Repetitions: day day; the storm, the storm, the storm, the storm. Tearing a storm apart might sound odd to non-experts (even to experts), so even "broke up/down [or "dissipated"] the storm system" might be better—you're the expert. Something more formal, please. The last clause: I'm sure effects out to sea were reported; precision requires a little qualification here, and you could remove "associated with Erik" as redundant, and use "Erik previously to avoid the stormstormstorm etc. "Near" as a verb ... hmmm, easier as "did not approach land"? Rids us of the ne .. ne, too.
  • Can't more be said in the Stats section? Can't some of the info in the daughter article be specifically applied to this topic? Tony (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments. Done with all of your examples, and I added a little more to the stats section. I believe anything more would stray too far off-topic. More examples would be appreciated, if you find the time. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose You have not done the first of Tony's comments (the "the" is needed), and "tropical storm" is not linked here but is a few lines down. And so on. With two mistakes in the first sentence, even after one had been pointed out, the prose can hardly be called brilliant. I would expect more images in an FA (unlike some, I have no objection to galleries). As the thing apparently only hit 40 mph for one minute, there should be some pleasant seascapes as well as more satellite images. Given the current discussion on talk on very short articles, I also think the outcome of this should be delayed until we see if a lower size limit is to be imposed. Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review. I've adjusted the opening sentence, and I added another satellite image. Unfortunately, as the storm was so short-lived, I'm afraid there aren't enough satellite images to warrant a gallery section (which I believe are discouraged anyway). Cheers. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fundamental oppose. I know it's late in the same, and perhaps it is too late to affect anything. However, I oppose the idea of something so short being featured. I believe it fails the standard for brilliant prose (for example, four sentence start "On August X"). I also believe it fails the stability criterion. If this is promoted, then that pretty much throws out any chance for a merge; FWI, there is still a technically active merger discussion, which the nominator even agreed to. (link). You can consider this inactionable, but I feel I have to state my position on the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, my points were merely examples of problems. I agree entirely with Johnbod's concern that there's a distinct possibility that a lower word-length requirement will soon be added to the criteria. Tony (talk) 17:33, 30 September 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 19:36, 30 September 2008 [2].

Utah State Route 103 edit

Nominator(s): Admrboltz (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because even though it is short, the route is less than a quarter mile long, and is as comprehensive as it can get. The article passed its GA as well as WikiProject ACR, and has went through a PR as well, and I think the article is ready. Admrboltz (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

392 words of readable prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bad or good? Just wondering what this has to do with anything. CL — 04:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree when there are no photos at all - for once one could get a whole road into one photo, but we don't have it. Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, you are correct Fasach Nua (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mainly on grounds of size. Some (not me) would call this a stub. A more in depth treatment could be envisaged, not that I am asking for one. It doesn't say how many lanes it has & there are no photos. No details of when construction approved, who designed or built it, & so on. But really there has to be a floor under which FA cannot go. Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a specific component of the Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria that this article fails to meet? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That oppose is not actionable. Length is not part of WP:WIAFA. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of actionable points made. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. But according to this statement, mainly on grounds of size, those points were not what prompted you to oppose. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposing, and have given several actionable reasons. Your dictionary will tell you that "mainly" and "solely" are not synonymns. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length is not part of the FA criteria in any way, which means opposing "mainly" because of length is just as bad as opposing "solely" because of it. However, your concerns about comprehensiveness are legitimate, and can indeed warrant an oppose. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It also fails criterion 3 on illustration. Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox contains two images; one of the shield and another of the map. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely reasonable to expect at least one photo in an FA, especially given the point I made above. The article is very unclear as to what the road runs through. Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the route description is for. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
← I have added the lane information to the article, a photo has been requested via template on the talk page, as well as a local in the area. I have emailed the Utah Department of Transportation for information on the original construction approval. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose primarily based on sourcing. I consider the Utah Department of Transportation to be essentially a primary source for a road in Utah. That means the entire article is based on primary sources. Has the road been mentioned in any newspaper (even when it was first built)? Any road-specific magazine/journal/conference? The prose is also not quite up to snuff. The shorter an article is, the better the prose must be (because it is a lot harder to overlook one awkward sentence if there are 5999 other sentences than if there are only 50). Karanacs (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will attempt to locate secondary sources, but could you be more specific on prose issues. This article was PRed, but if you still see issues, please point them out so I can address them. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • examples of prose issues
        • There is a lot of passive voice: "An access gate located in the middle of the roadway serves as the eastern terminus" insead of "The eastern terminus is an ..."
        • Comma issues: " An access gate located in the middle of the roadway serves as the eastern terminus, and only grants access to authorized Hill Air Force Base personnel" - comma used when both sides are complete sentences but not otherwise
        • Some sentences are overly long and awkward (see fist sentence of history section)
        • The last two sections of history don't flow well together

Karanacs (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have worked some on the prose, though maybe I should see if I can get a copyeditor as well... --Admrboltz (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can this not be merged into Interstate 15 in Utah, Davis County, Utah, List of state highways in Utah, Utah State Route 126, Clearfield, Utah or Hill Air Force Base? –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before you make broad assessments, I would have prefered you read it, as your edit summary was "I want to oppose, but I have not read it". Why should an A-Class article (which is also a GA) be merged into anything. If we were to merge all smaller routes into I-15, the article would be hundreds of kilobytes long... I have never seen a county article with detailed descriptions of highways in them. List of state highways in Utah is just that, a list, not a detailed A/GA grade route article, that article would also be hundreds of kilobytes long. 126, Clearfield and the base also just don't make sense. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my reasoning at a couple (or soon to be a couple) short FAs, due to comprehensiveness concerns. There's so little content as to make it impossible for the article to meet WP:LEAD and still have content left for the rest of the article. Where's the context about why the route was even planned to begin with, et al? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On WP:LEAD, "It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist." -- I find that my lead does do this. It summarizes pretty much everything but AADT, which isn't all that interesting, but makes the article complete. The route was created along with the Interstate, so that the people on the interstate can access the base. Presumably the US Route could do this before any sort of rerouting. (though I can not confirm this on any map as the route is so short. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — What is this article lacking that M-28 (Michigan highway) or M-35 (Michigan highway) have given that the latter are 290.46 and 127.99 miles in length, respectively? All three have descriptions of the highway, complete with termini, traffic counts and the like. All three have their histories detailed. All three even have tables of the major junctions, which in the case of SR 103 actually has a junction with another state highway that isn't at its termini, unlike say M-553 (Michigan highway) at 19.6 miles. The two Michigan examples happen to be longer, so therefore have more route to describe. They've been around as state trunkline highways since 1919 so have longer histories, with M-35 having a much more interesting connection to Henry Ford. SR 103 happens to be a short road, but it is important enough to be designated as part of the state highway system in Utah. It has a historical connection to the creation of the Interstates in the area and a military base. As such it has notability. It has been said quite a few times that if an article can survive an AfD, it can be an FA. There is nothing in WP:WIAFA that has a minimum length requirement. This article scales well for the size of the subject matter compared to other highways that have FAs written about them. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - instead of pointing at all the WP:WIAFA bullets, consider if you really believe this to "exemplif[y] our very best work". I think not. I would be embarrassed if this was to considered good enough to feature on the mainpage. In fact, the mainpage summary would probably contain 95% of the readable prose. More specifically, it is poorly illustrated (while the map may mean something who knows what Utah looks like, it's meaningless otherwise), has MOS breaches (WP:DASH for instance), three red links (yeah yeah, not part of the criteria, but please - the article can't have taken long to write so please fix that), the prose is far from engaging ("The route has been mostly unchanged since its formation, except for the name of the road that the highway is on." - yuck - "Three percent of this traffic was composed of trucks." yawn), the prose contains POV ("...the important function..."), date linking should be deprecated, a good proportion of the History (of, let's not forget, Utah State Route 103) talks about Hill Air Force Base. A number of the supports above seem to be pointy as these are basic issues that, beyond the size bone of contention, should be picked up. Once again, is this Wikipedia's "very best work"? No. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I withdraw this nomination. I brought this article here for critical commentary, not a bashing of my work. My article didn't even last long enough for Tony1 (talk · contribs) to challenge point 1a, which he has on almost every WP:USRD article that has come through. I was reulctant to bring this article to FAC, but after it passing GA, passing A-class review, as well as going through a WP:PR from Yohhans (talk · contribs), who says the article was "top-notch".

I knew there were problems when SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) noted how many words were in the article. At this time, I popped over to WT:FAC to find to my dismay that short articles and found "Short articles like these are what GA is for, as they can hardly represent Wikipedia's best work". I went to ask Sandy on her talk page if I shot myself in the foot and she didn't know. CountyLemonade (talk · contribs) had a point, SR-97 needs an article, the red link looks bad.

I want to thank my supporters, even if they are a bit POINTy. Only one voter was from USRD, Julian came in to defend the lack of picutures (which have been questioned since its GAN), but he never voted. Johnbod (talk · contribs) was right, there was some information I neglected to include, and I told him I would contact UDOT for the info, but JC and John got into a back and forth because John was "The article is very unclear as to what the road runs through", and JC was correct, that is what the route description is for. I added a mid-point {{coord}} as requested, but then the requester said they didn't want it.

Karanacs (talk · contribs) had a good point, there are no secondary sources, which I had never thought of. I attempted to locate newspaper articles through the EBSCO database, KSL.com, Salt Lake Tribune, Newsbank (which searches: The Deseret News, The Hearld Journal, The Spectrum and the Standard-Examiner (the local paper of the area)). Google news also had nothing to say. If anything, I 100% agreed with Karanacs' oppose.

thedemonhog (talk · contribs) offended me, he didn't even read the article. It's not like WP:TLDR, cause its not long! Why should I merge an A-class/GA article into other articles? David Fuchs (talk · contribs) had concerns regarding the WP:LEAD, but as I stated, I found it was just fine, as the lead of the lead page says "It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist." which it did.

Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) was my lone WP:USRD member who voted, and even if it was a bit POINTy, he has a point, there is nothing in what a FA should be that says it must be x words long. It is essentially the same as all the other USRD FAs out there, just scaled down to a road that isnt even a quarter-mile long.

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) said he would be "embarrassed" to call this featured. I understand his concerns regarding the map, and maybe WP:USRD/MTF needs to work on maybe including a full state map in a corner for reference. WP:MOSDASH, I don't see the issue. If it is because I-15 isnt I–15, take it up with WP:USRD as that is the current standard. "Yuck" and "yawn" seem very condescending when trying to give critical review to an editor. "Important function" was specifically added by my PRer "If you're providing context for why the road is so important, state as much. Otherwise, it just looks like a random fact." "Date linking should be deprecated", TRM didn't obviously read the article very well as there are no linked dates except for in cite.php, which are still OK per the MoS. The Hill AFB info in the history is to show why the route is important, the road is 45 years old, and has been repaved a few times, thats it. If I were to cut out Hill AFB, there would be a very short history section... --Admrboltz (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be allowed to respond before the nom is closed...
"0.080-0.174" - en dash required.
Engaging prose means if I find something boring or badly phrased, I'll call a spade a spade - sorry if you found it condescending.
Why would you date link the citations? I read the article three times - it didn't take long - there's no need to link dates in citations any more.
"If I were to cut out Hill AFB, there would be a very short history section." - exactly the point.
It's not Wikipedia's very best work, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's be practical: it's highly likely that a lower limit to word length will soon be imposed on nominations. This needs recasting as a merged article or one with larger scope. Tony (talk) 18:47, 30 September 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 01:17, 30 September 2008 [3].

Gregory House edit

Nominator(s): Music2611 (talk)
previous FAC (23:17, 22 December 2007)


This good article is about the main character on the television show House. It wasn't promoted when it was nominated earlier due to User:Nergaal having two open FA candidates.--Music26/11 11:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the WP:FAC instructions, did you consult Saranghae honey (talk · contribs) before nominating this article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, why? --Music26/11 14:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per the edit count tool, Saranghae honey has the highest number of edits to the article and is therefore apparently the main contributor. Sandy is asking if you (with only five edits) contacted them first, which the FAC instructions say you should do. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the image Image:HouseGregoryHouse.png contain significantly greater information than is contained in the free image Image:Hugh Laurie Actors Guild.jpg ? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most importantly, the cane, if you can find me a free image of Hugh Laurie with a walking cane, than I think that image will be appropriate.--Music26/11 14:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - while it's an excellent start, there's some grammar issues ("...to give him ketamine treatment...", et al), and the article has no information about the reception of the character. Furthermore the 'characterization' section goes into minutiae which is irrelevant to a reader trying to understand the character. Other comments: Image:HouseRightDamagedLeg.JPG needs a Fair Use Rationale to comply with NFCC, but I don't think it significantly aids our understanding of the topic--the prose says his leg was scarred from surgery, I'm not really sure we need a nonfree image to reinforce that. That said, in reply to Fasach Nua above, it's important to have a actual shot of the character as he appears in the fictional medium, not just the actor; I'll set about improving the rationale. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Em dashes should not be spaced, although spaced en dashes can be used for parenthesis.--Grahame (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current ref 2 needs a source for the information.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
  • Current ref 7 (House and Holmes...) is lacking a last access date and publisher at the very least. (The publisher shouldn't be given in the link)
  • Current ref 26 needs a publisher and last access date at the very least.
  • Current ref 40 (Wittler...) is lacking a publisher.
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How could this article be stable with the show still ongoing and the character still developing?--ragesoss (talk) 03:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that could be a big problem. His character has already pretty much developed and its not like we learn something new in every episode. The only time it would need updating is after some really big milestones occur, and these are very rare and only happen towards the end of some seasons.

But nonetheless: Very weak oppose - Sorry, but if I had to make the decision myself, there is no way this could be FA just yet. As much as I love Greg House, and the series itself, the article (though good) lacks some additional shine and features in my opinion. First and foremost, the lead is a little short. You should definitely expand the description of his character in the lead, rather than just putting it into brief wording. Expanding on it would give a higher understanding of the character, which is really needed in the lead. Remember, House's character is what he is always sanctioned for; you should really try to portray this as much as you can in the lead. And I wouldn't mind seeing the whole cane and vicodin issue in the lead either as it is something which has also really sanctioned the character, along with his clear medical genius feature. Additionally, the biography and characterization section lacks information just like the lead. It seems that you have made the article very brief and basic. The content is not really the problem; it is all relevant and inclusive, but you need to expand on it. For a quick example, you really need to go into more detail about how Greg takes the Vicodin continuously without reason sometimes due to a clear addiction which he refuses to admit in some cases. You could also expand his on his many near death situations etc, and how his only friend is Wilson, as he really neglects to call anyone else his friend and vice-versa. Basically, it kind of fails the content criteria as it neglects some information. Hope this helps. Domiy (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on your comments

I've tried to improve the article, a reception section has been started (although it still requiers a bit more expansion), most of your requests have been answered. Take a look.--Music26/11 16:08, 29 September 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 01:17, 30 September 2008 [4].

Lancaster Barnstormers edit

Nominator(s): JaMikePA (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe that the page is well-written and includes all relevant info regarding the team. JaMikePA (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please close and archive the peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments regarding images:
    • Image:Barnstormers Cap Logo.PNG - Why is this needed in the presence of Image:LancasterBarnstormers.PNG? Both have the same stylized L and baseball. Both have the same (verbatim) purpose of "The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article..." Why are two non-free images needed to fulfill this same purpose (WP:NFCC#3B)? All baseball team pages have both the primary and cap logos.JaMikePA (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:RedRoses.JPG - needs a verifiable source (WP:IUP vis-a-vis NFCC#6) and a rationale (NFCC#10C)
    • Image:CodeRed.PNG - needs a caption per criterion 3, needs a rationale and appears to be freely replaceable (NFCC#1 - given that it is illustrating "When a Code Red is called, all team management and loyal fans wear red shirts to support the Barnstormers", why wouldn't a picture of the fans wearing red suffice?)
    • Image:War of the Roses.PNG - needs a caption and a rationale for this article. Эlcobbola talk 20:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note, cite templates are not required for featured articles or any article; consistently formatted citations are, per WP:WIAFA, 2c. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, thanks for pointing that out. Was the criteria always like that? I thought I remember reading it a while back saying it had to be {{cite web}} or a variation. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They've never been required, but they can be useful for editors who don't otherwise know how to format citations (even though some of us hate them because they chunk up articles and affect load time). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Much more editing is needed before this can be considered among our best work. Here are some problems with the article.

  • Listen to Julian when he says the references need work. They need access dates, authors, publishers, and publication dates where given. I also share his concerns about there being too many primary sources. Thirteen primary sources out of 35 total is not the worst I've seen, but it would be good to lower this number somewhat.
  • All of the headings in the History subsections violate WP:MOS. Only proper nouns should be capitalized in headings after the first word.
  • Notable Barnstormers: What makes these people notable and not others? This is a big POV problem to me.
  • Why in the world do we need a Quick facts section at the end? Many of these facts are in the infobox, while media-related items could use their own section.
  • What kind of promotions does this team run? This is how minor-league baseball teams draw fans. Even a paragraph or two on any notable promotions the team has run would add some life to the article.
  • Instead of having this many subsections in Tradition and Philanthropy, consider merging these items into 2-3 paragraphs each. Looks stubby in its current form.
  • A brief look at the prose: to remove a redundancy in the third paragraph, try "Baseball fans in Lancaster waited 44 years for the sport to return after the Lancaster Red Roses folded following the 1961 season."
  • Remove the bolding for the Barnstormers in the third paragraph.
  • A couple of facts about the nickname in the lead aren't expanded on or even repeated in the body.
  • Loads of unneeded bolding in the history section.

Overall, a lot of work will be needed here. For a good idea of what to aim for, read Nashville Sounds, a recently promoted featured article. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for your comments. I will work on the article, though it will take some time.JaMikePA (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Mostly as above, headings and references not formatted correctly, one sentence paragraphs, and some dubious prose. For example in the lead
  • the team's name is repeated in every one of the first six sentences
  • Can you win a record?
  • The Barnstormers represent all of Lancaster County - why "of"?
  • The Barnstormers designate many of their home games to honor each of the county's smaller communities. "each" is confusing and unneeded
  • as the team colors of red, navy blue, and khaki were the same colors used by Lancaster's former team, the Red Roses. - unnecessary repeat of "color"

I suspect that this may need more work than can be done during FAC jimfbleak (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • We should be moving beyond the robotic linking of the names of commonly known countries (especially anglophone ones). I've zapped them, along with the autoformatting. See MOSNUM. Tony (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made several changes to the page with all of your comments in mind. Please review them and tell me what you think.JaMikePA (talk) 17:13, 27 September 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 01:17, 30 September 2008 [5].

Tropical Storm Kiko (2007) edit

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk)
previous FAC withdrawn


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that I've covered everything possible with this storm. I've never had an FA before but I think this one meets the criteria for one. All thoughts on this article welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • Opening sentence is quite weak.
  • The southern portion of the wave split off and continued through the Atlantic, entering the Pacific Ocean on October 8. Showers and thunderstorms developed around the low around October 11 while located 240 nmi (440 km) south of Acapulco, Mexico. Wait a second...when did the low develop?
  • The intensification was very short lived and Kiko was downgraded to a tropical depression six hours later as the center became displaced from the diminishing convective activity. Remove "very", redundant and POV.
  • Why did the storm reach tropical storm status the second time?
  • As it moved away from the coast, an eye had begun to form. "Had begun" → "began"
  • On October 22, Kiko was downgraded to a tropical depression as strong wind shear left the low exposed. Slightly confusing. Was the center even covered with convection since you last said it was exposed?
  • Life threatening flash floods and mudslides were possible over the mountainous terrain. Not sure I see the relevence. Any kind of impact could have happened.
  • Mexican officials also closed the port of captaincy as a precaution.[1] Mexican officials advised residents in danger of flooding to avoid low-lying areas. "Mexican officials....Mexican officials"...zzz
  • As Kiko paralleled the coast for two days, rain fell constantly along the coastlines until Kiko pulled away from shore. Awkwardly worded, avoid using the same word or variations in the same sentence (sans coast, coastline).
  • Only 2 people survived; 15 bodies were recovered and 9 passengers were never found. Here, you use number characters. In the lead, you spell them out.
  • Last sentence of the article needs a reference.
  • In reference 1 spell out "TCR".
  • Remove the all-caps author in ref 12.
  • Add Category:Hurricanes in Mexico

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've done all of the above (at least I'm quite sure I have). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of it's done, but we still don't know when the low developed. It goes from "the wave..." to "the low..." with nothing between. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've explaned how the wave became a low. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, but aside from needing another good copyedit, I'm not convinced the article is indeed comprehensive. Try looking for impact in Spanish sources. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources talk about Kiko approaching and that warnings have been issued. I think I found two that have some impact. Otherwise, I cannot seem to find info on impact. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I haven't found anything on impact (other than the ship capsizing), just a lot of repetitive preparation. Also, how should I go about copy-editing the article? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should bring in a new copyeditor. I know User:Finetooth often takes such requests. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for a copyedit, don't know how long until Finetooth responds. What should I do about the lack of information on Kiko's impact? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess User:Plasticup just did the copyedit (not sure if it was the kind you were looking for though). Other than that, what's left that I can do? (since there is basically no info on impact.) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, all he did was add nbsps. Just wait for more reviewers, I suppose. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, Finetooth has done (or is still doing) the full copyedit. It takes more than one person to do a FA review? Didn't know that...Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the FAC stays open for anywhere between one week and three weeks, and during any given FAC there may be numerous reviews. For now, I'm not convinced the article is ready just yet, so I'm going to wait a tad before declaring my !vote. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Do you mind clarifying A tropical wave exited the coast of Africa on September 26. The wave quickly developed, spawning Tropical Storm Melissa on September 28. At the same time, part of the wave separated from the developing tropical depression and continued through the Atlantic, entering the Pacific Ocean... as I don't really understand. Don't actual clarify in the article unless you feel its appropriate. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 23:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The tropical wave that formed into tropical storm melissa had two parts, sort of like in 2006 when a low broke off of Tropical Storm Florence and developed into Tropical Storm Gordon. The lower portion of the wave continued to move towards the west, since it was weak, and the developing northern part intensified into a tropical depression. Hope that helps a bit. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I was being a bit unclear, I meant did it form on the west or east coast of Africa? Pretty sure its west coast but I'm not sure. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 00:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
West coast, south of the Cape Verde islands and west of Senegal. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:44, 22 September 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 01:17, 30 September 2008 [6].

No Mercy (2005) edit

Nominator(s): --LAX


I am nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets all the FA criteria. It has been taken "out-of-universe" and improved based on the recent FAC of SummerSlam (2003), WP:PW's latest FA. It is readable to non-wrestling fans and doesn't contain any jargon. Any concerns will be addressed. --LAX 20:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source check - Ealdgyth is out of commission due to Hurricane Ike, so I'll handle the source review here.

Couldn't tell you. I don't really think the amount of money grossed is all that important; I think I could just remove it. As for the attendance, however, I'm not so sure. I can't find any reliable sources for it, and I wouldn't want to leave it unsourced. So I guess it's whatever you decide. --LAX 21:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the reason it is reliable is because it has always had accurate results for ppvs by WWF/E, TNA, etc.--WillC 22:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I discussed this with Ealdgyth in the past, the reason it hasn't been found reliable is because a reliable third party source hasn't mentioned or credited them. Though, the way they get their info is reliable, through VHS, magazines, and they have a established staff of writers. If anyone want's to take a shot at proving it reliable, be my guest, I haven't found anything. --SRX 22:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. --LAX 10:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 19 (the WWE press release) needs an access date.
Done. --LAX 21:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links checked out with the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Prose: a very quick look suggests that it's OK. Tony (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very thorough look also suggests that it's OK. Most of it is really quite good, but there is some slippage toward the end. Here's what I found in a full reading.

  • "Batista, as part of the storyline, then proclaimed that he would hurt Guerrero had he not changed for the better." Something about this seems off. I think it may be the "had he not" part.
  • "During the match, "Cowboy" Bob (disguised as a fan) came into the ring an interrupted the match."
  • Event, Preliminary matches: Maybe say which of Holly's arms was being attacked. Or was it both? If you can't find this anywhere, it's no big deal.
  • Main event matches: Sounds like Batista and the crowd were mocking Guerrero. Perhaps say as much in the article, if the source says so; otherwise it's probably original research. Again, not a big deal if left unchanged.
  • Aftermath: "Their feud was planned to continue, in which Guerrero would have gone back to his villainous character." In which is referring to the feud, not continue; it's not the smoothest transition. Try and or as.
  • "This setup a Hell in the Cell match..." Not sure about setup being one word here.
  • "Undertaker defeated Randy and ended their near year-long storyline." Perhaps nearly, though that's quite picky.
  • "in which the winner would be the man who wins won four matches over the other first." Tense correction would be good.
  • "The buys from No Mercy helped the promotion's revenue of $18.8 million..." I still don't like the helped part. This is at least the third time I've said that here. Also, non-breaking spaces are needed for the two numbers in that sentence.
  • "None of the matches received a match rating higher the five out of ten." A redundancy and a typo.
  • "The match between Bobby Lashley and Simon Dean was rated a three out of ten, the lowest overall." Ten should be changed to a numeral. It's fine to leave the others spelled out, because numbers shouldn't end a sentence if it can be avoided. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --LAX 10:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support prose - Reference situation still has to be sorted out. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I removed it. --LAX 01:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the background section seems to deal with standard professional wrestling knowledge. Perhaps include a "see also" link at the top of the section? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does, in a way, which at the request of a reviewer at a previous WP:PW PPV FA (which has since passed). It was done to take the article out of universe. Many project members feel that it's unnecessary, but other FA reviews stated it was needed. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying its bad. I'm just saying there just needs to be a "see also" template at the top of the section with a larger page on the background of professional wrestling. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a contributor to a Featured Professional Wrestling Article, I actually like that idea.--SRX 14:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. A great compromise between "overexplain it" and "just link it to professional wrestling. Should make both sides happy. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --LAX 20:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose by User:Dweller
  • "wrestlers and other talent" What other talent? Not mentioned in rest of article, that I can see. Was there a warm-up act or something that wasn't wrestling? (Also, this may be a dialect thing, but "talent" sounds POV to me) --Dweller (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • what on earth does "unmerciful" mean in this context? And why such a superlative positive or negative (no idea which, but presumably it's one or the other) when they only rated it 5/10? --Dweller (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In English English we wouldn't say "lit it on fire". OK in US Eng? --Dweller (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "preliminary match" is helpfully wikilinked. "primary preliminary match" is not and comes across as tautologous. --Dweller (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other talent would mean commentatators, ring announcers and on-screen authority figures as well as referees. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nine professional wrestling matches were featured on the event's card, which were planned with predetermined outcomes by WWE's script writers." The subject of the sentence is the (passive) card, so was planned would be better, but even better if you make it active. You need to cite the script writers/predetermined.
  • "a storyline expansion in which WWE assigned its employees" presumably it's "to which" but even then I don't understand what you mean
  • first mention of Batista uses his nickname, which is informal --Dweller (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Randy faced off against Undertaker" Doesn't he need a definite article each time? --Dweller (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I very much doubt any druids were there. Perhaps actors dressed as...

It looks like a well-written, well-researched article that could seriously do with a third party copyedit from someone like me who knows nothing about wrestling. So, for that reason, I oppose for now. --Dweller (talk) 14:34, 29 September 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 18:04, 29 September 2008 [7].

Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series edit

Nominator(s): Serendipodous


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has undergone many changes since its elevation to GA status and has completed a peer review. Serendipodous 10:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - While the article is nice, it doesn't really explain enough or in some way draw together the broad context of legal actions around the author, publisher, movie producers, and assorted others. If there is such a thing (might be to OR'y). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on how to do that would be appreciated. Serendipodous 15:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, I don't know. I havn't had time to think through what would help, and not be a big OR summary. I would not characterize my comment as an opppose though. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dates were messy; I've audited, but didn't fix the MoS breach in "the" 12 September. Tony (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All three non-free images have very weak rationales. In fact, none of them seems to meet WP:NFCC#8, as their presence does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" and their omission would not "be detrimental to that understanding". We don't need to see the book covers to understand the discussion of the legal issues concerning these books. —Angr 19:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Rah and the Muggles and Walk Up To Dragon, the subsections are also the main articles for those books, so the images are there to illustrate the books themselves as well as their legal relation to Harry Potter. Serendipodous 19:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But they aren't articles about the books, they're subsections of an article about legal disputes over Harry Potter. —Angr 19:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since both are out of print, no one is ever going to be able to verify any plot details or similar about those books, so their legal relation to Harry Potter is all that can be reliably mentioned about them. Serendipodous 19:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the argument "They'll never have articles of their own, so we get to use the cover images in this article instead" doesn't hold water. The images don't contribute significantly to readers' understanding of this article. —Angr 19:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. But I don't want anyone coming along and saying that this article needs an image in it. Serendipodous 20:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes them unreliable? As for images... *sigh*. Serendipodous 20:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a clear case that while images could be used at times, they would require non-frees with tenacious rationales, and thus not really strong candidates (as noted above, the book images really do not qualify as well, unless the issue was really about the cover itself, which it isn't). The only place that I can see free images being used is pictures of Nancy Stouffer, Claire Field, Dmitri Yemets, or the float from the Hindu celebration; the first three are just really extras and are not needed to fully understand the article, and barring existing images, the last one is impossible to reproduce. Barring all that, if there is some (non-free) political cartoon or something akin that images how aggressive the Potter laywers are towards copyvios as to wrap up the whole article, that could be allowable (I do not know of one off hand). This is a clear case where the extent of getting images cannot realistically be expected nor to help the article's comprehensiveness without weighting down non-free use, so the lack of images are fine with me. --MASEM 15:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some possible images from Wikimedia Commons: Image:Harry Potter 7 boxes.JPG or Image:Harry Potter VI boxes.jpg (the Legal Injunctions section). There's also Image:Harry Potter OotP Amazon box.jpg, an Amazon.com box saying "Deliver on June 21". Image:Jk-rowling-crop.JPG is the only good pic of J. K. on Comm. Also, you could put Image:Ebayheadquarters cropped.jpg in the eBay section if you want, I'm not sure if it'd be relevant tho. Similarly, Image:ASDA Gosforth.jpg could be used the last section if you thought it appropriate.Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RDR Books is the defendant in one of the lawsuits. Why would their site be considered somehow an unreliable source for their opinion? The Bookseller is the most established publishing trade magazine in the UK. AFP is the third largest news agency in the world after Associated Press and Reuters. Oxford University is one of the premier academies on planet Earth. Briffa and Kurit-Seltz are both established law firms. Michael Geist is the Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. Jsecurity and WSWS I can sub. Authorslawyer you're going to have to live with, as it's the only source I can locate with this information that hasn't already been declared moot by previous peer review.Serendipodous 09:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That clears all but AuthorsLawyer, then. I suggest contacting the webmaster/sniffing around to see if it could meet WP:SPS. The current images meet c3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do I do that? Send an email saying, "Um, excuse me, some guy on Wikipedia says you're not a reliable source. Could you provide me with proof that you are?" Serendipodous 15:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice this source at first when I went through the article. It looks like a blog. Generally, there are a few things that can prove that a self-published source meets WP's reliability criteria: a) has it been referenced or used as a source by a magazine/newspaper/journal? b) is the author a recognized expert in the field? Karanacs (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't find anything. So you should withdraw the nomination. Because there is simply no way I can write objectively about the Stouffer case without referring to the court's decision, and the only way I can refer to the court's decision is through one of the transcriptions online. And online transcriptions of the court's decision are only available from "unreliable" sources. Serendipodous 15:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed the webmaster of that site, asking how to source the original document. I don't know what else to do. Serendipodous 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He emailed me back. Gave me the primary reference. Swapped it. Serendipodous 21:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • In the Claire field section, IMO the word "threatening" used to describe WB's letters is POV. It doesn't appear in the ref you cited for it. May I suggest removing the word. Picky picky :P
  • What is the outcome of the Preventive Maintenance Monthly case? I'm assuming nothing came of it; if so, please state that in the article.
  • In the Wyrd Sister section, you say that the group claimed to plan to appeal. Did they ever? If they did/didn't, it should be stated.
  • Also in Wyrd Sister, I don't understand why the group took action against the guy from Pulp and the people from Radiohead. Please elaborate. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "threatening." Also found the resolution to the PMM case. I located a quote from the band's lawyer that explained their reasons for suing Pulp; not sure about the source though. Can't find what happened after; unfortunately, when you're looking through the internet you're generally reliant on media sites, and when things get boring the media up sticks and move on without bothering to do any followup. Same thing happened with the eBay case. Haven't been able to resolve that one either. Serendipodous 19:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, an anonymous user keeps adding material about the Wyrd Sisters case, but I have to remove it, because I've never been able to cite it. Serendipodous 19:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Everything looks good now. I changed some of the wording in the Wyrd Sisters section. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support by karanacs. All the issues below have been corrected. Karanacs (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Comments by karanacs. Overall, I thought the article was remarkably comprehensive and very well-written. There are a few minor things that should be fixed, however, then I'll be happy to support.[reply]
    • I think you probably need a source for this: "When the actual novel Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was released in 2003, interest in the unauthorised book quickly faded."
    • "China's Legal Times " - is that a newspaper or magazine? If so, it should be in italics
    • "It is estimated that there are fifteen million fraudulent Harry Potter novels circulating in China today" - can you put a date on the "today"? Is that "as of 2008, as of 2007..."?
    • The references are not all formatted the same way.
      • For example, in the first three references, number 1 (Potter author zaps court rival) is formatted the same as 3 (Fake Harry Potter novel hits China), but number 2 (Rowling seeks "Grotter" ban) is formatted differently.
      • Ref 16 (Ottenheimer closing down) is also not formatted consistent with the others

Karanacs (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved, I think. Serendipodous 07:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Hey Serendi, long time no see :)! Comprehensive, seems pretty good. —Sunday | Speak 20:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lot of cleanup needed in citations, incorrect WP:ITALICS on some of the publishers (periodicals, newspapers and magazines are in italics, websites, corps and orgs are not), incomplete citations, missing titles and publication dates ("The Preventive Maintenance Monthly" (2004). Retrieved on September 8, 2007. and missing dates throughout (sample http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSWEN939320070718), dead links (The Preventive Maintenance Monthly" (2004). Retrieved on September 8, 2007. ) and more. Please have someone familiar with consistent citations go through and clean up all the citations. I see above that a non-reliable source was switched to a primary source; has someone reviewed that the primary source is used within policy? Also, please check the dab links, one is identified by the dabfinder. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now I believe that the substance of this article is feature-worthy, but that the prose needs to be polished and that the citations need to be thoroughly checked and formatted correctly. After these things are done, I see no reason why the article can't become featured. Some examples:

Prose and MOS:

  • Since first coming to wide notice in the late 1990s, there have been a number of legal disputes over the Harry Potter book series by J. K. Rowling. - comma splice - notice the change in subject between the first part of the sentence and the second - needs to be rewritten
Changed back to my original wording. It was changed by someone else. Left it because I thought it was an MOS issue. Serendipodous 15:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rowling, her publishers and Time Warner, the owner of the rights to the Harry Potter films - give name of publisher
She has many publishers. Added "various". Serendipodous 15:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • have taken numerous legal actions to protect their copyright, and also have fielded accusations of copyright theft themselves - copyright or copyrights?
changed. Serendipodous 15:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • other attempts have targeted not-for-profit endeavours and have been criticised as a result as too draconian - "as a result" is unnecessary
Fixed. Serendipodous 15:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another area of legal dispute involves a series of injunctions obtained by Rowling and her publishers to prohibit anyone from reading her books before their official release date - should be "release dates"
Fixed. Serendipodous 15:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These injunctions have very sweeping powers - "very" is unnecessary
Reworded. Serendipodous 15:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to translated excerpts, almost the entire book consists of the verbatim text of The Hobbit by J. R. R. Tolkien with most names changed to those of Harry Potter characters. - wordy
reworded. Serendipodous 15:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book was quickly recognised as fake - "a fake"
tidied. Serendipodous 16:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At one point the article talks about the "High Court of Delhi" and at another it talks about the "High Court of New Delhi" - which is correct? (New Delhi is contained within Delhi.)
The sources conflict. I assume it's New Delhi, but I don't know. Serendipodous 16:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check with an Indian editor. I would guess it is Delhi, since that is the name of the entire city and New Delhi is just one part of it. Awadewit (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indian editor noted discrepancy. Changed. Serendipodous 08:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found one AE spelling in the article. It might be worth checking the article over again for any AEisms and switching them to BE.
My British spellchecker couldn't find any. Serendipodous 16:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check WP:PUNC - if a phrase is not a complete sentence, the punctuation marks go outside the quotation marks.
Fixed I think. Serendipodous 18:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citations follow an inconsistent format. It looks like they should all have author, original publication date, article title, publication, retrival date, but they don't all follow that. Someone needs to painstakingly go through all of the citations and fix them.
  • The nominator asked me to check over the sources. I have looked at the first half; hopefully I will be able to get to the rest tomorrow:
  • This Geist source gives newspaper publication information on the site. I would use that as part of the reference in the note.
Added. Serendipodous 15:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This story looks like it comes from the children's BBC - I would not use that - not the most reliable source!
Well, it's a BBC news site, so I doubt it's any less reliable than any other, but subbed anyway. Serendipodous 09:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we don't want to be using children's news stories as sources on Wikipedia! I can see the headline in the press now! :) Can you provide the link for the new source here so that I don't have to hunt for it? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
here. Serendipodous 08:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Awadewit (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did for me. Serendipodous 16:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still not working for me. Does it work for others? Awadewit (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's intermittent. The server must be having problems. It's a fairly big British news organisation, so chances are it will be back online. Serendipodous 08:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Working now. Looks good. Awadewit (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this an interview with Rowling? If so, that should be stated in the reference.
added. Serendipodous 17:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't. It's just a legal analysis. Serendipodous 16:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a published legal analysis, though, in the sense that it is in a law journal - it has not been peer-reviewed or fact-checked. This falls under WP:SPS. We therefore need to establish that the authors are copyright experts. Even if we could do that, however, I would be leary of using this source, because it is published by a commercial firm on their website. This is hardly a disinterested venue. Awadewit (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, I'm running out of sources for those quotes. There aren't that many online sources willing to hold onto quotes from a minor ten-year-old copyright case that everyone else has forgotten about. Sooner or later it will have to be accepted or this nom will have to be dropped. Serendipodous 08:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or you'll have to switch to offline sources! :) Again, I believe source reliability is paramount. If a source isn't reliable, we can't use it. Awadewit (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a lawyer, and, more to the point, I don't live in the United States. I have no idea how to track down such sources. The original source for the appeal claim was the Entertainment Law Digest. However, the Entertainment Law Digest throws away all its material over a year old and also does not have a contact page. I can't leave this information out. It has to be in the article. What am I supposed to do? Serendipodous 13:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want to use this source, prove it is reliable under WP:SPS. That is, demonstrate that the authors are published experts in the field (copyright law). Please note that WP:V is a core policy - we cannot include information because we want to, we can only include information if we can verify it using a verifiable source. Awadewit (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly want to use that source; it's just the only source on the subject I can find. And it isn't a matter of wanting to include the information, either; that information is necessary for the article. Not to include it gives a false impression of the article's subject matter. Serendipodous 13:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have three choices: 1) Demonstrate that the source is reliable under WP:SPS. 2) Leave out the information. 3) Look for a new source. Awadewit (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) I can only do so much in that regard. As I said above, I don't live in the US, so tracking down that kind of information is difficult. 2) Not an option. There is some info that can safely be removed from the article. This doesn't qualify. 3) All online sources go back to this one. Serendipodous 13:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If all sources go back to this one, and we can't verify it as reliable, that is extremely suspect and the information should definitely be removed. Note that WP:SPS says "However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source." - If no reliable source has said this information, I would not include it. Awadewit (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm supposed to leave an account of a trial without any mention whatsoever of its appeal? Serendipodous 14:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying there is not one reliable source that mentions the appeal? That is hard to believe. Let me look around. I'm really sick, though, so it could take me a day. Awadewit (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too find it hard to believe. And I've been looking for days. Can I sat as an addendum that I appreciate you taking the time to wrangle with my petulance while ill? Serendipodous 14:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This piece of information is not the source we are disputing. In fact, I don't know where it came from. I went back in the history and saw it was originally sourced to a court opinion from 2002. That can't be, though, since the event took place in 2004. I have just removed this alleged fact and placed it on the talk page. I can't find any verification for it anywhere. Perhaps someone misread an article somewhere. If an appeal did happen, it would have made news. We can keep looking, but for now, let's remove this information since we can't verify it. Let's move on to the problem of verifying the information actually cited to the problematic source. Awadewit (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I am correct, this site is not used in the article anymore, so what are we even debating about?! Awadewit (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This issue has revealed a problem with the original source. The original source for the 2004 appeal was the Harry Potter Automatic News Aggregator, which cited the Entertainment Law Digest. The HPANA however incorrectly quoted the 2002 ruling in its summation of the appeal, and, since I was looking for that quote initially, I kept being sent back to the 2002 ruling. However, much of the rest of the quoted material appears to be from the appeal ruling. I don't know for sure, since I can't find the original ruling. Serendipodous 11:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Entertainment Law Digest article on the appeal? Have you been able to track that down? Awadewit (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to find an email to contact the webmaster. Assuming I hear from him, I should know by Monday. Serendipodous 15:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This link doesn't work for me and appears to be in Dutch - that needs to be indicated in the reference.
Up to date ref subbed. And it its language is mentioned in the reference. Serendipodous 17:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comes from a corporate website - I'm not sure why we would be using it. It looks like a press release.
Subbed. Serendipodous 09:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link to the new source here for ease of review, please? Awadewit (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is it, I think Serendipodous 08:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Awadewit (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This website is unfamiliar to me - what makes it reliable? Is it necessary?
A previous FAC reviewer asked why the Weird Sisters had sued Jarvis Cocker. That was the only source I could find. The same quote was repeated in many other sources, but none were any more "reliable" than that one. Serendipodous 15:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This does not really explain what makes this source reliable, though. Awadewit (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on whether you think the information is necessary. If the information is necessary, that's the only source I can find for it. If it isn't necessary, it can be removed. Serendipodous 08:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should always start with the question if whether or not the source is reliable. If the source isn't reliable, we cannot include the information. If we cannot demonstrate that this website is reliable, we need to remove the information. Awadewit (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, xfm is a fairly well-known and established UK music station. I don't know if that constitutes a reliable source, but it's not a hobby site. Serendipodous 12:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I assume then that there is some sort of vetting process before information goes on their site? Awadewit (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it. It's not worth tracking down a solid source for. Serendipodous 13:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes 34 and 35 are the same source and could be combined - "Winnipeg folk band"
done. Serendipodous 08:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In their suit, Rowling's lawyers also asserted that, as the book describes itself as a print facsimile of the Harry Potter Lexicon website, it would publish excerpts from the novels and stills from the films. Such borrowing is allowable if no profit is intended. However, the book is intended to be sold commercially. - I don't think this entire statement is upheld by the citation to the RDR books website. You probably need a citation for the part "In their suit, Rowling's lawyers also asserted that..." and "Such borrowing is allowable if no profit is intended"
Reworded and added a source. Serendipodous 13:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I finished checking through the sources and added just two other small issues to the list above. Awadewit (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary of remaining objections: At this point, there is just one questionable source that needs to be worked through, the citations need to be tidied up, and the entire article needs to have its prose polished (unless that has already been done?). Awadewit (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The sentence "In 2005, after being offered CAD$50,000 by Warner Bros., Canadian folk band the Wyrd Sisters undertook a legal action against Warner Bros., " is a bit hard to follow. Why was the band offered money in the first place? --HJensen, talk 13:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It should make sense now. Serendipodous 16:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giggy

  • Check throughout for stuff like this.
  • BBC is linked in ref 3 but not in ref 2... probably easier to just link the lot rather than have half done.
    • (Saw this in ref 11) and BBC shouldn't have italics
  • "as well as movie rights holder Warner Bros." - delink, at least, and probably rmv the "movie rights holder" bit as that's already been said
  • "In 2007, Christopher Little, Rowling's literary agents" - probably better to use the full name (Christopher Little Literary Agency), otherwise it's a bit confusing...
  • "the magazine agreed never to use the characters again" - can you just say "agreed to not use the characters again" - never again is somewhat dramatic
  • Is "Warners" commonly used in place of "Warner Bros." (rather, should it be?)

Giggy (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specific issues sorted. Ref issues will be sorted with the rest. Serendipodous 08:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as long as the comments above are resolved. Also, I would add the word "series" to the end of the name of the article since right now is kind of confusing. Nergaal (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


OK. Every ref that can be upgraded has been upgraded. Serendipodous 12:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  1. It's the Delhi High Court. There is no New Delhi High Court If you get stuck on these issues, WP:IN can help resolve it. The Delhi High Court is located in New Delhi, but the lower level court name is usually taken after the name of the state (eg Karnataka High Court). I've made the fix in one section. You need to make the fix in the eBay section.
  2. The court has issued a verdict on Hari Puttar a day back. The section needs to be updated.
  3. after an altercation with a weapon doesnt read too well
  4. came close to legal action (how close?) --> How about contemplated legal action? instead?
  5. quietly began to allege --> I did not figure out the meaning. Copyedit required (tense and redundant words)
  6. some news agencies --> WP:AWT
  7. Do give US$ equivalents to CAD and GBP since most international currency transactions are in USD.
  8. 1 am BST --> UTC equivalent needed
  9. Overall: Needs a copyedit

=Nichalp «Talk»= 15:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your editorial issues are fixed. I added the dollar figures, but I don't see the point, since it now means this page will be obsolete by Friday. I can't change the BST figure because it's in a quote. If I add UTC in brackets it will appear as part of the quoted statement. Serendipodous 16:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) I didn't get you. Are you saying the page will become obsolete because of currency fluctuations? If so, we do not have to give the precise value. Just an approximate value so that it stands true at least for the rest of the year. Template:INRConvert is one that does so automatically. 2) Since BST is quoted, (I did not notice that), I've revoked the comment. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I read this for the second time today, I cannot see any significant remaining issues. It's a pity that Wikipedia's ridiculously hard line on copyright means that the only images left add nothing to the article. Would the publishers/Rowling really go to court if we showed the books? jimfbleak (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to have a wiki article named "Legal disputes over x" in which one paragraph is discussing the court dispute over the wiki article "Legal disputes over x". :D Nergaal (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose With a topic as broad as this, it would seem almost impossible for it to be comprehensive or stable in the future. Also, there are citation needed tags. This is an instant disqualifier for FA. This also reads as a list and probably better to be placed under Featured List. Furthermore, there is no mention of the actual legal case names. Some sections read like trivia. It has little encyclopedic content. Sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a citation needed tag, which I placed there during the FAC process, because the source originally used for it was deemed unreliable. Since there is some question as to where a reliable source could come from, I have placed it there until the issue is resolved, which won't be until Awadewit returns. I think that to describe this as a list would require a fairly loose interpretation of the word "list". Serendipodous 06:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understanding that "stability" is defined more on a day-to-day, edit-war level than on a long-term level. For example, biographies of living people have become FAs despite the fact that they are clearly not "stable" when it comes to article structure or content. Awadewit (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles like Religious debates over the Harry Potter series and Catherine de' Medici's building projects, which are list-like in structure but still have readable prose have already passed FAC, so I think this is where this article belongs. Awadewit (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I was around during their review, I would oppose both of them as FAs. They are clearly lists. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you consider that all wikipedia entries are lists? Thank you for sharing your wisdom with us, Nergaal (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Moni3

  • I agree with Rocksanddirt that a unifying concept needs to be included. Perhaps a discussion of how Rowling and her attorneys, or the publishers have approached these legal issues: an opening paragraph for each section. I understand Rowling discusses her books with fans quite a lot. There must be quotes about her philosophies on treating fans vs. charlatans. Statements by her publishers that address how they will pursue copyright violators and other legal problems. Including statistics on how popular these books have been, how quickly they sell, and the anticipation surrounding the release of the books and films should also add to the logic behind why there are so many disputes. The article reads well, but the unification of all these concepts is necessary. If you can do that, I will be happy to support.
You're right. Such a rewrite would take a long time, however. I think perhaps it's best if we close this down. I'll try again once I've given this some thought. Serendipodous 17:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


'I would like to withdraw this nomination until the issues raised can be dealt with. Serendipodous 17:47, 29 September 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 02:18, 28 September 2008 [8].

Real Madrid C.F. edit

Nominator(s): –Hadrianos1990 (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
previous FAC (00:59, 14 July 2008)


I nominate this article because I consider it suitable for FA and I worked a lot to improve it. Thank You! Hadrianos1990 (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question - are the differences between Image:Real crest2.png and Image:Logo Real Madrid.svg so great that the difference cannot be described with one non-free image and GFDL text? Fasach Nua (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - Non-free images, such as, Image:Logo Real Madrid.svg, should not be in svg format Fasach Nua (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals.
  • Current ref 57 (http://www.metromadrid.es/) should state that the language is spanish. Same for current ref 66 (http://www.lfp.es/historico/primera/clasificaciones/grafico_clasificacion_clubes.asp?cod=01). And same for http://www.marca.com/futbol/especialespartidos0607/realmadrid-barcelona/index.html
  • http://www.g14.com/ would not open for me.
  • What makes http://www.footballdatabase.com/index.php a reliable source?
  • A number of your web page sources lack last access dates (current refs 71, 72)
  • Current ref 74 (Jimmy Burns: Barca a people's passion) is this a book? If so, the title should be in italics, etc. and it needs page numbers.
  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations such as BBDO in the references. BBC is well known and doesn't need to be.
  • What makes http://uk.geocities.com/centenariomadrid/00-en.html a reliable source?
    • Source changed to a reliable one.--Hadrianos1990 (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which one? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • this "The life of Di Stéfano IV". Realmadrid.com..--KSA13 12:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I was not able to evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:FAC instructions and avoid the use of graphics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The lead could do with a bit more expansion.
Done by Hadrianos1990.
  • Some of the English is a little rusty and could possibly do with a copy edit.
Done, I think this comment related to first comment of Giants2008 below.
  • I think you need to make it obvious in the text that Real Madrid are known as "The Whites" before you use it first time. Otherwise it's a bit jargony.
It's in infobox Football club (Nickname section).
  • Is it Raúl or Raúl Gonzalez? Peanut4 (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Comments - Being from Carabanchel and an Atlético de Madrid fan, perhaps I am biased ( ;) ), but IMO the lead needs expansion. Otherwise, I'm glad that La Liga finally has a team going through FAC. I have plans on working on the Atlético article, so I will take this one as inspiration (although, I still need to purchase the only written source I can find). JonCatalán(Talk) 21:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank that kind of you and about the lead, it's done. Good luck.--KSA13 18:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - It's improved from its last visit here, but there is still work to be done. A lot of issues in the first few sections.

  • About half the references are to the club's official site, and much of the history section is sourced to this primary source. I have POV concerns about some statements, including "which included the memorable 7-3 Hampden Park final against Eintracht Frankfurt in 1960." and "started to dominate Spanish football" in the 1980s.
Resolved.
  • I normally don't say much on pictures, but there are major problems here. The 1902 team pictures lacks author and date; the latter is necessary to prove its public domain status. I'm not sure about the 1925 photo either, though I'm admittedly not an image expert. A couple other pictures (the first stadium picture and the club president's photo) could use more description in their summaries, including the user names of the uploaders; there are templates that can help with this.
Done.
  • "seventeen Copa del Rey" needs something after it, like championships. Don't use titles again, though.
Done.
  • "The club is the Spain's most successful team, having won a total of 57 trophies." Multiple problems here. Second the needs to be removed. The 57 trophies is their domestic total, which needs to be made clearer.
Resolved by Hadrianos1990.
  • The previous reviewers are right on about the lead. A topic as broad as a major European soccer (American here) club deserves a four-paragraph lead. Even the current second and third paragraphs aren't that big. Not much on the club's history in there.
I think it's done.
  • History: "In 1929, the First Spanish football League was founded." Check the capitalization.
Done.
  • "Real Madrid had the lead going into the last match of the season, but the loss to Athletic Bilbao at San Mamés kept Madrid from winning the title." Should be "a loss to Athletic Bilbao..." as it reads now like we're expected to know that beforehand.
Done, thanks.
  • "It was under Bernabéu's guidance that Real Madrid became established as a major force in both Spanish and European football." How about "established itself" instead?
Done, thanks.
  • No need to pipe European Cup Winners' Cup. The apostrophe is correct here.

Still needs quite a bit of work. I'll stop here because these issues, especially the first two and the lead, will take quite a bit of time to fix. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't here when Chelsea got promoted and am not worried about what that article is like for this review (an FAR review would be a different story). My concerns are the issues with this article. I was going to review more now, but am going to hold off because the reference formatting is completely messed up. Somehow, there are now two sections of references; please fix this. Also, there are three citation errors indicated by red tags, which may be caused by the split. I still see too many primary sources, and another thing: why are the books in Further reading not used as sources? They would be great for the history section. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - Many red links and recetism in history's article. --Dantetheperuvian (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, I just found 3 red links and they removed. But about history's article, we talk here about main article. So, history's article will be improving later.--KSA13 01:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the history section is a summary of the History article (History of bla, bla, bla..., part of the main article) and that have recentism (more info in "Florentino Pérez years" than "Quinta del Buitre years"), IMHO, the main article can not be a featured article... --Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that the History section suffers of recentism, why don't you check another history section of a featured article (like Chelsea F.C.)?(Now THAT is recentism)Hadrianos1990 (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is Real Madrid, not Chelsea (have also recentism in History's chapter)... --Dantetheperuvian (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither FA, nor GA should have non-free image gallerys, such as Real_Madrid_C.F.#Crest Fasach Nua (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this is true, what about Chelsea F.C. (which is a featured article) crest section?Hadrianos1990 (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FA only really applies to the article, at the particular time the candidacy is being considered, which is why we have WP:FAR, in case a featured article has subsequently fallen below the standard since the original assessment. I shall take measures to have the gallery removed, and if that is unsuccessful, the article will be taken to WP:FAR.

Comment - I don't want to be rude but I see that those who are engaged do their "best" to make this superb article remain just a good one. I have a question: Why Chelsea F.C. is a featured article? Because is about an English football team? How about this:

- Chelsea's lead paragraph is too short

- Chelsea's history section suffers of severe recentism

- Chelsea's crest section has a non-free image gallery

And these are just a few observations...So, the engaged ones, just be professionalists, not subjectivs. If this article should not be a featured one, then Chelsea f.c. shouldn't be neighter.Hadrianos1990 (talk) 07:41, 27 September 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 02:18, 28 September 2008 [9].

New York State Route 28N edit

Nominator(s): Mitch32(UP)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because 1) This article has been through lots since its Good article nomination, and is now up to standards brought in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 373. Route 28N will eventually be the beneficiary as hopefully an FA on three featured topics (for the three counties it crosses). 2) After a good break from FACing, I feel it is time to give it another shot, especially that I screwed up and got depressed from the last one. 3) For anyone concerning the reliability of maps: see this discussion on WT:NOR: [10]. Anyway, I'm open to new ideas, and anything beneficial would help. Mitch32(UP) 23:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • The route, 50.95 miles (82.00 km) long, is a northerly alternate to NY 28 between both locations. An alternate what?
  • Done
  • It helped the iron ore industry in Newcomb and the lumber industry in Minerva and spurred population growth. In the lead but not in the article.
  • Done
  • NY 28N is the northernmost state route to cross the Hudson River. Again...
  • Done
  • County Route 84 does eventually parallel to the nearby north of 28N, but this slowly begins to change as the main highway begins to progress southward. What does 84 parallel?
  • Done
  • Route 28N, after leaving Minerva, passes Moxham Mountain, a 2,200-foot (670 m) peak, and eventually the Hudson River. The route crosses the river. It doesn't pass it.

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done - Everything has been solved.Mitch32(UP) 00:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by jimfbleak just units for now
  • 40-mile (64 km) etc why are miles, feet etc hyphenated, but not metric? I don't think the hyphens are MoS, but inconsistent even if they are. jimfbleak (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—1a and 1b

  • Jim, hyphen required when the unit is spelt out, and no hyphen when abbreviated.
Ah, I checked against the New York State Route 373 FA, didn't register that in that article the abbreviation was used throughout. Struck comment jimfbleak (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While on miles, this conversion can't possibly be correct: "50.95 miles (82.00 km)"—It's a factor of 1.6. Who's a dummy.
"It helped the iron ore industry in Newcomb and the lumber industry in Minerva and spurred population growth." Not comfortable with "helped"; can you be more specific by saying, presumably, that it was the enabling transport route for, or some such. I don't have the knowledge to write it.
  • "... Blue Mountain. Blue Mountain ...". Reorganise the boundaries between the sentences to avoid, using "... Mountain, one of the ...".
  • "This is the route traveled by Theodore Roosevelt, who was then the Vice President of the United States, on September 10, 1901." --> "This was the route traveled on September 10, 1901 by Theodore Roosevelt, then Vice President of the United States."?
It has potential, but already the top shows that the prose could do with careful scrutiny throughout. A little disappointed in the shortness. Nothing more about the landscape, geography, geology, towns? More about the economic impact, since you titillate us with info in the lead about its role for two industries. Tony (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done, Tony - I hope you enjoy it. :) - Mitch32(UP) 19:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I'm being dumb, but why does the highlighted blue in the Google map (ref 3) look completely different in shape to the highlighted red in the infobox map? Tony (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a Firefox-Google glitch. I have replaced Google with some NYSDOT/USGS topos.Mitch32(UP) 22:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I see no major issues with this article. Good job Adam. --Admrboltz (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose for now.
    • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, you shouldn't offset short quotations (such as the one by Smith in the early history section). These should instead be part of the paragraph.
    • Either this is a mistake or I'm confused: "The had-grown iron ore industry "
    • Is it really necessary to go into so much detail on Minerva and Newcomb and their industries? I agree that it is necessary to know that there was an iron ore industry and that it did decline in Newcomb, but I think the current section goes into too much detail.
    • I suspect this is road jargon. I'm not sure what it means: "was originally designated, but not signed, "
    • This means the road was given a route number on paper but no actual signs on the road were put up at the time. --Polaron | Talk 15:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps this information could be included in a footnote? Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there nothing interesting about the history between 1919 and now?
Nope, this is the case with many of the highways in NY.Mitch32(UP) 21:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Bridge rehabilitation section needs work on the prose. The first three sentences begin "Plans....The plan...With plans..." It seems very awkward to me.

Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done with everything. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:30, 23 September 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 02:18, 28 September 2008 [11].

Meteorological history of Hurricane Kyle (2002) edit

Nominator(s): ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I don't get told often that I have written a speedy FAC. This was split from Hurricane Kyle (2002) while that article was on FAC, and I believe this also passes the FA criteria. Just a little note: this storm was the 4th longest lasting Atlantic hurricane of all time, so it's history is pretty important. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Alright, this is the ultimate laziness. Creating articles and FACing in all of the 30 seconds it took to copy and paste! :P
  • The meteorological history of Hurricane Kyle, which was the fourth longest-lived Atlantic tropical or subtropical cyclone on record, lasted for more than a month in September and October of 2002. No "of" between the month and year per MoS.
  • I'd like to see more information about formation. You go from the cold front to a subtropical depression in three sentences.
  • The next day, the remnants of Kyle were absorbed by another extratropical cyclone to its northwest, which continued northeastward and moved near the British Isles on October 23. Change "another", as it implies that Kyle itself was an extratropical cyclone.

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I got the second and third thing (in another 30 seconds ;) ), but I didn't get the first point. The article is comprehensive for its origins. The NHC didn't have too much more, as it was only mentioned for the first time in the TWO two days prior to it forming. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, but is there anything from TWOs? If not, that's fine. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nah, I checked, and there was a bit of information, but nothing substantial. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The scrollboxes are hard to read through: what's the point, and what's going to happen when 1) every FAC gets dozens of them that I have to scroll through and 2) then someone adds a comment or Support or Oppose declaration to the bottom of one that I miss? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mwahahahah! :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody make him stop; it's going to take over FAC and make my life miserable :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerns - 1) Presence of a "see also" section. Try to incorporate this into the body of the article. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's wrong with the "see also" section? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since this is part of the "2002 Atlantic hurricane season", this cannot be put in a see also, as it is the basis of the topic. The same goes for "Hurricane Kyle (2002)". See also - "Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also";" Ottava Rima (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright, Juliancolton has helped me by replacing the links in the see also section. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • To finish that quote you started: Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. I wouldn't have had a problem leaving the section as it was. Those were useful links that a reader might be interesting in exploring when (s)he reaches the end of the prose. Plasticup T/C 03:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. However, I must protest. I think Julian and Hink need to work on bishops for three months to let me have a chance to catch up.... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I ain't quitting till I reach #1 on the list, so you can catch up then ;) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto! –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A positive feedback loop! Awesome! Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The first bit is confusing: The meteorological history of Hurricane Kyle, which was the fourth longest-lived Atlantic tropical or subtropical cyclone on record, lasted for more than a month in September and October 2002. - The infobox says that Kyle formed on September 20, 2002 and dissipated on October 12, 2002, that in my view is less than a month - the two parts contradict each other. D.M.N. (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it doesn't really contradict, to be technical. The meteorological history also includes its origins, as well as its remnants. Should I reword that? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Scratch that. Juliancolton changed that to lasting 22 days'. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewing just because otherwise Sandy will cut me 'ead off for opposing for being a hurricane article or having a boring nomination statement. :) anyhow, going to have to lean oppose'due to comprehensiveness concerns. All the sources are boring 'ole stodgy weather dudes. While that's fine, a quick look through print archives showed information that I didn't see in the article, and which seems good to know. For example, the Sunday Telegraph ran a story called "'Hurricane' Kyle causes a met man's depression Few in North and Scotland escape two-day gale", which talks about how Kyle's possible destruction was trumped up in the press and its effects in Europe. There's more about what weathermen expected the storm to do, which you could contrast to what happened. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to have to disagree. That wasn't really Kyle in Europe. That system absorbed the remnants of Kyle, which is why I mentioned it in the article. I believe I covered the article well with what the storm was forecast to do, what it actually did, and its effects. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would you be able to respond again? I don't believe your objection is actionable, and I don't want this FAC to fail. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to disagree; there's still more information from newspapers, etc. which could be added detailing the storms effects and impact which are not covered here or the parent article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my oppose. I still think that more attention should be paid to its worldwide effects, et al, but I'm not going to sit in the way. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:19, 26 September 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 02:18, 28 September 2008 [12].

Discography of Final Fantasy VII edit

Nominator(s): PresN (talk)


Hi, long time listener, fist time caller. I'm trying here...something new, unfortunately. This, if it passes, will be the first "discography" article to be an FA rather than an FL. The reason that it is here is because most "discography" articles are a series of tables, whereas this article is a whole mess of text, structured as an article, with the only tables being collapsed tracklists.

The article is a current and recent GA, and has a completed peer review here. The article does not use date-linking in the article itself, to save on bluelinks, but does use them for consistency in the references, as 'cite web' links dates. Said references have been looked over by me to ensure they have all of the data required/possible. There is a single image in the article, used in a similar vein as a box cover or album cover would be used in a video game or album article, and has a single music clip, used to demonstrate the "MIDI" sound used in the original soundtrack rather than traditional cd-quality audio. All other fair use media has been removed.

Ealdgyth posted his usual reference questions at the PR, so I will answer them here to preempt any re-asking.

Whew. That's a long nomination, but I think (hope) that I've covered all of the bases. With that said, have at it! I'll be standing by to respond to any concerns. --PresN (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment more appropriate venue may be Wikipedia:Featured list candidates Fasach Nua (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it's an article. Giggy (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few quick comments from Giggy

  • "He did, however, find the tracks to be "beautiful"" - why the however? It's not contradicting anything prior.
    • Reworded that sentence.
  • "who while feeling that the soundtrack to Final Fantasy VI was better," - is fear the best choice of word?
    • Umm...there's no 'fear' in that sentence.
      • Sorry, disregard, was skim reading too fast. Giggy (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and saying that "depending on how willing you are to spend money" they made the album worth purchasing" - not inherently a positive comment.... maybe change the context it's presented in.
    • Reworked sentence; it's not supposed to be entirely positive, he's saying that the other tracks are fluff, so it whether you want to spend that much money on three really good tracks.
  • Possibly just refer to reviewers by surname after you've named them in full once?
    • Why not, done.

Giggy (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • All concerns addressed. --PresN (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support; it's looking pretty good and I have no outstanding concerns. Giggy (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I am very impressed by the radical improvement of this article over time, from less than a start to its current condition, which I believe fits the criteria for a featured article; well written, minimal images, lots of reliable sources, and so on. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is hidden text throughout, and numerous WP:MSH issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Que? I'm not sure what you mean- the only hidden text (and by that I assume you mean the <!-- --> tags) is the "(see wikiproject albums)" tags that are automatically put in when you use an album infobox template. I'll take those out, is that what you meant? And I have no idea what you mean by heading issues; as far as I can tell I'm following all the rules for that. Could you specify? --PresN (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, but I don't know how to make it more clear, as there is extensive hidden text in almost every section, in track listing sections. And almost every section heading violates repeating words from higher in the hierarchy or the title, per WP:MSH. Since the article title is "Final Fantasy VII", those words should rarely (or never) be repeated in section headings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, so you're saying you have a problem with the tracklists being collapsed? Well, I'm afraid I can't agree with you- on my (wide)screen, un-collapsing the tracklists take the article from being 6 page-downs long to 15- a 250% increase. As far as renaming the section headers to be a description of the album rather than the proper name of the album in order to avoid re-using the term "Final Fantasy VII"... sure, I can change that. --PresN (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Image:Final_Fantasy_VII_Original_Soundtrack.jpg‎ - needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP vis-a-vis WP:NFCC#6. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 04:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, done, but this whole fair use nonsense is very self-contradictory. When you upload an image as an album cover, it labels the source as "highly recommended", not required. I believe this is because the actual source of the image, and the copyright holder, is not the site that the image was found at, or the person who scanned it in. As such, I've tagged it as coming from rpgfan.com- which it certainly could have come from, and is where I would have gotten it if I uploaded it, but I don't know where seancdaug got the image from 3 years ago, and I'm not sure how inventing a source or replacing an image with an identical image with a source is of any worth to Wikipedia or anyone. But hey, them's the rules, thanks for checking on it. Don't mean to yell at you, you do a good job, just grumbling. --PresN (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the policies (IUP and NFCC) are in alignment; whoever writes the template/upload scripting just isn't reading them. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 04:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I'm still not persuaded on the reliablity of the following sources. Please not that 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. And note that having a wikiproject say its reliable isn't enough.
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. And note I'm a she, not a he. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "..show that they are backed by a media company/university/institute"
rpgamer.com- owned by Craveonline Media, LLC.
rpgfan.com - owned by Cerberus Media Group Inc.
    • Other
squareenixmusic.com- now back up, about page says that they have "achieved critical acclaim from famous composers, eminent producers, and industry sites", a claim that is backed up by their interviews page, listing interviews they have done with notable people such as Yasunori Mitsuda Thomas Boecker, producer of the Symphonic Game Music Concert series. Their submissions guidelines are here, in which they specifically say that they edit all reviews for factual accuracy.
    • soundtrackcentral.com- I could have sworn that they had a fact-checking policy up somewhere, but I can't find it now. I'm going to go ahead and remove everything taken from there, which fortunately is only a couple of sentences, though I'm not sure how "reliable" a source you really need for a review of a soundtrack album... Anyways, sorry about the she/he thing, I knew that, just slipped my mind. --PresN (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just like teasing folks about it, it cracks me up sometimes how we assume that names ending in a vowel are female, names ending in a consonant are male. Anyway, on those media companies, are they well known? Or are they formed just to back those sites? on the squareenixmusic site, I think we'll leave that one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lord, the rabbit hole goes deeper. CraveOnline LLC is a subsidiary of AtomicOnline, LLC, which is a smallish media conglomerate that runs several dozen sites in three distinct areas (men 18-34, women 25-54, teens) with 13 million+ unique pageviews a month across their main sites. article talking about them. As for Cerberus Media Group Inc., I cannot find any information about it online; I have emailed the site owner to see what he can tell me. --PresN (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know how helpful this will be but you may want to take a look at some game review sites for their take on the music. A lot of reviews critique the musical ambiance and I know IGN in particular has reviews of specific albums, though whether these particular albums are listed, I am not sure. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have no outstanding concerns. The article addresses all of the albums nicely. However, I do believe this IGN article may be an interesting addition to the article. Guess which album is #1? Good job guys. -- Noj r (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ooh. That's nice! Thank you very much! Added to the article in a jiffy.--PresN (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome : ) -- Noj r (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Everything looks in order to me, and it's a strong, well organized read.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - The prose is somewhat dense and muddy, especially with "Final Fantasy... Final Fantasy VII" as every fifth word in the lead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we please get rid of all the collapsible sections... sometimes by literally getting rid of them, and sometimes I guess by rmving the collapsible option? For example, the "Track Listing" sections are lists, pure and simple, and should be moved off to separate pages. The collapsible option.. does that cause problems with WP:ACCESSIBILITY? Can sight impaired folks reaad all that via a reader? I'm feeling doubtful... I left a note at WT:ACCESS. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 03:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that if the "collapse" option made it unreadable to a reader, it would have been disabled a long time ago... also, I'm at a loss as to how I would go about removing the tracks of the albums in question to another article. --PresN (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They answered your question; it's not an issue for screen readers. --PresN (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • Leaning Oppose but it's time to go to bed now. More later.
  • Note that I struck the "leaning" bit but not the Oppose. Sorry. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 22:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The track listings, collapsible or not, are unaesthetic and distracting. Again I strongly suggest that we follow Wikipedia:Embedded list by moving them off to their own "list article". If this is an article, it's an extremely list-like one.
  • "Uematsu has not been involved in" ...who?
  • "Creation and influence".. you mean, who/what influenced its creation, or who/what did it influence? Suggest using more precise term...
  • "ranging from enthusiastic praises to disappointment" ...awkward.
  • "...composed by Nobuo Uematsu and produced by Uematsu and Minoru Akao. It was originally released on February 10, 1997 through DigiCube and later reissued directly by Square Enix on May 10, 2004. Composed by Nobuo Uematsu and produced by Uematsu and Minoru Akao" redundant. Nontrivial prose problems very early in the aricle.
  • "The original release has the catalog number of SSCX-10004, and the re-release has the catalog numbers of SQEX-10001~4." Trivial detail that bogs down prose... belongs in a footnote or delete. in fact, ditto for the next few sentences. A picture of his work space? <begin reductio ad absurdem>Next we'll have a collapsible list of all the illsutrations? </end> Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 15:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting the tracklists in a seperate article from the albums is something I would very much oppose.
  • Uematsu is mentioned in the very first sentence of the article.
  • Renamed to Creation and Development.
  • Redundancy fixed.
  • Please tone down the sarcasm. I'll consider removing the material. --PresN (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I did CTRL-C, CTRL-F, CTRL-V on the second instance of "Uematsu", and inadvertently copied the space after his name. That's why I didn't find the previous instance when searching. My mistake.
PresN, you say you would be opposed to rmving the lists, but you may want to consider the possibility that the various Wikipedia guidelines etc. are more important than our personal preferences. They exist by consensus, and generally exist for a valid reason. This is an instance of "Don't be afraid to kill your own baby", and axiom well-known to fiction writers. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 00:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prose polishing throughout is required, as evidenced by these issues just in the lead. There are skilled word-smiths among editors in this field; please locate them, since you're probably too close to the text by now.

  • Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Hyphens now has a new example from your second sentence. Avoid multi-whopper adjectives (which should be hyphenated, in any case, when before the noun they qualify): "a four-CD soundtrack album" --> "a soundtrack album of four CDs". I see the adjective "single-disc" in the very next sentence, which is good.
  • "Piano Collections Final Fantasy VII, an album of piano arrangements of select pieces from the soundtrack was released in 2003 by DigiCube, and released again in 2004 by Square Enix." Comma required after "soundtrack" (it's a nested phrase). REreleased AGAIN? Can we do without "rereleased" altogether? There's a lot of releasing going on here; can you change one to "launching", and/or even another term? Consult your thesaurus.
  • The second paragraph is a real yawn. It's just a long long list, and is tedious to follow. This is the lead, which is meant to paint the big picture. I wonder whether it's kinder the readers and truer to WP's requirements for article structure to summarise the point here, which is that there was a succession of releases in blah blah, by a number of blah blah. Then something about how these are evidence of the popularity blah blah. Give the release details in a list further down. Bullets are more acceptable well away from the opening, BTW.
  • "The original music received very positive reviews, with reviewers finding many of the tunes to be memorable." Pity that "reviews/ers" is repeated. Please see these exercises in eradicating a gawky expresssion (with ... noun ... -ing).
  • Please audit for prompt repetitions throughout: other ... other. It may be OK here if there's no neat way of rewording, but I see the tendency to repeat elsewhere.
  • The last "also" is redundant. Tony (talk) 04:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone ahead and reworked the lead to try to follow your and others' suggestions; I'll continue the process with the rest of the article. --PresN (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose - This is another one I found on the feedback needed template. In addition to finding help to polish the writing, I believe that deeper improvements are needed here. Keep in mind that I have limited experience with reviewing music articles.

  • "These are to date the only albums that Uematsu has been the sole composer;..." Feels like a word is missing, possibly of. I think it could be, "These are to date the only albums that Uematsu has composed by himself;..." If this is used, might want to tweak the following part to avoid having himself and him back-to-back.
  • To expand on Tony's opinion that the lead is bland, I would like to see more on the style of music featured on these discs throughout the article. There's a little on this in Creation and Development, but more would be great. For this to pass FAC, straight lists of albums and tracks are not enough. All music featured articles worth their salt discuss musical themes in some way, and I don't see why this one should be any different.
  • Creation and development: "There was a plan to use a 'famous vocalist' for the ending song as a 'theme song' for the game, but the plans were dropped due to time constraints and thematic concerns." Problem: we have plan and plans in the same sentence, which throws off the flow of the sentence. A fix is needed.
  • Albums: This would be a perfect place for the music description I requested earlier. That would be a lot more interesting than a bunch of release dates, track stats, and catalog numbers. I see a couple nice facts about artists as this section goes along; more of that would be great.
  • "The album (Advent Children Original Soundtrack) spans 26 tracks on 2 discs..." Numbers lower than 10 are usually spelled out, so this would optimally be two.
  • Reception and legacy: "Final Fantasy VII Original Soundtrack was very well received by critics." Very is redundant quite often, and I think it can be removed here. Hyphen for well received?
  • 20020200 music from FINAL FANTAST: Could you please remove the all caps?
  • I must admit that I feel slightly uncomfortable seeing only first names given in the squareenixmusic.com reviews. It doesn't fill me with confidence that the site is reliable.
  • I also agree with the other reviewers about the number of lists in the article. To paraphrase your own argument, this is FAC and not FLC. Having a track listing and infobox for every album just seems like overkill to me.

Overall, the article just doesn't wow me like a featured article should. Parts of it feel formulaic to me. I wish there could be more in here that's similar to the paragraph on One-Winged Angel. To me, that kind of information is what I'm looking for in a music FA. Good luck with providing it. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I'm sorry, but I think all discographies should be featured list and not featured articles. They serve two different purposes, and there is very little uniformity besides being in the same type. Also, there is an incredible reliance on primary sourcing. I also don't think the formatting (with the constant use of "show" boxes) would be appropriate for a featured article. Sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article's title seems to suggest the article only deals with music from the video game Final Fantasy VII, as does the introductory sentence. I don't know if there's anything that can be done about that, but there should be a way of letting the reader instantly identify the article as one that deals with both the music of FF7 as well as that of other games and media of Compilarion of FF7. --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 00:40, 27 September 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 14:09, 26 September 2008 [13].

The College of William & Mary edit

Nominator(s): -Jrcla2 (talk)(contribs)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because The College of William & Mary, first and foremost, is one of the oldest (second only behind Harvard University) and most prestigious public institutions of higher learning in the United States. The College's article itself is concise, provides plenty of pertinent (and legal) images to support content, and qualifies under other criteria as well (such as a good lead paragraph followed by a chronological history). It also provides a myriad of references from third party sources, and it deserves recognition as a Featured Article. -Jrcla2 (talk)(contribs) 19:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you consult Vaoverland (talk · contribs) about this nomination, per WP:FAC instructions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of the pending FA nomination before it was made. I live here in Williamsburg (though not affiliated with W&M). I watch and help maintain the article among others relating to Wikipedia: WikiProject Virginia. Seeing this article achieve FA status would please me. However, without taking away from the noteworthiness of the College as mentioned by the nominator, I think there is more work to be done on the article to achieve a successful FA vote. It surely would have benefited from a peer review. It is also significant to note that both WikiProjects including it currently only rate it as "B" class. One problem I perceive is that, not unlike many WP articles, a lot of the content was written in good faith before WP began to emphasize inclusion of in-line citations. I am unaware of anything inaccurate, but to my knowledge, no one has taken the time to comprehensively go through and obtain citations where there are none. My main area of contributions has been in the history portions, where I have cited sources for any additions/rewrites in past several years, but have not done that "retro-citation" thing across the board even in just the history sections. I am pretty busy with other WP projects, but will try to assist in any areas where I have something to contribute. It will take users who are ready to roll up their sleeves to bring this one up to FA level. That means WP:Collaboration, which may already be underway (good). I.E., I see someone is working on images, which is not an area of strength for me. Vaoverland (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments regarding criterion three:
    • Image:James Blair.jpg - needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP (links give only Blair's lifespan, not when the image was created)
    • Image:WytheGeorge.jpg - needs a verifiable source
    • Image:Wren3.jpg - sources to Wren1, which does not have a verifiable source (for self-made images, this means an explicit assertion of authorship)
    • Image:Thomas-Jefferson.jpg - needs a verifiable source (a hitherto deleted en.wiki page is not sufficient)
    • Image:WM Tribe logo.svg - needs a caption (per criterion 3), needs a source (why is the source different in every template; in the template for this article, "The College of William and Mary" is as unhelpful as "The New Yorker"), is not low resolution (NFCC#3B - SVG files are infinite resolution), and the purpose appears to be freely replaceable (NFCC#1 - if the purpose is "Used to illustrate the William & Mary Tribe athletics teams", why couldn't a picture of an athletic event accomplish this?)
    • Image:Margaret Thatcher 1983.jpg - why does this have two copyright tags simultaneously claiming to be the work of the US Government and user:Happyme22?
    • Image:David D. McKiernan.jpg - source is a deadlink; how can we verify federal authorship? Эlcobbola talk 20:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
McKiernan is here: http://www.1id.army.mil/bigredone/commandteam/former/ADC/McKiernan,%20David.htm The site itself is "© 1st Infantry Division, U.S. Army 2008". DrKiernan (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A principle contributor thinks it is not ready, there is a dearth of references, should be withdrawn for more work jimfbleak (talk) 06:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per lack and poor formatting of citations. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 11:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Citations are a mess, EVERY website needs publisher and last access date at the very least. Some need formatting to include titles. If the rest of the article is like the references section, it needs serious work to reach GA or FA status. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing, see WP:FAC instructions regarding prior discussion with the significant contributors. Citing the article and doing the significant citation cleanup and MoS will be better accomplished outside of FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 26 September 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 17:53, 25 September 2008 [14].

Juventus F.C. edit

Nominator(s): Hadrianos1990 (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it meets the FA criteria. Hadrianos1990 (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have two noms running; would you like to withdraw this nom or Real Madrid? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind, I'll withdraw this one since a significant contributor wasn't consulted, and has now entered an Oppose. Please review WP:FAC instructions next time, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A quick note than a IP address appears to have put this on the main FAC page. Also, according to this you have only made 3 contributions to the article in question. You should nominate the main contributers. According to the tool Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs) appears to have contributed most, but he is banned, so I think Angelo.romano (talk · contribs) and Dantetheperuvian (talk · contribs) should be told about this FAC. Also, nominator !votes don't count to the overall support. D.M.N. (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As DMN noted, nominators' votes do not count. --Angelo (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:RS - more reliable sources must be taken in place of things like "Planet World Cup", "FootballDerbies.com", "MyJuve.it" and "Juventuz.com" (sic). There's a lack of source in some part of the "Stadia" section, as well as a whole paragraph under "Colors, badge and nicknames". There's also some WP:RECENTISM in it, in the historical section (that should be expected to be the core of the article), a section covers a range of sixty year (from the 1920s to the early 1980s), and then you have three sections, each covering a single decade (1980s, 1990s, and 2000s). And I've never heard of a "Ciclo Leggendario" (and that part is unsourced as well). Definitely a Good Article, not a Featured Article yet. --Angelo (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I appreciate the amount of work that as gone into producing this article, and the comprehensive nature of the data provided. However, there are significant issues with the prose. The following relate to the lead section.

  • There are italicised references to the Old Lady and to the bienconeri. Presumably these are club nicknames, but this need to be explained.
  • "...first Italian and Southern European side..." Presumably "Southern European" includes Italian?
  • "to have won the UEFA cup" should be "to win the UEFA cup"
  • The link on UEFA is to a specific tournament, without explanation of what UEFA is, or what the cup itself is (or was). Nor can I see this explanation later in the article. The lead should say what these initials stand for, since many of your potential readers won't have a clue.
  • The sentence beginning "In 1985, Juventus..." is awkward and unwieldy. For example, if they have won "all" official international cups and championships, it isn’t necessary to add the parenthetical bit about European competitions.
  • I’ve never met the word tifosi before. I suspect I’m not alone in that. Why use a sports-jargon term, even though linked, when the word "fan" has the same meaning? (this is, after all, the English wikipedia)
  • A general point: I don’t think this lead conforms with WP:Lead in terms of being a summary of the whole article, rather than an introduction.

On the basis of further reading I believe that there are lots more problems with the article's prose to be sorted out. I’ll try and get back to you on these. Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose For:
1.History based in the European Cup (only one competition for "explain" a club's history? And the others tournaments?).
2. Recentism in the History article (one paragraph for explain the first 50 years and other ONLY for farsopoli?)...
3.Not exist a List of Juventus F.C. managers (or "coaches") article, an introduction for the players, managers/coachs and club's presidents (see article in it-wiki).
IMHO, You should translate the Juventus article from it-wiki, (good article). --Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Angelo, The "Ciclo Leggendario" (Legendary Cycle) is the "official" name from the period in Juventus history between 1971 and 1986, a very successful period in the club with Agnelli-Boniperti-Trapattoni, contemporary with the successful Bearzot's era with Italian national team. The period have also a great value in the Italy's social culture during 1970's, according to the book "In bianco e nero" from Mario and Andrea Parodi (Mario Parodi, Andrea Parodi. In bianco e nero: una grande Juve negli anni del piombo. ED Bradipolibri, 2003). Another Juventus period is the "Quinquennio d'oro" (Golden Quinquennium), the period since 1931 to 1935 with the 5 national leagues in a row (see article in it-wiki). --Dantetheperuvian (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"South European" respect for all club from the Southern Europe (Spain, Portugal, Greece...). Since its first edition in 1971 to 1976 the UEFA Cup winners were from Northern Europe (England, Germany...). See UEFA.com for the sentence.
The club has won all international competition for clubs (all avaliable in Europe and the Intercontintental-World Club Cup). "European competitions" (see List of UEFA club competition winners) not includes ICCC or "World title". --Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:36, 25 September 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 03:54, 24 September 2008 [15].

System Shock 2 edit

Nominator(s): Noj r (talk)
previous FAC (20:52, 20 April 2008)


I am nominating this article for FA status because a lot of work has happened between now and the last FAC. I had the article peer reviewed for FA quality adjustments and feel they have been met. Also consider how this article appeared before major work was done. A couple of points before reviewing the article. Many people have noticed that the acronyms "OSA" and "OS" are never fully explained. The game does not explain either. So please understand, I have added inline notes where I deemed appropriate to explain this. Thanks, -- Noj r (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images:

Removed image from Von Braun (starship) article. I plan on taking that article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion in the future. -- Noj r (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, hope its better. -- Noj r (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:SS2 Concept.jpg needs a better in-article caption. It doesn't jump out at me where the critical commentary related to that image is. It should.
Done, I believe it is better now. -- Noj r (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all fine now. Giggy (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

  • Magazine publishers (eg. Next Generation Magazine, PC Gamer, Edge, Computer and Video Games, The Phoenix) need to have their name in italics in refs. Ctrl+F is your friend.
Done. -- Noj r (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thunderbolt (website) is an independent gaming site begun in 2000. Its author has contributed over 100 articles to the site. I maintain its inclusion because it is a review and not a source of information. Please feel free to discuss. -- Noj r (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From its article, it says its volunteer contributed. Thus, we need to know what makes this author's opinion noteworthy in the field of video games (eg. I could post some stuff on my website, but would you use my opinion in the article?) Also, it (ref 12) is used once outside the reception section (hence, a source of information). Giggy (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I didnt see that gameplay ref. Regarding reliability, Thunderbolt itself says here that "Since 2000, our goal has been to provide gamers with a source of information that they can trust and rely on." That tells me that they are concerned about reporting factually accurate material and are professional about their work. I see this as signs of reliability. -- Noj r (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just Adventure is probably the biggest Adventure game site on the web. They check their articles for factual accuracy. Again this was solely being used as a review and not a source of information. -- Noj r (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say they check their articles for accuracy? Giggy (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought their staff page said something about it. I was probably wrong. They are a reliable site though. They have had interviews with dozens of industry professionals and have plain been writing about adventure games for forever. You didn't have a problem with Just Adventure's reliablity over at the Myst IV review. -- Noj r (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I didn't look specifically at sources on that one, but you've got me there. :-) Leaning towards reliable on this one per the Google Scholar citations. Giggy (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would it help if you knew Just Adventure was talked about by Gamespot here and had their review featured inside that particular game's flap cover? Just Adventure is featured on other game covers as well, I just cant remember which ones. Maybe I'll email them about it. -- Noj r (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled across this site when looking for sources. I've never heard of them before, but they appear legit and the source is only being used to show the impact System Shock 2 had on video game horror. It can be removed if it is a problem. -- Noj r (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no evidence of fact checking/industry reputation/etc. then it's probably best to remove it. Giggy (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed reference. There are plenty of other sources. -- Noj r (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gameshadow is a gaming community website and freeware utility with over 1 million members. The source is solely being used to show the popularity SHODAN has among gamers. It can be removed if it is troublesome. -- Noj r (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's citing the statement "SHODAN is highly regarded by game critics as one of the most notorious villains in video game history". Thus you'd need to show the author's reputation as a game critic. Since there are three other refs for that statement, though, you could remove it too; up to you. Giggy (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed reference. It isn't that important. -- Noj r (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This site is covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources and is being used to show the exposure the SHTUP mod has had. It can be replaced if necessary. -- Noj r (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:VG/S; "A blog network; use of this site and its affiliates should be carefully considered. Often, it is best to demonstrate the reliability of the individual authors sourced." I don't know what we do with Kotaku staff. A backup source would be good if possible (or if you can get some clarification on the status for posts like this one). Giggy (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced Kotaku reference with one from Screw Attack. -- Noj r (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Professional blogging site. Author is a managing editor for the blog. Can be replaced if troublesome. -- Noj r (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:VG/S' comment on this one. As he's the managing editor, proving his reliability shouldn't be hard to do, I think. Giggy (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I don't really know how to go about proving his reliability. Is it enough that the cited statement describes a rumor and not fact? -- Noj r (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's citing "Rumors of a sequel were further enhanced by an issue of PC Gamer UK saying that EA had assigned the team behind The Godfather in charge of developing System Shock 3". Is it possible to just cite the original PC Gamer? Someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Magazines/PC Gamer (UK) may have a copy of it, or you could just cite the issue. Giggy (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. That's a good idea. In the mean time, I have removed the Joystiq statement and added an interesting one reported by CVG. If I can verify the reliability of the Joystiq author or acquire the original PC Gamer UK source, it can be reinserted. I hope your leaning towards support with all the running around you've made me do :P -- Noj r (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Yeah, if the prose is good enough when I look at it, I'll be sure to support soon! Giggy (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. Added a request for the PC Gamer UK Reference at WP:VG/Magazines Talk page, here. -- Noj r (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have an original copy of the mag, and there's a (1.5MB) scan of the entire page here. I don't think it would scrape past WP:FU here, so I used imageshack - I'd like to take it down ASAP, so let me know when you've finished with it. The exact author of The Spy is unknown (it's The Spy who writes it...). It's a rumour and gossip column, detailing the various "I heard from a friend who heard from a friend who knows someone who makes the coffee at EA" machinations of the game developing world. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for the article Vanderdecken. I have incorporated the joystiq statement back into the article and referenced the PC Gamer article. -- Noj r (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the " Note: " is needed in refs 14 and 16 since they are, by nature, footnotes.
Done. -- Noj r (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same on ref 54 (Rob Fermier).
Done -- Noj r (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need to specific language=English; this is the assumed default.
Done -- Noj r (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just say GamePro on ref 56.
Done -- Noj r (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And ref 67.
Done -- Noj r (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general, check out Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Midtown Madness for a recent example on demonstrating the reliability of websites for VG articles. Giggy (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. The prose needs a copy-edit, but it's not a huge job at all. Here are observations from the lead that show how the writing needs to be polished.

I'm going through and scrubbing the article. Please inform about any other issues so the article can improve. Thanks, -- Noj r (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why dilute the high-value links at the start with soldier? I'm unsure that the link to variables (twice, no less) isn't going to confuse rather than clarify. "Gameplay" link? Why? Instead of linking "resolution", why not delink and use "image resolution"?
Done. Well, I never considered the value of links in the lead, but then again. "Variables", "gameplay", and "resolution" are linked down below, but I thought these were observations about the lead. -- Noj r (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", which" not ", that". "The player assumes", since "a lone soldier" is singular.
I'm sorry, ", which" "not ", that". What are these supposed to mean? I fixed the "player assumes" bit. -- Noj r (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The simple answer: A comma should never come before "that". If you want a pause with a comma in those constructs, use "which", which should always follow a comma. Caveat emptor: "never" and "always" are too rigid :). This is a good summary of the "which" versus "that" problem. BuddingJournalist 06:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ah, I do recall hearing something like that. Thanks for the info. -- Noj r (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • em em in "attempts to stem"; why not make it plain: "tries to stem"?
Done. Haha, never noticed this awkward bit. -- Noj r (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The title has since become a cult classic"—Can't it be "The game"?
Done. Yes it can. -- Noj r (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Released to commercial success?
Done. Changed to "strong sales". -- Noj r (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate the dots after "Mr.", etc; it's old-fashioned, although not incorrect, strictly speaking.
Huh? "Mr." is never mentioned and I do not recall any other abbreviations in the article separated by dots. -- Noj r (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does the "Horror" NFC image satisfy WP:NFCC#8? The caption merely describes what is happening in the frame; the image needs to illustrate something far more germaine than that, and be supported by an appropriate caption. Tony (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The caption also states that horror was a key focus for the title. Without the image, readers cannot understand (a) what Shock 2 looked like in pre-production, (b) the inspiration for some of the game's horrific content. Thus, the image satisfies policy 8. It doesn't help that many other FAs display concept art with much less significance than this image. -- Noj r (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, prose concerns as well as neutrality:
    • "Somewhere in the course of events, the soldier is rendered unconscious and surgically altered to accommodate a new cybernetic system" - seems out of place at the end of the setting section.
    • "establish her god-head" - can the AI be considered female, or should it be refered to as "it"?
    • The Lead mentions nothing about development.
    • "The original design for the new title would remain close to the final design of System Shock 2, due to the development team's endeavors to create a game similar to System Shock." This combined with the "EA wants SS2" later on makes for clunky and redundant wording.
    • "System Shock 2 received over a dozen awards, of which, eight" - there are lots of bad commas like these throughout the text, audit throughout. Also check for proper italicization throughout.
    • Wikilink the publications in the prose of reception.
    • "System Shock 2 still received some criticism" - POV wording
    • "Other criticisms were pointed out as well. " clunky way to begin a paragraph.
    • This ref doesn't link to the proper page
    • The "greatest villians" refs are supporting the article saying SHODAN is one of the greatest villains in video game history, which I feel is taking the refs beyond what they state- the GameSpot ref is only for computer game villains, for example, and nowhere in any of them do they say "of video gaming history" or the like; better to say SHODAN was called a top video game villain or the like.
    • "special abilities that function similarly to psionic powers in System Shock 2.[76][77]" if you're using the System Shock manual to source this connection, that's original research.

(please don't break the above comments up with inline comments, just respond in a block below so I can better follow the flow of conversation.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. I removed that sentence. Tell me if it flows better.
  • SHODAN is consistently referred to as female in the game. See some of the in-game references.
  • The lead does mention development. The game was designed by Ken Levine, was developed by Looking Glass and Irrational. and was published by EA.
  • Done. That sentence is clunky. Cut it down to its bare meaning i.e. Their new game was influenced by System Shock
  • Done. I think its better. Itallicized publishers.
  • Done. Wikilinked the publications.
  • Done. Removed statement.
  • Done. Removed statement.
  • The original "greatest villain" list is here, but when you click any of the links, you are linked somewhere else. Thus, an archived version of the page is present as proof that SHODAN was listed.
  • Done. The Phoenix declared SHODAN #1 in their "Top 20 Greatest Villains In Video Game History" list. But you are right, it is misleading. Reworded to be "one of the most memorable". The references do state this.
  • Done. Yeah, that pretty much was OR. Retrieved reference from the Bioshock article that does quite nicely. -- Noj r (talk) 04:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments This article uses a lot of passive voice and needs some copy edit work. Here's a good example: "All weapons (except mêlée ones) degrade through use and eventually break. As a result, repairing them becomes necessary to ensure they function correctly." Try something like "All non-melee weapons degrade with use and will eventually break if not repaired." Some other examples:
    • Aside from containing a redundancy, the sentence "All critics unanimously described the title as quite frightening." is surely hyperbole. Did literally every critic describe the game in this manner?
    • "Some setbacks were experienced because the Dark Engine was unfinished. This was sometimes advantageous..." Aren't setbacks, by definition, not advantageous?
      • The next sentence explains how, because of the setbacks, they were able to add additional features (hence the advantage gained). Does it make sense? Giggy (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand what is intended, just pointing out that an "advantageous setback" is an oxymoron. If it was advantageous, then it wasn't really a setback, was it? Find a better way to describe it. Pagrashtak 20:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Watch out for sentences that don't add any new information: "Many other devices populate the game.", "Other criticisms were pointed out as well."
    • "System Shock 2 received over a dozen awards, of which, eight were 'Game of the Year' awards." Try "...a dozen awards, including eight 'Game of the Year' awards". This needs to be more specific—"Game of the Year" from the Interactive Achievement Awards and "Best use of polygon textures (reader's pick)" are both awards, but one is a lot more impressive.
      • The awards are listed here, so I added a few examples of major publishers that labelled it GOTY ([16]). Also made the reword as suggested. Giggy (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately, now you've got two includings in your sentence. The article says eight GOTYs, but I count seven on that page (excluding qualifications like RPG GOTY). Pagrashtak 20:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fixed the "including" stuff (I'm horrible at proofing my own work), and modified to go by the election criteria you suggested. Giggy (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • By the way, I'm trying to verify that SS2 got GOTY from Game Revolution (in part to get a better ref) and am having some trouble. Here's the closest I've got: [17] This index makes me think that the award would have been "PC GOTY" at best, and not overall GOTY. I'd recommend verifying those awards if you're going to mention them in the article. I'm not taking this at face value. Pagrashtak 21:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pagrashtak 19:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from where I've replied inline, I addressed these. Thanks for them! Giggy (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prose—Not entirely happy with it. Here are random examples that suggest a spruce up by someone else throughout the text is necessary.

  • FTL abbreviation introduced but not subsequently used ...
Done. -- Noj r (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In regards to character customization"—"With respect to ..." or "With regard to ...".
Done. -- Noj r (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curly quotes not recommended by MoS, but there's controversy about this.
I'll keep that in mind. -- Noj r (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Logical punctuation required at the end of quotations. See MoS.
Done. Looked over the qoutes and adjusted the puncuation. -- Noj r (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Just Adventure agreed, saying,"—Second comma better removed.
Done. -- Noj r (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • stating, “[this] game is brimming with horror.” --> stating that this game "is brimming with horror". Logical p., obstructive comma removed, and interpolation avoided by narrowing the ambit of the quotation.
Done. I see how this works. Interesting. -- Noj r (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though it was designed to add tension by forcing the player to consider every shot, many felt this became annoying[45][3][4] and even the developers appear to have misgivings about the system." centered on --> concerned.
Done. Reworded and split up the sentence. -- Noj r (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allgame felt the game began "to drain" near the end with the inclusion of objectives requiring constant backtracking,[45] sentiments felt by Thunderbolt, who also criticized the backtracking, describing it as "a nuisance".—"drain" is a groupy term? You could paraphrase it. The sentence is long and unweildy. Tony (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Reworded and split apart. -- Noj r (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References—Convince me that they're all authoritative. What about the "critical claim" that [10] BioShock is used to support? Looks like a commercially tainted set of opinions. Tony (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

99% of the references are covered in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources as reliable, including the metacritic reference citing bioshock's critical acclaim. The only two references that may be disputed are the Just Adventure and Thunderbolt reference. Just Adventure should be listed as a reliable reference though. See my conversation near the top with Giggy about Just Adventure. Thunderbolt is an independent gaming website that factually check their work and edit it professionally. Thunderbolt is only quoted once, but can be removed if necessary. -- Noj r (talk) 23:46, 17 September 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 03:54, 24 September 2008 [18].

Ayumi Hamasaki edit

Nominator(s): Ink Runner (talk)
previous FAC (00:15, 31 July 2008)


The major issue in the article's last FAC was prose; this was addressed with the help of Morenoodles and Lady Galaxy. Other issues included unreliable sources and minor MoS-related errors; most of these were fixed during the last FAC. Ink Runner (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image comments
    • Image:Iam3.PNG- can we beef up this fair use rationale? See recent music FAs for examples of text and template-based rationales.
    • The music samples: all the image pages have proper source, author, et al information, all are less than 30 seconds/10% of recording, and have full FURs. My concern here is with frequency, specifically that they significantly increase reader understanding per WP:NFCC. For example, Image:Ayumi Hamasaki - Evolution.ogg's caption is:""Evolution", a single composed by Hamasaki, made prominent use of the electric guitar." - I don't really think a music sample is needed to tell us about the guitar. Same thing goes with Image:Ayumi Hamasaki - Voyage.ogg. The other three illustrate prominent styles, and the only other borderline one is Image:Ayumi Hamasaki - M.ogg (just being a popular song does not mean it significantly increases understanding.) My recommendation is to remove the above three images unless more compelling reasons for their inclusion are offered.
      • "Evolution" and "Voyage" illustrate styles as well (rock/dance and classical, respectively); "M" illustrates the use of shifts to the parallel key, a common musical technique in her self-composed songs. Ink Runner (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All other images free and have proper tags, author, and source, or else appropriate FUR. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • sound samples
I have never heard of this artist, so I cannot be particularally authoritive, but there seems to be a awful lot of non-free sound samples, and there may be criteria 3 issues. Fasach Nua (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The number of non-free media shouldn't really matter as much as whether the media is being used correctly and whether it serves a useful purpose. As stated in the article, the artist's songs span a wide variety of styles, and I think that the five samples used do a good (enough) job of representing the variety. Also, Celine Dion's article (which is featured) uses six non-free music samples. Ink Runner (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm not sure if I should be commenting here, because a neat little gadget for Wikipedia tells me I've had 174 edits to this particular article. But I really like this article; I feel it meets our featured article standards because it's written really clearly and really well. I've seen you take in our concerns and observations (discussed on the talk page) and totally clean this article up with sources and better wording. You started working on it since last November, so it's been almost a whole year now!
Honestly, looking at the versions of this article before 2008, it's like you can't even recognize the article anymore. It used to have major NPOV and references issues.

(I'll put this in numbers, because I tried to write in bullets and paragraphs and it didn't work out too well...)

  1. I do remember that a certain editor rejected your proposal on the last FAC, because his major concern was the whole wording of the article. Look, I'm really no English expert, but my first language isn't even English but Chinese and I've lived in Los Angeles for fifteen years. I can still understand this article completely.
  2. The certain editor also objected to your use of spelling the numbers out as words instead of as actual numbers. I noticed that some featured articles spell the numbers out as words as well, and they still "made it"!
  3. That's pretty much it. I'm not too good with images or music samples or anything else that isn't actually words or numbers, so I'll stop here. Lady Galaxy 00:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as I did in the previous nomination.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • You are using "Takeuchi Cullen, Lisa "Empress of Pop" Time several different times, they can be combined. (Current refs 3, 10, 24, 80, etc) Also Current ref 25 (Empress of Pop p. 5) is lacking the author.
    • Added author to ref 25. Though refs 3, 10, 24, and 80 cite the same article, they point to different pages, so as they use the cite web template, I don't think they could be combined. Ink Runner (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 3 and 24 don't list a page number currently, should they?
        • Fixed.
  • Same for the Takeuchi Cullen "I have very clear ideas of what I want" Time article, it's listed multiple times and could be combined
    • As above, the refs point to different pages.
  • And the Takeuchi Cullen, Lis "The Many Faces of Ayu" Time article is listed multiple times and could be combined.
    • Different pages, as above.
      • Note on these, me, I'd not cite each page individually, since the article isn't that long, but that's a personal preference. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I were using the print source, then yeah, I would just cite the whole article, but I only have the web version, and I'm not sure the web and the print version are exactly the same.
  • Current ref 51 (BoA indepentently achieves ...) is in a non-English language but not so noted in the footnotes.
    • Fixed.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.7days.ae/
      • It's the most-circulated English-language newspaper in the United Arab Emirates, but to be on the safe side, I replaced it.
        • It would have been fine, I'm not familiar with the newspapers in the UAE, that's all! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://www.yesasia.com/global/1005192840-0-0-0-en/info.html (a review) a reliable source for the statement that the statment "Most of them were dark; the ablum had a notable rock tinge,..."?
    • From the review: "the tracks in Guilty lean considerably towards rock" and "most tracks on Guilty are on the darker side" (you'll have to expand the review to see it.)
      • Is the reviewer considered a significant reviewer though? Right now, it's only reliable for the information that that is what THIS reviewer thought, not that it was necessarily so. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right; I'll use a more reliable source(s).
  • Current ref 79 (Ayumi Hamasaki news) is lacking a publisher. Also it's in a non-English language and needs to be noted as such in the footnotes.
    • Fixed
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I was not able to check the non-English souces. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further point - either use p. or not use it, but pick one and be consistent with your footnotes. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed
  • Oppose by karanacs. I think the article is decent, but it needs more massaging to get it to FA status. There are multiple MOS issues, unclear claims, and prose problems. I've given a few examples, but in general someone needs to audit the whole article and make the prose as tight as possible. It seems to meander sometimes.
    • I'm not sure what you mean by "meander". Do you mean the article strays from the subject, i.e., the section about a certain album discusses something unrelated, or that the article suffers from obfuscation (the main issue last FA candidacy), or what?
    • This sentence is a little unclear to me (from the lead): "Though she originally supported this, a 2001 event in which Avex forced her to put her greatest hits album in direct competition with Hikaru Utada's Distance made Hamasaki reconsider and eventually oppose her status as an Avex "product"." Futhermore, the lead ties these two events together, but the body of the article makes no effort to say that the two events are related.
      • You're right, I'll cite the statement.
    • "and she became a delinquent" - in the US this usually means a trouble-maker. Is that the case here, or does the article simply mean that her grades dropped?
      • Yes, she became a trouble-maker.
    • The prose needs a bit of massaging. Here are a few examples of issues that you might want to watch for:
      • Watch for repetitive wording: "Her modeling career did not last long; SOS deemed her too short to be a model and transferred her to Sun Music, a musicians' agency. " - in this sentence, is there a way to not say "model" twice?
        • Dropped the second "model" ("SOS deemed her too short and transferred...")
          • Note, this is only an example. There are similar issues to this throughout the article. Karanacs (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a lot of awkward wording. For example, "Of the album's three singles—“Free & Easy”, “Voyage”, and “H”—the last became the best-selling single of the year" - This makes it sound as if the best-selling single of the year had to have come from her singles.
        • Changed to "The album had three singles—“Free & Easy”, “Voyage”, and “H”; the last became the best-selling single of the year."
          • Note that this is only an example of a more pervasive problem. Overall, the prose needs work to be FA-quality. Karanacs (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a lot of passive voice. Please rewrite this where possible to be active voice - that usually flows better and makes the prose tighter.
        • Most of the passive voice occurs in passages discussing her releases ("'Mirrorcle World' was released..."); as the records are the focus of the sentences, I thought it would be better to make them the subject.
    • I'm not sure what exactly her need for a place to live had to do with acting in B movies. Did the television people provide a place to live? Was she out of money and needed work to pay for rent? Perhaps this could be explained a bit better in the article.
    • "Though she had entered Horikoshi Gakuen, a high school for the arts, she left shortly afterward. " - did she enter school after acting in these shows? While she was acting?
      • Yes, while she was acting; changed to "At this time, she entered Horikoshi Gakuen, a high school for the arts; however, she left shortly afterward."
    • " Dissatisfied with her job, Hamasaki soon quit her acting career as well. " - Any information on what aspects of the job she was dissatisfied with?
      • She was not very specific about it; she said was that she "didn't fit in", she didn't like the attitudes of the girls she worked with (they were "suck-ups" to the boss etc.), and that she thought some procedures felt strange to her. But she uses very vague words.
    • "When her mother moved to Tokyo, she moved in with her" - pronoun confusion - did Hamasaki move in with her mother or did the mother move in with Hamasaki?
      • Hamasaki moved in with her mother; fixed.
    • "Matsuura offered her a recording deal immediately after hearing her sing" - when did he hear her sing? did she audition? Did the club have karaoke or another means for her to sing?
      • Changed to "After hearing Hamasaki sing karaoke, Matsuura offered her a recording deal..."
    • "until the following year," - I have lost track of dates in this article. Can you provide the actual year?
      • Fixed
    • "However, her debut album, A Song for XX (1999)," - can this really be called her debut album since she had already release Nothing from Nothing?
      • According to the Oricon (Japan's music charts), A Song for XX is her debut album. I don't know why it's that way; I'll add a footnote.
    • "made her a success." - In general, I don't like this type of vague wording. What does it actually mean? What measure of success are we using? Popular? rich? top of the chart? lots of airplay?
      • The following sentences explain ("it topped the Oricon charts for five weeks straight and eventually sold over a million copies. Additionally, Hamasaki earned a Japan Gold Disc Award for 'Best New Artist of the Year'.")
    • Most dates are unlinked in the article, but I see a few that are. Please either unlink manually or ask User:Tony1 to run a script to unlink the dates for the article.
      • Fixed
    • Why did she use a pseudonym for writing singles?
      • She has never explained.
    • This sentence "However, the title track had the first lyrics in which she felt she had expressed herself thoroughly" - makes me think that she wrote the song, but later it says that "M" was the first song she wrote heself
    • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, don't use callout quotes (the curly quotes). Use blockquote instead.
      • Done.
    • "a move interpreted by some as the beginning of a campaign prompted by a sluggish Japanese market" - interpreted by whom? Can we be more specific?
      • The source, TIME magazine, doesn't cite anyone in particular.
    • "A short movie, Tsuki ni Shizumu, was used as the video for "Voyage" - does this mean that they took an existing movie or that they actually created the movie for the video? Did she star in the movie? What was it about?
      • Yes, Hamasaki starred in it, and yes, it was created to be the video. As to the plot, including it might be off-topic for the paragraph; besides, it's wiki-linked.
    • Any information on why she chose to include English lyrics? Is this a trend in Japanese pop?
      • She wanted to convey her message to a wider audience. (Yes, it was a trend, but she didn't use English because she thought she could best express herself in Japanese.) I'll include that in the Image section.
    • "Although she did not compose as much as on I am..., she was still heavily involved in the production" - we were never told exactly how much she composed on I am...a few examples, but it's possible she composed everything on that one and we just aren't told that. I'd like a more explicit example here - how much did she compose on Rainbow?
      • On I am..., she composed all but two songs; on Rainbow, she only composed a little more than half. Edited the I am... and Rainbow paragraphs to reflect that.
    • I'm not quite seeing the connection between the two clauses here: "Along with her dissatisfaction with her last two studio albums (which she thought had been rushed), this led her to begin work on My Story (2004) early"
      • I don't quite see the connection either, but that's the reason Hamasaki gave.
        • Can you quote the source that you are using (here is okay)? Karanacs (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Last year’s was a mini-album, so I feel like fans who were expecting a full length album were thinking, ‘Is this all?’. I’m sure they wanted to hear more. So this year I wanted to take my time making this record. Also, with ‘Rainbow’, part of me was confused about my priorities, and I felt like I had barely made the album. I didn’t want to feel that way again, and I didn’t want to follow that method of creating and giving to my fans. So last year, all I could produce was a mini-album. But I didn’t want to feel pressed for time this year, and I didn’t want to have a deadline, so I asked to start working on it early."
    • "In contrast with her previous albums, My Story had no set theme" - we are never really told that the other albums had themes (except for I am...). That seems like something important to focus on.
      • Hamasaki never revealed the themes behind her earlier albums (except for Duty), but in the article cited, stated that she did plan the albums around a theme.
    • I see several instances in the article where a phrase is in quotation marks but there is not citation at the end of the sentence. The cite needs to be at the sentence the quotes are in, even if that means it is duplicated in subsequent sentences
    • " making Hamasaki the only artist to have her first eight studio albums do this" - how can this be the case if she released Nothing from Nothing and it did not top the charts?
      • This is according to Oricon; I don't know what their reasoning behind that is. I've added a footnote.
    • "As a result, the concerts became highly anticipated" - as a result of what?
    • "Hamasaki began commissioning remixes of her songs early in her career; this also influenced the diversity of her music" - did this really influence the diversity or was this an example of the diversity?
      • According to the source, it was an influence.
        • Then this needs to be better explained. Perhaps include a quote from the source? Karanacs (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • "[the remix albums], which followed two months later, started pulling her unassuming pop-rock into house, trance, reggae, and grand symphonic orchestration."
    • ", who praise them for expressing "independence, rebellion, and conflict juxtaposed with [...] innocence" and for being "like the contents of [...] a diary" and "reflecting [their own] changing emotions" - I think this sentence needs to explicitly attribute the quotes to someone.
      • I quote a magazine there, and those are the author's words, not a quote.
        • I meant that you need to attribute it to whoever wrote those lines - in this case that would be the magazine or the magazine article author. Karanacs (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's a citation given for it (#31).
    • Quotations of less than four lines should not be offset (they should be a part of the paragraph) per WP:MOSQUOTE.
      • Fixed.
    • minor nitpick - please make sure that references are numbered consecutively. For example, in the Image and artistry section there are sentences with two or more references, and the numbers are not in order.
    • Are there any examples of specific fashion trends that she has inspired? The article mentions that she has inspired some, but no details.
      • The articles cited only say that she started trends/influenced styles in hair, nails, etc. It doesn't give specific trends.

Karanacs (talk) 15:01, 23 September 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 03:54, 24 September 2008 [19].

Peter Jones (missionary) edit

Nominator(s): WilyD


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it passed its GA review without any points to address, and was recommended as "FA with a few minor fixes" by the reviewer. I think it stands as an excellent article with mostly MOS or phrasing minor fixes to be Featured. No clear fixes remain to be done, and all that. It's my first time here, please be gentle. WilyD 21:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image check
As a courtesy, I have changed the link for the source of Image:CreditMission1827SketchFromRyersonsBook.png to http://www.gutenberg.org/files/24586/24586-h/24586-h.htm#i2 so that people don't have to keep on looking for it.
Image:PeterAndElizaJonesPortraitsByMatildaJonesSideBySide.png needs a new copyright tag.
Okay, I fixed this. It should've been PD-UK-known, not PD-UK, which must've been deprecated and deleted. Matilda Jones died in 1856, so that's straightforward. WilyD 22:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:PeterJones1845InScotlad.jpg The link to Robert Adamson leads to a dab.
Disambig now skipped. WilyD 22:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing as above for Image:ElizaJonesPhotographByHillAndAdamsonEdinburgh1845.png
I've skipped this disambig now as well WilyD 22:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, everything looks good. As a said comment, the picture Image:PeterEdmundJonesSmithsonian1898.PNG in the article is squishing the {{reflist}}. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 22:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments from Maralia A few quick notes (I haven't read this yet but taken a brief glance for the 'obvious' since you said it's your first FAC):
  • Use endashes, rather than hyphens, in date ranges and page ranges.
  • Okay, how do I tell the difference? WilyD 22:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be hard to see the difference (endash – vs hyphen -), but I'm looking, and I see hyphens. This article explains how to type an endash on any OS; alternatively, you can use the html code &endash;. Endashes are unspaced, so you would end up with something like 1839–1882. Maralia (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I copy-pasted it into dates and ranges, but I'm unclear on whether to use a dash or an endash for hyphenated words. Is that an issue? WilyD 00:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You missed a few (refs 16, 58 and 73). To answer your questions: Hyphenated words (one-room) use plain old hyphens. Endashes are used between words only when indicating a range (April–May) or comparing or connecting disparate things (Indian–American relations). Maralia (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah hell. Yeah, I forgot about the references' page ranges. WilyD 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The items in the Bibliography section don't seem to have been used as references. If that's the case, the section should probably be named Further reading.
  • Bibliography in this case refers to a list of works he authored, rather than used to author this. I can see how that might be confusing, but I'm not sure what else to call a bibliography. WilyD 22:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. Bibliography is an acceptable section name for that (albeit confusing), but since the section is part of the actual article, it should come before the References. Maralia (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've re-ordered. WilyD 00:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference formatting needs some attention. I see 'last name, first name' authors and 'first last' authors. Additionally, some online references are lacking access dates.
  • I've adjusted all the cite templates to use first and last rather than author. WilyD 23:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reverified the undated web reference and noted it. For references that exist online that were first published elsewhere, I have not added an accessdate, I think a publication date should be sufficient. Those links are more a courtesy, not a reference, I think. I'd rather not, unless the MOS says I absolutely have to. WilyD 00:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends: did you use the original publication, and merely provide the online link as a courtesy? Or did you use the online site as your source? Maralia (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah dammit, that's just so tacky ... I mean, I'l work up the courage to change that soon. WilyD 01:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Online references now all have accessdates. WilyD 17:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image placement needs a little work: some of the images are encroaching on section headers (particularly the 'Jones' widow Eliza' image).
  • I've taken a hack at this, but it's possibly still troublesome? This point has long vex'd me. WilyD 18:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section titles should be in sentence case (i.e. only capitalize the first word and proper names).
  • This is done. My bad, I know better than that. WilyD 23:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image captions should end in a full stop only if they form a complete sentence.
  • Okay, I've reworded the only noncompliant caption to be compliant. WilyD 00:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several of the captions are only long nominal groups, not complete sentences (the feather, medal, and first home captions). Maralia (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh I see. Alright, I change, I change. WilyD 01:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The disambig links tool (in the toolbox above) shows several links that lead to disambiguation pages; please refine those links.
  • I believe I've fixed them all now ... WilyD 00:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The double portrait image has an invalid permission type.
I'll try to get back and give this a full read-through. Good luck! Maralia (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by jimfbleak A couple of issues in the lead

  • he enabled to Methodists - the Methodists
  • The Mississaugas of New Credit have since been able to retain title to the land, where they remain. In ill health by this time ... - As written, this time appears to be now? jimfbleak (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dumb errors that creep in when there are too few eyes. I've reworked them. WilyD 13:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 18:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes the following reliable sources:
    • http://www.frcna.org/messenger/Archive.ASP?Issue=200405&Article=1098711706 (and the succeeding articles)
      • These are reprints of articles published by the Free Reformed Churches of North America. They strike me as a reasonable publisher in context (i.e. I'd never cite them for a science article or whatnot, but for the history of a 19th century missionary, I think it's okay). Their publication leans "very heavily" on Sacred Feathers anyway, so I could probably shift cites that way, but I don't want to, as I already lean heavily on it. WilyD 15:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is that the site itself doesn't have a reputation for fact checking. I'd go ahead and use the book, honestly. When your article appears on the main page, you'll be happy you don't have any borderline references in it, because folks will look for anything to criticize. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is there some standard way to work this out? Free Reformed Publications is the publishing house of Free Reformed Churches of North America. Nominally, I can't find much one way or the other. While specialty, I can't convince myself that it's not decently respectable. The publication The Messenger does have an editor and an assistant editor [20] which inclines me to believe there's some level of fact checking/editing. WilyD 18:37, 2 September 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. Same goes for published sources. If this was a local history society, it'd be easier to judge. But it's a church publication, and thus somewhat outside their usual information. On the plus side, they do list the fact that they get their information from a published source, on the minus side, it's unlikely that they are used to dealing with specifically historical issues, so there might be unintentional bias. ( don't doubt that they won't be intentionally inaccurate, its the unintentional we have to be worried about in this case. ) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The author is now a part-time faculty at an accredited seminary (see [21], I doubt this makes him an expert in the field, though. I just wanted to store this here for the moment, mostly. WilyD 19:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The references to The Messenger are all now redundant. I've rereferenced Arthur's birth and death dates through Smith 1987, the second ref basically defines the role of an exhorter, which was superfluous to begin with, and the third merely backed up a reference from Smith '87. I've left them in, as I still hope to find some evidence The Messenger should be considered reliable, but I can remove them without loss if push comes to shove. WilyD 18:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.ontarioplaques.com/index.html
      • The text of the site is written and published by the government of Ontario's Ministry of Colleges and Universities, through the Archeological and Historic Sites Board. While the guy republishing it might be a little sketchy, I don't think this has to be a problem. I'm unaware that the government makes that text available online, to just cite the sign itself streaches verifiability, I think. WilyD 15:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ouch. Does the government have copyright on that text? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sign was put up in 1997 or 1998, so probably yes. I don't think it'd qualify as an "engraving". It's probably fair dealing on Alan Brown's part, given the usual copyright situation in Canada, but that's a long discussion and thought. I don't know practices for this. WilyD 16:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh, sorry, I had to go in the middle of typing that response. What I meant was, does the government have a publication that lists all the plaques? If so, you might list that. I misread it and thought that he was copying the whole website text from a government source, not just "reprinting" the plaque. How necessary IS this plaque to your article? I'm always leery of places that publish photos because we can't always be sure that the photo is correctly attributed to where/when it was taken. If there is no editorial oversight, it becomes difficult to be sure that the photo wasn't altered, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I also cite the Federal Government press release about the naming, and I could cite a provincial government agency that explicitly mentions the plaque was placed in '97, but as far as I can tell, Brown's website is the only one that contains the text of the plaque, which I think is quite nice for the reader. Now, I suppose I can't find a good way to demonstrate the plaque text hasn't been altered (and here, I don't specifically know, though I know he has reproduced all the ones I have checked correct (which is ~3)). I can leave it out, though I'm not sure that's not a disservice to the reader. WilyD 17:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • How about we use the link to the photo in the External Links section, and cite the government sources in the article? External links don't have to be as reliable as sources, so you'd still be showing the plaque (which I agree is a service to the reader) without relying on it for anything in the sourcing. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Okay, I've done this, and added an explicit reference for the plaque going up. WilyD 18:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the MOS, link titles in references shouldn't be in all capitals (current refs 4 and 14).
    • Okay. fixed. I was trying to remain true to the source. WilyD 15:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, but in this case, capitalization isn't something that has to be remained true to. As long as the title is correctly transcribed, we prefer not to do all caps so we dont look like we're shouting. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • JSTOR and other academic journal database links should state that they require a subscription in the reference.
    • This I have addressed. WilyD 16:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 19, 23, 30, 44, 69, 70, 75, 76, 78. are lacking a last access date.
    • Although I don't see why the MOS dictates this, I've gone and done it anyhow. WilyD 17:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mainly for two reasons. One, since websites can change their content (unlike printed books) you need to know what exact version was being referred to as a source, in case later the page changes. That's the main reason. The other reason is that if the link goes dead, you can know when to start searching the internet archives for archived versions. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I can buy the second point. But any halfway reliable website isn't going to be changing the text of a scanned book, I hope. WilyD 18:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, but your references are a special case. Most websites used as sources aren't based on printed works or scanned works. They are something like this which is subject to change and not based on a book. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Maybe it's not worth making an exception for a special case, but I only meant the "first published elsewhere" books/papers/whatever. WilyD 18:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay, links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I HOPE to get back to this and do a full review shortly. It really looked very interesting from what I saw of the article in passing. Just really busy in RL and won't have time until later. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Giggy. Sorry to see this has had minimal commentary...

  • His parents are named in the infobox, so I would name (and wikilink) them in the lead too.
    • Oh, I did this, too. WilyD 13:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and acting as a spokesman" - acting --> acted?
    • Yes, I meant acted, and it now says acted. WilyD 12:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe the lead makes mention of his death (other than a date in the first sentence). It probably should say something, even if it's as simple as adding a "... where he died in 1856" at its end.
    • I just added that. He was essential retired at this point, there are no real exciting details. WilyD 12:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Giggy (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Augustus Jones is sometimes just referred to as Augustus (and somestimes by full name). Be consitent (apart from the first usage outside the lead, which should be full name, I'd just use Augustus everywhere else).
    • I feel very odd referring to his father as just "Augustus" everywhere. Typically, one does not refer to their fathers this way - I'm probably just being a kook, though. WilyD 13:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Case soon began to act as a mentor to Jones as a missionary" - the "as a... as a..." is a bit awkward.
    • I changed it a bit, for flow. I'm not known for flow when speaking, though, so I cannot promise the flow has actually improved. Rather, I'm known to ramble, and will continue talking until someone else has something to say. One time ... WilyD 13:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looking at some more sections at random, the prose is really quite good. Very minor niggles. But in general it's pretty much there, for mine. Giggy (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support.Nice work on a not so well known person. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Oppose by karanacs. I thought the article was very interesting and it certainly seemed comprehensive. I did have a few questions and I found some MOS issues that should be fixed. While I did a small copyedit, I think the article would benefit from a final good copyedit to smooth out the edges.

  • I removed a lot of wikilinks to ordinary words (like salmon) in the first half of the article. Please check the second half of the article (starting with First British tour) and do a similar culling.
    • There was a bunch of unneeded or duplicated ones. I'm very rambling and context-y when I talk to, so I'm unsure you'd find it sufficient. WilyD 13:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article initially makes it seem as if Sarah Tekarihogan was a white woman (it mentioned that polygamy not accepted by whites) but later it appears that she is Iroquois. That should probably be clarified at the beginning of the article.
    • Tekarihogan is a Mohawk woman, yes. I made it explicit that polygamy was an accepted practice among the Mohawks and Mississaugas. WilyD 14:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any information about how well Sarah and her children accepted Peter and his brother?
    • It's not discussed much. Peter was close to his sister Mary - others, to very levels. I've never seen much discussion about his relationship with his stepmother, but I get the impression it was unremarkable. WilyD 16:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There probably ought to be a citation for the statistic here: "In 1825, over half his band had converted to Christianity, and Jones decided to devote his life to missionary work."
    • The number is given both in Sacred Feathers and in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography. I went with overkill. WilyD 16:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see a need to subdivide the Ministry section so much. The section headers for "Conversion and Early Ministry" and "Chieftain and late rministry" could be removed, leaving just the lower level headers
    • This is entirely true. It's hindsight, it's very clear those section headings didn't add anything. WilyD 15:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a complete sentence, and I wasn't entirely sure where you were going with it: " The Christian dress and style of Jones' band of converts, including their singing of hymns, which had been translated into Ojibwe by Jones. "
    • Not sure what happened, looks like the second part of the sentence got cutoff during a re-arrangement. I've completed it, anyhow. WilyD 16:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd move this sentence " At this meeting, about 50 of the approximately 200 Indians of Jones' band were converted. " further up in the paragraph. It would make more sense when discussing that Jones and Captain Jim each led a contingent to the meeting.
    • I added the numbers they each lead, which gives some context - it's in the reference already used for that section. I then moved the number converted up, I don't think I was thinking clearly about the temporal arrangement. WilyD 16:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the next year they were back when the Indian Department failed to pay the full annuity due the band over an 1818 land concession" - which year? The previous sentence mentioned both 1825 and 1829.
    • It's 1826, I made it more explicit. WilyD 16:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All measurements in acres should also be converted to hectares
    • I added that nifty convert template, this is done. WilyD 17:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what this means: "In 1827, Jones was received on trial for the Methodist itinerancy"<
    • Oh, he received a temporary License to Preach (Methodist) as a Circuit rider (religious). It's Methodist jargon. WilyD 17:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This needs to be reworded - I grew up in the Methodist church and didn't know the term, so it's likely other readers will be confused. Karanacs (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, okay. Having been reading historical sources it seemed like a perfectly natural expression to me, but I've reduced the jargon substantially, to "In 1827, Jones was granted a trial preaching license as an itinerant preacher". It conveys more or less the same, excepting maybe about his being part of a group of such people. That's not really the important part. WilyD 20:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the same time they applied pressure to the Indian communities to abandon Methodism for Anglicanism" - if the brothers were not willing to leave Methodism for Anglicanism why did they begin to pressure the Indian communities to do so?
    • Oh, I see. "They" in the context is Strachan and the Upper Canada government officials, not the Joneses. I've clarified it. WilyD 17:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This likely needs a citation "Colbourne looked far more favourably on the Methodists, but still hoped to replace the influence of American Methodists with British Wesleyans."
    • This was covered in the previous sentence's citation. I've moved it down the paragraph. WilyD 14:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the caption for the portraits of Peter and Eliza, is this capitalization intended: "London Painter"?
    • There's no reason to capitalise painter, so I replaced "P" with "p". WilyD 13:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Returning to Upper Canada, that year's Methodist conference named Jones "A Missionary to the Indian Tribes" on Case's urging" - does this mean that the Methodist conference returned to Canada or that it happened after Jones returned to Canada?
    • Now reads: "After his return to Upper Canada, the year's annual Methodist conference named Jones "A Missionary to the Indian Tribes" on Case's urging." - The conference was just the official annual meetings for the Methodists in his district (Canada at this time, I think). WilyD 19:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he held more than sixty sermons and one hundred speeches " - I am not sure that is a proper verb - should it not be "he gave"?
    • I think I had originally used the term "lecture", but decided it was too jargon-y or archaic. Held is dispreferred by Google 20:1 vs. gave. Doesn't matter to me, so I changed it. WilyD 14:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any information on why his Indian name was used when he gave speeches instead of his English name?
    • The short of it is that it would draw much better crowds. In England in the 1830s and 40s, crowds would show up just to see an exotic Indian, far more so than a random preacher. I mention somewhere that he was unhappy people showed up for that reason, but he was raking in cash, these trips were netting 1/3 or more of the Canadian MEthodist Church's annual budgets. WilyD 19:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should not be an "of" between a month and year (June 1831 not June of 1831)
    • I removed the instance of this. WilyD 13:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes the article spells out Reverend and sometimes it uses an abbreviation. It should be consistent.
    • All uses are now spelt out in full, except those cases where they are a direct quotation (in memorials and references such examples exist). WilyD 13:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The British run church resulted in Jones' colleagues treating him like an inferior" - why? This does not make sense to me (and needs a hyphen)
    • Hyphen is resolved easily enough. I don't think anyone makes it totally clear why Jones dropped in the Church's priority scheme. A number of British Elders would've been moved into the Canadian Hierarchy. I think they bring in a different set of priorities (i.e. the white settlers, not the Indians) and probably some fairly plain racism, having known Indians primarily from third-hand stories and whatnot. The white settler population was expanding very rapidly at this time, it's fairly natural they wouldn't care as much about Indians as had previously been cared. But I don't think anyone discusses this explicitly. WilyD 20:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've reworded the sentence completely to: " The combined church was now run by the British, and Jones's influence lessened" - does that meet with the source information? It seemed to make a bit more sense to me this way. Karanacs (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think this is quite strong enough, so I beefed it up. James Evans was assigned to do Ojibwe translations, including redo-ing some of Jones; The running of the Indian missions was given over to a guy who couldn't even talk to Indians. William Case was put in charge of translations, even though he couldn't speak Ojibwe. Jones didn't just lack influence, he was being passed over for jobs which were given to less qualified individuals. Accordingly, I've punched up the language. 14:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Are there sources for these facts? "The strain of these community splits, combined with Jones' responsibilities as a father after the birth of his first son, Charles Augustus (Wahweyaakuhmegoo "The Round World") in April 1839, prevented Jones from undertaking many proselytizing tours. As Eliza had previously had two miscarriages and two stillbirths, the couple took great care in raising Charles."
    • I added a citation. WilyD 21:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use callout quotes per WP:MOSQUOTE
    • Huh. I switched it to the "quotation" template. WilyD 20:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see some mention of Peter's son Peter in the article - the only mention I see is in the phot caption
    • I added a short mention of his birth and naming. Young Peter was only 13 when old Peter died - although he would go on to be a notable figure, not much happened before his father's death. WilyD 15:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - A rare non-sports article review from me. I found this on the requested feedback template.

  • Typo in lead: "In 1847, Jones lead the band to relocate to New Credit on land donated by the Six Nations, who where able to furnish the Mississaugas with title deeds." Where should be were.
    • This is true, and has been corrected. WilyD 17:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life: Raised by his mother: "Tuhbenahneequay. Tuhbenahneequay..." It's not good to have this kind of repetition, especially with such a long name.
    • I rearranged this to avoid that, and the later complaint that it wasn't clear Augustus Jones was a white guy. WilyD 17:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • English language isn't a needed link.
    • Okay, I'm torn over this. Most readers are probably somewhat familiar with English - it's history, it spread, blah blah blah. That English was the language of the settlers of Upper Canada is important, but plain. His command of English allowed him to make his trips to England and America, speak directly to Victoria and Edward IV, and so forth. Contextualising the role of English in this case may be important.
    • In short, I have a hard time justifying it, but I'd rather keep it. WilyD 14:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a bunch of eagle feathers to denote its flight." I'm concerned that "a bunch of" may not be encyclopedic phrasing.
    • Bunch of is the phrase Peter used to describe them.[22]. While this may mimic the style of a modern slang usage, the formal English usage of the word bunch is the one employed here, I think - a group of several objects bundled together, i.e. Noun use 1, not noun use 4. WilyD 17:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During a long episode of drunken frolicking ofby all the adult Indians in Captain Jim's band..." Recommend that change.
    • This is more a more usual grammatic construction. I changed it. WilyD 17:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Double-check this one. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I must've had a stroke or something. It should be changed now, unless someone is playing pranks on me. WilyD 12:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raised by his father: Another English language link. Also another Stoney Creek link, which isn't needed since there was one in the last section.
    • Okay, I removed these. WilyD 18:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His allowed himself to be baptised..."
    • And fixed this ... WilyD 18:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ministry: Conversion: Another Mississauga link is unnecessary here.
    • Yeah, I removed it. WilyD 18:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, it's not bad, but Karanacs was correct in saying a copy-edit would be beneficial. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until a good copyedit has been done.

  • First paragraph of the lead, three of the sentences start with "His...", including the last two. Very repetative, consider varying them.
    • Easier done than said. Two are rearranged. WilyD 18:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I got lost. Was he Ojibwa, Mississauga or Mohawk? You say he was Ojibwa, but then "HIs band of Mississaugas..." which implies he was Mississauga ...
    • Err, The Mississaugas are/were a group within the Ojibwa. Maybe more like the Mississaugas were a political group within the ethnic cultural Ojibwa. His stepmother was a Mohawk, and he lived in the Mohawk community of the Six Nations for a while. WilyD 18:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then that should probably be made more obvious so that folks don't get lost like I did. I honestly did not know that information, and it should probably be in the article, not just in a wikilink. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I want to avoid labouring too hard on the point - I don't explain, for instance, that being an American of Welsh descent makes Jones a member of white Christian culture, and I'd rather not promote much of a double-standard. I slipped the phrase "Mississauga Ojibwa" into the lead to address this subtlely. WilyD 16:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably should mention somewhere that Augustus Jones was a white man? This might make the fact that folks considered Peter a bridge between the white and Indian worlds a bit more understandable.
    • I added an explicit reference to this and was a bit clearer about the polygamy. WilyD 17:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article definitely needs a copyedit. Very rough transitions between ideas and sentences, along with very choppy sentences and lots of redundancies. I'll try to point out the worst offenders, but understand these are not complete.
  • Why do we need to wikilink the English language? Or hunger, exposure to the cold, grandfather, eagle,
    • Grandfather was not very useful, I agree. I do think Hunger and exposure to cold add something - a reader might reasonably wonder about how severe hunger or cold exposure need to be to cripple someone like that - something they may not have experience with themselves. I'll think about the other two. WilyD 18:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm torn about whether Eagle adds much. Eagle totem is already link'd, so maybe just plain eagle is redundant. Eagle contains some discussion about the use of the eagle as a national or organisational symbol, which is probably tangentially relevent content. Still pondering English. WilyD 10:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per above, I think I'd rather see a wikilink to English kept. I'm not sure I can justify it, but I do think it's possibly useful, and not possibly harmful. WilyD 14:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raised by his mother.. last paragraph "During the War of 1812, Jones' band of Mississaugas experience a share of the hardship." What hardship? Of the war? Needs more explication.
    • Err, yes, hardship of the war. The rest of this paragraph seems to explain this better to me. Jones' grandmother dies, White John dies, refugees from the war occupy a lot of the band's hunting ground. I'm not sure how to be more explicit. Wouldn't "war's hardship" come off as redundant? WilyD 20:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't find it redundant. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright - people are generally not great at reading their own writing, so I've added "war's" to make it clearer. WilyD 12:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raised by his father section, "Head Chief Wabakinine, band spokesman Golden Eagle and Jones' grandfather Wahbanosay were all recently deceased." Err, very awkward, perhaps "... had all recently died." Or "(list of people) died in that year." which makes it active.
    • Re-reading the reference, it's seems that the timescales of their deaths is pretty long. With only 200 Mississaugas, of course, such deaths have far more impact then we'd normally be familiar with. The bigger problem for them is that no effective community leaders were taking their place. I've reworded to better reflect this. WilyD 10:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I got as far as Ministry, and decided I'll have to oppose until a good copyedit for prose flow has been done. The research seems very interesting, but the flow is so bad it doesn't keep my interest. That's usually a sign of prose needing tweaking. I don't think it's far from FA, it just needs a fresh set of eyes who is good at copyediting going over the article and massaging the text. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretfully Oppose until a good copy edit can be done. For example:
  • "To honour Jones and underscoring.." underscore
  • to underscore, I think. I've changed it to that, anyhow. WilyD 11:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As well," Is "as well" a legitimate transition in British English? It certainly doesn't work for me in AmerEng.
  • I only speak hyper-Canadianised English, and As well is a legitimate transition there. Is Additionally preferable or such? Buddy was born in Burlington and died in Brantford - Canadian English seems appropriate. WilyD 13:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jones was struck by illness in December 1855 during a wagon ride home from New Credit to Echo Villa. Jones was unable to shake it..." Unable to shake the wagon ride? Clarify referent.
  • Unable to shake the illness, Jones died in his home on June 29, 1856. WilyD 12:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Located west of Brantford, it allows him to be closer to New Credit" Should be "allowed." Also awkward phrasing.
  • The estate was close to the established town of Brantford, but also allowed him to be close to New Credit I think it hits the point more directed. WilyD 13:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "White squatters were driven off the land by about 1855, although continued theft of logs remained a problem for several years." I'm assuming the squatters stole the logs? Or did someone else?
  • Nominally I don't think this is known. Practically, it was probably the farmers from the adjacent lands who were doing this - both the squatters and the loggers reflect the problem the Mississaugas had in getting the white settlers to respect their title to the land. WilyD 13:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The brothers, while Christians, objected to the harsh discipline imposed on the young, the use of voting rather than consensus to govern and the loss of Indian lifestyle and culture." So Christians should be in favor of harsh discipline, consensus and loss of culture? "While" seems wrong.
  • I can't speak to should, but the Christians generally favoured much harsher discipline for the young (read:any discipline), voting (as opposed to traditional Mississauga government by consensus) and the replacement of Mississauga culture with European one (farming rather than hunting/gathering, monogamy rather than polygamy, and so forth), yes. WilyD 13:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is easter-eggy at all. It's just an avoidance of jargon or unfamiliar terms. WilyD 16:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the first paragraph of "raised by his mother".... The clarity/coherence could use some work. The first sentence mentions Tuhbenahneequay, then we hear about immigrant... surveyor.. customs.. polygamy, then a later sentence refers to "lived with a Mississauga woman Tuhbenahneequay." The use of the indefinite article makes it seem as though this is the first mention of Tuhbenahneequay, but it isn't. Nearly every sentence should be reorganized.
  • I've reorganised the section, but ... I've reorganised it, and I think it addresses things much better now, actually. WilyD 14:06, 24 September 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 01:36, 23 September 2008 [23].

The Sword of Shannara edit

Nominator(s): User:the ed17
previous FAC (20:31, 31 August 2008)


Alright, I have addressed most of the concerns brought up during the previous FAC. I do not have the book anymore, as it is with a friend of mine and I can't get to it, but I should be able to remember most/all of the details that will be needed for the plot summary if I need to change it. Thanks for your comments, for as long as you tell me what needs to be done (I.e. not Expand plot, but instead Expand x sentence in y section) I'll be able to improve the article, regardless if it makes it through this FAC. Cheers! -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 02:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notified Sunsetsunrise about this FAC, as he appeared to be willing to help with getting this to FA in the previous FAC. Cheers, -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 05:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sorry, still not ready IMO. Some significant issues throughout. The first one that jumps out at you is the regular use of large chunks of quote (eg. in the background section). These detract from the writing, making it harder to read, and turn the article into a stack of quotes rather than something written based on sources. As noted before, any further shortening of the plot summary section would be good. The major themes section is surely too short, and I believe much more can be said (in your own words!) about it. Look at some other novel FAs. I don't like the idea of having a section header be a question ("Derived from Lord of the Rings?") and would suggest that be retitled. In general, there is some significant content restructuring needed, IMO. Good luck. Giggy (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm working on the quotes. Does it look better so far?
      • It's getting there. IMO you don't need blockquotes and it would be better if there were none (not to say that would solve every problem, but it's a starting point). Giggy (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Umph. I'll work on it... I don't have the time this morning to do anything major, but I'll work on them, I promise. -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Alright, I got one. I'm going to try to integrate the quotes into the major themes section later (after class), but I would like to leave the first quote...look at it, its all about what he was thinking! Also, the Herbert quotes are very important, but I think that they would be too opinionated to be merged with the article...plus, no one can get to the actual article unless they pay 3.95 to the Times...-_-...(I only got to it through something my school pays for)...so quotes might be best... -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 13:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Alright, take a look. 4 block quotes left (2 from one source, Herbert)...I only removed the block quotes and shortened most of the others because I don't want to have problems with POV...if there is/are one/two quotes that can be integrated, can you tell me which ones or help me un-quote them? Thanks, -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 17:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added another theme to the 'Major Themes' section, and I may be able to move some of the content from the 'Background' section there too if it is still too short.
      • I'm somewhat concern that you needed a poke here to make you add another "major" theme. Is that section complete/comprehensive? (And the quoting issue there.) Giggy (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe so. The main reason for writing Sword for Brooks was just because he had to respond to LotR...he didn't write it for any theme. As he went along, it became the post-halocaust one....when you said that about the theme, I went hunting through pages on his website, and found that environmental theme buried. If there is another theme, he hasn't said it. -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Section was renamed "Similarities between Sword and The Lord of the Rings"... Better, or too long, or...? -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 15:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's probably OK. Giggy (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Not well-written throughout. The opening demonstrates this.
  • Second sentence: "It is the first of three books that are a part of the Original Shannara Trilogy, with the other two being The Elfstones of Shannara and The Wishsong of Shannara." Clumsy and ungrammatical. "The first book of the Original Shannara Trilogy, it was followed by The Elfstones of Shannara and The Wishsong of Shannara."
  • I've removed some of the extreme overlinking in the lead. Please audit throughout for this.
    • I went through and did this, but look at where some of the links go! 1977 is linked because it goes to 1977 in literature, which Sword is a part of. Also, sleep goes to Druid sleep, which is some form of suspended animation, if I remember right...Basically, it allows the Druids to live longer. -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 15:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Inspired by J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings and historical adventure fiction, Brooks began writing the novel in 1967. He finished it seven years later; after being accepted for publication by Ballantine Books, it was used to launch the company's Del Rey Books imprint." Sentence boundary in the wrong place. What is "imprint"? A link is not good enough; please use a simpler word or briefly gloss the term.
    • Changed to "subsidiary". 15:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Startitis disease: "becoming the" --> "and was".

Tony (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Startitis: Just about everthing could be expressed as "becoming" in a narrative section—"Upon its release, The Sword of Shannara became a major success, becoming the first fantasy paperback to appear on the New York Times bestseller list. Its success began to provide a major boost to the commercial expansion of the fantasy genre." So why not make it straight and simple: "Upon its release, The Sword of Shannara was a major success and the first fantasy paperback to appear on the New York Times bestseller list. Its success provided a major boost to the commercial expansion of the fantasy genre."
  • A number of additions and improvements (diff), but needs attention to the general prose. Here are more random shots:
    • "much critical derision"—Remove "much", since "derision" is very strong already (too strong?). And more hype in the same sentence: "for being overly derivative" (remove "overly", since derivative work is up for criticism). Try to avoid ", with" as a connector: "... Rings: some critics accused him ...". Unclear logic in the last clause. Try "; others have regarded this more favourably, saying that all new writers follow in the ...". I hope these critics are cited in the body of the article, by at least one representative source.
      • done and yes, there are about 4 sources for that, and 8 sources in the section it comes from (Similarities between Sword and The Lord of the Rings"). =) That is not a weasel sentence!!! ;D -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 05:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More work needed on the miro-aspects of the text—a job for a new editor who's good with words (not that you're not that, but you're too close to it). Tony (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=D I'm pretty good with words when I'm writing for fun/something I like...my problem is when I write stuff here or for a research paper. =/ (too many semi-colons, for one.) I'll put in a request at GoCE. -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 17:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS Overciting: I see refs 4, 4, 4, 4 at the end of four successive sentences: this is visually obstructive, like overlinking, and quite unnecessary. As long as the individual sentences are not each contentious or the passage much longer and more complex, just one [4] at the end of it is sufficient. Tony (talk) 04:25, 18 September 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 01:36, 23 September 2008 [24].

Flytoget edit

Nominator(s): Arsenikk (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets all the FA criteria. The article is currently a Good Article, and has past through a peer review, and had a thorough copyedit since then, and I believe the article now stands to represent the finest quality of Wikipedia. Arsenikk (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick look through the article, it looks ok, though not quite FA yet. These are some of the problems standing in the way, though if these are corrected it could be fine:
  • "Flytoget AS is a high-speed airport rail link connecting Oslo Airport, Gardermoen to Oslo, Norway, in nineteen minutes." — this is too fragmented. It should be reworded to "Flytoget AS is a norwegian high-speed airport rail link connecting Oslo Airport to Oslo in nineteen minutes." This is much easier to read.
  • "The sixteen BM71 trains run on the Gardermobanen high-speed railway line, normally every ten minutes, with half the services continuing westwards to Asker." — I think would be better worded "Flytoget runs sixteen BM71 trains on the Gardermobanen high-speed railway line, normally once every ten minutes, with half the services continuing to Asker."
  • "Several lethal accidents have been induced by Flytoget, but only one due to an accident." this isn't very well written, it would be better worded "Several fatal accidents have been caused by Flytoget trains". I'm not sure what "but only one due to an accident" is supposed to mean.
Bear in mind I've only had a quick flick through the article, and probably haven't spoted everything, but these things need to be fixed--Serviam (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback; the improvements have now been incorporated into the text. Arsenikk (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a. Sentence structure and boundaries need a lot of work. There's a tendency to stuff lots of info into each sentence, which is producing a bumpy, chunky, difficult read. Please find a collaborator to help, and ping me when the whole text is ready. I'd withdraw, actually, and work on it properly—then resubmit.

  • "Branded" is not the right word. Just "(in English, the ...)".
  • Sounds as though it was built in 19 minutes. You could slip "19-minute run/link" into the subsequent sentence instead. The opening sentence is quite chunky already.
  • What does "normally" mean here? Unless there's a train crash? Or during days and evenings (but not during the dead of night)?
  • "These" means the half that go full way, or all trains?
  • Last sentence in para 1 gives the travel time anyway, so why twice? Comma needed, and keep the items in both clauses (either side of "and") in the same order. Asker is what? An outlying suburb? Tony (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Please note non-English language sources in the footnotes. It appears that most of the sources are in Norwegian (which isn't in itself a problem, but it's nice to tell the folks that click on links that they aren't in English)
Honestly, I coudln't check the sources because they are mostly in Norwegian, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources, I can spot several that are missing publishers, and several that could be questioned (not necessarily in terms of reliability, but just starting with, what is this?) Unless someone else gets to it, I can do it myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. In all instances where the publisher is the same as the author, publisher is not included—this includes several online newspaper articles [from reliable newspapers] that have failed to publish the name of the author. In the GA process, User:Lampman (a Norwegian speaker) verified all the references; I believe the references are unchanged since that review. All Norwegian-language references are marked as such in the reference list. I have used English sources all places that they could found (which unfortunately excludes much of the detailed reports). Arsenikk (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This article could do with a good copyedit to get rid of the odd constructions such as "the tunnel Romeriksporten" (it should be "the Romeriksporten tunnel"). In particular I found it a bit hard to read because I was expecting the definite article "the" to appear before the railway line names (e.g. "the Gardemobanen"). I suspect that Norwegian does not use the definite article here but English should as these names are equivalent of "the Gardemoen line". Other points

  • Is the article about the rail service or the company that runs it (or even about the line it runs on)? The article name is "Flytoget" but the lead starts "Flytoget AS is ..." and there is a financial listbox on the right hand side. My suggestion would be to make the crux of the article about the rail service (with the top most image being a train) and refer to the operating company in a separate section.
  • A map showing Oslo, the airport and the relevant new and old railway lines would be very useful for those of us who are Norway-geography challenged.
  • As the service is supposed to be high-speed I think a mention of the max train speed should be in the lead.

Boissière (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I have stuttered through the problem of Norwegian railway line names through my two years on Wikipedia, due to some prior unwritten "naming convention" to use the Norwegian names. To explain the problem: the en-ending of Gardermobanen is the definitive article, so it will either "hurt" those that speak Norwegian, or those that do not. I agree that we consequently should rename all Norwegian railway lines from Foobanen to [the] Foo Line. Concerning the breadth of the article, which I previously have given some though, it covers both the service and the company, since they are in a 1:1 relation to eachother. If two separate articles were to be made, they would repeat each other a lot. The physical railway line itself is covered in the article Gardermobanen. Arsenikk (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I can see your dilemma. I hadn't appreciated that the -en was the definite article and I suspect that this would also be lost on most English-speaking readers so it is fairly unlikely that they would be "hurt" as you put it. On the other hand I would be personally be against renaming the articles the "Foo line" as you propose as this isn't really their name. If I suggested that in the prose you referred to "the Gardemoban" (i.e. without the -en), would that work at all?
As for your other point, I wasn't really suggesting that you have two articles (i.e one on the service and one on the company) but that this article concentrated on the service (which is probably of more general interest) and had a section that covered the company. Boissière (talk) 19:54, 21 September 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 01:36, 23 September 2008 [25].

Slovenian presidential election, 2007 edit

Nominator(s): Tone


This article has been considerably expanded and improved since the GA nomination. After receiving a positive opinion at peer review, I have decided to nominate it for a FA. Any possible issues can be addressed in a day or two. Thank you for your consideration. Tone 15:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs):

  • The first impression that I got was that the lead is too short.
  • In some sections, there are one-sentence paragraphs. Combine them together or add info to flesh them out.
  • Overbolding all over the place. Why are the names of people bolded? Boldface is only used for the first occurence of the article topic. See MOS:BOLD
  • The prose needs work. Examples:
    • "The last opinion polls published before the first round predicted that Peterle would win 40% of the vote and go to the run-off against either Türk or Gaspari, both at 20-25%, with most polls predicting a substantially larger share for Türk." Run-on sentence, awkward sentence structure, MOS breach (en dash instead of hyphen between the percentages).
    • "They particularly opposed the change since the voters from abroad seem to favor right-wing parties so they could change the result in favour of Peterle if the result was close." Unnecessary words (particulary), repetition (result), wrong connector (use because instead of since); that's not even all the issues.
    • "The first round, held on October 21, brought unexpected results." Unexpected is POV, and seems redundant; the next sentence says "Contrary to predictions", which means the same thing.
  • Some dates are linked and some aren't. Note that date-linking is now deprecated by the MOS (see MOS:UNLINKYEARS).

Dabomb87 (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your comments, I have addressed some and I have questions regarding the rest:

  • what else do you think should be included in the lead? It summarizes the elections, other things would probably make it out of focus.
    • A rule of thumb for the lead is that it should have at least one sentence for each level 2 header summarizing that section. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have combined some of the paragraphs. Where I let them, I feel it is appropriate to leave it this way since they address different things (such as in the candidates section).
  • I have removed bolding. No dates are linked, except for those in the references, that are linked because of the code and those in the results template, it seems to be a standard there (see Elections in 2007).
  • I don't think the word unexpected is POV, the article says that the result was very far from what the pools had predicted, thus unexpected (this is sourced). As well, "Contrary to predictions", for further explanation why it was unexpected.
  • Particularly is not redundant, this was the main reason why they opposed. I have corrected the dash and split the long sentence in two. I was looking for a good phrase to replace "so they could change the result in favour of Peterle if the result was close" but I can't find it. Perhaps you could help me on that?
    • I took a look at that sentence, but the more I read it, the less I understand. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The intro is expanded now. I'm still thinking about the sentence in question... --Tone 20:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you see any other problems? If you point them out, I can fix them. --Tone 07:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it needs a good copy-edit.

  • MOSLINK discourages sequential links; can you relocate "France Cukjati", and please put a stub there so it's not red right at the opening.
  • An audit of commas throughout is required. There aren't enough.
    • I'd like some help on this one. There are still many things about style I need to learn and commas are one of them...--Tone 20:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in practice his powers are limited to"—Women are barred from office?
    • All the presidents have been men so far, no limitations otherwise. What do you recomend, gender neutral they or his/her or to use the word President insetad of the pronoun? --Tone 20:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, unlike the government which is chosen by the Parliament elected through proportional representation, the president is directly elected by the majority of Slovenian voters, which gives the office a measure of moral authority." POV and logic problem. Just why is the former lacking in some moral authority that the president has? Is it "moral", in any case?
    • I'll rewrite this tomorrow, I have to think about it. I think it was something the media said... probably I can just put it out. --Tone 20:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma should not finish a link.
    • I am not sure what you mean by that. Where is it? --Tone 20:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The previous presidential election, held in 2002, brought"—why not "In 2002, the previous presidential election brought".
  • First pic: who is Janezdrilc? If a Wikipedian, please link to his/her user page. If not, some way of identifying/contacting this person should be specified, surely? Otherwise, this might be just a fake name. What are the Commons rules on this? Tony (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed Janezdrilc, he is a Wikipedian from sl: No problems with the image. And the other issues I will address tomorrow. Greetings. --Tone 20:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have addressed all your comments, except for the commas. I'd appreciate some help on this one. --Tone 10:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could "reactions" include reactions outside this very limited sphere? Did any Slovenian interest group have anything about the results? What of neighboring countries? This (international reactions) is an aspect that tends to be overlooked in election articles. Circeus (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, give me a day or two on this one. I can probably find something useful. --Tone 21:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added international reaction. --Tone 21:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few remarks:

  • The "requirements for candidacy" subsection needs to be worked into the rest of the text. I suggest moving the generalia to the top of the "candidates" section, and explaining how each of the candidates fulfilled the requirements when the candidate is mentioned.
  • It is unclear from the article why Rožman case mattered - the missing info is that the case was annulled, not overturned, so in normal circumstances there would be a retrial. But, since the bishop was long dead, there could be no retrial, which effectively legally rehabilitated him without an attempt to establish the truth. (A similar tactic was used by the right-wing attorney general in the early 1990s, where he would restart the cases against convicted WWII war criminals and then abandon them before trial.)
  • Now that we removed the "moral authority" thing, there's no indication in the article that the presidential election matters much in Slovenia, nor any explanation why.

Zocky | picture popups 14:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try with a shuffle of the candidates paragraph. Regarding Rožman, do you have any sources for what you say (I know the story but I had some problems with detailed sourcing so I left this reduced to the basic fact - Rožman's process got annulled ant that made some people unhappy and this had effects for Peterle. By the way, didn't you write that paragraph initially?) Regarding moral authority, Tony1 marked this as POV and logic problem. In fact, nowhere is written that the president has a moral authority, this is made up by media. What is written in the constitution is that the President is the Suppreme commander and that he appoints some officials. (as well, it's not written that he has mostly a ceremonial function but since in Slovenia the Prime minister makes the big decisions, I left this in). In this regard, the elections are already important since the president is one of the two positions that is chosen with elections (the second being the parliament). Or you have any suggestions how to improve it? --Tone 16:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Please note non-English language sources in the footnotes. It appears that most of the sources are in Slovenian (which isn't in itself a problem, but it's nice to tell the folks that click on links that they aren't in English)
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
  • Current ref 40 you need a source for the statment "is a very devout practicing Catholic"
  • Current ref 41 has a bare URL as the source. At the very least, you need a title for the link, the publisher and a last access date.
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to leave the other two sources out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is a journal from Vienna, the second one is a reknown Serbian news source and the third one is a portal dedicated to EU, seems reliable to me. I can fix the rest of the issues on Monday, I hope it's ok. --Tone 07:34, 19 September 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 13:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least for B92, that would be an overkill. It's universally known and well respected radio/TV station/internet news provider in the region. Zocky | picture popups 15:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found it. One is backed by an agency, here, the other one is Europe's leading independent online business information service about the European Union. The second one should meet all standards, if you are not happy with the first one, I can probably find some replacement sources. Regarding the references 41 and 42, I have removed one (not vital anyway) and fixed the second one. --Tone 23:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{sl icon}} added wehre needed, as well. --Tone 23:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the icon with the parameter language=Slovene. I have also fixed some other refs and replaced Parliament with National Assembly as Parliament is an unofficial term that may refer to different entities (see {{Politics of Slovenia}}). I have some comments regarding the images:
  • Image:Danilo Turk.jpg has been uploaded to Commons, however the permission to use the image under the licence CC-BY-SA-2.5 remains unconfirmed. I'd like to see that permission confirmed using the OTRS system as described at commons:OTRS.
  • It also seems redundant to have two photos used in the article twice (a photo of Türk and a photo of Peterle). All the photos of the candidates could be included in the infobox. --Eleassar my talk 09:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, what's the point of that German reference? Is there no equivalent English (or at least Slovene) alternative? --Eleassar my talk 10:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the gallery, I put it there intentionally because I wanted to have a list of candidates with basic details. This occurs often in elections articles and I think it illustrates the topic better. In the top infobox, there are just two images since there was a run-off. If we had photos of all candidates, I would actually prefer having them all in the gallery but since we don't there are just the front ones (as the article is sectioned, as well). Regarding the German reference, it was there before I started reworking the article, I left it for the sake of source plurality. In fact, there is one more German reference but that one I quote directly. --Tone 11:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, lets have it in a gallery then. As for the German references, the first is simply redundant with such a simple uncontested statement. For the second one, it's ok in my opinion but should be supplemented with the quote of the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, as described in WP:V#Non-English sources. --Eleassar my talk 11:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to remove the first German reference, it actually is redundant. Regarding the second one, you think I should put in the footnote Als einer der wenigen slowenischen Politiker mit internationaler Bekanntheit galt er in Hinblick auf Sloweniens nahende EU-Präsidentschaft als Idealbesetzung. and translate it? I don't really think this is neccessary, especially because in that case the same would need to be done for all Slovenian references and that would be too much of a mess. --Tone 11:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should do so (translation of the whole sentence is not necessary) as this is a "direct quote" and "likely to be challenged". There are only two such quotes yet:
  • "under the given circumstances" his result was "not that bad"
  • "certain topics" that were brought up during the campaign by "hidden centres of power";
so I don't think this would need to be done for all Slovene references.
Also, reference 29 is a dead link so it's not clear to me where does the "man of the people" description originate from. --Eleassar my talk 12:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you do that, please? I don't know what way of format I would use here. I can see the reference 29, it is working... --Tone 16:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still get the error message: Network Timeout. Could you insert another link here? --Eleassar my talk 18:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is working fine for me... maybe you have problems with some settings? --Tone 18:53, 22 September 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 01:36, 23 September 2008 [26].

Priory of Sion edit

Nominator: Loremaster (talk)
previous FAC (18:17, 6 May 2008)


After having resolved all the issues raised in the previous FAC, I'm renominating Priory of Sion for featured article because it is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable. Furthermore, there has been tremendous popular interest in this topic due to the international success of the book The Da Vinci Code and the film based on it. -- Loremaster (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MSH, there's a lot of "the" in the section headings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True but I don't see anything in the Manual of Style that recommends that we should avoid that. --Loremaster (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's right there: "A, an and the are normally avoided as the first word (Economy of the Second Empire, not The economy of the Second Empire), unless part of a proper noun (The Hague)." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that. However, some of section headings are actually the title of books which include the word "the". So I have removed the four that were not. --Loremaster (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image comments - all images are free (public domain), or, if nonfree, low-resolution, with author, source, and fair use rationale. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs):

  • "In 1993 Plantard had to acknowledge that both lists were fraudulent when he was investigated by a judge during the Pelat Affair." "had to acknowledge"-->acknowledge.
  • Date linking is now deprecated by the MOS. I expect Tony1 will fix that with the script soon enough.
  • "Numerous articles contained in its journal Circuit written by a number of different people may be evidence that the association had several members." This sentence needs a cleanup, it has redundancies and doesn't flow.

I'll have more comments later. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replaced "had to acknowledge" with "acknowledged".
  • Removed all date linking.
  • Deleted entire sentence rather than cleaning it up because one source puts in doubt its veracity.
--Loremaster (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments Sorry for taking so long.

  • There is plenty of overlinking. (For example, Knights Templar)
  • "The letters describe schemes to combat criticisms of their various allegations and ways they would make up new allegations to try to keep the hoax alive."
  • "They adapted, and used to their advantage, the earlier claims put forward by Nöel Corbu that a Catholic priest named Bérenger Saunière had supposedly discovered these seemingly ancient parchments inside a pillar while renovating his church in Rennes-le-Château in 1891." What a long sentence!
  • "He also adopted "Et in Arcadia ego ...", a slightly altered version of a Latin phrase that most famously appears as the title of two paintings by Nicolas Poussin, as the motto of both his family and the Priory of Sion,[16] because the tomb which appears in these paintings resembled one in the Les Pontils area near Rennes-le-Château." "most famously"—unless there are more than one famous instances of the phrase, most is not necessary.
  • "...which had been founded in the Kingdom of Jerusalem during the First Crusade in 1099 and later absorbed by the Jesuits in 1617."
  • "The first issue of the journal is dated 27 May 1956..."—"is dated"-->was printed on.
  • "he Priory of Sion is considered dormant by the subprefecture because it has indicated no activities since 1956." "indicated no activities"-->been inactive.
  • "Nevertheless, many conspiracy theorists persist in believing still believe that the Priory of Sion is an age-old cabal which acts as a power behind the throne while concealing a subversive secret." "while concealing a subversive secret" doesn't belong in this sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments This is a very interesting article, I enjoyed reading it and did not know about this hoax (I was not into the DaVinci Code thing) - very enlightening. However, I noticed that more than a few of the references are to books or magazines with French titles. I am not sure we are allowed to use non-English sources for an English speaking Wikipedia article. It seems that there are more than a few decent English speaking references - can you use more of these and eliminate reliance to the French speaking sources or do the French speaking sources have English translations that you could note in the reference? Perhaps a way around it would be to provide more quotes from the French sounding sources if they have English translations. Otherwise I thought the article was very well done and more than a little bit interesting :) NancyHeise talk 15:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might be difficult since the contributor who was our expert on references was banned from Wikipedia for violating talk page guidelines... --Loremaster (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I'm a little concerned about the POV-ness of describing Plantard as a megalomaniac via the phrase "delusions of grandeur". The term is sourced to a religious expert, not a psychiatrist, and apparently megalomania is not considered a distinct mental disorder anyhow. I suggest either making the attribution far more explicit, or else dropping that particular phrase.
  • The WP:LEAD refers to POS as "a mythical secret society plotting to install the Merovingian dynasty". But this neglects the feminist repackaging that Dan Brown put on it... perhaps both versions should be mentioned in the lead. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 09:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can simply delink the phrase "delusions of grandeur" from the Megalomania article.
  • In light of how convoluted the subject of the Priory of Sion is, we've felt that the lead of the article should remain as general as possible to avoid readers unfamiliar with the subject becoming confused from the very beginning. However, I will rephrase that sentence to focus on the common description of the Priory of Sion.
--Loremaster (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by jimfbleak I'll read this through properly if I get time, but a cursory glance indicated that there are too many "padding" words, such as however, furthermore and the like, which serve no useful purpose jimfbleak (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are 8 "however", 2 "furthermore", 2 "therefore" and 1 "nevertheless". I would argue that there aren't that many and they do serve a useful purpose by punctuating sentences. --Loremaster (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Per the MOS, curly quotes shouldn't be used on block quotations.
  • Current ref 5 (The Secret of the Priory of Sion) has the publisher in the link title. It should be listed separately.
  • Not required, but it is nice if non-English printed sources say what language they are in. I note that most of the printed sources appear to be in French?
  • Current ref 9 (Bradley, Ed "The Priory of Sion..) is lacking a publisher.
  • I believe that a number of the printed sources are lacking page numbers, since I suspect that most of the sources being used are books?
  • Decide if you're going to list authors with their last name first or their first names first. Currently, it's a mix.
  • Current ref 39 (Miller, Linda) is lacking a publisher.
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose by karanacs. This is a very interesting article, but it has some MOS issues that need to be fixed and the prose needs a bit more work. I've listed examples of issues I've found below.
    • I'm not entirely sure what this is saying "founders and signatories inscribed with their aliases were Pierre Plantard, also known as "Chyren", and André Bonhomme, also known as "Stanis Bellas". " - does this mean that these men signed both their names and aliases to the registration documents?
    • This sentence reads very awkwardly: "Towards the end of 1956 the association had aims to forge links with the local Catholic Church of the area involving a school bus service run by both the Priory of Sion and the church of Saint-Joseph in Annemasse"
    • This sentence says "journal Circuit was indicated as a news bulletin of an "organization for the defence of the rights and the freedom of affordable housing" rather than for the promotion of chivalry-inspired charitable work. " - but we haven't heard about the journal yet. Is it an official publication of the Priory? If so, that should be spelled out.
    • " as of last report, there is no one who is currently alive who has official permission to use the name" - does this mean that Plantard is deceased now? That should probably also be pointed out.
    • The prose needs some massaging. I see multiple sentences where clauses aren't quite situated properly. For example, " Also in the 1960s, Plantard began writing a manuscript and had a series of medieval parchments forged by de Chérisey which contained encrypted messages that referred to the Priory of Sion."- the "which contained..." claus is placed immediately after "forged by de Cherisey", but is actually referring to the parchments, I believe. I would likely rewrite this as "During the same decade, Plantard commissioned de Cherisey to forge a series of medieval parchments. These documents contained encrypted messages that referred to the Priory of Sion." There are other places in the article where sentences should be reworded or reorganized a bit to make the clauses stay closer to the nouns they are describing.
    • "They adapted, and used to their advantage, the earlier claims put forward by Nöel Corbu that a Catholic priest named Bérenger Saunière had supposedly discovered these seemingly ancient parchments inside a pillar while renovating his church in Rennes-le-Château in 1891. " - how could there be earlier claims that these had been discovered if de Cherisey and Plantard had just written them?
    • What was Plantard's manuscript? I'm confused as to whether it was going to be a fake old document or whether he was writing a book on something - and what was the topic?
    • This needs a source: "Based on the wording used, the versions of the Latin texts found in the parchments can be shown to have been copied from books first published in 1889 and 1895"
    • Watch for misplaced commas. This sentence "documents claimed that the Priory of Sion had been founded in 1099, and created the Knights Templar." makes it sound that the documents created the Knights Templar.
    • There is a lot of awkward phrasing; a tighter choice of wording will make the prose flow better. For example, the paragraph on the letters that confirm the hoax needs a lot of work. The first three sentences begin with "The letters " or "letter" and slowly dole out information. Individual sentences are often too long. For example, the first sentence "Letters in existence dating from the 1960s written by Plantard, de Chérisey and de Sède to each other confirm that the three were engaging in an out-and-out hoax." could be written more actively (and more tightly focused) as "Plantard, de Cherisey, and de Sede planned their hoax via letter in the 1960s."
    • Chaumeil is mentioned as having been part of the hoax, but his role is not made clear. Is there any information on what he actually did?
    • I would move the section Plantard's plot into the history section. If not there, it may be best in its own section called "Hoax creation" or something like that
    • "This led them to the pseudohistorical Dossiers Secrets" - how did it lead them? Would it be better to say, "They discovered...."?
    • Watch the scare quotes. There is no reason why a pseudonym should be in quotes. (also, why put words like "usurped" in quotes?)
    • I'm not entirely fond of the formatting of the Holy Blood.. section. The bulk of it seems to be in lost format. I'm not sure if there will be a better way to organize it though.
    • "It has been reported Plantard admitted under oath he had fabricated everything, including Pelat's involvement with the Priory of Sion" - might be wise to include who reported it
    • "Sandri has been described as a " - described by whom?

Karanacs (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on fixing all of this during the coming week. --Loremaster (talk) 20:02, 21 September 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 01:36, 23 September 2008 [27].

Odex's actions against file-sharing edit

Nominator(s): Mailer Diablo
previous FAC


I managed to get assistance is having the article properly copy-edited (thanks Maclean25!), which was previously the main concern for FAC. It underwent another round of peer review, with several subtle changes incorporated into it (particularly style). Current a GA, and I believe that it is ready now to go further. - Mailer Diablo 03:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


image comment Image:Odex-defaced.jpg should be tagged as a screen shot of open source software (firefox) Fasach Nua (talk) 12:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

  • I've reuploaded the image without the browser, hence the tag wouldn't be required anymore. - Mailer Diablo 12:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I read through the article, and the prose was very good. A few things that the traditional common redundancy phrase-searching yielded:

  • "Odex's evidence failed to meet a number of requirements for the release of such information"
  • "Odex had hired some anime fans"
  • "Another netizen created a video parody of the incident, entitled "Xedo Holocaust", and uploaded it on a number of video-sharing websites"
  • "There, he brought up some additional points of law"

Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graham Colm Talk for now:

  • Please be consistent with the linking of dates and years. I would prefer to see them all de-linked, but as of now there is a mixture.
  • I have made some suggestions to the Lead to help the flow of the prose, [28]. I think the whole article would benefit from one more copy-edit. This should take no more than an hour; on the whole, the article is in good shape. Graham Colm Talk 13:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was there some rule change? The last time I was told exact dates were to be linked, and month/years to be linked only if deemed significant. - Mailer Diablo 15:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dates have been de-linked, though I suspect that some bot will need to trawl through every single page on Wikipedia, provided that the decision holds. - Mailer Diablo 16:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Odex's website was hacked and defaced on 21 November 2007, possibly in retaliation to the pre-litigation letters that were sent by the company." (image caption) - rather than OR speculation, you could just quote some stuff from the image about why it was hacked. —Giggy 05:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not inclined to quote from the image itself (primary source), but I reworded it using what was from the news sources. Hope that should fix it. - Mailer Diablo 20:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is one of those great articles that slips through our review system. It has had 2 peer reviews, a failed fac and good article review last year. It remained in B-class limbo since then. I recently took the time to provide a full copy-edit, worked through some formatting issues, and fact-checked it all. I nominated it for GA in July and encouraged Mailer Diablo to nominate it for FA. --maclean 00:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as very well done and looking even better thanks to maclean's work. Giggy (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concern The two images in the section "Reaction" sandwich text and the second overlaps into the next category. I recommend moving both up further into the paragraph to avoid both of these problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rearranged them around. Is it better now? - Mailer Diablo 18:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I changed it just slightly. How does that look?

Oppose—1a. A scan of the lead shows that the whole text needs careful scrutiny for linguistic precision and grammar.

  • "Infringed on"?—Nope.
  • "This led to pre-litigation letters' being issued"—Impossibly stilted. "This led to the issuing of pre-litigation letters".
  • "issued from Odex"? Nope.
  • Comma splice: "Odex's actions were considered controversial by the Singaporean anime community because fans perceived the legal maneuvers to be sudden and heavy-handed, this led to significant online reactions"
  • "failed to meet requirements for the release of such information"—"the" is missing.
  • A few commas between adjacent nominal groups would help the readers.

Please buzz me when someone else has been through the whole article carefully. Tony (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - I've ringed up a few copyeditors. It'll take a few days to work out the prose. - Mailer Diablo 18:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I started copyediting but stopped when I hit multiple misspellings. Please at least run a spell-check and check for obvious errors, then give me a shout. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The WP DVD is my crisis of the moment; I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to back away from FAC until until the DVD is out the door. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear. Anyway, copyediting is approximately at 75% done and well on its way to address Tony's concerns; Please keep this FAC alive. - Mailer Diablo 13:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's time to ask Tony for a second opinion; has anyone knocked his door? Graham Colm Talk 20:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not anyone so far. There's one more section to be copyedited ("Odex v. Pacific Internet") before it's ready, hopefully tomorrow or so. - Mailer Diablo 12:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gave that section a copyedit [29]. Giggy (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've notified Tony1 to have a second look now. [30] - Mailer Diablo 13:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments having been pinged. A spot-check of the first few sentences in the "Reactions" section revealed a high density of problems; most are serious problems affecting meaning and/or readability.

  • "and were harshly criticised by the Singaporean anime community as being sudden and severe."—Spot the redundant word.
  • "Several anime fans were outraged by children as young as nine years old being subjected to legal threats,"—ungainly, and strictly speaking ungrammatical. See noun plus -ing. ""Several anime fans were outraged by the issuing of legal threat to children as young as nine years old," perhaps?
  • "Calls to boycott Odex's products became widespread in online blogs and forums." Here's better: "There were widespread calls in online blogs and forums to boycott Odex's products." Consider dropping "became" and the "began to" in this role, which used to be a scourge among WPians.
  • Noun plus -ing problem again, only worse: "the fall in sales was due to Odex's products being inferior and released later than the online versions."
  • When in narrative mode, drop "then" wherever possible.
  • This is long, winding and awkward. "but blamed inaccuracies in the subtitling on fansubbers – anime fans who translated the Japanese dialogue – that it had hired and censorship laws for disallowing mature themes such as yaoi." Seems unlikely that they'd hire these people (and they still did a bad job?). "That" is not for people (who). ", and on censorship laws that disallowed ...". Oh boy.

I'm sorry to say that I think this should be withdrawn and worked on properly, then resubmitted. Tony (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC) PS The Xedo Holocaust cartoon image: next time, corner the owner into saying yes to the actual license. "I allow the screenshot of my animation and so on." is really not a satisfactory reply, is it. Tony (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, most Singaporeans are not native speakers of English. Although I scored an A1 for O-Level English, I must confess that I do not understand any of the errors that you pointed out! Perhaps you should do copy-editing? (Feel free to check my post for language errors as well.) --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


For the screenshot, hopefully a second day reply like the last time. - Mailer Diablo 16:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not inclined to withdraw and send it back to PR. I can do just that, copy to GoCE (which is going to tell me PR is the correct place), cc to all Wikiprojects, and I'm not able to get any more assistance to improve the article to your standards other than messages of "this looks pretty good, please send back to FAC again". PR is broken. I've asked several regulars, copyeditors in particular, of FAC and all I got is only similar messages or well-wishes.
FAC is the only place left where this article can get any gainful criticism, and even so this nomination is getting a lot less feedback/flak than it is supposed to, compared to other nominations. It would be a lot less painful and preferable if you can do a complete appraisal of this article, say how terrible it is, etc. (your user talk says you don't do feedback outside FAC) and get the article fixed once and for you by this or next nomination, rather than repeating this nomination five times and things still don't get done. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 16:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I were retired, I'd probably do a lot of copy-editing; but in my restricted timeframe I try to have the largest "footprint" on WP by concentrating on the critiquing of others' writing. The negative stance is not something I like, but I hope I can claim to do a little good by encouraging higher standards. Now, what you might do is to gather a list of WPians you can rely on to collaborate with you in copy-editing, since your expertise is in the content rather than the English. I'd say such collaboration is essential for you. Identify likely people through the edit summaries of edit-history lists of other FAs and articles you know are well-written in this general topic area. Wikifriends make the whole thing much more social and interactive, as well as improving your chances at FAC. Have a look at the tutorial exercises in the link above, and see if they help. There's a link from there to a set of exercises in identifying and removing redundant wording. These might help to hone your skills a little. Tony (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to respond to some of this too; this will probably be my last comment in FAC until December when we put WP:V0.7 to bed. As Tony says, "sudden and severe" is better than "being sudden and severe". Reading between the lines of Mailer Diablo's reaction, we hear this a lot at FAC: "Oh come on ... people say 'being' all the time, even in good writing; this shouldn't be a requirement at FAC. Furthermore, if it is a problem, you could strike the "being" in less time than it takes you to complain. Furthermore, even if this were an important objection, it needs to be weighed against the downside of discouraging good editors." (And btw, Mailer Diablo is a fantastic contributor, and I feel his pain.)
My response is that I don't know anyone at Wikipedia who could do what Tony does better than he does it. Note that he's effectively acting as a judge here, because Sandy relies on him more than anyone else to step in in situations like this. Note also that he has to do this without any authority, and think about how hard that is; what would happen in trials if judges had to defend their conduct to every defendant that showed up? It's not possible for Tony to help out in cases like this, because that would make him judge, jury, and defense attorney; FAC can only work if there are different people for different jobs.
People keep on not getting why an article shouldn't pass (per the current FAC standards, about which I'm agnostic) for phrases like "being sudden and severe". It's not that no one would understand that; it's that really good writers constantly think about how to make what they're writing punchier, more forceful, and tighter, and the net effect of many writers and copyeditors thinking this way over many years is that you tend not to see "being" (in this sense) in writing of the caliber we're looking for; that is, it makes the article sound less professional to some people that we are really trying to impress with our FAs. It's not too much to ask to pick a little over 2000 articles on Wikipedia and hold them to a different standard than the other 2.5M articles, to serve a different purpose. It doesn't mean your article isn't a great article; it is.
I'm sorry I don't have time to copyedit this one; my purpose when I first came to Wikipedia was to collaborate with more technically-minded writers and try to keep them from getting discouraged by the process. I kind of feel like I'm part of the problem, today, and I hate that, but I can't take time away from Version 0.7. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to pass the email to OTRS to process the image. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS recorded, image concern addressed. FYIP. - Mailer Diablo 10:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Most WP articles don't get copyedited. This is my minifesto:

  • All professional publishing uses copyeditors. Publishers and writers are less than honest about this.
  • Copyediting adapts writing to look right to as wide an audience as possible, and it's also about a lot of stupid little things (like punctuation) that trick the reader into thinking that what's being written is good stuff by giving it the same look-and-feel as other good stuff.
  • You're not a good copyeditor until at least 100 people have told you that you're a crappy copyeditor.
  • Copyediting is not optional when you have competitors who are looking for ways to tear you down. Good writers stay positive; good copyeditors think defensively. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention to see standards being lowered. What is discouraging to see is that after begging so many copy-editors to go over the article, it still reveal new problems, even as the prose is more or less rewritten. I want to be able to put my trust and to tell the copy-editors I have requested that they are doing a wonderful job. I personally would prefer the feedback be a bit more detailed and precise, rather than "please go get an copyeditor", because copyediting to weed out errors isn't a game of treasure hunt. - Mailer Diablo 18:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel your pain, I really do. I have written a lot about this problem. When no one is getting paid, fun stuff gets done, boring stuff doesn't. Giving up time on your own stuff to copyedit someone else's stuff is boring, and people with copyediting skills usually insist on getting paid. It's amazing we've been able to crank out over 2000 FAs. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I need to turn in for the night; In the meantime can any copy-editor please verify that Tony's specific concerns are being dealt with? Thanks. - Mailer Diablo 20:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Touché! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose very reluctantly. I have spent a few hours copy-editing this article, and it has been difficult. I missed Tony's last points despite searching for every bloody "ing" in the article. During this time I got to know the article well and often felt it was below par. A lot of work has gone into the article after its nomination—but not enough. It's not ready for promotion yet. Please don't shoot the messengers, particularly Tony; Wikipedia is very fortunate to have his support. Graham Colm Talk 22:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments After reading the first paragraph, I'm not sure that it sets sufficient context for those unfamiliar with this issue. First, please at least give an adjective to describe what kind of company Odex is; I shouldn't have to click on the blue link to find out. Link for IP addresses for our non-technically-inclined readers? "tracked the IP addresses of people believed to be downloading anime and threatened legal action against them." --> perhaps, "it's anime"? BuddingJournalist 05:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before the FAC the context was actually given, but it has actually been shifted by an editor down to the first sentence of "Actions" to try and improve the flow of the prose. IP Address linked per your suggestion. And "it's" or, did you meant, "its" anime? - Mailer Diablo 07:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, "its". Wow, I'm ashamed :(. As far as establishing context, I'd personally err on the side of repetition (the lead should represent a summary of the article anyway). BuddingJournalist 14:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added 'its'. For the other one, I'll leave other copyeditors to decide. - Mailer Diablo 17:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was probably me who moved it. I moved it out because I couldn't think of a better/shorter description for what Odex is other than "Singaporean company that licenses and releases anime for local and regional consumption" and I felt it was interfering with the lead. I moved it back now [31] --maclean 04:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a policy stating that the lead section must always begin with the title of the article, even when the title is not a proper noun? If not, the lead section could start with something like: "Odex is a Singaporean company that...(rest of sentence). In 2007, they...(rest of sentence)." To be honest, I believe it is nearly impossible for Singapore-related articles to pass FAC, due to systemic bias in the FA criteria and FAC community. (Mailer and I have previously discussed this.) --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diff since my last set of comments. Here's a spot check:
  • "Demand letters". I see that it's a law stub, but most folk, US and non-US, will be more comfortable with "letters of demand".
  • "Odex sent demand letters to people associated with IP addresses after sufficient downloading activity had been recorded by BayTSP." This is ambiguous: is it that the people in question were associated with IP addresses only after sufficient downloading act....."? Well, no, the compnay sent the letters to them after that. Need to reword: "After sufficient downloading activity had been recorded by BayTSP, Odex sent demand letters to people associated with IP addresses." See what I mean?
  • "The letter requested monetary compensation for downloads of the company's licensed material." Ambigious again. The downloads they'd already been recorded as having made, or future downloads?
  • "The company initially believed that, unlike other countries, a mere warning letter would not stop the downloads." Other countries versus a warning letter? False contrast.
  • "mainly sent"—reverse word order (slightly better, I think; it's not wrong as is, though).
  • "did not require all of them to each pay S$5,000" --> "did not require each of them to pay a uniform S$5,000".
  • Remove comma after "individual", since there are no other "and"s in the sentence, and it's not too long. Add "two" before "factors", for clarity.
  • Remove "issued".

And so on. You haven't taken our advice about withdrawing it. The thing is, there's absolutely nothing wrong with doing so: it gives you more time to fix it, crucially by forging ties with other WPians who can be future collaborators. Your English by itself is not yet at the required professional level. Most people's isn't. Thus, it requires the scrutiny of a number of helpers, and time. You're asking for this to be a one-in-a-thousand article. Tony (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC) PS Its very own tutorial exercise now. Tony (talk) 14:53, 18 September 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 00:34, 19 September 2008 [32].

Meshuggah edit

Nominator(s):  LYKANTROP  ✉
previous FAC (21:55, 25 August 2008)


This is an article about a Swedish experimental band. Since the first nomination I discussed and (hopefully) fixed all of its problems. It was a bit expanded as well.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per 1c, which calls for factual accuracy. Certain statements are misleading, for example;
  • "The album had positive reviews, though it was not commercially successful.[6]" - According to whom? Whether an album is "commercially successful" is subjective, and mere opinion. In this case, it's the opinion of the person who wrote the biography you've cited. Furthermore, where are these positive reviews? Or is this another opinion of the biographer? Opinions are being flaunted as fact here, and deliberately misleading the reader.
  • "Destroy Erase Improve was released in July 1995, with positive response from critics for the "heady tempos and abstract approach".[1][12]" - What critics? The way the statement is worded suggests a whole swathe of critics positively received the album, when in actual fact, only Allmusic is being cited. Please name the writer and publication who believes that the album had "heady tempos and abstract approach", and not just attribute it to "critics". "Critics" can be 10, or a 100.
  • "After the new album and the live performances, Meshuggah was beginning to be recognized by mainstream music, guitar, drum and metal magazines.[1][6]" - According to who? This is yet another opinion being flaunted as fact. You need to learn to differentiate opinion from fact. Name the writers and publications who make the assertion.
  • "In 2003, rhythm guitarist Hagström said about the possible musical direction of the band's next album" - The word "next" is redundant phrasing.
  • "Meshuggah has often esoteric lyrics,[1] which deal with often conceptual themes[19] such as existentialism.[21]" - More opinion being flaunted as fact. It's all personal interpretation.
  • THe "Musical style" section flaunts opinion as fact extensively. At the end of the day, just because Critic A thinks the band is "innovative" etc. doesn't make it fact - the average person might think it's rather stale. Opinions need to be attributed to the mouths of those in question in the actual article. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must disagree. I will give you an example of what you are saying. You are the main editor of Jihad (song) (check). It is a FA and you seem to be happy with it. Have a look at Jihad (song)#Musical structure. The second sentence says "A skittering vamp leads into the track, during which Lombardo shimmers his hi-hat." That is all. But according to who? "skittering vamp"? That is an opinion of one music journalist. The next statements: "Smoothly mixing up tempos, the band build the song with a fast,[7] "wonky, catchy and angular"[8] guitar riff reminiscent of the breakdown in 1986's "Angel of Death".[9] This guitar riff decelerates before bursting forward again in two-bar stretches underpinned by Lombardo's pounding, fifth-gear drumming.[7]" This is a salvo of opininated glorifying statements with no trace of the author.
Where is your border between a fact and an opinion? You can pick every single sentence in every article and ask "according to who?" But that does not make the statement be an opinion. Let me give you an example. Hoysala architecture - lead section: "Hoysala influence was at its peak in the 13th century". Should there be "According to most of scholars, historics and architects, Hoysala influence was at its peak in the 13th century."? Is this what you want me to write? If you see Michelangelo article: "Michelangelo's output in every field during his long life was prodigious" Is this not an opinion? Somebody can think that Michelangelo was inapt. Do you think there should be According to....etc.? Everything is subjective. There is no general objectivity. Opinion is on Wikipedia if someone says: "Michelangelo is better than Leonardo da Vinci".
Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and scholarship. Scholars (in art) say that Michelangelo was a prodigy. Thus every single encyclopedia on the world says that Michelangelo was a prodigy (or something with the same meaning) without saying "according to..etc". Although being and not being prodigy is totally subjective, questionable etc..
"Meshuggah have an innovative style." and such statements have several reliable sources, written by scholars (renowned music journalists in this case). Thus I can write this down to wikipedia as it is. I focused also to have more sources for the contentious statements. In this case, there is the footnote instead of your "according to...". Every statement is "according to its footnote - source". Every FA on the wikipedia has tons of such statements like "Salvador Dalí was a skilled draftsman." But they can be said as a fact, because they have reliable sources.
Many editors including several admins told me that this article is allright for FAC. I do not think that they all would miss such a fundamental error.
If you think that there are controversial statements sourced by the official biography, tell me properly and exactly which ones. But I used the source carefully according to WP:PRIMARY and I dont think that it is used incorrectly in the article.

--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 22:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that I fully disagree with your statements, and as concerns "Jihad", that section was written at the behest of other editors - I did not put that in of my own accord. Furthermore, all the examples I have picked out have validity as far as I am concerned. Take this for example; "With the groundbreaking Destroy Erase Improve..". Says who? Are you telling me that it's taken for granted by every music journalist that this specific album is "groundbreaking"? I mean, really - what a load of rubbish. I stand by previous statements, and I stand by my oppose. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know what does mean that you "fully disagree" with my statements. Does it mean that you disagree with my interpretation of how Wikipedia is written? That would mean that you think, that every second sentence should have its author right in the text? That would mean that all FAs (and everything else too of course) on Wikipedia is wrongly written. Which guideline says that the author should be cited directly in the text even next to the inline citation?
I'll give you another short example: Featured article Salvador Dalí#Symbolism: "The elephants, inspired by Gian Lorenzo Bernini's sculpture base in Rome of an elephant carrying an ancient obelisk,[53] are portrayed "with long, multi-jointed, almost invisible legs of desire"[54] along with obelisks on their backs. Coupled with the image of their brittle legs, these encumbrances, noted for their phallic overtones, create a sense of phantom reality. "The elephant is a distortion in space", one analysis explains, "its spindly legs contrasting the idea of weightlessness with structure."[54]" Do you think that this is all wrong written? In a FA? But this is only one single example.
Lets take another one: El Greco#Technique and style "The primacy of imagination and intuition over the subjective character of creation was a fundamental principle of El Greco's style." or even nicer "In his mature works El Greco demonstrated a characteristic tendency to dramatize rather than to describe.[2] The strong spiritual emotion transfers from painting directly to the audience."(...)"A significant innovation of El Greco's mature works is the interweaving between form and space; a reciprocal relationship is developed between the two which completely unifies the painting surface." So you disagree that all the examples I am giving you all the time are correctly written? Do you really disagree with this?
What is the difference between "The album had positive reviews, though it was not commercially successful.[6]" or "After the new album and the live performances, Meshuggah was beginning to be recognized by mainstream music, guitar, drum and metal magazines.[1][6]" and (from El Greco#Technique and style): "Lacking the favor of the king, El Greco was obliged to remain in Toledo, where he had been received in 1577 as a great painter.[34]"
You asked about this statement from Meshuggah: "What critics? The way the statement is worded suggests a whole swathe of critics positively received the album, when in actual fact, only Allmusic is being cited. Please name the writer and publication who believes that the album had "heady tempos and abstract approach", and not just attribute it to "critics". "Critics" can be 10, or a 100." Should we require from the El Greco article "Who from Toledo?" The way the statement is worded suggests a whole Toledo positively received El Greco, when in actual fact, only one book is being cited. "Toledo" can be 10 or several 1000s.".
The Jihad song contains things like "wonky, catchy and angular guitar riff" without the author. Meshuggah has no such obvious personal interpretation like "wonky" or "catchy" in the text without mentioning the author. If you disagree with the statements in the Meshuggah article, you must disagree with the text in Jihad article as well. You plead the other editors, but how can the article be a FA if the text wrong? Whot does it mean ""Jihad", that section was written at the behest of other editors"? It was still written by you (see this and this). Are you not editing the wikipedia voluntarily? Is someone forcing you to make wrong edits? You should disagree with that thing in the Jihad article (and you did kind of disown it), but you show it off on your userpage. Why don't you remove the "wonky" and "catchy" from the article if it must be wrong? Why is there no "Says who?" on the Jihad talkpage written by you? Why are you proud of Jihad, but oppose Meshuggah? And then you give an example the "groundbreaking" and add "I mean, really - what a load of rubbish.". I really don't want to sound offensive (cause it is not meant to be), but what you've just said is non-neutral personal disagreement with the text in the article. I understand that you do not agree with what the music journalists said, but that is your own opinion. Maybe you also don't like the band and like some other one, but what can I do? Assume good faith please.
I need you to talk more clearly. Answer my questions from above please, then tell me what the problem is and which policy or guideline is it breaking. Thanks for reading my comment.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 22:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image comments: Almost all images are free use/verified Flikr photos, or self-uploads. Some things, however. Image:Meshuggah Kidman2 2008 Prague.jpg seems like an image thrown in for the sake of another image, and its caption is borderline un-encyclopedic (besides seemingly hyperbole; give me a source if that's what he usually looks like.) I suggest getting rid of the pixel sizes in the images and leaving them to their default "thumb" parameters so that user settings adjust the sizes. Image:Meshuggah - Catch Thirtythree - cover.jpg has proper fair use rationale and source, with critical commentary in the article, thus meeting WP:NFCC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I fixed all of the issues.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, images meet criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs): I said at the last FAC that I would support as soon as the sourcing issues are resolved. They are still not resolved. Therefore, I am still neutral. All my issues were resolved the last FAC. Sourcing issues are resolved, therefore I suppport.If I find anything, I'll list them here. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 09:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sourcing is mostly addressed. The last few concerns from the previous FAC, have been addressed by the nominator at an exchange on my talk page User talk:Ealdgyth#Meshuggah FAC. I post that so other reviewers can evaluate the situation for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last two concerns that were discussed are:
  • Rockdetector - specifically this text. The sources I provided about this source are listed here.
  • Fuzz.com - specifically this text. The Fuzz.com "about us" is only what we have about this source. The page says that the artists can promote themselves on the website, but nothing more explicit. Although the source contains useful information, I prepared for the case if it will be considered as non-acceptable and I sourced most of its information with other sources. Only 2 statements about festival shows would have to be deleted.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 18:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that I'm not watchlisting this FAC, we're at the stage where it is up to other reviewers to decide for themselves on the sources. I'll add that on the Fuzz stuff, having it backed by other sources is a help. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rockdetector seems reliable enough for me, as there are a number of websites and news stories that mention it. I'm somewhat skeptical about the Fuzz one, though. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the same as well. Fuzz.com has been completely removed from the article.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 11:16, 11 September 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 00:34, 19 September 2008 [33].

1964 Gabon coup d'état edit

Nominator(s): --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed]


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is the most comprehensive account of a little-known coup in a little-known country called Gabon. It's hard to imagine that this article didn't even exist until two days ago and is now up for FAC. This article is short at only 20kb but remember, African sources are hard to come by. Thanks to User:Nishkid64 for providing a number of these sources to me! --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current refs 10, 29, 34, and 46 are lacking a last access date.
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accessdates added for ref 29, 34, 46. Ref 10 converted to Harvard-style ref. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral until sourcing and comprehensiveness issues are resolved Support from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)-Well referenced (there's a inline citation for every sentence except in the lead), most prose problems have been fixed, and it seems comprehensive. Just a couple of things:

  • "M'ba commented on a 1961 visit to France that "[a]ll Gabonese have two fatherlands: France and Gabon", and Europeans enjoyed particularly friendly treatment under the M'ba regime." Shouldn't "on" be during?
  • "Instructions were given to transfer M'ba to Njolé, Aubame's electoral stronghold." Who gave the instructions?
  • "'The D-Day has arrived, the injustices have exceeded any limit, these people have patience, but only so much,' he said. 'The end has come.'[24][21]" Inline citations should be in numerical order.
  • "Three years later, M'ba was diagnosed with cancer, and died on 28 November 1967." I know you like date wikilinking. I don't, but that's not the problem here. I followed the month/date and year links and found no mention of M'ba's death in either article. You might as well put it in, especially since the dates are linked.

Dabomb87 (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support As explained before The Bald One White cat 18:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thorough referencing is of course a must for a FA, but I think that the inline cites after nearly every sentence reduce readability and break the flow of reading for the vast majority of readers who will read, rather than fact-check, this article. Is it possible to unify some of the Biteghe cites for example? henrik•talk 06:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 54 references for an article of such length isn't an extraordinarily large number. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That wasn't it. He said it like this:
      • Sentence one.<ref name="foo">Foo</ref> Sentence two.<ref name="foo"/>
      • I have removed all I noticed. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 19:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I'm poking around looking for 1(b)-related issues. May take a couple days. Meanwhile:
    • This sentence struck me as being odd: ""As members of opposing parties, M'ba's chief opponent had been Jean-Hilaire Aubame" Plural/singular confusion? Or are you saying that Aubame and M'ba were members of opposing parties (in which case the sentence should be about both of them).
      • Changed to: "M'ba's chief political opponent had been Jean-Hilaire Aubame, who once was M'ba's protégé and his half-brother's foster son.[11] Aubame, a member of the left-wing opposition party..." --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 17:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just in general, people tend to play loose with the terms "right wing" and "left wing". I need to see some justification, some examples of their beliefs/policies, etc.
    • Why does the article contradict itself, saying at one point that Aubaume was US-backed, and later that he wasn't? Beware of the high possibility of POV-ness of French sources on this question...
      • "until the presidency was given to the United States-supported Aubame." This is to say, the US was fonder of Aubame than M'ba, but did not actually participate in the coup. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 07:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation cleanup needed:

endashes on page ranges and problems with p. pp. on page numbers:
^ a b Garrison, Lloyd (March 6, 1964). "Gabonese Capital Tense After Riots", The New York Times, pp. p. 9.
Fixed. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
^ Garrison, Lloyd (March 10, 1964), "Gunmen in Gabon Rake U.S. Mission", The New York Times: pp. 1-5
Fixed. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
^ Gabon Chief Clears U.S. Role in Plot, Associated Press, March 16, 1964, pp. p. 16
Fixed. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PUNC, logical quotation, check needed:

his arrest "ballooned him to heroic proportions in the eyes of the aroused public."
I don't see what the problem is. Please elaborate. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still mixing the citation template with the cite xxx family of templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concern - I see "French" for sources, but I also see English. Who is the translator? For instance, this sentence (M'ba acknowledged his defeat in a radio broadcast, in accordance with orders from his captors. "The D-Day has arrived, the injustices have exceeded any limit, these people have patience, but only so much," he said. "The end has come.") is linked to "Biteghe 1990, p. 62" and "Le J jour est arrivé, les injustices ont dépassé la mesure, ce peuple est patient, mais sa patience a des limites... il est arrivé à bout.". But where is the translator? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was no translator. Nishkid and I did it ourselves. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, if you see this - what is the proper way to deal with user translations? Is there any acknowledgment needed? Its been a few months since I remember this issue coming up. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the old text at WP:V (that came up during the Vargas Llosa FAC) has since been removed. The current policy is at WP:VUE. I was more concerned at Vargas Llosa because of the BLP aspects. As long as VUE is covered, unless the translation is challenged, it should be OK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava, when I responded to you, I assumed the translations were made from the original sources per WP:V; other concerns have been raised that the translation was directly from the French wiki article, which would not conform with WP:V, as Wiki is not a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't track down an original source. Nothing online. I can read and translate French, but I need a physical source to confirm. The French are calling him "Mba" not "M'ba". The French page. It seems that the quote was from the French page's quote, and that it was translated from there. Can we AGF transwiki and believe that the original quote was correct? I don't know. Here is more information. The only problem I see is they say "jour J" and en.wiki says "J jour". Slight problems I see with the translation of (The D-Day has arrived, the injustices have exceeded any limit, these people have patience, but only so much," he said. "The end has come.) Is 1) "D-Day" is not be J jour but jour J and the French wiki has the correct quote; regardless, thats present tense, not past, so it "has arrived" is incorrect, this should be "is here"; 2) "any limit" the word is "measure" not limit, and there is no "any"; tit should be the injustices surpass measurement. 3) "the injustices have exceeded any limit" is actually "ce peuple est patient" should be "the people are patient" not the people have patience"" 4) "but only so much" is really off; it should be "but their patient has limits" Ottava Rima (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per first FAC. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as last time. Giggy (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC) (struck pending sourcing issues - Giggy (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support. A fascinating article about an important piece of history. Very well-cited, and it was a good read, quite clear and good flow. I did notice a deletion discussion on Wikimedia Commons regarding one of the 3 free-use images used in the article, but that looks like it may result in the image being kept. In any event the image on Commons will either be kept or deleted there, but that does not affect the quality of this article. Great work. Cirt (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. - Change to weak support pending resolution of the sourcing issues below. Cirt (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Still very much leaning Oppose. I need to set up a list of facts omitted.. which appears to be a substantial number. Sorry so slow; I'll devote my wiki-time to this article now. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 10:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Comprehensive and extremely well-referenced. Pretty much the same as before. —Sunday Scribe 11:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Do you have the audio or a full transcript for this source, that you could share? This one:

  • (French) Pesnot, Patrick (producer) & Billoud, Michel (director) (10 March 2007), 1964, le putsch raté contre Léon M'Ba président du Gabon [radio], France Inter. Retrieved on 22 August 2008.

This reference is used for two claims, but I don't seem to find anything relevant to those claims in the reference:

  • "Whitney, Craig R. (20 March 1997), 'Jacques Foccart Dies at 83; Secret Mastermind in Africa', The New York Times, <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E4D81E38F933A15750C0A961958260>. Retrieved on 6 August 2008 ."
  • used for: "He declared that Gabon's pro-French foreign policy would remain unchanged and that Mombo would supervise the government[23] until the presidency was given to the United States-supported Aubame"
  • used for: "Foccart, on the other hand, had only decided to launch the countercoup to protect the interests of the French petroleum group Elf, which operated in Gabon and was led by a close friend of his, though he claimed it was due to a friendship with M'ba"
  • So if neither statement is backed by the source, I suppose I have to ask, are there more surprises waiting for us?Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 14:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid you've made a mistake. There is no need for a pdf file; the link you provided is freely available over the internet. So... does the article back up your assertions, or not? Thanks Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 23:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to help you sort this. You don't need a PDF: the full text is at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E4D81E38F933A15750C0A961958260 :
The New York Times source says:
  • In 1964, Mr. Foccart sent French troops to oil-rich Gabon to keep Leon Mba, a close ally, in power against an American-supported rival, and incidentally to protect the local interests of the French petroleum group Elf, led by another close friend.
but the article says:
  • Foccart, on the other hand, had only decided to launch the countercoup to protect the interests of the French petroleum group Elf, which operated in Gabon and was led by a close friend of his, though he claimed it was due to a friendship with M'ba.
  • I have expanded on that. It seems that originally one ref was to cite one thing, but that got lost once more refs were added. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 19:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times source says:
  • nothing about Aubame or US-supported
but the article says:
  • He declared that Gabon's pro-French foreign policy would remain unchanged and that Mombo would supervise the government[23] until the presidency was given to the United States-supported Aubame.
    • I mixed up the two refs. The NYT ref was to support an earlier claim, but as I expanded upon it, it became deprecated. I should have removed it upon that point, but I did not. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 19:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The source has no connection to the text cited. Ling.Nut inquires "are there more surprises waiting for us", meaning, is the article text supported by its cited sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Strenuous Oppose for starters as per 1(b). It kinda spills over into 1(c) and 1(d) as well, depending on how you look at it. Here is the bird's eye view of my argument; I'll give more details as they crop up:

  1. The article contradicts itself. This is not a random editing error (though I am absolutely sure it is unintentional, as far as the Wikipedia editors are concerned); it is an artifact of the fact that sources disagree. The main points of disagreement are: What was the popular response to the coup? And how involved was the US? Based on my research so far, it seems the French may have immediately set about generating propaganda to support their actions, to wit: There was no popular response, and the US backed Aubame. But... if there was no popular response, why were there riots? And if the US backed Aubame, why is it only the French who seem to know this fact? The US itself has no shortage of those who are eager to point out US involvement in any coup, etc. Where are those sources?
    There was no popular response. People went with life as usual (they mostly supported the coup) though the French tried to make it seem that this absense of response was due to the people not supporting the coup. There was riots because, as I said before, people supported the coup, and they thought it was a violation of their independence if France was to become involved. See "ordered the French not to interfere in the matter, claiming that it would be a violation of their sovereignty." in the Coup section. The US liked Aubame, this is now cited with a US source, they simply didn't participate in the coup at all. There is evidence that France did spread the rumors about the US, however it is proven that these rumors are false. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Facts, particularly background facts, are missing or glossed over.. This is an important issue for any meaningful (not to say, WP:FA-level) treatment in an encyclopedia that wants to be taken seriously. Some facts include: What were all the significant groups that supported Aubame? What groups supported M'Ba? What position did Aubame hold before M'Ba appointed him to the Supreme Court? Perhaps more importantly, what was the specific issue that precipitated M'Bas attempt to finesse Aubame? I really feel that the background is undeveloped.
    There were no significant groups that supported Aubame. There was the opposition, and the M'ba "loyalists". Though it was implied, I have clarified that Aubame was a deputy to the Nat'l Assembly. There was no specific issue that promped M'ba to get rid of Aubame; they just hated each other. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aubame was a member of M'Ba's cabinet; no less than foreign minister. There was indeed a specific issue that caused the "Supreme Court Power Move", and it was a significant one:

    "Within the coalition Government, Aubame had been Minister of Foreign Affairs, but early in 1963 he was dropped from the Cabinet for refusing to agree to the formation of a single-party regime, and appointed head of the Supreme Court, a largely powerless position, in a move designed to ensure that he lost his parliamentary immunity."

    Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 00:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The problems I outlined above lead to NPOV concerns. There are obviously POV positions staked out here, and none of these are explored in any meaningful manner.
    I believe the artical is as neutran now as can be. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I.... not to put too fine a point on it, but I am very very afraid of serious 1(c) (verifiability) issues. The nominator has already stated that he/she has no access to some of the sources. I have already found one freely and publicly available source in the refs that does not seem to support the assertions it is purported to support. I fear that no meaningful attempt at verification of the sources has been made. I am prepared of course to retract that statement if evidence to the contrary can be presented. That's all for now... Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 04:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a singular mistake. I can access some refs if I do a little digging, though I am confident that this article is FA-standard in verifiability. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me speak extremely bluntly. I see a pattern of omissions and a lack of research. I think this article, which "didn't even exist until two days " before the FAC nom (as stated above) was copy/pasted from both the English and french Wikipedias (and Wikipedia is not a relaible source!), with perhaps a wee bit of translation... and no meaningful attempt at research. If we as Wikipedians want to render the past intelligible to current readers, we must be a great deal more diligent than this. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 00:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I find that your comment was a gross overgeneralization and an insult to all who worked on the page. I must admit that you are right in one regard: the article was originally cut and pasted from Leon M'ba. M'ba was basically a translation from the French Wikipedia, as part of a translation project by me and User:Nishkid64, which also includes Félix Houphouët-Boigny (GA), Philibert Tsiranana, and William Tubman (both currently translating). But really, what's wrong with translating from another wikipedia when it has citations to back up its claims and was promoted to FA status? And more specifically to this article, what is wrong with a content fork? But if you think this is only a content fork, then you are very wrong. "No meaningful attempt at research" - try saying that with a straight face when you look at the diffs of over 300 quality edits by Blofeld, Nishkid, myself and others: [34] And as for the "pattern of omissions and a lack of research", well apparently you don't know that Gabon is one of the most poorly covered countries by reliable sources, and this article would tell any student everything that is known about the coup. Please, stop making such uninformed insults. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 10:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When an editor translates, it's their obligation to verify the sources. From your answers to queries throughout the FAC relating to comprehensiveness and the sources used, questions about whether you've actually accessed and verified the sources used in the French version are understandable, and as pointed out by Ling.Nut above, there is even doubt about the use of easily available English-language sources, which has been wrong at times. When four books have been written, it doesn't seem that we can dismiss comprehensive concerns with statements about Gabon being poorly covered by reliable sources. We can't just translate an article from another Wiki and expect it will meet FA standards; we have to raise an article to the comprehensive standard required on en.Wiki, and that requires verifying the sources and expanding on them as needed. Do you have possession of the four French-language books/sources used in the French version? If so, perhaps Renata's inquiries can be addressed. Considering the concerns raised by Ling.Nut, it's not clear that this article meets 1b, 1c or 1d; perhaps this concern can be resolved by providing exact quotes from the French sources in response to some of the queries raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I;m not saying thst verifying sources isn't a good idea but wasn't this article written from FA material on French wikipedia? In all due respect, if the article was believed to be false or wasn't written by somebody with the books does anybody think it would have passed FA on French wikipedia? The best thing I think would be to try to contact one of the writers who have used the books on French wikipedia. The Bald One White cat 15:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keese and Bernault are both accessible, so it shouldn't be difficult to verify the claims backed by these sources. Biteghé might be a little more difficult to track down, though. The book is at the Library of Congress, but I'd much rather be able to have the book at my fingertips at home, rather than having to trek to the LOC Reading Room every time I want to confirm something. I've sent a request through my university to get the book from another library in the US. Hopefully I'll receive it within two weeks, but no guarantees... Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also picked a number of African history books, so I'll start perusing through them and adding refs to this article wherever appropriate. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed Matthews' African Powder Keg: Revolt and Dissent in Six Emergent Nations (1966) has an entire 20 page chapter devoted to the 1964 Gabon coup. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to be sure I'm clear here; I'm reading the discussion from several editors here as indicating that the editors of this article have not consulted the sources, rather have relied on a non-reliable source (fr.wiki) and translated directly from that source rather than from the reliable sources. If that is the case, I don't see how I can leave this FAC open. WP:V is policy; we don't cite articles to non-reliable sources, and it's surprising that anyone might consider the Fr.wiki as a reliable source. Does anyone have the French books, can anyone supply exact quotes from them, and can anyone confirm whether this article was written from the original sources or was just a translation from a non-reliable source (fr.wiki)? Articles may get through GAN or PR or DYK without using reliable sources or without having anyone actually consult the sources, but they should not get through FAC if reliable sources aren't used, and questions about the comprehensiveness of the article can't be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how reliable sources aren't being used. The article was translated from the French FA version, which relied heavily on Keese, Bernault, and Biteghe, all reliable. I believe the French books are available at Google Books. What quotes should I use, anyway? --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 19:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the sources, and did you verify that they were accurately used? The French Wiki is not a reliable source; like any Wiki, anyone can add anything to it. Also, do you have the sources? If not, how can you respond to queries related to the article's comprehesiveness? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have Keese and Bernault. Biteghe obviously exists. The French Wikipedia article is Featured, so I would not doubt that it would be in tip-top shape. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 19:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EOTW, if I'm reading correctly, you are confirming that this article was translated from a non-reliable source (a Wiki), and that the cited sources weren't all consulted and aren't all available (including the audio questioned above by Ling.Nut). Regarding how reliable any featured article may be on any Wiki, reference the three dozen or so articles at a time found at WP:FAR. Wikis are not reliable sources; we can't assume anything about them, nor can we assume the fr.wiki standards are the same as ours wrt comprhensiveness and other criterion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would consulting Polaert (the main author of M'ba, Aubame, FHB, and others on the FR wikipedia) about the reliability of M'ba work? It's all really about trust, right? --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No offense intended, but the French Wikipedia FAs can hardly compare to English Wikipedia FAs. The FAC process at fr.wiki is not very exhaustive and it's easy to get an article plagued with POV issues (Tsiranana is an example) or even source issues to FA status. I agree with Sandy that we should verify the text attributed to French sources. However, I ask Sandy to hold off on closing this nomination for now. As mentioned earlier, I found some sufficient English sources that can be used to re-source the article. I will start this process within the next day or two. Thanks, Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; I'm more concerned that editors are understanding the underlying issue wrt WP:V and translations from non-reliable sources, and EOTW and I have had some discussion on my talk page.[35] If you can get your hands on the sources, would you mind revisiting the comprehensiveness questions raised by Renata before the restart? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I'll also try to pick up the African Powder Keg (what an interesting name!) If Polaert was the nominator, would we be having problems with me not accessing the sources? Perhaps we could add him to thi line... :) --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 21:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to point out that I put a correct translation of the French above, and pointed out a significant error in the actual "French" part. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, putting this here: WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT

It is improper to obtain a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a Web page that is attributed to a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your source is really the Web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the Web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear.

So, this article would be largely cited to the French Wiki, which is not a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, Sandy. that it has been translated from FA material on French wikipedia. What makes you think there aren't people on French wikipedia like yourself who have high standards for their FA articles and haven't verified them? Why does there always seem to be a huge mistrust of other articles on other wikipedias which have passed FA? I know the standards on other wikipedias are generally lower for FAs and there are some examples of "bad eggs" so to speak which have clear issues, but that doesn't mean to say they haven't some standards to abide by and that there aren't some top quality articles on the others. Wikipedia is not a reliable source no but the article was written from various sources which are believed to be reliable and merely put into English. I strongly urge somebody to contact the editors on French wikipedia and try to sort something out. What I fail to understand is that if the writer had written the article on english wikipedia at the FA people would take his word for it that his citations and sources are as stated. There can never be 100% guarantee when book sources are used. For instance User:Pericles of Athens on his various FAs on Chinese history. Are you telling me Sandy that other editors personally loaned the same books that he used just to ensure that he was telling the truth and to make the FA pass? With book sources used on wikipedia surely there has to be an element of trust. I fail to see how the book sources used is this article are regarded as inadequate when there are clear citations like any other FA article using book sources on here. I can see why you might think that the person verifying the information should be the author in english but I'm sure there is a way to verify it. If Nishkid contacted the writers on French wikipedia to confirm things would you still feel the same way? You certainly have a valid point though Sandy, which I'm sure could be sorted given time. Might I also suggest that this FA candidacy is put on hold at least until Nishkid is able to make contact? The Bald One White cat 12:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are all nice thoughts, eloquently put. The key point is that the current nominators copy/pasted together an article with key facts missing, and with a glaring lack of analysis to provide insight. All else is extraneous. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 13:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the first sentence was a bit snippy. I apologize... However, I must add that at this point the article has (so to speak) been caught with its hand in the cookie jar repeatedly. My credulity has been stretched to the breaking point. Thus it isn't merely the French sources I want to see produced, it's all of them. Those 1964 article from WaPo and NYT would be a good place to start. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 14:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Response to TBO):
  • An editor cannot rely on a source known only through an intermediate source;
  • An editor can rely on a reliable intermediate source, but must disclose it;
  • Another wiki is not reliable.
Articles change over time, and sourcing standards may differ. If someone with access to the ultimate sources comes to the article and edits it, thereby vouching for those sources, that first-hand vouching for the sources can be accepted on good faith. But reliability depends on those ultimate sources, not on another wiki. Kablammo (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All made even more complicated by EOTW's statements that he doesn't read French. [36] [37] Since EOTW doesn't read French, 1) I'm unclear how the translations were accomplished, 2) I'm unclear if he consulted the sources at all, and 3) the questions raised earlier relating to comprehensiveness can't be addressed, since they may rely on French-language sources. Perhaps we can get some clarification? (re TBO, if the misunderstandings about fundamental WP:V policy are that profound, even at FAC, Wiki has a big problem, that should be addressed outside of the scope of this FAC. Absolutely, if someone translated an FA I had written to another language, without consulting the sources, I would not expect that to be featured work on any language Wiki. It's not about me or any other editor or trustiworthiness or whether the article is featured or how much we trust a given editor; it's about WP:V policy. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and translating without consulting the original sources amounts to citing an article to a non-reliable source, since the actual source is a Wiki. It's a concern that several editors haven't internalized that message; has this practice of translating articles without consulting sources been widespread on Wiki? If that happens, well, it's probably a good enough method for a stub or start-class article, and I see others have gotten through GA (where sourcing isn't as stringently reviewed), but it shouldn't be sufficient for a featured article, where solid sourcing and academic scholarship is expected.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, you'd expect an FA to be written directly from the sources. The problem lies in that it isn't a first hand account so the writers of the article in English haven't a direct way to verify all of the information in the article. Has anybody tried to find the sources in google books? The Bald One White cat 12:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I couldn't stand the faulty translation anymore, so I made a better attempt. Its not perfect, but it actually means what Mba said. I switched J jour to jour J per the French use and the actual French page's quote. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ottova, I deleted the definite article in "The D-Day" as the more idiomatic English likely would be "D-Day". Cf. [38] and D-Day. Kablammo (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For accuracy's sake, it was I who did the French to English translation of Léon M'ba#1964 Gabon coup d'état. I relied on Google Translate, dictionaries and verified my translations with multiple French speakers on #wikipedia-fr. Translations from French to English are always tricky, especially when you're working with a direct French quote, so I apologize for the mistranslation here. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry too much about it. I fixed it. It needs to be fixed by someone with more translating skill, but it is closer. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would like to thank you for inviting me to this discussion about the French featured articles' reliability. For a French editor like me, it is always nice to attend denigration of the French wikipedia. It is often acknowledged that French editors like writing fake things. The sources they indicate, are only there to make their articles more aesthetic. Besides, I totally agree with you about the fact that the selection criteria of our feaured articles are apalling. You are so superior in this field that we may just pretend to be barbarians. I am ready to send you a copy of Moises Nsolé Biteghé's book for 5,80 euros if you want to check your great theories on the french wikipedia ( here is the link proving that this books does cost 5,80). On the other hand, I can send by mail, a wave of « (French) Pesnot, Patrick (producer) & Billoud, Michel (director) (10 March 2007), 1964, le putsch raté contre Léon M'Ba président du Gabon [radio], France Inter. ». Polaert (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia isn't a reliable source either, by the way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Polaert, you've done some great work on the French Wikipedia, and I apologize if you were offended by my tone regarding fr.wiki editors such as yourself. I have no doubt that you properly sourced the article, but the points raised by other editors are valid in my opinion. Verifying content by adding references is a key part of the article writing process, and it seems we skipped that almost entirely while translating the article. Since the issue essentially boils down to the fact that we're now relying on information from a wiki (a no-no according to WP:V and WP:RS), I believe it's a reasonable expectation to verify the French language sources used to reference this article. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll try to replace the Fr soures with English ones, if possible. Nishkid did do much of the original translation, but I added onto that to the cuerrent length of 30 kb. There is always that element of trust regarding book sources but I did not know the standards were so strict (which I guess was foolish of me, since I've been here for 7 months). I'll try to get a copy of the African Powder Keg though I don't think that will happen for ~3 days. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 22:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment. Prose issues at a number of places. Examples: "Yet in practice, the regime showed a fundamental weakness in attaining M'ba's goal"; "made a decision in accordance with a treaty between the M'ba government and the French signed in 1960 to restore the legitimate government"; "Dahomey submitted a minor demurral." And so on. But the article is not far off. I haven't checked out the sources, though in a couple of places (indicated with inline quotations) I have my doubts about the accuracy of quotations from English; it is even more likely that there are problems in sources or translations from French. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All sources. French and English. Every single one. No way on heaven or earth will I change my oppose 'til I see every one. We can talk all day about how reliable the French Wikipedia is— but that is a distraction, a misdirection, and an attempt to turn this into something personal. It is not about the French Wikipedia.. This article was copy/pasted the same way high school students do, and no one even bothered to check any of the sources. This is irresponsible. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 02:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. Have I got this right (sorry I haven't had time to do much more than skim the discussion)... that the quotations from English are actually re-translations of French quotations of those sources? If so, that's unacceptable. I do hope I'm wrong. But it would explain some of these strange formulations. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now now, the article was originally a mere translation from the French wikipedia, but more than half is original content. I'm trying to get my hands on the African Powder Keg to supplement Biteghe--other than that I've got all the sources. What more do you need? I really hate seeing you judge this as a copypaste instead of an actual researched article that needs a few kinks worked out before it can beconsidered "of our best work". But we're way past halfway there. Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 02:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm not "insulting your efforts" (as per your edit summary). I'm asking a question, following on from Ling.Nut's comment, and stating a position based on one possible answer. If the English sources cited (e.g. the NYT article "Gabon Chief Clears U.S. of Role in Plot") are retranslations from the French, then that is unacceptable. I tried to check the original, but it's behind a paywall from where I am right now. If they are not, i.e. if you've checked the originals, then AOK. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've checked this one. (It's the only source I've checked.) It's not a re-translation. But there was a misquotation. Please check all sources. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jb, the bit about "...if you've checked the originals" is the problem. They have not. Read above where it was proven at least twice, and then note their strange silence regarding my requests for access to their sources. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 03:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a matter of a few kinks. Produce your sources. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 02:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have all my sources except Biteghe, which I will try to wean off of. Please note I will be offline for a day or so--the shore calls. Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 03:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that puts my mind more at rest. NB I still think there are prose issues. I'll try to return to do some more copy-editing, but am on the run right now, and certainly won't be here again until tomorrow. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yet in practice, the regime showed a fundamental weakness in attaining M'ba's goal"
  • "made a decision in accordance with a treaty between the M'ba government and the French signed in 1960 to restore the legitimate government"
  • "Dahomey submitted a minor demurral."

(undent) Once again, if he has the sources, it is only because I called his hand on not having them, and he belatedly contacted the French Wikipedians. It is proven above.. I was too nice when i asked for only one source; I should have asked for each and every one. I am now doing so. All sources. Every single one. French. English. Any other possible language. All sources. I would say "now" but of course our editors are conveniently going on break... waiting for the sources to roll in. This is manipulation of Wikipedia. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 03:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we've acknowledged the errors of our ways. Could we at least be constructive instead of rubbing this problem in our faces? The English sources should have been used properly, since I provided all of them to EoTW via e-mail (PDFs obtained from ProQuest). Also, please be patient while EoTW and I gather the French language sources. I've requested Biteghe from a library outside of my university library system, so it may take days before I receive the book. For now, however, I'll try to replace Biteghe with Matthews (1966) and other sources. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is waiting patiently. Meanwhile, would you mind sharing all those pdfs with me as well, please? I'd like to verify every cite. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 05:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Send me an e-mail. I'll reply with the PDFs attached. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 07:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks! Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 07:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once Nishkid gets a hand on Biteghe (I'm too lazy :) and I expand with Matthews, do you withdraw your opposition? Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 22:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) after I check every single reference. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 23:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have rec'd an email from Nishkid. While I'm grateful to the nominators for procuring and producing a number of relevant English-language references in time to (it seems) prevent the nom from closing, I'm afraid I am not as willing as others to sweep dirt under the rug. Under no circumstances will I be supporting this nom, as it is an egregious case of disdain and disrespect for WP:5P. I will, however, continue to check all references, probably Thursday or Friday-ish. I may be editing the article in accordance with what info the references (both those emailed me by Nishkid & those I have acquired through my own research) provide. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've got Biteghe in my hands now. I'll start pasting quotations from the page references on the article talk page. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Working on fact-checking; temporarily located here. Not close to finished. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 09:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. If the sources for every FAC received this kind of systematic check, it would be fantastic. (Indeed, if the sources for academic articles received this kind of systematic check, it would be quite something. Though in the case of academic articles, you hope that you can usually rely on the author to have done his or her job properly. Not always, though.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Caution: WaPo 'No Pity No Pardon' and NYT 'Many Gabonese Angered' contradict each other with respect to how widespread the discontent with M'ba was: the former says it was a small group of soldiers; the latter emphasizes that it was significantly more widespread. Beware of leaning on either source. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 12:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't: The Gabonese Army was small, but most of it supported the coup. Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 19:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually read the sources? Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 01:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I didn't, then why would this FAC be up and running? Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 10:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - article meets all criteria, including 1 (c). I find the dramatic statements about sources to be rather overblown. To be sure, accurate sourcing is a must. But Editorofthewiki and Nishkid have used accurate and reliable sources, and there's no reason to take Polaert's work at less than face value simply because he is a Utilisateur and not a User. And of course, as the two authors here are now going through the very sources used by Polaert, and confirming (as if that were really necessary) that Polaert's version was not misleading, there's no reason to delay awarding FA status at this point. Should problems be discovered in the future, they can be fixed or the article de-listed, but I somewhat doubt that will be the case. The scrutiny received has already been quite high. Biruitorul Talk 19:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No really. Who started this anti-French wiki meme that is both distracting (its main objective, I suppose—making the discussion personal and international very effectively misdirects attention from the article's inadequacies, see the result in the comments immediately above) and destructive (a regrettable side-effect)? The fact that confirmation is necessary has been proven by truly egregious misrepresentations of fact... really, words fail me. Everyone rallies around people and refuses to look at facts. Is this what we want Wikipedia to be? This is social networking squared.

Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 01:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I find your manner of opposing this article quite disruptive. You really are insulting our efforts on the article. I'm currently acquiring Matthews, but since there is no good library around me I have to have it shipped from Temple University in Philadelphia, which according to them will take 10 days maximum (but it's already been five). This is social networking squared. If you think this is social networking, check out the user and talk pages of several prominent wikipedians. "Everyone rallies around people and refuses to look at facts." I'm sorry, but I think you're the only one who's been rallying around beople and until recently been ignoring the fact that this article has improved tremendously since the FAC began. And there's still some to go, but stop "rubbing it in our faces", as Nishkid said. Please, focus on the article, not the FAC. Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 10:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath section Much of article weak on comprehensiveness'
  • Aftermath: There was a permanent French military contingent just outside the capital, for example. French military presence continued for years (certainly until 1967; maybe much longer). Where is discussion of the possibility of neocolonialism in this article? I don't see it. There was also an "orgy of arrests and beatings" by "squads of thugs" immediately after the coup. The later vote to reinstall M'ba included votes by "French nationals"; I'm uncertain of other examples where people who are citizens of one country can vote in another country's elections... french citizens were placed in key positions in the gov't... etc.
  • Background and origins The immediate precursor--indeed, the cause-- of the coup was M'ba's attempts to force Aubame's party to merge into M'ba's. No mention of a fact so crucial! The french oil and timber industries were huge background players. No mention! the timber industry supported M'Ba: "Aubame for years had enjoyed French intellectual and liberal support, but in 1957 French business interests in Gabon, lead by the powerful forestry concerns ..."... No mention! The power balance shifted from the timber to the oil industry after the coup. No mention! .... please do more research!
    • Where is this from? I did mention that Foccart was only trying to protect the interests of Elf, a petroleum company. Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 10:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major source missing: African Betrayal by CHARLES E. and ALICE B. DARLINGTON New York, David McKay, 1968. That would be Charles Darlington, the US ambassador to Gabon (his name is mentioned in the article), whose book looks at these events. Don't you think we might find some important info there? Forex, darlington apparently does call Aubame "pro-US" but not "US-supported". I say "apparently because all i have is a book review, not the original source. But Darlington apparently discusses the French actions in detail... Why is this major source not employed? Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 02:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you read it in time to include its contents in the article before the FAC closes? ... EOTW, please think. I keep bringing up significant problems; you keep wanting to slap bandaids on the worst of them, ignore the others, and pretend this is an FA-quality attempt. This article needs a top-to-bottom rewrite. It needs a rewrite for factual omissions. It needs a rewrite for analysis of various POVs. Above all, it needs real, actual research to actually be carried out... which I seem to be doing for you. I'll send you the review. Reply to my email. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your email doesn't seem to be enabled. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can also send you The Journal of Modern African Studies, 25, 2 (1987), pp. 283-320 Gabon: a Neo-Colonial Enclave of Enduring French Interest by MICHAEL C. REED. It has the following useful quotes, plus others:

  • Since the I950s there has existed what is known as Le Clan des gabonais...Le Clan ensures that certain French businesses in Gabon serve as covers for arms trading, mercenary recruiting, and counterfeit currency dealing; they also help finance right-wing politics in France. Creed 306

  • All the while, 600 French paratroopers, along with an air-force unit that includes Mirage V and Jaguar jet-fighters (most of whose pilots are French), have been permanently stationed at Camp de Gaulle near the capital of Libreville, a clear warning to any would-be rebels in Gabon's thinly populated interior. Creed 284 [NOTE THIS was written in 1987; still a French military presence then]

  • Between I944 and I954 there emerged the two Gabonese political factions that would compete until independence: the initially left- leaning political organisations of Paul Indjenjet Gondjout and Leon M'Ba, backed by the French forestry industry, and the centrist party created by Jean-Hilaire Aubame, which had the support of the missions and the French administration. These three Catholics were the major Gabonese politicians of the post-war period. Creed 292

  • Within the coalition Government, Aubame had been Minister of Foreign Affairs, but early in 1963 he was dropped from the Cabinet for refusing to agree to the formation of a single-party regime, and appointed head of the Supreme Court, a largely powerless position, in a move designed to ensure that he lost his parliamentary immunity. Unexpectedly, Aubame resigned from the Court on 10 January I964, thus keeping his seat in the National Assembly. This was dissolved on 2I January by M'Ba, who ordered new elections for 23 February. The U.D.S.G. refused to participate. Such was the setting for that month's military intervention. Creed 296

  • Apart from widespread public displeasure with the ostentation of the ruling class, there was a lot of discontent among the 6oo-man Gabonese army, many of whom had, prior to independence, served in the French army where they had received relatively good pay and benefits. Creed 297

  • On 1-2 March I964, Gabonese workers and students in Libreville demonstrated against the M'Ba 'dictatorship', and these protests spread to the towns of Port-Gentil and N'Dende, and continued into the summer. In August the trial of the military rebels and of members of the provisional government opened in Lambarene. Those convicted were given long-term imprisonments, including Aubame, who was sentenced to ten years hard labour and ten years banishment. Creed 298

  • [ NOTE quote of quote; original source needs to be acquired... ] The de Gaulle regime incorrectly regarded Aubame as less friendly to French involvement in Gabon and more favorable to increased American involvement, a claim which Aubame denies. David E. Gardinier, Historical Dictionary of Gabon (Metuchen, N. J., I98 ), pp. 59-60.

  • Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing notes: as in other cases when I've closed a controversial or difficult FAC, I will leave a closing rationale on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 19 September 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 01:36, 16 September 2008 [39].

Effects of Hurricane Dean in the Greater Antilles edit

Nominator(s): Plasticup T/C


I am nominating this article for featured article status to fill out the Hurricane Dean topic. With Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean already an FA and the other three sections at GA status (Hurricane Dean, Effects of Hurricane Dean in the Greater Antilles, and Effects of Hurricane Dean in the Lesser Antilles), one more FA will qualify the topic. Plasticup T/C 13:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, those two are updated now. The references in this article were a huge pain because after about three months tons of the links went dead. It took me ages to track down new references. Plasticup T/C 16:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments The article needs a copyedit and some work in general. Some examples:
  • The lead consists mostly of storm history, preparations and aftermath. Some more impact would be nice.
  • A tropical storm watch was issued for the south coast of the Dominican Republic at 0300 UTC August 17.[1] On August 17 this tropical storm watch was upgraded to a tropical storm warning. Wouldn't "On August 17" be better as "Later that day" or something similar?
  • 1,580 people were evacuated as the storm approached. Don't start sentences with numerical characters.
  • The Haitian coastal authority advised all small craft to stay on port, while at Port-au-Prince, all flights to southern Haiti from Toussaint Louverture International Airport were canceled. "on port" → "in port".
  • On August 19, 19 schools and civic centers were converted to shelters "19, 19"...
  • The massive storm's winds, rains, and storm surge endangered life and property throughout the island chain. Wikilink storm surge
  • Rough surf destroyed at least five houses along the southern coast[39] and damaged 316. Keep numbers consistent.
  • 40% of the sugarcane crop, 80-100% of the banana crop, 75% of the coffee trees under three years old, and 20% of the top layer of the cocoa crop were lost to the storm. Don't start sentences with digits, and "80-100%" should be an en dash.
  • She and her party ultimately did lose the election, although Dean's fortunately light damage was not thought to have been a major factor. Irrelevant.

Also, I'd like to see some more impact, particularly for Jamaica. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done, except the last comment about the Jamaican election. We have to include the bit about the postponing election, which naturally brings up the accusations that the hurricane was being used to further Ms. Simpson-Miller's political goals. I trust you have no problem with that. To put those sentences in context it is important to know that the election wasn't looking good for the desperate Prime Minister Simpson-Miller. To simply end the paragraph there leaves a cliffhanger. Plasticup T/C 21:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs). I'm kind of surprised to see so many routine errors in an article from a WikiProject that regularly produces some of the highest-quality articles on the 'pedia. It really does need a good comb-through. Some issues:

Both redundant and removed. I'm surprised that I missed them. Plasticup T/C 03:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First instance of US$ needs to be linked to appropriate article.—This is part of a comment by Dabomb87 , which was interrupted by the following:
To quote the MOS: it is generally unnecessary to link the symbols of well-known currencies. Plasticup T/C 03:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I'll remember that for future reference. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rain from Hurricane Dean closed several roads throughout Puerto Rico and there was heavy surf along the island's coast, but no deaths or injuries were reported." Did the rain literally close the roads?—This is part of a comment by Dabomb87 , which was interrupted by the following:
Can our readers understand idioms? Plasticup T/C 03:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, although remember that the readers of this article might not be native speakers. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make it a less correct usage of the English language. If foreign speakers have trouble understanding this page then they should try Simple English Wikipedia. Plasticup T/C 02:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll take that. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some accused Prime Minister Portia Simpson-Miller of unnecessarily extending the state of emergency (and related curfews) to maintain her political control"—Who is "some" referring to?—This is part of a comment by Dabomb87 , which was interrupted by the following:
Clarified. Plasticup T/C 03:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "USD$398,000". Take out the D.—This is part of a comment by Dabomb87 , which was interrupted by the following:
Done. Plasticup T/C 03:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Venezuela delivered 11 tonnes of emergency food to the South-East Department in the form of 500 family bags."—This is part of a comment by Dabomb87 , which was interrupted by the following:
Done. Plasticup T/C 03:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The National Housing Trust also made $200 million available to the Hurricane Relief Fund." What type of dollars?—This is part of a comment by Dabomb87 , which was interrupted by the following:
Jamaican. Clarified. Plasticup T/C 03:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the help of JA$1.1 billion (US$15.5 million) of aid from the EU's Banana Support Programme, thousands of acres were replanted." Why is this the only time that JA$ is converted?—This is part of a comment by Dabomb87 , which was interrupted by the following:
Good point. Plasticup T/C 03:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On Gonâve Island, power was cut to thousands of people, and some took shelter in schools and churches." I don't understand: "cut to"?—This is part of a comment by Dabomb87 , which was interrupted by the following:
Re-worded. Plasticup T/C 03:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As such, the storm caused no major problems with water and sanitation,[47] except in the town of Bainet, population 17,000, where the temperamental water system was compromised." I think "as such" could be changed to thus. On another note, the listing of the population of the town seems random and unnecessary.—This is part of a comment by Dabomb87 , which was interrupted by the following:
What is wrong with "as such"? I believe that it is being used correctly. And the population is relevant in that it defines the scope of the problem. If a town of 5 million people lost its water supply the problem would be rather different than in this town of 17,000. Plasticup T/C 03:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "12 hours later, at 0300 UTC August 19, as Hurricane Dean continued to track west towards the islands, the hurricane watch was upgraded to a hurricane warning." No digits at the start of a sentence.—This is part of a comment by Dabomb87 , which was interrupted by the following:
Re-cast. Plasticup T/C 03:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The most sever damage was to the agricultural sector" Typo: add e to the end of severe.

Dabomb87 (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Plasticup T/C 03:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2000 people weathered the storm in temporary shelters." Again, no numbers at start of sentence. I see other sentences like this but you should look through the whole article yourself to make sure that there are no sentences with digits at the beginning.—This is part of a comment by Dabomb87 (of 03:25, 11 September 2008), which was interrupted by the following:
The reason that WP:MOSNUM gives for this is since using figures risks the period being read as a decimal point or abbreviation mark. If there is a citation after the preceding period then this danger is erased and the number is safe, right? That's not a rhetorical question, by the way; more input is welcome. Plasticup T/C 02:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the MOS is vague on that. Your reasoning is fine with me; however, I think the more important issue is consistency. It would be strange to see some sentences with numbers spelled out and others with digits. It's your call. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part I just rearranged the sentences to move the numbers away from the beginning. I didn't ever spell out "five-thousand and twenty-seven" or anything like that, so it should be consistent. Plasticup T/C 03:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Jamaican government finalized evacuation plans, including making the country's national arena a shelter, and relocating inmates from two maximum security prisons." How about: "The Jamaican government finalized evacuation plans, which included converting the country's national arena into a shelter and relocating inmates from two maximum security prisons."—This is part of a comment by Dabomb87 , which was interrupted by the following:
Done. Plasticup T/C 02:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Curfews were put in place for some parts of the island, while and off-duty essential personnel were called back to work." "Parts" leads readers to infer that only some had curfews. —This is part of a comment by Dabomb87 , which was interrupted by the following:
Done. Plasticup T/C 02:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods at the end.—This is part of a comment by Dabomb87 , which was interrupted by the following:
A good Samaritan did this for me. Plasticup T/C 02:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Additionally a hurricane watch was issued from Cabo Beata to the Haitian border." I think there should be a comma after "Additionally". When I read the sentence aloud, it sounds more natural that way.—This is part of a comment by Dabomb87 , which was interrupted by the following:
Yep. Plasticup T/C 02:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "International organizations from all over the world contributed to the subsequent recovery effort." Doesn't the word "International" infer that the organizations come from all over the world.—This is part of a comment by Dabomb87 , which was interrupted by the following:
Not really. They could be international but only from the Caribbean. I'll see if I can think of a better way to word it though. Plasticup T/C 02:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps specify the region that the organizations came from. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Global aid organizations contributed to the subsequent recovery effort"? Plasticup T/C 03:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On August 18 the hurricane watch was adjusted to a hurricane warning." "Adjusted"-->changed.

Dabomb87 (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went with "upgraded", which shows that the warning is more serious than the watch. Good catch though. Plasticup T/C 02:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good fix. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fortunately, and despite a number of near misses, Hurricane Dean did not make landfall in the Greater Antilles and the islands were spared the storm's worst strengths." Is there a better phrase than "storm's worst strengths"? Maybe "brunt of the storm"?
Changed. Plasticup T/C 21:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Three were killed in Jamaica, which also experienced the heaviest damages: initial estimates of US$1.5 billion were revised to approximately US$310 million." Seems contradictory; the first phrase emphasizes that Jamaica experienced the most damage, then the second phrase talks about the major downward revision of the damages.
How about "Three were killed in Jamaica, which also suffered US$310 million of damage—the heaviest in the Caribbean."? Plasticup T/C 21:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above two issues are things that I found during a copy-edit of the lead. If you don't like the other changes, feel free to revert them. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done another read-through and I haven't seen anything worth changing. Are there any other problems jumping out at you? Plasticup T/C 00:13, 15 September 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 01:36, 16 September 2008 [40].

Jack Kemp edit

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger
previous FAC (18:12, 4 May 2008)


As with all politician bios, I expect this to be contentious. Kemp was a Reaganite and Ronald Reagan took 6 WP:FACs and 2 WP:PRs (not to mention 2 WP:GACs) to achieve WP:FA. The main past FAC issues have been whether this is POV and whether it is too long. The article has been reduced in size about 10% and is in the same neighborhood lengthwise as several other FA-Class biographies of prominent leaders in terms of readable prose:

Harry S. Truman 68.5 KB
Ronald Reagan 61.5 KB
Jack Kemp 58.3 KB
Franklin D. Roosevelt 57.3 KB

I think I have addressed most concerns from the most recent FAC and PR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain, 44.5 KB readable prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image comment - Seriously, far too many copyrighted images Fasach Nua (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My order of priority for inclusion would be:'

  1. Image:Kemp.jpg
  2. Image:Dole Kemp Time Magazine cover.jpg
  3. Image:Jackkemp1988brochure.gif
  4. Image:Russian Task 101.jpg
  5. Image:Dolekemp1996.gif
  6. Image:An American Renaaissance by Jack Kemp.jpg

Would the top four be O.K. and do you have a problem with this prioritization?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kemp.jpg doesnt increase understanding WP:NFCC#8, "he played American football when he was younger" would convey basically the same information
This image is the only image that shows what he looked like in his athletic days. In most FAs an attempt is made to obtain pictures from different stages of a person's life. The next earliest image of him is as a young congressman. I have tried to make some callls about getting consent for this image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is work of the US Congress (US federal government) then it is free Fasach Nua (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we have a free image of him as a congressman and a FU image of him as a football player. However, indications are that others have been given permission to use this image. I am trying to track down the copyrightholder, but my contact is not available for another week.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Russian Task 101.jpg looks like he is sitting at a desk, no real information there beyond the text "he sat beside John Edwards, at a desk", again WP:NFCC#8 Fasach Nua (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of think this image is expendable for different reasons. It is included to show what he looked like in the 21st century. However, it offers little that the 2004 image offers in this regard. I will remove it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now my list is:

  1. Image:Kemp.jpg
  2. Image:Dole Kemp Time Magazine cover.jpg
  3. Image:Jackkemp1988brochure.gif
  4. Image:Dolekemp1996.gif
  5. Image:An American Renaaissance by Jack Kemp.jpg

Any thoughts on going with four FUs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Buffalo Bills media relations office put me in touch with the author of Image:Kemp.jpg. I have corrected the image description page. We spoke and he seems inclined to send me proper permission to use it in both Kemp and Carlton's articles. He also stated he is the author of most of the other photos at [41]. It was not clear what permissions he might grant on other photos, but I will seek some permissions if he grants proper permission for this one. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got a permission, but he did not respond exactly as I instructed by saying which license to use. I sent permissions a copy of his response to determine the validity of his consent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 18:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay, links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Maralia This needs major prose work. Following are some issues:

  • John Rauch era (1969) - An 'era' does not occur over one year. For that matter, the entire subsection's headers are problematic: why is the first section 'Chargers era' but the next 'Lou Saban era' with no mention of the change in team?
    • The entire Chargers era was under one coach. The Bills eras were under several different coaches. I changed the Chargers era for consistency. However, when I look up the word era I see nothing saying that the time period designated as an era has to me longer than a year.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • and set most AFL career-passing statistical records - 'and set most' is ambiguous; did he set many? did he set the most?
  • He has authored, co-authored, and edited several books. - really, can't the lead paragraph of a biographical article do better than 'several'?
    • If you want a different word feel free to suggest it. However, since he had a variety of levels of involvement that extends to writing forewords for some books, editing, co-authoring. If you want a number, I am not so sure that is a good idea because I can not assure completeness.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • although his mother attempted to culture him with piano lessons and trips to the Hollywood Bowl. - culture as a verb?
    • Culture can be a verb. Did I use it incorrectly as a verb here?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Technically, "culture" can be a verb, with the same meaning as "cultivate", but I can't remember ever seeing it used as such. In any event, it's curious usage in this context, when the two activities mentioned are totally diverse - piano lessons and going to sports fixtures. It sounds as though Mrs Kemp was trying to "broaden his horizons", and I'd suggest you replace "culture him" with those words. Brianboulton (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whoops! I've just found out that the Hollywood Bowl is a concert venue, not a sports ground. That's Brit ignorance for you. I still prefer my suggested wording, though. 13:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Fairfax High School, which is known both for its historically high concentration of Jewish students and for producing celebrities. - unless the school somehow turns people into celebrities, 'producing celebrities' is inappropriate.
  • Boasting an alumni of notable actors, athletes, and musicians, Fairfax is noted by celebrity-seeking guides. - so? make this relevant.
  • Herb Alpert, Larry Sherry and Judith A. Reisman are among the 1935-born alumni of this school, which is located on Melrose Avenue. - again, so what? Did he know them? This and the previously listed sentence are fluff unless you delineate some relevance.
    • We could either say he obtained high school diploma or we could attempt to describe his environment and influences during his formative years. Which do you prefer? I kind of think an FA should attempt to do the latter. You clearly have taken some time to attempt to give good guidance on other issues. I would hope you might be able to help in this regard. Saying to chop all of his environment and influences is not helpful, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kemp learned to embrace diversity and hard work during his experience working with his brothers - 'during his experience' is disposable.
  • Kemp's habit of rigorous reading, which would become important later, showed in high school where he read history and philosophy books. - I read in high school too; give this sentence more, if his reading is so relevant.
    • I will add this type of sentence to your wikipedia biography if you are feeling left out. Come on football players are notoriously stereotyped as having people do all their work for them. Here we have a guy who can'not read enough. Given that the article is on the verge of being too long, do we want an explanation why this is unusual for a football player.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • he considered himself to be too small to play for the major Southern California college football programs - 'to be' is disposable.
  • Joanne had grown up in Fillmore, California and attended Fillmore High School in Ventura County. - is this relevant at all?
  • Jeff, Jennifer and Judith are each two years apart and Jimmy is eight years younger than Judith. - is this a logic problem? really, if it's relevant, give the year, not a word problem.
    • We do not have further detail on birth dates. I.e., we only have age at the time of the article. Note the infobox adds a best estimate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kemp's opposition to abortion is partially affected by his wife's miscarriage. - this bears explanation, not a lone sentence hanging at the end of a paragraph.
  • Inconsistent use of serial commas throughout.
  • Kemp led the team to field goals on their first two possessions, but when the Houston Oilers posted a touchdown in the second quarter for a 7–6 lead, the Chargers would never regain the lead. - verb tense switcheroo.
  • In 1961, San Diego Union editor Jack Murphy convinced Barron Hilton to move the Chargers from Los Angeles to San Diego. - is this relevant? Why not just say the team moved to SD?
  • Kemp's 1961 Chargers roommate and Pro Football Hall of Famer, Ron Mix was denied a deferment - either remove this comma or add another to finish setting off the name.
  • He cited lingering effects from a later knee injury as the reason he had to fly first-class at Government expense as the Housing Secretary from 1989 to 1992. - this sentence is either misplaced or needs rewriting to flow from the rest of the paragraph.
  • Kemp won two AFL Western Division championships with the Chargers, but in a rare blunder by head coach Sid Gillman, Kemp was put on waivers to try to "hide" him when he was unable to play due to a broken middle finger after two games in 1962. - 'put on waivers' needs better explanation.
    • I created an article to link it to. Since the term is pretty complicated, the reader should look to the linked term for clarification, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • During his football career at Buffalo, he would become known for his love of reading a broad range of books including those by Henry Thoreau, which led to chidings from Saban. - can't we do better than 'football player actually reads books'?
    • It is actually quite an interesting point that he read intellectual books to the point where his coach derided him for it. It seems quite unusual compared to all the other athlete bios I have read. Do you find it to be a common claim?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1963, a four-season battle for the starting quarterback position began that continued until Lamonica left for the Raiders. - poor grammar.
  • Lamonica felt he "... learned - why start a quote with an ellipsis?
  • rushing TD's - an apostrophe has been harmed in the creation of this plural.
  • Kemp was named as an AFL All-Star for the sixth consecutive year in 1966 (there was no 1960 All-Star game). - if you need parentheses to express something, it probably belongs in a footnote.
  • Kemp was named as an AFL All-Star in 1969 for the seventh of the league's ten years. - for the seventh time in the league's ten years.
  • he was the only AFL quarterback to be listed as a starter all ten years. - clarify what ten years.
  • Despite Kemp's AFL records, Joe Namath and Len Dawson were selected as the quarterbacks for the All-time AFL team. - very POV.
    • Not so sure this was POV, but I rephrased it assuming you were inferring some sense of entitlement that was not conferred.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These issues are just from the first third of the article; I haven't even read past his football career. Maralia (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't read the Dark blue and black entries in the table in Election Results, and it's very hard to read the pink in blue templates down the bottom of the page. Ben (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was using fairly standard election results table colors. Are you saying you want the background colors removed or you can not read the dark blue and black column headings?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is the background colors, I could remove the color or add a symbol.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reading WP:COLOR, I removed all shading in the table. However, I think some of the columns (those titled by party affiliation) could have kept the color and been compliant. If the background color was not the problem let me know because I am thinking I may want to at least partially revert for the party columns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was just the combination of dark blue and black. The two dark colours together made it impossible (for me) to read without highlighting the text in some way. Ben (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure which cells you were talking about because there were no cells with a dark blue background. Which cells were previously hard to read?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The conservative cells were hard to read. I took a screenshot of the page (as it was before the shading was removed) and posted it here. The light blue and pink are fine, just the dark blue cells I couldn't read. Cheers, Ben (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Firefox on Windows Vista, the Conservative colors were not showing. I.e, the text was on a black background. I guess I will leave the thing uncolored because changing the color for conservative would signal another political party to others.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - As an inexperienced reviewer, I edited the last FAC 31 times! Let's hope this one won't be as much work for both of us. It probably won't be anyway, since I have much more on my plate than I did back then. Maralia has given the football career a close review, so I will be skipping to his political career. Here goes...

  • Can an article be created for the AFL Players Association? This is obviously not a criterion, but it's annoying to have one in the lead.
  • Just so reviewers know, the red link in the infobox is unavoidable. I don't believe it is designed for players who competed in the NFL and AFL.
  • Political career: San Diego Union needs italics.
  • "and Ronald Reagan's 1966 successful California Gubernatorial campaign." Flip 1966 and successful.
  • Two Barry Goldwater links in section.
  • Remove comma after John Mackey?
  • Remove the bare 1978 link by his Esquire magazine appearance. The prose there needs work too: "An early-career notable magazine appearances..."
  • "a The Wall Street Journal editorial writer..." I understand you want a non-piped link, but this reads awkward. Consider "an editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal...".
  • In the paragraph on 1980, we have "tax cuts" and "tax-cuts". Not sure the hyphen is correct, although it would be for "tax-cutting".
    • Even tax-cutting is ambiguous. As an adjective it would be correct to say so and so is a tax-cutting liberal, but as a gerundive noun one might say his policy entailed a lot of tax cutting. This is my thoughts, but I may be wrong. I am going to go through the article looking at tax cut and correcting things.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presidential bid: Social Security should be capitalized and linked to the United States program. Right now, the link is to a general term.

I want to come back, but it will take me some time, as I have a large backlog of planned reviews. One more note: Date linking was recently deprecated. Tony1 has been zapping links from all recent FACs that I've seen, so if you want them gone, just wait for him to do the work. If you don't want them removed, you'll need to let him know. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I said some time, I didn't know it would be six days. Sorry about that. Anyway, I'm back now.
  • "In Bare Knuckles and Black Rooms: My Life in American Politics, campaign chairman, Rollins described Kemp..." Two things here: first, is it common to give an ISBN number in the text? Or is this done because the book itself isn't used as the source for this? I also think the comma after chairman should be taken out.
  • Two Pat Robertson links in the section.
  • Cabinet (1989-1993): "encouraged president Bush to endorse Kemp's Economic Empowerment Task Force." I'd think that President would be capitalized here, though "the president" could work as well.
  • "He cited lingering effects from a knee injury as the reason he had to fly first-class at Government expense as the Housing Director." Did he receive criticism for this? It seems implied but is not said explicitly.
  • This citation was the only mention of the fact that I saw. I am writing this totally ex-post. I did not follow Kemp's political career live. He was the congressman for the southern suburbs and I grew up in the north side of town. I just saw the article and felt it looked terrible. I have gone through about five different publications finding attributable claims. I do not know if he was criticized contemporaneously other than the single citation I have here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-HUD years (1993-1996): "and, unlike the most Republicans..." What is the doing in here?
  • Vice Presidential nomination (1996): Has Connie Mack been linked in the article yet? If not, please consider adding one here; I thought about the baseball manager of the same name when I first saw it.
  • "Dole convinced Reagan to support the reforms causing Kemp to summon allies to meetings to stop the act, which eventually passed in 1982." Comma after reforms?
  • "and even the democrats feared Kemp might lure voters." Capitalization.
  • "Kemp was a very positive runningmate... Is runningmate frequently given as one word? I'm not a political junkie, so I could easily be wrong about this, but it doesn't look right to me.
  • Here's something that I'm concerned about from a POV frame of mind: "Somehow, despite Kemp's voice on minority issues, Colin Powell's support and polls that showed about 30% of blacks identified themselves as conservatives..., the Republican's (fix needed) were unable to improve upon historical support levels from African-American voters. Somehow is over the line in my view. Despite would be fine for the beginning of this sentence.
  • Legacy: "Kemp continued to be considered along with Reagan as the politician most responsible for the implementation supply-side tax cuts..." Of missing here.
  • "After retiring from congress and serving in the Cabinet..." Capitalization again. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:58, 12 September 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 19:55, 14 September 2008 [42].

International reaction to 2008 Tibetan unrest edit

Nominator(s): 03md (talk)

No nominator statement. 22:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. This may be better suited for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. --maclean 00:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure where it goes... for FAC, it's not going to pass at all with a lead of that size! Intothewoods29 (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with maclean. This definitely stands a better chance at FLC. If classed as article, the lead is too short. - Mailer Diablo 11:08, 14 September 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 16:39, 14 September 2008 [43].

Maguire v SOCOG 1999 edit

Nominator(s): Semibrevetrouser48white (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has reduced the number of headings, it is referenced and have correct footnotes ... Semibrevetrouser48white (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose - one sentence lead does not meet WP:LEAD, headers do not meet WP:MSH, "categories" are all red links, text is poorly written and does not meet WP:WIAFA criterion 1a, has no image, has very few wikilinks, and is nowhere near even GA class, let alone FA. I note I just peer reviewed this and pointed out many of the same problems. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong opposte the article fails on nearly all points, if not all. With respect, I suggest the author/nominator has a look at some of the featured articles, Flight 93, Don Bradman, Siege of Malakand, to familiarise oneself with featured articles first. I will take a crack at fixing some of the issues to get it in line with WP:MOS to help it on the way to start/B class in the mean time. SGGH speak! 15:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleaned the article up possibly to start class. SGGH speak! 15:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminder please consider the FAC instructions before responding to an untranscluded FAC; the nominator has never edited the article, and this FAC should not have been listed. Because declarations have already been entered, I've had to transclude the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry Sandy, I found this doing Peer Review maintenance (the peer review was not properly archived) and weighed in - never thought to check if it was transcluded. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Poor prose, MoS breaches, poorly formatted citations, Wikilink issues; a lot of work to be done. I suggest the nominator withdraws to work on this article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Was clearly not ready when it came here, for all the reasons given above. Some nice cleanup work has been performed by SGGH, which was a nice gesture. It still needs a lot more editing to have a chance at GA, though, never mind here. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose an interesting topic but nowhere near jimfbleak (talk) 12:01, 14 September 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 22:03, 12 September 2008 [44].

George Washington Memorial Bridge edit

Nominator(s): Cumulus Clouds (talk)


Self nomination after article passed GAN. Archived peer review provided important points, each of which have been met or exceeded. Article posted to WP:LoCE (now GoCE), from which it recieved extensive copyediting by Lukobe and Adacore. After the peer review and GAN, I'm fairly certain this meets or exceeds all requirements of the FAC. I'll await the feedback from the editors here and update the article as necessary. Thank you for your time. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image check, dab check, link checker tool all show no problems. As a side note, IMO The bridge is 2,945 ft (898 m) long, 70 ft (21 m) wide, and 167 ft (51 m) above the water should be in the Design section. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 20:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on comprehensiveness. Nearly half the already short article consists of information on suicide and the story about the bus. Surely there's more information about history, the bridge's location, design, impact on the area, etc. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I'm sorry to say. Apart from the issues raised above on comprehensiveness and balance, there are numerous problems with the prose. Here are a few examples:-

  • The second sentence in the lead is repeated, word for word, as the opening sentence of the next section
  • There is a wholly unexplained reference to a "ship canal" - remember, most of your readers will have no idea of the local geography
  • 8000 should be written as 8,000, "tons" need proper definition and linking
  • Sentences like Construction on the bridge piers began in 1929, with construction of the bridge following shortly afterwards in 1931, with its dedication held on February 1932, George Washington's 200th birthday need rebuilding. Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per Brianboulton; the article made a rather difficult read. The short, choppy paragraphs didn't help. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay - Ealdgyth - Talk 11:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Surely the bridge's location in Seattle should be the first thing mentioned, not an afterthought thrown in after the road names? First sentence of Design (oops) Even I could see that there had to be more about this bridge, and that's from half a world away. jimfbleak (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you all for responding, I've read through your comments and I intend to work on correcting them as soon as possible. I agree that certain things need to be fixed immediately (repeating the bridge stats twice, for instance, was an error I recently inserted that I've wanted to fix). I've become very busy, but I intend to do major work on this article while the nomination is open, so if you could bear with me until tonight (and maybe through to tomorrow night), I'll try to correct the errors here. Thanks again, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:49, 9 September 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 01:15, 11 September 2008 [45].

Tree: A Life Story edit

Nominator(s): maclean


A small article on a small book. It did the DYK and GA processes in July and now I'm nominating this article because it meets all of Wikipedia's guidelines and its Feature Article criteria. maclean 08:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the prose is poor and way below FA standard. Here are some of the many problems I found on my first reading: *Suzuki started to write a draft but a busy schedule interfered so he sought a collaborator to help write. - The last three words are redundant.

  • The tree written about in the book is not the one he encountered at his home, but rather a generic Douglas-fir. - encountered at his home?
  • Prior to these chapters there are sections titled Acknowledgments and Introduction, and afterwards sections titled Selected References and Index - I would prefer before but do you need this much boring detail?
  • The bark of a mature Douglas-fir withstands fire but the heat dries its cones enough that their scales spread and winged seeds are released. After it rains, one seed washes to area open to sunlight, with well-drained soils. How about the heat dries its cones and the scales spread... and why is soil plural?
  • and leave feces with nitrogen-fixing bacterium. - containing nitrogen-fixing bacteria.
  • Through osmosis, water and nutrients enter the root and are transported up to the seed. - Water and nutrients enter the root by osmosis and are transported to the seedling.
  • A symbiotic relationship develops between the roots and the fungus from the truffles: access to a large area of water and nutrients for the tree in exchange for energy, in the form of sugars for the fungus - Truffles are fungi, so what other fungus is symbiotic? The second half of the sentence makes no sense.
  • Hormone is linked twice
  • A branch falls off under the weight of too much snow accumulating on its canopy mat, combined with a number of other stresses like a very long and cold winter with a dry summer, the tree’s immune system is weakened and the resulting wound becomes infected with insects and fungus. - This is a snake and needs chopping up.
  • Needles turn orange as the tree abandons the branch and diverts nutrients elsewhere. I think the tree has no choice since the branch has already fallen off.
  • Parallels to the tree's age are made with historical events, like the tree taking root during the life of 13th century philosopher Roger Bacon Where's the parallel?
  • On best seller lists in the Canadian market, the hardcover peaked at number three in the MacLean's and the National Post's non-fiction lists. There are lots of passive sentences like this one.
  • The biography premise of a tree was well-received. Was the biography or the premise well-received?
  • did find - found.

Graham Colm Talk 09:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for reviewing this. I've made the corrections and continued copyediting. [46] I hope it is getting better. maclean 05:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is much improved, but each time I return to it I find problems. I don't think it's ready for promotion this time. Graham Colm Talk 19:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for sticking around and for the notes you left. From what I'm seeing it appears to be a sentence-by-sentence set of problems, rather than a structural problem, or improper tone, or overall mess. So, I am continuing the search to improve the writing sentence-by-sentence. --maclean 00:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Dark-eyed Junco birds, and other seed-eating animals do you mean Dark-eyed Junco and other seed-eating animals or Dark-eyed Junco and other seed-eating birds and mammals - I'm confused.
  • premièring - seems odd usage applied to a book (in refs)
  • Suzuki references are odd - surely a synopsis by definition applies to the book, and a 70 page range is useless as a reference? I wouldn't ref this section (see To Kill a Mockingbird). If you feel that a ref is necessary, either just one for the book as a whole or reference every sentence of the synopsis - present version is worst choice. jimfbleak (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After it rains, one seed washes to area open to sunlight, with well-drained soils. I know what you mean, but...
  • Where hormones accumulate, buds form which will either become a new shoot of needles or a cone. Buds form where hormones accumulate; these become either new needles or cones.
  • Just too many errors jimfbleak (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your help identifying how the writing can be improved. I've done another pass at copyediting. I trust it is improving. --maclean 05:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reread the lead to see if improved. Not prepared to change yet I'm afraid jimfbleak (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inspiration for a biography of a tree came to Suzuki ... - clunky - Suzuki was inspired...
  • With a research assistant, Suzuki studied the topic and solicited Grady to help write. - Is the research assistant the most important part of this sentence? Also write appears to have no object.
  • Several reviewers found that the language succeeded in using layman terms, but others still found it too technical. Can a language succeed?

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed the cite interview. They should all be citation now. --maclean 05:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concern- If the book consists of only five chapters, why is so much devoted to a plot synopsis? I think this could be far too much. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is 192-pages distilled down to 3 paragraphs. My strategy was to follow the narrative action (the tree's growth/development), avoiding side stories and overly specific descriptions. I don't mind removing specific portions/phrases from the Synopsis which you find detract from the article. --maclean 20:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find counting paragraphs a tad off, because people rely on different sizes. I found that the section has 771 words. That is about 3.5 words per page. It can probably be reduced to around 600 words. Things like "written by Suzuki in June 2004" seem to take away from it as a summary. Also, I have a hard time following what the book actually says, as there isn't a structure that follows the book's structure (that I can see). It would be more appropriate to have 6 paragraphs. One for telling us the make up of the book (i.e. "it has five chapters") and a little on the introduction. Then one paragraph for each chapter. You could merge the first chapter into the introduction possibly. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a good suggestion. I ordered the paragraphs to so that each covers one chapter [47] and shorten it by a couple lines [48]. --maclean 21:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, much better. Now I can get into reading it and trying to understand it. It will take a while, but I don't have any concerns at this time. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:01, 7 September 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 01:15, 11 September 2008 [49].

Sebastian Shaw (actor) edit

Nominator(s): Hunter Kahn (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has gone through the peer review process, I believe it's as thorough as possible and it meets all the criteria. Thanks! Hunter Kahn (talk) 07:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • No fair use rationales on most copyrighted images! Fasach Nua (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jimfbleak An interesting read, but...

  • Shaw died of natural causes at age 89 in 1994. – why is this in the lead? We know the year, can work out the age, but still don’t know what he died of. Might have been appropriate if he’d been murdered. - Jim
    • I dropped the sentence and just briefly mention his death in the next sentence. Better? -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actor Charles Laughton enrolled in the Academy the same time as Shaw; Shaw later said his first impression of Laughton was "a poor fat boy"[3] and said his fellow students initially felt sympathetic toward him, until they were quickly impressed with his talent. – A snake, needs splitting -Jim
  • No, Although Shaw and his fellow students initially felt sympathetic toward Laughton, until they were quickly impressed with his talent - until doesn't make sense, what about ... felt sympathy for Laughton, they were quickly impressed by his talent?. - Jim
  • The interpretation was criticized at the time but, years later, critics would say it became the accepted approach to the character. – woolly, did it become the accepted approach, or did critics say it might?
    • I took this from this statement in the cited Seaton article: "He showed Hal inwardly regretting having to part company with the self-indulgent Falstaff, accepting new responsibilities in kingship at the sacrifice of old pleasures. Today, this is the accepted approach." Do you think it's a fair wording based on that? If not, what would you suggest it read instead? -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still weaselly, what about His interpretation was criticised at the time but, years later, was seen as the standard approach to the character. - Jim
  • Margaret Delamere passed away; - died is the word you’re looking for, this isn't a church magazine -Jim
  • Overlinking - do we really need links for words like diary and married? Please check through - Jim
  • Shaw was painted in the nude by his nephew, Brian Ocean. Nevertheless, ... - Nevertheless, like However is rarely a good idea. Where is the contrast between being painted and getting sick?
  • House of Dreams. I fixed the table error, but that means the role he played needs adding. - Jim
    • I don't have the role for that one, so it'll have to stay blank. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't find it either, is it worth putting unknown in the box, otherwise you'll be asked again? jimfbleak (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maralia I fixed a few typos and simple grammar issues. Some further cleanup needed:

  • Use endashes, rather than hyphens, in date ranges and page ranges.
    • These were just in the first paragraph and in the references, right? Got those... -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There were a couple in the infobox also, but I've just fixed them. Maralia (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking: many simple concepts don't need linking, i.e. marriage, mother, husband, 1980s, television.
  • Poem titles should usually be given in quotes, not italics.
    • Switched. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Better, but the commas need to be moved outside the quote marks now. Maralia (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've crossed this out as completed, but on further reflection I don't think the names of the poems should be listed at all; are they really relevant? Maralia (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, they're original works by Sebastian, I personally think they're worth including. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject should be referred to by his last name; I see quite a few instances of 'Sebastian Shaw'.
  • What is the relation of the listed survivors Susan Bonner-Morgan and Penelope Harness?
  • Apparent contradiction in lead: "Shaw appeared in more than 40 film and television productions, but was mostly known for dozens of stage performances" vs "Shaw is most widely known for his brief, but important performance in Return of the Jedi".
  • EngVar: I would expect to see British English here. I do see 'theatre' but I also see 'colored', 'recognized', 'criticized', and 'utilized'.

Your citations are in excellent shape; kudos for doing them manually. Thanks for an interesting article. Maralia (talk) 02:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concerns 1) Many sections in "Biography" are small, one paragraph or so. Combine into larger sections. 2) Some of the subsections about Return of the Jedi could be given their own section (like the digital touchups of the movie), as they aren't actually "biography". Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 7 September 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 00:46, 9 September 2008 [50].

Sitakunda Upazila edit

Nominator(s): Aditya(talk • contribs)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable. It also has an appropriate lead section, an appropriate structure and consistent citations. There may be minor issues with "engaging, even brilliant" prose, but that, with a little help, can be sorted out easily. I may also add that is already has gone through two exhaustive peer review, and an equally meticulous GA review, on top of long discussions on a few other issues. I am sure the article is ready for this one last hurdle. Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Both images fixed. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the 2nd image (boat on Bay of Bengal) was taken near the St. Martin's Island, which is quite far away from the Sitakunda upazila area. Why is it relevant to this article? --Ragib (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bay of Bengal fishing boat of the generic kind. Using this image here is like putting the picture of a giraffe taken at Uganda put into the story on Tanzania. The giraffe matters, not where the picture was taken. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. OTRS ticket added, it was already there, but in an unorthodox form. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, until my issues and the sourcing problems are addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs):[reply]

  • Consecutive inline citations should be in numerical order.
  • "For much of its history, Sitakunda was ruled alternatively by various Buddhist rulers of Myanmar in the east and Muslims rulers of Bengal in the west." For-->during.
  • Plenty of overlinking.
  • "Sitakunda is renowned for its numerous Islamic, Hindu and Buddhist shrines." Numerous is unhelpful here; might as well get rid of it.
  • "Among its notable temples are the Chandranath Temple (a Shakti Peetha or holy pilgrimage site), Vidarshanaram Vihara (founded by the scholar Prajnalok Mahasthavir), and the Hammadyar Mosque (founded by Sultan Ghiyasuddin Mahmud Shah)." I didn't know that a mosque was a temple.
  • "These pilgrimage sites along with the hill range and the eco-park are the attractions of Sitakunda as a tourist destination." Awkward sentence.
  • "Despite its diverse population, the area has seen communal strife, including attacks on places of worship." The area cannot "see", use a more active verb than that.
  • "There have been reports of activity by the Islamic militant group Jama'atul Mujahideen Bangladesh since the early 2000s." What type of activity?
  • "The first potential for a ship breaking industry appeared in 1964 when Chittagong Steel House started scrapping MD Alpince, a 20,000 metric tons (19,684 long tons) Greek ship that had been accidentally beached near Fouzdarhat by a tidal bore four years earlier." Hyphenate "metric ton" and take away the "s".
  • "Approximately 5 kilometres (3 mi) north of Sitakunda Town is the Labanakhya saltwater hot spring, which has been proposed as a source of geothermal energy." Simpler wording:"approximately"-->about.

I'll try to come back later. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damned be this bugger real life. I've almost out cold last few days, and they call it work. I'd rather call it hell. Pardon, guys. I promise to work on the issues raised here in another day or two. Nothing too difficult there, not till now, at least. I am sure I won't be too late or anything. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status? This FAC has been up for ten days, and has a long list of sourcing issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 8 September 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 15:20, 8 September 2008 [51].

USA PATRIOT Act edit

Nominator(s): Tbsdy lives (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it's probably ready (or fairly close to ready) to FA status.. I wrote it some time ago, back when I was Ta bu shi da yu. As an aside, it actually took me two years to research and write up the article - not that this should influence the FAC nomination :-) Anyway, quite willing to hear the brickbats/bouquets, will try to address problems. However, it's fully cited, as neutral as I could make it, and as useful as possible. I do hope the writing is OK. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. this edit was the original content switch, obviously I made quite a few more revisions till I got to this revision. Then others did more cleanup. I think it's helpful to compare this against the previous version, which was pretty shocking. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • If the nominator, as appears from the above, is uncertain as to whether the article is of FA quality, should it not first have been taken to peer review?
  • Length: the article is an intimidating 12,000+ words of imageless text, with an even more scary infobox. OK, the topic is important, and complex, but does the article really have to be so protracted? If, as should be the case, it is aimed at the general reader, it may miss its target on the grounds of sheer user-unfriendliness.
  • I've picked up a few minor points in the lead - haven't time to press on further at the moment, but perhaps these could be looked at:
    • "e-mail" and "email" used. The latter is preferred, but consistency necessary
    • I find this clause awkward: "searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business...." I think it's the "search" repetition that jars.
    • "sunset" as a verb? I know what sunset provision means (and you have provided a helpful link), but the use of the verb is ugly and jargonistic, as against a slightly longer: "Many of the Act's provisions were to termnate, under sunset provision, from 31 December 2005"
    • 4 years should be four years
    • Is there a reason for the date links? My understanding is that these are generaly deprecated unless there is a specific reason.

I'll try to read more and come up with more comments, even some positive ones, but time prevents at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will definitely take on board your feedback. I am unsure of myself at FAC now due to general nervousness. In relation to taking to peer review, would it not be a good idea to check whether I have done this? Sorry, but a simple look at Wikipedia:Peer review/USA PATRIOT Act would show you this has been done already. Don't get me wrong though, I appreciate the criticism.- Tbsdy lives (talk) 02:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the brief review to which you refer was a year ago nearly, and has two comments: one asking that the article be rewritten in a summary style, and another, generally complimentary, asking that the article be broken up into sub-articles. In the intervening period the article has been reduced from a mind-boggling 19,000 words to its current length, so I would have thought that that factor alone might call for a further review. My reason for suggesting it, however, was your own apparent doubts - or perhaps this was just modesty? - when nominating. I think the amount of work that has been done here is awesome, in the true meaning of that word, but the issues of length and readability remain overwhelming, and need to be addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will do... wasn't modesty that made me feel trepidation but sheer nervousness of submitting to FAC. The peer review didn't really get much feedback to be honest, but it did happen. I will do my very best to fix readibility and length. I actually did a huge amount to get it down - the article was originally I think about 150-200K. It's quite possible readibility was affected because I actually read the entirety of the Act to understand it... and IANAL. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now My first time trying to read it, I felt the same way I did when attempting to do my taxes. Is there anyway we can break up some of these huge chunks of text? Also, the page is way too large and needs to have some more splits. It takes forever to load on dialup, which didn't help the reading process. According to this statistic readout, your article is about 12,000 words, which is way over the limit. Note, this page also froze my comp for 10 minutes while trying to load the tool server because of how much text there is. This is a serious problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other problems - Your external links has far more than external links and this needs to be cleaned up. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me or are people getting pretty personal on FAC now? They aren't "my" external links. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, so basically I'll need to break up the text. Originally this was about 150-200KB, so I actually did my best to get the article size down. The problem is with the explanation of the titles, which a fairly complex and I was trying to make it as clear as possible but have evidently failed. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the text is thick, with long paragraphs, and almost incomprehensible, even to me as a lawyer. It jumps back and forth between the legislative history, the act itself, and the aftereffects and amendments. Many of the sections (see especially Title III) are mere catalogues of act provisions. I'd like to see the proposer consider a major rewrite, and it may not be necessary to list every provision (enhancement of penalties for impersonating a Red Cross worker?) to meet the comprehensiveness requirement, especially in view of the individual articles on several of the titles. I'd also prefer to see the background section exclusively deal with what happened pre-enactment.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm... the background section needs improving. I'm a bit uncerain why penalties for impersonating a Red Cross worker is actually unimportant though... But I definitely need to work on getting the sections on titles in a better state. Btw, IANAL myself. I guess you need to use the acronym IAAL? :-) - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agreed that the text is incomprehensible for me, who knows nothing about law, and the prose is thick and poor. The sections really need to be broken up. I see some contractions, which need to be expanded. There are some run-on sentences, as well. Additionally, there are MOS breaches such as spaced em dashes. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm sad to have to oppose the FA candidature of this important article. My reasons are that it is not written in summary style and it is not encyclopaedic in tone. There is too much esoteric detail and the prose is not engaging. I think readers who find this page by a search on Google's server, or other search engines, will be disappointed with Wikipedia and click on their return icons in the hope of finding something more digestible. So, it does not represent our best work. This is a pity, an editor who is good a precis could have turned this article into a treasure. Graham Colm Talk 21:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, harsh! Ain't nothing compared to what it was like before. But I'll try better. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 02:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think we're being harsh. It is what it is. No one said getting an article to FA was easy.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Look, I'm OK with constructive criticism, but when you say that someone who reads this article will be disappointed with the entirety of Wikipedia then I think that's a little harsh! The article might need improvement, but I don't think the article I largely wrote will cause people to stop visiting the site. Perhaps that's not what you meant to say... Tbsdy lives (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I meant that they would be disappointed on that one occasion. The Wikipedia community has won a lot of respect and that's why we have to maintain our high standards. Please don't shoot the messengers and please don't take any of this personally; we are just being professional. Graham Colm Talk 10:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry if I sound a might defensive, I guess that I was a bit concerned that a few of the comments weren't being constructive and a little over the top. The main issues here are length and readibility, so that's what I'm going to work on. I really do appreciate constructive criticism, though it might not look like it. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • P.S. forgot to note: I'm going to ask Sandy to withdraw the FAC as I take on board your feedback about summary style, though if you look at what I did to condense my existing material, I thought I was doing OK. Clearly needs more improvement. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Respectfully, please be careful in throwing the word "you" around. I do not think my comments were anything other than respectful and constructive. Actually, I think everyone's were. This article has issues, you ran it up the flagpole to see who saluted, and rather got a piano dropped on you. That doesn't mean that people were uncivil. I suggest licking your wounds, getting a solid peer review, and bringing it back at some future date. There is much of merit in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I used the word "you" once, when responding to the direct comments of someone who seemed to be saying to me that I'm stopping people watching the site. Someone oddly, you are now criticising me that I "ran it up the flagpole to see who saluted" but I'm taking it all a little personally. I really feel I need to defend myself a bit here - I worked on this article for 2 years for goodness sake! Please, follow your own advise and assume good faith here. I have already said that I'm withdrawing the FAC because I see the validity of the criticisms. The inference that I seem to have just plonked the article on FAC is somewhat insulting given that this isn't the case. Perhaps if you could please provide some constructive criticism though it would be much appreciated! - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't criticism. I already said in response to your inquiry on my talk page that the article had much a lot of work in it. It wasn't like the Music of Chicago article that had no place on FAC. I think you would have been better advised to see if it qualified as a GA first, but I don't think you were completely out of line by asking for a FAC. As suggested in your discussion on Sandy's talk page, see if you can get people here to contribute to a peer review, and go forward from there.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tbsdy, I'll withdraw the FAC now. Many of the issues should be solvable with more aggressive application of Summary style. Please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the {{fac}} template in place until the bot goes through. I hope to see you back soon ! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 8 September 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 00:25, 8 September 2008 [52].

Omaha, Nebraska edit

Nominator(s): • Freechild'sup?


I'm nominating this article for featured article because several editors have completed the archived peer review and assisted the article in meeting each of the criteria for FA status. • Freechild'sup? 13:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments I should have mentioned these things ages ago, but I held off because I thought they were excessively nit-picky (but if there's a place where that would be appropriate, it's here):
    • References should use citation templates (cite web, cite book, cite news, etc.)
    • I can't distill this down to a concrete suggestion, but whenever I read the this article, I get the feeling that it sometimes misses the forest for the trees; that is, while it has lots and lots of sourced information, some of the information (nearly all of which exists in sub-articles) could be removed and replaced with text that creates a better narrative. If this feeling is restricted to me, then ignore this suggestion; if not, it'll require a stronger copyediting hand than mine. – Swid (talk · edits) 16:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No specific citation method or template is required; WP:WIAFA calls for consistent citations, regardless of method used to generate them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
  • I don't believe that citation templates are necessary in an FA. Consistent citation style is necessary.
  • I scanned through the article and notice entire paragraphs without any citations. This must be amended immediately. --Moni3 (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by D.M.N. (talk · contribs)
    • Several links are dead according to Checklinks tool.
      • Fixed. Only 2 legitmate links to dab pages remain. - Icewedge (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several links go to disambig pages. It'd be better if they went to exact articles to help with accessibility.
    • D.M.N. (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose by Epicadam (talk · contribs)

  • Besides the problems with the references that are invalid (404s and other missing pages), and that some are missing publishing info and access date, what makes the following sources reliable?
  • The prose is just not good in general. There are grammar issues, the text doesn't flow very well, and the body of the article is organized in a haphazard manner. As another reviewer said above, the article is certainly loaded with facts but the article does not, in my opinion, provide a good overall summary of Omaha.
  • Sourcing in areas is quite thin. In some places, including whole paragraphs, assertions and hard facts go without references. This certainly needs to be corrected.
  • Various MoS problems. However, given the more serious overall problems with the article, technical and style problems are the least of this article's concerns.
  • FYI, I understand your concerns about the reliability of several of the citations mentioned above. By way of noting it, Andreas' History... was published in 1882, and is widely respected and cited source material. Additionally, if there are additional concerns beyond these few citations ("more serious overall problems"), could you please be specific? Thanks. • Freechild'sup? 07:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I replaced each of the aforementioned links. • Freechild'sup? 08:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend this article for a more thorough peer review first, followed by a run through WP:GAN, which is a good way to make sure that the article's content is in order and the sources check out. Best, epicAdam(talk) 00:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicadam (talk · contribs): Even though FAC is more of a judgment than a peer review, since the editor has requested more details as to what style and technical problems I have with the article, here are some more overall concerns and my thoughts on the lead:

  • Please check out the guidelines at WP:USCITY to determine the appropriate section order and content for city articles. While following guidelines are not specifically required, those guidelines were developed as a community to make sure that city articles provide readers with as much pertinent information as possible and didn't develop into a dustbin of random facts and trivia. Following the guidelines there will also help cut down on the overuse of section headers and subheadings.
  • Prose should always be favored over lists of information. If the events in the "Major events" section are notable, they should be mentioned and included within a narrative prose.
  • "Metropolitan area" is literally a sentence, map and a table. The information about each individual community should not even be present here since the article is on Omaha itself, not its surrounding area. A sentence about the metro area's population, etc. would be sufficient in the demographics section.
  • Non-breaking spaces are needed between numbers and their units of measurement.
  • Lead issues:
    • There are many citations in the lead. The lead is supposed to be a summary, meaning that while some of information can be cited in the lead, especially if it's controversial, the vast majority of the information should be cited below in the article's actual prose.
    • "The stand-alone city is the nation's 42nd-largest" "stand-alone" means there are no others. Perhaps the word is "independent"? And if so, how is it an independent city if it's a county seat? Do the laws of the county not apply to its county seat?
    • "The city grew along the Missouri River, with the first settlement extending from the Lone Tree Ferry crossing from Kanesville, Iowa in the early 1850s." awkward. There's no context.
    • "Along with transportation and jobbing, early industries that were important to the city through the mid-20th century were its railroads, breweries, stockyards and meatpacking plants." Really poor prose. Better: "Railroads, breweries, stockyards, and meatpacking plants were Omaha's main industries in the mid-20th century." And really, why is this important? The information is provided but it's not clear why it's in the lead...
    • How does the third paragraph summarize the city? Surely the city is more than the corporations that are headquartered there, right? It's essentially just information that belongs in the economy section.
    • Sweeping phrases like "comprise important elements of the cultural background of Omaha", "have been lauded by numerous national newspapers", "music has always been important to the city", and "music scene being historically significant" mean absolutely nothing to the reader. Don't tell us that something is important, demonstrate its importance through examples.

Let me know if/when you take this article to peer review and I'd be happy to go through it more. Best, epicAdam(talk) 15:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Two sections are simply lists; one section is an image; the prose is very far from sparkling or even engaging: "Two native sons who achieved prominence nationally were born in Omaha, with their families moving away shortly thereafter". I hate to sound literary, but there isn't much sense of flow to many sections. I'd like to commend the primary editors of this article on the obvious hard work they've done, but it just isn't far enough along in the development process to be an FA. It will get there at some point if its editors continue seeking outside input/help, but I suspect that time is not now. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 08:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)—A random spot check of the Notable residents section reveals these problems:

  • "Omaha is the historic and modern birthplace and home of notable politicians, actors, musicians, business leaders, sportsmen and cultural leaders."
  • "His son Peter Fonda also briefly lived in Omaha." Peter Fonda should be wikilinked. A rather awkward, stubby, sentence overall.
  • "Mrs. Brando had helped found the playhouse." This idea could be integrated into the sentence before the last.
  • "Tennis player Andy Roddick, former ATP ranking leader, was born in Omaha." a former ATP ranking leader.
  • "Omaha's rich musical history produced legends such as Wynonie Harris, Preston Love, Buddy Miles, Calvin Keys, Eugene McDaniels and others." Did the history actually produce these legends. Who's to say that Omaha's musical history is "rich"?
  • "Warren Buffett, in 2008 the richest man in the world, lives in Omaha where he made his fortune in business." Comma use and awkward phrasing: "in 2008 the richest man in the world"--> the richest man in the world as of 2008.
  • "Two native sons who achieved prominence nationally were born in Omaha, with their families moving away shortly thereafter." Who are these two native sons?
  • "Activist and son of a Baptist minister, Malcolm X, first known as Malcolm Little, was also born here." Switch around phrases here. Do we really need to know that Malcolm X's alternate name?
  • "Academy Award winner Henry Fonda also grew up in Omaha." Also is unnecessary.

I'm sorry, but I can't support or even remain neutral when there are so many problems in a small, 2-paragraph section. Please withdraw this nom and submit for a peer review, find people to copyedit the article, and then submit it to GAN before coming here. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:37, 6 September 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 19:08, 7 September 2008 [53].

Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal edit

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it gives the reader an excellent impression of the history, planning, construction, use, demise and restoration of the canal. I have used authoritative sources both in print and online format, and have tried to be as balanced and informative as I possibly can be, without going into too much detail. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I asked these at the PR, and I'll ask again, what makes these sources reliable?
    - I answered at the PR but I understand you may not have watched the page so will answer here
    • http://www.mbbcanal.demon.co.uk/
      - a fairly old site and not updated recently but I've used it mostly to illustrate with images - I have emailed the owner for OTRS permission for the canal map image (I did have an email from him giving permission but not with the OTRS system), but he hasn't replied for over a week. I have a feeling I may have to remove some of the references to this site that do not involve images
      - All references to this website have now been either replaced, or removed. I have put a link to this website in the external links section as it provides interesting images both old and new of the condition of the canal Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.jim-shead.com/waterways/index.php (self-published site)
      - have emailed and requested sources, but most of the information on there is supported by other searches and research I have done in the library
      - further to this, Jim Shead has replied, telling me that most of the information is from "The Canals of North West England" by Hadfield and Biddle. If referencing using the Jim Shead site is unacceptable, I will replace those references with ones directly from the book. Do let me know as I will have to buy the book to do this, unless a local library has a copy. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have now replaced all Jim Shead references with references from the afore-mentioned book. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk/index.htm (self-published site)
      - updated regularly with news and information which supports information I get directly from being a member of the MBB canal society, but I have emailed him for his sources
      - The site is run by Mike Clarke, who has written several books including this one on Amazon. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this this search on Amazon shows a wide variety of works published by Mike Clarke, all dealing with the Liverpool canal. I think it's pretty safe to consider him an expert. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guilty of brain-fade here, Martin Clarke runs the site above, not Mike Clarke. I've unscored this line and will replace the relevant references. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, all references replaced. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. My father was a railfan (in the US, though) so I sympathize. Most of the good sources in rails are self-published so they are hard to prove. Perhaps something showing that this magazine is used in other printed works? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all I can suggest is that this source corroborates much of the other research I have done, and has even led me in new directions to search, enabling me to add more history - from other sources. I haven't seen anything hugely wrong with any of the information I've read on there. I think its a fairly trustworthy source. I haven't been able to find anything that refers to it though. I'm quite happy to rely on it as a trustworthy source of information. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and struck this, as it is a published source, and most railfan mags are painstakingly accurate. (I say this as a child of a railfan. Reading a railroad history can at times resemble watching paint dry...) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not used as a source, you need to list it in the external links, etc. Also be double sure you're not linking to copyright violations. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed references and put link in external links section. The images on the page linked are taken by the website author on their bike rides, so no copyright violations there. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Not sure on this one, honestly. Do we use pictures on personal web site to prove that a group worked on something? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have my own set of pictures as proof - I am a member of the canal society. The pics are here, in my Flickr profile. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To further clarify about sources, 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. -
  • Current ref 18 (Corbett, John) needs a page number.
    - I don't recall inserting that reference so I will check the article history and contact the person who did
    - Hmm, turns out it was me. Leave it with me.... Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for the reply, responses above in italics Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness, I've tried to correct the threading, I hope I got it right, pls review the WP:FAC instructions and WP:TALK regarding threading on talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

image comment - Excellent job on the photos especially the OTRS ones from the 1960s and 1930s Fasach Nua (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Image:MBB canal map.gif - I don't see indication of the asserted author (Alan Taylor) or license (CC-by-SA 3.0) at the source provided. Uploader (Tom Jeffs) is not the same as the author. How can we confirm Taylor is indeed the author and has licensed this as CC-by-SA 3.0? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - One of the users on Wikiproject Greater Manchester will shortly replace this image Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This map has now been replaced with my own creation Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I handled the GA nomination for this article not very long ago, but i think the article is comprehensive and well-presented. Good luck, POD. --Lord₪Sunday 22:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the lead and infobox only:

  • I don't understand why the infobox says its maximum length is 70 ft and the lead says its 15 miles and 1 furlong long. A metric equivalent should be given for the latter.
    - Maximum length of vessel - directly underneath this is maximum beam. Perhaps I should try and wikilink those entries in the infobox, to explain the terms? I have inserted a convert template to correct the canal length, thanks Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have raised the question of the wikilinking the nautical terms in the infobox, on the infobox discussion page. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Further to this, the creator of the infobox template has modified some of the terms to make them more understandable. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why there are three closure dates.
    - Closed in phases, as discussed in the article. Too much information to list in the infobox alone. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its entrance was from the River Irwell in Salford" and "the collieries aside it" both sound strange to me. The first makes it sound like a tunnel with one way in, and the second is too formal and archaic.
    - It isn't the way I read it, but I'm quite happy for people to suggest an alternative wording if it is confusing. Most canals are connected to other waterways. To enter the canal, one would sail up the Irwell and lock up into the canal. There are no other ways onto the canal for reasons that are hinted at in the lead. I don't see what is archaic about stating 'colleries aside it' - most collieries in the area were aside the canal, that's why it was built, and they're the primary reason for damage and eventual closure Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Paragraph since edited by User:Richerman Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The summit level between Bolton and Bury was on a single level and required no locks." Repetition of "level".
    - Good spot, I have changed to 'Between Bolton and Bury the canal was on...' Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Six aqueducts were built to allow the canal to cross the rivers Irwell and Croal, as well as two minor roads." Not immediately apparent why 6 aqueducts are required to cross 4 features.
    - Rivers meander in their course. The map shows this. I see your point but I think to explain in the lead why 6 aqueducts were built to cross 4 features is too much - hence, this information is in the body of the article. Would it read better as 'six aqueducts were built...multiple crossings of the rivers... perhaps? Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have modified the text around the aqueducts both in the lead and in design sections, as it was a little ambiguous. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1791 by local landowners and businessmen and built between 1791 and 1808, during Golden Age of canal building, and cost..." too many "ands"; missing "the". DrKiernan (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Another good spot, changed to "1808, during the Golden age of canal building, at a cost of £127,000 Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the lead is much clearer to me now.

  • I love most of the images; the photographs are very evocative and the maps are extremely clear and well-done. It's a shame the Manual of Style for images has shrunk one of them to a size where it cannot be seen. However, there's a problem with Image:Lon-Brum-Centenary.jpg. We need to either wait for the deletion discussion to close, or the licensing to change before promotion. Alternatively, you could remove the image and then put it back once or if the discussion over it has come to an acceptable conclusion.
    - It should be possible to use one of the Bury Bar Frame locomotive images, as at least 4 of the locomotives used were of the Bury Type (as per reference in the article (steamindex - search for bolton). I'd prefer to use the present image if possible as its more evocative of the era. I'm hoping someone will create a Manchester and Bolton Railway article at some point, so this can be filled out. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be illuminating to illustrate the three-hour packet ride with a comparison with the modern-day journey time, and possibly modern equivalents for some of the sums of money involved (say the total cost and the share price). There's a template for this: {{inflation}}. "Current status" should be renamed "Status as of 2008".
    - I'll try and find some information on the journey times by rail, when the new railway opened. Stagecoach - I really have no idea about that, I'd be guessing there, perhaps theres a Wikihistory project that might know more. A journey time by modern day standards would be very easy. Oddly enough, by my estimate walking from Bolton to Manchester shouldn't take more than 3-4 hours. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There ought to be a cite at the end of the quote from Alexander Nimmo, and there's a hidden comment asking for a reference for the moving of locks 4 and 5 in Salford. A couple of other hidden comments also need addressing at some point, either now or afterwards, for complete peace of mind. DrKiernan (talk) 10:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nimmo quote referenced, locks 4&5 I think is in a society newsletter so I'll look for that. Some of the hidden comments are for future editors - for instance, "Thomas Lyon" seems to be related to the sugar family in Warrington, but without conclusive evidence I'll not say - so I've left some comments in there just in case anyone stumbles across something that could be used to wikilink in future. I am waiting for the library to respond to an email I sent them for the Corbett reference above, I'll give them a few more days and then go there myself, at which time I'll sort out the Tomlinson hidden message that's still in there. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:27, 5 September 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 18:45, 7 September 2008 [54].

Music of Chicago edit

Nominator(s): Mertozoro (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because, I have noticed after editing this article majorly over the last few months, that it is becoming a good piece of work, and may be a good featured article. The topic is good, the quality is good! Please leave your messages here. Or talk to me at my user talk page. Mertozoro (talk) 04:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Yes, yes this article is not yet ready to be a FA. Needs way more quality, and info. Im sorry, I thought wrong.Mertozoro (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you withdraw the nomination and after some more work go for GA and bring it back here following a peer-review. There's no shame in this, I made a premature nomination once. Graham Colm Talk 17:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose youre right, I will withdraw, and try again some other time.Mertozoro (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose. Where are the footnotes?--Andrea 93 (msg) 06:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. I note that nominator assessed this article as A class at his own ititiative, before it was re-assessed C, which is generous.--Grahame (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's a start class article, little more than a list. The article needs more depth, more history, more analysis, and obviously many more citations. Graham Colm Talk 12:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, nowhere near ready, I'm afraid jimfbleak (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Pile-on at this point for all the reasons mentioned above. Snowball? Madcoverboy (talk) 14:57, 7 September 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 13:43, 7 September 2008 [55].

Cold War edit

Nominator(s): Eurocopter (talk)
previous FAC (02:05, 9 July 2008)


This article has failed an FAC two months ago mainly due to its bad prose and few POV problems. However, major changes have been done since then, and I expect a successfull FAC for this top-importance article rated nr. 10 on WP:MHSP. I'm ready to deal with any remaining issues this article would face. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator requested withdrawal here. Maralia (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose I'm rather surprised to see this FAC, one day after I posted a number of concerns on the discussion page (as part of a copyedit) which have not been commented on or addressed. I have problems regarding style, POV and consistency with the linked articles. Dhatfield (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologise, I didn't notice your issues on talk page. However, they have been adressed and hopefully resolved. --Eurocopter (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recused I feel I can't vote when I am involved in a copyedit. Please take a look at my proposal for the End of the Cold War section on the discussion page - I put it there because some authors dislike edits during review. Dhatfield (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please take a look at the proposed "Second Cold War" (1979–85) copyedit. Dhatfield (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is such an important article it has to be held up to the highest standard. I believe it still needs work. Dhatfield (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under review, Dhatfield (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a result, I'm afraid I cannot support it in it's current form. The primary problem is POV - US POV. This has been raised in past FACs and has not been recified. Facts have been selected to conform the traditional US/Western view of the Cold War, while overlooking embarrassing facts, or those that the authors consider 'unimportant'. A few examples:

  • The US funding of mujhadeen in Afghanistan is not mentioned at all. This is a classic example of Cold War conflict between the superpowers, but it's just ignored. Could that be because it's embarrassing to the US authors?
  • I apologise, it is mentioned in the second paragraph on the war with the sentence "Although Brezhnev was convinced in 1979 that the Soviet war in Afghanistan would be brief, Muslim guerrillas, aided by many countries (especially the US), waged a fierce resistance against the invasion.", sandwiched between Brezhnev, many other coutries, and fierce resistance. No mentioned of Carter and the CIA's involvement, just tucked away rather neatly. Dhatfield (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, the US involvement in Iran is swept under the carpet with the statement that it was "mired in controversy", but no details are given. Meantime, the Soviet failure in Afghanistan gets two paragraphs of detailed coverage. That's bias.
  • The coverage of Able Archer 83 in this article factually contradicts that featured article, again relying on the wisdom of Gaddis, instead of seeking a balanced perspective.
  • The importance of the Solidarity (trade union) is downplayed. Are the US authors trying to create the perception that the West won the war all on their own? This has been raised in past FACs, but not addressed.
  • There is very little to no reporting of Soviet views and perspectives on the Cold War. This has also been noted in past reviews, but not corrected.
  • After Chernenko's death, Reagan was asked why he had not negotiated with Soviet leaders. Reagan quipped, "They keep dying on me".[145] This joke was in poor taste when Reagan said it, and demonstrates nothing more than his contempt for the Soviet leaders. Why select this fact over so many others that could be included: it's offensive and irrelevant.
  • This is by no means an exhaustive list of problems with the article. This is the list of problems in one section. Selective reporting of facts constitutes bias.
  • Since my proposed edits to address these factual weaknesses were rejected on (in my opinion) fairly spurious grounds, I can only conclude that the author(s) intend to retain the pro-US bias. Let's not make the mistake of history being written by the victors. Dhatfield (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article falls within the scope of four Wikiprojects. The other three all rate this article as B-class. To promote to FA would clearly violate consensus. All future FACs should link to the most recent review within all projects. Dhatfield (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose The article hasn't covered all of the related issues such as The Azerbaijan Crisis of 1946. --Seyyed(t-c) 01:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Objection - How did The Azerbaijan Crisis of 1946 influenece/changed the course of the Cold War, and what makes it so important that would worth mentioning in this article? --Eurocopter (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There isn't an internal wikilink to this Crisis? Must not be notable. Hires an editor (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please pay attention to the cold war template. This is the interlink. You can also find more in Azerbaijan People's Government and Republic of Mahabad.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, if we would mention all the things from the Cold War template we'd probably have the longest article on wiki. That's why we mention only the important events, which effectively influenced/changed the course of the Cold War. Sincerely, the Azerbaijan crisis of 1946 would better fit in the Origins of the Cold War article. --Eurocopter (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per [56], Fasach Nua (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
    • Done - only two images remained and were removed now. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • All images are PD, and licencing is consitant with criteria 3 of the FA standard Fasach Nua (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay, links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Going outside my comfort zone with this one. I'm not a military editor, so keep that in mind if some requests seem strange.

  • World War II and Post-War: Is there a reason that Post-War is capitalized?
  • Winston Churchill is linked twice. Of all people, he doesn't need an extra link.
  • "Containment" through the Korean War: Harry Truman was linked in the last section.
  • A rare photo comment from me: The second paragraph of this section is being sandwiched by pictures on both sides. This needs fixing, while avoiding any further sandwiching elsewhere.
  • "The Berlin Blockade ended peacefully, with Stalin backing down, and allowing the resumption of normal shipments to West Berlin." I'm pretty sure the second comma should be removed.
  • Watch for overlinking of some satellite nations. The linking in general could use an inspection for duplicates/unneeded links.
  • Asia: "In the early 1950s, The US..." Watch the capitalization.
  • Crisis and escalation: I see both defense and defence. Either American or British English should be used, not both.
  • Why is the builiding of the Berlin Wall mentioned twice in this section? The second location is the appropriate location, in my opinion. It fits better there than after the Soviets' 1956 invasion of Hungary.
  • Oust is linked to Nikita Khrushchev. What is the purpose of this? Also, his name is misspelled later in the same paragraph.

Overall, I think it's quite an interesting read. I want to come back for another reading later, but I'm about to run into a heavy workload here. Please forgive me if it takes a few days. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done, with the exception of the last point (oust links to the section "ouster", within the Nikita Khrushchev article). --Eurocopter (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comprehensive, factual and fair. What more could we ask for? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:26, 5 September 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 22:29, 6 September 2008 [57].

AMX-30E edit

Nominator(s): JonCatalán (talk)


I started this article only a little while ago, and it recently passed an A-class review. As always, it probably needs the prose to be edited, but I will always be able to quickly make the necessary changes (although, I think the quality of my writing has improved since my first FAC). Otherwise, I believe it easily meets the requirements for FA. JonCatalán (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)-Hello again. You seem to be churning out one excellent tank article after another. Here are my comments on this one:

  • "...total production within Spain amounted to as much as 65%." 65% of what?
  • "Spain's AMX-30Es went through two separate upgrades in the late 1980s, including a modernization program and a reconstruction program, each done to one half of the fleet." Including is unnecessary here.
  • "In 1985 Indonesia expressed interest in the AMX-30E, while in 2004 the Spanish and Colombian governments were discussing the possible sale of around 40 AMX-30EM2s." Keep the tenses consistent:"In 1985 Indonesia expressed interest in the AMX-30E; in 2004 the Spanish and Colombian governments discussed the possible sale of around 40 AMX-30EM2s."
  • "Ultimately, both of these possible trade deals fell through." Ultimately should be however, "of these possible" is redundant.
  • "The M47 was first supplied to the Spanish army in the mid-1950s,[2] offering an improvement over the existing fleet of Panzer I, T-26 and Panzer IV tanks." Slightly awkward wording, I believe "offering an improvement over"-->"to replace" (delete the comma before if you make the change).
  • I changed the hyphens to en dashes in the year ranges in the infobox—that was a problem in your last FAC too.
  • A general issue of the article is the inconsistency of spelling. Are you using British English, American English, or something else (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)?
  • "However, the Leopard boasted of greater armor protection than the AMX-30,[10] partially accounting for the weight difference between the two tanks. However, the French AMX-30 was being sold at a cheaper price tag than the German Leopard 1." Let's combine these sentences to add flow: "Although the Leopard boasted greater armor than the AMX-30—partially accounting for the weight difference between the two tanks—the latter was sold at a cheaper price." Dabomb87 (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Furthermore, in terms of lethality, at the time the French Obus G high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) round was one of the most advanced projectiles." Move "at the time" to the end of the sentence.
  • "However, the Leopard was armed with the L7A3, capable of penetrating the frontal armor of the Soviet T-55 tank." I'm not sure that "however" is the correct contrasting term; try "on the other hand".
  • "Whatever the advantages or disadvantages of either vehicle" Ambiguous statement that doesn't need to be there.
  • "The UK's unwillingness to sell their L7 tank-gun, the low cost of the AMX-30, and the French offer to allow Spain to manufacture the tank, had decisively inclined the Spanish Army towards the French armored vehicle." "had decisively inclined the Spanish Army towards the French armored vehicle"-->"led the Spanish Army to favor the French armored vehicle".

I'll review the 2nd half of the article tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all the changes done except a couple. Namely, I'll need to look through to change British spelling to American where I can find the former. And second, the idea behind the sentence, "Whatever the advantages or disadvantages of either vehicle", was to avoid possible arguments in the talk thread on which tank was better and so although the article does state some differences and whatnot, that sentence was supposed to give the impression that for whatever reasons Spain chose the AMX-30E. But, I'll remove it if it didn't serve its purpose. Thanks again! JonCatalán (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I found a solution to fix that phrase: diff—how do you like it? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the other "20" were in fact the 19 to be delivered to the Spanish Legion". I read this several times, and I still don't understand how 20 became 19.
  • "This agreement also set the foundations for the upcoming tank plant at the industrial polygon of Las Canteras, off the town of Alcalá de Guadaíra." Wording is a bit off—how about: "This agreement laid the foundation for the upcoming tank plant at the industrial polygon of Las Canteras, off the town of Alcalá."
  • "The first 20 tanks were to have 18% of each vehicle manufactured in Spain, while the next 40 would have 40% of the vehicle manufactured in Spain." Comma needs to be a semicolon, delete "while".
  • "The other 120 tanks had a grade of nationalization of 65%." "grade of nationalization"-->nationalization grade.
  • "This allowed minor modifications to be done to the vehicle without having to go through GIAT, while also meaning that the degree of nationalization of each vehicle augmented considerably. Production of the second batch lasted between 1979 and 1983." How about: "This allowed the vehicle to be modified slightly without GIAT intervention, and also meant that the degree of nationalization of the tanks could be augmented considerably."
  • "By the time production ended the Spanish Army fielded 299 AMX-30Es (280 produced between 1974 and 1983, and 19 delivered from France in 1970) and 4 training vehicles delivered in 1975." Comma after "ended".
  • "The average cost per tank, in the first batch, amounted to 642,800 dollars (45 million pesetas)." Amounted to-->was.
  • "Otherwise, options included swapping the existing power pack for a new American diesel engine and a new American transmission or exchanging the power pack for a new German diesel engine and a new German transmission." Otherwise-->other, comma should be deleted.
  • I see spaced em dashes, unspace them.
  • "Ultimately a mixed solution was picked, named Tecnología Santa Bárbara-Bazán (Santa Bárbara-Bazán Technology), or TSB." Comma after "ultimately".
  • "This new engine gave modernized tank a power ratio of 23 metric horsepower to tonne (21.13 hp/S/T). Mobility was further improved by the use of the AMX-30B2's improved suspension, which used larger diameter torsion-bars and new shocks." "This new engine gave the modernized tank", yes?
  • MOS fixes needed:when units are written out as compound adjectives, there needs to be a hyphen between the number and the unit (12.7-millimeter gun). Also, the converted units need to have non-breaking spaces in between the number and the abbreviation (0.5 in.).
  • "The gun's accuracy was augmented through the installation of the new Mark 9 modification A/D fire control system, designed by Hughes Aircraft Company." The word "augmented was used the sentence before, how about "improved"?
  • "A new ballistic computer was also issued, being the NSC-800, as well as a new digital panel for the gunner, designed and manufactured by the Spanish company INISEL." Sentence needs a rewrite: "A new ballistic computer, the NSC-800, was issued, as well as a new digital panel for the gunner, designed and manafactured b the Spanish company INISEL."
  • "The tank commander also received a control unit, allowing him to choose the type of ammunition to be loaded into the gun and gave him information on the ballistics of the round and the target about to be engaged." This too, needs a facelift for clarity and gender-neutral language: "The tank commander also received a control unit that allowed the choice of ammunition for the gun and provided information on the ballistics of the round and the target to be engaged."
  • "Increases in survivability came through the addition of new steel side-skirts, a new smoke generating system linked to the engine and a new fire suppression system." Here's a clearer sentence:"Safety improvements included the addition of new steel side-skirts, a new smoke generating system linked to the engine and a new fire suppression system."
  • "Ultimately, Spain's AMX-30EM2s were replaced by brand-new Centauro anti-tank vehicles, although partially manufactured in Spain, in the early 21st century." although-->which were.
  • "The other 149 AMX-30Es went through a reconstruction, focusing majorly on the improvement of the tank's mobility." How about, "The other 149 AMX-30Es were reconstructed to improve their mobility."
  • "The reconstruction consisted on the replacement of the original French transmission with the American Allison CD-850-6A." on-->of.
  • "Amongst the possible armaments for sale, Indonesia expressed interest in the procurement of the AMX-30." "Amongst"-->Of.
  • "Although this deal fell through, in 2004 the Spanish and Colombian governments came to an agreement for the sale of between 33 and 46 second-hand AMX-30EM2s, which had recently been replaced in the Spanish Army." came to an agreement-->agreed on.

Lots of work to do on the prose. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on everything, although in some cases I tried something different. For the first point, the 20 to be produced in France were the 19 delivered to the Spanish Legion (so, the order was ultimately for 199 not 200) - I tried to change the wording to reflect this.
"This allowed minor modifications to be done to the vehicle without having to go through GIAT, while also meaning that the degree of nationalization of each vehicle augmented considerably. Production of the second batch lasted between 1979 and 1983." How about: "This allowed the vehicle to be modified slightly without GIAT intervention, and also meant that the degree of nationalization of the tanks could be augmented considerably." -> I changed it to - This allowed minor modifications to be done to the vehicle without having to go through GIAT. It also meant that the degree of nationalization of each vehicle augmented considerably.
In the sentence about survivability, I kept survivability as safety and survivability are not the same thing when talking about tanks. Otherwise everything should be changed! In regards to British spelling, I believe the only thing I saw spelled in the British manner was Labour, since it's referring to the Labour Party - should I change it to Labor? JonCatalán (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, you got almost everything! I fixed some things that you missed. As for the English consistency check and the MOS issues, I'll check that over tomorrow, and also review the content and non-prose things. Regarding your question—no, keep the "u" in Labour Party, don't change that. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In case it was missed, I changed "...total production within Spain amounted to as much as 65%" to "...total production within Spain amounted to as much as 65% of the tank." Could you point out some examples regarding British spelling? I'm obviously inept at picking those words out! I also put hyphens between numbers and compound words. JonCatalán (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the one instance of British English that I saw (Americans don't hyphenate coordination). All em dashes were unspaced, and the nbsp's and the hyphens were also fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took out "could be" from "It also meant that the degree of nationalization of each vehicle augmented considerably." I didn't want the sentence to imply that it could have been augmented, or it was slowly augmented, just that nationalization of production of the vehicle did increase. I hope that's OK. JonCatalán (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I put that in without thinking. No problem. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment - few little typos:

  • reponsible
  • effecting > affecting
  • options includes
  • and ended in on 25 June
  • steel side skirts > steel side-skirts?
--ROGER DAVIES talk 04:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In regards to "reponsible", I should start to pay more attention to my spell check! A question about "effect" and "affect". The word was changed to "affected" before, but I looked up affect and Wikipedia says - "The term Affect generally suggests an emotion." Is affect the correct term in this instance? But, everything else should be changed!. JonCatalán (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good. Links checked with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the non-English sources. (Someday, someone will use a medieval latin source and I'll be forced to actually try to remember my "second language"... I live in dread of that day...) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Some things I noticed at a glance:
  • Maybe stub that redlink in the lead?
  • Although the Leopard boasted greater armor than the AMX-30[10] — partially accounting for the weight difference between the two tanks — the latter was sold at a cheaper price. Unspace the em dashes.
  • France's GIAT also offered to modernize Spain's AMX-30Es to AMX-30B2 standards — this modernization was also being applied to French AMX-30s. Ditto.
  • In the second image caption, "Zoom-in" → "close-up".
  • Mobility was further improved by the use of the AMX-30B2's improved suspension, which used larger diameter torsion-bars and new shocks. Needs a source.
  • However, the deal was canceled after José María Aznar was replaced by José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero as president of Spain — to seal the decision, the new Spanish government declared that Spain didn't even have enough AMX-30EM2s in working conditions to sell to Colombia. Another spaced em dash.
  • Images look good. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't know about the em dash had to be unspaced. Everything else should be resolved. JonCatalán (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, nice article but I was left wondering, was the tank ever used in an actual battle? maclean 19:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to my knowledge. Although it was deployed to the Spanish Sahara, this province was abandoned some time after the unit was disbanded. JonCatalán (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this is something worth mentioning in the article. --maclean 03:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article does mention that the unit was disbanded in 1975 - although, it doesn't mention that this was before the withdrawal from the province (they aren't really related - it was just chance that it happened like this, although it might have been because the government saw no reason to deploy tanks with the legion in North Africa. But, this isn't supported by any of my sources). I believe that part of Spain's Brunete armored division was deployed to the Spanish Sahara during the Green March (with M47s and M48s), but none of these saw combat either. JonCatalán (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the part about the tanks never being used in combat. Except the 4 training tanks, they were designed for combat situations, right? It seems relevant to me that they were never used in situations for which they were designed. --maclean 07:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be inferred by the lack of mention of their combat record? I could add a sentence which mentioned that, but I'm not sure where. JonCatalán (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images - Images have correct licenses, good descriptions, and sources. You might think about alternating the images so that they are not all on the right-hand side of the article, as suggested by MOS:IMAGES. Awadewit (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll play around with them. Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, I think. Awadewit (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Tankety-tank-tank
    • The infobox gives its operating years as 1970–2002, but according to content later on it wasn't designed until 1974. ?? Perhaps it should be clarified in the infobox what this means (I see there is something of an explanation in the lead.)
    • The last paragraph of the lead needs beefing up (as in the article should have a three-paragraph lead), but I'm unsure if the content currently there merits mention as an overall summary of the article.
    • "...Simultaneously, Spain was testing the French AMX-30 between 2 and 10 June 1964.[5]" Woah now, we were talking about how the Spanish wanted a German tank, and the difficulties in exporting then, and then all of a sudden we're going French? Make its own paragraph or move to the one below, and add some transition.
    • "...However, it was not the advantages of the French vehicle itself that influenced the decision. Rather, it was" sounds like beating around the bush. Why not say "The decision was motivated by X and Y rather than the French vehicle's advantages" or something like that.
    • Any external links to find more info?
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some responses -
  1. Well, the text explains that in 1970 Spain received 19 tanks from France, while indigenous production did not begin until 1974. So the tank entered service in 1970, although it was not produced in vigor until 1974.
  2. The problem is that there's not much to expand the lead with. It should be noted that there have been articles to get through FAC with a two paragraph lead. I don't believe that the three paragraph lead suggestion is an actual rule - just something to base standards off.
  3. I broke part of that paragraph into a separate paragraph, and the lead sentence is now - In the early 1960s Spain looked towards its European neighbors for a new tank.
  4. Because it's a way of justifying the comparison between tanks to add some information on why Spain would have opted for one or the other, without actually agreeing that the AMX-30 was superior to the Leopard 1 in some ways (because then we'd get a round of edit wars on why the Leopard 1 was a better tank).
  5. Unfortunately no, and I have never been a fan of external links since they are unreliable sources.
Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It should be noted that the E in the tank's name stands for España (Spanish for Spain). The same should be done with the Leopard 2E article. Mieciu K (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, will do. JonCatalán (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what referencing formatting style allows you to have sources in the notes that are never fully amplified? E.G., what does "Rudnick, Atlantic Relations" mean? Please check the entire notes section for all such omissions. I suspect they should be fully listed in the References section. If so, then double-check to make sure everything in the Notes section appears in the References.
  • Comment: wikilinking "future tank to Lince (tank) = "easter egg" link.
  • Comment I'm seeing lots of informal/unencyclopedic language: "stands for", "looked to" etc etc. I may be able to make a full listing later, but primary editors could start working on this now...
  • Comment prose needs work, e.g. "It also meant that the degree of nationalization of each vehicle augmented considerably." deserves a {{huh}}, or at least some grammatical improvements.
  • Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 06:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at least for now. The notes/references sections need a burst of gnome work. More significantly, the prose needs some serious copy editing/buffing. Take for example the paragraph beginning "In May 1970 the Spanish...". The sentence beginning "This unit..." is separated by two sentences from the referent Bakali company. I'm not sure those intervening sentences are relevant anyhow; does it really matter how the tank was transported? Two sentences begin with repetitive structure, "However," then "Rather,". The second sentence has a decidedly snake-like appearance and an extraneous comma. Shouldn't the sentence beginning "The first contract with GIAT, in 1970.." logically be placed before the however/rather sentences? GIAT and 1970 in that sentence both seem redundant, given the opening sentence of the paragraph. Ummm, actually, couldn't you just merge the "first contract" sentence into the opening sentence of the paragraph? It seems to me that too much of the prose could easily be rewritten for clarity, meaning and flow. Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 08:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant oppose for now

  • (E stands for España, Spanish for Spain) - is this more important than was a main battle tank, based on the French AMX-30, manufactured by Santa Bárbara Sistemas for the Spanish Army.? odd to deal with the trivia before the definition.
  • Although the first AMX-30 tanks were acquired from France in 1970, production in Spain commenced in 1974 and ended in 1983. - Why although?
  • The AMX-30E was the first mass produced tank in Spain and developed Spain's industry to the point where the government felt comfortable opening bidding for a future tank in 1985, and offered Santa Bárbara Sistemas the experience which led to the production of the Leopard 2E in late 2003. - a snake methinks
  • Total production within Spain amounted to as much as 65% of the tank. - means presumably 65% of the tank was manufactured in Spain
  • However, the United States' ban- however is rarely necessary
  • were developed simultaneously, and sprung from the same common project - sprang?
  • 400 millimeters (15.75 in.) - is it really accurate to 0.01 in? 16 in is near enough/
  • The first 30 engines were to have 50% of the engine manufactured in Spain; the rest were to be 73% nationalized. - nationalize means owned by the state, I don't think that's what you intend to say.

Just too many errors to support at present jimfbleak (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There's too much redundancy, based on the fact that = because, In regards to improvement to the tank's firepower = To improve the tank's firepower. There are other snakes and odd expressions like to study a possible solution, and we have usage and too many alsos. This interesting article needs a good copy edit, it's close to FA but it is not ready to be featured yet. Sorry. Graham Colm Talk 17:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • WP:OVERLINKING on Spain, Germany, American
  • measurements should ideally be in British English, (so millimetre, not millimeter)
  • Article is about a Spanish subject, so, IMO, the cost of the tanks should be in pesetas first with US$ in parentheses. I don't think it matters they were purchased from the US.
  • Looks a little odd to see US spellings in a European article, but oh well.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:48, 5 September 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 04:18, 5 September 2008 [58].

9.0: Live edit

Nominator(s): Gary King (talk), Rezter, Blackngold29


This is a live album by Slipknot. It is short but sweet, and is comprehensive. Gary King (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • "The album was recorded from 2004 to 2005" - is that really the best way to phrase it? Passive voice and very strange wording...
  • "The album... The album... The album... zzzzz..." - in more than one place.
  • "While touring in 2004, the band recorded live shows with the intent of creating a live album and to help keep their performance at a high level for the album." - I've read this five times and I still don't understand what it means.
  • "year-long" - methinks that should be "yearlong".
  • I'm uncertain about the structure of the article. The "Recording and production" has information about the content of the album, which might be better split off into another section.

Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done. As for splitting up the section, if a new one was created, it would be pretty small. The information does somewhat tie in to the creation/production of the album so it does somewhat belong there. Gary King (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - personally, I don't think it would be too short, and still think it should be a separate section, but that's nothing major. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments

  • I know the article is short, but I always like to see a two paragraph lead at the minimum.
  • The album also includes tracks which are rarely played live, as well as the first ever live performance of the song "Skin Ticket". 9.0: Live peaked in the top twenty in album sales in Australia and the United States and was certified Gold in the United States. Link Australia and United States.
  • Is it standard to leave the Track listing section unsourced?

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is enough information to really substantiate a two paragraph lead. The lead would appear to overpower the rest of the article more than it should. Australia and United States are common enough terms that readers don't need to be educated on them by linking them. Track listing is typically unsourced. Gary King (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good, all links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Aren't short articles like this the reason GA exists? indopug (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe length is part of the criteria for Featured Articles. (Well technically it is, but from the descrption given it sounds more like "Focus on topic" more than length.) Blackngold29 19:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it covers everything that needs covering it should pass, unfortunately I don't know enough about the content matter itself to determine if it is all covered. Good luck though. — Realist2 20:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: In the US it peaked at #17 and was certified gold. In other countries it did worse. IMHO I would not characterize this as "selling well", I could easily pull up numerous sources where these sales figures would be panned as a flop. I think it needs to be made more clear that these are relatively good sales considering it is a live album, that you might just be able to get away with. The fact that you have only dedicated two lines to the commercial appeal is unfortunate and should be expanded. — Realist2 20:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I copyedited that part. Gary King (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Easy enough, the commercial aspect could be expanded still, am I right in thinking singles were released from this album? — Realist2 21:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The singles were released from their original studio albums. Gary King (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Blister Exists and The Nameless seem to indicate they came from the live album. I'm no expert on live albums, am I missing something, are the articles on these singles incorrect? — Realist2 22:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both were recorded for Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses), but not released until after 9.0 was. The music videos for both songs use footage from live performances, most likely recorded on the 9.0 tour. For example "The Blister Exists" wasn't released until 2007, three years after Vol. 3. So I don't know technically which album they were for, I would lean toward Vol. 3 (they are listed as singles on its article). Blackngold29 01:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what constitutes then being classed as being released from the album. Is it being released in support of the album or actually being the recording that is used on the album? Here are the videos from the singles; The Nameless and I can confirm that... that IS the same recording that appears on the 9.0 Live album. The Blister Exists and I can confirm that, that is the recording from Vol. 3. The Nameless is a single from 9.0 Live because it was released as a promotional single around the time 9.0 Live was released and it IS the recording from 9.0 Live, however Blister Exists isn't a single from this album because was released as a promotional single around the same time that Voliminal: Inside The Nine was released and features the recording from Vol. 3. REZTER TALK ø 13:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "The album also includes tracks which are rarely played live, as well as the first ever live performance of the song "Skin Ticket"" - maybe "including" instead of "as well as"?
  • The flow in the Recording and production section would be improved by throwing in some "Slipknot" or "they" rather than "the band" all the time.
  • PopMatters shouldn't have italics.
  • I don't like the repetition in using PopMatters twice to open two consecutive sentences.

Looking pretty good overall. —Giggy 14:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Let me know if I missed anything. Blackngold29 15:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All looking pretty good! Support. —Giggy 04:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose The "Reception" section neatly excises any unfavourable comment on the album - for instance, the Rolling Stone quote removes the part about "the songs' samey-ness" whilst there is nothing about the Popmatters criticism that the album suffers from being made up from various shows. Also, there's nothing about the main criticism of the album - its poor mix, alluded to in the popmatters review and detailed more clearly here and here for example. Yes, the album got generally good reviews, but that doesn't mean you can ignore any flaws completely! Black Kite 09:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I added some more Rolling Stone and PopMatters stuff, as suggested. I'll leave it to the other guys to use the other reviews, if they wish. —Giggy 10:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just looking quickly at the   Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) I can see that that one also covers in some detail the promotion, the artwork, and musical and lyrical themes. I will take a look soon, but only based on these I think the article fails on the broadness criteria. Nergaal (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what is with the "musicOMH.com (Positive)"? what is it and does it add anything? Nergaal (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that this is a live album, right? Musical and lyrical themes belong to the articles for the albums where the songs actually come from. This album is a compilation of songs from other albums. The musicOMH is another review from a notable music website; there's no Wikipedia article for it so there's nothing to link to. Gary King (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notable? How can you prove that? For sure it is not well known enough to just list it without having a note or anything like that. Also, are there any other FA-class live albums from other bands? Nergaal (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are any other FA-class live albums; there are many studio albums I can point you to, though, but don't think there are any that are live. Yet. musicOMH is a reliable source, which is why its review is used. Gary King (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not debating weather it is a reliable source or not (I assumed it was). But to a random reader stumping onto a FA should be able to understand what random hames like this ones mean. Since it is not well known and it does not have an article, I think it deserves at least a note to what is it if this is going to be an FA. Nergaal (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's format is different from the others so at first glance it might not be obvious what it is. I have removed it as we have three other reviews in its place. Gary King (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot remember what particular article it was, but I remember seeing that every review quoted in the review section should be in the infobox. And if a Starred or Grade is not given, it should be summed up as "Positive", Negative, or Mixed. I think the MusicOMH review should be re-added for this reason. Blackngold29 19:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation. This article has 598 words prose, about 1/4 the average size of album articles (2420 words) and less than half the size of the smallest of the 26 album FAs I checked (Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) at 1288 words). [Raw data available if desired]. This article is extremely short which raises concerns about the comprehensive criterion. In my view, a comprehensive article ought to cover what's expected of fully-developed articles on a similar topic. This is a live album so some aspects of a studio album don't apply, but cover art and marketing are common sections and seem applicable. Most album articles have something about themes or style - the comparable question here is: why were these songs chosen over others, and perhaps why was one performance chosen over another (if they did more than one live performances of the same song). On some topics it may only take 600 words to cover everything we know, but then omitting anything would be a problem. Larger articles would probably be allowed more flexibility to cover some aspects of the topic lightly. Gimmetrow 04:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Gimmetrow raises some valid points. LuciferMorgan (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree he has some valid points, the problem is we can only add what we have reliable sources for. The band is pretty secretive about some things, they still don't show their faces in many public events, certainly not in concert. I would love to add this stuff, and I'll look, but I wouldn't be surprised not to find much more than we already have. I think the key item of criteria is "comprehensive length" not x words of length. Blackngold29 03:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well the FAC says "it neglects no major facts or details". I don't think not having information on the cover art (which we have no information or sources for) and the promotion (which was really just "The Nameless" single [I have added this info]), is neglecting major facts or details. REZTER TALK ø 14:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In a 600 word article, any missing "details" stand out. Gimmetrow 15:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you propose we do with no additional sources? Blackngold29 15:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking that really short articles should explain somehow that they cover everything we know. I also wonder, if "everything we know" doesn't cover something we ought to know, but it's reasonable it will be known in the future, should that article be considered comprehensive now? Gimmetrow 16:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the article is "short" is relative and isn't part of the criteria, it is the comprehensiveness that matters. I don't know what info would "be known in the future", as if somebody would write an article about the cover art of the album three years after it was released? I understand that this is the first live album GA and possibly FA and we want to set a high standard for future noms, but we've covered recording, reception, and explained certain aspects (the vocal announcement, rare songs) to the best that our sources allow us. If I wanted to learn something about an album, that would be the info I would want to know, not who drew the picture on the front. Obviously if that info could be found it would be nice to include it, but I don't see it on the FA criteria list.
What I'm trying to say is: As per the FA criteria the article is supposed to be comprensive. I believe that it is as comprehensive as it could possibly be. Obviously if new info comes to light, it will be added. But I don't see how one could say it needs to be more comprehensive, when it is as good as it's gonna get. Believe me I would love to add ten paragraphs of info to it, but there just isn't any info to do that. Blackngold29 16:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very "short" articles tend to leave the reader unsatisfied, so they get looked at more carefully for things that wouldn't matter so much in a 2000 word article. I didn't put "objection" up there; I'm trying to come to some agreement how to handle such articles. But for something specific: the only thing I knew about this album before reading this article was that the album contained "Purity", the song left off another album for copyright reasons. Perhaps explain how the song was OK on this album? Gimmetrow 16:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I mean, I would love to add an explination of the appearance of "Purity", but I don't have one; reliable or otherwise. Perhaps we should make it more evident that info such as "lyrical and musical themes" is included on the articles of the first three albums? Would adding a summary of these themes for a few songs be repeating too much info? Blackngold29 16:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What if we added a section with a {{main}} template that links to all of the appropriate musical themes sections? Kind of like how actors have a "Filmography" section with just a main template to the filmography. Gary King (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we have to do that? That would be blatant WP:OR and it's like trying to work out why they pick certain songs for a live set. You don't have to do that for live performance DVDs so why would you have to do it for a live album? REZTER TALK ø 22:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If neither the band nor anyone associated with them ever said why they put certain rare tracks on the album, fine, but if they did, it should be there. The overall question is how to handle very short articles, or would it be OK to have an article like Adrastus of Cyzicus as an FA if it comprehensively covered its topic? If we had a rule that articles under (say) 1200 words could be FA but not appear on the main page, it might relieve some of the concern. Gimmetrow 00:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're getting at, but I think it would be a mistake to require X amount of words. One of my most recent english teachers oft stressed the point of concise writing, and that better writing often comes from fewer words of better quality. If you were to say 1200 words is minimum, you might have people taking good 1100 word articles and adding words in just to increase the length, while at the same time they're decreasing quality. It doesn't seem fair to me that we have articles with every known published fact on the topic and they fail GA because they're too short, though I can understand failing them for FA. To me, the Adrastus of Cyzicus article doesn't seem to cover a notable enough topic to warrant an article. Blackngold29 03:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GA shouldn't have a length requirement - that was the basic idea of GA. The Adrastus page was something of an extreme example, but there certainly are historical and other topics where everything known can be covered in 600-800 words, maybe less. These should have no problem passing GA. I don't even have a major concern with FA status for a short article if there is a good argument against merging, and the case is made that it's everything we know (for Adrastus you can cite historians making statements not only that we know X, but that X is all we know). But appearing on the main page is something more. My general impression is that "short" articles rarely appear on the main page unless they are "traditional" encyclopedia topics. Gimmetrow 22:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a "Marketing and promotion" section should be added. The following articles, here and [59], is such information that could flesh out such a section. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done that. REZTER TALK ø 00:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "during the Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) world tour" I think this is too much for an infobox? It is better if mentioned in the main text.
  • "9.0: Live peaked in the top twenty in album sales in Australia and the United States and was certified Gold in the United States." Too much "in"?
  • "the band recorded concerts" you mean a video footage?
  • ”Crahan said the band was encouraged to pay more attention to detail than usual” Is Crahan part of the band? Sorry but I don’t know of Slipknot. Also, the detail refers to?
  • ”Crahan said the band was encouraged to pay more attention to detail than usual, saying, "when you've got a microphone hanging onto your every note, you tend to give maybe 115 percent instead of 110 percent." I think this part breaks the flow of the paragraph?
  • ”In October 2005, Slipknot promoted Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) during a world tour, which included 233 concerts spanning 28 months in 34 countries.” Is this part of the promotion of 9.0. Live?
  • ”9.0: Live peaked in the top twenty for album sales in the United States and Australia” The table says that the album peaked in Australia at number 26. Maybe its Austria.
  • Anything else worthy of mention?
  • You did not mention the producers in the text?
  • Also the second label, only Roadrunner.
  • There is no mentioned critical reviews in the lead. --Efe (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the Nuclear Blast label as there was no citation, if it's true can someone re-add it and clarify where they released it. I don't know what to write about the producers, most don't even have their own articles. From my understanding there was very little mixing, the tracks appear as they were recorded. Everything else has been adressed. Blackngold29 05:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnny Loftus of Allmusic complimented the band's "relentless touring".
    • I think this should be removed in the lead. Maybe you can summarize what was the reviewers say about the album. Also, the lead can be divided into paras? --Efe (talk) 11:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article's prose summarizes all information about the album's commercial performance in one sentence. Even if all the available sources were used in the article, it should at minimum summarize the information in the "Chart positions" table. But it doesn't, and there are sources out there that give further information about the album's chart history, which aren't used in this article. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is reflected in the final sentence of the reception section. If there are additional sources please feel free to add them or leave them here. Blackngold29 19:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now by karanacs. I think the article is a good start but it needs more polishing to meet the FA criteria. I am completely unfamiliar with this band and this album, and I felt a bit lost in a few places because of that. I've tried to detail those below.

  • This article needs a copyedit by an uninvolved editor. I made a stab at the lead, but the remainder of the article needs a bit of work.
    • For example, many of the sentences in Recording and production don't currently flow well.
    • You should also watch your word choices - "first ever " is not very encyclopedic - why not just "first"?
      • Done
    • There is a lot of passive voice - "the band was encouraged to pay more attention " - encouraged by whom or by what?
      • Altered
    • watch for repetitive wording. All three sentences in Promotion say blah blah "was released" blah blah.
      • Done
  • "and the rare track "Purity" which was removed from debut album Slipknot due to copyright issues" - were the copyright issues resolved? how?
    • This has been mentioned above, no info can be found on it. Blackngold29 19:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any information on why they chose to use songs that are rarely played live rather than there more popular material? I believe most live albums contain more popular material, and that might deserve a mention.
  • "The vocal introduction to 9.0: Live informing the audience that the band would not be performing was staged by the band to incite anger in the audience" - huh? This needs a bit more explanation.
    • I altered it slightly, but what do you want to know? An annoucement was made that "Slipknot will not be performing this evening" to make fans angry and get them pumped up for the first song. Blackngold29 19:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there really no other promotion?
  • "commented that the fans' relationship with Slipknot " - is there any detail on what he means here? I don't get it.
    • The Allmusic or the PopMatters review? Both mentioned the fans. In a few reviews, such as the Allmusic review, I tried to show the band's relationship with their fans, because that's obviously a large part of their shows. Blackngold29 19:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • To me, there just doesn't seem enough info here to establish a relationship. We are told that one exists, but it would be better to be shown examples of what these reviewers are meaning. Karanacs (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please double-check the Reception section to make sure that there is a citation at the end of each sentence with a quote, even if that means citations are duplicated in consecutive sentences. I see at least one issue there.
    • Done
  • I don't understand why the lead uses the quote about "relentless touring". That is not really as much about the album as some of the other quotations that could have been used.
    • Similar to the reception cmt I left above, this was a live album and I tried to reflect that. Blackngold29 19:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think this is a poor choice of quote for the lead, as it doesn't really seem to fit. Use one that specifically describes the album instead. Karanacs (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the examples I left of copyediting issues were only examples. The whole article needs to be copyedited. Karanacs (talk) 13:45, 4 September 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 04:18, 5 September 2008 [60].

Little Miss Sunshine edit

Nominator(s): Nehrams2020 (talk)


After reaching GA status in February and A-class status from WP:FILMS earlier this month, I would like to make my first attempt at an FA with this article. The article is well-sourced, comprehensive, and up-to-date. I'm ready for the additional fixes that I'm sure will be required, and would appreciate any and all feedback. I will try to address any issues as quickly as possible. Thanks for taking a look and happy reviewing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, Could more be said about the themes or style (pace/tone) of the movie? There is a gem in the "The pageant" section: It's about being out of place, it's about not knowing where you're going to end up... and this review provides more analysis [61]. Many reviews typically touch upon these elements. --maclean 07:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I just went through and added several quotes from Arndt (the film's writer) about the themes of the film along with several reviewers reflecting on the themes of the film. Although there could be a central section covering the themes, I think that where I just placed the quotes in their respective sections provides for a better transition to each section while also expressing the themes relating to each topic. If you think it should be expanded/corrected, let me know and I'll work on it further. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I was never aware of this, but thanks for pointing it out. I'll do my best to start fixing those today. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there was only one occurrence, and it was being used for a journal article. I have replaced it with the Template:Cite journal. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is a blog, it has an interview directly with the directors of the film. The interview is not published elsewhere and it is used for sourcing multiple statements in the article, including several in the casting section. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't determine any other mention of the blog in other sources, but I believe the direct personal interview to be reliable. This is the only location where the interview is located, likely since the author is the one who conducted the interview. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might have some trouble proving that some of these sites are reliable sources. What you need is a bona fide other reliable source (such as a newspaper) that quotes them or out-and-out declares them reliable. For example, an interview in The Evening Class blog is quoted in the San Francisco Bay Guardian here. That might cut it, but if you could find others it'd go a long way to helping this FAC. Steve T • C 20:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This site to me wouldn't normally be reliable for anything else besides the production notes they host. The production notes were provided by Fox Searchlight, and this site merely hosts it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took another look at this site, and in its Copyrights, Notices and General Information section, it states "This site contains movie-related information compiled by Visual Hollywood as well as links to reviews on external sites that are not affiliated with Visual Hollywood in any way. The information compiled by Visual Hollywood as well as the links to reviews are provided "as is" with no warranty, express or implied, for their accuracy or reliability." The site looks like it copied the production notes (these are usually provided in press kits and are posted on various sites word-for-word). Would something like this work better? It goes directly to a PDF file of the production notes. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On that pdf, I'd like to know more about the site hosting it. We need to be careful of linking to copyright violations also. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a copyvio; the document was made freely available. As for the hosting site, www.terrassa.cat is the official website of the municipal government of the Spanish city of Terrassa. What the hell they're doing hosting that document, I have no idea. Steve T • C 20:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it is a educational site (in Spanish), but I can't determine too much more beyond that. I found the exact same production notes on several other websites and they are probably just as reliable as Visual Hollywood or this site. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. If someone who speaks Spanish can verify it's an educational site, it'd work fine as a reliable source. If it's verified as such, I'd put a small note (Spanish educational site from the city of Terrassa) somewhere in the note to help readers out. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just added this link yesterday, and the site includes video interviews with a variety of people. The link for the citation links to an hour-long interview with the writer which is used for several cites throughout the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This site was used in numerous articles in just the last week, and the site's organizers can be found here. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This one I'll leave out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This other reviewer hasn't a problem with the content from this site (at least, this particular video). The writer is blatantly identifiable on the video; common sense should apply here. Steve T • C 20:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The site is hosted by the San Francisco Film Society, and has an interview directly with the writer of the film. The interview is not published elsewhere and it is used for sourcing multiple statements in the article, including several in the production section. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This site was used in numerous articles in just the last week, and the site uses IndieWire in contributing to its news stories. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article from this site documents the major acquisition deals at the Sundance Film Festival prior to and in the year of LMS's release. If this still isn't considered reliable, I can try to find another one to replace it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The site's about us page lists the festivals it is partnered with along with various press releases about the site. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another one to leave out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this one, couldn't really determine if it was reliable or not. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a site about various movie coverage, and used it since it had an interview with the actors related to their experiences while filming within the van. Several of the sourced statements in the production section are from this interview and couldn't be found elsewhere. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Rotten Tomatoes, the author writes only for MovieWeb and is used for citing several reviews for the site. The interview is only available on this website and I could not find it published elsewhere. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's an interview, but there is always the concern that interviews might be slanted and/or distorted, which is why interviews done by large newspapers/etc. are preferred. Personally, I lean towards unreliable, but I'm a bit more strict about interview reliability than most folks on Wikipedia, so I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The site has an interview directly with two of the actors of the film. The interview is not published elsewhere and it is used for sourcing a statement in the production section. If this is not determined to be reliable, I can remove it, as the DVD commentary source right before it states the same thing. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rotten Tomatoes uses this website for a source for its reviews. I've looked for the location of the interview elsewhere, but the author only writes for movieweb and posted the personal interview there. I also found one newspaper source that used the site for a reference here. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline, but the walesonline probably makes it acceptable, barely. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The site has an interview with the directors of the film. The interview is not published elsewhere and it is used for sourcing a statement in the pageant section. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've found the site being used as a source in several newspaper stories but only for the reviews the site posts. I am using this site for a source as it is the only location of a personal interview of one of the authors with the directors. According to Rotten Tomatoes, the author has written for Empire magazine and has other reviews with other celebrities. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline but probably okay given the nature of the information being sourced. (Production details don't need to meet a BLP type standard). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The site has an interview with the directors of the film. The interview is not published elsewhere and it is used for sourcing a statement in the pageant section. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rotten Tomatoes uses this website for a source for its reviews and interviews. I've looked for the location of the interview elsewhere, but I believe the author only writes for movie-vault and posted the personal interview there. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I lean towards not on this one, without any other supporting information that the author is used elsewhere or other sources use this site as a source. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it and reworded the statement it sourced. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This site is similar to Box Office Mojo and has comprehensive coverage of box office receipts and DVD sales. It is used here to cite the DVD sales figures. On the site, it says it got the figures from "...estimates based on studio figures, publicly available data, and private research on retail sales carried out by Nash Information Services." --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found the site being used as a source in several newspapers including this and this, along with the "About Us" page saying the research used for determining its box office/DVD figures is "used by many independent producers, investment companies, web sites and entertainment companies." --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although this is a blog it is the most comprehensive list I have found so far for the list of awards of the film. If it is deemed not reliable, I can start looking for other sites that cover the awards. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced at least half of the previous citations used for this site, but can't find any other reliable sites for the other awards, except for the main page for the film at Fox Searchlight found here. Would this be a better replacement? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fox site is fine. Yes, it's a primary source, but this isn't contentious information here, just awards. Any that you can list directly from the awards site would be better done so, but for anything you can't find, the fox site works fine. Let me know when you replace them and I'll strike this one. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All occurrences of this blog have been replaced with the Fox site. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had assumed this was a newspaper service, but looking at our own article on the site, it appears that individual people write guides on various topics. It also states: "The content is written by a network of over 700 journalists, called Guides, who have some experience in their particular fields." Would you consider this to be reliable, if the author is a journalist who likely has experience in film award coverage? I've sourced the same author four times throughout the article (including the three links below this one). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On About.com see this discussion on the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does this bio for Rebecca Murray ascertain her position as a reliable author? She belongs to several professional journalism/critics' associations and is an approved critic for Rotten Tomatoes, a reliable source used within the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather see a listing for Rebecca Murray that wasn't her bio on About.com. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced all occurrences of Murray's articles with more reliable sources. Please take a look and make sure they are alright. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can find a more reliable source to replace this one. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Vancouver Film Critics Circle doesn't have their own webpage, there aren't too many reliable sources covering its nominees/winners. The only other source I could find was the main page for the film at Fox Searchlight found here. Would this be a better replacement? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above, the fox site is fine. Let me know when you replace it so I can strike. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have used the Fox site to replace any occurrences. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 10, (McCabe, Kathy) isn't it America Online?
Wow, nice catch, I corrected it. Must have typed it due to force of habit. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is for a local newspaper. Looking at its press room page it states that "Newsblaze draws from articles and press releases from the United Nations, NATO, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of State, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Iraqi government, environmental groups and other organizations." I didn't find anything on the site stating it was just a local newspaper. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are you using this source for again? (I'm old and my brain forgets things...) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is being used in the "Filming" subsection of the Production section to cite that nine theaters were used to premiere the film at the festival. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that .. I think we're okay with going with it. Just be aware that if anyone challenges that oh-so-uncontentious information, you probably want a better source to back it up. I doubt it gets challenged though. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the MOS, all capitals shouldn't be used in link titles.
I believe I fixed all of the occurrences. Let me know if I missed one. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing, I appreciate you taking the time. I'll work on removing the source I consider unreliable, but please let me know if my arguments for the others need further explanation or aren't good enough. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability 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 reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to determine the reliability of each site and placed my rationale for each site above. Please let me know for each one if the rationale is insufficient or requires more information. For the Alternate Film Guide blog site, I've done my best to replace its citations with more reliable sources, but still have 3-4 occurrences left that I can't find more reliable sources for. I'll keep looking, but let me know if the Fox Searchlight site mentioned above is sufficient. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images

Image concerns have been met. Awadewit (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:LittleMissSunshineCast.jpg - This fair use rationale claims that "The image has been published outside of Wikipedia, including the above source", but it lists no source and the image is self-made. Perhaps this part of the rationale should be removed?
Removed the line. What happened was that I initially had used a screenshot I found on another site, but I replaced it with a screenshot I made myself, and forgot to remove it. Good job catching that. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:LittleMissSunshinePageant.jpg - This image has a tag that says the image comes from a press kit, which includes the statement: "This tag should only be used for images of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media." - Are we sure that this Flickr image came from such a source?
Looking at the image, and comparing it the film, there is no exact screenshot that duplicates this image, so it must be from a press kit (or some similar source). This is the only image I found like this, and I watched the pageant scene several times looking for this exact scene but different angles are used. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this explanation could be added to the rationale to make that clear? Awadewit (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to add a statement to the rationale, please take a look and let me know if it should be reworded. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:LittleMissSunshinesoundtrack.jpg - As the CD cover is identical to the movie poster, I am unconvinced we need yet another fair use image. The article could simply say that the two images are identical - we don't need a visual image to show that.
We had a discussion about this at WP:FILMS which wasn't totally decisive on removing album covers (I argued that it wasn't worth it to create small stub soundtrack articles just to have a separate image.). However, I have removed the image and deleted it for now. If there is objection to readding it, I'll undelete it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments were helpful! Awadewit (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching these issues. I should have caught the first one. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following on from this, I don't see what use the image in the Volkswagen T2 Microbus section has. It basically shows what the cast look like, when driving a van, and the critical commentary supplied in the caption is that they filmed at different angles in different vans. Ideally you'd have an image that contains different angles/vans so the reader can compare. Just having one image doesn't really do much. —Giggy 11:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I watched the entire movie with them in the van and this is the only screenshot of an angle that shows all of the characters. There are other various angles but they include at most four of the characters. I wanted to have another angle instead of through the windshield but there were no other alternatives. The quote in the VW section by the writer speaks about how he choose this particular type of vehicle due to its angles that could be used, including through the front windshield. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That explanation is fine, thanks. —Giggy 03:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check repetition and overlinking of Sundance Film Festival (Ctrl+F is your friend).
I removed all of the links except the occurrence in the infobox and the one in the lead. Ctrl+F is one of my favorite things of Firefox. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and later expanded to a wider release starting on August 18, 2006" - a worldwide release? Or am I confused by the terminology?
The film was initially released in a limited release which means fewer theaters (allowing the studios to test the waters of the marketability of the film), and after it had high earnings in the limited theaters, it had a wider release of more theaters. It could potentially include more foreign theaters as well but generally refers to more theaters in the U.S. in this case. Do you think that needs to be embellished more or should it remain as is? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's very little discussion of critical reception (as distinct from awards or $) in the lead. I dunno how movie articles always work, but on album articles (not too different...) this is a necessity.
Looking at a sample of WP:FILMS' featured articles, most don't go too much into the critical reviews. They generally mention if the reviews were positive/mixed. I had initially included the ratings at Rotten Tomatoes and MetaCritic but at the project's A-class review was suggested to remove those. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally disagree with this but won't stand in the way of how things are generally done. —Giggy 03:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When choosing the role of Richard Hoover, Dayton and Faris stated that they had initially settled on Greg Kinnear and went through several actresses before deciding on Australian actress Toni Collette for Sheryl Hoover." - starts off talking about one character, ends up talking about the other
I split this into two sentences, let me know if it should be reworded further. I think I had combined them both so that I didn't need to use two cites. No big deal. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Casting directors Davis and Baddely traveled to every English-speaking country to search for the actress to portray Olive Hoover, and the directors finally chose actress Abigail Breslin through an audition when she was six." - Every English-speaking country? That's a lot of countries. Also, fix repetition of "directors". Also, what makes this blog reliable? (Sorry if this is repeated.)
In the source it states "...they launched a worldwide search and they had representatives in every English-speaking country, in New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, all over America, Canada, South Africa. We looked everywhere." They may be speaking figuratively, so in that case, should I put quotes around "every English-speaking country" or instead list the above countries to provide a better example? I explained above that I thought the blog to be reliable as it is a direct interview with the directors and is not printed elsewhere. It is used to cite various statements throughout the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would quote it; they are almost certainly talking figuratively. —Giggy 03:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added quotation marks to it and moved the inline citation from the end of the sentence to directly after the quote. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's from taking the lead and a section at random. Still needs some prose work. —Giggy 11:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. With your copyediting skills, you can definitely help me fix the other sections as well. Let me know if you need further explanations on the issues above. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking much better after a bit more work, and I'm happy to support. —Giggy 07:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: The 'Table of Contents' lists "Wins" and "Nominations" but nothing happens when I click on them because they are in the hidden text. Would it be alright to change them from sub-headings to bolded text (like this ====Wins==== to ;Wins) so they won't show up in the TOC? --maclean 21:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catch. I changed it as you suggested. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could we incorporate the themes into its own section? Most of the work is already done with the sources gathered, just need to consolidate it into a section. This is something that is now expected in novel-related articles, and films (as pieces of fiction) should soon follow. I can certainly help with writing and providing more resources that highlight themes (or story elements). --maclean 20:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that while the WP:MOSFILM allows for a themes section, it is not necessarily a formal requirement - particularly with newer works which may not have enough in-depth critical studies to cite. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above, I think it would be best to keep each statement discussing the themes individually included to the relating section. However, if there is more support for incorporating it into a single section, I won't fight it. Whatever we think to be best for covering the article is fine by me. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it's been nice to see this article as it's been developing over the past few months. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking another look and I appreciate you helping me improve it during the A-class review. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Just a few issues suggestions nitpicks:
    • Lead section: Mixed tenses. e.g. "Little Miss Sunshine is... it was... it starred..."—suggest present tense for all save the mention of Michael Arndt's writing of the screenplay. Some redundant words: "The film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival on January 20, 2006, and its distribution rights were bought by Fox Searchlight Pictures for reportedly one of the biggest deals ever made in the history of the Sundance Film Festival." The second mention of the festival could be referred to as just that (i.e. "the festival"). As you're not claiming it to be the biggest deal, the use of "reportedly" is probably unnecessary. Either "ever" or "in the history of" is redundant. "...total international box office gross receipts" is a little unwieldly, could you lose "total" and "receipts" while keeping the meaning intact (i.e. "an international box office gross of...")? Overlinking of actors' names in third paragraph.
I've made the suggested changes, please let me know if I missed anything. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Infobox: Probably unnecessary to include citations for budget and box office grosses as they're cited prominently in the article body.
Removed citations. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plot section: Some overlinking of common terms (e.g. suicide, homosexual). Oh, and "is a homosexual Proust teacher" could be read in several ways. For purely selfish reasons, I'm not going to read much beyond the first paragraph of the section, but a quick glance reveals that the general comment about overlinking still applies (yellow?).
Could you elaborate on ""is a homosexual Proust teacher" could be read in several ways"? I've removed multiple wikilinks throughout the plot.
Certainly. While I'd assume most would read it as "a homosexual who is a teacher of Proust's works", the ambiguity renders the possibility of that being read as "a teacher of homosexual Proust". Hmm. Maybe I'm nitpicking. Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Casting" section: "...for the character of Sheryl Hoover, they went through several actresses..." should perhaps be reworded slightly to avoid certain, ah, sexual connotations the use of the phrase "went through" has in some UK regional English variations. Redundancies and overlinking: The second use of "casting directors" (it's mentioned barely two sentences above). Overlinking of Steve Carell. Inappropriate use of easter egg piped link to Michael Scott (The Office) (you might get around that one by including the preceding "the" inside the link).
Wow, that didn't even cross my mind, but I could see what you mean. I've replaced it with "considered". Removed casting directors, removed link, and included "the" in the wikilink for further clarification. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Script" section: suggest rename of section to something more appropriate, as it concerns some of the post-script development of the film too. The last paragraph focussing on the post-Sundance deal is out of place in the section. Would this be more appropriate as a lead into the "Release" section? Suggest replacing second mention of the festival in this paragraph with, er, "the festival".
Does "Script and development" work? I moved the paragraph to the release section and titled it "Sundance Film Festival" (unless you think "Premiere" would be a better title?). I also reworded the statement about the festival deal. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with that. Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Filming" section: "...was shot... in sequential order..." doesn't convey what I assume you mean (that the scenes were shot in the order they fell in the script). Needs expanding slightly.
I reworded, let me know if it needs further clarification. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. I've attempted a quick reword myself, as the change pretty much said the same thing using more words. Feel free to tweak. Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Volkswagen T2 Microbus" section: "Five different VW Microbuses were used for the family car as some were modified for various filming techniques. Three of the vans had engines, and the two without were mounted on trailers for various scenes." The use of "different" is redundant, as is "for various scenes". Maybe replace the first "various" with "different" and replace "various angles" with merely "angles" (the plural covers it). "...that writer Arndt experienced in a childhood trip..."—"on a childhood trip", or maybe "during"? Perhaps lose the mention of Mission Impossible; the meaning and joke is clear without it.
I believe that I've made the changes as suggested. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
W00t. Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Pageant" section: the "too" in "too excessive" is redundant.
Reworded. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is going well. :) Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Release" section: Generally speaking, I'm not too keen on the film ratings infobox; it seems a bit indiscriminate to list everything there, when anyone can go to the IMDb for the same information, but I'd not oppose on its inclusion alone. As previously mentioned, I also suggest moving the Sundance paragraph to here, and perhaps you could move the mention of the United States up to the first sentence in the "Box office" section.
It seems several WP:FILMS members don't like the ratings box, and if there is further opposition, I'll remove it. I've moved the Sundance paragraph to the Release section. Could you clarify what you mean about moving the mention of the United States? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes. The section doesn't mention that these details relate to the film's release in the United States until the third sentence. It's sort of presumptuous, I guess, to assume readers will know when skipping to the section that it was released in the U.S. first (even if that's almost a given with an American film). The ratings infobox I'm not going to oppose for; at the moment it's a personal preference thing that isn't enshrined in the MOSFILM guideline. Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded it just to be safe. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. Steve T • C 00:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Box office" section: "Little Miss Sunshine remained in the list of top ten films measuring domestic box office performance until its 11th week of release." I'm just not sure that sentence makes much sense. Is there a word missing near that "measuring"? Maybe replace "overseas" with "internationally" or similar, to avoid a US-centric voice?
I've reworded it a bit, please take another look. I also reworded "overseas" (I had initially used it to avoid the redundancy of the "internationally" in the prior sentence.). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That bit still reads oddly. Try removing that whole "when measuring" bit and reword, see how it parses: "Little Miss Sunshine entered the list of top ten highest grossing American films in its third week of release. It remained in the top ten until the eleventh week, when it dropped to eleventh place." The duplicate "eleventh" is unfortunate, but screw it, them's the facts. Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried again, and split it into two sentences as you suggested. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ta. Steve T • C 00:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Critical reception" section: It might be worth expanding slightly upon Rotten Tomatoes' and Metacritic's methods; I think the uninitiated reader would have to follow the links to avoid confusion as to what "92% positive" means. See Hancock (film)#Reception for an example. There's also some mixing of tenses ("X called the film... Y writes that it...") and while not mandatory by any means, I'd like to see a comment or two from non-American critics to help cover the "comprehensiveness" requirement of this FAC.
Erik had referred me to this article for rewording this statement during the A-class review, and I think I have modified it further. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that explains it better. I won't oppose for the non-American critics bit. Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added them, sorry I overlooked that statement the first time. I added a positive review from BBC News and a negative one from the Globe and Mail. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Awards and nominations" section: Suggest rewording "for 'Best Screenplay' for Arndt" to something less clunky. And is there anything that needs to be considered with the use of the "hidden" section? As opposed to an online navigation aid at the bottom of an article page, this contains bona fide article content, and as such should perhaps be permanently visible. This is especially relevant if you consider that articles are supposed to be hard copy-friendly. Again, I'm happy to go with precedent on this one should my concerns not be shared by others.
Reworded, please take another look. I can't find anything directly opposing the hidden section but if someone knows of a policy stating it can't be included then I'll rework it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine, pending any clarification on hidden sections. I can't see it being a problem; the minor awards information is supplementary at best, so is maybe better unrevealed. Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Academy Awards' producers controversy" section: What's that apostrophe doing?
My mistake, I misinterpreted how it read. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Score and soundtrack" section: "The soundtrack reached number 42 on the "Top Independent Albums" and 24 on "Top Soundtracks" in 2006."—which country? The section itself could perhaps do with another quick copy edit; it doesn't quite flow as well as the rest of the article (e.g. "Super Freak"... was introduced during post-production by a suggestion from the music supervisor.")
Added U.S. I moved some of the sentences around, let me know how it looks. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, that last bit reads much better. Cheers, Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicely done, this is an article I genuinely enjoyed reading. All the best, Steve T • C 11:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing how different things are seen by different editors. Thanks for taking a look, I'll get to working on these later today (should probably get some sleep first). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a very long list of issues with Reliable sources above; how are editors supporting the article when WP:V policy hasn't yet been cleared? For a film of this stature, there should be better sources than about.com for awards, and there is still a long list of other outstanding issues on sources such as blogs. Were any academic sources or databases consulted? Please resolve. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking your time to take a look. I have been working on replacing the majority of the sources deemed unreliable, and the article has improved because of it. I did search academic sources/databases through my university but didn't find too much beyond what is already included in the article. If you are able to find any further sources, I'd appreciate it. If possible could you weigh in on the discussion above about the reliable sources, it appears Ealdgyth would like a second opinion on some of them. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - David Fuchs
    • Grammar
      • "Edwin dies from a heroin overdose during the family's stay at a motel; they smuggle the body out of a hospital and take it illegally to California because they are in a hurry and a hospital administrator refuses to let them temporarily leave it behind." run-ons like this need to be fixed.
I modified the second paragraph a bit in the plot section, please take another look and let me know if it reads better. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "...and is about a family's road trip to a children's beauty pageant, with a large portion of the film focusing on the family vehicle, a Volkswagen T2 Microbus." the film doesn't focus on the VW, much of it revolves around actions while they are driving in it.
Reworded to "...with a large portion of the film focusing on the events related to the family vehicle..." --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Volkswagen T2 Microbus" beside MoS image issue (should not be left-aligned under level three heading), seems to suffer from advertising-type content (not to mention the paragraph doesn't explain what "the vehicle" is.)
I moved the image to the right (I thought it was a better balance to alternate the two images). Could you specify what the advertising-type content is (I think mentioning the numerous mechanical issues with the car would have the opposite effect!)? I now briefly mentioned the vehicle type in the opening sentence. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you recommend that I remove the cast line (they can visit the image's page to see that as well) to reduce the caption's length? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Image:LittleMissSunshinePageant.jpg - I'm not sure if the rationale for this one is really that strong. The content is being commented upon in the text, which is good, but do we really need a picture to show us a padded suit?
The image is for not only illustrating the padded suit of the character in relation to the professional pageant girls but also examples of the costumes that had been provided by the contestants' parents for inclusion within the film. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing the article, I appreciate it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In re to above: the grammar is still going to need work, I'll point out examples later when I have time for a more thorough review. I'll leave the pageant image up to others to decide, as for the caption I think either the camera angle thing needs to be axed or shortened, or the cast removed. It's your choice. What I mean by "advertisement" is there's what seems like an inordinate amount of material on the specific car. Is the fact its a VW really so important that it must be mentioned by full name in the lead? Do we need the full title as a heading? Oh, by the way, to keep things less fragmented, can you respond to all my stuff in block and not between lines, so I can keep track of what you say easier? Thanks :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I've just been replying between the lines for all of the other reviewers and figured that was common practice or preferred. I've removed the cast line from the image, and renamed some of the occurrences of the VW bus to "van". I think it is important to mention it in the lead since it is an important part of the film, almost a character in itself. If you can think of a better name for the heading, I think it could be changed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:06, 30 August 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 04:18, 5 September 2008 [62].

The Big Lebowski edit

Nominator(s): J.D. (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has achieved GA status and has had enough work done it to and is a significant enough film to merit FA status. I've tried to cover all important aspects of this film and include its emerging cult film status as well as importance in pop culture. J.D. (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images
    • Image:Biglebowskiposter.jpg - I would just make sure the FUR is clear that it is for identification of the film via its movie poster, but all other aspects appear ok.
    • Image:The.Big.Lebowski.1998.Screenshot.1.jpg - Image is not low resolution, can probably be reduced by half. FUR does not indicate why it is being used on the article page; and I believe this to be duplicating what Image:The.Big.Lebowski.1998.Screenshot.2.jpg shows (basically, it's a shot of the Dude, not much more there, so it can be replaced). Suggestion: find a critical/well-known scene in the movie that the article talks about that shows more than just one actor (a unique set, a unique tableau of actors, something like that) and use that instead.
    • Image:The.Big.Lebowski.1998.Screenshot.2.jpg - Same issue on resolution as well as lack of reason for its use. However, that can be justified here (it's showing the three primary characters of the film). Make sure to add this.
    • Image:Biglebowskisoundtrackalbum.jpg - I'm not sure if this image is needed (the rationale is otherwise fine). As the artwork mirrors the poster, there's nothing new there, but on the other hand, it is offsetting a separate article for the soundtrack itself. I've not seen anything consistent on how a built-in soundtrack album is dealt with in an article, so my inclination is to say leave it, though others may challenge this.
    • Image:Lebowski10thdvd.jpg - Same general issue with the cover art, it could go either way, I'd be inclined to keep it. FUR is good. --MASEM 15:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I made the FUR clear for the movie poster image. I removed Screenshot.1 for the reasons you stated above and kept Screenshot.2 and justified the reasons for its existence. I'll keep the last two images but if someone has a problem with the Soundtrack album art I wouldn't have a problem getting rid of it.--J.D. (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barring any other further input on the soundtrack/dvd covers, the images in this now appear to be fine, all issues resolved. --MASEM 17:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The article needs a pretty intense copy edit. I already did some work to the lead. Since I love the movie, I'll try to help go over the rest of the article a bit later. I recommend reading through it several times and trying to remove any ambiguities or strangely formed sentences. I also saw some contractions, and I don't believe they belong in WP articles (unless they are part of a quote).

  • I also think we need to discuss who is mentioned in the lead. I added John Turturro, he was billed fifth so he definitely belong there. You should probably mention that the story is narrated by "The Stranger" (Sam Elliott) in the lead. I think Tara Reid has the least justification for being in the lead, since she's more of an off-screen object (and only has about three lines).--Elred (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed Tara Reid's name for the reason you mentioned above. Replacing her with Turturro makes sense.--J.D. (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • You have a dead ref in red letters, current ref 52. Ref named Russell?
  • Current ref 38 (Stephen Thomas Erlewine) has its publisher in the link title, it should be listed separately. Also, list the author of this as last name first to fit witht he rest of the references
  • Your last entry in the Bibliography is just a bare link. If its used as a source in the article, it needs publisher and last access date at the very least. If its not used as a source, it needs to go in the External Links section.
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these suggestions. I have implemented all of those changes.--J.D. (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I changed them to little "dones" after the statement so you can keep track of what you've done. Will check them in a moment. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - This is my first-ever review of a movie FAC, so bear with me.

  • "The Dude." Check for logical punctuation here.
Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After being mistaken for a multimillionaire of the same name, Jeffrey "The Dude" Lebowski..." His full name doesn't need repeating; just say Lebowski.
  • Million dollar needs a hyphen.
  • "Stranger," Watch the punctuation again.
  • Remove comma after "and has been called".
  • "The film's devoted fans have even spawned." Less is sometimes more.
  • Plot: Comma after "nymphomaniacal trophy wife".

I agree with Elred that this needs a good copy-edit. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the changes you suggest above.--J.D. (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing because the prose is very poor. Here is but one example of many throughout the article:

While Bunny took an unannounced trip, the nihilists (her friends) alleged a kidnapping in order to get money from her husband (It is left unclear whether and to what extent Bunny was an active collaborator in this scheme). The Dude and Walter arrive at the Big Lebowski residence, finding Bunny back at home, having returned from her trip.

Graham Colm Talk 13:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started fixing up and pruning the prose in the Plot section.--J.D. (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Maralia I'm sorry, but this needs significant work. Some examples:

  • "novel The Big Sleep." - Use italics on book titles.
Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonbreaking spaces needed between numerals and units of measure (i.e. in $17 million).
  • Settle on 'The Dude' or 'the Dude' or 'Dude'.
  • No contractions please (they're).
Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The band name Autobahn should not be in quotation marks or in italics.
Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attack of the prepositional phrases: The film begins with a short voiceover introduction by an unnamed narrator played by Sam Elliott to the character Jeffrey Lebowski as he is buying milk from a grocery store in 1991.
  • Verb disagreement: Days later, the Big Lebowski contacts the Dude, revealing that Bunny has been kidnapped and asks him to act as a courier for the million-dollar ransom, the Dude being in the unique position of being able to identify the rug-soiling thugs, the suspected kidnappers.
Misplaced modifier: Upon returning home without any clue about the whereabouts of the ransom money, Jackie Treehorn's thugs return to bring the Dude to Treehorn's beach house in Malibu, where Treehorn inquires about the whereabouts of Bunny.
  • Errors in punctuation with quotation marks:
  • who calls himself "The Dude."
  • a cowboy known only as "Stranger,"
  • the other Jeffrey Lebowski, the Millionaire."
  • he "isn't trying to scam anyone."
Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference formatting:
  • The abbreviation 'pp.' is used when referring to multiple pages; use 'p.' for a single page.
  • Use endashes, not hyphens, in page ranges.

Many of these issues could be fixed at FAC, but the prose needs intensive work. Maralia (talk) 03:51, 1 September 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 04:18, 5 September 2008 [63].

New York State Route 74 edit

Nominator(s): Mitch32(UP), Durova


We're nominating this article for featured article because it is a definitely ready article. It took weeks of work, and is by far, one of New York State Route's best articles. This article also details Vermont Route 74, and all its history is into it. As a request, I would like to see Durova get credit for this as well, because she worked so hard on the article. Thanks. Mitch32(UP) 18:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Lead seems far too long. Try trimming it to three paragraphs. I'll review the prose later. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All done, Ealdgyth. Thanks!Mitch32(UP) 16:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opening sentence is disappointing, and very awkwardly worded.
Done-Mitch32(UP) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The route passes the entrance to Fort Ticonderoga along its 20.44 mi (32.89 km) length. "20.44 mi (32.89 km) length"? Doesn't work. Try "20.44 mi (32.89 km) route".
Done-Mitch32(UP) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beyond the eastern terminus Lake Champlain, a seasonal ferry carries cars across the lake into Vermont. "Eastern terminus Lake Champlain"? There seems to be a work missing.
Done-Mitch32(UP) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Cornwall, Route 74 finally terminates at an intersection with Vermont Route 30." Not sure why "finally" is needed. The route's only 30 miles long.
Done-Mitch32(UP) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the Vermont side however, there have been a couple of alignments. Remove "however" and change "a couple" → "a number".
Done-Mitch32(UP) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Route 73 originally connected to the ferry and VT 74 ended at Route 73, but the alignments eventually switched, with Route 73 terminating at an intersection with Route 74, and Route 74 extending to the ferry to connect to NY 74. "With" is a poor connecting word.
Done-Mitch32(UP) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The interchange also has a view of Severance Hill, which reaches as high as 1,600 feet (490 m). Remove "also".
Done-Mitch32(UP) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few local road intersections just south of Goosebury Hill, but Paradox Lake begins to parallel the roadway to the north. "But"? Those two ideas don't contradict themselves.
Done-Mitch32(UP) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beyond of couple mountains and hills on the southern side of Route 74, is where Cotters Pond is located. Would be much better as "Cotters Pond is located beyond of a couple mountains and hills on the southern side of Route 74."
Done-Mitch32(UP) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After leaving Paradox, Route 74 makes a drastic turn to the southeast along the base of Skiff Mountain. "Drastic" is a poor word choice here.
Done-Mitch32(UP) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eagle Lake comes to an end, and the highway intersects with County Route 2, the first numbered highway since US 9. Huh? CR 2 is the first highway to be numbered since US 9?
Done-Mitch32(UP) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The northern part of Route 74 shows the ridges leading up to Keeney Mountain, which peaks at 1,400 feet (430 m) high. Self-explanatory. If not, "in high" is grammatically incorrect.
Done-Mitch32(UP) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The highway intersects with New York State Route 9N and New York State Route 22, which the latter becomes concurrent with 74. Link Route 22 and "latter" → "later".
Done-Mitch32(UP) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Route 74 and Route 22 head now to the south towards downtown Ticonderoga." "Now" is unneeded.
Done-Mitch32(UP) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the entire article, there are too many commas in some places, and not enough in others.
  • An improved cable system remains in use today, comprised of two 1-1/4" steel cables in parallel alignment. Needs a conversion.
Done-Mitch32(UP) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The highway goes shortly to the north, passing several homes. There are homes everywhere...we don't need to know exactly where they exist.
Done-Mitch32(UP) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some tree patches as well, but both soon dissipate into more of fields and farmlands. Unencyclopedic writing. First, "some" is a weasel word. Second, "dissipate" is a poor word choice". Third, remove "more of".
Done-Mitch32(UP) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At Smith Street, it turns to the northeast, winding through a patch of forests. "A patch of forests"?
Done-Mitch32(UP) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does not last however, as the highway turns to the northeast once again. Unnecessary sentence. Aside from being poorly worded, we know nothing on the road lasts forever.
Done-Mitch32(UP) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The beginning segment of Route 74 after the concurrency is moderately populated, heading eastward once again. However, the rural highway turns once again to the northeast, following this for most of the distance to Cornwall. If it's moderately populated, how can the highway be rural?
Done-Mitch32(UP) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After Doolittle Road, the highway becomes straight to the east, intersecting with several township highways. "Becomes straight to the east" → "turns east".
Done-Mitch32(UP) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The highway is passing through fields and homes, with the forests it once passed, in its wake. There are so many problems with that sentence, I'm not going to list them. Just rewrite it.
Done-Mitch32(UP) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minvera eventually was created when annexed from the town in March 1817. "Eventually was" → "was eventually".
Done-Mitch32(UP) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were two toll gates erected for the highway, but the charter stated that there could be another toll gate approximately every ten miles completed highway. "There were two toll gates" → "Two toll gates were". Also needs a conversion.
Done-Mitch32(UP) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, there's a lot of work to be done. The writing is generally poor, though there is some good content. Get a copyeditor in, fix those issues, and I'll take another look. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]


  • Oppose 1) Lack of inline citations - "Google Maps. Overview Map of NY 74 [map]. Retrieved on 2008-01-30." is relied on for a primary citation on many paragraphs, and this is just a map. To apply this as a justifiable citation would amount to passive Original Research. 2) Concerns over placement of large picture in History section as a violation of WP:Accessibility or other MoS related problems. 3) Lack of information on who uploaded the image, cropped the image, etc, as the image does not match the link to the Library of Congress image. 4) No page numbers for "H.P. Smith (1885). The History of Essex County. D. Mason and Company.", which is the sole citation for section "Schroon and its early highways" 5) Sandwiching issues with image "New York State Senate journal, 1832.jpg" 6) Formatting issues with "East NY 74 reference marker edited.jpg" in which it overrides the subheading 7) Use of a map as a reliable source under citation "New York State Thruway Authority. New York Thruway [map]. Cartography by Rand McNally and Company. (1971" without proof that this is a reliable source for historical information 8) Use of another map, "Google Maps. Fort Ticonderoga-Larrabees Point Fry @43.854016, -73.385363 [map]. Retrieved on 2008-08-27.", as a reliable source which it is not. 9) Use of another map, "Esso. New York State Map [map]. Cartography by General Drafting Inc.. (1936)", in performing OR by determing when something changed. 10) Same problem as above for "United States Geological Survey. Clymer, NY quadrangle [map]. Cartography by United States Geological Survey. (1954) Retrieved on 2008-08-24." and "New York State Department of Transportation. Clymer, NY quadrangle [map]. Cartography by New York State Department of Transportation. (1978) Retrieved on 2008-08-24." 11) Lack of citations to third party, reliable sources, providing physical information that is not developed beyond the sources (i.e. not violating Original Research). 12) Lead is too large for the bulk of the material present. 13) Organizational problems including the history section at the bottom, and lack of connection with the Ferry and the Vermont highway. There are many more significant problems, and this page is not good enough for a Good Article status, let alone Featured Article. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maps are fine to use as sources for a number of reasons. First and foremost, they're used for nearly all other road articles, and have passed numerous previous FACs. Aside from that, they're fairly easy to gain encyclopedic information from. For one, on a Google map, one simply has to follow the route and write a description of what is shown on the map. For the history section, one can compare two maps from different years, and recover information about realignments or other pieces of significant history. For example, to determine that a realignment took place between 1930 and 1931, one can compare the two maps, and if there is a change between the two, then that becomes a cite-able piece of information. Hope this helps, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please withdraw this nomination. Since people hate this article, I am not gonna go any farther.Mitch32(UP) 19:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry. Mental breakdown there.Mitch32(UP) 20:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I take some issue with Ottava's comments above and agree with Julian about citing the various maps. I see no issue in using maps to cite the changes made in the alignments of a highway. Second comment concerns the integration of VT 74 into this article. The infobox is incomplete as it only lists the NYSR 74 name and shield at the top. The map should be redone to show both highways and it should include the brower for both states. According to the infobox, am I to assume NYSDOT maintains VT 74 as well? Please place a horizontal bar in the junction list in the infobox to represent the state line. I have not read the article yet for copy editing concerns, but the infobox needs work before I can justify this article being promoted. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know it doesn't resolve the issues with the map, but I've tried something new and added a VT infobox to the VT 74 section. What do you think? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, after a major discussion with the co-nominator, and how I'm acting over this, I wish to suspend the nomination until I can solve Ottava Rima's issues.Mitch32(UP) 21:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's ok with you and Durova, I'd be happy to help out here and keep the FAC alive. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think the FAC can be kept alive. The only concerns are the addition of some stuff to an image and then adding additional refs without having to change the content. It is only FA structure, not content, that needs to be accommodated. Nothing big. If you are still struggling to find stuff, I can dig into news archives and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there are my issues with the infobox that need to be solved as well. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Imzadil. I didn't mean to make it seem like those were the only concerns, just mostly my only concerns. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm rather surprised to see this here since Mitchazenia asked me to review it a few days ago before bringing it to FAC. I just got round to reviewing it and then noticed that it was already posted. Some things benefit from haste, but FAC is not one of them. --Laser brain (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - The article is not quite ready and I feel the nomination was rushed without a wider peer review. Article requires major revisions but can still be salvaged. Initial comments on the lead section are below.
Paragraph 1: "Vermont State Route" is not a common name although not unknown. "Vermont Route" is a better choice; "...along its 20.44 mi route." needs a hyphen after the numerals; Some clarifications to avoid confusion are necessary. You already stated that NY 74 terminates at Lake Champlain then two sentences later you have "The highway continues...". You can either treat this as a single route or as two separate routes but please be consistent throughout the article; Be aware that Larabees Point (please check the actual spelling and use consistently throughout the text) is within the town of Shoreham; The last two sentences have issues with comma usage. You might want to comb through the entire text to check.
Paragraph 2: "name designations" is redundant. "Designations" is sufficient; In the second sentence, you probably mean "most of the roadway now known as 74 was designated as part of 73". There is a subtle difference and the current phrasing makes one have to pause and think to get it; The last sentence is misleading, implying that the current 74 was assigned as a result of the old 74 being renumbered to 474. The cause and effect is reversed. Please check the Hisotry section.
Paragraph 3: "Multiple alignments" should probably read "multiple realignments"; "Another alignment of F-9" implies that VT F-9 had more than one alignment at a single point in time. This whole paragraph needs to be rewritten to describe what F-9 and F-9A were in relation to modern VT 74. Right now, VT F-9A comes out of the blue; What do you mean by "real state route designations"? F-9 and F-9A aren't? Also, it is mentioned that "the alignments eventually switched". The alignments didn't switch, the designation did - and actually, only the western tip did. The current phrasing implies the route numbers for the entire highway were swapped. The last sentence is grammatically incorrect.
Overall comments on lead section - I think it tries to go into too much detail about the designation history. This can be summarized further and made more compact and compelling. Some history of the ferry crossing might be worth adding to the lead as well.
Infobox: Unlike say New York State Route 343, there is no dominant route here and a composite infobox (e.g. Rhode Island Route 121) is probably a better way to do this in my opinion. The second VT-only infobox is also bad stylistically. You might as well separate the articles if the preference is to treat this as two separate highways.
More to come as I have time to review. --Polaron | Talk 19:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done with most of that. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:57, 4 September 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 05:04, 2 September 2008 [64].

Croatia national football team edit

Nominator: Domiy (talk)

previous FAC (02:36, 8 August 2008)


Third times a charm I think. After two previous (rightfully) failed attempts, all the previous issues in the former nominations have been dealt with. Numerous copy editors have looked over this page and made their appropriate edits.

So basically, this article has come to FA candidate. I and others ensured that it meets the criteria. It is well written in an appropriately attractive manner and includes all relevant information. I personally worked on all the referencing, which I am fairly proud of as this is the most highly referenced national team page on WP (even more than the Scotland page which is already a FA). Two possible issues which may occur:

1) Stability - due to a large amount of edits in the past weeks or so. I will say now, this has been solely due to the fact the article has been the subject of constant improvement as I and others have made all appropriate edits to meet the standards. The only things which will change on the page are the stats in the tables, which are just updated after every game.

2) Fasach Nua may once again bring up the issue of the national team logo used as the lead image. Again, I will say now that this is an ignored issue. It has been bought up numerous times and ignored by the larger amount of people who feel that the logos are indeed not able to be replaced, as opposed to using national flags instead.

I'm willing to work on any last minute issues which anyone may have to perfect this article. So here goes. Domiy (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Looks a lot better than the last two times. Let's see if the prose can be refined further... *FIFA is still linked twice in the lead.

  • "Croatia has also defeated four-time world champions Italy on two competitive occasions..." Why is competitive needed? I know what this is trying to say, but it sounds redundant.
  • Pre-independence: "a Croatian team played another fifteen friendly matches..." Numbers above nine are usually given as numerals, but this can vary depending on the editor.
  • Move current reference 9 after comma.
  • I notice some inconsistent date usage; there's 2 April, 1940 and May 16, 1991. You'll probably want to go with the non-U.S. style.
  • 1990s: "and went on to play their first modern day international in a friendly game against the United States..." Is this awkward, or this just British English again?
  • "Alijosa Asanovic counted as the first goalscorer for the newly established side..." Why not just "Alijosa Asanovic was the first goalscorer for the newly established side...".
  • Move ref 19 after comma and check for this throughout the article.
  • "Croatia entered the 1998 World Cup with victory over Ukraine in a qualifying playoff." "With victory over" needs an "a" inserted, but I'd prefer "Croatia earned a berth in the 1998 World Cup by defeating Ukraine in a qualifying playoff."
  • 2000s: "The tournament did however see them earn a 2-2 draw against reigning champions France." Could be "However, the tournament did see them earn a 2-2 draw against reigning champions France." Giants2008 (17-14) 01:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In one of the previous edits, I believe that "competitive" is needed. There is a difference between competitive matches and friendly matches, and a team is normally "easier to defeat" during a friendly match because a team like Italy is not going to risk the state of its players in a friendly, while Croatia might due to image (or it might not, but the teams skill level is less relevant regardless). It might sound redundant, but in my opinion it's not. JonCatalán (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Done. Thanks a lot Giants2008! In respective order here are the points addressed:
  • Removed second FIFA link in lead.
  • Removed 'competitive'.
  • Fifteen is now 15.
  • Moved ALL the references after commas, I personally preferred having them before such but I've noticed its become more of a recommendation so I've gone along with it.
  • The date issues confuse me as well sometimes. I hope I've done it correct this time. I went through and fixed up all the dates, they are now named with the month first and then the day number.
  • I understand the confusion. It's difficult trying to get this specific statement across, I've done my brief best to reword it to something less confusing and difficult to read.
  • Reworded as recommended.
  • Already dealt with commas now.
  • Reworded as recommended.
  • Reworded as recommended.

If there's anything, please inform me further. This can be deemed NA for now since I have dealt with these points. Domiy (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JonCatalán, I have found that 'competitive' is actually not needed since the statement already describes the type of matches the victories were achieved in, which are clearly sanctioned as competitive fixtures. So this is Done as well. Domiy (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All images are tagged correctly and have appropriate fair use rationales, where necessary. —Giggy 03:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


question Why is the copyrighted symbol Image:Croatia football federation.png used to represent the team in preference to the free symbol used by FIFA and UEFA, Image:Flag of Croatia.svg, to represent the team? WP:NFCC#1, states that a free alternative need only be of "...acceptable quality..sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose", the flag is acceptable for the two governing bodies. Fasach Nua (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The logo of a country's governing body for football is appropriate for the article on the national team. It acts, in a sense, as the logo of the team. —Giggy 08:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the (free) flag, as used by the governing bodies unacceptable for encylopedic purposes? Fasach Nua (talk) 08:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Giggy (and everyone else!) please ignore him. He has bought this issue up numerous time on countless different discussions and they have all ended in a negative manner towards him. He simply doesn't understand all the legitimate points which have been bought up, any user will tell you that. Your simply wasting your time talking to him. Fasach Nua, your entering close grounds for a ban I think. You cannot just keep bringing up issues which have already been resolved and proven wrong. Had the flag been used in this article, it would look very out of place and incorrect as all other national team pages use the logo instead. There is no doubt that there would have been an oppose by now if the flag was used as it is simply not acceptable in the case. Therefore, you are bringing up a situation which will end in a loss either way. And it's getting to sound blatantly intentional right now, I am seriously thinking of reporting your mind-games. Please do not pollute this nomination page with useless debating as you have already been proven wrong! Everybody (including the directors/reviewers/admins please ignore him and get back to the real issues on the article article. This may sound extremely unacceptable but you have no idea about this situation and how many times it has been negatively resolved. He simply doesnt listen! Thanks for co-operation! Domiy (talk) 09:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose inappropriate use of images (criteria 3), WP:WAX is not sufficient grounds to bypass WP:NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

commment - Image:MaksimirStadium.jpg should have an verifiable source, preferably an OTRS ticket. Fasach Nua (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

commment - Image:Croatian first team.jpg does not have a FU rationale that states how the readers' understanding is significnatly increased by it's inclussion Fasach Nua (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Again, please ignore him and carry on as per usual. I have left a message for the nominators/directors regarding this so don't treat it as a big issue. It will be dealt with but this isn't the time or the place.]

Comment Some of the editors on the page have also recently done some last minute changes, mainly just for statistics count and changed a few single words to lesser the amount of prose issues which anyone may have. Still open to anything, otherwise a simple support should be in order. Thanks! Domiy (talk) 10:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. I was unable to check the non-English language sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 25 August 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.
On About.com see this archive from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. The abbreviations are such as HR, UEFA, FIFA or similar.
On another note, it's a LOT easier for me to track FACs if you at least put your replies to me underneath my comments. Even easier for me is to put them interspersed (and indented) beneath my bullet points so that I don't have to do tons of scrolling to see what has been replied to.


DONE ON REFERENCES! Javno is reliable as they do indeed have an inclusion and submission policy. They work in both Croatian and English and have their own estblished and paid publishers. This is such:

http://www.javno.com/en/clanak.php?id=16585

Also, their terms of use etc prohibit and contributions (if even applicable) to go against the Croatian or other basic laws.

http://www.javno.com/en/clanak.php?id=17217

About.com are very similar. They state that they are affiltrated with The New York Times and also abide by inclusion guidelines and strict patents:

http://jobs.about.com/ http://www.about.com/gi/pages/ethics.htm http://www.about.com/gi/pages/patent.htm


Such makes them reliable sources one should think. Domiy (talk) 07:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On About.com, you need to prove that the person writing the information is an expert in their field, published elsewhere than about.com in reliable sources themselves. About.com doesn't really exercise much oversight over their writers, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment The first match is listed as 1940, a reference need supplied that this team and the 1940s team are the same in the eyes of FIFA Fasach Nua (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The date notation changes between date first and month first.
  • Referencing should be placed after punctuation.
  • "Their FIFA World Ranking has been more volatile than any other nation, ranging from third to 125th" Needs a reference
  • "with Davor Šuker scoring one of the most skillful goals of the tournament;" Almost certainly true, but I think it needs a reference. I can certainly think of one other goal which could claim that title.
  • "12 yard mark" Hyphenate
  • "Referee Graham Poll was widely criticized for his inability to control the match and soon retired from international umpiring." Umpiring is wrong. I guess you've said so to avoid using referee again. I would suggest officiating.
  • "With the introduction of new players such as Eduardo, Modrić, Ćorluka and Rakitić," Give names in full.
  • Don't force image sizes
  • "Also used by league champions Dinamo Zagreb, Maksimir is remembered as the site of the Dinamo vs Red Star riot that took place in the lead up to Croatia's war of independence.[83] As well as football matches the stadium is used as a concert venue." What relevance does this have to Croatia national football team? I suggest these are details that should be in Maksimir Stadium but not here.
  • "Though violence between the two groups has marked fixtures in the domestic league, clashes are generally absent from national team games." Needs a reference. Peanut4 (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


DONE - Reply to Ealdgyth These references have been bought up before. In respective order:
    • BecomeaCroatiafan is the English supporters 'unofficial' home page (because for non-Croats who support Croatia, they cannot use the actual homepage because it is in Croatian). This reference can be easily replaced (the first one I mean), but only with a Croatian source. WP states that English sources always have strength over foreign ones, and should be used where possible. The other sources from the same website are merely player profiles which just state basic quick facts.
    • RSSSF is an accurate statistics foundation used in countless articles on WP, especially football. It's even used on the Scotland national football team which is already a Featured Article.
    • I've seen about.com used on some other Featured Articles as well. Other than that, its already an established website. What doesn't make it reliable?
    • PlanetWorldCup has been replaced with a FIFA.com source, although I see no problem with it initially.
    • Dinamo11 is amongst the English supporters websites for the team as well. The same case applies. WP states English articles are much more preferred and reliable in any case, so Dinamo11 is used over a foreign source.
    • Croatiansoccerreport has its own authors, stories, and websites which publish all the up-to-date information about Croatian soccer. A lot of fans use it for information. Again, also note that it is a secondary source, not a primary reference. Its used to merely reflect the controversy of the match against Turkey even though a reference is provided before it containing similar (but not identical) information. I will remove it if you really want, pending a confirmation on such though as I have left it in for now.
    • Goal.com source has been replaced with a BBC Sport source. The only other time it is used is to list Croatia's squad in the tournament, and even then it is a secondary source.
    • Removed OleOle source.
    • Removed Soccerphile source.
    • Removed zagreblife source.
    • Removed World Cup blog source.
    • Javno are one of the leading news publishers in Croatia. They are like 'SkySports' in England or 'New York Times' in the US.
    • The derkeiler news story is clearly stated to be from 'The Associated Press', which is a reliable news site. Derkeiler are known to host articles from other sites with permission, as has been done here. The page states that it is from 'The Associated Press', however just on a different site. I've fixed up the reference to state the 'work' as such now.
    • The only abbreviations you may think are necessary to fix up are the Rec.Sports.Soccer. sources in the notes section. I know it looks like abbreviations, but that is the full name of the domain. They refer to themselves as the 'Rec.Sports.Soccer Statistics Foundation', Wikipedia shouldn't go against the domain name. Same goes for things like FIFA.com and BBC Sport - they needn't be listed as full names. They are consistently known and named by their abbreviations, most people don't even know what they stand for. Wikipedia is not expected to against the names referred to on TV, radio, and even the actual sites themselves! Why confuse people like that? Besides, the actual domain/publisher name is clearly listed as such, so changing it into a different full name will be going against the name of the publishing organization.
    • Fixed up reference.


DONE - Reply to Fasach Nua It's clearly an obvious fact that there was only one Croatian team in the year 1940. I dont know why anyone would need a reference like this, but it is sourced numerous time throughout the rest of the article. So that's Done as well.
I accept that there was only one Croatia team in the 1940s, I accept there is one Croatia team now, but I dont see any evidence that they are the same team, could you direct me to the specific reference for this. Ireland briefly had two FIFA recognised teams, both called Ireland, both selecting players from the whole country, both competing in the 1950 World cup, but they wern't (and stil aren't) the same teams. Wimbledon F.C. is clearly not the same team as AFC Wimbledon, although some people like to pretend they are, and I would like to see tangiable proof this is not the case with Croatia. Fasach Nua (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think you understand football fully if your asking a question like this. What other team could it have possibly been? National teams come from the nations themselves. Croatia was still a part of Yugoslavia at this time but they formed their own separate team which soon became official. FIFA recognised them as the football representative of a state called 'Croatia'. The only difference between the 1940 team and the current team is that the 1940 team was unofficial and unable to play competitive matches. Other than that, they were still both representatives of the state of Croatia and played football on the nations behalf. This is the most basic of sources. Others also state it clearly, you can get all such information by actually reading the article and looking at the references provided in this section:

And others. Domiy (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So they are identical teams in the same way Northern Ireland national football team and Republic of Ireland national football team are the same team, as the they both represented the island of Ireland? Fasach Nua (talk) 09:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't bring up obvious questions. It again seems you are deliberately delaying and ruining this nomination. I also explained the situation and you seem to fail to understand it. Northern Ireland and Ireland are two different states clearly recongised separately by FIFA. There is only one Croatian state which has been the same since the first proposal of a sanctioned Banovina or Nation. Again, this is all explained in the article and backed up by appropriate references. Your just lengthening pointless discussions now to find any way to diminish this article. Croatia doesnt have any denominations like Northern Ireland does with Ireland. Croatia is just Croatia and always has been. Likewise, all the Croatian teams that were organized represented what people called 'Croatia'. If you dont understand this, then it has nothing to do with the Featured Article nomination but blatantly an issue with your understanding of the subject, so it has no place here. Domiy (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have already opposed on ground of inappropriate use of images, and I now also oppose on the grounds, that it is unclear what team the artilce is even about Fasach Nua (talk) 10:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your image oppose has already been opposed itself by another user who initially told you it is an inappropriate alternative to use the national flag (just like so many other people have told you). Now your opposing because you simply cannot understand the clearly written subject? I have supported numerous FA candidates just by reading the articles and comparing them to the criteria, even though at times I have absolutely no idea about the subject itself. The article is about Croatia, I just told you that. You seem to think that new squads equal new teams all together. Stop your childish ranting and deal with the issue properly. You have no grounds for an oppose, therefore they are ignored, just like you are! Domiy (talk) 10:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DONE - Reply to Peanut4 I've addressed the issues you bought up. Again in respective order:
    • The dates have already been fixed up and are consistent in the current version. If you find some other instances of such, please point it out specifically. But from what I see, they should be fine now.
    • References are all after punctuation now.
    • Cited volatility in the lead.
    • Suker's goal is already cited at the end of the sentence.
    • '12 yard mark' has been hyphenated, it now reads '12-yard mark'.
    • Reworded to 'officiating'.
    • Full names now given for the new young players.
    • Images are fine, they have not been forced, not sure exactly what you mean about such.
    • Statement removed.
    • Statement referenced.

Domiy (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything further or can we deem this in support now? Domiy (talk) 10:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The dates are far from fixed. There is a complete mish-mash of date first, e.g. 26 August 2008, or month first e.g. August 26, 2008. I can't provide specific examples, because it can interchange from section-to-section. Peanut4 (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source does not corborate the claim "Their FIFA World Ranking has been more volatile than any other nation," it simply backs up the range of 3rd to 125th. I find the initial part an interesting claim and worthy of mention if true, but I can't see any source in the article to back it up. Peanut4 (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done the images. Some even had two different image sizes marked. Peanut4 (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DONE - Reply to Peanut4

  • I'm sorry, I didn't notice the dates in the 'Records' section and others. They and others have all been fixed up now to consistently go by the same format (thanks for your help there as well in some of the other areas).
  • Extra sources have now been included to cite the volatility specifically.
  • Thanks for the image fixup!

I'm glad that your issues are Done now. Unless there is anything else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domiy (talk • contribs) 12:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm still not convinced those extra sources back up the claim still. Peanut4 (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Peanut4 - It may be hard to determine such in 100% accuracy. You will never find an article which directly states than a nation has been more volatile than any other. The statement has come from heavy research and self knowledge of the editors. The sources provided make it much easier to understand such, and they do practically imply it:
  • The Croats have got the wind in their sails once again as they gradually work their way back up into the elite, as a glance at the most recent edition of the FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking shows. Despite a mere 4.5 million inhabitants, this country from the Adriatic coast has jumped from seventh to fifth place, overtaking South America's big two, Brazil and Argentina, in the process. - 1st reference.
  • Exactly two months ago before EURO 2008 got under way, Croatia were 15th in the world and looking to make it back into the top ten, a spot they had last occupied in January 2008. They managed this feat in July 2008 when they leapt up to seventh, and with Argentina and Brazil dropping points in the intervening weeks, the Croats find themselves in their best ranking since March 1999 - an indication of the progress that Bilic has made with this team. - 1st reference.

*It is not so long ago - March 1994 in fact - that Croatia were 125th in the world, and their average ranking is 28th, making the progress of this nation which only achieved independence on 25 June 1991 all the more remarkable. - 1st reference.

  • From July to December 1998, they were fourth in the world and crept as high as third during the first three months of 1999, so the new generation know that the record is well within their grasp. - 1st reference.
  • Yet less than a year ago, the critics were sharpening their knives after a disappointing campaign at the 2006 FIFA World Cup Germany™, when the team failed to make it past the group stage. The Croatian media described the early exit as a national tragedy and forecast nothing but doom and gloom for the country's football. Flying in the face of these naysayers, the team with the chequered jerseys have since gone on an unbeaten run in both the qualifiers for UEFA EURO 2008 and in friendlies. - 2nd reference.
  • This turnaround in fortunes has seen the men from the shores of the Adriatic go from 23rd in the Rankings in July 2006 to 12th in February 2007, their highest position since June 2000, when they were ninth. - 2nd reference.
  • That golden generation swept almost all before them between July 1998 and June 2000, firmly anchoring themselves in the top ten and peaking in 1999, when they occupied third place from January to March of that year. - 2nd reference.


Im sure you get it now. The articles state that they have variously jumped numerous times from rankings such as 125th, to 9th, to 4th, to 3rd, back to 12th and even worse after the 2006 World Cup, then to 7th and now to 5th. No other national team has such a volatile history in the rankings, few would disagree after reading the sources. FIFA describe it as a 'remarkable' feat, meaning that it is clearly one that stands out. These are the things that back up the volatility.

So What do you think? Satisfied? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domiy (talk • contribs) 21:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not convinced. You have had to use three sources and a long argument here to back up your claim throwing about a variety of numbers. While I find it an interesting statistic, I fear that nowhere does such exact information on volatility and the range of ratings exist, and hence is actually WP:OR. I'd simply remove the information and stick to verifiable facts that Croatia have twice been FIFA Ranking's biggest mover and ranged from 125th to 3rd. Peanut4 (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think it requires removal. I've gone ahead and re-worded the statement to something more specific and less challenged because you seem to be arousing all the craziest of possibilities (which is your right I guess). If you think that the statement may be challenged despite the references, I have little problems in re-wording it. I have now said that they are amongst the most volatile of nations in the FIFA world rankings, meaning that they are not specifically leading in the description.
  • My 'long argument' is basically a reworded summary of the content in the provided sources. You are right, no such exact information on volatility exists specifically in an article. Again, I'm telling you that it is the result of heavy research and slight self knowledge. I dont think WP specifically has to cater for some people's needs and difficulty to understand a subject. Volatility is clearly present in the sources provided and the sources themselves have explained it as a unique feat at the very least. Basically your giving me the idea that to satisfy your criteria in this case on this statement, I would have to find and include sources on the history of ALL national teams in the FIFA World Rankings. While I would have little trouble finding such, it would be completely inappropriate to have 100+ references on a single statement just to show that no other nation has been as volatile as Croatia. If this was the case, half the articles on Wikipedia could be torn apart with this criteria. The sources say they are uniquely rapid in their rising in the rankings, not so long ago they were ranked 125th and are currently 5th and have been as high as 3rd. If you look at all other national team pages, you will see that their rankings have been fairly stable. Italy have been in the top 10 for as long as anyone can remember, while San Marino have been amongst the bottom of the rankings since they began playing as a FIFA member. Anyone would know this as Italy just recently won the 2006 World Cup and San Marino have a worldwide reputation of never winning a match. Things like this are extremely commonly known, I'm just using a lot of arguments because you seem to lack the basic football knowledge, especially on the FIFA world rankings. They are known to be fairly stable and identical each time they are updated, so for any team to have jumped this much is an immediate sign that they are amongst the most volatile. Again, the statement has been slightly reworded to prevent further challenging. Domiy (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current wording is now just about alright. My problem wasn't that I was not only questioning the truth and the sources, but that since such exact information didn't exist, it is original research. Croatia's lowest ranking of 125th was a nominal ranking given to FIFA upon the side's creation, if I'm reading the article correctly. In that case, I would say some of the African nations, who have jumped from the low 100s to near the top 10, could also claim the title you claim. Peanut4 (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the exact same thing, specifically with African nations jumping high as well after their initial introduction. I guess the wording really helps now to convey the clearer message of such. And I dont mean to demand or beg, but is this deemed in your Support now or are there still any improvements you would like done? Domiy (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image page of the 1940 team picture states "Permission has been given to use it on here and nowhere else!" This is not permitted, the message on the image upload page (and probably found somewhere else but I can't put my hands on it right now) says "Wikipedia does not accept images that are licensed for "non-commercial" use, licensed only to Wikipedia, for which permission is required for reuse, or that do not permit derivative works to be created." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to imagesYour asking for a source on the custom created common soccer field image. This itself is an extreme request, yet I provided a clear source which is Nuno Tavares, along with other appropriate information as to where the soccer field image came from. Next, you asked for a source on Maksimir Stadium. It has been clearly provided on the image page with absolutely nothing missing. It was obtained from WorldStadiums.com, who (as per the copyright link provided) give complete permission for anyone to publish or use their images as long as it is for a free purpose. ALl this has been backed up with references to their permission etc, and I distinctly remember being granted permission from one of their admins who pointed out that anyone is free to use them once again. The source is WorldStadiums.com. I dont know what more you need on these two images. I went through the trouble to find all relevant links and sources and yet you oppose on the grounds of...well...nothing clearly. The images have sources provided and yet you change to an oppose? Similarly, I provided information on when the Croatian first team image was taken. The only thing you see wrong with the article is the copyright tags, which I have clearly requested suggestions on but you have denied to help me. Please note that any comments, in support or opposition of featured articles, can rightfuly be ignored if there is no constructive benefit which offers a way to solve the issue. This is clearly the case. Why dont you just tell me which copyright tags need to be added to the images (if they are not already correct, which I feel they are) and then we can solve this issue? Instead, you go on and oppose for reasons which have already been solved! Domiy (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The preclusion of non-commercial, no derivatives, permission required, etc. is indeed policy, but is only applicable for "free" images. Images claiming a fair use justification, as this one is, are not impacted (they, by definition, carry one or more of these restrictions). We do, however, need to know from whence it came (WP:IUP vis-a-vis WP:NFCC#6), as I said above. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONE! All images tagged correctly with appropriate sources added.Domiy (talk) 06:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Soccer.Field Transparant.png - is author (Nuno Tavares) the same person as the uploader (Squadoosh (talk · contribs))? If not, how can we confirm Nuno Tavares has released this image to the public domain? The copyright tag is also incorrect; this image is not PD ineligible.
Image:MaksimirStadium.jpg - I don't see the CC-by-SA 2.5 license mentioned at the source. What is the basis for that tag? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to excuse me as I said earlier, I have somewhat smaller knowledge on images and copyrights. But alas I do have enough. Yes, Nuno Tavares is the same Wikipedia user who uploaded the photo. Since you seem to be worried about a possible copyright infirgement in some bizzare way, please read the tag which IS appropriate as another user already said. "This image is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship." Pretty much says it all itself. The user who created and uploaded it takes no copyright towards it as it is a common content image which is ineligible for such. And again, since I am vague on copyright tags, perhaps you could just notify me as to which tag is most appropriate? You can determine this by looking at the copyright links provided, and noting that permission has been given to use the images on any domain so long as it abides by the basic copyright laws listed. What is the most appropriate tag for such? Domiy (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for the constructive efforts btw. Glad we got this sorted. Just waiting to see if there is anything else? Domiy (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Problems (not a support, not really an oppose, but yes, these keep it from being an FA) - 1) Image:Croatian_first_team.jpg is on the left and formats a second level header incorrectly and sandwiches it against the infobox. 2) I believe the length of your captions could cause problems. 3) Your templates at the bottom should be in the "closed" position starting out. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 1 September 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 05:04, 2 September 2008 [65].

Cloud Gate edit

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) Torsodog (talk · contribs)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is one of the better articles in the WP:CHIFTD. We have responded to recent WP:PR, WP:GAR, and talk page concerns. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 17 "Inside a Cloud" needs a publisher. Also is this the artists website?
    • It may be his website. This fact is not important for establishing notability. It is just a small fact that if necessary could be excised from the article. It provides some context by showing photographs of this subject have been commissioned.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably need to track down who is behind the site to determine its reliability. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What's the status on this? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • http://www.onewallaway.com/ is the home of the site. However, it bounces to http://www.onewallaway.com/jtvr.html. I just sent an email to them to find out whose site it is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I got the following reply "Onewallaway.com is my personal website on which I present my photographic work. Currently, photographs from the series "One Wall Away, Chicago's Hidden Spaces" are on display in the lobby of the Sears Tower in Chicago."-Jan Theun van Rees--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'd drop the fact, personally. It's a borderline source, but if you want to leave it in, I'd leave this source out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am not sure I understand the alternative. What does "leave this source out for other reviewers to decide for themselves" mean?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • It means I won't strike the concern and it would be visible and still listed as a concern for all other reviewers to decide if it's a major concern for them or not. They'd see your replies and judge the merits on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the MOS, you don't put all capitals in link titles.
  • Current ref 16 "Jan Theun van Rees..." is lacking a publisher and author.
  • The Financial Times footnote needs to note that registration is required to see the article.
  • Current ref 29 (Public Building Commission of Chicago) is lacking a last accessdate
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the footnotes, examples include (but not limited to) USGNN, etc.
  • Current ref 40 "Copyright of public space" is lacking a publisher. Also, this looks like a blog, what makes it reliable?
Otherwise, sources look good. The links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images Oppose due to overuse of fair use images

  • Image:The cloud gate'.jpg - This image needs a fair use rationale for the Cloud Gate article.
  • Image:The Bean and McCormick Tribune Plaza.jpg - This needs a fair use rationale since it shows the sculpture.
  • Image:Pre-buffing Bean'.jpg - The seams are very hard to see in this image - I don't think this justifies fair use, especially since there is an interior image that shows the seams as well as a completely different view of the sculpture.
  • Image:Cloud Gate (The Bean) in winter'.jpg - There is no fair use rationale for the Cloud Gate article and frankly I don't see how one could be written. We already have a good shot of the sculpture in the infobox. We hardly need another one.
    • I do not understand how this sculpture in the winter is not describing something new to the reader.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tend to agree with Awadewit on this image. It is really adding nothing new to the article, as we already have two shots of the east and west sides (both very important images when it comes to illustrating the sculpture). This one however, is simply a repeat of the east shot except with some snow on it. I cannot see a justifiable fair use rational being written for it. --TorsodogTalk 07:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • O.K. I guess I think it is a cool shot showing the dusk winter view, but in the interests of FU, I consent to its removal.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Cloud Gate (The Bean) from west'.jpg - "Vivid illustration" is not a strong enough reason for fair use inclusion (see WP:NFCC #8) - this also replicates images already in the article and is probably unnecessary.
    • The caption demonstrates a very important artistic feature along with the next one at issue. I'll try to rewrite the FUR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is the very important artistic feature? It is still not explained. Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Artistically when you can see the same images reflecting on the surface from both the east and the west isn't that almost magical artistically. It borders on unbelievable or at least surprising. We have the image to document this odd feature.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Cloud Gate (The Bean) from east'.jpg - "Vivid illustration" is not a strong enough reason for fair use inclusion (see WP:NFCC #8) - this also replicates images already in the article and is probably unnecessary.
  • Image:2005-10-13 2880x1920 chicago above millennium park.jpg - This image requires a fair use rationale as it carries a copyright. Again, while it would be nice to have such an image in the article (to show how the sculpture is situated in its environment), we already have too many fair use images in the article.
    • It does not seem to carry a copyright that requires fair use, just credit. I would prefer the image it was swapped for showing the Plaza behind the ice rink however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Republication rights demand fair use - this is still under copyright. Awadewit (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This image is hosted on the Commons. The license used is within the acceptable free licenses that the Commons allows. Unless you feel that the Commons is remiss to host this image there is no need for a fair use claim. —Jeremy (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was under the impression that since republication rights can be changed at any moment, fair use is required, but I will check that again. Awadewit (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has far too many fair use images. We have to remove some of them. Unfortunately, we cannot have a shot of the sculpture from every angle. Remember, that fair use is not a legal doctrine upheld throughout the world. Any CD versions of Wikipedia or print versions will not have any of these fair use images. It behooves us to have free images and to restrict our use of fair use images for these reasons. Awadewit (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article currently has (what would amount to) six fair use images. This is far too many. I would suggest leaving the two in the infobox (if we can come up with stronger rationales) and the seam/omphalos image. I would suggest deleting the park, pre-buffing, and winter images. Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not convinced that going with a count is proper. The last two modern art FAs passed with seven images each (counting collage images separately). However, you can remove any image that will explain to the reader where the sculpture is if you think it is preferable unless you are willing to allow an image to depict a redirect. There is no need to show the reader anything that would help them understand where the sculpture is just because we have the images since we tell them in the text. That leaves us the winter image and the pre-buffing images. I don't think it is clear how much the work that we describe in the text needed to be done to complete the sculpture without either image. I am not comfortable removing either image without someone from WP:WPVA convincing me that not much is lost. As far as the winter image goes, I think it is extremely different from the other fair weather image and am not sure why it does not pass as minimal usage to depict a different part of the subject.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • One of my majors as an undergraduate was art history, so I do really sympathize with your predicament here, but I really don't think we can justify any more than these three legally. Unfortunately, the law does not always take aesthetics into consideration. :( Awadewit (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess based on having created Haystacks (Monet) and a few things I picked up at the Art Institute of Chicago, I felt variation due to change in seasons was a more important artistic theme in all other art than it may truly be. I have removed it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you are going to oppose based on number of fair use images can you make some statement about your conclusion in this matter. Your complaint is semi-unactionable since there seem to be only two images at issue and you don't provide much current discourse on either.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I apologize I forgot to cross one image out before. My opposition is based on the remaining image, which shows something that another fair use image already shows - the seams. There is no reason to have two fair use images showing the same thing. I have already explained that I believe the image showing the omphalos and the seams is the best one because it combines two concepts. Having a second image is unnecessary. Awadewit (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Basically, the article has two photos of the current completed work (an east and a west) and two images of the work in process (an interior and an exterior). I feel both pairs of images are important to the article and unless there is a WP:WIAFA or WP:NFCC concern. I believe this still upholds the WP:NFCC standard of NFCC 8. I think the reader would not understand the need for the fuss of closing the sculpture for two years to buff it if they could not see how much less striking the exterior was before all the work that is elaborately detailed. I have asked two other discussants in this FAC to give an opinion on this matter.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent)REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION at 21:23, 23 August 2008 User:Awadewit argued against saying the article has far too many images. At 23:48, 29 August 2008 he opposed for too many images. Upon reconsideration at 15:15, 30 August 2008 and 15:14, 30 August 2008 it seems he is saying he opposes because the article has one too many image. Am I understanding this opposition correctly? This just seems odd to me after all the progress that was made. One is free to oppose on whatever grounds one likes, but this seems to be a very slippery slope.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, progress has been made, but not enough. I do not believe that this article meets criteria 3 because I believe that we do not need two images showing the seams (in process shots). We discussed this but a satisfactory conclusion was not reached - that is why I am opposing. Opposing on images is a legitimate oppose, by the way. I am not going to repeat this explanation again. Awadewit (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can understand Awadewit's opposition to using both seam images, but as the primary editor of this article, I also understand how important it is to see the Cloud Gate with its seams, as the public saw the sculpture like that for almost a year (on top of it being tented for almost a year BECAUSE of the seams). I've been trying to come up with a solution or compromise to this problem. One compromise I have come up with is removing the image of of the entire sculpture showing the seams and replacing it with an image of the sculpture tented (either partially or entirely). Something like this. Would this be a suitable compromise? --TorsodogTalk 19:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have consent for any such images and would it be considered fair use when it is largely covered? It is almost as good a depiction of the problem and so would sort of be a solution depending on how fair use is affected.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • At the moment, I do not have consent for any such images, but if this is a suitable compromise/does not require fair use, I will actively pursue that image or one similar to it. --TorsodogTalk 00:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have copied the challenged image to AT&T Plaza while we await somee decision on fair use of the proposed image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The proposed alternative would also be a fair use image. I'm afraid that I just do not see the necessity of having two images depicting the sculpture under construction. Please read WP:NFCC #3a: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information" - This article already has an image that shows the sculpture under construction and there is no significant information that is being added by the second image. Each and every fair use image has to have a strong fair use rationale so that Wikipedia can protect itself from lawsuits. Awadewit (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose—<sigh>There's this overwhelming sense of deja vue: nothing ever changes; no one learns from past comments; the article is just shoved in here before it's ready. As I pointed out last time, it's just plain unfair to other nominators, the reviewers, and the director.

  • Breach of WP:CONTEXT, first bullet point, explicated in the footnote. Who on earth you think wants to click on "feet" and "m" I can't fathom. Breach of the same section in the linking of the name of a commonly known anglophone country.
    • I continue to disagree with linkages within the {{convert}} template. I link all measurements upon first usage regardless of commonness. This will always lead you and I to quibble about conversions for things like ft/m. That is my stylistic choice. I will just say that is my stylistic choice. As for the United States, I have moved the linked usage to the infobox and made it unlinked in the text. I can go along with you on this stylistic choice you have.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, that's nice and easy: it simply won't be promoted, since you refuse to fix the breach of the style guidelines (Criterion 2).
  • MoS breach in year ranges: en dash required—we should not have to point this out; do you simply ignore the comments from countless previous nomination pages?
  • Linking of "sculpture": breach of WP:MOSLINK—"In general, do not create links to the following:.. Plain English words". If the reader doesn't know what the word means, they should learn English. "Theme" is just too vague to bother us with a link. It's distracting and a breach. If you insist on ignoring WP's styleguides on linking, don't bother nominating articles for featured status.
    • The term sculpture may be common enough to warrant your objection. However, that fact that a term is vague is support for linkage to a separate article which explains the term in greater detail.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and visitors are invited to walk around and under Cloud Gate's 12-foot (3.7 m)-high arch"—I explicitly advised last time on how to recast this gobbledygook kind of expression, yet you ignore the advice. "Cloud Gate's arch, which is 12 feet (3.7 m) high". Avoid triple adjectives that involve parenthetical conversions—they're ugly to look at and bumpy to read. Are visitors invited explicitly in a written sign? Sounds like it.
  • Comma after "themes" would be nice.
    • Glad to see we have gotten you converted from your whatseewhosy attitude about commas between conjoined independent phrases in the last FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a matter of converting Tony's attitude; some style guides stress commas after all conjoined independent clauses, but it's not uncommon to see the comma omitted for short sentences. Granted, I prefer to use commas for all cases, but the opposite is also understandable. — Deckiller 04:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not worried about Tony's attitude in general. The comment was more of a statement about a comment he made in my last FAC, which gave the impression of lack of understanding of what conjoining was and grammatical propriety surrounding it. He is more often than not spot on in his grammatical concerns. He just made me feel that using a comma between conjoined independent clauses was something only done on Mars in the last FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "great" is a subjective and vague word: it is not encyclopedic. "photo taking" needs a hyphen.

I recommend, again, that you withdraw this nomination and prepare it properly. I'm reading no further than two paragraphs until it's in a respectable shape. Get as angry as you like—that will simply demonstrate the veracity of what I'm saying. Tony (talk) 08:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • General ReplyAs for your oppose, thanks for your opinion. As for your death sentence on the candidacy, it is inappropriate. The article has been through WP:PR and WP:GAR where we have accepted feedback from a variety of editors. We have spent time with the article and are not throwing slop out here for review. Between our editorial efforts and two distinct review processes, I think the article has earned the priviledge of wider review and feedback from WP:FAC. Unless and until those processes work better, a few articles like this may appear here. I apologize if it bothers you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specific reply: Well, I hope the Oppose, and those of other reviewers, isn't a bother you. But our patience is wearing thin, being used as some kind of cheap (free) article-improvement service when other nominations are more deserving, since their editors are willing to learn from the process and respond by working with us rather than fighting us. You're going to find increasingly that reviewers will oppose more readily under these circumstances, and they will do so with the full support of the criteria. Tony (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every type of review process is a free improvement service. However, so is every editorial process. I.E., my article creation and editing is also a free improvements service. I appreciate all feedback. I hope you appreciate all my editorial efforts, which are also free.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not a huge fan of one sentence paagraphs. Please merge them into another. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 03:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Me neither; I guess you're talking about the paragraphs at the end of "Exterior maintenance"? At least, those are what I am referring to; I think they should be merged. Gary King (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have merged them. Any thoughts on what to do with the last two cleanup sentences?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which ones? Looks good to me now. Why would you want to have the redirection notice for "Ameritech Plaza" when there's nothing more to say? Some articles have dozens of redirects to them but not all of them are listed – only the ones that have disambiguation pages are listed. Gary King (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with this comment about the redirect notice. Ameritech Plaza never redirected to anything else. There is no real need to alert readers that they are being redirected to this page because, to my knowledge, there is no other Ameritech Plaza and they were most likely looking for this page. --TorsodogTalk 06:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Some things I noticed in the lead alone. I suggest getting some fresh eyes to copyedit the whole thing.
  • I understand that you dearly love your images—and I'm not going to fuss over them. But are two pictures of the same thing needed in the infobox? It took me a while to figure out the difference between the two.
  • Inspired by liquid mercury, it is one of the most popular sculptures in the United States. Even though it's in the lead, it needs source to not be POV.
    • There are two styles of lead (cited and uncited). Half and half is the problem. A fully uncited lead is O.K. if all claims in the lead are properly cited in the text. This is common FAC convention.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the underside of the sculpture is the "omphalos", a concave chamber that dramatically warps and multiplies reflections. Remove "dramatically".
  • The sculpture was the result of a design competition. Somewhat of a cliffhanger. What competition?
  • Debold everything in the lead except for Cloud Gate and The Bean.
  • Eventually, a feasible method was determined, but the sculpture fell well behind schedule and was unveiled in an incomplete form during the Millennium Park grand opening celebration before being concealed for completion and a final unveiling. Needs to be worded better. As an example: "unveiled...for a final unveiling".–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does anyone have a suggestion?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about 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? It cuts out a small bit of information, but it increases readability significantly. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Maralia Too many basic grammar and formatting issues.

  • 1000 years - commas in large numbers.
  • Introduce Norman Foster so that his disbelief means something in context.
  • Wikilinking needs work: why link 'gate' but not 'tie rod'?
  • began the preparations to begin working on the structure's outer shell. - began to begin to begin.
  • About a third of plates, along with the entire interior structure, - missing article.
  • The plates were covered with protective white film and polished 98% - what does 'polished 98%' mean?
  • ...were fabricated in Oakland and shipped to Chicago. The plates were covered with protective white film and polished 98% before being sent to Chicago via trucks. Once in Chicago, - I get it, they went to Chicago.
  • Unnecessary capitalization in the table (Equipment Used).
  • Why use scare quotes on "omphalos" throughout? For that matter, they're not even used consistently throughout.
  • Inconsistent use of serial commas, especially in the Praise section.
  • The sculpture contributed to Millennium Park being named - noun + ing ugliness.
  • On both occasions Cloud Gate was the focus of attention as the primary precluded attraction. - what is precluded supposed to be here?
  • Kapoor has a reputation for producing work in urban settings at a magnitude of size and scale that create spectacles - subject verb disagreement.
  • This is why removing all the seams from Cloud Gate was necessary - 'this is' is preaching to the audience.
  • Kapoor's objects often aim at evoking immateriality and the "spiritual" - unnecessary scare quotes.
  • Kapoor explores the theme of ambiguity with his work that places the viewer in a state of "in-betweenness." - logical quotation.
  • 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 - endashes here, not hyphens.
  • concave points of focus that invites the entry of visitors and multiplies their images when they are positioned correctly. - subject verb disagreement.
  • reflections of a larger than life size scale - hyphens for compound modifier.
  • The reflections from the sculpture distorts the entire skyline of the city. - subject verb disagreement.
  • This sculpture is similar to much of Kapoor's previous works - many works, not much works.
  • By reflecting the sky, visiting and non-visiting pedestrians, and surrounding architecture, viewers are limited to partial comprehension at any time. - misplaced modifier: viewers don't reflect the sky.
  • (registration require for entire article) - typo; required.
  • When footnote links are not in html format, the format needs to be indicated, be it through using the format= parameter in {{cite web}} or manually typed.

This still needs significant prose work; I've only highlighted some issues. Maralia (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hey thanks for the critical eye. We have needed a review like that to improve the article instead of fight about images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:22, 1 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/September_2008&oldid=242102207"